You are the one missing the bus Chris! Because the Indians are busy building a 300 MW thorium reactor and are presently using the process to burn nuclear waste?

See reports available for anyone with eyes to see, and ears to hear on U tube!

Conventional power delivery, regardless of source, is part of the problem with transmission towers which can be blown down or blown up!

And very vulnerable to determined saboteurs!

It'll never happen here! Similarly nobody ever expected Pearl Harbor nor that determined hijackers would fly stolen planes loaded with innocent civilians into the twin towers, also loaded with innocent civilians!

Transmission lines come with an average 11% transmission losses and distribution losses can be as high as 64%!

Molten salt thorium reactors are safe enough to bury in any backyard or under a school playground, to supply very safe, clean cheap local power that minimises transmission and distribution costs and would need a direct hit by a bunker buster or thermonuclear device to shut down!

We need cheap clean power not coal fired activists out to prevent it at any cost!

You come with a veritable shipload of entirely irrelevant activist opinion, barely veiled abuse and highly flawed conjecture, whereas I bring relevant industry specific experience and a science related background to the debate!

Meaning neither President Putin nor his St Petersburg trolls nor manifestly moribund idealogues can tell me what to think!

Just the weaker minds, easily controlled by the anti-nuclear advocates quite deliberately, mischievously and vexatiously confusing uranium and thorium in this debate!

As well as risking all our best possible futures!

You can't make a bomb nor plutonium with thorium, which is less radioactive than a banana!

What's next Chris, the banana bomb or decommissioning all our banana plantations!
Alan B.

Oh for goodness sake - now the Thor-bores are bringing in the banana deception! https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/crooked-science-about-bananas-and-radiation/

Leo Lane, It's not yesterday's history that tells us what we can expect but that extracted from the paleontological one, and from around 90 million years ago!

This record, which is all but an open book for Paleontologists with eyes to see! Is that this was a period marked by a rapid rise in Co2 emission, caused by unusual volcanic activity!?

Which pushed average ambient temperatures up by around 2C. This was enough to begin to melt the PERMANENTLY FROZEN TUNDRA, which responded allowing millions of tons of previously frozen methane to escape, allowing an additional rise of ambient temperatures of 3C and added to the aforementioned 2C increase, meant an average increase in ambient temperatures of 5C as the mean total!?

And enough to all but destroy all life on planet earth! Thus endith the relevant history lesson for today!

As of today, Co2 levels are up in uncharted territory and the formerly permanently frozen tundra is once again melting!

If you accept the historical evidence? What does that tell us? That we can engage in endless egotistical pissing competitions?

Or bend to the will of those who are alright Jackie, and invite all else to go visit the nearest taxidermist?

Name your pleasure, effective affirmative planet rescuing, one minute to midnight, action, that comes with an upside for all its citizens!

Or more of the same? We can do one or the other, just not both!

Chose wisely, almost as if your children and their children's futures/survival depended on it!
Alan B.

AlanB, did you make that nonsense up yourself, or have you found some fraud promoting website?
Robert Carter was a paleontolodist, and studied the climate record. If you can fault his science, let us hear your basis.
Here is a history by a scientist, which does not align with yours. He deals with the baseless assertion by the IPCC, of human causation of climate change:
” Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5oC. This compares with a low of about 12oC during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22oC during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age.
http://www.cfact.org/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-earths-geologic-history-fundamentally-contradicts-co2-warming-fears/
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, Alan.

I'll back any university library and its section on paleontology, with numerous authors against Mr Carter's bogus recollections?

It's all too easy for a St Petersburg toll to manufacture links!? And suggest anyone needing confirmation only need visit a university library!

Yes, we could be in an ice age and probably explains the melting tundra, the lack of Alaskan summer sea ice, for the first time in living memory or the hottest consecutive years on record! And all consistent with Mr Carter's assertion that we are in a new ice age! Bah humbug!

What sort of mugs do you take us for? Is Mr Putin so concerned about thorium killing off his fossil fueled revenue stream? That he'd send his useful idiots out to kill the messenger?

No, I completely reject that its too late! Given SAFE, CLEAN, CHEAP nuclear technology allows us to harvest copious Co2 from seawater, then combine that with hydrogen garnered from the same source to produce purpose created hydrocarbons ready to go into numerous varied fuel tanks without any further refining!

And as the seawater gives up its Co2, the atmosphere gives up enough to very nearly replace that taken!

So no, it's not too late, except for more professional obfuscation and lack of decisive action!

And given ultra cheap thorium energy, fuel for a lot less than anything your russian masters can pump from the ground! So of course they have to rubbish me before it's too late and folk get on U tube to verify (fact check) the actual factual material! I DARE YOU!
Alan B.

Alan B, where are these thorium reactors producing industrial levels of power? There are around a dozen experimental reactors, and no one has taken them up as a viable alternative. Also they do produce by products which be used for "other" purposes. They are not as clean as their supporters claim. Especially as the reaction has to be started by plutonium! True Australia, has a huge amount of the chemical element which can become "thorium", but the process probably uses more power than it generates. A bit like wind farms.