This went around work about a month ago (I'm in the biz). Not even the folks here beleive everything he wrote. But still, fun read.
Since I am not in the biz can you be more specific about which parts are not believable? It seemed like a pretty reasonable and logical argument for the use of nuclear energy.
To avoid turning into a douchebag, I'll give someone else the opportunity to step in and answer this (possibly only after reading the article). The difference between that someone else and me would be their desire to get into an argument.
If nobody steps up, I'll see what I can come up with.
While not looking to get into an argument I also am in the nuclear business (I've worked at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for 24 years). His article seems a bit too light handed on a few issues such as
The replaced rods will be removed and transferred to a storage pool inside the containment structure, where they can remain indefinitely (three feet of water blocks the radiation)
err I wouldn't go near an expended fuel rod that was shielded by only 3 feet of water! Ours are under 27 feet and there are numerous design elements that go into that figure. He is also pretty offhand on the issue of recycling the fuel, while it is true that much of an expended fuel rod is reusable, getting it out isn't an easy task. He ignores low level radioactive waste (a big cost for us to dispose of) and is wrong when stating there isn't any discharge to the environment.
There is no release into the environment. The fuel rods come out looking exactly as they did going in, except that they are now more highly radioactive. There is no air pollution, no water pollution, and no ground pollution.
Actually there is some release of radioactive gas and liquid to the environment during normal operation and while his comment about the fuel rods is correct (except they aren't as shiny anymore) his statement that they are "now more highly radioactive" is an understatement, they are now lethal if you get anywhere near one, say 3 feet from one even if it is underwater. There are many many safeguards to prevent that from occuring but you can't just disregard it with an off hand comment.
I guess the overall tone of his lecture was too light on the difficulties and downsides of nuclear power in order to make his point. I support the business but people really should be told the reality of it.