Australia is certainly "absurd" when it comes to energy and prices, the biggest absurdity of all being the paranoia about the cheapest and most efficient source of energy, coal. We have oodles of the stuff, which, until the climate lunatics took over, made us the most competitive country in the world. But this is just one of the many indicators that Australia is rooted.

Thank you. A new voice explaining the realities is most welcome. This needs emphasising:

“One of the most glaring omissions in the Australian energy debate has been nuclear power. The anti-nuclear movement led by the Greens has waged a successful campaign over the years based on fear, intimidation and lies, building up this power source as monster in the minds of the public. This is in stark contrast to the actual evidence. Nuclear power does not emit air pollution and is able to isolate its small amount of waste from the environment. Thanks to the energy density of uranium, nuclear power plants require a small amount of land area. Finally, contrary to popular belief, nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy, with one of the lowest ‘death by Terawatt hour’ rates of any power source.”

A new open access paper, ‘Nuclear power learning and deployment rates; disruption and global benefits forgone’ http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169 , explains the benefits forgone as a consequence of the disruption, since about 1967, of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power. It confirms your point about nuclear being the safest way to generate electricity and gives figures for deaths per TWh by energy source. It also references Daubert and Moran on ‘the origins, goals and tactics of the anti-nuclear protest movement’. The Notes in Appendix B answer relevant points often raised by those who have only the common perceptions of nuclear power; in particular see: V, VIII, IX, XII.

Australia will need to wait until Turnbull has gone.

He's the 10 year Plan Man whose promises are so far in the future (like Snowy 2.0's 8 years) that nothing he selects to promise counts.

Australia's "Energy Policy" seems to be more about Federal Government standup arguments with States (eg. South Australia) than any progress.

Meanwhile electricity solutions rely on private industry concurence. The present energy shortages mean higher prices and profits for energy producers. So the producers do not want an new energy solutions that threatens their profits.

As the energy producers are from the Big End of Town they can control Turnbull and his Liberal Party's Non-policies.

We've had some form of RET for nearly 20 years yet non land use emissions keep rising
https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/jan/09/australias-emissions-are-rising-its-time-for-this-government-to-quick-pretending
That has added billions to power bills or taxes in different ways. Enthusiasts insist electricity will get cheaper and more reliable but simple facts suggest otherwise. They appear to have several state premiers and key federal politicians lapping it up.

Another myth is that fabulous future efficiency gains mean we will need less electricity. That flies in the face of several trends... air conditioning now becoming essential, the prospect of millions of electric cars, strong population growth and desalination. A new approach will be needed to solve all this, not subsidised and quota mandated renewables. How long can we keep kidding ourselves?

I think Australia should be an early customer for light water SMRs located on old coal stations. When the technology is available we should re-use some of the spent fuel in 4th generation nuclear. BTW my hunch is that hydro is letting too much water out of the dams if 2018 is going to be dry.

Great analysis, and spot in identifying the clueless and gutless nature of the entire political establishment.

We have as ttbn has alluded to, heaps of coal! But his claims that it's our cheapest source of energy founded exclusively on a coal enthusiast's ideological imperatives, not the facts!

Nuclear is the answer, not just any nuclear but thorium.

Thorium is the most energy dense material on the planet! And used in a walk away safe, molten salt, thorium reactor. able to power a 350 MW reactor, with just one ton of three or four times more abundant thorium fuel, for the operational life of the reactor. (100 years?)

Even as a uranium fueled 350 MW reactor burns 2551 tons of vastly more expensive, enriched uranium, during its 50 year life?

The advantages of molten salt are many, the principle one being, as the reaction hots up the molten salt expands, it forces the nuclear atoms further apart, automatically slowing the reaction. And as that occurs the medium cools allowing contraction and greater activity again.

Meaning this self regulating reactor operates in modest waves and at normal atmospheric pressure. Massively reducing construction costs!

It will also burn other folks nuclear waste extracting massive unspent energy! And as other nations pay us annual billions to bury their waste for them.

But only after we've reprocessed it to remove the truly massive unspent energy and reduce the half life to just 300 years. Producing virtually free energy as we do so! And clean, safe, ultra cheap, carbon free energy into the bargain. And turbocharge the economy as part of the package!

Moreover we can do the same with weapons grade plutonium.

Because thorium is fertile, not fissile, it can't be used to make a thorium bomb nor can a molten salt thorium powered reactor be used to make plutonium.

Yes some of the fissile products created in a thorium reactor could be used in some sort of thermonuclear device. But only with extreme difficulty and in a doomsday scenario. And then it won't matter where we get our energy from!
Alan B.

