Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

World Bank Spent Billions of Dollars Backing Fossil Fuels in 2022, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 220

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The World Bank poured billions of dollars into fossil fuels around the world last year despite repeated promises to refocus on shifting to a low-carbon economy, research has suggested. From a report: The money went through a special form of funding known as trade finance, which is used to facilitate global transactions. Urgewald, a campaign group that tracks global fossil fuel finance, found that the World Bank supplied about $3.7bn in trade finance in 2022 that was likely to have ended up funding oil and gas developments.

Heike Mainhardt, the author of the research, called for reform of the World Bank and its private finance arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), to make such transactions more transparent and to exclude funding for fossil fuels from its lending. "They can't say that they are aligned with the Paris agreement, because there isn't enough transparency to be able to tell," she said. Fossil fuel companies would take advantage of this, she added. "They can see that they can access public money this way, without drawing attention to themselves, and they're very clever, so they will do this," she told the Guardian. Trade finance is a form of funding more opaque than standard project finance. Whereas project finance usually flows to governments, organisations or consortiums for a particular well-defined purpose and is relatively easy to track, trade finance is more diffuse.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World Bank Spent Billions of Dollars Backing Fossil Fuels in 2022, Study Finds More

World Bank Spent Billions of Dollars Backing Fossil Fuels in 2022, Study Finds

Comments Filter:

  • Why is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blackt0wer ( 2714221 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @12:11PM (#63842076)
    Outside of nuclear, there is no other technology that can economically produce enough electricity than fossil fuel sourced generation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ZipNada ( 10152669 )

      Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity, and I don't see why anyone would claim it is economical.

      • Re:Why is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by garyisabusyguy ( 732330 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @12:34PM (#63842138)

        Nuclear power seems expensive because it has to identify all of it's costs and account for them, including plant decommissioning, while fossil fuel plants are not even required to account for the CO2 they release, and solar and wind power do not include the costs to build out transmission lines or dispose of the facilities when they are decommissioned

        In addition, nuisance lawsuits are are an additional cost to nuclear plant construction that is only recently being applied to wind and solar plants

        Basically, fossil fuel power production is getting a free ride, and the fossil fuel industry has convinced "environmentalists" to attack nuclear since it is the major competitor to fossil fuel industry

        • Nuclear looks great if you only compare to fossil fuels, which is what you have done here. But that is a false dichotomy.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Can'tNot ( 5553824 )
            He also pretended to compare it to wind and solar, pointing out that wind and solar require transmission lines... as though none of those other technologies require transmission lines.

            He also said that wind and solar costs do not include the costs of decommissioning. Even if that were true, I'm sure that I don't need to point out that the immense cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant trivializes the cost of decommissioning for any other technology.

            I keep trying to make sense of the fervor with which

            • The only comparable topic that readily comes to mind is meat consumption by cats. It's not a topic that I've seen on slashdot very much, but on reddit if you mention pet food or pets, or any tangential topic, people will come out of the woodwork to loudly declare that cats should eat meat and that people who give alternative diets to housecats are causing them harm. That kind of fervor doesn't come from concern for the cats, the cats are just a proxy for a larger argument over meat consumption in general.

              Cats are obligate carnivores. Feeding them grain may not kill them but it is not doing them any favors.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by sfcat ( 872532 )

              Likewise, I can't believe that people get so worked up about nuclear power because they care about nuclear power.

              People care about nuclear power because they can do math and know its the only solution to AGW. People like you deny this because you are too petty to admit you are wrong. The only thing expensive about nuclear power is the lawsuits and the crazy regulations involved in nuclear. That's why in 4 paragraphs you presented no facts and no data and no alternative solutions that can replace the steam, fertilizer and fuels we can get from nuclear and do get from fossil fuels but aren't available from any other

              • All while advocating for solutions that require more raw materials than exist in the Earths crust.

                Excuse me, where exactly did I do this? Or, for that matter, in what part of my comment did I advocate for anything at all? Quote it to me.

