Nuclear Power Promoters Banned from Climate Conference
The climate cult’s true colours are revealed when it actively agitates against nuclear power; bad enough that they won’t promote it, worse still when they seek to sabotage nuclear power’s prospects, altogether.
This is the crowd out to convince us that man-made carbon dioxide gas is “pollution” which, unless you stop generating it, will result in an inevitable Armageddon, where all life on earth perishes. The naturally occurring kind of carbon dioxide doesn’t trouble them, apparently.
If, however, these characters were in earnest, they would be berating governments to start building nuclear power plants as fast as humanly possible.
Nuclear power is the only stand-alone power source that does not generate carbon dioxide emissions during that process and that’s also available on demand, whatever the weather or time-of-day.
Just why those who jump up and down about human-generated carbon dioxide gas refuse to promote ever-reliable, safe and affordable nuclear power is hard to fathom.
That they continue in their obsessive fixation with unreliable, intermittent and costly subsidised wind and solar speaks volumes. They can’t be serious about supplying reliable and affordable power to all comers, nor can they be serious about reducing CO2 emissions.
Britain’s government was overrun by wind and solar cultists years ago. So, it comes as little surprise that its operatives have done everything in their power to sideline those promoting nuclear power generation.
Up to 15 applications from nuclear-related bodies are understood to have been rejected by Mr Sharma’s COP26 Unit in the Cabinet Office.
Alok Sharma has come under fire for preventing a series of nuclear bodies from displaying exhibits at the COP26 climate change summit.
In an open letter to Boris Johnson’s minister in charge of the event, global nuclear industry leaders revealed that “every application” so far to put on nuclear-related exhibits or events at the UN summit had been rejected.
The move comes despite senior Tories insisting that nuclear energy, including investing in a new fleet of reactors, must form a significant part of Britain’s plans to cut net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050.
Craig Mackinlay, the chairman of the new Net Zero Scrutiny Group of Conservative backbenchers, said: “The fact that these applications have been denied speaks volumes about the muddied thinking that underpins our domestic policy in this area.
“If COP26 is serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, a fundamental existing industry and technology that could help achieve this has to be nuclear.”
Mr Sharma had invited businesses and other groups to “bring climate action to life” with events, displays and workshops at the Glasgow Science Centre, which will host COP26’s so-called “green zone” in November. The area will be open to the public, while world leaders meet in a UN-run “blue zone”.
The criteria for applications to put on exhibitions and events in the green zone included those “showcasing innovation helping to tackle global climate change”.
But 15 applications from nuclear-related bodies, including trade and research associations, are understood to have been rejected by Mr Sharma’s COP26 Unit in the Cabinet Office.
They included an application involving the World Nuclear Association, which represents the global nuclear industry, to put on an exhibition featuring a life-size model of a nuclear reactor.
The trade body will still send delegates to attend events in the blue zone, after their applications were approved by the UN.
But in an open letter to Mr Sharma, Sama Bilbao y León, director of the World Nuclear Association, said:
“We are deeply concerned about the news that every application on nuclear energy for the Green Zone at the upcoming COP26 conference has been rejected. We hope this is not indicative of how nuclear will be treated at COP26 as a whole.
We would therefore urge you and the other organisers of COP26 to treat nuclear energy fairly and to ensure that it is well represented alongside other low carbon energy sources, in line with the recommendations made by numerous expert organisations.”
See more here: stopthesethings.com
Editor’s note: Climate alarmists seem to ignore the fact that only three percent of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere comes from human activity, the other 97 percent is produced by natural processes. So even if the entire world ‘de-carbonised’, it would reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by just three percent, and we would have destroyed our civilisation in the process.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
Just a reminder, the nuclear industry is about as corrupt and damaging as cancer racketeering, pharma.
Their record of lies, bullshit, omission is fucking astounding.
I mean I could write books about this shit. But let’s start with, you know, vaccine styled damage indemnity.
Reply
James
| #
Same as any other government or industry not subject to competition and publically financed to support political aims.
Reply
Mervyn
| #
The Chinese Communist Party is having the time of its life laughing at the stupidity of western leaders who are determined to risk their national energy supply and economies all for the sake of tackling a non-existent problem.
Reply
NecktopPC
| #
Each one of those large wind turbines uses almost one barrel (45 gallons imperial or 55 gallons US) of OIL. It is needed to lubricate it’s transmissions that work to turn the big composite blades, which are currently not recyclable.
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
And nuclear reactors have diesel powered coolers, for instance.
Why do you think most nuclear plants are directly associated with water access?
Did you know a typical once through nuclear reactor (only a reactor) toxified BILLIONS OF GALLONS of water, daily?
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
This is absolute proof of the AGW fraudsters that they ignore science, and push their political agenda.
They are blatantly dishonest and could care less.
