Nuclear engineers
Also called Reactor engineer, Reactor physics engineer, Nuclear plant engineer, Nuclear reactor engineer, SMR engineer
In brief
In May 2025, BLS counted 15,280 US nuclear engineers, with median pay of $133,970 a year. Of the BLS counts since 2021, the May 2025 count is the highest. The earliest figure here is an estimate of 1,500 from 1954, not measured the same way as today's count. The last full technology era for nuclear engineers: High-performance computing and digital twins, 2015 to 2023.
What the sources say
Official outlook
BLS projects little or no change in employment from 2025 to 2035 (+0.4%).
AI exposure studies
- 47.5% of this job's tasks are exposed to large language models. Not a forecast of job losses. Eloundou and others, 2023
Data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35. BLS publishes these counts as yearly survey snapshots and cautions against reading them as a precise trend.
Last updated .
Cite this page
Future History. (2026, October 11). Nuclear engineers: jobs and pay since 1954 [Data set; data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35]. https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/17-2161
Future History. "Nuclear engineers: jobs and pay since 1954." Data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35. Last modified October 11, 2026. https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/17-2161.
@misc{futurehistory_17_2161, author = {{Future History}}, title = {Nuclear engineers: jobs and pay since 1954}, year = {2026}, month = oct, howpublished = {\url{https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/17-2161}}, note = {Last updated 2026-10-11. Data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35}, }
The access date is today's date on your device.
≈ $130,535 in 2024 prices (derived by us, CPI-adjusted)
December 2, 1942: Enrico Fermi and a team of 49 scientists achieve the first controlled self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction in Chicago Pile-1 under the west stands of Stagg Field at the University of Chicago. The reactor uses 45,000 graphite blocks and 5.4 short tons of uranium metal. George Weil withdraws the final control rod by hand at 3:25 PM. Fermi's signal to Arthur Compton: "The Italian navigator has just landed in the New World." This event is the founding moment of the nuclear engineering profession, though none of the participants called themselves nuclear engineers.
December 8, 1953: President Eisenhower delivers his "Atoms for Peace" address to the United Nations General Assembly, proposing that nuclear technology be redirected toward civilian power generation and peaceful applications. The speech directly drives the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which ends the government monopoly on nuclear technology and opens the door to private commercial nuclear power, and to nuclear engineering as a civilian profession rather than a military-weapons specialization.
October 11, 1954: the American Nuclear Society is formally established at the National Academies of Science in Washington, DC, with 200 founding members. Walter Zinn, director of Argonne National Laboratory and designer of the first breeder reactor, is elected first president. Within five years ANS membership grows from 200 to nearly 3,000, tracking the rapid expansion of the commercial nuclear program. The founding of a professional society marks the moment a technical specialty claims distinct professional identity.
May 26, 1958: Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania, the world's first full-scale commercial nuclear power plant, achieves its first commercial power delivery. Designed by Westinghouse under the direction of Admiral Hyman Rickover, Shippingport is a pressurized water reactor rated at 60 MW. The plant becomes the training ground for an entire generation of nuclear engineers who would go on to design and operate the commercial LWR fleet. Also in 1958: MIT's Department of Nuclear Engineering is formally established; the University of Michigan Nuclear Engineering Department is formally created on July 1, 1958. The profession is now institutionally complete.
March 28, 1979: a series of mechanical failures and operator errors at Three Mile Island Unit 2 in Pennsylvania cause a partial core meltdown, the worst commercial nuclear accident in US history. No deaths are attributed to radiation release, but the psychological and political consequences are severe. Over the following five years, 52 reactor projects are cancelled. Nuclear engineering enrollment at universities begins a long decline; several programs close outright. Three Mile Island divides the history of nuclear engineering into two eras: the commercial buildout optimism before 1979, and the regulatory and reputational reckoning after.
April 26, 1986: the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Unit 4 in Soviet Ukraine suffers a catastrophic power excursion during a safety test, exploding and burning for 10 days. The accident releases radioactive contamination across Europe and permanently discredits the RBMK reactor design. In the United States, Chernobyl deepens public opposition to nuclear power, accelerates the cancellation of remaining planned plants, and contributes to a hiring freeze in nuclear engineering that lasted through the late 1990s. The workforce contraction that began after Three Mile Island intensifies; nuclear engineering programs that had survived TMI now face enrollment collapses that force many to close or merge with other departments.
