The U.S. Army will begin recruiting soldiers for its first dedicated enlisted specialty in space operations. This is part of a broader push by the service to build organic expertise as satellites become increasingly critical to modern ground warfare….
…The initiative comes as military leaders increasingly view space capabilities as essential to ground operations, driven in part by lessons from the conflict in Ukraine, where electronic jamming, cyber threats and satellite-denied environments have become routine challenges for forces.
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The U.S. Army will begin recruiting soldiers for its first dedicated enlisted specialty in space operations. This is part of a broader push by the service to build organic expertise as satellites become increasingly critical to modern ground warfare.
Army officials at the Space & Missile Defense Symposium this week said the 40 Delta (40D) Space Operations Specialist military occupational specialty is moving from planning to implementation, with full operations expected by October 2026.
Lt. Gen. Sean Gainey, head of the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command, said the service is just weeks away from the official launch of the new specialty. The goal is to “build long-term, institutional knowledge and to retain noncommissioned officers (NCOs) with space expertise,” Gainey said.
The 40D program was approved in December and will begin accepting applications early next year, with selection boards starting in May, according to Command Sergeant Major John Foley, the Army’s senior enlisted leader for space operations. Selected soldiers will receive specialized training in Colorado Springs to become space operations specialists.
The initiative comes as military leaders increasingly view space capabilities as essential to ground operations, driven in part by lessons from the conflict in Ukraine, where electronic jamming, cyber threats and satellite-denied environments have become routine challenges for forces.
Organizational structure
Beyond the new enlisted specialty, the Army is developing what it calls a “space branch” – a professional category similar to existing branches like Infantry, Armor and Artillery. Foley said the space branch would initially encompass about 1,000 enlisted soldiers and officers and would allow space professionals to advocate for programs and resources. The branch is not officially in place yet but should be coming soon, he added.
These organizational changes build on the evolution of the 1st Space Brigade and expansion of “multidomain” task forces, which Gainey identified as significant developments in Army space capabilities. These units have integrated space operations with ground maneuver formations through exercises and collaboration with special operations and cyber elements, giving soldiers hands-on experience in spectrum awareness and techniques to deceive and disrupt adversaries’ satellite use.
The Army’s own labs also have produced weapons like BADGR, a portable system that combines surveillance sensors and jamming devices for electronic attack missions. Brig. Gen. Don Brooks, deputy commander for operations at the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said five BADGR prototypes have been delivered to Army units based on feedback from ground forces requesting specialized equipment for “electronic attack.”
A joint endeavor, not a turf war
The Army’s push to develop internal space expertise has drawn criticism from some observers who view it as creating a “mini Space Force” that could duplicate the newer service’s mission. Army leaders have pushed back against such characterizations, emphasizing their goal is to cultivate organic space competencies rather than compete with the Space Force.
Army officials argue that having soldiers on the ground who understand space-based assets and can immediately translate satellite data, communication support and threat warnings into real-time action is essential for modern warfare. They contend that waiting for external support, even from an expert service like the Space Force, is often impractical when ground units need instant solutions integrated into their tactical operations.
The Army continues to rely on the Space Force for satellite launches, advanced systems and global networks, but maintains that a land component with skilled space professionals can make the entire joint force more capable and resilient.
Gen. Stephen Whiting, head of U.S. Space Command, offered support for the Army’s approach during remarks at the symposium. “I’m gratified to see that all of our military services are understanding the criticality of space,” Whiting said. “The Army recognizes that for maneuver elements to be successful, that there needs to be soldiers who understand space.”
Whiting emphasized that the Space Force maintains its “global space mission to provide space capabilities to the entire force and also to protect and defend capabilities in the domain,” while acknowledging that “all of our services have real institutional strengths.” Rather than viewing the Army’s efforts as competitive, Whiting said, “I don’t see it as being an overlapping and competitive set of responsibilities … but I do see them being complimentary.”
“Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth,” – Henry David Thoreau
The moon is in trouble. And so are we.
Bruce Gagnon:
NASA is not really looking for the ‘origins of life,’ as it tells school children today. Instead, it is laying the groundwork for a new gold rush that will drain our national treasury and enrich the big corporations that now control our government. It is beyond time for the American people to wake up to the shell game underway.[1]
Americans haven’t awoken, despite the environmental damage these projects already inflict and the peril to Earth’s future and that of other planets. That damage will dramatically escalate with the U.S. Space Force and Artemis Accords.
The moon is key to the U.S. and other countries for commercial mining, military bases to control access to Earth and space, and for launching military and commercial conquest of space. On April 6, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of State to “take all appropriate actions to encourage international support for the public and private recovery and use of resources in outer space”.
“Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law. Outer space is a legally and physically unique domain of human activity, and the United States does not view it as a global commons.” [2]
The Artemis Accords are being drafted to establish legal justification for commercial space resource extraction, exploitation, and ownership [3] (reminiscent of the Bush administration memos by Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury on torture). They would be an international pact for “like-minded nations”, foregoing the United Nations treaty process.
Vice President Mike Pence:
“The United States has always been a nation of restless pioneers, from those Americans who crossed the western frontier to settle in California to those who first stepped onto the Moon. We are ever striving to explore uncharted lands, reach new horizons, and venture into the unknown.
Today, we are renewing the legacy of those courageous space pioneers and all they represent. As part of our re-engagement in human space exploration, the Trump administration’s policy is to return to the moon by 2024, ensuring that the next man and the first woman on the moon will both be American astronauts. From there, we plan to put men and women on Mars.
