We have proposed that other planetary forces and phenomena, such as albedo, play a much larger role than CO2 in global warming or temperature variations.

The basic laws of physics and thermodynamics are not in support of efficient processing of CO2 using DAC. This is because dilute molecules of CO2 in air prefer to randomly mix and achieve maximum disorder or entropy per The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Per Sherwood, trace amounts of CO2 molecules in an air mixture are difficult and costly to separate.

Capturing CO2 by DAC takes at least as much energy as that is contained in the fossil fuels that produced the carbon dioxide in the first place, per Keynumbers. //

Extra Thoughts: What Might Happen if CO₂ is Removed from the Air ?

1. If CO₂ is removed from the air in some significant quantity, CO₂ may outgas from the other sinks (land, oceans, lakes) to replace the removed CO₂. The reverse is true as well: when CO₂ is increased in the air, land/oceans/lakes) will uptake more CO₂ until a new quasi-equilibrium state is possibly reached over time.

2. A recent Nature Climate Change paper discusses the possible effect of CO₂ removal on the global carbon cycle. The paper notes that removing tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere might not be effective, because the shifting atmospheric chemistry could, in turn, affect how readily land and oceans release their CO₂, aka Le Chatelier’s principle. Another reference discusses the same concepts, and it is noted that both rely on synthetic models, like most climate change theory.

3. Handwaving synthetic climate models: a general rule that has been propagated is that for every tonne that ends up being emitted from fossil fuels or “land use changes”, a quarter gets absorbed by trees, another quarter by the ocean and the remaining half gets left in the atmosphere. I have not seen any hard data that backs this up. It basically says half the CO₂ emitted by man is left over and can’t be absorbed or re-equilibrated.

Beginning in the early 1980s, UK homes could have electrical meters installed with a radio teleswitch attached. These switches listened for a 198 kHz signal from the BBC's Radio 4 Long Wave service, primarily broadcast from the powerful Droitwich Transmitting Station. These switches listened to 30 messages per minute, waiting for a certain 50-bit data packet to arrive that signaled that electricity was now at cheaper, off-peak rates ("tariffs" in the UK).

With this over-the-air notice, homes that bought into Economy 7 or Economy 10 (7 or 10 hours of reduced-price power) could make use of ceramic-stuffed storage heaters that stayed warm into the day, prepare hot water heaters, and otherwise make use of off-peak power. How the electrical companies, BBC, and meters worked together is fascinating in its own right and documented in a recent video by Ringway Manchester (which we first saw at Hackaday). https://hackaday.com/2025/04/10/farewell-economy-7-a-casualty-of-the-long-wave-switch-off/

But BBC Radio 4's Long Wave transmissions are coming to an end, due to both modern realities and obscure glass valves.

Two rare tungsten-centered, hand-crafted cooled anode modulators (CAM) are needed to keep the signal going, and while the BBC bought up the global supply of them, they are running out. The service is seemingly on its last two valves and has been telling the public about Long Wave radio's end for nearly 15 years. Trying to remanufacture the valves is hazardous, as any flaws could cause a catastrophic failure in the transmitters.

Rebuilding the transmitter, or moving to different, higher frequencies, is not feasible for the very few homes that cannot get other kinds of lower-power radio, or internet versions, the BBC told The Guardian in 2011. What's more, keeping Droitwich powered such that it can reach the whole of the UK, including Wales and lower Scotland, requires some 500 kilowatts of power, more than most other BBC transmission types.

As of January 2025, roughly 600,000 UK customers still use RTS meters to manage their power switching, after 300,000 were switched away in 2024. Utilities and the BBC have agreed that the service will stop working on June 30, 2025, and have pushed to upgrade RTS customers to smart meters. //

Arstotzka Ars Scholae Palatinae
8y
970
Subscriptor++

Taunted Happy Fun Ball said:
Seems like the obvious solution would be for the regulator to decree that any customer using an older meter following the shutoff will be billed at the off-peak rates for all usage.

Then watch the utilities fall all over themselves to deploy updated meters.

