Daffy, they already did. It’s called (today) the integral fast reactor based on US development some 20-30 years ago. It’s sustainable, uses up existing nuclear waste and can readily replace fossil fuels.

The only reason costs are talked about when talking about alt; fuel is because oil is cheap.
Algae will transform the fuel industry. 60% of an algae is vegy oil

In my opinion, if we want to cut GHG emissions the solution is obvious. But progress is blocked by the Progressives – i.e. they block economically rational solutions. I get the impression they want to prescribe solutions that support their ideological beliefs.

The solution is clear to me. Since there is no persuasive evidence that AGW is either dangerous or catastrophic, the decisions about what to do should be based on economics and cost benefit analyses. A cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels will allow the world to cut emissions as well as improve well-being

A cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels has been available for nearly 60 years. Its progress has been blocked by the Progressive-Left If we remove the impediments to the low cost alternative to fossil fuels, we can have both lower cost energy and reduced emissions. The lower the cost of the alternative to fossil fuels the faster it will replace fossil fuels and the faster global emissions will be reduced.

Small modular nuclear power plants could be produced in factories, shipped to site, run for many years, then return to factory for refuelling. They have been held up in the US nuclear regulatory process for a decade or more. The industrial countries could produce them as fast as we produce airliners, if we wanted to. The US was producing aircraft carriers in 100 days towards the end of the WWII. If that rate of production for a far larger and far more complex piece of machinery could be achieved 70 years ago, think of the rate that USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, Korea and Japan could produce small modular nuclear power plants now.

The solution is clear. It is to educate the Progressive-Left or sideline them. As long as they block the development of nuclear, little progress will be made.

Peter Lang,

The error in your nuclear vs airline regulatory comparison is that the airline industry has been one of the most highly regulated (Not least regulated) at least in the most competitive sectors - and obviously excluding Russia and a few others. Cost pressures to conform to high standards (of maintenance for example), increasing fuel costs and competition between aircraft manufacturers are what has driven the technological innovations leading to greater safety and lower operating costs (and hence lower air travel costs).

If nuclear power production had been less regulated I suspect there would have been many more Chernobyl and Fukushima events, and with far more devastating consequences.

It would seem inevitable that nuclear will have to be part of the energy mix if living standards are to be maintained and extended to an increasing quota of the global population. But nuclear is inherently extremely dangerous if mismanaged - as amply demonstrated in WWII and more recent events. 'Safe' nuclear will probably be developed, but other alternatives should not be easily dismissed.

Rhrosty and others have mentioned the potentials of solar thermal, biomass and algae cultivation as viable and reasonably competitive contributors. Oz may be the perfect place to experiment with and develop these technologies, while others - eg China - work on nuclear. Individual circumstance, demography and topography should determine 'best fit' of technology, and not 'one size fits all'. As the author states: 'prudence and caution'.

Carbon tax and ETS are flawed. Emissions targets and higher energy prices may be the drivers, but new technology is the future, and government 'seed' investment (via higher general taxation) may provide the only effective trajectory. The mining boom should not be frittered on handouts, but invested in future resilience.

Argentina exported 1.7 million tonns of bio diesel to europe.
The ones lagging behind is us.
Nuclear power will not get off the ground, and not necessary.

579
While I haven't checked your biodiesel figure, there are severe limits to that resources.. biodisel from animal fat may represent an energy input, but diodiesel from other sources does not.. it can cost just as much energy to produce the stuff than you can get from it..

Biofuels are produced by government subsidy for political reasons, not for energy or environmental reasons..