October 19, 2016: Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee achieves commercial operation, becoming the first new US nuclear power plant to come online in 20 years. Construction began in 1972, was halted in 1985, and resumed in 2007. Unit 2's completion is symbolic: it demonstrates that new nuclear plants can be built in the United States, but also that completing a legacy design takes extraordinary time and cost. The Vogtle Units 3 and 4 (AP1000 pressurized water reactors in Georgia), completed 2023-2024 with costs approaching $35 billion, reinforced the lesson: conventional large nuclear construction is extremely expensive in the US regulatory environment, which is the strongest argument for the standardized, factory-fabricated SMR designs under development in the current era.
January 2023: the NRC issues the first-ever design certification for a small modular reactor, approving the NuScale VOYGR design under 10 CFR Part 52. The approval is a milestone for the SMR commercialization wave: NuScale, TerraPower (Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor), X-energy (Xe-100 pebble-bed gas-cooled reactor), Kairos Power (Hermes fluoride-salt-cooled test reactor), and Oklo (Aurora compact fast reactor) are all in active licensing or construction phases as of 2024-2026, funded in substantial part by the DOE Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program's $2.5 billion in contracts. This is the first time since the 1970s that nuclear engineering has offered broad entry-level career opportunities rather than a maintenance-only path on an aging fleet.
Will AI replace nuclear engineers? What the research says
Each figure is stated by the named source; we publish no forecasts of our own. Where sources disagree, we show the disagreement rather than an average.
Each figure is stated by the named source; we publish no forecasts of our own. Where sources disagree, the spread is the honest signal.
What's changing day to day for nuclear engineers
Three parts of your work where AI is already doing real lifting, and what stays yours.
AI is sitting alongside you herePerform reactor core neutronics design and optimization for new reactor concepts (SMRs, advanced non-LWR designs) using Monte Carlo and deterministic transport codes: run OpenMC or MCNP6.3 Monte Carlo simulations to calculate eigenvalue (k-effective), power distributions, burnup-dependent reactivity coefficients, and control rod worth
Perform reactor core neutronics design and optimization for new reactor concepts (SMRs, advanced non-LWR designs) using Monte Carlo and deterministic transport codes: run OpenMC or MCNP6.3 Monte Carlo simulations to calculate eigenvalue (k-effective), power distributions, burnup-dependent reactivity coefficients, and control rod worth; use Serpent 2 for group-constant generation feeding deterministic codes (SIMULATE5, PARCS); iterate core loading patterns and enrichment zoning to meet excess reactivity targets, shutdown margin requirements, and power peaking limits; validate against benchmark experiments before submitting core design as part of a Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) chapter.[6],[1]
OpenMC GPU acceleration (2024) and Serpent 2 multi-group generation dramatically cut Monte Carlo runtimes, but the licensing-basis physics model underpinning NRC safety analysis must be independently validated against criticality experiments (e.g., ICSBEP benchmark suite) and, for new reactor types, against integral benchmark experiments specific to the spectrum and geometry of the advanced design. AI-accelerated codes find optima faster: the nuclear engineer must ensure the optimization objective function correctly encodes all regulatory constraints (shutdown margin, temperature coefficients, local power peaking limits) and that the code model's cross-section libraries are appropriate for the fuel and spectrum of the specific design. Build deep competency in nuclear data (ENDF/B-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3) and benchmark validation methodology so you can defend the physics basis of every core design in an NRC audit.
AI is sitting alongside you hereSupport SMR and advanced reactor design development using coupled neutronics-thermal-hydraulics and digital twin frameworks: run Serpent 2 + OpenFOAM coupled calculations to model heat transfer in non-traditional reactor geometries (fluoride-salt-cooled, sodium-cooled fast reactors, gas-cooled pebble beds)
Support SMR and advanced reactor design development using coupled neutronics-thermal-hydraulics and digital twin frameworks: run Serpent 2 + OpenFOAM coupled calculations to model heat transfer in non-traditional reactor geometries (fluoride-salt-cooled, sodium-cooled fast reactors, gas-cooled pebble beds); use SCALE/ORIGEN fuel cycle and decay heat calculations for spent fuel management; integrate Bentley iTwin digital twin to monitor reactor state variables in real time during reactor start-up testing and commissioning; iterate design parameters informed by AI-generated parameter sensitivity studies.[5],[12]
SMR development organizations (NuScale, TerraPower, X-energy, Kairos, Oklo) are deploying simulation-first design workflows where Serpent + CFD coupling and digital twin infrastructure compress the design-test-iterate cycle. The nuclear engineer's judgment in this environment focuses on ensuring that coupled simulation models correctly represent the specific safety-relevant phenomena for the reactor type, for example, natural-circulation flow stability in passive-safety LWRs, or fuel temperature feedback coefficients in high-temperature gas reactors where graphite moderator behavior is fundamentally different from LWR zircaloy cladding. Before relying on coupled simulations for design decisions, establish that the coupling methodology has been validated against appropriate separate-effects test data for the specific reactor type and coolant.