It's rare you can have a technological solution to a people problem, but here it is -- the last transmission before shutdown can be "switch to cheap rates". The utilities will figure it out, after all, because it might cost them money. //

jvok Smack-Fu Master, in training
3y
7

plectrum said:
This is the BBC conveniently lying because it suits them. Nautel recently-ish (2017) installed a 2MW solid-state transmitter for Antenna Hungaria on 540kHz. Their NX400 system is based on stacking phase-locked 25kW modules feeding into a combiner - just buy as many modules as you need. 600kW is no problem - at 90% efficient they're much more efficient than vacuum tubes (50-60%).

I think the bottom line is the BBC just doesn't want to spend the money, on either upgrading the transmitter or on the power bill. Which is fair enough - LW reception is only getting worse given the amount of RF smog from power supplies nowadays so there aren't so many listeners out there any more - but they should own up to it.

I completely buy the idea that the transmitter needs replacing (its 40 years old after all), and that the limited number of listeners left on longwave doesn't justify the expense. It fits with the BBCs and other broadcasters pattern of closing down other legacy services over the last few years (e.g. the local radio AMs). The content broadcast on 4LW is the same as you get on Radio 4 FM and DAB now anyway, the opt-outs (e.g. for cricket coverage) were discontinued a few years back. Hell, how many people even still own a longwave radio?

I get a serious case of Gell-Mann amnesia reading that Guardian article though. I get the impression that the author heard some off-hand comment about the transmitter using valves and decided to turn it into some "OMG critical BBC infrastructure is still using old school valves" story. Even calling them glass valves (which isn't accurate) to invoke images of us all gathering round the wireless like its still the 1930s. When in reality high power transmitters using valves is pretty normal and they're still manufactured today. But of course the public doesn't know that so it still makes for a good story. //

video series on how the 900MHz system in the US works.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYlhncU2MojDY9gxU36pxNVkiylGGcbwq&si=D0j-q_xzW_uuYAQp

The result is a press that cheers policies antithetical to its audience’s interests. International lenders, swayed by the climate mob, tie financing to “renewable” mandates. The World Bank, once a financier of coal plants in Africa, now balks at funding anything that emits demonized carbon dioxide, leaving countries like Mozambique struggling to exploit their gas fields.

In Ghana, where power outages still plague daily life, the government hesitates to tap coal reserves, wary of an international backlash stoked by media outrage. In Kenya, where coal in the Mui Basin could power millions, local outlets echo The Guardian’s disdain for “dirty energy,” ignoring how such resources could slash electricity costs for the rural poor.

In South America, pressure from green-leaning non-governmental organizations – amplified by outlets like O Globo – has stalled oil projects in Ecuador, even as indigenous communities plead for the jobs and infrastructure they bring. In Peru, where natural gas discoveries promise economic liftoff, El Comercio fixates on melting glaciers, marginalizing rural natives still cooking over open fires.

In many developing countries, natural gas could ease energy prices, but policymakers bowed to “green pressure” and left citizens to shoulder rising costs. The poorest suffer most from higher bills, fewer jobs, and dimmer futures.

Popular news reporting no longer empowers with facts but incestuously recounts nonsense that leaves the developing world with the burden of a climate crisis fabricated by self-dealing globalists. //

People of the developing world must demand better or have their hopes buried by false prophets. And journalists in Africa, South America, and Asia must break free from the echo chamber of the climate-industrial complex. It is time to ask tough questions – the basis of critical thinking and honest reporting.

The left loves to talk about how they are all about "trusting the science," but one of the fundamentals about science is this: When the data contradicts your hypothesis, you change your hypothesis. The Biden administration certainly didn't do this; they would rather hide inconvenient data.

Case in point: A recent Daily Caller exclusive reveals that the Biden administration buried an inconvenient liquid natural gas (LNG) export study that would have removed the primary reason for that administration's LNG export ban. //

The thumbnail? The Biden administration had a draft report in hand that contradicted their claims that halting LNG exports would result in more greenhouse gas emissions. The draft report indicated the opposite was true. So the Biden Department of Energy round-filed the report. //

The first layer of this stinker is in the deliberately deceptive practice. The administration made a claim to justify the damage the export ban was doing to domestic energy development; that claim was not only false, but the administration knew it was false, they had data in hand showing it was false, and they went ahead and implemented the ban anyway, in the name of "climate change."

The second layer of this stinker is that the Biden administration hid the results of a taxpayer-funded study and then lied to the American people about it.

