World Bank Upholds Environmental Goals By Voting $3.75 Billion For 1 Of World's Largest Coal Plants

[hatrack]

The World Bank approved a controversial $3.75bn loan to build one of the world's largest coal plants in South Africa yesterday, defying international protests and sharp criticism from the Obama administration that the project would fuel climate change.

The proposed Medupi power station, operated by South Africa's state-owned Eskom company, was fiercely opposed by an international coalition of grassroots, church and environmental activists who said it would hurt the environment and do little to help end poverty. As planned, it would put out 25m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and would prevent South Africa making good on a promise to try to curb future emissions.

The bank said it had acted to help South Africa escape a crippling power shortage. "Without an increased energy supply, South Africans will face hardship for the poor and limited economic growth," said Obiageli Ezekwesili, the World Bank's vice president for Africa. But the bank's approval for the Medupi plant, though expected, was overshadowed by dissatisfaction from American and European donors, as well as a groundswell of protests.

America, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy and Norway registered their opposition to the loan by abstaining from the vote, the traditional method of dissent on the board which operates by consensus. In a statement, the US treasury department said the loan was incompatible with the bank's stated commitment to promoting low carbon economic development.

EDIT

Ooh! Take THAT!!! :eyes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/09/world-bank-criticised-over-power-station

[phantom power]

1. Yes, well as long as they don't actually Prevent It From Happening...

The planets continue on their courses.

[kristopher]

2. How could they prevent it?

[Altoid_Cyclist]

3. The US is the only country that has the power to veto any vote I think.

Excerpt of FPIF.org report on the IMF & World Bank.

Voting power at the World Bank and the IMF is apportioned according to the size of each country’s monetary contribution. The U.S. has by far the largest share (18% of all votes) and can veto policy decisions, since they require an 85% vote. The IFIs may not be totally controlled by the U.S., but it’s close: the New York Times recently described the IMF as a "proxy" of the U.S. government. Any analysis of IFI policies is thus also a critique of U.S. policies.


Rest of article: http://www.fpif.org/reports/multilateral_debt

I'm not sure if they could have blocked this or not, but a no vote would have at least been a positive step.

[Statistical]

6. They could have blocked it.

Simply put it takes 15% "no" votes to block any proposal.

The US voting no would have put the Yes vote at 82% or less which would have failed.
The combination of 3-4 European nations voting no would likewise have put Yes at <85% which would have failed.

Abstaining is a cowards way out. Abstaining is pretending to not support it while knowing that is everyone who doesn't support it abstains then it will pass with 100% support.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

7. Thank you for the clarification.

What I meant to say was that the US is the only country that has the power to unilaterally block a decision.

My mind starts to race and my blood pressure goes up whenever the IMF and or World Bank is mentioned and that causes me to start wandering mentally.

Have to agree that the US took the coward's way out. No wonder the IMF & World Bank are able to cause so much human and environmental destruction. It's always about making more money for the "haves" of the world.

[Statistical]

8. It is really surprising that this administration just OK the largest coal plant in the world.

Then again we have a LOT of coal and I am sure there is some "we scratch your back (abstain instead of vote no) you scratch ours (buy some coal from US)" going on.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

9. Your type of thinking can either be classified as being cynical or being a realist.

However, with the current state of financial and political manipulations by world leaders, I would have to go with the realist designation.

From Wiki:

Realism, also known as political realism (see also Realpolitik), is a school of international relations that prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions. This term is often synonymous with power politics.


Yup.....No doubt about it, you're speaking the truth. A lot of our leaders seem to be in dire need of a new moral compass.

[Statistical]

5. By voting no instead of abstaining.

[Statistical]

4. By abstaining on a consensus vote they ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN.

It allows administration to say "see we don't support it" while at the exact same time allowing it to happen.

A vote of no by US would have killed the proposal.

[bananas]

10. This is partly the result of another nuclear boondoggle

Just a few years ago, South Africa was planning to build a fleet of pebble-bed reactors.
They believed their own hype, and now they are going to build coal plants.
This is why we have to focus on renewables and efficiency, and ignore the nuclear hype.

An article from August 2008: "PBMR on track for first concrete in 2010"

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/pbmr-on-track-for-first-concrete-in-2010-2008-08-08

PBMR on track for first concrete in 2010
By: Rozanne Cloete
8th August 2008

The demonstration power plant (DPP) of the pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) project, a nuclear initiative by State-owned power utility Eskom, the Industrial Development Corporation, and US-based company Westinghouse Electric, is set to start construction at Koeberg, in the Western Cape, in 2010.