'politicians and policy makers need to find the courage and conviction'....must be talking about another country not yet discovered by the known world..... and he sure as hell can't be expecting Australian politicians to find that which they know not of.
Parliaments would do better to consist of 75% ex servicemen having served at least 5 years in the defence forces....not the mealy mouthed sleazes we currently have.
I'll grant some have an idea of what they would like to do, but that doesn't last long when confronted with self serving indolence of greater numbers

Certainly Australia should lead the dirty, poisonous Thorium Revolution, even if this experiment costs Taxpayers maybe only $20 Billion to 50 Billion.

Lets forget clean, proven, wind, solar and hydro.

AND Thorium reactors have useful WEAPON applications

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uKwdtHQEPM

Cheers :)

Privatisation of the energy market has not helped with the price of energy.
Also, the Howard government gave gas away at liquidation prices.

http://the-pen.co/no-good-reason-to-increase-energy-charge/

It's not an energy crises, it's a crises of political ineptitude and neglect of social good.

Dirty thorium Pete? So far from the truth to be in orbit!

I can see some vested interest in renewables speaking loud and clear here and a vested interest that would be ruined by the application of clean, safe, thorium. And have to resort to blatant lies, to try and get the mugs out there in mugvilles to sit still while the renewable enthusiasts fleece them and all but kill the economy!

Tas. Our chances of ever building a uranium powered, light water reactor are virtually nil and will remain thus as long as we remain a signatory to the nuclear proliferation treaty. Besides they are horrendously expensive and massively dangerous.

If the reactor at chernobyl had been a molten salt thorium reactor. There would've been no melt down and the thing would be perculting away today. You see in a solid fueled reactor, the reaction produces xenon, a gas. Xenon eats neutrons and slows the reaction.

It also expands inside the fuel rods and if allowed to expand to much? Chernobyl!?

In a molten salt reactor the gas is like fizz in a soda pop and just vents to the atmosphere during the fuel reconditioning in the adjacent chemical plant.

This reconditioning allows all the available energy to be progressively extracted as the molten brew goes from reactor to chemical plant and then refreshed pumped back to the reactor to continue the self regulating reaction.

From time to time a few grams more of fuel or nuclear waste, can be added. just to maintain optimal performance.

One of the byproducts of this type of nuclear reaction is miracle cure bismuth 2/13. And the only hope for a number of really nasty cancers.

I suppose a conflicted pete will tell you all that's dirty as well?
Alan B.

Alan B.,
If you're going to keep advocating thorium based molten salt reactors, please take the time to learn about them! Likewise, if you want to criticise uranium rod reactors, please learn about these too instead of making laughable statements! There are plenty of documentaries explaining what happened at Chernobyl, so I'm surprised you still don't understand. Mismanagement of the effects of xenon was certainly a major cause, but it had nothing to do with "expanding inside the fuel rods".

It is not all xenon that absorbs neutrons much better than other elements - it's only the radioactive isotope Xe135. And the best thing you can do with Xe135 is capture neutrons, producing heat and Xe136 (which is stable and useful). The WORST thing you could do with Xe135 is to vent it into the atmosphere, because of its radioactivity. Fairly quickly it decays into Cs135 which has a two million year half life - short enough to be dangerous, but still far too long to safely deal with by any way other way than containment.

Though bismuth 213 is used in nuclear medicine, it's not a miracle cure. And of course it's "dirty" - like other highly radioactive substances, it's harmful so you don't want any in your body unless you really need it! Nor do you need any sort of nuclear reactor to produce it; a particle accelerator will suffice.

Adian: I clearly have learned a lot more about thorium as a potential fuel than you have from one of your many, crafted in the Kremlin, bogus links! It is xenon that eats neutrons. The very first nuclear reactor ever built proved that absolutely and conclusively

Of the two of us I'll bet I'm the only one to have worked with radioactive material on a daily basis.

And I'll thank you to take your BS clams to NASA scientist and nuclear technologist, who'll laugh in your stupid face, before you go telling me to study something you clearly know nothing about!

You sad little link dependant, B.S. artist! Try talking from a little higher up next time and stick to topics you have some actual knowledge of! And save your bogus links and BS for folks impressed by that crap!

Yes I know, you're one of those green advocates ideologically opposed to all nuclear as a mindless ill informed imperative!

As always you arrive in a cloud of bombastic ill mannered, abusive fire and fury, opening your mouth just to change socks, as you try to big note yourself by pretending to know stuff. And hopping into folks who've clearly forgotten more than you've ever learned.

Thankfully parliament has already received a report. And although not too enthusiastic, at least factual!

So you're a bit late with the false information that has worked so well for green nut jobs for several decades. Go take a running jump. You stupid little cyberbully!
Alan B.

