Skip to main content

Mr. Burns Makes Surprise Appearance in D.C.

By
Working in Washington, D.C., I’ve become very accustomed to seeing street protests of all types and sizes. From the big, inflatable scary rat that pops up on a sidewalk, to construction workers chanting and banging on drums, to the truckers of America riding on Independence Avenue honking their horns, there’s always a little something for anyone who is ready, willing and able to protest.
So, when I saw this little nugget in last Monday’s Politico Morning Energy, I got very excited to see what the day would hold:
Noon - The group Beyond Nuclear holds a Halloween event in front of DOE headquarters to protest federal support for nuclear power. Costumes and street theater have been promised.
Costumes? Street theater? What more could a girl want on Halloween?
Well ... exactly that!
BeyondNuclearProtestDOE_10-31-11
The group was not as organized as one might think. Other than “Mr. Burns” speaking into a camera, I’d call the “Scream Rally” a poor showing at best.
But, Beyond Nuclear, the proud organizers of this event, still heralded it a “screaming” success (pardon the pun) in their weekly newsletter.
Staff from Beyond Nuclear along with representatives from Pax Christi and other organizations were at the DOE on the last day of public comment on the [blue ribbon] commission’s draft report.
I’m guessing several of the “representatives” had to call in sick to the rally given that Halloween fell on a Monday and they probably had to do their day jobs. Regardless, the poorly attended rally did give “Mr. Burns” the platform he needed to voice his opinions on nuclear energy.
image
I guess I’ll have to stay tuned for the next “protest” to grace D.C. streets.
Photo of Beyond Nuclear protestors in front of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Forrestal building.
Labels:

Comments

Joffan said…
I always hope for good arguments from my opponents. I am rarely obliged with such on nuclear power matters. Argument-from-cartoon is, unfortunately, about par.
November 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM
D Pulaski said…
It's right up there with the people dressed as zombies at the TVA hearing to restart Bellefonte.
November 8, 2011 at 10:37 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