                I get the impression that you understood nothing of what I said. I don't think you even bothered to figure out what it was that I was talking about. In fact, while understanding nothing you've managed to embody exactly what it was that I was discussing.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by sfcat ( 872532 )
                  Any solution that suggests a large amount of Renewables requires that. You just don't know the consequences of what you are advocating for which means you haven't done the necessary research to have an informed opinion on this topic.
                  • I'm going to repeat myself:

                    Or, for that matter, in what part of my comment did I advocate for anything at all? Quote it to me.

            • Re: Why is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Informative)

              by garyisabusyguy ( 732330 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @03:16PM (#63842684)

              >>as though none of those other technologies require transmission lines.

              Energy density and location, look it up [greensfornuclear.energy]

              Basically, windmills have to be built where it is windy and require separate high power runs to each tower

              A nuclear plant only requires a single high voltage line to the local grid, the two are not even close in cost

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

              He also pretended to compare it to wind and solar, pointing out that wind and solar require transmission lines... as though none of those other technologies require transmission lines.

              I'm not willing to get into the middle of the general pissing contest ongoing, but I would point out that if you had a station with 4 AP1000 reactors, that would be about 4.5GW of electrical generation, Compare to 4.5GW of wind or solar and I think your transmission costs would be far higher for the latter-- one big, centralized, power plant would require far less in terms of transmission line cost than dozens or hundreds of distributed sites.

              • That's really about perspective. If you look at a wind farm as a single entity then the connection from each windmill to the distribution substation is just one part of the whole project, and the cost of transmission to the end-user (i.e.: the link from the substation) is no different from any other power plant. If you look at a wind farm as a bunch of windmills which just happen to be near one another, then each one requires its own link to the substation and you can spin this as an extra cost.
          • There you go again, spreading your FUD. Not sure which is worse: you far left Marxist types with your racism/sexism, or the far right fascists with their racism/sexism. Both of your type continue to do major damage to America and the world.

          • So, you are refusing to recognize the costs of running power lines to remote areas to support windmills ($15K to $50K per mile) [energy.gov], or the environmental costs of windmill and solar construction and disposal? [stopthesethings.com]

            Please, you can do better than that

          • The sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't always blow. Until we have cheap storage comparing intermittent unreliable power with a nuke or fossil fuel plant is a real false dichotomy, a farce. We don't need an unstable grid.

        • Calling out "nuisance lawsuits" being worse for nuclear power is objectively false. Your pretense comparison with renewable energy projects like solar and wind is bullshit.

          You want a real world example? There are only two operating offshore wind facilities in the entire US. [wikipedia.org] That's because of NIMBY opposition, which is often intertwined with fossil fuel funded disinformation campaigns. [theintercept.com]

          Nuclear power gets a subsidy of incalculable value from the government: no private entity will insure nuclear power plants,

      • Re:Why is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by sonlas ( 10282912 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @12:46PM (#63842154)

        Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity, and I don't see why anyone would claim it is economical.

        IEA tends to disagree with your assertion [iea.org] (jump to page 48 for a summary graphics of LCOE that even a 5 year old can understand). What you can see is that conventional nuclear is on-par with solar/wind, and LTO nuclear is a lot cheaper.

        And that is after 50 years of anti-nuclear dumbshits spreading FUD and lies about nuclear, throwing lawsuits at it, changing regulations 4 times during the building of a nuclear plant (like Hinkley Point C)... and those people then look surprised that the cost of a nuclear plant today is 10 times what it was 50 years ago. This is no surprise that the nuclear plants currently built in China costs a quarter of the cost of western ones, with the same kind of safety features...

        I do believe that the correct answer is a mix of nuclear/hydro and solar/wind. But refusing nuclear for "philosophical" reasons, and refusing to embrace science, is just dumb at this point. How much does climate change need to worsen until people figure it out? Your position is directly responsible for thousands of deaths, and more to come.

