Good cogent essay Suzanne.

As usual, some folk think that nuclear may replace coal? We need small factory built modules that can be trucked to the customers. And those factory built modules ought to be, CHEAPER THAN COAL, CLEANER THAN COAL, SAFER THAN COAL, walk away safe, molten salt thorium!

Thorium is the most energy dense material on the planet and we have enough in our dirt to power the world for the next 1,000, and 1,000's more if we start to mine igneous rock!

Moreover, Millions of tons of thorium has been mined with other minerals and some sand mining!

All of which has been treated as waste! Some concrete slabs may have large concentrations of thorium under them?

Thorium is abundant easily recovered and available as is, without any enrichment whatsoever!

It is less radioactive than a banana! Produces 90% less toxic waste and may even be tasked with processing nuclear waste until the half life is reduced to 300 years! While other nations pay us billions!

And money enough to build dozens of walk away safe molten salt, thorium reactors. None of which need to be connected to an energy wasting, money wasting grid!

Reactors for zilch, and virtual free power! Moreover, for the hundreds of years we'd need to process and reprocess imported waste!

The greens will as is their want, waffle on about radiation and nuclear weapons?

You're exposed to far more GAMMA radiation, when flying any long haul international route!

There just isn't any weapons spinoff from thorium! The very reason this tried, tested and not found wanting, fifties technology was abandoned?

And maybe because powerful energy companies knew they'd be annihilated by costs so low, they couldn't ever compete!

And the very reason for putting it back on the table, then allow it to stand or fall on the huge meritorious economic upside alone! Nothing else, no ifs buts or maybes!

Wait 20 years for that?

WHY?

Got a problem with widespread economic growth and unprecedented general prosperity?

Or, can't get permission from our bettors?
Alan B.

If we are going to transition away from coal? And we are going to transition away from coal! Then that transition needs to be based solely on the economic upsides of doing so!

An imperative for a nation producing around 1% of the planet's Co2 emission!

Simply put, if a truly massive economic case can be made for that transition!? Why would anyone want to obfuscate or delay for as long as possible, to effectively prevent that transition?

Surely there would have to be a very narrow vested interest coupled to that obfuscation or delaying tactics? A light water reactor 20-30 years from now!? You think?

Look, 20-30 years from now the same expert, perhaps with an alphabet soup behind a name, can suggest the very same thing, without ever once setting out a superior economic or environmental argument for wanting we Australians for doing so!

[Remember, an Aussie sounding non de plume, doesn't mean the poster is actually Australian?]

Perhaps until any possible advantage has gone or become the boon for others not governed by incompetent dolts? Nincompoops one and all, who if they shared a brain between them, would find it lonely!
Alan B.

Nuclear "A most incredibly expensive activity which produces more carbon dioxide than it substitutes for"

Totally egregious rubbish, Brian, completely negating your credibility. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf

ACF groupthink is on display.

The author is unaware of what is happening in the real world. For example, she is unaware of the dire energy insecurity prevailing in South Australia following closure of its coal-fired power stations.

I think that coal will continue to be the backstop of energy production because only coal can provide energy at the costs that consumers can afford to pay. All this talk about CO2 and "man-made climate change" is uttter bollocks. For heaven's sake many good scientists in climate have debunked.

Perhaps the good lady would care to enlighten us what other remarkable technology her mob is going to use to replace coal.

David