r/nuclear

Since, in terms Grug would be able to understand, nuclear fusion is smashing atoms together and fission is breaking them apart, why couldn’t one facility do both and harvest the energy off both?

(When fusion becomes feasible)

Apologies of this has recently been discussed,
X Energy had their IPO at the end of April. I know almost nothing about this company and would love some thoughts and opinions on how they compare to competitors such as OKLO, Nuscale, and Terra power
Thank
Edit: x-energy is the company name, XE is the ticker, apologies

I'm an engineer (not nuclear engineer) that is looking to move to Austin and am applying to some nuclear energy start ups there. I was wondering from a nuclear engineering perspective, what are the most promising companies based in Austin that have the best chance at producing energy commercially?

The companies that I'm aware of are:
Aalo Atomics
Subcritical Systems
Last Energy

From Glassdoor reviews and previous posts on r/nuclear I'm taking Last Energy off of the table for myself.

My front runner is Aalo because they claim to be on track to go critical with their Aalo-X reactor in Idaho National Lab by 7/4/26. But in fairness they had a head start over Subcritical Systems which only incorporated in 2025.

What do y'all think?

Thanks!

Given the established thermodynamic and material science hurdles facing both conventional fusion and theoretical low-energy reactions, the recent spike in institutional capital flowing into the space represents a significant analytical anomaly. A cross-language patent analysis reveals that DARPA has launched the MARRS program to quantify solid-state fusion amplification, while Japan's Clean Planet has secured Series B backing from Mitsubishi for industrial application, and India has granted formal patents to HYLENR. I am sharing these findings here to solicit this community's perspective on why major defense and industrial actors are allocating millions to this specific peripheral infrastructure if the core reaction physics remain highly contested.

I'll admit that I only know so much about the nuts and bolts of how this all works so far, but I read a bit into Cravens' and Gregory's books and was pleased to have my prior misconceptions fall away. For instance, I now know how the CANDU works and how it doesn't require any uranium enrichment, as well as how Chernobyl's design has some inherent risk of such an explosion and meltdown while others don't.

But anyways - my ideal fission reactor would:

1. Use either natural uranium or nuclear waste, to avoid having to spend lots of energy on enrichment (and the proliferation risk that raises)
2. Have as close to zero risk of meltdown as is possible, inherent in the design
3. Produce as small an amount of long-lived waste isotopes as is possible
4. Produce as small an amount of waste heat as is possible, and
5. Use as little water as possible in all cycles, since many places are bound to get more water scarce as climate change ramps up

Google tells me this would be a heavy water-moderated MSR; is that correct? Or can I not have all five items in a fission reactor within the laws of physics?

Can you tell me what it was like?

Did anyone lose benefits/pensions?

A bit nervous with the news of the Dominion buy out

I’m looking for some advice for my son. He has 3 years left until university, studies at a math high school, and is genuinely interested in physics and mathematics.
We are based in the EU, and he wants to study in English.

• Is Nuclear Engineering a good career path inside the EU right now?

Оr should he start with something broader (like Mechanical or Physics) first.
Thanks!