There are a number of folks and industries, who could see their business model destroyed by the widespread roll out of clean, safe, cheap, carbon free, Molten salt thorium and electricity with a median price PKH of a tad under two cents. (professor Hargreaves, Thorium, cheaper than coal) Hence all the fire and fury, massive misinformation, obfuscation campaign.

And they are coal/fossil fuels, big nuclear and all the renewables many so called green advocates are earning a current bonanza off of?

And are in truth green in name only? As they rake in a fortune from production that leaves a toxic legacy for centuries in the environment.

Alvin Weinberg, inventor and patent holder of the first working nuclear reactor. Knew something needing to operate at up to 300 atmospheres would end in tragedy. And he has been proved right several times.

Of interest is his reaction as his first reactor went up and down, switching itself off then just as mysteriously switching itself back on.

As he lay in bed he worked on a hypothetical theory that would explain the problem and he was essentially correct.

You see all solid fueled reactors produce xenon. A gas that eats neutrons and as it does so stops the nuclear reaction.

And later when the stuff had absorbed as many neutrons as it could hold, the neutron exchange resumed and the reactron continued.

They got round it, according to Alvin, by inserting more fuel rods in places around the reactor.

It is widely believed xenon was implicated in the Chernobyl disaster.

Anybody remains free to fact check my claims and from peer reviewed Authenticity! NASA scientist and nuclear technologist, Kirk Sorensen as Authentic as peer reviewed presenters go!

Not bogus links crafted in St Petersburg! Where ill mannered, rude cyberbully, bombastic and routinely abusive Adian, clearly gets the bulk of his information/misinformation!
Alan B.

Even the climate castropharians don't mention thorium. Alan must have a pile of the stuff to sell.

ttbn: I'm advocating thorium for one reason and one reason only. I consider it's our best chance of effectively dealing with real climate change and because before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I want to be able to look my kids and Grandkids in the eye and tell them I left no stone unturned to ensure they had the best possible future and a more prosperous one than their parents enjoyed. And to pass on the benefits of technology and superior economy! It really is that simple.

Apart from that I know our world will be a better place where every home has affordable electricity and safe potable water to drink and grow sustenance crops.

Two thirds of the homes on this planet are places without a washing machine and where the women slave many unnecessary hours every day fetching water and hand washing clothes. And we're all poorer for it!

Adian clearly understands nothing about nuclear technology. Except what he can find in some dubious link or other. Because if that were not the case, he would know the longer the half life, the less radioactive the material.

Moreover if he had actual knowledge, he would know about the science of hormesis. This science demonstrates that some above average rads might be beneficial. And confirmed in studies of cohorts where the background radiation was higher. Which showed cohorts with less cancer than the average, and in all such cases.

Apologies Adian for calling you a few probably deserved names, but out of order anyway.
Alan B.

Alan B.,
I see you're completely failing to address the points I made, and resorting to ad hominems instead. Do you seriously imagine that any of the other readers, looking at what I've written and what you've libellously claimed about me, won't conclude you're a hypocritical idiot?

FWIW your assumptions about me are completely wrong. For a start I'm not ideologically opposed to nuclear. I'm skeptical about its potential in Australia for economic reasons, but globally it has a great future. And that does include thorium fuel and molten salt reactors. And some day may even produce power below 2c/kWh (or more likely 2¥/kWh). But I look at the whole story, while you read only the proponents' claims and laughably conclude that everyone who doesn't share your enthusiasm is either an idiot or a shill, or maybe just badly informed. Apparently the idea that anyone could now more about something than you has never occurred to you!

I concur that xenon was implicated in the Chernobyl disaster. An inexperienced crew mismanaged the restarting of a badly designed reactor with non uniformly distributed xenon 135. As I said: Mismanagement of the effects of xenon was certainly a major cause, but it had nothing to do with "expanding inside the fuel rods"

To find out about xenon 135, start by reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_pit

BTW of course I know that "the longer the half life, the less radioactive the material". Technically it's a slight oversimplification (because the materials are usually mixtures, and some decay products are also radioactive). But accepting the simplification, it shows a comprehension error on your part: xenon 135 has a 9 hour half life so is highly radioactive - certainly unsuitable to be released into the atmosphere. Its decay product caesium 135 has a two million year half life - not highly radioactive, but radioactive enough to be hazardous. And yes I'm aware of horses - but I don't consider it sufficient to rely on to justify long lasting environmental pollution.