Why is COP 26 not being sued to prove that CO2 causes global warming, hence CC?
I suppose one cannot sue a conference.. ????
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
How much water, does a once through nuclear reactor use (on average), which it toxifies (tritium is more toxic than you know), constantly, every day?
Reply
James
| #
Same as any other heat engine.
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
Oh, coz I figured you tried to avoid what I said…
“The Nuclear Information and Resource Service notes that a typical once-through cooling system draws into each reactor unit more than one billion gallons (3.8 billion litres) of water daily, 500,000 gallons (1.9 million litres) per minute.[5]”
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
And the results of that tritium excess is predictably, cancers, and other systemic fuckups.
The “background” radiation is way higher than it naturally would be, btw.
ALSO, did you know the cytotoxicity of roundup (may have been only glyphosate, and the shit with glyphosate in roundup is 30x more toxic than glyphosate, at least, in obvious cytotoxic sort of terms) is around 10x more with that “background” radiation?
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
I’m gonna take those fucktards “downtown”. You know, the deepest south.
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
Of course, associated with that vaccine styled indemnity. Complete ignorance of mining, processing costs, environmental damage, health costs and HUGE amounts of lies regarding leaks, spills, failures, etc.
I could for instance tell you about one of american’s little bitches there, from what was it, south dakota? What was that whore’s name? She was the UN ambassador or something. There’s some sweet shit on that hey.
Also, did you know, in both the Obama AND Trump administrating, in the sort of iowa, wyoming sort of area (you know, where there’s gold, silver, uranium…)…you happened to have, for instance, fraudulent shipment inventories to…TAKE A WILD GUESS here….RUSSIA!
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
Sorry, it was south carolina.
She pushed plutonium mining contracts, right, and sued the “government” (taxpayers, essentially)….for billions regarding nuclear issues, WHILE those projects were also entirely useless and damaging (and yet…she peddled them).
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
Excuse my typing, I’m a bit here and there.
Plutonium processing (and pushing MOX plants).
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
Here’s a vague reference to the fraud and laundering. And this only one small example, of dozens of thousands. I’m not kidding.
https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article245376480.html
“Brouillette said he doesn’t expect it to take the full 15 years to remove the plutonium. If the Energy Department doesn’t remove the plutonium within that time, the agency faces further penalties that could cost federal taxpayers $1.5 billion, Wilson said.”
They created that problem, the industry has indemnity, taxpayers pay for it, and govt, nuclear industry rips you off, lies about everything about that industry, btw.
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
Unfortunately, I have to remind them I know FAR more about mining the effects of mining and using uranium than they ever could, even collectively.
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
Go ask some Indians or Aboriginal Australians why they suddenly started cancers, diseases when disease was unheard of in their communities, after uranium mining and processing was established in their environments.
About that water usage:
“The Nuclear Information and Resource Service notes that a typical once-through cooling system draws into each reactor unit more than one billion gallons (3.8 billion litres) of water daily, 500,000 gallons (1.9 million litres) per minute.[5]”
Don’t make me fucking bomb them.
Reply
TWILA THARP
| #
What is hard to fathom is why anyone could be so intellectually bankrupt to write this rubbish: “Just why those who jump up and down about human-generated carbon dioxide gas refuse to promote ever-reliable, safe and affordable nuclear power is hard to fathom.”
THERE IS NO SOLUTION FOR NUCLEAR WASTE. IT IS RADIOACTIVE FOR WHAT MIGHT AS WELL BE ETERNITY.
ALSO THE COMMENTS HERE ABOUT CANCER ARE ACCURATE OBSERVATIONS. I HAD FRIENDS WHO WERE FARMERS ACROSS THE LAKE FROM WHERE THE PICKERING NUCLEAR PLANT WAS BUILT. THEIR CROPS FAILED FOR THE FIRST TIME AND BOTH OF THEM DIED IN SHORT ORDER AFTER THE PLANT WAS OPERATIONAL. NUCLEAR POWER IS A MURDEROUS ALTERNATIVE.
Reply
James
| #
So what is your alternative, no energy at all? All activities lead to some degree of risk, just think of road traffic, which kills at least a million people a year worldwide (of at least 60 million), but we all go on driving. Probably it was even worse in the days of horses, pollution included, so going back is not an option. When does an evil become a necessary evil?
Reply
A Reasonable Man
| #
I’m just curious as to what most people chiming in here would choose as their preferred energy source. (Or combination of)
Reply
James
| #
Looks like the best alternative is methane or similar, which can serve as both source and vehicle. Some say ammonia, maybe they like the smell of it. Hydrogen has this small problem that it leaks through steel pipes and tanks, and does not exist as such in nature, so must all be produced; but from what, how and at what cost and risk?
