Skip to main content

World Bank Toff: “We don’t do nuclear energy.”

By

So says World Bank President Jim Yong Kim:

“We don’t do nuclear energy.”

Okay.

“The World Bank Group does not engage in providing support for nuclear power. We think that this is an extremely difficult conversation that every country is continuing to have.

“And because we are really not in that business our focus is on finding ways of working in hydro electric power, in geo-thermal, in solar, in wind,” he said.

“We are really focusing on increasing investment in those modalities and we don’t do nuclear energy.”

But the story from Agence France-Presse also includes this tidbit:

In some countries, only 10% of the population has electricity.

Hope there are enough rivers to dam in those places.

---

From Scotland:

New nuclear would not play a role in an independent Scotland, according to a white paper published by the Scottish government in November.

The current Scottish government is opposed to the building of any new nuclear power stations in Scotland and will phase out existing stations in Scotland over time, it said.

Scots independence could happen – a referendum is scheduled for 2014 and Scotland would become a new nation in 2016 if the vote is successful – but polling tends to be rather dim on the prospect. See here for more.

So, absent nuclear energy, what then?

The Scottish Government aims to generate the equivalent of 100% of electricity from renewables and thermal sources fitted with carbon capture and storage by 2020.

Yup, that’ll boil the haggis.

---

Boy, some days you wake up and no one likes you. Let’s leave it to John Parker, resident of Falmouth Maine, to make the case:

So, if you are one of the fanatics, I urge you to reconsider the issue [of nuclear energy] in a rational manner. We should all promote the only source of power that has no environmental impact and will have enough capacity to start closing down carbon-burning plants. We have many years of total success, our technology and know-how have come a long way since the construction of Three Mile Island, and the blatant errors in Ukraine and Japan can easily be avoided.

Parker makes some overly broad assumptions, but his rough-and-ready defense is a real tonic. Props to the Portland Press-Herald for not polishing his comments into blandness.

Labels:

Comments

jimwg said…
We need a hell'va lot more John Parkers taking the led in nuclear energy education and image recovery! Get him on these pro-nuke blogs!!! So the World Bank doesn't do nuclear, uh? Do they fund hospitals and clinics for those stricken with fossil-fuel derived respiratory aliments and environmental pollution? Is the World Bank funding anti-greenhouse/CO2 projects and measures? If -- like the U.N. is supposed to be -- the World Bank is deadly serious about the perils of global warming and its effects on the third world, how do they in good conscience exclude nukes -- with their safety record -- as a means toward that goal? Sounds like a ivory-tower gaggle of green-puppeteered hypocrites to me!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
December 4, 2013 at 6:54 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