This morning in Richmond, Virginia, twelve activists from Blue Ridge Earth First! were arrested while participating in a blockade of the Dominion property on Tredegar Street. The blockade was to protest the development of Dominion’s coal-fired power plant in Wise County, VA and the construction of new reactors at the Lake Anna nuclear facility. If you want to see what went down, here are photographs of the action.
Protesters called for conservation, efficiency and investment in renewable sources of energy rather than in coal and nuclear investments. All involved in the blockade and ground support were arrested and are being held by Richmond City Police. They are in need of contributions to release those being held. If you feel able to contribute funds to aid in bailing out these young activists, you can donate via PayPal (send donation to Drumplaya112@yahoo.com), or you can send checks to:
BREF! Care of Hannah Morgan
1226 Stonegate Way Crozet, Virginia 22932
Below is the press release sent to local media:
Early this morning activists with Blue Ridge Earth First! (BREF!) and Mountain Justice (MJ) blockaded the entrance to Dominion’s corporate headquarters on Tredegar St. in Downtown Richmond. They are protesting Dominion’s promotion of new coal and nuclear facilities as solutions to climate change. The blockade consists of four activists locked to a weighted barrel and a fifth suspended above the road.
While other states like Florida, Kansas and Texas have canceled plans for new coal plants, Dominion plans to begin construction this week on a new, 585 MW plant in Wise County, Virginia.
“Accelerating the rate of mountaintop removal mining to supply the citizens of Virginia with dirty energy is an irresponsible use of the most valuable resources of this Commonwealth. This is an issue of environmental destruction and a crime against public health. Dominion should further conservation and efficiency measures and develop solar, wind, and other renewable sources of power in order to do justice to the land and the people of Virginia.”
This blockade is the latest action from BREF! and MJ in the campaign against the new, coal plant in St. Paul, Va, and a direct response to last week’s decision from the Citizen’s Air Control Board to approve the final two permits required for Dominion to begin construction.
While the Air Board reduced the permitted emissions of Dominion’s proposed plant, its members declined to address pressing issues raised by over a hundred concerned Virginians at the June 24 hearing.
BREF! and Mountain Justice hold that when corporations, politicians, and regulatory agencies risk the health of communities for the sake of profit, measures beyond the accepted political avenues must be used to ensure environmental justice. Non-violent civil disobedience, like today’s, is an important part of citizen action to better our world.
Already, strip mining and mountaintop removal mining for coal have permanently razed over 25% of Wise County VA’s land mass. The practice has buried over 1,200 miles of headwater streams across Appalachia, leaving leveled mountains and poisoned communities. BREF! and MJ see the Dominion plant as a direct threat to the people and mountains of Appalachia.
Today’s action is also in protest of Dominion’s plans to expand their nuclear facilities at the North Anna plant in Louisa Co., VA. Both nuclear and “clean coal” are false solutions to the specter of global climate chaos. The impact of uranium mining, radioactive waste disposal, and nuclear plant operations on communities across the Southeast are unacceptable trade-offs for the continuation of business as usual energy policy. Renewable, decentralized energy, efficiency, and conservation are the real solutions to climate change that must be pursued by Dominion, Virginia, and the United States.
BREF! And MJS are dedicated to holding the blockade until Dominion agrees to build no new nuclear facilities, to halt construction of the Wise Co. plant, and cease burning MTR coal in existing plants.
Thanks to Hilary Lufkin for the majority of this content.
Contacts:
Hannah Morgan, 434-960-2080
Hilary Lufkin, 804-357-4826
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
NICE!
While it’s great that these youth are choosing to participate instead of sitting on the sidelines, it’s quite sad that they are being misinformed about the MVP in the fight against global warming. As for coal, I can’t defend it. Even if all of the SOx, NOx, and mercury could be filtered out, the CO2 is still a problem. And even if the CO2 could be sequestered, the destructions of mountains is still a problem. And even if the destructions of mountains wasn’t necessary…
Hmmm… Well. That’s two impossible things, now isn’t it.
But what about nuclear power? It’s as if they went down there to protest the new coal facility and some anti-nuke posted a sticky-note on their cause which said, “Oh, by the way No New Nukes either.”
And why not? Has commercial nuclear power killed even one person in the United States? In a cost per kilowatt hour scenario, is not among the lowest cost producers? When compared to all other sources of baseload electrical generation is it not among the lowest CO2 emitters? I’m talking life-cycle emissions, not just production.