        • Funny thing is that, in the west, the far lefties screaming about AGW are actually more responsible for AGW. They have worked hard to kill nuclear building, running, even finishing the fuel cycle. Now they run around never including the real costs of wind/PV and how nuclear spent fuel is an issue, while still screaming about AGW.

          • I am not going to blame a group, misguided as they can be at time, for contributing as much to AGW as the group of people who pretty much up until this day deny the problem even exists and actively fight not just nuclear but any and all attempts to mitigate it for 40 years now. We only in 2022 got a legislative bill that did anything to directly acknowledge and put funds towards working on the problem.

            As much as anti-nuclear lefties annoy me and are wrong they at least have been willing to do something a

        • I'm looking at page 58 of your cite and all I see are a bunch of tables, no graphics. One interesting thing that stands out immediately is that the LCOE numbers for coal and gas assume a 'capacity factor' of 85%, which is meaningless. What really counts is the utilization factor, and for coal and gas in the US this is rarely above 55%.
          https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]

          The LCOE of 'new build' nuclear plants in the US is shown as $7.74/mWh (at 7% investment) and I don't know how they calculate that, because th

          • I'm looking at page 58 of your cite and all I see are a bunch of tables, no graphics.

            What I wrote: "jump to page 48 for a summary graphics of LCOE".

            I don't know how they calculate that

            Feel free to read the rest of the report, they explain their methodology.

            they have been vastly over budget.

            Ask yourself why they have been vastly overbudget. Research that. Maybe you will find out that any project that gets its specs changed 4 times during the life of the project, with people saying "hey, we have to start from scratch to add a 4th redundant system that will never get used", and where at any step of the project lawsuits are thrown at it, will result in over budge

            • Nuclear has been a failure in the US, and recently in the EU as well. I'm not interested in your excuses for it.

          • intermittent solar power can't be the basis of a stable power grid. At a certain percentage point solar becomes a waste of money.

      • Because lazards and others never include the full costs of wind/PV.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity, and I don't see why anyone would claim it is economical.

        People claim nuclear is great because they do not understand it. That cluelessness then leads to them ascribing fantastical powers to it. The lies are usually easy to spot.

    • Both hydro and geothermal are not only cheaper, but are also base-load like nuclear ( as opposed to wind/PV which never include their full costs).

      what is needed is all of the clean energies.

      • Hydro can be seasonal in some areas. This is the situation for much of the hydro in China, for example, and also likely many parts of California. Hydro is also terrible for the ecosystem. It's not nearly as harmless as solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear.

    • It's mostly coal and natural gas, and coal is going away because of its enormously high cost of emission controls. Emission controls for natural gas are a small fraction of the cost of coal, and that's why there's still a lot of natural gas-fueled power generation stations around.

      • And that is why right wing politicians and fossil fuel PACS fight against "carbon tax" which is the only way to recognize the external costs of natural gas power generation

    • Outside of nuclear, there is no other technology that can economically produce enough electricity than fossil fuel sourced generation.

      Paid oil troll alert. I'm amazed your paymasters still bother with long-discredited lies that don't deceive anyone.

  • World Bank was a middleman in billions of dollars of international petroleum trades.

    FTFY

  • new leadership (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZipNada ( 10152669 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @12:25PM (#63842118)

    "A new president, Ajay Banga, was appointed in June, after the previous incumbent, the Trump appointee David Malpass, resigned following questions over whether he was a climate denier."

    So maybe Banga can straighten this out.

  • We can't win (Score:3)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @01:44PM (#63842328)

    High gas prices reduce consumption and help the environment, but hurt poor people
    Politicians campaign based on promises to lower gas prices
    Anybody who correctly states that high gas prices are good is voted out of office

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. People vote themselves bread and games until there are no bread and games left. People are stupid. And that is why democracy cannot deal with abstract threats competently. Well, it was fun while it lasts. Maybe a remnant of the human race will even recover from this concentrated stupidity.

    • Yes, we can win. If politicians had any brains, they would raise gas/diesel tax by $.01/gal each month. It gives ppl time to adjust.