And the final layer? They completely disregarded the standard Democrat shibboleth about "trusting the science," but then, Democrats have never been about the science - about the data. They are about the agenda, and this episode is just one more example of many.

A hydroelectric generating station is a plant that produces electric power by using water to propel the turbines, which, in turn, drive the alternators.

These power stations generate about a quarter of all the electricity used in the world. With access to vast water reserves, Hydro-Québec uses water to generate almost all of its energy output. In this way, the company helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But if you’ve seen this thorium ball for the 653d time, you may start wondering what exactly the ball summarizes. And what size it should be – apparently, there are different opinions here.

Does it supply all the energy needed to sustain the life you live? Does it include your yearly trip to the Bahama’s? Your kilometers made for commuting? Or just the electricity to last you a lifetime? It looks so small.

Fortunately, we have David MacKays great calculations of what we actually use. A handy number is the consumption of 195 kWh’s per person per day: the amount of energy used by the average affluent person, including household electricity, heating, transportation, food, energy contained in the ‘stuff’ we buy: everything that fits our western lifestyle.

From here, it’s easy to calculate how much energy we need for a lifetime. Let’s say we live 80 years. Of course, we live a bit longer, but I assume we use a bit less energy at infancy and at old age. That means we need 80 x 365 x 195 kWh’s = 5.694.000 kWh’s. This equals 0,00065 GWyr. And in our previous Numbers page, we saw that 1 tonne of thorium or uranium equals 1GWe-yr. This means the energy of a lifetime can be produced with 650 grams of metal.

In the case of Thorium, which has a density of 11,7 kg’s/ltr, 650 grams, equals 55,5 ml. In that case, the ball would be 4,74 cm diameter.

If the ball would be made of Uranium, which has a density of 18,95 kg’s/ltr, the same 650 grams would eaqual 4,04 cm diameter.

On my screen, Sorensen’s hand measures 7,5 cm, and the ball 2,3 cm. If I compare this to my own hand (11 cm wide), the ball should be slightly bigger, about one third in the case of Thorium (the slightly less dense and bigger ball of the two).

But although slightly bigger, it’s still perfectly possible to hold the energy for a lifetime in the palm of your hand, if this energy is produced in a molten salt reactor. //

I went over my calculations again – and realized I had made a mistake. In my calculation, I had used the grams to kWh ratio for electric power, where MacKay provides his number (195kWh per person per day) for thermal power.

This means my thorium balls are … too BIG! The weights should be divided by about 2,5…

The price of electricity in German soared from 17 cents per kilowatt hour in April 2020 to $4.69 in August 2022. It is now $1.40—or 8 times what Germans once paid. //

Germany's electricity prices have experienced an increase in the latter half of 2024 and the beginning of 2025, reaching an average of 140.42 euros per megawatt-hour in February 2025. This marks a notable decrease from the record high of over 469 euros per megawatt-hour in August 2022, yet remains above pre-pandemic levels. The ongoing volatility in energy prices continues to impact German households and businesses, reflecting broader trends across Europe's energy landscape.

Bill Gates’ nuclear innovation firm TerraPower has broken ground on the non-nuclear portion of Kemmerer Unit 1, a 345-MW Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) power plant. The groundbreaking on June 10 makes the federal demonstration project the first advanced nuclear reactor project to move from design into construction in the Western Hemisphere, the company noted.

The project is taking shape in Lincoln County, Wyoming, about 3 miles from PacifiCorp’s three-unit 604-MW coal and gas–fired Naughton Power Plant, furnished with up to $2 billion in authorized funding under the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP).

An incredible NUCLEAR-POWERED FLIGHT film is newly available online!

We just scanned this declassified film showing 30 minutes of detail from the major reactor development program at its peak, between 1956-1958.

It presents the program goals and evolution, including how global operating costs were expected to be reduced by eliminating the need to operate foreign air bases around the world. Materials problems required them to reduce requirements from high-altitude/supersonic to low-altitude/subsonic. Ongoing development and progress is shown on the GE direct air cycle (XMA-2) in Idaho and Evandale, and the P&W indirect liquid-metal lithium-7 cooled cycle at CANAL, where they developed niobium-based alloys and technology that could run at the required crazy-high temperatures and withstand lithium.

It shows dozens of things I've never seen before, like the 3 ZrH and BeO inserts put into HTRE-2, and talks a bit about the HTRE-3 meltdown. The HTREs can still be seen in the parking lot of the EBR-1 museum on the INL site.