To accomplish this next big leap, we will develop the technologies to live on the moon for months and even years. We will learn how to make use of resources that the moon has to offer. That includes mining oxygen from the lunar surface and rocks to fuel reusable landers, extracting water from the permanently shadowed craters of the south pole, and developing a new generation of nuclear-powered spacecraft that will help us fly further and faster than ever before. [4]
Former Nazi Major General Walter Dornberger, head of Hitler’s V1 and V2 program, told Congress in 1958 that America’s top space priority ought to be to “conquer, occupy, keep, and utilize space between the Earth and the Moon.”[5] The Apollo missions were the first phase — on-site assessments to gather samples, run experiments, and test human interaction with the lunar environment.
Since 1959, lunar missions and crashes by the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, India, Israel, and European Union have left over 413,000 pounds of debris and toxic substances on the formerly pristine lunar surface,[6] including 96 bags of bacteria-laden human excrement dumped by the Apollo missions.[7] Apollo also left a nuclear generator on the moon.[8]
Governments have intentionally hit the moon 22 times as part of experiments and conducted 17 other post-mission crashes. The U.S. did the majority — 16 post-mission crashes and 14 intentional strikes, including the 2009 LCROSS hit, equivalent to 1.5 tons of TNT, to blast 350 tons of rock and dust and create a six-mile-high cloud for data gathering and public relations. That mission cost $49 million, and NASA’s Ames Research celebrated with an all-night party.[9] In the 1950s, the U.S. even planned to drop an atomic bomb on the moon — Project A119 – but cancelled it as too risky.[10]
Why should the moon be protected? There are many reasons.
The moon
stabilizes Earth’s rotation
has a major role in maintaining the Earth’s magnetic field
regulates the climate
creates the tides
affects plant cycles and likely affects all biology and human cycles in profound ways
regulates the procreation of some creatures, including coral [11]
The light of the moon is essential for life, and the moon may well be a stabilizing force for every living being on the planet,
The moon is also a sovereign body with its own rights, and it belongs to no one. It is revered by Earth–based indigenous peoples and has been considered a living, sentient being by people worldwide throughout human history. The moon and earth’s self-protective systems demonstrate far more intelligence, wisdom, and life than “civilized” society understands.[12]
None of this matters to NASA, the U.S. government, other countries, and related businesses. Laser-focused on their mission objectives, with virtually no checks or public oversight, they wield the ultimate in “big toys.” The United States alone budgets millions of tax dollars every year to develop space technology for future outposts and has spent billions on the Artemis Program. For their space program, the overarching priorities are American supremacy, empire, and profit — the unflinching mandate of manifest destiny projected into space.
The United States is by far the biggest threat to space and the moon.
When you don’t initiate the boys, they burn down the village. — African saying
The 1979 United Nations Moon Treaty prohibits military bases and national appropriation of territory but only minimally protects the moon environmentally. It enshrines depredation “on the basis of equality” — “The Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind.” [13] Former astronaut Harrison Schmidt, who formed his own company to mine the moon, complained the treaty would “complicate private commercial efforts.”[14] He was not alone. The U.S. did not sign, and only 18 nations have ratified it.
“…the United States does not consider the Moon Agreement to be an effective or necessary instrument to guide nation states regarding the promotion of commercial participation in the long-term exploration, scientific discovery, and use of the Moon, Mars, or other celestial bodies. Accordingly, the Secretary of State shall object to any attempt by any other state or international organization to treat the Moon Agreement as reflecting or otherwise expressing customary international law.” [15]
Companies such as Bechtel and Bigelow Aerospace [16] are securing contracts from the FAA and other agencies to own land on the moon and mine the moon. Helium-3, used for nuclear fusion, may be worth $3 billion per metric ton, and there are millions of tons of helium-3 in the moon’s upper layer. This is one cause of the new gold rush to the moon.[17] Lunar water deposits are being assessed to see if they can provide drinking water for military and commercial bases there. Moon tourism is being pursued internationally.[18] A Japanese startup even wants to put billboards on the moon.[19]
There are direct and immediate impacts to Earth from these space programs. They accelerate climate change and will eventually torch the climate if allowed to continue. Each fossil-fuel-burning rocket launch not only uses toxic chemicals and causes toxic fallout. They also put particulate matter and exhaust into the atmosphere, and destroy part of the ozone layer.[20]
For example, before leaving Earth’s atmosphere, each shuttle spewed thousands of pounds of metals and other chemicals into the air, including lithium, nickel, mercury [21], bismuth, manganese, aluminum, iron, and zinc. “People think of a shuttle launch as a short-term, finite event, but each launch expels a huge amount of debris into the atmosphere with the potential for long-term effects on the surrounding ecosystem. The plume contains hydrogen chloride, a strong acid. After launches, the pH of the [nearby] lagoons may plummet for a short time, rendering the water nearly as caustic as battery acid.” — John Bowden, environmental chemist at Hollings Marine Laboratory in Charleston, S.C., 2014 [22]
The Earth and its atmosphere have never experienced the sheer volume of launches planned. Dramatically worsening this are the thousands of rockets to put Wi-Fi and 5G satellites into earth orbit that began last year by Elon Musk/SpaceX and others.[23]
This is sheer insanity.
Congress continues to divert more taxpayer dollars into these extremely costly space projects — the next moon visit could cost trillions. This resource extraction from taxpayers robs cities, counties, and states of critical financial resources to solve real problems right here, especially now, while ignoring the planetary environmental cost.
Where are the environmentalists, the biologists, the ocean scientists, and consumer advocates?
We must break out of the NASA trance. Everything that is done to the moon has repercussions to Earth. “National security” is protecting Earth and the moon.
