Abstract
My technical capstone project and my STS research paper are closely connected through their shared focus on the future of nuclear energy and the challenges that limit its adoption. My technical work focuses on advanced nuclear fuel-cycle technologies, specifically pyroprocessing, and how these technologies can improve the sustainability and efficiency of nuclear power. My STS research examines why nuclear energy continues to face strong public opposition despite its benefits, using Actor-Network Theory to analyze how historical events, public perception, institutions, and technological systems interact to shape attitudes toward nuclear power. Together, these projects demonstrate that the future of nuclear energy depends not only on technical innovation, but also on public trust, governance, and the broader sociotechnical systems surrounding the technology.
The purpose of my technical project is to evaluate pyroprocessing as an alternative to conventional nuclear fuel reprocessing methods such as PUREX. Pyroprocessing is an electrochemical recycling process designed primarily for use with fast reactors. Unlike PUREX, which separates pure plutonium, pyroprocessing keeps plutonium mixed with other actinides, reducing proliferation risks while improving fuel utilization. The process also reduces the long-term radiotoxicity of high-level nuclear waste by recovering reusable fissile materials from spent fuel. In addition to improving waste management, pyroprocessing can help extend uranium resources and support a more closed nuclear fuel cycle. My technical work analyzes the feasibility and benefits of these systems while considering engineering constraints, waste forms, safety, and reactor compatibility. The broader goal of this work is to explore how advanced fuel-cycle technologies could make nuclear energy more sustainable and practical as demand for low-carbon electricity continues to grow.
My STS research examines why nuclear energy remains controversial despite its technical advantages. Using Actor-Network Theory, I argue that opposition to nuclear power is not caused solely by engineering concerns, but by instability within a larger sociotechnical network involving governments, communities, historical events, media, and material actors such as radiation and nuclear waste. High-profile disasters such as the Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima disasters significantly shaped global perceptions of nuclear risk, even though nuclear power remains statistically one of the safest energy sources. My research also explores how nuclear weapons testing, Cold War fears, and government secrecy contributed to public mistrust by associating nuclear technologies with catastrophic and uncontrollable harm. Drawing from the work of Nick Pidgeon, I explain how risk perception is shaped not only by technical data, but also by trust in institutions, perceived control, and the social amplification of risk. The goal of this research is to show that technological success alone is insufficient if the surrounding social and political systems remain unstable or mistrusted.
These projects together illustrate that the future of nuclear energy depends on both engineering innovation and stronger relationships between institutions, policymakers, and the public. Advanced technologies like pyroprocessing may solve many technical limitations of the current fuel cycle, but long-term deployment will also require transparent governance, consent-based policy approaches, and efforts to rebuild public trust. Working on both projects has strengthened my understanding that successful engineering is not only about designing efficient technologies, but also about ensuring those technologies fit responsibly within society.