AI is sitting alongside you hereMonitor and analyze nuclear power plant operational data using AI-powered plant health monitoring platforms (Westinghouse Lumen, GE Hitachi SmartSignal): review AI-generated alerts on degrading equipment health, parameter exceedances, and early failure precursor signatures across hundreds of plant sensors
Monitor and analyze nuclear power plant operational data using AI-powered plant health monitoring platforms (Westinghouse Lumen, GE Hitachi SmartSignal): review AI-generated alerts on degrading equipment health, parameter exceedances, and early failure precursor signatures across hundreds of plant sensors; investigate anomalies against technical specifications and operating procedures; determine whether conditions require immediate operator action, engineering evaluation, or entry into a limiting condition for operation (LCO); document engineering evaluations in the plant corrective action program.[8],[11]
Westinghouse Lumen and GE Hitachi SmartSignal process hundreds of plant parameters simultaneously and flag degradation signatures weeks before detectable failure, but the engineering disposition of a plant health alert requires interpreting the anomaly in the context of plant history, recent maintenance activities, and applicable technical specifications. AI tools generate alerts, not engineering dispositions: the responsible engineer must determine whether the flagged condition is within the design basis, requires an engineering evaluation, or requires an operability determination under 10 CFR 50 Appendix B. Build deep familiarity with your plant's Technical Specifications and the operability determination process so you can act on AI alerts with engineering authority, not just escalate them.
Where nuclear engineers go next
Natural next steps for someone with your foundation: not exits, evolutions.
- Architectural and Engineering Managers
- US median pay
- $171,270 (May 2025)
- BLS outlook 2025-35
- +5.5%
- Environmental Engineers
- US median pay
- $107,110 (May 2025)
- BLS outlook 2025-35
- +6.3%
- Atmospheric and Space Scientists
- US median pay
- $99,070 (May 2025)
- BLS outlook 2025-35
- +2.6%
What each move takes
Architectural and Engineering Managers
Senior nuclear engineers are uniquely positioned to move into Engineering Manager roles overseeing new nuclear plant development programs: the most active engineering management market in the nuclear industry since the 1970s. The SMR commercialization wave (NuScale, TerraPower, X-energy, Kairos, Oklo) and the DOE ARDP's $2.5B in advanced reactor contracts are creating a generation of nuclear program manager roles that require engineers who can govern the full technical development lifecycle: from neutronics design through licensing submission, constructor qualification, and first criticality. The energy security and climate calculus driving the SMR boom means these programs have long-term political and financial backing; program manager positions on ARDP-funded projects carry decade-scale career stability. The pivot also opens adjacent paths into nuclear fuel cycle consulting, NRC hearing support, and IAEA safeguards programs that require senior engineering judgment at the program level rather than individual contributor expertise.
- · Nuclear program management: NQA-1 (nuclear quality assurance) program oversight, stage-gate review management for reactor design development milestones, NRC pre-application meeting strategy
- · AI tool governance for nuclear: defining validation requirements for ML-assisted neutronics and safety analysis tools before use in licensing-basis calculations; setting authority boundaries for AI in plant operations
- · Advanced reactor business development: DOE ARDP proposal development, NRC Part 52 licensing strategy, contractor qualification for nuclear-grade construction
- · Cross-functional nuclear team leadership: managing teams of neutronics, thermal-hydraulics, mechanical, I&C, and licensing engineers across a reactor design project; schedule and budget ownership for NRC submittals
- · Stakeholder and regulatory engagement: leading NRC pre-application meetings, managing public engagement for new nuclear plant siting, supporting DOE oversight reporting for ARDP milestone payments
How has the work of nuclear engineers changed since 1942?
The tools that defined the work, one line per era. Select an era to see how it reshaped the work.
Slide rule, hand calculation, and experimental reactor data (Manhattan Project era)
The physicists and engineers of the Manhattan Project designed the first reactors using slide rules, hand calculation, and experimental data from critical assemblies. Fermi's design of CP-1 relied on careful measurements of neutron multiplication from subcritical graphite-uranium piles, extrapolating by hand to the critical configuration. Shielding calculations were done analytically using the moments method and limited experimental data. Thermal-hydraulics was essentially empirical: reactor cooling was understood by analogy with boiler engineering, and critical heat flux data came from experiments on heated surfaces, not codes.
