The claim that this plant could be replaced by wind and solar is a flat out lie.

Every wind and solar advocate becomes, whether they know it or not, a shill for the natural gas industry.

Natural gas is the most dangerous fuel in common use, mostly because people think it is clean, or at least "better than coal," and it supports their solar and wind fantasies.

Without fossil fuel "backup power," which inevitably isn't backup power at all, but primary power, wind and solar power are not economically viable.

Any numerate person who can read a graph can see why why wind and solar power cannot and will not displace fossil fuels here:

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

Using this openly available real world data one can model any sort of renewable energy "utopia" one likes, and none of them are pretty.

I used to be an anti-nuclear activist, and I protested the construction of this plant. I was only a few feet away from Jerry Brown when he declared "No new nukes!" in California (meaning after this one...)

I've since changed my opinion. Nuclear power is the only energy resource that can displace fossil fuels entirely, which is something we must do.

I DO agree with a court mandated inspection - if the claim is true that nothing has been done in 20 yrs - but a shutdown?!?

Childish demands...

That being said the reactor near my old home came close to a shutdown event for lack of maintenance:

No, I did not.

...and it seems that the death toll associated with the fear of radiation, rather than the radiation itself, was much higher.

It appears, for all the coal, gas, and oil burned to power computers to carry on about Fukushima endlessly, the waste of which surely killed people, that radiation exposure has not been identified as a major cause of death.

Comparison of mortality patterns after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant radiation disaster and during the COVID-19 pandemic Motohiro Tsuboi et al 2022 J. Radiol. Prot. 42 031502

Beese Davis saved human lives in the event by preventing the release of highly toxic fossil fuel waste directly into the environment.

The success of antinuke ignorance at causing climate change and death is directly tied to blank suppositions about would could have happened over what is happening.

I am personally disgusted that we live in a culture where what is happening is outweighed by tortured imaginations of what could have happened but didn't happen.

The attitude is deadly.

It is extremely dubious to assume that if Beese Davis failed that Lake Erie would have been rendered undrinkable. It would be more interesting if people were as concerned about the concentration of mercury, lead, and other heavy metals.

One can read all about what is happening in the Great Lakes from things that have nothing to do with nuclear power and everything to do with industrial processes, including electricity generation by coal, in many places, but here's just one:

A Review of Heavy Metals Contamination Within the Laurentian Great Lakes.

If we were really concerned about risks to water quality in the Great Lakes we would build more nuclear plants in the Midwest.

This is an issue of corporate maintenance expense to the reactor and the lack of governmental regulations, not the technology. Not to mention, the drinking water intake for Toledo is only a mile or so from the reactor, so there's that from my point of view...

They did have a tritium leak at one point, but again, we've spoken to how little risk that is to anyone.

My maternal family are in the UP (near the large peninsula in Lake Superior), and I know the heavy metals issue well as a fisherman. It's really God's country up there. I love the link, it's always good to keep up with these things.

See the post about restarting the reactor in SW Michigan?

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-nuclear-plant-restart-276a7d06e639d66d434e393b42b4d392

Can you imagine what would happen if that reactor was to go Fuku?

Please do the research to see the differences.

DCPP provides 1/10 of the state's electrical power, we need to keep it online.

...inspection delayed for 20 YEARS?!?!?

Of course shut it down immediately, and then inspect it immediately, and if it needs any work done to pass the inspection, do that immediately and get it back up and running as safely as possible!

Nuclear power could help tremendously with the transition away from fossil fuels, the LAST thing we need right now is an avoidable accident to crush any hope of using nuclear along with every other non-CO2 emitting energy source to stop CO2 emissions.

I attend a ton of meetings that relate to power generation of all sorts.

The number of "sky is falling", "no way never nuclear" voices has been declining over the years, largely because the science tells us that nuclear power is an essential tool in combating climate change.

If one of the reactor vessels needs to be inspected, I'll be it can be done without shutting it down. I suspect these two groups would find some other excuse to try to close down the plant.

I'm sure the concerns are "grave", I doubt that there's much about which to worry. The spent fuel is stored well back from the plant on site, the plant itself is considerably higher than sea level, and the extended duration for operations is essential to our meeting the goal of electrification of our vehicle fleet.

You can't just dump 1/10 of our power supply and not expect to replace it with more natural gas plants.

So, that's my two cents.

I've been an Inspector at Nuclear Plants and Nuclear repair shops for over 30 years. If you actually BELIEVE climate change represents TEOTWAWKI, then you should support building Nuclear Plants like there's no tomorrow.