Wednesday, December 04, 2013

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

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.

1 comment:

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