Talk:Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant

Wattage

Why not say 1.27 Gigawatts, instead of 1,270 Megawatts? - MSTCrow 19:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's usually just done that way. It makes sense when you're expecting to see 600 MWe plants as well. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting information about the actual environmental impacts of the Seabrook plant, but leaving in a misleading comparison to a coal-fired plant, which was never planned for Seabrook nor ever existed. One might as well compare it to a gas-fired power plant, or conservation measures. But such comparisons still say *nothing* about the actual impacts of the plant. I have added information about the seawater temperature and processing impacts, but they immediately get deleted. They, however, are true impacts, not misleading comparisons. I think this section/entry should be locked and sent to an arbitrator. Hmarcuse 07:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding. You gave NO source for the "processing impacts," you know why? Because it's a COMPLETE fabrication. I can't even find something saying that when I try. No reliable source anywhere says that nuclear power contributes more to climate change than fossil units, what you posted about chlorfluorocarbons with enrichment is simply false science. I don't know if you read it somewhere or just made it up yourself, either way it's a simple fabrication. And like I said, it shouldn't even go here if it's not in Uranium enrichment. Go ahead and ask for an arbitrator, see if I care, you're a troll. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)