{"id":39171,"date":"2023-12-08T15:11:23","date_gmt":"2023-12-08T15:11:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.innovationnewsnetwork.com\/?p=39171"},"modified":"2023-12-08T15:11:18","modified_gmt":"2023-12-08T15:11:18","slug":"competences-for-successful-future-nuclear-energy-technologies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.innovationnewsnetwork.com\/competences-for-successful-future-nuclear-energy-technologies\/39171\/","title":{"rendered":"Competences for successful future nuclear energy technologies"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nuclear energy technologies have vast potential that society has hesitated to embrace fully.<\/h2>\n

In well-established, rigorously regulated, and heavily procedural industries, such as nuclear power technologies, there\u2019s often a practical emphasis on procedural knowledge (know-how) over theoretical understanding (\u2018know-why\u2019). While this approach might enhance the consistency and predictability of daily operations, it could sideline talent development within research-oriented higher education. This can heighten the risks associated with managing unforeseen challenges, diminish the drive for innovation, and weaken the academic nuclei of nuclear expertise beyond industry confines and regulatory bodies. Over time, this could erode public trust.<\/p>\n

We believe that a balanced integration of both know-why and know-how<\/a> can yield the best outcomes in attracting and nurturing new nuclear talents, all the while mitigating risks associated with routine operations and public perception. Such a balanced approach may be the key to the success of the wave of new builds projected by the European Nuclear Alliance<\/a>, aiming at 150GW of nuclear electricity in the EU in 2050. This will also trigger more than 250,000 new nuclear talents.<\/p>\n

Nuclear seasons<\/h3>\n

Nuclear power technologies hold significant promise in guiding a seamless shift towards a carbon-neutral society that values material and energy efficiency. For over 67 years, they have reliably delivered affordable, clean, and safe electricity. However, despite their commendable service and immense potential, society has gradually sidelined them in recent decades, particularly in developed nations with easy access to abundant (primarily carbon-rich) energy sources.<\/p>\n

Prof Bum-Jin Chung1<\/sup> of Kyung Hee University in Korea proposed a vivid explanation of what happened through a \u2018four-season model\u2019. In Europe and North America, the \u2018nuclear spring\u2019 (until about 1960) blossomed through strong and enthusiastic research and development activities. \u2018Nuclear summer\u2019 (1960-1980) followed with fast and successful industrialisation and commercialisation. \u2018Autumn\u2019 started in the early 1980s with a significant slowdown in new builds, research, and nuclear higher education. The stagnation in nuclear research and education activities then further developed in the \u2018winter\u2019 (1990 and later).2<\/sup> Indeed, a recent EU R&D scoreboard,3<\/sup> monitoring industrial R&D in high-tech industries, notes rather modest R&D investments in the energy sector and does not mention nuclear energy. In other words, the industrial R&D investments in nuclear energy technologies appear to be below the resolution of the official statistics. Luckily, as observed by Prof Chung, different places on the planet experience different seasons at different times. Chinese nuclear power, for example, is now somewhere between the late spring and early summer.<\/p>\n

Indeed, the relationship between industry and academia is widely considered to be the key obstacle in producing and using new knowledge. This is, at least in part, a consequence of different forms of knowledge being of different utility for the industry and academia (conceptual, e.g. why? and procedural, e.g. how?). In propulsive \u2018high-tech\u2019 industries, the attraction and development of new talents are in significant part carried out through an academic research-based higher education system. Successful co-operation in developing new knowledge then results in the successful attraction and development of new talents and, in parallel, the strong flow of new knowledge towards practical and commercial application.<\/p>\n

A strong connection between the research activities in academia and the attraction and development of new talents might appear intuitively obvious. However, strong partnerships are not easy to develop and maintain. As Evans4<\/sup> has put it, \u201cindustry partnerships draw high-status academics away from confirming theories and toward speculation.\u201d Further challenges in maintaining such partnerships may occur over longer periods of time. A nuclear power plant can last for a century, therefore, such a time-span calls for the explicit involvement of societal decision-makers with a long-term vision.<\/p>\n

Competencies for today\u2019s nuclear<\/h3>\n

Competent people are at the core of successfully utilising high technologies, including nuclear power. IAEA5<\/sup> defines competence as applying skills, knowledge, and attitudes to perform an activity or a job to a specified level effectively and efficiently. Competences may be developed through education, experience, and formal vocational training.<\/p>\n

The crucial distinctions between education and training are well-known and well-discussed in the literature. Highley offered an interesting and clear perspective,6<\/sup> noting that individuals trained in health physics can safely manage daily operations under routine conditions. However, academically educated individuals are much more successful in dealing with many unexpected events. Similar observations are reported by Cheung,7<\/sup> who also relates different forms of knowledge, in particular conceptual (knowing why) and procedural knowledge (knowing how) with academic education, vocational training and the ability of trainees to generalise the procedural knowledge towards the solution of challenges, that differ from those mastered during the training.<\/p>\n

\"nuclear
Fig. 1: \u201cKnow-why?\u201d is related to conceptual knowledge, education and research. \u201cKnow-how?\u201d is closely related to procedures and regulations, training, knowledge management and practical uses<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A graphical summary of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes is offered in Fig. 1.<\/p>\n

Nuclear power technology industries depend on competent people with very diverse degrees and specialities of education and training. The quest for efficiency, stimulated partly by decades of declining nuclear education2<\/sup> and by the pressures of competition and evolving regulations, might steer the industry towards more internal training. This is naturally directed more towards know-how than \u2018know-why\u2019. An important driver towards such developments may also be the fact that these industries strongly rely on know-how, documented in considerable detail in operating procedures and regulations.<\/p>\n

As noted vividly by Sanchez-Alarcos in his 2020 book Aviation and Human Factors: How to Incorporate Human Factors into the Field:<\/em> \u201cIn some ways, the safest way to avoid human manual error is to handcuff the operator, but at the same time, that operator will be unable to solve the problem when required. Handcuffs can be physical, such as programming the plane to disobey the pilot because someone decided that the plane\u2019s sensors would know better, or cognitive, providing operating know-how instead of know-why.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the short term, the prevalence of the know-how approach may appear to increase the industry efficiency and safety record. In the medium and longer term, however, the prevalence of the know-how acquired in mostly proprietary in-house training may contribute to some important risks, which might develop gradually and intensify with time as a surprise to the community. These potential risks include:<\/p>\n