View from the Greenpeace moon beam
Bangladesh orders two nuclear power plants from Russia.
Bangladesh’s state-run Atomic Energy Commission signed a deal with Russia on Friday to set up two nuclear power plants, each with 1,200 megawatt capacity, an investment totaling $12.65 billion, a government official said.
Work will begin early next year at Ruppur in Iswardi, 160 km (100 miles) from Dhaka, said Kamrul Islam Bhyian, spokesman for the ministry of science and technology.
“Russia will finance up to 90 percent of the total cost as credit with an interest rate of Libor plus 1.75 percent,” Bhyian told Reuters.
Bangladesh will clear the total loan within 28 years with a 10-year grace period.
Bangladesh finance minister Abul Maal Abdul Muhith said it would be the country’s biggest power project.
The first power plant is expected to begin operating by 2022 and the second by 2023.
The official said the plant would use a new generation reactor that has a lifespan of 60 years with an option of extending it for 20 years.
Those crafty Bangladeshies understand that they need energy to lift their people out of poverty and to sustain economic growth, and also understand that they can’t wait for magical unicorns and windmills to appear and help them out. American greens are too sophisticated to grasp that.
We could have had safe, incredibly efficient integral fast reactors up and running right now, and our CO2 emissions would have been cut by 75%. No nuclear waste to dispose, no way to use them them to produce weapons. Unfortunately for the world, or at least that portion of it that consider’s CO2 production to be “the greatest threat to our security that exists” (that would be the current occupant of the White House, and the warmist horde), Bill Clinton and his Democrats killed development of such reactors in 1994.
NASA’s chief warmest alarmist, Jim Hansen, has been calling for more nuclear power plants for years, and did so again as recently as two weeks ago. According to Scientific American:
James Hansen, former NASA climate scientist, and three other prominent climate scientists are calling for an enlarged focus on nuclear energy in the ongoing Paris climate negotiations.
“Nuclear, especially next-generation nuclear, has tremendous potential to be part of the solution to climate change,” Hansen said during a panel discussion yesterday. “The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won’t use all the tools [such as nuclear energy] to solve the problem is crazy.”
He was joined by Tom Wigley, a climate scientist at the University of Adelaide; Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science; and Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Their stance clashes with those of environmental groups such as Greenpeace that advocate against nuclear energy.
We can have meaningless rhetoric from the likes of Robert “No windmills spoiling my summer home’s view” Kennedy, or we can have energy; not both.