Classic example of obfuscation and pseudo-learned dithering about nuclear energy. The simple facts are that most of the developed world uses nuclear energy, the nuclear industry has been in the doldrums for 20 years or so as regulation and costs increase, nuclear energy is clean, for the first time in its history there is, or seems to be, an actual need for clean electricity, and the prospects that fossil fuels can be eliminated without using nuclear energy are poor. But old habits die hard. Australia's lingering distaste for nuclear energy is never far from the surface. Most people can't be bothered arguing. Apathy and boredom have taken over. However on the horizon there’s a trigger that will mobilise the nation. The grand vision of a renewables future based on solar, wind and storage will likely end in tears. The sleeping public will be aroused. Antinuclear arguments will dissolve. And finally we’ll catch up with the rest of the world. It will be a relief.

More fearmongering about the world's safest energy. Nuclear, even with Chernobyl and Fukushima still has the lowest death toll per gigawatt hours than coal, gas and even renewables.

It produces Carbon free energy and at lower prices than any of the aforementioned. And as MSR thorium lower than 3 cents PKWH!

The Chinese able to circumvent all the red tape and bureaucratic BS have cracked on and eliminated the problems with MSR thorium and are ready to sell these reactors to the world.

Moreover, the reactors will burn nuclear waste reducing the half-life from thousands of years to just 3-400 and far less toxic. We can surely store it for that long somewhere?

Binroy, suggest you stay on topics you have some up-to-date knowledge about., or try talking from a little higher up.
Alan B.

If they want to build a nuke plant I give permission for one near me. The original NuScale proposal fell over but several other customers in the US and eastern Europe are lining up. People seem happy to fly in planes powered by General Electric or Rolls-Royce engines so presumably those and a number of other companies can make a safe, economical SMR. GE says the electricity cost will be comparable to US gas turbines. Unlike batteries that can go for 2 hours SMRs can go for years until the next refuelling.

SA is an odd duck. Olympic Dam is the world's largest uranium deposit and currently no. 2 producer. Yet Malinauskas boasts about hydrogen power stations with nary a mention of OD's contribution to low carbon energy worldwide. Perhaps when hydrogen stations prove to be duds while nuclear prospers things will become more obvious.

Recent surveys have 61% of the population in favour of nuclear energy! Time labor stopped allowing the anti-development greens to stop deciding their energy policy!
Alan B.

I know literally nothing about matters nuclear but some of these intellectuals put even me to shame in the ignorance Department.
Chernobyl & Fukushima turned out such enormous disasters due to the massive size of these facilities. I’d have thought smaller more manageable plants would be the better approach for future nuclear power stations. There are already so many decommissioned nuclear powered ships that could be used to start off with or their power plants could possibly be transferred to land based facilities. The main aim is after all to produce clean power asap at the best cost. I’m sure that stupidity & lack of vision are the only problems, not technical issues.

Australia's - Bowen's - attitude to nuclear gets more embarrassing every day. The world probably looks on us Australians as d-ckheads for our lack of interest in the fact that less than 30% of us voted for Labor, and it's only the stupid preferential system that got them in.

How many times must we give Labor a chance when every time they get into power the bugger up the country.