You assert that an article of this nature needs to be "professional", why is that ? It was written for the great mass of laypeople that (supposedly) holds the power over our nuclear future. It is intended to challenge the ongoing anti-nuclear narrative and re-educate. It achieves those aims admirably.
While your criticisms may be arguably valid for a different audience they are irrelevant here.
I didn't mean to downvote you but accidentally clicked on the button and can't go back.
However, I do disagree with your point. I'm pro-nuclear to the degree that it's economical, and found the article to be somewhat insipid due to grandparent's reasons.
Just as there are plenty of people that are irrationally anti-nuclear, being irrationally pro-nuclear is no better at all.
What qualifies as "irrationally" pro-nuclear seems to depend on what time horizon you are using, the same as whether or not it seems rational to dump money into NASA.
While your criticisms may be arguably valid for a different audience they are irrelevant here.