Guys, guys, even though I find your 'pissing contest' entertaining I would like to add my thoughts.
Firstly those who have followed me know I am a vehement opponent of PC. Secondly, I also would gladly contribute to a 'let's get rid of all the greens and tree huggers' fund. It confounds the crap out of me how anyone could consider a politically clueless group of people as a serious contender for a political party. In any shape or form.
To the point; renewables are a fiction! A fool will tell you all the wonders of renewables. There are none. The only one with a proven record is hydro. All this other rubbish is a fiction generated by the elite and their mates who have the govt's ear so they can extract money for nothing. Wind. Apart from the disgustingly obscene visual pollution, they are a folly. Solar. Again visual pollution, and too ineffective. No need to go on. Basically the Achilles heel to all these 'pipe dreams' is cost per unit return. ie; what you get out of them compared to the setting up and on going costs, they fall way too short of the mark. Tesla makes a big deal of his batteries in South Australia. How does it work again, I've forgotten? You can power a small suburb for 45 minutes? These are ALL con-jobs. My message to Canberra is stop stealing our money and get back onto proven sources of power generation. One final point. Electric cars. Unless I can ravel the same distances on a charge as I do now, 'refuel' at about the same time I do now, and, best of all I pay the same money to buy the car as I do now, (based on a base Falcon or Commodore), you can stick your electric cars. I was recently offered a 'like new' 2010 Toyota Hybrid, for NOTHING. They could not sell it because the battery pack was too expensive. The car ended up at the crushers. A 2010 model, like new car. Someone justify that for me. I know you can't.

Apologies for failing to notice my autocorrect had turned hormesis into horses!

ALTRAV,
Like Tristan Prasser, you're railing against imaginary disadvantages of renewables. I suppose I should be glad that you haven't copied his rhetoric (like calling SA and Vic the Diesel States because of a few generators that are hardly ever used). But it's a pity you're still so clueless as to what solar and wind can do. Only you and Tony Abbott regard the windmills as "disgustingly obscene visual pollution", and I don't think even he'd go as far as to apply that label to solar.

What you seem to have failed to understand is that while solar and wind have a much higher capital cost, they have a much lower running cost than fossil fuelled power. And that cost is falling.

Unfortunately the politicians are a bit too keen on cross subsidisation and not keen enough on creating conditions to enable renewables to exploit their natural advantages.

Ok, for all the climate alarmists:

Since the advent of the industrial revolution rough global average temperatures have risen from approximately 288 degrees Kelvin to 288.8 deg K. Now given a little thought one would conclude that this is clearly statistically insignificant. No need to panic?

Secondly, over the last 300 years global average sea level rise has been estimated at approximately 20cm per century, again, given global natural climate change, this is absurdly small (remember we are talking averages here). Again, no need to panic.

Given the above, forget climate change, or at least the ridiculous idea man is in any way impacting weather let alone climate.

Now we have the more important energy issue. First let's get something clear, we need to reduce pollution especially plastics into the environment and particulate into the atmosphere if we wish to reduce human fatalities from these types of pollution. (I assume we would all agree to this, perhaps not?).

Back to energy, if it's cheap and we have the resources to produce energy in abundance, well reality says - use it, but use it in a fashion which reduces the detrimental issues mentioned in the paragraph above.

Given time, technology will evolve whereby new, cheap and abundant energy will come on-line and life will continue to go on. Politics and the mangled, hysterical green skewed ideology is the current and foreseeable failure re energy.

Facts are facts, let's not get confused with assumptions and fake religious like holds on that which blinds so many, particularly those in positions of power and policy decision making.
Galen

Galen,
Technically Kelvin are not degrees since they are an absolute measure. And the change in temperature is very statistically significant - using an absolute scale doesn't make it otherwise. The only thing that's clear is that you don't yet have a good understanding of either statistics or physics.

Panicking won't solve anything, but we do need to take action. We know there is a bigger rise in temperatures that can be explained by natural variability, and scientists have seen a breakdown of the link between temperature and solar activity. Furthermore, we know for certain that human activity has made changes to the composition of the atmosphere, increasing the atmosphere's ability to absorb and reradiate infrared. Given the above, it's time for you to abandon the ridiculous idea that man isn't in any way impacting climate.

There are known impacts on weather as well, but they're not so important.

Hi Aiden, then there is this, not mine, but scientifically correct:

"In science and engineering, degrees Celsius and kelvins are often used simultaneously in the same article, where absolute temperatures are given in degrees Celsius, but temperature intervals are given in kelvins. E.g. "its measured value was 0.01028 °C with an uncertainty of 60 µK."

"This practice is permissible because the degree Celsius is a special name for the kelvin for use in expressing relative temperatures, and the magnitude of the degree Celsius is exactly equal to that of the kelvin.[10] Notwithstanding that the official endorsement provided by Resolution 3 of the 13th CGPM states "a temperature interval may also be expressed in degrees Celsius",[4] the practice of simultaneously using both "°C" and "K" is widespread throughout the scientific world. The use of SI prefixed forms of the degree Celsius (such as "µ°C" or "microdegrees Celsius") to express a temperature interval has not been widely adopted."

