Open Letter to Mr. Ajay Banga, President, The World Bank Group

 

Dear Mr. Banga,

Congratulations on being appointed the President of the World Bank. I watched your interview with Fareed Zakaria of June 11, 2023, and am prompted to write this letter requesting that you reconsider the policy forbidding investments in nuclear power. 

You grew up in India and your experience informs you of the absolute need for adequate energy for people around the world. Like you, I too grew up in India. I too witnessed the improvements in the quality of life and health when charcoal- or dung-fired clay pots were replaced by gas stoves, or when electrical bulbs replaced kerosene lamps. As one of your predecessors, Dr. Jim-Yong Kim, pointed out in an interview that the enormous progress made during the last 25 years lifted over a billion people out of poverty. He could foresee lifting another billion in the not-too-distant future. Earlier progress was made on the backs of coal and oil. Can we afford to do the same to help the next billion?

I am glad you called for an energy transition from coal-to-gas-to-renewables. Yet, calls for divestment from fossil fuel companies to mitigate climate change only reduces the supply of gas, raising the cost of fuel and most adversely hurting the poor. There is no social justice in that.

The absence of nuclear power in the coal-to-gas-to-renewables transition you discuss is deeply concerning to me. Wind and solar are intermittent energy sources and when you consider the cost of storage at scale, they are not cheap—not in direct dollars, nor in their environmental footprint when accounting for all the mining required for the materials. If we rely only on wind and solar to provide the required clean energy, we will have to increase mining activities manifold and encroach on natural habitats, further exacerbating the risk of pandemics.

Nuclear power can produce vast quantities of carbon-free energy. It has resulted in the fewest fatalities per unit of energy delivered than any other system, including wind and solar. It also has the smallest environmental footprint. It is unfortunate that multinational agencies like the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation have a policy against supporting deployment of nuclear power plants. Their reluctance is based principally on our unfounded fear of radiation, reinforced by decades of fearmongering by environmental activists.

I ask you to reconsider the policy against supporting nuclear power projects. In concert with quickly deployable wind and solar technologies, nuclear power can provide the requisite base power without the need for inefficient gas-fired power plants. Should you have any questions, please contact me.

Respectfully,

Ripudaman

********************************

Ripudaman Malhotra

Fellow, American Chemical Society

Misguided Disinvestment

 

The call for divesting from fossil companies is getting louder by the day with more environmental activists, celebrities, religious organizations, universities, pension funds managers, institutional investors and legislatures joining in the chorus. The fossil fuel divestment movement, which began in the early 2010s, seeks to encourage individuals and institutions to remove their investments from companies that are involved in the production and use of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Though I agree with the goal of transitioning away from fossil energy, I believe that the disinvestment is misguided. Not only does it not reduce carbon emissions, it also exacerbates social injustice. Let me explain.

The movement believes that climate change, which is largely being caused by our use of fossil fuels, is an existential threat and argues for a quick transition to clean fuels. The logic behind divestment goes something like this. It would send a strong signal to fossil fuel companies that there is growing concern in the public about the impacts of their activities, which would send a message to governments and other investors that the risks associated with fossil fuel investments are increasing. It would pressure them into adopting more sustainable practices or transition to cleaner energy sources or face the financial risk of holding stranded assets. Divestment can help reduce this financial risk for investors. For individuals and organizations that are committed to environmental and social responsibility, divestment from fossil fuels can be a way to align their investments with their values.

The environmental activists have influenced several states in the United States into considering legislation for divestment from fossil fuel companies. In 2015, California passed a law that requires the state's public employee pension funds to divest from coal companies. This was followed by New York, which in 2020 introduced legislation that would require the state pension fund to divest from fossil fuels by 2023. After that, many states like Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, and Vermont introduced similar legislation. The divestment has had the effect of making it harder for the oil and gas companies to raise funds for projects as lenders are viewing the loans riskier. As a result, the industry has cut back on drilling and used its earnings to buy back stock.

About 3 billion people in the world today are living with energy poverty, which results in low life-expectancy, high infant mortality, high death rates during childbirth, malnutrition, unsanitary conditions, inadequate infrastructure, and general impoverishment. Children, mostly girls, spend their days collecting fuel and fetching water from distant wells or ponds. The loss of human potential is staggering. How many of these children could have grown up to be teachers, engineers, doctors, leaders, entrepreneurs, lawyers, etc.

Indoor cooking over animal dung or wood exposes children to more pollutants and further impacts their health. The health benefits for them in switching to gas are enormous, and efforts should be made to furnish them with steady supplies of pipelined gas or LPG cylinders.

The lack of investments in drilling has made this task more difficult, particularly in view of the global disruptions in the supply of natural gas following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The US could be in a better place to supply the world with liquefied natural gas and ensure energy security. The situation in Europe could have been much dire the past winter but for the mild weather. We have time to gear up for the next winter. It is ironic that in view of rapidly changing climate we are rushing to install climate-dependent energy sources.

I recognize that natural gas is still a fossil fuel, whose burning leads to carbon emissions. I would just point out that the reason US greenhouse gas emissions have declined is basically a result of switching from coal to natural gas. We could have reduced the emissions even further, if instead of investing in wind and solar projects (20% availability), which we back up with natural gas fired plants of 30% efficiency, we had installed fewer, base-load, combined-cycle natural gas power plants with efficiencies of 55% or higher. It would also have saved us the hassle of integrating intermittent wind and solar power with the grid.

This is not the time to cut investments in oil and gas production. Unless the demand for their use comes down, greenhouse gas emissions will not decrease. Calls for divestment only assuage one’s guilt for using products and services made possible with fossil energy.

