CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

When it comes to Helium-3, the biggest cost divide is between Earth and the Moon. Potential sources range from tritium decay and terrestrial helium wells on Earth to lunar regolith on the Moon. Today, Earth-based sources remain far easier and cheaper to access.

This graphic, created by Visual Capitalist's Cody Good in partnership with Pulsar Helium, compares major potential sources of Helium-3 by cost, scalability, and accessibility. It’s part three of four in the Helium 3: From Theory to Opportunity series, delivering key He-3 insights for investors tracking deep tech, critical minerals, and advanced computing.

The Extraction Cost of Helium-3

Looking at cost alone, Earth-based sources currently have a major advantage over Moon-based He-3.

 

Source: Pulsar Helium; CRS R41419 (Shea & Morgan, 2010); Niechcial et al., Energies (2020); Thunder Said Energy; NASA OIG; CLPS contract data; USGS Keszthelyi et al. (2023); Smith-Vaniz et al. (2026); Interlune..

Values reflect order-of-magnitude estimates from market pricing (tritium), thermodynamic separation floors (Pulsar), and CLPS-based transport floors (lunar), using simplified assumptions for grade, throughput, and infrastructure.

Tritium decay is an existing Earth-based source, tied to nuclear weapons stockpiles. The tritium used in warheads decays into He-3 and is recovered during processing; however, supply is limited by nuclear stockpiles and government control. 

Lunar regolith refers to the Moon’s surface material, where He-3 is believed to have accumulated from solar wind particles over time. Extracting He-3 would involve mining the Moon’s surface material, processing it to release gases, separating the He-3, and then returning it to Earth.

Pulsar sits between these two extremes by accessing Earth-based helium deposits using similar drilling technology as used for natural gas wells. The cost estimate is based only on the theoretical energy needed to separate He-3 from a gas stream, and excludes capex, labour, and other operating costs.

Comparing Source Scalability

Cost is only one part of the He-3 supply story. Each source also has a very different path to scale.

• Tritium Decay: Low scalability, because supply is capped by nuclear stockpiles.
• Pulsar Helium: Moderate scalability, with the potential to scale through terrestrial wells.
• Lunar Regolith: High theoretical scalability, based on a large inferred resource on the Moon.

For tritium, without government subsidies, the price grows significantly further reducing scalability and accessibility.

How Easy is Helium-3 to Access?

Accessibility is the other major difference between Earth and lunar sources.

• Tritium Decay: Moderate accessibility through existing infrastructure, but largely government-controlled.
• Pulsar Helium: Moderate accessibility, with earth-based sourcing.
• Lunar Regolith: Very low accessibility, with no current mining or return logistics.

Lunar He-3 may become more competitive over time, but for now, the only sources available are Earth-based.

Helium 3: From Theory to Opportunity

The rising demand for He-3 is putting new pressure on supply. Though lunar mining may one day become part of the long-term story, the near-term opportunity is much closer to home.

For investors, the key question is not just how much He-3 exists, but how realistically it can be produced and delivered. Scalability and accessibility shape how quickly a resource can move from concept to market.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The Pentagon said on June 16 that it was restoring the name U.S. Pacific Command, reversing a 2018 decision that rebranded the command as U.S. Indo-Pacific Command to reflect the growing strategic importance of India and the Indian Ocean in U.S. defense policy.

The Department of War said in a statement that the command, known as U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) since 2018, would officially revert to its previous designation, U.S. Pacific Command, or USPACOM, a name it carried for more than seven decades before the change.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth highlighted the move on social media, writing, “U.S. Pacific Command...is back.”

The Pentagon said the decision was intended to restore the command’s historical identity and military heritage rather than to signal any change in mission, geographic scope, or strategic priorities.

“Restoring the legacy USPACOM designation honors the command’s deep historical roots, fostering a sense of pride and collective spirit among all who serve in the Pacific,” the department said in a statement.

The Pentagon further clarified that the command’s area of responsibility, stretching from the waters off the U.S. West Coast to the western border of India, remains unchanged, as does its commitment to maintaining a “free and open theater alongside regional allies and partners.”

The move restores the name under which the command operated from its establishment in 1947 until May 2018.

The Pentagon did not provide a detailed explanation for the decision beyond citing the command’s historical legacy.

The name change quickly drew scrutiny in India.

Nirupama Rao, India’s former foreign secretary and ambassador to Washington, said in a post on X that the key question raised by the decision was whether the United States still viewed India as a “co-architect of regional order or simply as one useful actor among many in advancing American objectives.”

The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) is the largest of the Department of War’s six geographic joint combatant commands, with an area of operation that stretches from its Pearl Harbor headquarters west across two oceans to the Arabian Sea. Department of War/Epoch Times Screenshot

Rao said the renaming came amid a series of recent developments, such as “cooler optics” at the G7 summit in France and the deaths of three Indian sailors in a U.S. strike on an oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. military said the vessel had violated its blockade on Iranian ports.