Human history with empires and invaders that subjugate and plunder is being repeated again, with an addiction to “command and control” permeating these space programs. These values and policies are opposed to life, peace, and a future. The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space just sponsored a webinar on these plans “War in Space — Weaponising the final frontier”.[24]
The film “Independence Day” got it wrong, and Pogo got it right – the enemy is human. Tell children the truth: astronauts are not heroes.
Humans must repair Earth and themselves first with all available creativity and resources, and the COVID19 shutdown has worsened everything. If humans are incapable of fixing the dire messes they’ve created on Earth, incapable of stopping wars, incapable of living cooperatively with their neighbors, then they cannot go off planet or contaminate anything else.
The future is at stake. The moon must be defended. Shut NASA and these space ventures down.
Nina Beety is an investigative writer and public speaker on governmental policy, the environment, and wireless radiation hazards. She has written two reports for officials on Smart Meter problems which are on her website www.smartmeterharm.org. She lives in California.
Notes
[1] 2006. Bruce Gagnon is co-founder of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.
In the years of the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union tussled to prove their superiority by rushing to become the first nation to put a man on the moon.
While America might have claimed that particular prize in 1969, a new and even more dramatic space race is only just beginning.
But with Russia and China targeting 2036 as their completion date, the three superpowers are now locked in a head-to-head race to get there first.
This comes as the US makes a rapid and unexpected shift towards prioritising human exploration in space.
Despite slashing scientific missions and giving NASA the smallest budget since 1961, the agency has allocated more than $7 billion for lunar exploration.
Mr Duffy will give NASA 30 days to appoint an official to oversee the operation and 60 days to issue a request seeking proposals from commercial companies for the project.
Nuclear power is seen as key for establishing a lunar presence because it is plunged into complete, freezing darkness for two weeks every month.
At the South Pole, where NASA is planning to establish its operations, the sun never rises high above the horizon and some craters are shrouded in permanent darkness.
That makes it practically impossible for spacecraft or bases to survive on the moon using solar power and batteries alone.
However, this sudden swing back to lunar exploration may be a product of increasing competition from other superpowers.
Tellingly, Mr Duffy warned that ‘the first country to do so could potentially declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first.’
This is almost certainly a reference to Russia and China’s recent plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, announced in May.
That reactor would be used to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), which should be completed by 2036 according to the latest plans.
Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, wrote in a statement at the time: ‘The station will conduct fundamental space research and test technology for long-term uncrewed operations of the ILRS, with the prospect of a human being’s presence on the Moon.’
The groundwork will be laid by China’s upcoming Chang’e-8 mission, which will be the nation’s first attempted human moon landing.
This means that the moon, and especially the south pole, is now becoming the target of a new international space race.
Dr Mark Hilborne, a security studies expert from King’s College London, told Daily Mail: ‘The Moon is a place where nations will have competing interests. There will be parts of the moon that are more valuable than others and, therefore, could be particular points of competition.
‘The Moon is valuable as a low-gravity staging base where future space developments can be built. Lunar materials, mined in situ, would be valuable in building elements that would further lunar exploration.
‘If these could be built on the Moon, rather than sent from Earth, the cost would be far cheaper.’
The big concern for the US, and presumably Russia and China, is that whatever country starts building on the moon first could effectively claim it as its own territory
Countries’ dealings in space are governed by a set of rules called the Outer Space Treaty, which was first signed in 1967.
Signatories to the treaty agree that space is ‘not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.’
This explicitly means that nations are not legally able to make territorial claims on celestial bodies like the moon.
However, in practice, America has recently doubled down on a far more assertive version of the law by signing a series of rules called the Artemis Accords in 2020.
Critically, the Artemis Accords also gives states the power to implement ‘safety zones’ – exclusive areas which members of other states will not be able to enter or use without permission from the owner.
While the US insists that these boundaries will end ‘when the relevant operation ceases’, for a permanent colony, this would function almost exactly like the borders of a sovereign territory.
These rules essentially create a principle that whoever gets to a part of the moon first gets to keep it for their own use.
Dr Jill Stuart, an expert on space law from the London School of Economics, told Daily Mail: ‘Countries could use a part of the lunar surface for a scientific base – without claiming long-term ownership of it – but must communicate to other users where that base is and be transparent about its purpose.
‘Although this seems like a potentially “fair” way to allow for future activity on the moon, it also creates a “first mover advantage” in that those who can set up bases first have the right to claim a safety zone around it.’
While these safety zones might be essential for a nuclear reactor, experts say this may lead to an increasingly risky space race.
Dr Fabio Tronchetti, a space law expert from Northumbria University, told Daily Mail: ‘It is evident that we are heading towards a space rush.
‘The United States is attempting to act quickly and get to the Moon first, at least before China and Russia, so as to be able to unilaterally claim the right to set out the rules of the game.’
This has the serious potential to spark conflict between the nations since China and Russia, having not signed the Artemis Accords, have no legal requirement to respect the US ‘keep-out zones’.
Dr Tronchetti says that international law ‘does not recognise the possibility’ of the US’s claims, adding that the US is attempting to ‘force its [China’s] hand to set out rules favourable to its own interests’.
How this conflict might play out on the lunar surface remains to be seen, but in the future, we might see the conflicts here on Earth extend out into space.
There are already many complications in this proposal, which has not been officially released yet. The Trump administration proposed a budget that would devastate NASA’s multiple science programs, and while it asked for more funding for human spaceflight in the short term, it would cancel the Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft, making NASA exclusively reliant on private companies to get to the Moon. As yet, we don’t have one of those that won’t stop exploding.
US space agency Nasa will fast-track plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030, according to US media. It is part of US ambitions to build a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface. According to Politico, the acting head of Nasa referred to similar plans by China and Russia and said those two countries “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” on the Moon. But questions remain about how realistic the goal and timeframe are, given recent and steep Nasa budget cuts, and some scientists are concerned that the plans are driven by geopolitical goals.
