Todd, Your piece is badly misinformed. First, the WBG can survive US exit; in fact, it would be a good thing (check my recent Substack on that subject). Second, you are wrong about design & construction times for nuclear where under the best conditions (small reactors in China, South Korea, Japan), 5-8 years are needed, during which time the cost & reliability of renewable & battery systems in WBG borrower nations will continue to fall. Third, the nuclear build times would be longer in IBRD borrowers because the safety and liability issues around nuclear are not well understood in greenfield countries (there would be a deluge of Inspection Panel cases, for one thing). Fourth, the WB has no staff expertise in nuclear and would have to hire expertise from the competing suppliers (US, China, Japan, etc) which would present an enormous conflict of interest. Fifth, the insurance costs of nuclear in greenfield countries (Indonesia, others) would be very high and reinsuring them would add to the LCOE of nuclear in such countries. Sixth, even a few nuclear plants using the cheapest modular designs (eg, South Korea) would absorb a significant amount of IBRD lending capacity and divert IBRD lending from other areas (eg, green lending), which is probably the idea anyway behind pressure from hayseeds like French Hill. Seventh, the US effort to lift the ban is basically special pleading from the US industry which is convinced that it can use USG pressure on the WBG to give preference to US designs & US construction. PS: Your remark on “overboard” (linking to the obviously silly WBG publicity on GHG savings in Guiné-Bissau) is designed to fool the ignorant in pretending that there is a terrible, consequential pattern of WBG pressure on tiny, poor countries to go green.
lol. Arguing that nuclear is too expensive is not a reason for keeping the ban. It’s exactly the reason for informed infra decision making, not ideological red lines. You’re revealing your ex ante tech bias, which is exactly the problem IMHO. And why do you think this would be IBRD lending?
Todd, Your piece is badly misinformed. First, the WBG can survive US exit; in fact, it would be a good thing (check my recent Substack on that subject). Second, you are wrong about design & construction times for nuclear where under the best conditions (small reactors in China, South Korea, Japan), 5-8 years are needed, during which time the cost & reliability of renewable & battery systems in WBG borrower nations will continue to fall. Third, the nuclear build times would be longer in IBRD borrowers because the safety and liability issues around nuclear are not well understood in greenfield countries (there would be a deluge of Inspection Panel cases, for one thing). Fourth, the WB has no staff expertise in nuclear and would have to hire expertise from the competing suppliers (US, China, Japan, etc) which would present an enormous conflict of interest. Fifth, the insurance costs of nuclear in greenfield countries (Indonesia, others) would be very high and reinsuring them would add to the LCOE of nuclear in such countries. Sixth, even a few nuclear plants using the cheapest modular designs (eg, South Korea) would absorb a significant amount of IBRD lending capacity and divert IBRD lending from other areas (eg, green lending), which is probably the idea anyway behind pressure from hayseeds like French Hill. Seventh, the US effort to lift the ban is basically special pleading from the US industry which is convinced that it can use USG pressure on the WBG to give preference to US designs & US construction. PS: Your remark on “overboard” (linking to the obviously silly WBG publicity on GHG savings in Guiné-Bissau) is designed to fool the ignorant in pretending that there is a terrible, consequential pattern of WBG pressure on tiny, poor countries to go green.
lol. Arguing that nuclear is too expensive is not a reason for keeping the ban. It’s exactly the reason for informed infra decision making, not ideological red lines. You’re revealing your ex ante tech bias, which is exactly the problem IMHO. And why do you think this would be IBRD lending?
You’ll see my Substack tonight.
Great news!!