Cobber, you seemed to suggest that the Author was manufacturing some of his numbers, which from my perspective seem to fit the facts and the result of buying the green renewable ideological imperative? Wind or solar, solar or wind!

I'm an owner of a solar array, and therefore not against that source of clean energy. However, as an energy dependant economy I believe we need to resuscitate our manufacturing industries! And simply not doable with something as expensive and intermittent as wind and solar. Albeit great as gifts to completely undeveloped third world countries to kick start very rudimentary cottage industries.

I like thorium for much the same reasons a Geoff, We have enough to power the world for around 700 years, or ourselves for far longer if we would keep the huge economic advantages this cheap reliable energy source would confer! Why rolled out as local power it would be even substantially cheaper than national grid dependant hydro power! The indians are working on a 300 megawatt prototype.

Moreover, any waste is far less toxic than oxide reactors, which consume around 5% of their fuel type whereas thorium consumes 95% of their fuel which might be just a single truckload over the fifty year life of a local non grid reliant project! Which probably underlines why it is cheaper than coal, which during the same period would need mountains of the stuff and at ever increasing prices!?
Cheers, Alan.

Plantagenet,

Cobbler commented on my link to US EIA data comparing US Federal government subsidies in dollars per MWh (I gave the source):

EIA, 2015, 'Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year' 2013 http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

Cobler posted to a link that is disingenuous and misleading. It does not compare the subsidies in $ per MWh. It simply gives the total dollar amount of subsidies per technology type, ignoring the fact that renewables supply negligible amounts of energy, nuclear much more, and fossil fuels very much more.

Cobbler fell for the oldest trick in the book, a trick frequently played by the renewable advocates in various ways - i.e. misrepresentation, disinformation, dishonesty.

I'm staring at a global economy heading toward another global downturn, which could turn this nation's economy into banana republic status and possibly for several decades if we sit on our hands and wait for others to do something for us?

Which is largely how we got where we are today. However we can use the downturn to our advantage just by using the brains and the resources we were born with and the world's cheapest energy! And no that's not selling any at fire sale prices to debt laden foreign speculators, but rather develop them ourselves and firstly as income earning infrastructure projects; then employee owned cooperative enterprise, very doable as government initiated pragmatism?

Co-ops were the one form of free market private enterprise that largely survived the Great Depression intact and the reason we need to roll them out again, given there's no less costly nor more efficient manufacturing or production model?

It just stacks up, no other production paradigm can compete as cost effective efficient production, particularly where you can incorporate large production runs and scales of economy.

China currently enjoys a 30% wages inflation and still relies on state owned or last century's energy inefficient conventional manufacture to get manufactured trade goods to the world.

At the moment we export iron ore to them, when e.g. if we were intelligently lead with nothing off the pragmatists table, we could be exporting steel, aluminium and other metals with the lowest carbon footprint in the world to the world and at more than competitive prices!

There are innumerable other even more exciting and profitable possibilities! But only if we apply Lee Kwan Yu's pragmatism and vision! However ideologically unpalatable!

Given the impossible debt load the world is currently carrying, we have no other viable choice?

Can't died in a cornfield over a century ago!
Alan B.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm

These charts show how unpredictable and random renewable generation is. Germany produces roughly 30% on average renewable power, for which they need to keep roughly 90% non renewable energy generation available. For this they have one of the most expensive electricity prices in the EU.

Hi Toni Lavis

Nuclear powered merchant ships were developed and generally discontinued in the late 1960s through the 70s. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civilian_nuclear_ships

Reasons for stopping were generally:

- economic (high cost of development, repairs, alterations, port support equipment, etc)
- many ports didn't want such ships
- especial dangers if grounding or collission occured

Russian authorities, having little public pressure to worry about, and the special power needs of icebreakers has maintained a viable fleet of nuclear powered icebreakers to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft projects didn't get too far due to:

- the un-airworthy nature of the heavy lead shielding needed to protect pilots, occupants and ground crew
- danger of crashing anywhere
- power to weight ratios weren't favourable

Need for heavy lead shielding precludes road vehicle uses.

Use on trains with track exclusion zones may be the best from an engineering viewpoint but the risks of hijacking and terrorism are substantial.

Its nice to think that even as adults, some can still have dreams, because that's all the renewable targets are, is dreams.