Protesters Shut Down Washington Citibank Branch with Anti-Coal Message

Bringing to a dramatic close the successful POWERSHIFT 2007 conference in Washington, D.C., hundreds of youth and community members converged on a downtown branch of the financial giant Citibank yesterday. In a unique "direct action," they dumped a half-ton of coal on the doorsteps of Citibank.

A delegation of coal-field residents and students went inside to denounce Citibank’s investments to their customers and employees. Out in the street, hundreds of youth began coughing violently, with a massive “die-in” surrounding the bank that shut down them down for the rest of the day.

Looks like it won't be the last.

Comments

Stewart Peterson said…

And right next to it is an anti-nuclear poll.

I don't think I'd want to celebrate these people's victories in place of an independent capability to do the same things.

November 7, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Eric McErlain said…

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 7, 2007 at 6:34 AM

Eric McErlain said…

I'm not celebrating anything. What I am doing is passing along information that I think is relevant to our audience.

November 7, 2007 at 6:36 AM

Anonymous said…

One item I find interesting is that they are no longer giving coal the free pass they did when I was in college.

Now they must do the numbers and see the real problem with trying to simultaneously eliminate carbon and nuclear. Renewables and efficiency may help, but they will not provide the entire solution.

But, of course, I am "preaching to the choir" on this...

November 7, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Don Thieme said…

Thanks for the plug! I actually knew about this because some of my students went up to the Power Shift rally. None of my students were among the "dead," though.

November 15, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog