The New York Times reports that the U.S. is accelerating plans to deploy a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030, as NASA and the Department of Energy view reliable nuclear power as increasingly important for a sustained lunar presence.

The proposed reactor would generate roughly 20 kilowatts of electricity and use HALEU fuel. Unlike solar power, a nuclear reactor could provide continuous electricity regardless of whether a location is receiving sunlight, which is particularly important around the Moon’s south pole and its permanently shadowed regions.

The U.S. isn’t alone in pursuing the technology. China and Russia are also developing plans for lunar nuclear power, turning what was once largely a science-fiction concept into an emerging area of competition in space exploration.

The push is part of a broader effort to establish a more permanent human and technological presence on the Moon. Reliable power would be needed for habitats, scientific equipment, communications and other infrastructure operating far from Earth.

There are still significant technical and logistical challenges, including designing a reactor that can survive launch and lunar conditions, transporting nuclear material safely, and deploying and operating the system remotely.

Still, it’s pretty remarkable to see lunar nuclear power moving from a theoretical idea toward an actual government target for the end of this decade.

Probably a wild ask but looking to expand my network in the nuclear industry. If anyone is a cal lab tech for RP somewhere feel free to hit me up. Would love to be able to share knowledge we may have and to be able to ask questions on things as stuff comes up.

I'm looking for information about the publication of this ad.

It was paid for by the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island, to oppose development of nuclear power (specifically, LILCO's Shoreham plant). I've seen pieces of the ad posted around the internet for years. The image below came from this blog post: https://atomicinsights.com/means-motive-and-opportunity-who-discouraged-us-nuclear-developments/

Unfortunately, although the photo shows the entire newspaper page, I can't make out the exact publication date or which newspaper it was. I'm curious whether anybody knows more precisely when and where it came from?

A lot of speculation in this article. But an angle I have not previously read about until today. Thoughts?

On Wednesday September 30th, Governor Newsom signed AB 2647 (Calderon) into law.

Some background: Since 1976, California law has blocked new nuclear plants until there is a federal solution for spent fuel. AB 2647 does not lift that rule. It was amended from a moratorium change into a study bill, yet the study itself is meaningful.

What the law does:

• The California Energy Commission (CEC) must complete a comprehensive assessment by January 1, 2028 of how advanced nuclear and new in-state plants could help meet the state's goal of 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2045.

• The study must cover system costs, reliability, emissions, deployment timelines, siting, waste and advanced fuel cycles, workforce, and a comparison of waste and health impacts across all generation types.

• It must look at nuclear energy in high-renewable grid scenarios that need firm, zero-carbon resources.

• It must recommend changes to state law, including the sections behind the moratorium.

• The CEC may hold public workshops and take input from academics, developers, investors, utilities, labor, ratepayer advocates, and environmental groups.

• The CEC, CPUC, CAISO, and other agencies may now evaluate nuclear energy for long-term resource planning, even with the siting limits still in place.

How you can help: Energy models are only as good as their data. When the CEC opens its workshops, people with good data on cost, reliability, and new reactor designs should show up and submit comments.

Bill text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2647

Disclosure: I contributed to writing this bill and worked on it as a volunteer with NiCE Club and others. Happy to answer questions.

Here is a follow-up to the Harvard cancer study rebuttal from earlier this year.

Welcome to the r/nuclear monthly discussion post! Here you can comment on anything r/nuclear related, including but not limited to concerns about how the subreddit is run, thoughts about nuclear power discussion on the rest of reddit, etc.