1. That is one of the worst articles in the history of articles. They must have published it without ever actually reading it. Or maybe they just write articles with bots theses days, and figure out that the words “nuclear” and “fire” trends well so a computer puts together a Franken-article of half-truths.

    It directly contradicts itself. Words can not express just how bad that article is. For heaven’s sake, could they not have looked at the Wikipedia article, that has the distinction written all over it between the nuclear and coal units. Obviously not because of the continued and intentional use of the title “Crystal River nuclear plant”.

    My hope for mankind has been degraded from reading that article. My desire to live is less after reading the article. Every time I read it I feel like a piece of my soul has gone missing. How can people can so neglect in writing just 4 paragraphs? How?

  2. We can’t count on journalist to fact check even the most basic concepts about energy production. More evidence towards the need for large scale public outreach and education about nuclear energy.

  3. Sadly, a typically poor article. I detect hints that the headline has been juiced up from “power plant” to “nuclear plant”, at the cost of rendering the article incomprehensible in terms of getting real informaiton out – for example, is it the coal unit or the nuclear unit that they are referring to in the final sentence, “It’s unclear when the unit will be back online”?

    I really find it hard to believe that the unnecessary outage at the Crystal River NPP is ongoing a year later. The delamination in the wall that is described would have negligible impact in terms of either structural integrity or containment. The concrete wall isn’t the pressure containment, and delamination does not alter radiation shielding if needed. Please correct me if I have this wrong, because I have no idea why the nuclear plant is still down.

  4. Perhaps some of you should read “Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate Change Pol;icy Analysis”, by Pail J. Meier. http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf

    The document assumes NO recycling of spent nuclear fuel, thus, a 10 to 20 fold reduction of CO2 could be realized for nuclear generated electricity.

  5. Question for Rod:
    Any Rebuttals to Keven Kamps interview by Karl Grossman on Enviro Close-up TV. From what authority does Kamps speak and what are his credentials as a radioactive waste specialist for Beyond Nuclear. I don’t buy what he is selling. A local environmentalists group here in FL is featuring that interview at their meeting next Wed 26th. It seems like someone should initiate a defense of nuclear power against that video.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts