Eventually, policymakers listened. It took a few blackouts to make it clear that reliability is a necessity, while also considering clean energy.
This outcome will benefit CA with clean, reliable, and economic power for decades to come.
The community around DCPP is the strongest supporter of the plant. Organizations like @moms4nuclear have worked on this project for a decade youtu.be/Xzz1WOZw47c?si…
mothersfornuclear.org
It was a long road to get to this point. It all started with a false study that claimed DCPP was economically burdensome. thebreakthrough.org/issues/energ...
The NRC renewed the license for Diablo Canyon Power Plant for another 20 years! This is a major milestone. Just a few years ago DCPP was set to retire under CA policy. Thanks to the work of many people, and the undeniable need for reliable power, DCPP was renewed instead. 🔌💡
Screenshot of the NRC Rulemaking tracker
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working on a large volume of rulemakings. I created an NRC Rulemaking Tracker to help the public stay informed and engaged. It updates multiple times a day, and opportunities to submit public comments are highlighted. You can even download a pdf!
Timeline of NRC application review for Kemmerer Unit 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to issue the Construction Permit for TerraPower's first plant in Wyoming. The review was completed well ahead of schedule. This is a very positive step forward. 🔌💡 Read our comment here: thebreakthrough.org/press/releas...
Thanks! I am going to delete that post and re-post to this link www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/two-new-pa...
Landscape of a community near a nuclear power plant.
Two new papers claim nuclear plants increase cancer risk. That sounds alarming.
But they are not studies of radiation exposure. They are studies of geographic proximity and do not provide valid results. 🔌💡
Markets don’t form around spending.
They form around contracts.
Until the government actually buys fuel, enrichment capacity will remain hesitant—and improvised workarounds will persist.
That’s why Congress created the HALEU availability program: to aggregate demand and act as the first buyer.
Nuclear fuel markets are thin, capital-intensive, and timing-sensitive.
Announcements don’t reduce risk. Contracts do.
The real problem is offtake.
No one will produce fuel at scale without durable, early purchase commitments.
DOE’s $2.7B for uranium enrichment is necessary, but it won’t solve the HALEU problem.
The constraint was never technical capacity. It’s the absence of early, durable offtake. The U.S. can already produce HALEU at pilot scale.
New piece www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/why-billio... 🔌💡
Ho Nieh was designated as the new Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. thebreakthrough.org/press/releas...
A credible nuclear expansion will not be constrained by physics or safety data.
It will be constrained by whether our decision frameworks can stop chasing statistical ghosts—and start governing real risk.
Complex energy systems succeed when regulation, science, and capital allocation are aligned around risks that are measurable, material, and tractable.
When they aren’t, we delay deployment, inflate perceived risk, and erode public trust—without improving safety.
The opportunity cost is real.
A multi-decade, multi-billion$ national cancer study would divert resources from hazards we know how to reduce—like radon exposure, which causes ~22,000 lung cancer deaths annually in the U.S.
From a systems perspective, this is a governance failure mode: symbolic action substituted for risk reduction.
We mistake activity for progress, and regulations for safety.
This is a hard methodological limit, not a failure of effort.
A massive population study at these doses would be just as likely to produce false positives as real effects with no reliable way to tell the difference
That’s what “chasing statistical ghosts” looks like in practice
Scale matters.
Living near a nuclear plant typically adds <0.01 mSv/year—comparable to a few hours of air travel and orders of magnitude below natural background and medical exposure.
At that level, epidemiology cannot distinguish signal from noise.
Decades of modern evidence already bound the risk.
Millions of nuclear workers—who receive higher routine doses than the surrounding public—have been tracked with modern dosimetry. These data show no definitive link between low-dose exposure and increased cancer risk.
Calls for a new national cancer study near nuclear power plants are not driven by a lack of data.
They reflect a misunderstanding of what epidemiology can and cannot do, and what statistics can and cannot show, at very low radiation doses.
No, the United States does not need a costly national cancer study near nuclear reactors By Adam Stein, PJ Seel | January 2, 2026
In nuclear safety, we spend too much time chasing statistical ghosts—deploying studies that cannot resolve risk instead of governing the risks that actually matter.
Today, @thebulletin.org published my article with PJ Seel on this exact problem.
Vanguardia Dossier "The New Atomic Era"
I had the opportunity to contribute to the issue "The New Atomic Era" In Vanguardia Dossier alongside many thoughtful writers. While I don't agree with everything, this issue covers a lot of topics all in one place.
But, when it comes to the NRC’s independence from other parts of the federal government—a factor in the NRC’s capacity to fulfill its statutory obligation—the reality is more complex.
full article: www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/understand...
It is true that the NRC must remain a regulator that has the authority and capacity to take necessary actions to achieve its statutory mandate, and is independent of, and not influenced by, the nuclear industry.
