Thorium nuclear power will enable the complete resuscitation of our steel industry. As one step steel smelting giant arc furnaces. And with CARBON FREE nuclear power costing as little as 2 cents per KwH. And as steel with the lowest carbon footprint of all. And if constructed as government funded and facilitated employee/shareholder owned co-ops at prices even nations like China will have a problem competing with on the global market. Nuclear power with that price tag also means we can convert coal to fuel oil, gasoline and diesel and at prices, the importers can't compete with! And as guaranteed local supply good for 700 years that'll save around 20 billion per year as we replace imported products with that made right here. And given there will not be commercial electric planes, nor nuclear-powered ones? For as far ahead as the eye can see! Even as we transition to an electrified economy. You see, there isn't an internal combustion engine that won't run on compressed methane and with 40% less CO2 production into the bargain. So it's not an either either, but both nuclear and coal and with that combination the complete return of our economic sovereignty. It's not too late or too dear! But very much the opposite. and we have the best part of a decade, while we run down our coal-fired power stations, to iron out the few minor bugs they allegedly found in the Oak Ridge trial! It's a no-brainer and to the point where we need to ask the recalcitrant greens and renewable devotees, what the hell have you folks been smoking? Alan B.

Coal is far cheaper than any other source we have available in Australia, but if one decides to get to zero emissions, then coal, and gas as well, has to go. The question then becomes which of the much more expensive alternatives is the cheapest.

In this case nuclear wins hands down on a cost basis. That is because the storage costs with wind and solar, and the backup costs for hydro, are many times the cost of generating power from those sources in the first place. You have to scale up your capital cost by a factor of around 12 to account for storage when you are calculating the cost of intermittent generation.

I'm not sure I like Luceferase's service industry analogy, but you have to understand that you are dealing with a system, and different forms of generation cannot be in isolation from the system. The costs of backing-up intermittents haven't hit the public, or governments yet, because we run fossil fuel plants to provide the backup service. But when they are eliminated, as they must be if Australia wants to get to zero emissions sometime, then the real cost of storage will change the equation dramatically.

Nuclear is the only practical, non-CO2-emitting solution and it becomes the cheapest on this criterion.

Given the subsidies shovelled lout to electricity 'providers' using renewables, one has to ask if, over their lifetimes, nuclear reactors would be any more expensive than coal or renewable electricity generators. Not to mention the inconvenient fact that they produce no CO2, part from that used in their con striation, as with renewables.

And once a nuclear reactor was up and running, their power generation would be used to build other nuclear reactors, avoiding ANY CO2 production whatsoever. Can renewables claim that ? I don't think so, at least not yet.

Whadda we want ? Nuclear Power For CO2-Free Power Generation ! When do we want it ? NOW !

Or is CO2 production not really all that important ? Oh, how conflictual it is to be a Green.

G'day, Paul, I didn't see you there.

Joe

As always with the green anti-development movement. nuclear power takes too long to build? Is too costly! Well, of course, it does and is, if you're talking about traditional uranium fired facilities built from the ground up as massive and hugely expensive infrastructure. And as always they adroitly avoid MSR thorium and modules that can be mass produced like boing aircraft inside factories. And shipped in standard shipping container wherever we want them. The greens want wild rivers and locked up forests, but refuse to allow the one development that will bring the price of desalinated water to below that of dams. And allow our deserts to be revegetated. with all, that means for the environment and the overused Murray/Darling. We can have a future as a socially and environmentally conscious, inclusive economy. But not while the recalcitrant, disingenuous greens are running constant interference and focusing on populist, harmful policies? Legalize Pot? Well why not? we can all smoke our brains while the economy goes to hell in a handbasket and we sleepwalk into our own Armageddon! Alan B.

//Given the subsidies shovelled lout to electricity 'providers' using renewables, one has to ask if, over their lifetimes, nuclear reactors would be any more expensive than coal//

Yes.

//or renewable electricity generators.//

No.

//And once a nuclear reactor was up and running, their power generation would be used to build other nuclear reactors, avoiding ANY CO2 production whatsoever.//

Except for all the cement.

//Whadda we want ? Nuclear Power For CO2-Free Power Generation ! When do we want it ? NOW !//

Where do we want it? NIMBY!

Hi Toni,

Thanks for that - my point about the production of CO2 in the construction of nuclear power stations AND 'renewables' was that all forms of such technology produce CO2 in their construction, and that the total amount of CO2 produced over their respective lifetimes has to be quantified. The benefits of one or another form of technology have to be discounted by the amount of CO2 produced in their construction and maintenance, perhaps divided by the life of the plant. Of course, the price at which they can produce electricity for us consumers also has to be factored in, as well as hidden subsidies.

Nuclear power stations are touted as being able to produce electricity for fifty to seventy years. Wind-towers and solar systems have productive lives of fifteen to twenty years, or less.

So, on balance, with current technology, what is the best deal for consumers in the long run ? Just asking.

Joe