      In addition, the smartest move is to do a slowly increasing tax rate on locally consumed goods/services based on where the worst part/sub-service is from. Skip tying it to levels, but tie it to direction of emissions ( going up/down ) along with being below a threshold.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )
        You seem smart until you say things like this. No, if you want to fight AGW, you want cheap power, not expensive power. If you own an oil well, do you run it when oil is $10/barrel, probably not. You run it when oil is $100/barrel. And the higher the price of energy, the more you run the well. If you want to get rid of extraction, we need to make energy cheaper, much cheaper. Also, if you want recycling, well that competes with mining and uses more energy than mining. So if you want recycling, you wa

    • High gas prices ARE bad. More to the point, high evergy prices are bad. If your entire decarbonization strategy relies on people using less petroleum rather than people voluntarily switching to cheaper electrical options, you've lost.

      • Higher gas prices are a way of getting those who emit a lot of CO2 to pay for the damage they are doing. In moving to paying the real cost, they are, as a bonus, incentivised to switch to other fuels. What you are proposing is to allow gas prices to remain subsidised at the cost of those who lose out as a result of climate change.

      • High energy prices are bad. High gas prices is actually good because it captures more of the externalities that society generally subsidizes unwittingly.

  • From reading (most of) the source material, it seems like the World Bank is balancing a number of concerns when directing funds. Part of that balancing act is environmental, but part is the urgent need of the investment for the countries involved. "It's complicated". And some people refuse to accept that as a reality.

  • Energy is life (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Stonefish ( 210962 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @04:27PM (#63842930)

    First remember that we're talking about the the very poor. Fossil fuel energy is appealing to the poor because it can provide power when and where people need it and is healthier and easier than wood.
    A liquid fuel is easy to store, doesn't require power lines and can be used when and where you want it, can provide lighting at night, power for agriculture or transport, and heat for cooking.
    It is going to take time to wean the poor off fossil fuel without catastrophic impact.

    Many of these countries don't have effective grids yet so investment is needed to develop their grids. But you can't just say no more fossil fuel until you build a grid.
    Solar and Wind require huge grids because the power is diffuse, at least double the size of a conventional (fossil) grid, and a large component of electricity bills is actually devoted to paying for the grid.
    Nuclear is one of the few technologies which can provide concentrated power similar to conventional electricity generation without requiring the size of the grid to be doubled. It also can provide 24x7 power so that hospitals and other essential infrastructure can remain on-line. It also supports and educated and well paid operational community.

    Now for wealthy countries the priorities are significantly different there is one camp spraying for solar and wind and another camp suggesting nuclear. Solar and wind are a good, low cost source of power for dispatchable demand, such as heating a hot water tank, or charging a battery. This doesn't include industrial power loads because most industrial power like electrolytic smelting, ammonia creation or hydrogen electrolysis require 24x7 power loads.

    The world needs cheap baseload power and lots of it. If you have the climate and the topology hydro-power might work however it requires you to flood enormous expanses of land with associated environmental and social impact. If you have the geology like Iceland geothermal might work. Otherwise you can use a combination of intermittent solar and wind plus fossil to provide baseload or your can use a combination of nuclear with wind and solar providing cheap power for dispatchable demand.
    If you want zero emissions the renewables backed by fossil option doesn't get you there. This is the reality of the situation.

    There already example of primarily nuclear grids which are virtually fossil free. These don't exist for renewables unless you have hydro or a volcano underneath you.

    Nuclear can drop in price by at least an order of magnitude, wind and solar can't, they're already done this, for example the electricity generator in an nuclear plant costs 10x the equivalent wind turbine generator and it's practically the same. It's up to the wealthy countries to make this happen so that we can provide a bridge for the poor in the world to break away from fossil fuels.
    This won't happen while there are people in the world turning off nuclear plants to fire up coal plants in spite of voluminous evidence that this a terrible idea.

    By the way nuclear waste is a non-issue compared to CO2

  • Fossil fuels are the epitome of "dumb money." The comeuppance will be epic.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close