Boeing lands $2.8 billion deal to build next-gen nuclear communications satellites
The ESS satellites are central to U.S. nuclear command, control and communications.
Space News, 3 Aug 25,
WASHINGTON — Boeing won a $2.8 billion contract to develop a new generation of secure military satellites (Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications spacecraft) that will serve as the backbone of the United States’ nuclear command, control and communications network, the U.S. Space Force announced July 3.
The award marks a major milestone in the Pentagon’s effort to modernize its most hardened space-based communication infrastructure. The contract is part of the Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications program, or ESS, which will ultimately replace the current constellation built by Lockheed Martin under the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) program.
Boeing edged out Northrop Grumman after a nearly five-year competition that began in 2020, when both aerospace giants were selected to develop prototype systems. The Space Force selected Boeing as the prime contractor for the next phase of the ESS program, which includes development and production of two satellites, with options for two more. If all options are exercised, the contract could reach $3.75 billion.
The first satellite delivery is slated for 2031.
Critical infrastructure for nuclear command
The ESS satellites are designed to provide jam-resistant, always-on communications for the U.S. military’s nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) architecture. These satellites must function under the most extreme conditions — including in the wake of a nuclear strike — ensuring the President and senior military leaders can communicate securely with deployed forces anywhere in the world.
“The strategic communication mission requires protection, power and always-available capability, even through adversary attempts to interrupt our connectivity,” said Cordell DeLaPeña, the Space Force’s program executive officer overseeing the ESS effort.
Broader $12 billion program
While Boeing’s $2.8 billion development contract is the most visible component, it is only part of a broader $12 billion ESS program that also includes ground systems, cryptographic infrastructure, and user terminals. The terminals, which allow individual military branches to access the ESS network, are acquired separately.
Boeing said its satellite design draws on technology developed for its Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellites and commercial spacecraft it built for SES’s O3b mPOWER broadband constellation.
“This win validates all the investments and innovations we’ve made in our satellite technology,” said Michelle Parker, vice president of Boeing Space Mission Systems.
The ESS satellites will operate in geostationary orbit — 22,000 miles above Earth — where they can provide persistent coverage to specific regions. The full constellation is expected to support global coverage, including the Arctic, an area of growing strategic interest.
The ESS constellation is being built to replace the AEHF network, which was designed and launched over the last two decades to provide similar survivable communications capabilities. Military leaders say growing threats from advanced anti-satellite weapons and electronic warfare systems demand more modern, flexible platforms.
The Space Force is using a cost-reimbursement contracting model for the initial satellite development, a structure more suited to high-risk, high-complexity projects. Under this arrangement, the government pays for allowable costs plus a negotiated profit margin — an approach often used when requirements are not yet fully known and involve extensive non-recurring engineering.
However, future satellites under the ESS program may be procured using fixed-price contracts, which shift more cost risk to the contractor and are generally used once designs mature and production stabilizes.
Energy firm newcleo said on Wednesday it would suspend its programme to develop lead-cooled fast reactors (LFR) in Britain and substantially wind down its UK activities due to the lack of support and funding from the government.
LFRs are a type of advanced nuclear reactor technology which are smaller and more efficient than conventional nuclear reactors and can be built in factories and assembled on site to provide heat for industrial processes and hydrogen production.
The firm, established in 2021 and headquartered in Britain, said it had planned to develop up to four such reactors in the UK, producing a total of 800 megawatts, enough to power around 1.6 million homes, and representing around 4 billion pounds ($5 billion) of investment.
The company said it had engaged with successive UK governments on access to the country’s stock of stored plutonium which it had planned to recycle for use in the reactors. “Sadly, despite many attempts to engage with political stakeholders, the UK government has decided to not make its plutonium available for the foreseeable future and to lend its political support and considerable funding to other technologies,” Stefano Buono, founder and CEO of newcleo, said in a statement.
In addition, support and funding have been made available to other small modular reactor technologies but they have not been forthcoming for LFR developers such as newcleo in Britain, the firm said. Instead, it will focus on other important markets. In Slovakia, newcleo said it had created a joint venture with state-owned nuclear company JAVYS to build up to four LFRs powered by the country’s spent nuclear fuel stocks, which has received endorsement from government officials. In June, an agreement with the Lithuanian government was signed based on a similar strategy.
All of these companies also claim their plutonium extraction would utilize new technologies that are “proliferation resistant”—but that, too, is bunk.
The White House has now fully embraced bomb-prone nuclear fuel technology. This should stop before an arms race, atomic terrorism or even nuclear war results
Recent events in Iran demonstrate that dropping “bunker buster” bombs on nuclear plants is not an ideal, or even necessarily effective, way to prevent proliferation. It is far preferable to prevent the spread of nuclear-weapon-usable technologies in the first place.
A simplistic way to achieve that might be to halt the worldwide growth of nuclear power. Public approval of nuclear energy, however, is actually growing in the U.S., and the White House recently announced policies to quadruple American nuclear power by 2050 while also promoting nuclear exports. This surge of support is somewhat surprising, considering that new reactors not only pose radiation risks from nuclear waste and potential accidents but also produce electricity that costs considerably more than solar or wind power (which can be similarly reliable when complemented by batteries). But nuclear power plants are touted for other attributes, including their small footprint, constant output, infrequent refueling, low carbon emissions and ability to produce heat for manufacturing. If customers decide this justifies the higher cost—and are willing to wait about a decade for new reactors—then nuclear energy has a future.
That leaves only one other way to stop the spread of dangerous atomic technology – by prudently limiting nuclear energy to the “bomb-resistant” type, which entirely avoids weapons-usable material by disposing of it as waste, rather than the “bomb-prone” variety that creates proliferation risks by purifying and recycling nuclear explosives.