Galen

Aidan, it is you who speak of imaginary things. I speak facts and truths. The truth is that renewables have to be too large a scale compared tothe amount of power they generate. I'm talking in excess of 200 to 300 acres, to power one small suburb. Solar is no different. Both these concepts are proving unreliable. Hydro has proven itself because it virtually has one massive moving part and it's not prone to the whims of nature and the failures of technology. Even you can surely see the absurdity of the economy of scale and the unsuitability of these current types of renewables. To better explain my point. Imagine an airliner and the size of it's engines compared to the overall size of the aircraft. They seem well paired. Now imagine if you will, what renewables would look like if applied to this aircraft. The size of the engines would be in excess of 200 to 300 times their current size to achieve the same power output. Don't believe me? You do the math. Oh and in both cases you would have a repair team on board to keep the engines running because there are so many moving parts or the technology is so close to the edge they are working at or over their design specs. I have not failed to consider anything. My background is engineering. As for my position on renewables. Can you, or anyone else for that matter, be so blind or just plain contradictory that you would think I would not want cheaper and more reliable energy? So, right now whilst the govt is dishing out money to themselves and their mates to make plebs like you think your actually going to get cheap renewable power any time soon, I choose to follow the technology not the propaganda. If renewables have a chance they have to be removed from govt control. The current technologies being offered are simply smoke and mirrors. Hopefully one day we will get what we know is out there. Cheap reliable power. But not today.

Aidan,

You stated "it's time for you to abandon the ridiculous idea that man isn't in any way impacting climate."

Well I did say that, what I meant was man is not altering climate in any way that is significant enough to be construed as being harmful, if anything any minute increase in temperature is great for coral formation (as but one example).

By the way, if we are going to get into semantics, can you please tell me, as an apparent scientific ignoramus, what exactly is the correct global mean average temperature supposed to be? Please don't tell me a guesstimate, I would like your scientifically proven exact answer, evidence would go a long way too, thanks in advance.

Galen

Aidan, this is not your day. On the question of CO2 levels and your accusation that man is 'impacting climate'. Recently a team of scientists used a satellite to measure CO2 levels in cities. (to update their data) What they found came as a shock. Not only did they find that the CO2 levels had increased 30% on previous readings but with this new and more sensitive equipment it corrected a previous wrong held view about CO2. They found that the jungles and vegetated areas were the clear and main emitters of CO2. The cities were found to be so little by comparison, they deemed them as negligible and therefore not noteworthy.It's amazing as time goes on and technology increases we are finding many past views to be incorrect. Another point, this one is about the result of climate change and the impact on all living things on earth. I have heard some crazy predictions about sea level rises. I have heard such numbers as 10 to 20 metres and more. Let me put some sense back into this topic. If you take all the clouds, the ice, the snow and everything that produces water, you will not get more than an inch or two of ocean rise. And I'm being generous just to make my point. As time and technology advances, you will all come to realise that this climate change BS is another money making stunt by mental retards like the greens and anyone else who has found a way of making money off it.

Adian: I don't intend to address your points, because you haven't made any of substance.

You are In my view an ill mannered oaf abusing all and sundry. Bismuth 2/13 is not dirty and is a miracle cure, An alpha particle isotope that's attached to an antibody that then goes directly to the cancer cells killing only them.

And has a proud record of curing death sentence cancers, like inoperable brain cancer, hodgkin's and myeloid leukemia.

Yes you can make it in particle accelerators but only if you want to ensure it's millionaire medicine.

X Rays are also radioactive and you can pick up more rads on an international flight than that emanating from any current nuclear facility.

Alpha and beta radiation are part of the beneficial spectrum of the nuclear family, it is only gamma radiation that is usually lethal, or dirty nuclear!

By the way expert in everything, when did you pass your medical degree? No degree!

Oh I see, all you have is this or that dubious link of unknown origin?

You and autocratic abusive ignoramus like you claim to be concerned about climate change overpopulation, but as usual for EXTREMELY AUTOCRATIC green ideologies, reject the very remedies that would effectively tackle both, due to mountainous false belief and galactic False assumptions.

You may be a nice man when you grow up. Go away and do some of that and read a couple of books as you do.

#1/ Thorium cheaper than coal. (Robert Hargreaves) and #2/ Super fuel, subtitled green energy. (Richard Martian)

Yes I know you'll struggle, but persist, you'll get there one day? Hope springs eternal!
Alan B.

An ad appearing on commercial TV, and approved in Canberra! Is extolling the virtues of clean coal by an advocate holidaying in Japan? Which is supposed to have some and allegedly affordable?

It fails to address the fact that Japan gets much of its energy from its many nuclear reactors and that much of its cleaner fossil fueled power stations are gas fired and with our gas.