<snip>

More 2008 hype from credulous internet crackpots: "PBMR Contract – 4th Generation Nuclear Power Plant by 2014"

http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/25/pbmr-contract-4th-generation-nuclear-power-plant-by-2014/

PBMR Contract – 4th Generation Nuclear Power Plant by 2014
Author photo Written by Rod Adams
Published on August 25th, 2008
2 Comments
Posted in Conservative, Energy, Leader

Simulated high temperature gas reactor pebblePBMR (Pty) Ltd. has taken one more step in its careful journey to build a new type of nuclear power plant – one whose heat will be produced in a continuously refreshed bed of high temperature spheres made of heavy metal and graphite.

On August 22, 2008, the company announced that it had signed a contract for engineering, procurement, project and construction management (EPCM) services to build a 165 MWe commercial scale, emission free, demonstration plant near Cape Town, South Africa. The approximate value of the contract is a quarter of a billion US dollars.

<snip>

A year later, the PBMR project was in meltdown:

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-demise-of-the-pebble-bed-modular-reactor

The demise of the pebble bed modular reactor
By Steve Thomas | 22 June 2009
Article Highlights

* After years of investment, South Africa has abandoned its plan to develop a fleet of electricity-generating pebble bed modular reactors (PBMR), once hyped as the future of nuclear power.
* Problems with the PBMR aren't new; a 2008 German report chronicles Germany's own problems developing the reactor since 1967.
* China, still developing PBMR-based power reactor designs, has taken a slow approach and it is unclear if they have run into problems as well.

<snip>

In 1993, the South African utility Eskom took up a PBMR design that, unlike its predecessors, was expected to generate electricity using a gas turbine driven directly by its helium coolant. In 1999, Eskom set up PBMR Ltd. to develop and market the PBMR and to complete a feasibility study. The subsidiary raised money, but several investors eventually pulled out of the project. The end of the feasibility phase of the project was never announced publicly, although it appears to have been completed in March 2004.

A successor company to PBMR Ltd., which would have built the larger demonstration reactor if the feasibility study had been successful, was never created. And since none of the project partners ever agreed to fund a larger demonstration reactor, the project has, in some respects, been languishing since 2004. The development of the demonstration plant, which was originally expected to cost $223 million and be in service by 2002, was expected to cost at least $1.8 billion by the time it was abandoned. If funding had continued, it was projected to be in service no earlier than 2014. Commercial plants were not expected to be operational before 2025.

<snip>

The Jülich report further recommends that gas-tight containment structures be built for any commercial pebble bed plant deployed and that further research and development is necessary to evaluate the safety of the design and to understand why such high temperatures were experienced at the AVR. The need for such containments for PBMR-based plants has been the subject of disagreement for some time. PBMR Ltd. has claimed the pebble bed is "intrinsically safe" and "melt-down proof" and has argued that no pressure containment is needed and that the emergency evacuation zone needs to be no larger than the plant site itself. If a containment structure is required, the additional cost would make the reactor prohibitively expensive to build commercially. Although the Jülich report is bitterly contested by PBMR advocates, the high credibility of Jülich, which submitted the report to an extensive peer-review process, means it cannot simply be dismissed.

<snip>

[Statistical]

11. So why don't they build renewables now?

Why not used the IMF loan to build solar?

Oh yeah because it isn't cost competitive with coal.

Coal or nuclear take your pick.

[bananas]

13. You say, "coal or nuclear" - well nuclear is out, so you are pro-coal.

Environmentalists in South Africa are promoting the best solutions: efficiency and renewables.

http://www.cane.org.za/nuclear-energy-related/nuclear-power-does-not-help-to-combat-climate-change/

Mar 102010
Nuclear Power Does NOT Help to Combat Climate Change

The question is:

What kind of South Africa do we want to live in by 2030, and what energy technologies and strategies will get us there? We need to think about these issues:

* What is the most effective way to address climate change?
* What energy path is the safest and simplest?
* How much is it going to cost to build and to run?
* What are the costs to the environment and to future generations?
* Who is going to benefit in terms of jobs and skills?

Nuclear power does not help us
to combat climate change at all

<snip>

Most of South Africa’s electricity comes from burning coal. We therefore need to choose the most cost-effective low-carbon strategies and act now.