Taken together, these and other developments could suggest a shift toward a more transactional phase in U.S.–India relations, she suggested.

“None of these individually proves a strategic rupture,” Rao wrote. “But collectively they suggest that the exuberant phase of India–US relations may be ending. The relationship is becoming more normal, more transactional, and perhaps more difficult.”

Shashi Tharoor, an Indian member of Parliament and former minister of state, questioned whether the move was a “nail in the coffin” for the Quad, the four-country grouping made up of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.

The Pentagon has given no indication that the change reflects any downgrading of ties with India.

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore on May 30, 2026. Edgar Su/Reuters

In remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last month, Hegseth described India as “a critical anchor to hold the line” and praised the country’s military modernization efforts and growing defense-industrial cooperation with the United States.

“We’ve also committed to pursuing co-production with India to advance capabilities like Javelin anti-tank guided munitions,” Hegseth said, describing the moves as among a number of “real tangible steps to improve the collective readiness” of U.S. forces.

While the practical implications of the name change seem limited, the decision reverses what was widely seen as a visible symbolic shift in U.S. regional strategy rather than a mere bureaucratic adjustment when the 2018 switch was made.

Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced the change during a command transition ceremony in Hawaii, saying it reflected the “increasing connectivity” between the Indian and Pacific oceans and underscored Washington’s commitment to the broader Indo-Pacific region.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense General Jim Mattis speaks at a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York on Sept. 9, 2019. Gary He/Reuters

At the time, Mattis described the Indo-Pacific as a region stretching “from Hollywood to Bollywood” and highlighted the growing importance of the Indian Ocean to U.S. strategic planning.

Describing the 2018 National Defense Strategy as a “roadmap for the American military,” Mattis said at the time that the strategy “acknowledges the Pacific challenges and signals America’s resolve and lasting commitment to the Indo-Pacific.”

The Trump administration’s 2026 National Defense Strategy repeatedly refers to the “Indo-Pacific” and identifies deterring China in the region as one of the military’s primary objectives. The document describes the Indo-Pacific as the world’s largest and most dynamic economic area and calls for maintaining a favorable balance of power there.

Buildings and structures sit on an artificial island built by China in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea on Oct. 25, 2022. Ezra Acayan/Getty Images

“We will deter China in the Indo-Pacific through strength, not confrontation,” Hegseth wrote in the document, which further states that the U.S. military would act to support “strategic stability” with Beijing while focusing on “deconfliction and de-escalation.”

“But we will also be clear-eyed and realistic about the speed, scale, and quality of China’s historic military buildup,” the 2026 strategy states. “Our goal in doing so is not to dominate China; nor is it to strangle or humiliate them. Rather, our goal is simple: To prevent anyone, including China, from being able to dominate us or our allies.”

American craft brewers produced roughly 22 million barrels of beer in 2025, the equivalent of more than 7 billion 12-ounce cans. That output is concentrated in a few key states.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, shows the barrels of craft beer produced in every U.S. state in 2025, based on data from the Brewers Association.

Figures reflect the association’s June 2026 revision and cover all 50 states plus Washington, D.C.

To count as craft, a brewery must produce no more than 6 million barrels per year and be less than 25% owned by a large alcohol company. One barrel equals 31 gallons, or roughly 330 twelve-ounce cans.

California Brews Nearly One in Every Six U.S. Craft Beers

California tops the nation with 3.45 million barrels of craft beer brewed in 2025. The state’s 939 craft breweries are also the most in the country, well ahead of second-place Pennsylvania’s 538.

Pennsylvania ranks second in volume at 2.0 million barrels, with much of that total coming from Yuengling, America’s oldest operating brewery, founded in 1829, and its largest craft brewer by volume.

The data table below shows each state’s total production of craft beer in 2025 in barrels:

Rank	State	Barrels of Craft Beer Produced (2025)
1	California	3,450,329
2	Pennsylvania	2,004,382
3	Texas	1,422,277
4	Ohio	1,298,489
5	New York	1,281,220
6	Florida	1,153,556
7	Oregon	1,109,391
8	Colorado	854,707
9	Massachusetts	812,974
10	North Carolina	772,964
11	Wisconsin	609,271
12	Georgia	601,462
13	Washington	533,296
14	Minnesota	466,625
15	Connecticut	450,232
16	Illinois	409,589
17	Vermont	357,138
18	Virginia	342,075
19	Maine	338,405
20	Missouri	284,297
21	Michigan	267,660
22	Arizona	229,212
23	Indiana	222,088
24	Montana	216,992
25	Delaware	186,803
26	Hawaii	179,149
27	Maryland	176,644
28	Tennessee	174,083
29	New Jersey	161,094
30	Louisiana	155,643
31	Iowa	134,108
32	Alaska	133,395
33	New Mexico	132,852
34	South Carolina	125,086
35	Kentucky	121,865
36	Utah	102,241
37	New Hampshire	88,320
38	Alabama	80,869
39	Arkansas	71,520
40	Oklahoma	69,318
41	Idaho	64,945
42	Wyoming	63,130
43	Rhode Island	59,768
44	Nevada	54,683
45	Nebraska	46,358
46	Kansas	35,059
47	District of Columbia	30,036
48	West Virginia	21,562
49	South Dakota	21,183
50	North Dakota	19,051
51	Mississippi	18,262