Yes clean coal, with zero emission is possible, but don't even contemplate building one unless you've a lazy 7+ billion. Then be prepared for a maximum energy coefficient of just 6% and losses for the life of the complex.

Prepare for the fact that no sane rationalist is ever going to be able to make a business case for clean coal in a competitive commercial environment. That is technically gnostic.

And prepare for an economic ruin if you're the country adopting this madness, ostensibly only to protect the dubious commercial interests of foreign, price gouging, tax avoiding, profit repatriating, debt laden, economic vandals!

Also prepare for the complete lack of appetite among the banking fraternity for investment in coal!

For that sort of money, I believe, we could in all likelihood, mass produce 10 or so, factory assembled 350 MW molten salt thorium reactors, plus clean safe carbon free electricity with a median price of less than 2 cents PKH! And as we perfect the build, those costs go down and down per completed unit!

And if we're sanely lead, with other folk and nations effectively picking up the entire tab!

Naturally our Leaders, intellectual giants, one and all, would prefer the clean coal option! No question, they've even proposed investing taxpayer funds for that purpose! And you guessed it for one single, coal fired power station.
Alan B.

Allan, I am on board with your salt thorium push. I too can see no technical problems with the concept. However I feel you may have overlooked the one factor that controls the approval of all our major infrastructure projects. That is, whether the pollies can find a back door personal financial gain from it and if so, how big a financial gain. That's why all these grants and BS around renewables. Who knows how much the greens leader is milking from these grants and the like? No I fear that unless your salt thorium concept is very expensive thereby giving these scumbags the opportunity to re-direct some of the funds their way, it will never get a look in. Are there any salt thorium plants currently in use or being tested? I would like to know more, and if enough people start talking about the concept it might just get a leg up from the people for a change. Remember, the pollies are there for their own benefit not for ours.

To begin with we are faced with the reality that people without money will never be able to tell those with money how to spend it.
Secondly, those with money want an immediate return on their investment (money) so they want to see proven performance on any enterprise they are being asked to invest in.
At this point we have those without money, trying to dictate to those with money, so what I suggest is that those without money save their pennies and invest in the various schemes of their choice instead of trying to claim privilege and entitlement over public monies.
At present anyone with money is investing on proven performance....coal, nuclear, etc and anyone saying otherwise is merely expressing delusional desires.
All I've read so far is how one is better than the other but I don't see anyone putting their hand in their pocket.... and that's because yapping is free, whereas doing costs money.
Everyone has an opinion on how money is to be spent ....as long as it's not theirs.
Politicians, being short term thinkers, go with the votes....and the money....so anyone expecting foresight from this august body of leaders had better think again.
Even Turnbull's plan for the future is such that he plans to be elsewhere when the discovery is made to the contrary, and one only has to look at the handling of the NBN as being a precursor to his planning and implementational abilities.
Shorten has always been a little short on, and he's waiting for the other side to stumble 'cos he's got no idea other than banking on peoples short memories on Labour fiascos and the masses desire for change for no reason other than.
So where does this leave you and me?.......waiting to see what society does when the free money runs out.....'cos it not gunna be pretty.
My advice ...... start saving candles

I started to write a comment, only to have a google app. remove it entirely! As an act of ultimate censorship?

ALTRAV, there are numerous countries currently researching molten salt thorium. And include China India, Russia, Japan, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, South Africa and our nearest neighbor, Indonesia, plus many others?

I think I agree with your analysis for our current energy crisis and its cause. Moreover, I think the only real change that is possible, is when all these self serving "intellectual giants" are all removed from office!

Until or unless that happens, all we can expect is move of the same and a boom and bust economy! And heading for the bust side of the equation as soon as interest rates start to lift, not too far ahead in time!?
Alan B.

Altrav: There seems to be new sodium batteries that just don't degrade the way the lithium ion does. Moreover there new capacitors that you can completely recharge in thirty seconds and hold promise of doubled maximum range, about a thousand clicks? That'll make the Bathurst one thousand the property of fully electric vehicles?

The chinese are ramping up their totally electric car production and promise more than a million units this year? And there are moves afoot for electric highway that tavase the entire east coast and from Perth to Albany? With the Indian pacific and car carrying rolling stock filling in that gap? As it does now!

Without question, it's going to be seriously cheaper to to recharge the jalopy overnight with off peak energy than fill up at the petrol bowser.

The government can replace fuel tax/road funding by placing an additional, cents per erg, charging tax they collect from the electric highways.

Once you've driven an electric vehicle, you'll never want to drive conventionally powered again? I kid you not!
Alan B.