A Tribute to President Jimmy Carter

 

President Carter is currently under hospice care. Before it is all too late and rendered moot by life's irreversible course, I want to express my appreciation for the man who is an inspiration to me. 

Dear President Carter,

 

I was a chemistry graduate student in 1978 when I first heard your call for a moral equivalent of war to gain energy independence, in the wake of oil embargoes by OPEC. Caricaturists called this your “meow” moment. It was more a “roar” to me, and I enlisted as a foot soldier in your army in this “moral equivalent of war.” I worked most of my career on energy-related issues: at first the problem was rather simple. We lacked liquid fuels to meet our transportation needs, but we had plenty of coal. Coal had been converted to liquids. 

 

The technology for liquefying coal was developed in early twentieth century in Germany, but it was very expensive. It was also deployed by Germany during the war and later by South Africa to mitigate international sanctions, but the costs needed to come down substantially for coal-derived liquids to compete with oil in a free economy. The energy challenge has since become a whole lot tougher with the recognition of the climate change engendered by burning fossil fuels for energy. Today, we seek energy from sources that are also environmentally benign and compatible with the goals of sustainability.

 

Working in the field of energy made me acutely aware of the looming energy crisis humanity is facing, and the need for an informed public debate on the choices we have to make. About fifteen years ago, I joined my colleagues Hew Crane and Ed Kinderman to write a book that could be a citizens’ guide to energy. Admittedly, energy is a difficult subject to discuss, but it is made even more so by the plethora of units and mind numbing multipliers of billions, trillions, and quadrillions.

 

While waiting in the gas lines in 1973, Hew had come to the realization that annual global consumption of oil was then approaching one cubic mile, and a cubic mile of oil seemed to be a good unit to describe energy from all sources. At a conference in January 2016, physicist Amory Lovins brought to my attention that you had arrived at a similar conclusion, but that as a navy man he preferred cubic nautical miles. I did some searching of old documents from your days in the White House and came across a memo dated April 18, 1977, by Stu Eizenstat converting barrels to cubic miles. There were also some hand scribbled calculations on the page, probably by you. The thought made a tingle ran up my spine. 

 

Energy is not the only area in which you have inspired me. Your moral rectitude and tireless pursuit of social justice have been just as inspiring. Your efforts at resolving conflicts, promoting peace through free and fair elections, and fighting diseases are all laudable. The way you have dedicated your life to public service after the presidency stands as a shining example of how to live out one’s retirement.

 

Wishing you comfort and peace in your remaining days.

 

Testimony in supprt of Colorado SB23-70: Classify Nuclear Power as Clean Energy

 

My name is Ripudaman Malhotra, and I am retired scientist with over 36 years of experience in research on the chemistry of energy conversion at SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. This work made me acutely aware of the looming global energy crisis. To improve the quality of life we must double the energy supply, particularly in the form of electricity. However, more than 80% of the energy currently comes from fossil fuels, whose use is directly responsible for the global climate change.

 

Reducing CO₂ emissions is essential for mitigating climate change as well as ocean acidification that threatens our food supply. On a life-cycle basis, nuclear power has the lowest emissions and the smallest environmental footprint to build and operate. Per DoE analsyes, wind and solar plants require ten to fifteen time more of commodity materials like steel, glass, concrete, and copper. Procuring these at the required rates will require encroaching wild habitats.

 

Nuclear power also the best safety record, especially in terms of fatalities for a given amount of energy delivered. These attributes make nuclear energy ideal for decarbonizing our energy system. Indeed, countries like France and Sweden that have succeeded in deeply decarbonizing their energy supply, have relied heavily on nuclear power.

 

As we electrify our transport system, promote self-driving vehicles, electrify home appliances, and expand cloud computing services, we will need ever increasing supplies of clean energy. Nuclear energy can fulfill this need. Yet, instead of building nuclear plants we are prematurely closing them down, often a result of policies designed to promote “renewable energy.” Scientifically speaking, none of the sources of energy are “renewable.” Energy does not renew itself; it is always dissipated. Because “renewable” sources are intermittent, we currently back them up with natural gas plants. As we transition away from fossil fuels, we will have to use batteries or other storage technologies that will raise the cost and life-cycle emissions of “renewables.” By relying on wind and solar, we would be making our energy more reliant on climate at a time when the climate is undergoing major changes. In contrast, nuclear power is reliable and always dispatchable.

 

“Renewable” sources qualify for financial incentives such as investment and production tax credits (ITC and PTC), and renewable energy certificates (REC). Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) give priority to renewables forcing other plants to ramp down when they are plentiful (such as at high noon). These policies distort the market and unduly handicap baseload power plants like nuclear, forcing their closures. By classifying nuclear as a clean source, which it is, will allow nuclear power to access these incentive programs, thus forestalling premature shuttering and promoting its expansion.

 

If permitting is streamlined for developing small modular reactors, these walk-away safe nuclear plants would be the cheapest source of electricity. Some of the new designs also offer the possibility of using the “waste” nuclear fuel, currently being stored in dry concrete casks at nuclear power plants. We should be treating this “waste” as the resource it actually is.

 

There are hundreds of coal-fired power plants in the US that could be retrofitted with these modular reactors. These shuttered or soon to be shuttered power plants are already connected to the grid and have most of the workforce at hand. They offer a quick path to expanding the use of clean nuclear power.

 

I therefore urge that the Senate adopt SB23-079 and classify nuclear power as “clean power.”

 

Respectfully,

Ripudaman Malhotra