They show an in-reactor test loop being fabricated and tested in a large oil-fired heater, destined to be inserted in the ETR in Idaho.

Now, this is a big, complex issue, and a lot to absorb, but the thumbnail is this: Rising nationalism in Europe is driven in part by frustration over rising energy costs (as well as things like unchecked immigration) and those rising energy costs are in large part due to net-zero schemes to appease climate activists. Britain has gone all-in for renewables, but the renewables aren't consistent, and when the wind isn't blowing, the United Kingdom has been relying on the expensive proposition of starting up natural-gas-powered electrical plants - using Norwegian natural gas. Their backup, incidentally, is gas imported from the United States, and President Trump is planning to ramp up production, but he's also likely to meet American consumer and industrial needs over exports. Interestingly, in the article linked above, "The Telegraph," an outlet not terribly friendly to President Trump, has actually given him credit for doing what's right by America first.

A new study says that many large-scale hydropower projects in Europe and the US have been disastrous for the environment.

Dozens of these dams are being removed every year, with many considered dangerous and uneconomic.

But the authors fear that the unsustainable nature of these projects has not been recognised in the developing world.

Thousands of new dams are now being planned for rivers in Africa and Asia.

'They dammed everything' - hydropower gone sour

Are too many hydropower dams being built?

Hydropower is the source of 71% of renewable energy throughout the world and has played a major role in the development of many countries.

But researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.

Dams are now being removed at a rate of more than one a week on both sides of the Atlantic.

The problem, say the authors of this new paper, is that governments were blindsided by the prospect of cheap electricity without taking into account the full environmental and social costs of these installations.

More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the decomposition of flooded lands and forests.

James Hopf
@HopfJames
An Indiana bill would create a pilot program to build two SMRs in the state. The bill would also allow tech companies to share the cost (i.e., finance the project), so that ratepayers would not have to foot the entire bill. Article link in reply.

So far, tech/datacenter companies have only been interested in long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) where they buy the power at a fixed (and often generous) price. They haven't expressed interest in financing reactor projects (which would expose them to financial risk).

https://t.co/QWrDxVxRMc

But they know no matter what they do, they cannot prevent all seamen deaths. So they must devise a way to show that, when that catastrophe happens, they have done everything they could to prevent it. They require detailed analyses showing that any possible mistake or failure by man or machine will not result in a seaman death.

They require that all vendors go through an expensive and restrictive certification process. The yard is no longer free to bid anyone it wants to. Newcomers need not apply. The incumbent vendors enjoy a deep regulatory moat. Their focus becomes maintaining the paperwork required to preserve that moat. Cost is determined by amount of paperwork not quality.

The OSD writes detailed process requirements dictating just how components will be manufactured and who can do that work. They imposes multiple layers of paperwork documenting that all their procedures have been followed. Any change has to go through a long list of sign offs, requiring reanalysis of anything that might be affected. How long these approvals will take is anybody's guess.

They instruct their inspectors to reject any departure from an approved drawing no matter how trivial or beneficial. If an OSD inspector does not show up for a required test, the test has to wait until he does.

What do you think will happen to our shipyard's productivity? I can tell you what will happen. The carefully choreographed system will be thrown into chaos, and grind to a virtual halt. Cost will increase by an order of magnitude or more. Quality will deteriorate drastically. The ships will be delivered years late. They will rarely perform to spec, some will not perform at all.

Why can I tell you what will happen? US naval shipyards resemble Korean yards on the surface but they are controlled by something that looks very much like the OSD system. In fact, the OSD system is modeled on the Navy system. I spent the first decade or so of my career, working within this system. I saw the focus on process rather than substance. I saw the waste. I saw inexplicable decisions go unchallenged. I saw obvious errors turned into profit centers. I saw promotions based not on output, but on keeping the paperwork clean. I saw horribly bloated initial prices followed by enormous overruns. I saw schedules busted by months and then by years. I saw ships that did not work. I saw everybody involved stridently defend the system.

Thank God the OSD does not run nuclear power. We'd have no chance of solving the Gordian Knot.

Germany is decommissioning its closed nuclear plants, but opportunities for restarting remain. New energy demand and news of Three Mile Island's revival have improved the outlook for closed plants. No significant technical barriers prevent Germany’s nuclear restart, but swift action is needed.