Alan B, I see you mentioned a long time favorite of mine. 'Conductors' or more to the point 'superconductors'. I stopped pushing and talking about them as I got a lot of flack from the 'experts' on 'The Forum'. I have believed in super conductors for many years. The technology is still not at the point I would be satisfied with it. I live in hope. It has all the features we would need in a electrified world. Safety being the principal benefit. Unlike Lithium which is very unpredictable and I feel we are trying to force too much power, too quickly, into one of these batteries and in doing so are 'teasing' the battery till one day, for no reason at all, it decides to go off like a flare with no easy way to put it out. I will keep watching for any progress or updates on superconductors, and one day we just might see the future of safe, cheap power storage in superconductors.

ALTRAV,
Most vegetated areas are net absorbers of CO2, but there is a lot of seasonal variation.

The predictions of 20m+ sea level rises were based partly on thermal expansion of water, but mainly on the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica melting. When scientists realised that was a possibility, there was a lot of media coverage. But when they examined it further and found that we would not get such big sea level rises in the foreseeable future, that wasn't considered newsworthy.

But don't get too comfortable - the cost of a 1m sea level rise is much higher than most people could imagine.

>The truth is that renewables have to be too large a scale compared tothe amount of power they generate.
The truth is Australia is a big country with a small population. Finding sufficient space for renewables is not a problem, and it can usually coexist with other land uses.

>My background is engineering
...As is mine. So as one engineer to another, I ask: why are you so daunted by big solutions?

I did not allege you didn't want cheaper and more reliable energy. But I don't think you've given sufficient thought to how it can be achieved with renewables. Because they're so capital intensive, their financial viability is very sensitive to interest rates. But at the moment they're not being given access to cheap finance - instead the banks are making a huge profit at their expense. And because of this, large subsidies are required - and these are generally cross subsidies, making electricity more expensive. IMO government action is needed to ensure renewable energy has access to cheap finance, enabling it to pass the savings on to customers.

The whole argument that is going on here is irrelevant.
The arguments ignore the falling Energy Return on Energy invested.
Both coal & oil have fallen to low levels.
It is the reason the oil industry is planning its wind down as Shell
has announced.
One joke I read was that tight oil fracking is the oil industries retirement party.

As far as using capacitors to recharge in minutes or seconds;
Just shows how weak some commentators are in their electrical knowledge.
You would need a crane to lift the plug to put it into the socket on your car.

Other countries, parts of US and China are closing coal mines because
of falling ERoEI. We are a long way from that but we will need our
coal because it will take many years to get policy changed on nuclear.
We should hang on to it as we will need it.

The best thing to happen to get a change of policy is more blackouts.

Alan B.,
It may surprise you to learn that points of substance aren't the ones that fit your prejudices!

Why do you keep referring to "bismuth 2/13" as if it were tomorrow's date in American format? Don't you understand what the 213 means?

Regarding the relative danger of alpha, beta and gamma emitters, the situation is far more complicated than you think. Alpha radiation is less dangerous on the outside (because the alpha particles generally just bounce off your outer layer of skin) but if you get it inside you it's far more destructive. Nuclear medicine can put that destruction to good use, but there is significant collateral damage.

BTW bismuth 213 is a beta emitter as well as an alpha emitter.

I'm an engineer, not a medic.

You continue to post libellous false assumptions about me even after I've called you out on it. You're asking for trouble, yet still whinging about my personality when I post some fairly tame responses!

And why would I want to read those books on thorium power? I'm already aware of the case for it; indeed I'm a supporter. But unlike you I don't assume it to be commercially viable already, let alone able to produce electricity 2c/kWh yet! And subconsciously you must know that's the case, as you've mentioned all those countries that are researching it rather than building commercial reactors!

__________________________________________________________________________________

Galen,
Even if I could give you an optimum global mean temperature, it would not be universally accepted, as this planet's systems are extremely complicated and a lot of value judgements would have to be made. The real problem is no the temperature itself, but the rate of temperature change (unprecedented except in mass extinction events). We've adapted to existing conditions, and change is going to be very expensive to deal with. But it's likely to be far worse for nature because it has to adapt by natural selection which tends to take much longer.

And I'm puzzled as to why you think temperature increase is great for coral formation. Aren't you aware of coral bleaching?

My only disagreement is your statement that greater market share for renewables “is of course a good thing.” The Australian reports today that governments have paid $50m to buy back electricity from industrial users to reduce blackouts for other consumers. South Australia refused to pay $25-50m to keep a major coal-fired power station producing for several years, but has spent perhaps $600m plus on Mickey-Mouse schemes to slightly lessen the prospects of blackouts, now it and Victoria have paid that amount for short-term relief. Madness.

The worst example of virtue-signalling was that within hours of Trump being elected and declaring that the US would ignore the Paris Agreement, Turnbull signed up to it. It was surely an opportunity to stop the further descent into madness by saying, “Hang on, without the US, what’s the point, why should Australia damage itself to no purpose?” and try to get the debate onto a more rational level.