Regrettably, however, the White House recently directed government officials to facilitate the bomb-prone version in a set of executive orders in May. That decision needs to be reversed before it inadvertently triggers an arms race, atomic terrorism or even nuclear war. As Iran has highlighted, ostensibly peaceful nuclear technology can be misused for a weapons program. That is why, from now on, the U.S. should support only bomb-resistant reactors and nuclear fuel.
Most Americans probably don’t realize that nuclear reactors originally were invented not for electricity or research but to produce a new substance, plutonium, for nuclear weapons such as the one dropped on Nagasaki. Every nuclear reactor produces plutonium (or its equivalent), which can be extracted from the irradiated fuel to make bombs.
This raises three crucial questions about the resulting plutonium: How much of it is produced? What is its quality? And will it be extracted from the irradiated fuel, making it potentially available for weapons?
Bomb-resistant nuclear energy—the only type now deployed in the U.S.—produces less plutonium, which is of lower quality and does not need to be extracted from the irradiated fuel. By contrast, bomb-prone nuclear energy produces more plutonium, which is of higher quality and must be extracted to maintain the fuel cycle.
Of course, a declared facility to extract plutonium in a country lacking nuclear weapons could be monitored, but history shows that international inspectors would stand little chance of detecting—let alone blocking—diversion for bombs. That is why the U.S. made bipartisandecisions in the 1970s to abandon bomb-prone nuclear energy, aiming to establish a responsible precedent for other countries.
In light of today’s growing concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation in East Asia, the Middle East and lately even Europe, one might assume that U.S. industry and government would promote only bomb-resistant nuclear energy—but that is not so. A growing number of venture capitalists and politicians are aggressively supporting technologies to commercialize plutonium fuel. They are doing so despite the security, safety and economic downsides that have doomed previous such efforts. These past failures are evidenced by the fact that of the more than 30 countries with nuclear energy today, including many which previously attempted or considered recycling plutonium, only one (France) still does so on a substantial scale—at considerable financial loss. However, if the U.S. government continues subsidizing nuclear technologies without regard to proliferation risk, then the plutonium entrepreneurs will keep hopping on that gravy train. Eventually, they even may find willing customers for their pricey, bomb-prone technology—but mainly among countries willing to pay a premium for a nuclear-weapon option.
The most egregious proposal has come from start-up Oklo, a company originally spearheaded by venture capitalist Sam Altman (who stepped down as chairman in April). It is pursuing “fast” reactors that can produce larger amounts of higher-quality plutonium, and it has declared the intention to extract plutonium for recycling into fresh fuel. Oklo even says it plans to export this proliferation-prone technology “on a global scale.” The Biden administration and Congress, despite the obvious dangers of dispersing nuclear weapons-usable plutonium around the world, chose to subsidize the company as part of a wholesale push for new nuclear energy. Then the Trump administration picked as secretary of energy an industrialist named Chris Wright, who actually was on Oklo’s board of directors until his confirmation. In 2024, Wright and his wife also madecontributions to a fundraising committee for Trump’s presidential campaign totaling about $458,000, along with contributions to the Republication National Committee of about $289,000. In the first quarter of 2025, Oklo increased its lobbying expenditures by 500 percent compared to the same period last year.
Biden also gave nearly $2 billion to TerraPower, a nuclear energy venture founded by billionaire Bill Gates, for a similar but larger “fast” reactor that also is touted for export. Experts say this inevitably would entail far greater plutonium extraction, even though the company denies any intention to do so. The U.S. Department of Energy also has funded the American branch of Terrestrial Energy, which seeks to build exotic “molten salt” reactors that use liquid rather than solid nuclear fuel. Such fuel must be processed regularly, thereby complicating inspections and creating more opportunities to divert plutonium for bombs.
Most baffling are proposals for large “reprocessing” plants to extract huge amounts of plutonium from irradiated fuel without plausible justification. The company SHINE Technologies, with technical assistance from a firm named Orano, is planning a U.S. pilot plant to process 100 metric tons of spent fuel each year. This would result in the annual extraction of about a metric ton of plutonium—enough for 100 nuclear weapons. SHINE claims the plutonium is valuable to recycle as reactor fuel, but the U.K. recently decided to dispose as waste its entire 140-metric-ton stockpile of civilian plutonium because no one wanted it as fuel. The U.S. similarly has been working to dispose of at least 34 metric tons of undesired plutonium as waste.
Officials from five previous U.S. presidential administrations, and other experts including me, protested in an April 2024 letter to then president Biden that SHINE’s plan would increase “risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism.” Despite this, President Trump recently issued an executive order in May that directed U.S. officials to approve “privately-funded nuclear fuel recycling, reprocessing, and reactor fuel fabrication technologies … [for] commercial power reactors.” Even more troubling, a separate order directed the government to provide weapons-grade plutonium—retired from our arsenal—directly to private industry as “fuel for advanced nuclear technologies,” which would jump-start bomb-prone nuclear energy before assessing the risks.
SHINE and a similar company, Curio, claim their facilities would slash the country’s radioactive waste stockpile. But realistically, they could barely dent its growth of 2,000 metric tons annually. They also propose to extract valuable radioactive isotopes for medical and space application, but these materials already are available elsewhere at less expense or are needed in such tiny amounts that they require processing only hundreds of kilograms of irradiated fuel annually, not the proposed hundreds of metric tons, which is a thousand times more.