* The first step costs nothing: users of energy can cut back on wasteful energy use.
* The second step is the best way we can spend money: invest in energy efficiency.<3> This means changing the way we use buildings, lights, all kinds of motors, transport, electronics and – most importantly – the production and distribution of electricity. Factories that use heat can also generate electricity from it: this is called co-generation.
o We can pay back the cost of investing in energy efficiency in less than 3 years<4> and at 20% of the cost of new generation plant.<5> This is much cheaper than building new centralised generation plant. The South African Government’s energy efficiency strategy says we can save over 4000 MW of capacity by 2025, the same as a very large, coal-fired power station. Now they need to introduce financial incentives and tax breaks.
* The third step is to use renewable energy. Renewable energy is energy that comes from natural sources of power, such as the sun and the wind (but NOT uranium or coal!), and they are nearly free of CO2. South Africa could have as much as 15% renewable energy by 2020 at a reasonable cost.<6>
* Using the sun’s rays to heat water directly (solar water heating) is better than using electricity to heat a geyser and is free of CO2 when used properly. If the Government were to subsidise one million solar water heaters with timers from now until 2020, we would save another 3000 MW of power for electricity production<7> – the same as another, large, coal-fired power station.
* Engineers can build wind farms in two years, and the power of the wind is free – forever. Wind turbines also do not consume any water. South Africa could have up to 12% of carbon-free wind-generated electricity by 2020 and 20% by 2030.<8> Once again, this is the same as another large, coal-fired power station.
o Some pro-nuclear lobbyists say that the wind is not always available. Yet, if the wind turbines were built all over the country and fed into the grid, the wind would always blow somewhere, so we have built this fact into our calculation.
* Concentrated Solar thermal Plants (CSP) are like giant magnifying glasses that concentrate the sun’s rays on one spot, which becomes very hot and can then be used to make electricity. Engineers can build these plants in 3-4 years, while CSP could generate 13% of our electricity by 2020, and 27% by 2030.<9> Solar thermal plants are expensive but are coming down in price as fast as the price for nuclear power plants is going up.

South Africa has the best locations for sunshine in the world. By 2030 researchers are sure that solar thermal power will be the most cost-effective source of carbon-free bulk electricity and usable heat. With hot-salt storage, and possibly with gas back-up from the Kudu gas fields, this power supply would be available 24 hours a day.

We do not have time for nuclear
power to make a difference

If we want to make a difference to global warming we need to start now and make the transition before 2020. Although nuclear power does not release much CO2 compared to coal, it is still too expensive, too slow and takes money away from cheaper and quicker options. If we ordered one today, it would not be ready before 2020.<10> Looking at the planet as a whole, we would need 50 years to have enough nuclear power plants to really reduce carbon emissions and by this time it would be far too late to do anything about global warming.

<snip>

All the information in this paper is referenced and can be found on the CANE website at www.cane.org.za.

Further reading:

Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? Amory Lovins. Dec 2008.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly

energy evolution: A Sustainable South Africa Energy Outlook. Greenpeace. Oct 2008.

http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/2009/ER-final-south_africa_lr.pdf
<1> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007. Synthesis Report. Table 3.1 Pg 45. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

<2> Twenty six Questions and Answers in regard to the study “Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 deg C”. Meinshausen et al. 2009 in 30th April issue of Nature. Q8 Pg 6 and Q12 Pg 8.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/qanda_meinshausen_etal_2009_ghgtargets

<3> McKinsey Global Energy + Materials. Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy. July 2009. http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/downloads/US_energy_efficiency_exc_summary.pdf

<4> Dept of Minerals and Energy. Energy Efficiency Strategy of the Republic of South Africa. March 2005. Pg 11. http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/energy/efficiency/ee_strategy_05.pdf

<5> McKinsey Global Institute. The Case for Investing in Energy Productivity. Feb 2008. Pg 12. http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/pdfs/Investing_Energy_Productivity/Investing_Energy_Productivity.pdf

<6> Energy Research Centre, UCT. Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. October 2008.

http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Research/publications/08-Marquardetal-costing_a_2020_target.pdf

<7> Eskom: Solar water heating FAQ’s. http://www.eskomdsm.co.za/?q=Solar_water_heating_FAQs#crisis

<8> Energy Research Centre, UCT. Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. October 2008.