Mainframe deterministic codes: ENDF nuclear data, LASL codes, early IBM mainframe calculations
The first nuclear engineering software era arrived with mainframe computers in the late 1950s and 1960s. The Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) project, begun in 1964 at Brookhaven National Laboratory, created the first standardized, computer-readable nuclear cross-section libraries that all subsequent neutronics codes would draw on. Los Alamos wrote the first versions of MCNP (Monte Carlo N-Particle) in Fortran in the late 1950s and early 1960s; the IBM 7094 and later the CDC 6600 made it practical for reactor shielding design. The ORIGEN code (Oak Ridge Isotope GENeration) appeared in 1973, enabling burnup and decay-heat calculations. These tools allowed nuclear engineers to move from purely experimental methods toward simulation-based design, though run times measured in hours on mainframes constrained how many parametric variations could be explored.
Effect on the workMainframe codes dramatically increased the analytical productivity of nuclear engineers compared to hand calculation but required specialized programming skills and computer time allocation that remained bottlenecks through the late 1970s.
Post-TMI regulatory computing: NRC-approved codes, RELAP5, CONTAIN, PRA frameworks
Three Mile Island transformed what nuclear engineers are required to do. The NRC's response to TMI included mandating probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for all operating nuclear plants (NUREG-1150, 1987-1990), requiring best-estimate thermal-hydraulics analysis using NRC-approved system codes (RELAP5, TRACE, TRAC), and building out the Quality Assurance framework (10 CFR 50 Appendix B) that governs all safety-class engineering work. RELAP5 (Reactor Excursion and Leak Analysis Program, developed at Idaho National Laboratory) became the industry standard for loss-of-coolant accident and transient analysis; its validation and use for licensing-basis calculations became a core nuclear engineer skill. The post-TMI regulatory environment also created the nuclear licensing documentation workload that now consumes a substantial fraction of a nuclear engineer's time.
Effect on the workPlants that might otherwise have operated with smaller engineering staffs needed substantially larger ones to satisfy the post-TMI NRC regulatory requirements.
Workstation-era Monte Carlo and coupled codes: MCNP5, Serpent, SCALE 6, digital plant systems
The transition from mainframe to engineering workstation computing in the mid-1990s transformed Monte Carlo neutronics from a once-a-month mainframe run into a routine daily tool. MCNP5 (LANL, 2003) ran on Linux workstations and could complete a full-core shielding calculation in hours rather than days. Serpent (VTT, 2004) was optimized for group-constant generation for deterministic reactor simulators, enabling the detailed lattice-physics calculations underpinning reload design. SCALE 6 (ORNL, 2009) integrated criticality safety, shielding, and spent-fuel analysis in a unified framework. Digital plant systems (Westinghouse BEACON, GE GENESISTM) enabled real-time core monitoring at operating plants, shifting a portion of nuclear engineer work from after-the-fact analysis to continuous plant health surveillance.
Effect on the workWorkstation computing sharply reduced the marginal cost of each parametric study, allowing individual nuclear engineers to conduct analyses that previously required teams. This contributed to the productivity-led workforce reduction visible in the 2000s OEWS data, where total employment remained in the range despite a fleet of more than a hundred operating reactors.
High-performance computing and digital twins: cloud HPC, Bentley iTwin, COMOS plant systems
Cloud high-performance computing and digital twin platforms brought two qualitative changes to nuclear engineering practice in the 2010s. Cloud HPC (AWS, Azure HPC instances) made large-scale Monte Carlo calculations accessible without national laboratory time allocation: a calculation that required a supercomputer in 2000 could run overnight on a cloud cluster by 2015. Bentley iTwin and Siemens COMOS brought plant engineering into a continuous-model environment: the nuclear plant's physical state, design documentation, and sensor streams were unified in a digital representation that engineers could query in real time. For SMR development organizations (which began serious design activity in this era), simulation-first workflows became the norm: reactor geometries were created as CAD models, fed directly into neutronics codes via DAGMC interfaces, and iterated rapidly without building physical mockups.
GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and AI plant monitoring: OpenMC GPU, Westinghouse Lumen, INL RAVEN
The current tool era is defined by two parallel developments: GPU acceleration of Monte Carlo neutronics codes, and AI-powered plant monitoring. OpenMC (MIT, GPU-accelerated release 2024) reduces full-core Monte Carlo runtimes by 10-100x compared to CPU-only calculation, making what was previously a multi-day supercomputer job a same-day workstation task. MCNP6.3 (LANL, 2023) added improved parallel MPI-plus-OpenMP performance and enhanced variance reduction for deep-penetration shielding. Concurrently, Westinghouse Lumen and GE Vernova SmartSignal deployed deep-learning plant health monitoring across the operating fleet, processing hundreds of sensor streams in real time and surfacing early degradation signatures weeks before conventional alarms would trigger. INL RAVEN automates probabilistic risk assessment calculations that previously required months of expert analyst time. The nuclear engineer's work is shifting: routine neutronics screening and sensor surveillance are increasingly AI-assisted; the non-delegable human role concentrates on regulatory judgment, safety-case construction, and the licensed engineer-of-record accountability that no AI can assume.
Effect on the workEarly indications from SMR development programs suggest that GPU-accelerated simulation allows smaller engineering teams to complete design iterations that previously required larger ones, though the BLS 8% growth projection reflects the overall balance of SMR demand growth versus productivity gains. The net effect on headcount through 2034 remains contested.
See the same long-arc view for your own profession.
Browse the directory by industry, or search by title or SOC code.
Browse all rolesNuclear Engineers employment and pay by year
View all 29 years of cited US data, each linked to its source
| Year | US employment | Annual pay (median unless marked) | Source | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1954 | 1,500 | n/a | Est., ANS History Researched context | Report |
| 1965 | 12,000 | $11,500 | Est., National Academies Press (employment) Researched contextEst., MSU CERI (pay) Researched context | Report |
| 1975 | 28,000 | n/a | Est., EIA Today in Energy Researched context | Report |
| 1980 | n/a | $30,000 | Est., MSU CERI Researched context | Report |
| 1990 | 18,000 | n/a | Est., OSTI.GOV Researched context | Report |
| 2000 | 14,500 | $79,000 | Est., FRASER (employment) Researched contextEst., FRASER (pay) Researched context | Report |
| 2003 | 16,010 | $83,570 | BLS OEWS May 2003 Official statistic | Report |
| 2004 | 17,180 | $84,880 | BLS OEWS May 2004 Official statistic | Report |
| 2005 | 14,290 | $88,290 | BLS OEWS May 2005 Official statistic | Report |
| 2006 | 14,870 | $90,220 | BLS OEWS May 2006 Official statistic | Report |
| 2007 | 14,300 | $94,420 | BLS OEWS May 2007 Official statistic | Report |
| 2008 | 16,640 | $97,080 | BLS OEWS May 2008 Official statistic | Report |
| 2009 | 16,710 | $96,910 | BLS OEWS May 2009 Official statistic | Report |
| 2010 | 18,610 | $99,920 | BLS OEWS May 2010 Official statistic | Report |
| 2011 | 18,430 | $101,930 | BLS OEWS May 2011 Official statistic | Report |
| 2012 | 19,930 | $104,270 | BLS OEWS May 2012 Official statistic | Report |
| 2013 | 16,400 | $101,600 | BLS OEWS May 2013 Official statistic | Report |
| 2014 | 16,520 | $100,470 | BLS OEWS May 2014 Official statistic | Report |
| 2015 | 16,880 | $102,950 | BLS OEWS May 2015 Official statistic | Report |
| 2016 | 17,680 | $102,220 | BLS OEWS May 2016 Official statistic | Report |
| 2017 | 16,700 | $105,810 | BLS OEWS May 2017 Official statistic | Report |
| 2018 | 15,980 | $107,600 | BLS OEWS May 2018 Official statistic | Report |
| 2019 | 15,850 | $113,460 | BLS OEWS May 2019 Official statistic | Report |
| 2020 | 15,700 | $116,140 | BLS OEWS May 2020 Official statistic | Report |
| 2021 | 12,670 | $120,380 | BLS OEWS May 2021 Official statistic | Report |
| 2022 | 12,250 | $122,480 | BLS OEWS May 2022 Official statistic | Report |
| 2023 | 12,710 | $125,460 | BLS OEWS May 2023 Official statistic | Report |
| 2024 | 14,740 | $127,520 | BLS OEWS May 2024 Official statistic | Report |
| 2025 | 15,280 | $133,970 | BLS OEWS May 2025 Official statistic | Report |
More in Engineering
- Civil Engineers
- Industrial Engineers
- Mechanical Engineers
- Electrical Engineers
- Architects, Except Landscape and Naval
- Architectural and Civil Drafters
- Electronics Engineers, Except Computer
- Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologists and Technicians
- Computer Hardware Engineers
- Industrial Engineering Technologists and Technicians