In total, seven states: California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, New York, Florida, and Oregon, each brewed more than 1 million barrels in 2025. Together, they accounted for 53% of all U.S. craft beer production.

At the other end of the list, Mississippi brewed 18,262 barrels of craft beer in 2025, the least of any state.

Big States’ Beer Brewing and What Defines Craft

Population explains much of the order, as the four most populous states, California, Texas, Florida, and New York, all rank in the top six, but not all of it. Ohio’s 1.3 million barrels edge out far larger New York and Florida, while Illinois, the sixth-most populous state, ranks just 16th at 409,589 barrels.

Smaller states punch above their weight, too: Vermont, the second-smallest state by population, brewed 357,138 barrels in 2025, out-brewing far larger Virginia and Michigan, with Maine close behind at 338,405. Demand varies just as much as supply, with Americans’ alcohol spending per capita differing widely from state to state.

Because the Brewers Association’s definition hinges on independent ownership, state totals can shift when breweries change hands. Colorado’s New Belgium Brewing, in 2019, and Michigan’s Bell’s Brewery, in 2021, were both acquired by Lion, a subsidiary of Japan’s Kirin. This moved their volumes out of the craft column and dented both states’ totals.

That helps explain why Michigan’s 410 craft breweries produced just 268,660 barrels in 2025, ranking the state 21st by volume.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Which States Have the Most Breweries Per Person? on Voronoi.

 

By Sebastian Obando of ConstructionDive

Amazon will invest $10 billion to build a data center campus in Montgomery County, Missouri, Gov. Mike Kehoe announced Monday. In addition to facility construction, the development includes roads and water infrastructure improvements, such as a new bridge over theNorfolk Southern Railway and a water system Amazon plans to transfer to the local utility after construction, according to the tech giant.

The announcement adds yet another multibillion-dollar data center project to the construction pipeline, a sign the data center construction boom has room to run.

The $10 billion Amazon investment highlights the growing role of hyperscale developers in overall U.S. construction activity. 

Once complete, the campus will support cloud computing infrastructure and generate hundreds of millions in property tax revenue for Montgomery County over the next 25 years, according to the release. Amazon also worked with Ameren Missouri, the local utility company, to ensure the project bears the full cost of connecting to the electric grid, the tech giant said.

The commitment also emphasizes how these builds often carry supplementary community projects. For example, Amazon plans over $7 million in community contributions as part of its investment, according to the company. That includes $3 million toward public safety infrastructure, as well as several roadway improvements and a new bridge.

“Projects like this create lasting benefits for local communities by supporting critical infrastructure improvements, generating tax revenue for schools and public services, and strengthening the foundation for future economic growth,” said Kehoe in the release.

In addition to the infrastructure upgrades in the area, Amazon will sponsor the community’s Montgomery County Fair. The company will commit over $1 million to build a new large-scale community gathering space at the fairgrounds, according to the governor’s release.

Amazon will also invest more than $3 million in community programs focused on STEM education, skills development, sustainability and support for local nonprofit organizations, the announcement said. 

“Amazon’s announcement in Montgomery County is a testament to what can be accomplished through strong collaboration and a shared commitment to growth,” said Michelle Hataway, director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development, in the release. “This project will help strengthen the region’s capacity for future development while reinforcing Missouri’s position as a destination for innovation and investment.”

These days more than ever, it often feels like there’s no end to bad news.

In the age of social media and constant exposure to news, doom scrolling can take a heavy toll on people’s mental wellbeing.

As a consequence, more and more people actively try to avoid the news or at least limit their exposure to it.

As Statista's Felix Richter shows in the chart below, according to the Reuters Institute’s latest Digital News Report, an average of 42 percent of respondents from 48 countries included in the survey said that they sometimes or often actively avoid the news, a significant increase from 29 percent in 2017, when the question was first asked.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Selective news avoidance, as the Reuters Institute calls it, became significantly more widespread across all markets in recent years, with half of all respondents from the United Kingdom and 45 percent of U.S. respondents making an effort to reduce their news intake.

The Reuters Institute finds that news avoidance is often linked with low trust in the news and that there are generally two types of news avoiders: consistent avoiders who typically have low education levels and little to no interest in the news; and selective avoiders who struggle with news overload and try to insulated themselves from certain topic to protect their mental wellbeing.