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
Imo…
Methanol, iron, calcium, sodium, silica, potassium, magnesium. As well as elements like chlorine and fluorine.
And the more oxygen and hydrogen you can manage to use related to carbon, the better.
You should try to minimize nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon usage (for anything not directly living).
There is potential for some (existing, wastE) radioactive stuff, in moderation, but principles would have to be quite different to current principles.
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
relative to…
Reply
A Reasonable Man
| #
And That does not mean I m in support of expanding nuclear power generation.
Reply
James
| #
So there is no way to provide abundant cheap continuous electric power; and power which doesn’t exist can’t be used. Whether for HVAC, lighting, transport, industry, or anything else. Back to candles, sail and horse. Or oil, coal as usual.
But WGAD, we know well that CO2 has no climate effect; where I live (Alps) there was a mile thick ice layer, 10-15 thousand years ago. What’s left of it will disappear in 50-100 years at that rate (1600m/15000y = 10 cm per year), as expected.
Reply
James
| #
“The climate cult’s true colours are revealed when it actively agitates against nuclear power; bad enough that they won’t promote it, worse still when they seek to sabotage nuclear power’s prospects, altogether.”
No one like competition. Just think what almost happened to Galileo Galilei when he saw that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.
Reply
John Doran
| #
Robert Zubrin’s great book, Merchants Of Despair should be read by anyone on the fence regarding nuclear power & the true nature of the “environmental” movement.
JD.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi YOU ALL,
I talk southern because I am from South Dakota and we talk different from the people from North Dakota. A little humor; very little!!!
HISTORY IS TERRIBLY, CRITICALLY IMPORTANT!!!
People have survived the ENERGY (Emission) of RADIOACTIVITY ever since there have been HUMANS. Madame Marie Curie ‘cooked’ pitchblende for years to discover a NEW ELEMENT and she lived a HEALTHY LIFE for WOMEN of THAT AGE at that Time. And I do not know that her DAUGHTER suffered any ILL EFFECTS of growing up in HER LABORATORY!!!
THE ONLY THING WE NEED TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
I consider you an absolute moron.
Reply
Terry Shipman
| #
I have been coming to PSI for quite a while now and I enjoy Jerry Krause’s comments. So why don’t you just stifle your personal abuse of someone you don’t agree with. If you have a point to make then make it in a respectable manner. While you are at it why don’t’ you cut down on the number of comments you make? By the way, is your handle a made up name? Jerry and I are not afraid to use our real names.
Reply
Howdy
| #
’tis karma Terry.
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Marie-Curie-avoid-radiation-poisoning?share=1
“She didn’t…”
But I’m sure you’d ignore cancers, disease in general in radioactive areas and try to avoid the CURRENT invariant physical effects will referencing say, some bullshit written as propaganda.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Farthington,
I went to your link where I read: “She didn’t, she died from aplastic anemia which was believed to be caused by prolonged exposure to radiation. Her health suffered for many years because of her work with radioactive materials. In those days no one knew of some of the dangers and radium was used for all sorts of things from painting on watch dials to make them luminous through to drinks/toothpaste/cosmetics/ toys and nightlights etc.” (Steve Brisket)
I believe I remember (but maybe not) Marie’s biography by her daughter and I cannot remember these health problems were mentioned. Who do I believe: Her daughter, a co-winner of a Nobel Prize with her Mother, or Steve Brisket???
Also, I wore one of those watches with radium being painted on its face. So I GUESS I can now, that I’m 80, blame my poor memory, which I have long had, upon the radiation from my watch.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
FarthingtonMacMananus
| #
Some people are smarter than others.
“Now, it appears that Marie Curie was injured, somehow, and it certainly seems that her health suffered due to the lack of care she and her husband Pierre took during the laboratory work they did on isolating the radioactive elements that she discovered. I know of no serious dosage measurements that were done on the Curies and no contemporaneous measurements of the radioactivity of their bodies. Radiation exposure was not understood well at all in the early days, and the early days continued much longer than many people may imagine. Still it was clear from Becquerel’s discovery that such radiation as was emitted from uranium salts, could burn the skin, and one of the very early applications of the new radioactive elements that were discovered was to the treatment of cancer. However other workers, like Röntgen, already were going to some lengths to avoid exposure to external radiation sources like X-rays. Röntgen even went to the length of wearing a lead apron to protect himself from the X-rays he was working with.”
There’s a reason silver, gold, lead absorbs radiation and is naturally, in ores, found with say, uranium.
Reply
A Reasonable Man
| #
This is what I was afraid of, not many good options, reliable energy wise. France seems to have dodged the bullet so far with their nuc power industry. Some personnel injury to small # of workers, some relatively small contaminated water releases. But nothing real scary ( that they have admitted to). I think we have a lot of fossil fuel left but got to have something besides windmills and solar panels ultimately.
Reply