Someone didn't actually read the article, dang op. You can do better.
It's not that the power plant depended on the weather, but rather that the river life depended on not being boiled alive. Just like a coal or gas power plant, water is needed for cooling, which means the waste heats ends up in a nearby river.
But unlike coal or gas, nuclear doesn't also produce a tonne of carbon dioxide. And oddly enough, a coal power plant would be more radioactive than a nuclear plant.
I think it's more akin to a "get guns ez pz" article. Even if most people can get them, a lot of people don't because it's a hassle. But to be fair, if it's public information then heck, it was only a matter of time until there was a website making it ez pz.
That's not this article's fault. And some important context I managed to miss at first :/
Ye I expect so, I don't like the way this author just doesn't bother explaining her points. She just states that she disagrees and says they should be left to their own rules.
Which is probably fine, but that's just lazy or she's not mentioning the difference for another reason
She names Trump's points explicitly, but doesn't go beyond "the best practices of this and that institution".
I can't say they're wrong, I expect a scientific institution to have some integrity to say the least. But either she's too lazy to look them up, or she's not quoting any for a different reason
Why did firefox kill pwa support on desktop?