<9> Energy Research Centre, UCT. Large-scale roll out of concentrating solar power in South Africa. Edkins, Winkler, Marquard. August 2009. Table 2 Pg 6.

http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Research/publications/09Edkins-etal-Rollout_of_CSP.pdf

<10> The planning, design and construction of a nuclear power plant takes at least 10 years from inception.

<11> Steve Kidd, Director of Strategy and Research at the World Nuclear Association. Escalating costs of new build: what does it mean? Nuclear Engineering International. Aug 22 2008.
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2050690

<12> Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Update on the cost of nuclear power. May 2009. Pg17. http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf

<13> International Institute for Sustainable Development: Global Subsidies Initiative. Gambling on nuclear power: how public money fuels the industry.

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/commentary/gambling-nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry

<14> Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Study. 2009. Pg. 11. Quote: “There is no plan for high level wastes…the progress on high level waste disposal has not been positive”

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf

<15> AGAMA Energy. Employment Potential of Renewable Energy in South Africa. Nov 2003. Fig 5 Pg ix.

http://www.eskom.co.za/content/Employment%20Potential%20of%20renewable%20resources%20in%20SA.pdf

<16> Renewable Energy Briefing Paper. Potential of Renewable Energy to contribute to National Electricity Emergency Response and Sustainable Development. Holm, Banks, Schaffler, Worthington, Afrane-Okese. March 2008. Table 6 pg 22.

<17> Dept of Environment and Tourism. Emerging Issues Paper: Mine Water Pollution. March 2008. Pg. 1. http://soer.deat.gov.za/dm_documents/Mine_Water_Pollution_fPA1A.pdf

<18> International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009. Article: Very low dose fetal exposure to Chernobyl contamination resulted in increases in infant leukemia in Europe and raises questions about current radiation risk models. Christopher Busby.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/6/12/3105/pdf

<19> Union of Concerned Scientists. Safety of old and new nuclear reactors. David Lochbaum. May 2001.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/safety-of-old-and-new-nuclear.html

<20> PBMR. Safety Q & A’s.: “total containment of radioactivity was deemed unnecessary” http://www.pbmr.co.za/index.asp?Content=237

energy evolution: A Sustainable South Africa Energy Outlook. Greenpeace. Oct 2008.

http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/2009/ER-final-south_africa_lr.pdf
Posted by admin at 9:54 am Tagged with: bantamsklip, Climate Change, Eskom, nuclear, nuclear 1, nuclear one, oyster bay, pbmr, power, reactors, renewable energy, Thyspunt, Uranium, wind farms

[kristopher]

20. Excellent list of information. Thanks. nt

"...South Africa has the best locations for sunshine in the world. By 2030 researchers are sure that solar thermal power will be the most cost-effective source of carbon-free bulk electricity and usable heat. With hot-salt storage, and possibly with gas back-up from the Kudu gas fields, this power supply would be available 24 hours a day.

We do not have time for nuclear power to make a difference.

If we want to make a difference to global warming we need to start now and make the transition before 2020. Although nuclear power does not release much CO2 compared to coal, it is still too expensive, too slow and takes money away from cheaper and quicker options. If we ordered one today, it would not be ready before 2020.<10> Looking at the planet as a whole, we would need 50 years to have enough nuclear power plants to really reduce carbon emissions and by this time it would be far too late to do anything about global warming...."

[kristopher]

15. Those choices are the same for industrial interests.

It doesn't matter if it is nuclear or coal as long as it is a huge government funded project that justifies bribery and corruption. Nuclear or coal it is all the same to them.

Renewables, not so much since the benefits largely flow to a completely different, far less powerful set of stakeholders.

Hell man, haven't you realized yet that you are actually working for the coal industry when you promote nuclear?

Coal, nuclear, petroleum - the evil triangle of corrupt power.

[Statistical]

16. Most renewable power is in massive energy farms....

Owned by the exact same utilities who own coal, gas, and nuclear plants.
So save your power to the people Bullshit for someone who is buying it.
The exact same amount of corruption, bribery, control could be done with a large thermal solar plant or massive offshore wind power.

[kristopher]

17. Nice try Mr. Corporatist, but wrong.

Those "massive energy farms" are projects that are distributed generation compared to nuclear and coal - something you never tire of trying to denigrate.