And the waste? Considering that the tiny amount that it generates and the ability to recycle it, I’d say that waste is one of the best things going for nuclear energy.
Go Blue ridge Earth Firsters!
Responding to Michael above, Nuclear Power has indeed been relatively safe for a few decades now. However, that has a lot to do with public reaction to some well-publicized accidents back in the 1970’s and 1980’s. If we go hog wild about building plants with no safeguards, we are going to wind up with a mess on our hands. Another concern is going to be disposing of the waste, which is far more serious in terms of contamination than any of the hazardous chemical waste associated with fossil fuel energy sources.
I am proud of what these very brave activists have done and so I am very hesitant to make any criticisms. However, the first rule of an action is to make it SPECIFIC. Stick with the coal plant OR the nukes, but not both in the same action.
“If we go hog wild”… “with no safeguards”
Please.
Nuclear power is the most regulated source of power in the United States. As a result of previous “hog wild” mentalities, there is a federal inspector on site each and every day at EVERY nuclear site in the United States. That’s like driving around with a state trooper in your car.
Existing plants have many redundant safety systems and a containment structure that can withstand the impact of a fully loaded 747. And the coming generation of nuclear stations have benefitted from decades of engineering, making them far safer than the existing ones.
As for the waste, what do you mean that it’s “far more serious in terms of contamination”?
Each and every time you eat a fish out of the ocean, you’re consuming mercury. So much in fact, that pregnant women are encouraged to limit their intake of seafood. And where do you think that mercury comes from? It’s a direct proportion to coal burning.
People living near nuclear power stations are enjoying clean air. And the waste from over 30 years of commercial operation is safely contained and stored on site. The “contamination” you’re referring to is a result of Department of Defense sites - NOT commercial nuclear power.
BIG difference.
Don, we have a serious problem on our hands. The US will have a shortage of electricity as soon as 2010 in some areas of the country - especially the north east. We need conservation and renewables, but with an expanding population that is relying more and more on electricity coupled with the need to remove many of the dirtiest coal power plants from the grid (not to mention plug-in hybrid electric cars), we’re going to need new electrical generation. If people spread unfounded fear about nuclear energy, they’re not doing anyone any favors.
Michael -
A lot of activists are not only interested in making the largest amount of 24/7 power with the least impact. Many of the activists I have encountered are also very interested in using the changes in energy technology to foster social change. The issues of energy technology vs social change certainly will have an impact on the carbon debate. Sounds like a good topic for our friend Rod Adams.
In the meantime Michael, have a great July 4.
Thanks Robert.
I’d encourage you or anyone else here to take a tour of North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Unit one just celebrated its 30th anniversary of supplying clean and reliable, 24/7 power to the state of Virginia. And all of the waste (what little there is of it) is packaged neatly on site, ready for recycling.
Thanks again, and happy Independence Day to you too!
Why is it that folks who like keeping an atom bomb on a leash in the midst of their community — 24 /7 (when its running) making billions of times more radioactivity than the uranium was sitting in the ground — get so high and mighty about it?
Nuclear power has killed people in the US — we are having a cancer epidemic — how much of it is due to nukes? Prove that none of it is! Every radiation dose carries the risk of fatal cancer — even doses so small they do not register! Risk means there is a hazard. The radiation standards in this country are a “grand bargain” that essentially allows a cancer “bag limit” on us — with no enforcement! Yes coal kills — and yes, nukes kill too.
And that waste — nuclear power makes more than 95% of the radioactivity in all the waste in the US — nuclear weapons and all other industrial, research and medicine combined is less than 5% of the radioactivity — this waste is the PRIMARY, enduring product of that atom bomb with the clutch… and will “bless” the next 11,000 generations to come…essentially a new body burden for this Blue Planet. The waste is also thermally hot, has to be stored in liquid for at least 5 years.
Folks can claim that it is “recyclable” but only 1% of that highly radioactive used fuel rod is re-usable — and that is PLUTONIUM — yes indeed folks — if re-used as fuel it is twice as deadly in the event of an accident(Mixed Oxide, MOX — is North Anna still under DOE contract to take experimental plutonium fuel?). Other wise that plutonium is ready to roll for anyone who wants to make a nuclear bomb. Is the commercialization of plutonium the “model” that the USA wants to give the world as we are teetering on the brink of a total loss of any semblance of nuclear non-proliferation — heading for a nuclearization of the Middle East?