Storm clouds began to form in America’s Atoms for Peace construction program during the late 1950s. Clear-headed analysts identified many pitfalls in constructing commercial atomic power reactors that continue now, 70 years later. This February 10, 1958, opinion piece in Time Magazinewas not just prescient for the failure of the Atoms for Peace program, but also applies to the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) marketing ploy in 2025:
“Industry Asks More Government Help to Speed Program”
… to many U.S. businessmen, a stronger atomic defense is only one side of the coin… they insist that commercial nuclear power must be sped up, or else the U.S. will fall far behind other nations.
The main argument is over how much help the U.S. Government should give private industry. AEC’s [Atomic Energy Commission]position is that nuclear power for peaceful purposes should be largely a private venture, with AEC supplying only limited funds.
Originally, businessmen supported the idea, lest nuclear energy grow into a giant public-power program. Now their position has changed. Even the stoutest private power men feel that the program needs a strong infusion of Government aid because commercial nuclear power is so new, so complex, and so costly that private companies cannot carry the burden alone. …“There isn’t a reactor manufacturer in the U.S. who doesn’t favor Government assistance to get them over the hump.”
The big hump is the fact that conventional U.S. power is so cheap—and nuclear power so expensive—that the U.S. itself has no pressing domestic need for a crash program. … U.S. industry is learning, to its sorrow, that there is a vast gulf between atomic power in the lab and in commercial quantities. Costs have shot up to the point where they discourage even the richest companies… Even the biggest companies find the going rough…. G.E., like the others, thinks that if it could build three big plants in a row, it could learn enough to produce competitive power. But G.E. has no plans at the moment. As one reactor builder says: “Private industry has found that there is no money in atomic energy and no prospect of making any money”… For U.S. consumers, the lag in the commercial nuclear program is no great worry…the U.S. can afford to wait…. There is little doubt among nuclear experts that the U.S. must push ahead much faster than AEC Chairman Strauss is willing to go…. But until nuclear power becomes competitive with present power, he wants the Federal Government to make cash contributions to pay most of the difference between nuclear-and conventional-power construction costs… “The only way our country can achieve competitive nuclear power is through the building of a series of full-scale plants …. Our program must be accelerated.” [1][Emphasis Added]
Several themes from the 1958 Time Magazine opinion piece are identical to today’s unfounded marketing ploys announced by SMR manufacturers and supporters.
First, SMR corporations appeal to nationalistic pride by asserting that the U.S. will fall far behind other nations.
Second, the financial demands by today’s SMR investors and manufacturers are almost identical to those made during the 1950s that emphasized the need for Government subsidies. “There isn’t a reactor manufacturer in the U.S. who does not favor Government assistance to get them over the hump.”
Third, there is an unfounded belief that repeatedly building the same design will somehow reduce costs. “G.E., like the others, thinks that if it could build three big plants in a row, it could learn enough to produce competitive power.”
Forth, the Small Modular Reactor vendors are creating a sense of urgency, pushing nuclear regulators faster than necessary.
“There is little doubt among nuclear experts that the U.S. must push ahead much faster than AEC Chairman Strauss is willing to go…The only way our country can achieve competitive nuclear power is through the building of a series of full-scale plants …Our program must be accelerated.”
Fifth, much less expensive and proven technologies are available to produce electricity, so there is no reason to develop a new, untested, cost-prohibitive SMR nuclear technology. “For U.S. consumers, the lag in the commercial nuclear program is no great worry… the U.S. can afford to wait. …But until nuclear power becomes competitive with present power, he wants the Federal Government to make cash contributions to pay most of the difference between nuclear and conventional-power construction costs”
Following the 1958 Time Magazine Opinion, the business-friendly Forbes Magazine published an excellent one-sentence summary 30 years later pronouncing the utter failure of every single U.S. atomic construction project. By 1985, the economic debacle of building nuclear plants had reached the front cover of Forbes Magazine.
The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.[2]
Forbes was one of the first major business magazines to identify the adverse economic implications associated with nuclear power. As a financial magazine, it was a nuclear agnostic, conceptually neither in favor of nor against nuclear, it had no dog in the nuclear fight! It was following the money. In the intervening 40 years since the prescient Forbes cover story, nuclear remains much more costly than renewable alternatives.
The financial and schedule collapse of every nuclear project ever proposed in the U.S. during the last 60 years has been well-documented in thousands of mainstream media articles, in academia, assessments by financial analysts, Statehouses, and, of course, in Congress, before Federal Agencies, and in review by Environmental watchdogs and community nonprofits. Yet in 2025, policymakers and politicians remain enthralled with yet another of the nuclear industry’s latest marketing ploy disguised this time as the Small Modular Reactor.
To rephrase Yogi Berra, Building Small Modular Reactors appears to be “Déjà vu all over again”.
Arnie Gundersen is the Chief Engineer, board member, and resident “science guy” at the Fairewinds Energy Education NGO. Since the catastrophe at Fukushima, Arnie focuses his energy worldwide on the migration of radioactive microparticles. During his multiple trips to Japan, Arnie has met and trained community-volunteer citizen-scientists to study the migration of radioactive microparticles from Fukushima in two co-authored peer-reviewed scientific articles.
Small modular nuclear reactors proved the most expensive technology of the eight options by a large margin, with the report basing its costs on Canada’s Darlington nuclear project, announced in May.
Small modular nuclear reactors proved the most expensive technology of the eight options by a large margin, with the report basing its costs on Canada’s Darlington nuclear project, announced in May.
Next-generation nuclear reactors are the most expensive of all energy-producing technologies, a report has found, and would significantly increase electricity prices in Australia.
Establishing a large-scale nuclear power plant for the first time would also require more than double the typical costs, and estimates for wind projects had inflated by four per cent due to unforeseen requirements.
The CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, released its GenCost report on Tuesday, revealing rising construction and finance costs would push up prices for energy projects of all kinds in the coming years.
The findings come after a heated debate about introducing nuclear power to Australia and after members of the federal coalition questioned the nation’s reliance on renewable energy projects to achieve net zero by 2050.
The final GenCost report for 2024-2025 analysed the cost of several energy-generating technologies, including variations of coal, gas, nuclear, solar and wind projects.
Renewable technology continued to provide the cheapest energy generation, the report’s lead author and CSIRO chief energy economist Paul Graham said.
“We’re still finding that solar PV and wind with firming is the lowest-cost, new build low-emission technology,” he told AAP.
“In second place is gas with (carbon capture storage) … then large-scale nuclear, black coal with CCS, then the small modular reactors.”
Small modular nuclear reactors proved the most expensive technology of the eight options by a large margin, with the report basing its costs on Canada’s Darlington nuclear project, announced in May.
The 1200-megawatt development is estimated to cost $23.2 billion and will be the first commercial small modular reactor built in a Western country.
The new reactors produce one-third the power of typical nuclear reactors and can be built on sites not suitable for larger plants, but have only been built in China and Russia.
“This is a big deal for Canada – it’s their first nuclear build in 30 years,” Mr Graham said.
“It’s not just about meeting electricity demand … they’ve said a few things that indicate they’re trying to build a nuclear SMR industry and export the technology.”
In addition to the cost of different technologies, the report estimated “premiums” for establishing first-of-a-kind energy projects, with the first large-scale nuclear project expected to command 120 per cent more and the first offshore wind development expected to cost an extra 63 per cent.
The cost of wind projects also grew by four per cent as researchers factored in building work camps to accommodate remote employees, and capital financing costs rose by one per cent.
Developing energy projects was also expected to cost between six and 20 per cent more by 2050, the report found, due to the rising price of materials such as cement and wages, as detailed in a report by Oxford Economics Australia.
Findings from the CSIRO report would help inform the design of future energy infrastructure, Australian Energy Market Operator system design executive general manager Merryn York said.
“We’ll use the capital costs for generation and storage from GenCost in the upcoming Draft Integrated System Plan in December,” she said.
Nuclear technology is banned as an energy source in Australia, which has a target of achieving 82 per cent renewable energy in the national grid by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050.
The government has announced it will incorporate all nuclear fusion energy facilities generating at least 50 megawatts (MW) in England into the streamlined nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) planning regime, but will drop its proposal to include such developments that fall under this threshold.
A fusion energy start-up claims to have solved the millennia-old challenge of how to turn other metals into gold. Chrysopoeia, commonly known as alchemy, has been pursued by civilisations as far back as ancient Egypt. Now San Francisco-based Marathon Fusion, a start-up focused on using nuclear fusion to generate power, has said the same process could be used to produce gold from mercury.
In an academic paper published last week, Marathon proposes that neutrons released in fusion reactions could be used to produce gold through a process known as nuclear transmutation.
The recent announcement that the UK’s Sizewell C nuclear generation construction’s projected cost has doubled from £20 billion in 2020 to nearly £38 billion today is shocking but predictable. For anyone following Europe’s nuclear power saga, such an escalation is not an anomaly but rather a continuation of a deeply entrenched pattern. This project, part of Europe’s broader push for nuclear power to meet climate goals, is again raising fundamental questions about whether European governments and utilities have truly laid the groundwork for successful nuclear power scaling, or if they continue to underestimate the scale of the task.
To assess what has gone wrong, we can turn to a clear set of criteria for successful nuclear programs that history provides. These criteria are based on the best available evidence from nuclear build-outs globally, and importantly, are grounded in repeated successes and failures documented by energy historians and experts. Seven specific factors emerge as crucial: first, nuclear power programs require a strategic national priority with consistent government oversight and support. Second, successful nuclear programs historically have close alignment with military nuclear objectives, benefiting from established skill sets, infrastructure, and strategic imperatives. Third, reactor programs thrive only when standardized around a single, fully proven reactor design. Fourth, large-scale reactors in the gigawatt range provide significant economies of scale. Fifth, there must be a comprehensive, government-supported training and human resources program. Sixth, deployment should be rapid, continuous, and sustained over two to three decades to leverage learning effects. Finally, successful nuclear deployments involve constructing dozens of reactors, not just a few isolated units, to benefit from economies of scale and accumulated knowledge.
Evaluating Europe’s EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) program against these criteria provides a sobering picture. The strategic national priority criterion has only partially been met. European governments have indeed supported nuclear in principle, yet actual oversight has varied considerably, often shifting responsibilities between private entities, state regulators, and multinational utilities, diluting accountability. There has been no consistent, comprehensive governmental stewardship. Each reactor site faces a new web of bureaucratic complexity rather than benefiting from streamlined regulatory oversight.
The second criterion, integration with military objectives, is entirely absent in the European context. Historically, successful nuclear programs like those in France, the United States, or Russia have been intertwined with military nuclear efforts. The absence of military nuclear integration in contemporary European programs removes a critical element of strategic urgency, funding, and workforce stability. Europe’s nuclear effort remains civilian-only, losing these historical advantages.
Standardization of reactor design has also fallen short. Although the EPR was intended to be Europe’s standardized reactor, actual implementations have seen multiple design modifications, extensive site-specific customizations, and evolving regulatory requirements. Each new European EPR has effectively become another first-of-a-kind construction project, losing almost all potential learning curve benefits. The changes between Flamanville in France, Olkiluoto in Finland, and Hinkley Point C in the United Kingdom illustrate starkly how the promise of standardization has not materialized.
