Engineering students explore how to ethically design and locate nuclear facilities in this college course

Uncommon Courses^[1] is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching. Title of course: Socially Engaged Design of Nuclear Energy Technologies What prompted the idea for the course? The two of us had some experience with participatory design coming into this course, and we had a shared interest in bringing virtual reality^[2] into a first-year design class at the University of Michigan. It seemed like a good fit to help students learn about nuclear technologies, given that hands-on experience can be difficult to provide in that context. We both wanted to teach students about the social and environmental implications of engineering work, too. Aditi is a nuclear engineer and had been using participatory design in her research^[3], and Katie had been teaching ethics and design^[4] to engineering students for many years. What does the course explore? Broadly, the course explores engineering design. We introduce our students to the principles of nuclear engineering and energy systems design, and we go through ethical concerns^[5]. They also learn communication strategies – like writing for different audiences. Students learn to design the exterior features of nuclear energy facilities in collaboration with local communities. The course focuses on a different nuclear energy technology each year. In the first year, the focus was on fusion energy systems^[6]. In fall 2024, we looked at locating nuclear microreactors^[7] near local communities. The main project was to collaboratively decide where a microreactor might be sited, what it might look like, and what outcomes the community would like to see^[8] versus which would cause concern. Students also think about designing nuclear systems with both future generations and a shared common good in mind. The class explores engineering as a sociotechnical practice – meaning that technologies are not neutral. They shape and affect social life, for better and for worse. To us, a sociotechnical engineer^[9] is someone who adheres to scientific and engineering fundamentals, communicates ethically and designs in collaboration with the people who are likely to be affected by their work. In class, we help our students reflect on these challenges and responsibilities. Why is this course relevant now? Nuclear energy system design is advancing quickly, allowing engineers to rethink how they approach design. Fusion energy systems^[10] and fission microreactors^[11] are two areas of rapidly evolving innovation. Microreactors are smaller^[12] than traditional nuclear energy systems, so planners can place them closer to communities. These smaller reactors will likely be safer to run and operate, and may be a good fit for rural communities looking to transition to carbon-neutral energy systems. But for the needs, concerns and knowledge of local people to shape the design process, local communities need to be involved in these reactor siting and design conversations.

What materials does the course feature?

We use virtual reality models of both fission and fusion reactors, along with models of energy system facilities. AI image generators are helpful^[14] for rapid prototyping – we have used these in class with students and in workshops.

This year, we are also inviting students to do some hands-on prototyping with scrap materials for a project on nuclear energy systems.

What will the course prepare students to do?

Students leave the course understanding that community engagement is an essential – not optional – component of good design. We equip students to approach technology use and development^[15] with users’ needs and concerns in mind.

Specifically, they learn how to engage with and observe communities using ethical, respectful methods that align with the university’s engineering research standards.

What’s a critical lesson from the course?

As instructors, we have an opportunity – and probably also an obligation – to learn from students as much as we are teaching them course content. Gen Z students have grown up with environmental and social concerns as centerpieces of their media diets, and we’ve noticed that they tend to be more strongly invested in these topics than previous generations of engineering students.

References

1. ^{^} Uncommon Courses (theconversation.com)
2. ^{^} virtual reality (theconversation.com)
3. ^{^} participatory design in her research (ners.engin.umich.edu)
4. ^{^} teaching ethics and design (techcom.engin.umich.edu)
5. ^{^} through ethical concerns (www.ans.org)
6. ^{^} fusion energy systems (theconversation.com)
7. ^{^} nuclear microreactors (inl.gov)
8. ^{^} outcomes the community would like to see (www.iaea.org)
9. ^{^} a sociotechnical engineer (theconversation.com)
10. ^{^} Fusion energy systems (www.nytimes.com)
11. ^{^} fission microreactors (www.nytimes.com)
12. ^{^} are smaller (www.nytimes.com)
13. ^{^} Thomas Barwick/DigitalVision via Getty Images (www.gettyimages.com)
14. ^{^} AI image generators are helpful (theconversation.com)
15. ^{^} approach technology use and development (theconversation.com)