I appreciate being cited here, but the application of the citation isn't relevant. My blog post on "baloney detection" for new nuclear builds relates to the economic basis for the project.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/10/baloney-detection-for-nuclear-new.htmlThat's why the first example in my blog post is a penny stock outfit that until only this past January was not even registered with the SEC, but claimed to be engaged in building a 1,600 MW nuclear power plant in Idaho. That's baloney.
My essay does not address environmental issues. However, as far as wetlands are concerned, readers of this forum need to consider the size of the cooling pond to be used by the twin AP1000 reactor plant. It will be measured in 1,000s of acres and will recharge the aquifer at a far higher rate than the 800 or so acres of wetlands that will be lost.
The issue of Construction While in Progress is a reasonable approach to financing new nuclear reactors if the Public Utilities Commission is independent and conducts effective oversight of cost recovery claims. Instead of attacking the reactor, or other large energy generation projects, you need to focus on the quality of government you want to work for your interests.
One way or the other, Florida will need new baseload electricity generation capacity and you cannot supply it with wind or solar. If you do not build nuclear you are left with choices for natural gas or coal. Both contribute to global warming.
Either way people living in Florida are going to want their air conditioning and flat panel TVs. The question is what's at the other end of socket supplying the electricity.