Germany shut down its last nuclear plants on April 15, 2023, and is making significant progress in decommissioning 31 reactors. After years of producing enough electricity for its own needs and exporting the surplus, Germany imported 9 TWh net in 2023 and as of November 25, 2024, increased imports to 25 TWh net. The German economy is expected to shrink by 0.2% in 2024, following a 0.3% decline in 2023. A 2024 survey by Germany’s DIHK Chambers of Industry and Commerce shows a rising number of businesses are considering reducing production or relocating out of Germany.

A German nuclear restart depends solely on political will. The two most urgent measures include an immediate moratorium on the dismantling of reactors and an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act to allow nuclear power plants to be operated again.

Germany once operated one of the world's largest nuclear power fleets and was a leading provider of nuclear technology. However, public opposition halted nuclear expansion by 1990, leading to a phase-out agreement in 2002. Despite a brief runtime extension under Chancellor Merkel in 2009, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted her to make a rapid reversal of her previous policy, with Germany committing to shut down all nuclear plants by the end of 2022.

To replace nuclear power, Germany planned to rely on a mix of coal, wind, solar, and Russian natural gas from pipelines. The country aimed to gradually phase out coal while increasing renewables and using natural gas as a bridge fuel. However, this strategy faced a significant setback when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, disrupting Germany's plans for cheap Russian gas imports. This crisis sparked public debates about extending nuclear plant operations. Nevertheless, Germany's last nuclear reactors ceased electricity production on April 15, 2023.

The shutdown of Germany’s nuclear plants has had major impacts. Before the final nuclear closures, Germany had been a net exporter of electricity. Now, Germany is a net importer, relying on its neighbors for power. Imports in 2024 have nearly tripled those of 2023 before the start of December. Ironically, about half of this imported energy came from France, Switzerland, and Belgium, where nuclear power provides a substantial portion of the electricity supply.

A new online product called the Edison Lost Generator Plans has been gaining a lot of attention lately, with advertisements claiming it can help people build their own power generators to reduce or eliminate their electricity bills. However, many people are questioning the legitimacy of these plans and wondering if it is actually a scam designed to take advantage of consumers. //

The advertisements for the Edison Lost Generator Plans appear online through social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube. They often begin with a video or image of an elderly man claiming to have built his own generator which allows him to stop paying electricity bills.

Other actors appear and make exaggerated claims that the plans will allow consumers to build generators that can produce free, unlimited energy. The ads claim the instructions are being sold for a one-time low payment of $59 or less. //

Once purchased, customers gain access to a set of online articles that barely pass as generator plans. They consist of vague, generic information and lack the specific steps, diagrams, and part lists that would actually be needed to construct a working generator.

Often, the instructions simply mention general components like “battery system” or “charge controller” without any directions on which parts and brands to purchase. There are no schematics, wiring diagrams, or adequate explanations for how to convert energy sources like solar, wind, or kinetic energy into electricity.

In the ever-evolving landscape of energy logistics, Russia is exploring an unconventional approach that could redefine the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Imagine this: massive nuclear-powered submarines quietly carrying LNG beneath the icy waters of the Arctic, bypassing traditional shipping routes and geopolitical hurdles. This ambitious idea, proposed by Russian experts, might seem like something out of a science fiction novel, but it reflects a bold strategy to navigate a challenging economic and political environment. //

The proposed submarine model would weigh a staggering 180,000 tons and boast a draft of under 14 meters, making it capable of navigating areas that conventional LNG carriers cannot. The ability to traverse beneath the Arctic’s frozen expanse presents a tantalizing opportunity to shorten shipping times and bypass traditional chokepoints. //

The design isn’t just impressive—it’s revolutionary. Equipped with three Rhythm-200 nuclear reactors, the submarine would rely on 30 MW electric propellers, allowing it to reach speeds of 17 knots (about 31.5 km/h). At 360 meters long and 70 meters wide, the vessel’s size rivals that of the world’s largest oil tankers. More importantly, its operational capabilities would cut transit times between Arctic gas fields and Asian markets from 20 days to just 12.

This innovation isn’t solely about speed. These nuclear-powered giants could safely operate year-round, including during the harsh Arctic winter months when sea ice renders many traditional shipping lanes impassable. //

Russia’s largest LNG producer, Novatek, recently announced plans to acquire 16 ice-class LNG carriers. Yet sanctions and technological barriers have stymied progress, highlighting the difficulties of expanding Arctic shipping routes. By turning to nuclear-powered submarines, Russia hopes to sidestep these roadblocks while reinforcing its sovereignty over the Arctic.

There is renewed talk of a coal power comeback in the United States, inspired by Donald Trump’s return to the presidency and forecasts of soaring electricity demand.

The evidence so far only shows that some plants are getting small extensions on their retirement dates. This means a slowdown in coal’s rate of decline, which is bad for the environment, but it does little to change the long-term trajectory for the domestic coal industry.

In October, I wrote about how five of the country’s 10 largest coal-fired power plants had retirement dates. Today, I’m revisiting the list, providing some updates and then taking a few steps back to look at US coal plants as a whole. Consider this the “before” picture that can be judged against the “after” in four years.

Some coal plant owners have already pushed back retirement timetables. The largest example, this one from just before the election, is the Gibson plant in Indiana, the second-largest coal plant in the country. It’s set to close in 2038 instead of 2035, following an announcement in October from the owner, Duke Energy.

But the changes do not constitute a coal comeback in this country. For that to happen, power companies would need to be building new plants to replace the many that are closing, and there is almost no development of new coal plants. //

The United States had about 176,000 megawatts of coal plant capacity as of October, down from about 300,000 megawatts in 2014.

The coal plants that do remain are being used less. In 2023, the average capacity factor for a coal plant was 42 percent. Capacity factor is a measure of how much electricity a plant has generated relative to the maximum possible if it was running all the time. In 2014, the average capacity factor was 61 percent.

Set to be killed by Trump, the rules mostly lock in existing trends. //

The net result of a number of Supreme Court decisions is that greenhouse gasses are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA needed to determine whether they posed a threat to people. George W. Bush's EPA dutifully performed that analysis but sat on the results until its second term ended, leaving it to the Obama administration to reach the same conclusion. The EPA went on to formulate rules for limiting carbon emissions on a state-by-state basis, but these were rapidly made irrelevant because renewable power and natural gas began displacing coal even without the EPA's encouragement.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration replaced those rules with ones designed to accomplish even less, which were thrown out by a court just before Biden's inauguration. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court stepped in to rule on the now-even-more-irrelevant Obama rules, determining that the EPA could only regulate carbon emissions at the level of individual power plants rather than at the level of the grid.

All of that set the stage for the latest EPA rules, which were formulated by the Biden administration's EPA. Forced by the court to regulate individual power plants, the EPA allowed coal plants that were set to retire within the decade to continue to operate as they have. Anything that would remain operational longer would need to either switch fuels or install carbon capture equipment. Similarly, natural gas plants were regulated based on how frequently they were operational; those that ran less than 40 percent of the time could face significant new regulations. More than that, and they'd have to capture carbon or burn a fuel mixture that is primarily hydrogen produced without carbon emissions.

The State of Alaska filed a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging a violation of a congressional directive mandating the development of oil and gas resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s (ANWR) Coastal Plain.

Known as the Section 1002 Area, the 1.5 million-acre stretch of Alaska’s northern coast was designated by Congress in 1980 for potential energy development.

In 2017, Congress explicitly directed federal agencies to open the area for oil and gas leasing.

But a December, 2024 decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management significantly curtailed this directive.

The World Bank’s mission has been subverted by green ideologues who assert that a low-carbon world benefits the world’s poor but fail to acknowledge that making energy much more costly increases poverty. The World Bank tags itself as ‘working for a world free of poverty’ … In making its choice between development and sustainability, the World Bank has decided it is going to try and ‘save the planet’ on the backs of the poor.

By abdicating its founding principles for alleviating global poverty, the World Bank has taken a lead role among multilateral financial institutions in denying vast financial resources to poorer countries. It has hypocritically vetoed the right of developing countries to adopt the path of economic growth and environmental improvement that the now-rich countries had taken up successfully since the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago. The World Bank’s obsessive support for intermittent, low-yield renewable energy such as solar and wind power comes at the cost of its central charter to help the poor, an outcome that can only be described as egregiously unjust.