Really, think about — ! And that other 99% of the really hot fuel rod? Well, its still waste — only now liquid and caustic and a huge hassle! France and England have dumped large percentages of this into the ocean — contaminating the Irish sea and from Burgundy up to Scandinavia — talk about contamination — don’t eat Lobster from those areas — or hang too long on the beach! French children who hang on the beaches near the French “recycle” site have 4x more leukemia.
In contrast — concentrating solar energy is poised and ready to go at $3000 an installed KW while nuclear is at $7500 per installed KW and rising. No additional fuel costs for solar — and much lower insurance — and no need to worry about airplanes or other assaults! What have we got to loose, except maybe a little nuclear arrogance! Check out A Solar Grand Plan — January Sci Am on-line at:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
This article busts the myth of “baseload” — the sun is 24/7 — just the rotation of the planet means that we must get smart and store power!
Since most uranium comes from outside the USA — it is solar that will give us a true Energy Independence Day! Let’s stop this quibbling about poisons and work together for a really healthy really green future that does PUT EARTH FIRST! — GO BREF!
If the doses from the nuclear industry are truly causing large numbers of measurable cancers, then places such as Kerala India should see even larger numbers as the background radiation doses are ~3 rem (ten times greater than the average total dose in the US including medical, nuclear power, and natural sources). WHO, NCI, and numerous agencies have studied this for over 50 years. Yes, nuclear is controversial and has high capital cost, but the data does show that it is among the safer ways to make 24/7 electricity.
I also read the Scientific American article. I have stated before that if energy storage and advanced transmission (e.g., Smartgrid) can be built and installed inexpensively, then an all renewables economy will follow. Replacing our current grid will not be a quick or cheap task either.
Interesting, isn’t it that there have been so few real epi (epidemiological) studies with real in-depth data collection in communities down wind and down water from commercial nuclear sites. The only one that holds water is the Pilgrim study in MA (MA Department of Public Health — Pilgrim is the name of a nuclear power station that had “faulty” fuel) in the early 1990’s — wonder why, happy to hear about ones that I am not aware of! Especially since many other reactors are known to also have “faulty” fuel cladding.
As for Kerala — you might be interested in the work being done in Europe on the difference between fission product radiation (typically has a “boom boom” pattern where the initial decay is followed by a secondary decay) — differing from the thorium and other “natural” radiation sources at Kerala and elsewhere… Dr. Chris Busby has published a book on the difference between “androgenic” radiation (my term) and naturally occuring — called The Wings of Death — 1995 — Green Audit. It is controversial - but so should be the messing with the genetic treasury of EARTH on a daily basis — it is not only the DNA of Homo sapiens that is at risk!
Yes, Dr. Chris Busby is controversial…
Ionizing radiation is among the most studied environmental effects out there. Natural isotopes such as Radium also have secondary radiation from follow-on products. Rems (or Sieverts) are calculated based on where the isotope is in the body as well as the energy or type of radiation emitted from the isotope. Dr. Busby’s models have been rejected by a majority of the Health Physics and nuclear medicine professions [the James Inhofe of radiation? :-)]
As for fuel failures, the radioactivity from such events is very low as it gets filtered out through the resin bed filters in the plants.
Ionizing radiation is not the only phenomenon that causes DNA double strand breaks (although radiation does result in a greater percentage per incident than chemical equivalents). Still, natural processes such as respiration (i.e., the free radicals from the oxygen reaction) create an overall greater number of DNA double strand breaks than current levels of background radiation.
I am not saying that plutonium is a breakfast food, only that our perceptions of radiation can get the better of us while we ignore greater dangers in society.
Why is my last comment still awaiting moderation? Did I use inappropriate language?
Maybe it was the hotlinks I embedded. Here it is without the hot links:
Fifty years ago when the first commercial power was being generated from atomic sources, one could not be faulted for being skeptical of the long-term health effects of atomic energy. But here we are, fifty years later having the same discussion.
Literally thousands of men and women have worked millions of man hours inside of these facilities.
Epi studies aside, just think for a moment… If nuclear power is SO carcinogenic, then wouldn’t you expect that the actual workers who spend 8 to 12 hours per day, 50 weeks per year, living inside these facilities to be dropping like over-ripe grapefruits? Where is the nuclear industry hiding the bodies?
I mean: think about it. What’s protecting the employees of these power stations? For that matter what protects the members of the US Navy when they live 24/7 INSIDE of a nuclear powered submarine or aircraft carrier for months at a time?
Don’t take my word for it. To see the actual studies that have been performed, Google Search: Johns Hopkins nuclear shipyard workers study