Faustino, what does it take to make Aussies realise that these pigs are stealing millions from us.
The buy backs and the like you speak of are all to do with the pollies and their mates.
All these millions that change hands have a kick-back fee with every dirty deal. This is the norm.
I know, I have witnessed these dirty deals so I am very pissed off with the way the pollies rip millions out of the nations piggy bank, smiling and treating us like mushrooms as they are doing it.
I don't care if the Aussie public are too thick, stupid or lazy to see it, they can facilitate these pigs at their own expense.
I don't want them stealing MY money so I hate to see them getting away with it.
And what kind of BS are these millions to buy back OUR power. Where are the vigilantes or the X-men when you need them. I dream of making pork sausages in so doing wiping them out and into extinction.

Aidan,

There are many problems with renewable power incl

1 It is extremely expensive to install
2 Connecting to the networks is many times more expensive than other power sources, which is not generally included in basic costings.
3 It is intermittent to the point that it needs to be built with nearly 100% backup, which is generally also not included in basic costings.
4 Wind power installations typically have a life span of 20yrs before needing an almost complete rebuild.

The comparison with Nuclear power stations with life spans of 60yrs and more that require no back up and are cheap to network leave renewables looking pretty shabby.

Aiden, sorry I have just got on to your response.
My displeasure of renewables has to do with the current technology on offer. All the electricity creating mediums today are too costly, too unreliable, therefore requiring too much continual maintenance, upkeep, servicing and repairs.
You suggest that Australia has large expanses of land which I would agree are suitable because they are located in ares where there is an abundance of sun.
I still consider the cost per unit return, and I cannot in good conscience agree to an idea that I know to be flawed. Just the size of these wind and solar farms would be too large to be viable.
As I said, the current technology is not a viable contender for continual, reliable base load power as we have seen with coal, hydro and nuclear. A very rough way of assessing something like this is the theory that 'the more parts it has the more unreliable it is'. This immediately removes wind from the list. Solar also has a lot of parts (solar panels), these wear out and or fail like any man made object. Again the size of the solar farms would almost be the size of a city. Just a thought. Have you considered that the average household currently has at least 10 solar panels on the roof. If we assume this to be a sufficient number of panels to power a house we can see that just to start using solar we need an area the size of a capital city. And that's before we add the real power users, industry.
So no as much as I would love to see renewables take over, the sad fact that the people MUST accept is that the current offerings are nowhere near being serious contenders. A lot of the pollies and their mates are making a lot of money from these grants and research? I'll know when I will be satisfied with renewables, when I see them. These current offerings are mere lab rats to demonstrate proof of concept but not to be taken seriously.

ALTRAV, there are a lot of people, and I know some, who think that we
HAVE to use renewables no matter what.
They do not believe that renewables cannot do the job. Wishful thinking ?

When blackouts become common they will say it is worth it but it might
help if frequent blackouts cause an economic collapse.
I have put that thought to them but they pooh hoo such suggestions.
There are some who would live in a tent in the scrub rather than use coal.

' There are some who would live in a tent in the scrub rather than use coal.'

I doubt it Bazz, most warmist are complete hypocrites. They fly the globe preaching to others about emissions. They are similar to our Indigeneous guys who could not live a week in the bush while glorifying culture.

Bazz I agree with runner. You are quite right about those who 'have to have renewables, no matter what'. We must accept that there is a real problem of knowledge, intelligence and common sense about todays people. They are gullible, naive, un-informed, mis-informed, I think you get it. The govt relies on the people being this way, it makes it easier to con or fool them with their lies and PC promises. People lack maturity. We can see it in these stupid people who have to get rotten drunk to 'have a good time'. Disgusting. Even more so when you think these ignorant plebs are going to one day copulate, with anyone, and produce another crop of ignorant plebs. These are the people who are asked to vote and make life changing decisions. Now you can see the net result of this culture all around us from the laws to the social interactions. If it was up to me I would not let these people near a voting booth. Just throw a few cartons of beer in the opposite direction of the voting booths and problem solved. For the poofy set maybe some crates of Chardonnay. The problems with renewables is that they have not been developed to a commercial standard. All the modelling in the world is just that, modelling. So for those tree hugging green loving plebs out there, you have NO idea what you are talking about, so firstly go away and study up on these topics and when you think you've got it, study some more. The greens are a self serving lot of scabs who are praying on the lowest form of humanity. To confirm how stupid people are, they vote for a bunch of lying scheming deviants who have no experience or knowledge about politics let alone running a huge empire like a country with the huge responsibility to millions of people. They are way beyond the bounds of con-men. They should not be taken seriously. Pauline Hanson has more cred than these tree hugging cretins.