I tend to believe that nuclear is not the only way forward but at this stage I think it's the most sensible. Who knows what technology is waiting around the corner. The problem with Fukushima & Chernobyl was that these plants were too big to handle. Make them smaller thus more controllable.

Rhrosty
commercial scale power from waste? Um, did you get that stuff from anywhere? I'm sure you could produce some power that way, but I think the scale is vastly different from the 500 MW coal fired plants we usually use.. maybe you want to recheck the scale of the systems they are talking about in whatever material you're quoting..

I am amazed at our self importance. What we do as a very sparsely populated country really counts for nought. Its like when the Indian press call us racist or sexist. A simple diversion from the real problems where the population is bulging.

Hey Hasbeen; what's possible now today, are CNG powered ceramic fuel cells, in electric cars.
One can put a pebble reactor on the back of a very long multi-wheeled low loader, as a piloted very wide load!
So, I don't contemplate a nuclear powered car any time soon. [Not while I live and breathe, or on planet earth anyway.]
A ceramic fuel cell, around twice-three times the size of a microwave, will run an average family home and supply endless free hot water!
A much smaller water cooled one, could replace the combustion engine in any hybrid car.
We already make both of the things here!
And we have copious NG!
And local suppliers are on the public record saying, even with a 15% fuel excise imposed, they could supply gas at 40 cents per cubic metre, which has around the same calorific energy, as a litre of petrol.
Yet, we currently import up to 80% of our transport fuel requirements; mostly from an increasingly volatile middle east!
And pay an arm and a leg for it at the bowsers!
As kick-a-ball, lamb chop chewing Sam Kickavictch would say, you know it makes sense!?
I have however, heard of Afghan rebels, "confiscating" some Russian depleted uranium waste, a "pebble", and then using the heat produced to make tea?
Who knows, something like that might produce enough steam to power up a old Stanley Steamer, which as you probably know, once held the land speed record!
Otherwise, we could probably ask the Missus, to throw another log on the fire, or peddle harder!?
You have a nice day now HB, Rhrosty.

Hi Noel.Wauchope

Use of Thorium reactors might in fact be a bonus for Australian miners as Australia is estimated to have the largest Thorium "resources" in the world http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/mineral-resources/thorium.html .

However John Ridd might be overly optimistic about Thorium reactor's technical and economic viability given the very low use and slow development of Thorium reactors over the last 60 years.

Still, this is in comparison with a near cartel of Uranium miners, U reactor builders and operators. The dual-use (military-commercial) value of Uranium may have also artificially favoured U reactor development at the expense of Thorium reactor development and economical functioning.

All in all if Australia is ideologically opposed even to Thorium reactors we can at least export it to future customers like India, France and China etc.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/thorium-reactors-indian-and-australian.html

Individual,

>"Make them smaller thus more controllable."

Dead right. That's where we are heading, for many reasons. Small units can be produced in factories on production lines like aircraft, shipped to site and returned to factory for refueling. Therefore, better quality control. Small units can be produced more quickly, so this reduces the time to build new plants. So the order can be placed later and the funds are tied up for a shorter time before they start producing electricity. This reduces the cost and also reduces the financial risk for the owners and investors. All this reduces the cost.

But the most important advantages is the small units are produced more frequently so improvements are built in more quickly than with larger designs. So the technology is improved more quickly, costs come down, productivity increases and safety improves more quickly than with large units.

There are some 43 small modular nuclear power plant designs in various stages from concept through to in-production awaiting the go ahead from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The US Department Of Energy approved the first of these to be taken through to commercialisation in November. It is 180 MWe which is about the same size as large gas units. it is an ideal size. This is what it looks like:http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library/Design%20Specific/mPower/Presentations/2012%20-%20Reactor%20Design%20Overview.pdf

With a doubling of global generating capacity of plants like this every 3 years, the world could cut GHG emissions by 13 Gt CO2/a by 2050. And cost of electricity could be about half compared with the current cost of new coal generation. Furthermore, doing so would avoid over 1 million fatalities per year from coal fired generation,

Who, in their right mind, wants to argue against this?