Skip to main content

AAEA President and Son Booted From Climate Conference

By Eric McErlain
Here's an incredible story: After attending the Southeast Convergence for Climate Action for a full two days, Norris McDonald, head of the African-American Environmentalist Association, and his son Sandy were asked to leave the event by conference organizers. Click here for the whole story.

In the meantime, here's a video clip of McDonald's son, Sandy, describing how he felt about getting booted from the meeting:

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Anti-nukes being racist? Well, I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.

/sarc
August 15, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said…
In all the time that I was protesting the construction of the Seabrook nuclear power plant 1975-1990, one of the very few pro-nuke rallies ever held at the construction site was by the real Ku Klux Klan. Great photographs.

gunter
August 16, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Steve Packard said…
I think that says a lot about the "environmental" movement. They're anti-nuclear by religion. They don't like nuclear energy as it is. They don't want to consider the possibility that it could be something useful. They don't even want to entertain the thought.

If you came out and said "We just discovered a way to produce limitless energy from hydrogen-1 nuclear fusion" it would not matter, because it has the word "nuclear" in it.

That's just unacceptable. If they disagree in the end, fine. But if you actually cared about the environment then you'd want to at least consider all options and let them stand on their won merit.

Or... am I missing something?
August 16, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Anonymous said…
Stephen,

What it says is that we are consistent.

You did miss something... several somethings,actually, but how about just as there was no scientifically approved long term management for high level radioactive waste in 1975 there is still no scientifically accepted plan for long term management. So it should not have been commercialized then and it certainly should not be commercially expanded today without a proven management plan.

gunter
August 16, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Anonymous said…
While I am impressed that the climate youth movement is focusing on banning coal, it still appears that they have not come to terms with what is needed to replace fossil fuels. I hear them advocate solar and wind comibned with an advanced grid. However, they have not shown that this is the least cost way of getting rid of the carbon.
August 20, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Anonymous said…
I find highly insulting Mr. McDonald's ASSUMPTION that the anti-nuclear activists were racists, based solely on his past experience with other antinuclear activists. Isn't that the definition of "prejudice" -- to pre-judge someone because you know what "these people" are like?
August 21, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more