The majority of public interest and environmental groups are adamantly opposed to nuclear power. Over 300
national, state, and local organizations have endorsed a statement clearly outlining why nuclear power is not
a viable solution to global warming. Major objections attend the use of water for cooling nuclear plants and
disposal of residues containing hazardous wastes.
According to the draft NUREG - 1941 DEIS, the two nuclear units proposed for Levy County will require 126
mgd, taken from Gulf waters via the barge canal and returned thereto by a pipeline. The uptake from the
Floridan Aquifer to dilute the cooled water before discharge could become a serious issue, depleting fresh
water supplies needed by nearby spring out–flows (into the Rainbow and Crystal River systems) hazarding
the economic health of communities which depend upon those sources of fresh water.
Creating secure islands for the two reactor sites by penetrating the aquifer 100 feet to dewater two
seventy million cubic foot enclosures to be sealed with high pressure grout pumped to seal off water ingress
seems to be a most daunting feat. Such sealing cannot be 100% and water taken from enclosures can only re-penetrate
the aquifer. Moreover, the composition of the grout is not known and the degree of pollution to the aquifer
cannot be assessed. Positioning the foundations of two reactor buildings deep into the aquifer must disrupt
traditional aquifer flow paths with indeterminate consequences to surrounding environment.
Withdrawing the cooling waters from the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) will ensure that it becomes
completely saline. Not only will that allow seepage into groundwater over time, contrary to the original
intention for abandoning the CFBC venture and the conveying of the CFBC to the state of Florida, but this will
also precipitate salt drift onto the lands, permeating into the groundwater used for drinking and domestic
Destruction of sea grass habitat both offshore and in the rivers by the discharge of toxic blowdown water
will raise ambient water temperature adversely and spill pollutants that harm the marine food web upon
which so many depend.
The ecological damage caused by 180 miles of transmission line corridors extending across Florida is both
deplorable and very costly.
The high rising capital and unit costs of nuclear power render it unsustainable. The latest DOE EIA capital
cost for the LNP (2010) is $22.5billion, or $0.28 per kWh using the Craig A. Severance model. Giving a total
consumer cost of $0.36 per kWh - as opposed to the basic $0.0688 today, a factor of 5.23 times.
Nuclear power will only become more polluting in the future since increased nuclear production will
decrease the supply of high–grade uranium and much more energy is required to enrich uranium at lower
grades. At the same time, the International Atomic Energy Agency has already acknowledged that current uranium
resources are not sufficient to meet increased demand in the future. A report from The Oxford Research Group
predicts that in 45 to 70 years, nuclear energy will emit more carbon dioxide than gas–fired electricity
Good quality groundwater is fast becoming a scarce resource.
The emission of Tritium, Strontium 90 and other radionuclides into the environment with risks of cancer,
birth defects and genetic damage in humans poses a significant health risk. See page on Radioactive
Water and the "Braidwood and Dresden Nuclear Power Plants" News
Item (March 2, 2009). This becomes a most serious risk when a plant's geographic site within porous
aquifer systems allows contaminated water, to seep into the aquifer such that ground water flows contaminate
domestic and drinking water wells supplying an entire population segment. The population of Citrus County is
thus exposed to Progress Energy's nuclear facilities proposed for Levy County.
Increased risks of nuclear weapon proliferation, safety hazards and security against terrorist attacks pose
security risks for years to come.
See also Nuclear Energy, Community Health View.