While the fourth criterion of large-scale reactors in the gigawatt class is technically met, this alone has not guaranteed success. Indeed, the EPR’s massive scale of around 1.6 GW per reactor, designed specifically to capture economies of vertical scaling, has perversely contributed to complexity and cost overruns due to an insufficiently mature supply chain, workforce, and management capability. Size alone cannot substitute for weaknesses elsewhere in the development ecosystem.
A major factor missing from Europe’s nuclear plans has been a centralized, government-led workforce training and human resource strategy. Nuclear construction is complex and requires extremely well-trained, specialized and security-cleared personnel who work effectively in teams. Europe’s nuclear workforce remains fragmented, project-based, and heavily reliant on temporary contractors. This workforce structure prevents accumulation of essential expertise and institutional memory. By contrast, successful nuclear builds historically, such as France’s 1970s and 1980s fleet or South Korea’s more recent nuclear expansions, relied explicitly on stable, state-backed workforces built over decades.
The sixth factor, rapid and sustained deployment over a defined two- or three-decade timeframe, has been consistently unmet in Europe. Instead, construction schedules stretch over a decade or longer for individual projects, with significant gaps between reactor starts. Olkiluoto took nearly 18 years from groundbreaking to full commercial operation, while Flamanville has similarly ballooned from a five-year schedule to more than 17 years. Such prolonged and intermittent build-outs destroy continuity, erase institutional memory, and eliminate any hope of learning-based improvements.
Finally, the criterion of dozens of reactors to benefit from learning economies and consistent improvements has not even been approached. The small number of participating European nations have each built just one or two reactors each, without sustained replication. Instead of dozens, Europe’s EPR build-out has delivered exactly two completed reactors outside of China, one each in Finland and France, both massively over budget and delayed. The United Kingdom’s ongoing struggles with Hinkley Point C and now Sizewell underscore the near-complete failure to leverage scale and experience across multiple similar projects.
Bent Flyvbjerg’s extensive research on megaprojects offers important context here. His data demonstrate consistently that nuclear projects routinely underestimate complexity, overestimate potential cost savings, and ignore historical evidence of prior overruns. Flyvbjerg’s findings indicate average overruns for nuclear reactors often range from 120 to 200% above initial estimates. Europe’s EPR experiences align closely with his analysis, underscoring that the fundamental issue is systemic rather than isolated mismanagement or technical miscalculations. The repeated pattern of underestimated costs and schedules aligns precisely with Flyvbjerg’s warnings.
Taking Sizewell C specifically, the now nearly doubled budget and uncertainty about its schedule mirror previous European EPR outcomes. Although the UK government adopted the regulated asset base model to theoretically reduce investor risk, the reality is consumers bear the brunt of these overruns, undermining the economic and political rationale for nuclear. This situation further confirms that without fundamental changes in approach, future EPR projects across Europe will likely replicate these troubling patterns.
The essential takeaway is clear. Unless European governments and industry stakeholders directly address and fulfill the criteria outlined above, nuclear power development in Europe will continue to repeat these costly cycles. Establishing clear national priorities, enforcing rigid reactor standardization, implementing centralized workforce training, committing to sustained rapid deployment, and genuinely standardizing the regulatory environment are non-negotiable if nuclear is to play a significant, reliable, and economically sensible role in Europe’s energy future.
In stark contrast to Europe’s nuclear struggles, renewable energy growth on the continent has significantly exceeded expectations during the same period. Between the mid-2000s, when the first EPR reactors entered construction, and today, Europe’s wind and solar capacity has expanded rapidly, consistently outperforming deployment targets and experiencing steady cost declines. Wind power, both onshore and offshore, has grown by more than tenfold, with major projects routinely delivered within budget and schedule.
Solar power installations have seen even more impressive expansion, driven by sharp decreases in module prices and efficient scaling of supply chains. Unlike nuclear, renewable projects benefit from short construction cycles, standardized designs, and continuous incremental improvements, underscoring Europe’s missed opportunity with nuclear and emphasizing the practical effectiveness of the renewables approach. These advantages show clearly in Flyvbjerg’s data, with wind and solar projects, along with transmission, being the three megaproject categories most likely to come in within initial budgets and schedules.
The stark doubling of Sizewell’s budget is not just a financial shock, it should be a wake-up call. The EPR reactor story in Europe does not have to remain one of perpetual disappointment, but without a realistic recognition of what successful nuclear scale requires, these overruns and delays will continue indefinitely, destroying the business cases that led to their approval in the first place. Europe must either meet these demanding but historically validated conditions for nuclear success or shift decisively toward alternatives capable of meeting its climate and energy goals without the drama and expense that have defined the European nuclear experience to date.
First Light scrambles for funding despite Labour promise to invest £2.5bn in nuclear research. A British nuclear fusion pioneer has warned it risks running out of cash within six months as it races to raise millions of pounds in funding to secure its future. First Light Fusion, which is based in Oxford, is in talks with investors to raise £20m after burning through tens of millions of pounds to develop its novel fusion technology. The start-up, founded in 2011, had sought to develop what it called “projectile fusion”, developing a giant gas-powered gun that would fire a 5p-sized projectile at extreme speeds into a fuel source, sparking a fusion reaction. However, the company abandoned plans to build a prototype reactor earlier this year as it struggled to raise funds.
Energy Secretary to make it easier for developers to build reactors with planning shake-up
Ed Miliband has taken a bet on nuclear fusion one day powering Britain by making it easier for developers to build new reactors with minimal planning restrictions.
Fusion plants are to be included in the UK’s national infrastructure planning system, meaning they can be built in any part of Britain without needing consent from local authorities and with little opportunity for local people to object. Mr Miliband said the aim was to ensure fusion, if it ever works, could rapidly become part of the UK energy system.
nuclear-news 