There are going to be elements to a renewable grid that will be corporately controlled, but that doesn't negate the nature of what emerges from distributed generation, a smart grid serving distributed generation, and the fact that solar panels are destined to be a price/unit commodity. It will be a system where the central function of the grid is to "top off" home supply and even out the distribution of small scale generation. And if someone doesn't want to be part of that grid, it is going to be increasingly possible to shuck it entirely for a large part of the population.

Nuclear?

Not so much. Still and forever beholden to the masters of evil.

[Statistical]

18. So you have solar panels out your roof right?

Money where your mouth is.

You have fractional ownership of some offshore wind too right?

[kristopher]

19. "out (my) roof"? Hitting the juice a bit early on Friday?

:rofl:

No one in the world believes what you are trying to say - ESPECIALLY not you.


Those "massive energy farms" are projects that are distributed generation compared to nuclear and coal - something you never tire of trying to denigrate.

There are going to be elements to a renewable grid that will be corporately controlled, but that doesn't negate the nature of what emerges from distributed generation, a smart grid serving distributed generation, and the fact that solar panels are destined to be a price/unit commodity. It will be a system where the central function of the grid is to "top off" home supply and even out the distribution of small scale generation. And if someone doesn't want to be part of that grid, it is going to be increasingly possible to shuck it entirely for a large part of the population.

Nuclear?

Not so much. Still and forever beholden to the masters of evil.

[kristopher]

12. And that's surprising how?

It is par for the course for the entire sector. I recall reading a particularly nasty piece where Charles Barton (a member of of the nuclear circle jerk) was trying to smear Lovins and the PBMR project in S. Africa was one of his pieces of evidence. Lovins had predicted the project would fail and Barton went through one of the disinformation exercises we are all so used to seeing here to show that Lovins was wrong on the project and therefore wrong on everything else.

Oooops.

I guess that means that Barton will now admit that Lovins is correct on everything...

[bananas]

14. No Amount of Redesign Will Save the PBMR

http://www.cane.org.za/nuclear-energy-related/no-amount-of-redesign-will-save-the-pbmr/

Feb 18 2009
No Amount of Redesign Will Save the PBMR
Press Release: Earthlife Africa Jhb 18th of Feb. 2009

With the PBMR Company seeking to redesign the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) to focus more on heat applications, it is imperative to note that disadvantages of continuing with the PBMR remain.

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor has become a black hole for public funds. The costs involved in the PBMR saga are illustrative of the financial risks inherent in nuclear power in general.

In 1999, the PMBR (165MW capacity) construction costs were budgeted at R2 billion. By 2005, these construction costs had risen by a factor of seven, to R14 billion without a single PBMR being constructed. These costs do not include the decommissioning costs, which will be considerable.

Based upon the 2008 Environmental Impact Assessment for the PBMR Demonstration Reactor and the decommissioning costs for of the predecessor to the PBMR-the German AVR-the costs to decommission a single PBMR range from R1.5 billion to R70 billion. It is nearly impossible, due to the lifespan of the reactor and the variable rates of contamination, to be more exact than this. Hence, the decommissioning costs of the PBMR are uncertain and could incur a heavy burden on future generations, absorbing funds for vital social programmes.

An additional expense will be the waste storage costs, which are impossible to calculate due to the long-term nature of storing waste; for example, uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years, plutonium-239 a half-life of 24,110 years, and caesium a half-life of 30.2 years. These kinds of timeframes defy economic planning, and, given our pressing social needs, should not be entertained.

The costs for the PBMR are not efficient in terms of power generation. For example, Eskom is seeking finance of R5 billion to build a concentrated solar plant (100MW) in the Northern Cape; R14 billion for 165MW or R5 billion for 100MW capacity, economic sense favours the solar plant. This also excludes the costs associated with the security apparatus necessary for the PMBR.

Nuclear materials and equipment need to be protected and highly regulated, due to the threat of contamination and theft. The consequences of radioactive material in the hands on malicious organisations could have profoundly negative consequences and has to be avoided at all costs. While currently unquantifiable at this stage, these security costs will be passed onto the state and are unique to nuclear power. Other forms of energy generation (including heat generation) do not require these increased security costs.

No matter how much the PBMR Company and the Department of Minerals and Energy seek to spin the matter, the PBMR has been a waste of vital public funds and will continue to be so until abandoned.

For more information, please contact:

Tristen Taylor
Energy Policy Officer
Earthlife Africa-Johannesburg Branch
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Makoma Lekalakala
Programme Officer
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Posted by Pelindaba Working Group at 10:47 pm