Why nuclear education isn’t translating into job-ready talent
The UK government’s recent overhaul of the nuclear system has moved focus toward faster build timelines and lower costs, with regulatory changes designed to remove delays that have historically slowed projects down. In parallel, the Nuclear Skills Plan increasing investment in nuclear education, particularly at postgraduate level, with the aim of strengthening the long-term talent pipeline needed to support this acceleration.
This points to an assumption that if more people are trained, the workforce challenge will ease. But conversations across the nuclear industry suggest something more complex. Talent exists and interest in nuclear careers is growing, but there is a disconnect between how talent is developed and how the industry actually operates. As well as narrowed perceptions of the nuclear industry causing potential candidates to rule themselves out long before they’ve ever replied.
The nuclear skills gap starts at entry level
The nuclear sector continues to face a well-documented skills shortage and ageing workforce, increasing pressure on how new talent is developed.
While universities produce strong academic foundations, particularly in engineering and physics, graduates are entering nuclear careers with a gap in exposure to the environments they are expected to work in. Nuclear is highly regulated and dependent on site-specific or procedural knowledge. New entrants need time to their translate academic knowledge into real-world capability and operational readiness in these safety-critical environments.
That gap reflects the nature of the industry itself. As Rani Franovich, VP of Regulatory Strategy at Deep Fission noted during our conversation, much of that understanding is built through hands-on experience alongside operators, technicians, and safety teams on site.
Nuclear careers are wider than STEM alone
Access to nuclear careers is narrower in perception than it is in reality. The way nuclear careers are positioned still leans heavily on nuclear engineering pathways or specialised scientific roles. Whereas Nuclear projects operate as large-scale infrastructure programmes.
As Rani Franovich, noted, “It takes a village to operate a nuclear power plant.”
That village includes:
Construction and skilled trade workers
Regulators and policy specialists
Project delivery teams
Safety and compliance professionals
Commercial and support functions
When careers are framed too narrowly, large sections of the workforce never see themselves in the industry at all. Many potential candidates are ruling themselves out long before they ever apply. Making the talent shortage just as much an awareness gap as it is a skills gap.
Interest in nuclear industry jobs isn’t translating into applications
For many, nuclear still feels like a closed field. Highly technical, highly specialised, and only accessible through very specific academic routes. If someone doesn’t see a direct match between their background and that perception, they tend to rule themselves out without exploring further.
That decision is often made before roles are fully understood and transferable skills are even considered.
As Miguel Trenkel-Lopez put it, this isn’t a pure skills shortage. It’s a communication and awareness gap between what the industry needs and how those opportunities are understood.
People with relevant experience in construction, infrastructure, project delivery, or other regulated environments don’t always recognise that their skills apply. At the same time, employers continue to look for candidates who already understand nuclear, reinforcing the idea that prior industry experience is a requirement rather than something that can be developed.
The result is a mismatch on both sides. Talent exists and workforce demand exists. But they are not connecting early enough in the process.
Nuclear capability is built through experience
Nuclear capability isn’t something people arrive with fully formed. As Rani noted earlier, it’s developed over time through doing the job and gaining exposure to the operating environments.
Jenifer Avellaneda’s path into nuclear reflects that. Her degree was in sustainable development engineering, not nuclear engineering. Her early exposure came through policy work at the International Atomic Energy Agency, followed by a transition into a technical role in probabilistic risk assessment.
As Jenifer puts it, “you don’t need to be a nuclear engineer to come and work within the industry… We’re a super team here. Everybody’s welcome.”
She describes a process of continuous learning, supported by mentors and hands-on experience. That pattern holds across roles. Supervised operations with simulation-based exercises and emergency drills as well as exposure to real systems build the level of judgement required in nuclear environments.
The main obstacle into building this capability is creating clearer, more accessible entry points that reflect how the industry actually develops talent. That includes early careers routes with structured training in operating environments and lateral entry from adjacent sectors through structured reskilling and deployment models. If hiring continues to focus primarily on those already within the sector, the nuclear industry risks overlooking talent that is already capable, just not yet positioned within it.
Nuclear career pathways are non-linear by design
Once people enter nuclear, movement across roles, organisations and even sectors is common. Careers don’t follow a fixed path. They evolve through exposure and experience as opportunities show up across the nuclear programmes. That flexibility is built into the industry itself.
As Rod Baltzer, Chief Executive Officer at Deep Isolation highlights, many of the skills required in nuclear already exist in adjacent sectors. Areas like oil and gas, construction, infrastructure, defence and other regulated environments all develop capabilities that translate directly into nuclear settings, from drilling and site operations to project delivery and technical oversight.
This cross-sector movement is how the industry builds capability at scale. What can feel like a fragmented or unclear entry point is how the workforce is developed. The challenge is that hiring often doesn’t reflect that.
Roles are still scoped around prior nuclear experience, even when the capability needed could be developed on the job. A large portion of viable talent remains outside the sector.
Oversimplifying energy systems is distorting the nuclear industry narrative
The way energy is taught has a direct impact on how nuclear is perceived. In many cases, education reduces energy systems to a simple classification: renewable or non-renewable. That framework is easy to teach. It is also misleading.
Miguel Trenkel-Lopez highlights how this binary is introduced early, shaping how young people think about energy before they understand the system as a whole.
Nuclear energy in particular is frequently misrepresented when it is grouped too simply into “non-renewable” alongside fossil fuels in the same category. Without acknowledging, lifecycle emissions, fuel efficiency, waste management, and its role in decarbonisation. It is interconnected, shaped by geography, infrastructure, policy, and demand.
Renewable doesn’t always mean sustainable
The term “renewable energy” is often treated as automatically “sustainable”, but the two are not the same.
Miguel points to examples where renewable energy can become unsustainable, depending on how it is delivered: “Renewable isn’t the same as sustainable biomass, for example, becomes unsustainable if forests aren’t replanted, and even solar can fall short if its materials or labour practices are harmful. True sustainability goes beyond labels; it’s about long-term environmental impact, resource use, and people and the wider supply chains.”
When considering whether an energy source is sustainability depends on a broader set of factors including:
Long-term environmental impact
Resource extraction and supply chains
Land use and ecosystem balance
Labour practices and social responsibility
This wider picture is rarely reflected in early education. The result is a generation entering the workforce with a simplified view of energy, and nuclear positioned incorrectly within it.
Why careers in nuclear need reframing
The assumption that more education will solve the workforce challenge is understandable. It’s just not enough on its own.
Across the industry, there is no single point of failure. What shows up instead is a gap between how people are developed, how roles are described, how hiring decisions are made, and the experience people need to be job-ready from day one.
Capability in nuclear builds over time. It comes from exposure to real systems, and learning alongside experienced teams on site. Yet many entry points are still positioned as if that experience needs to exist before someone even gets through the door.
This all continues to present nuclear careers as to narrow who sees it as an option. People with relevant backgrounds in construction, commercial, supply chain, infrastructure, or other regulated environments often don’t recognise their place in the sector.
The work isn’t out of reach. It just needs to be described in a way that connects to what they already do. Shifting that starts with how roles are framed and how entry routes are designed. More clarity around where someone fits. More openness to adjacent experience. Better visibility of the types of roles that exist across nuclear programmes. A closer reflection of how capability is actually built once people are inside the industry.
The talent is already there. It just isn’t finding its way in.
Hot off the Grid
Rullion’s Hot off the Grid series brings these perspectives from in-depth discussions with professionals working across the nuclear industry. From regulation and operations to education and early careers, the same themes continue to surface.
You can explore these in more detail through our YouTube series.
