More Words, Deeper Hole

One of the reasons to put the station at the Moon's south pole is to make a year-round supply of solar power feasible. The collector doesn't have to be in the same place as the station, and there doesn't have to be just one. Then there's the idea of putting one on a tower. (Some of these possibilities are kicked around at the URLs below.)

http://world.std.com/~reinhold/lunarpolar.html

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002iaf..confE.759H

Many of the things that make nuclear power problematic in a biosphere wouldn't apply on the Moon, but it seems like a mistake to miss out on the chance of all that free power the sun is throwing at the moon continuously. Then there's the question of what they'd use for coolant in the nuclear power plant. You wouldn't want to use water or carbon dioxide, relatively rare and valuable resources on the Moon. There are other possibilities, but they all make solar power look pretty good by comparison.

Plus, I don't think NASA should emphasize the use of nuclear power until the USA has a president who can pronounce "nuclear." So it might be a while.