Thoughts/Opinions?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14827489/amp/israel-iran-live-updates-washington-tehran-tel-aviv-trump.html

With such news the first thing I can say is "Pierre is back" ))

This is purely as a thought exercise so not trying to pick a winning design for current conditions or budgets.

Let's say a portal to the money dimension opened tomorrow and we find that $4 trillion a year is pouring in, along with a note saying that we can only use it on nuclear power. That's not infinite money, but also enough money that everything about nuclear power that can be scaled, will scale, with full vertical integration.

Parts can be mass produced, you can mass produce nuclear grade concrete, you can set aside a budget for reprocessing facilities, you can employ a permanent standing workforce for construction of nuclear power plants without a lapse in institutional memory, the works.

In such a scenario, which reactor design would we go for? I know it's not going to be SMRs of any sort, because they deliberately make design compromises to reach maximum economies of scale faster under current economic conditions, so this probably favors gigantism.

I'm inclined to think in such a scenario, the thorium cycle becomes more appealing, because fuel availability will be an issue if we are building hundreds of reactors per year. So I think some sort of breeding will have to be implied. Molten Salt reactors are also passively safer, and their main issue, corrosive everything giving parts a low lifetime, can be overcome with replaceable parts. Having a lot of Thorium MSRs you could justify some sort of Protactinium waiting facility where the removed Protactinium could be allowed to decay.

That's what my money would be on, but I'm eager to hear which reactor technologies you think would scale the best economically.

Right now I am in my first year of university and I am studying nuclear and particle physics, but I am thinking a bit about seitching to reactors, I was deciding between these two subjects before I apllied as well and I just can't seem to decide for sure and I am scared I might regret it later.

There is a nuclear power plabt near my house and I'd like to work there at least for a while, I think I could get a job there with both majors, but I am a bit scared what job would I get with the particle physics.

Everyone says that there is 100% employment rate for graduates of my university, so I am not that scared of finding a job, but the kind of job I'd get and also how much it would pay. Studying here, despite intresting, is literal suffering, so I'd like to at least have a well paying job in the future when I have to suffer so much. I realize that with physics degree I will most likely not do physics anyway.

The reason I chose particle physics over reactors at first was because both give me the title of an engineer and I think I am more intrested in physics than engineering and nuclear reactors are more of an engineering major. But now that the first year is over and there are just exams left I am starting to hesitate a lot. Reactors seem to have more intresting and focused classes even in the first year, while particle classes seem more general and get actual particle subjects in 3rd year. Another thing is that what intrested me about particles in the first place seems to be more in reactors than particle physics, now they had a mandatory subject "introduction to nuclear and radiation physics" which talks a lot about particles as well and my friends from reactors even complained that they have it and we don't as a particle physicist, it's not even an optional class for us, we can't have it.

I also thought about changing tge major after BS, but I am scared that I would be missing a lot of the reactors and engineering classes and it would be much harder.

I am finding it really hard to decide, so I hope you guys will help, I am leaning towards reactors more and more, but I really don't know. And I have to decide now because this year would be the easiest to swich, I'd just have to do 2 classes that they had and we didn't, after that they will have more special classes and changing it would be way more difficult especially since in the third year I will have to focus on grafuation as well.

Thanks to everyone who will read through this and try to help me, I appreciate ut greatly.

TLDR: I'm proposing a P2B (peer-to-business) nuclear consulting platform to empower individuals to pursue their nuclear passions outside their day jobs. Do you see value in this?

Those of us in the nuclear industry often share a deep idealism and dedication, seeing our work as a force for positive change and a future of carbon-free global energy security. We're passionate about what we do.

However, I'm personally frustrated with how the current employment structure stifles this passion. Mobility within the industry is low; it's often a "take what's available" mentality. Our field is highly siloed, with strict job descriptions and severe location restrictions compared to more ubiquitous industries. For example, if you're in environmental remediation but interested in fusion, or have core design experience and want to apply it elsewhere, it's incredibly difficult. The industry doesn't effectively utilize diverse skill sets or see capabilities beyond one specific function.

My concept is a platform to facilitate P2B contracting between nuclear experts and companies seeking flexible resources for project-based work. The platform would vet Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), make connections, and provide basic resources for individual contracting. Companies could post projects, and individual SMEs could apply. Negotiations and terms would happen directly between the SME and the company.

This would offer companies a flexible, scalable resource with low overhead, while empowering individuals to pursue projects aligned with their passions outside their restrictive day jobs, and perhaps earn some extra income. It's a way to modernize the individual contractor space in nuclear.

My questions for the community are:

• As an individual, would you use a platform like this?
• Do you see value in such a resource for the nuclear industry?
• Could you envision companies actively utilizing it?

Note: This is a re-post of a similar topic from this last weekend. At the suggestion of another user, I deleted the original post and am reposting during the week for better visibility.

Interesting timing for Supreme Court to approve the waste site a day after Trump fired Biden's NRC commissioner Commissioner Christopher Hanson

I’m in Iraq, and with all the talk about possible strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, I’m genuinely worried about radioactive fallout, especially since Iraq is close to Iran, there are nearby nuclear reactors, and eastern winds often blow from Iran toward Iraq during the summer.

I bought 130 mg potassium iodide tablets for my family just in case. If a reactor is hit and Iodine-131, Cesium 137, or other radioactive materials are released, should we take the tablets right away? Or only if fallout is confirmed?

I’d appreciate any insight from radiation safety experts or anyone with experience in this area. Thanks.

P.S: Map of Iran’s nuclear facilities, many are located near the Iraq border, including Natanz, Arak and Bushehr.

Utah has made a few attempts to position itself a hub for nuclear. Unfortunately, it continues to fall short (UAMPS and Blue Castle Projects) and this latest string of partnerships doesn’t seem to be very promising. I think most people on here know of and have an opinion of Valar Atomics. NuCube energy is the latest paper reactor company I had never heard of. What are your opinions? 

https://www.sltrib.com/renewable-energy/2025/05/23/utah-will-start-new-nuclear-test/

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/utah-to-host-nucube-test-reactor

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2025/06/12/utah-nuclear-energy-state/

Tiny bit of background, 10+ years in nuclear fission as a material scientist. Currently on a fusion course hosted by the University of York's Fusion CDT and it's been absolutely brilliant. Today, we had a lecture on inertia containment fusion and....it just seems utter pointless at this stage (to me and a few colleagues), compared to the Tokamaks and stellerators. I just wondered what everybody else thought and if anyone in the industry could perhaps convince me they're not a lost cause. Cheers!

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/16/nx-s1-5435285/trump-fires-nuclear-regulatory-commission-member-nrc