Bazz, "
I am attracted to what Alan B tells us about thorium reactors but
what is surprising is that there is not a large number of countries
building at least thorium test systems."

The reality is that no one has yet been able to come up with a practical design which can run for a decent period of time. I believe there are metallurgical problems which no one has yet been able to overcome. Back in the sixties while I still worked in the uranium industry, people had already started work on using thorium, so it obviously isn't for want of trying that it isn't workiing yet. The theory is very simple, just mix a small amount of U233 with a larger amount of Thorium and you gradually build up a larger amount of U233 which then starts a reaction. Apparently not so simple in practice.

David

Nuclear technology should definitely be taken advantage of. It has already been proven functional and safe in countries such as France, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belgium, and Hungary where most of their energy comes from Nuclear Reactors.

No one denies a couple of significant facts;

The world ERoEI of coal is falling, last seen <10.
Australian coal is plentiful, and high quality.

The rest of the world will have to transition to nuclear or else--
We can burn our coal for a very long time before we HAVE to make the transition.
Does it not make sense to restrict our export of coal while, because
of cost, we make a slow transition to nuclear.

Now those who do not like nuclear, what do you suggest instead ?

Hi Bazz,

I suppose the answer to your question is: keep subsidising renewable energy companies until such times as renewable energy artefacts like wind towers and solar arrays, etc., can be made using renewable energy more cheaply - and without subsidies - than using coal or gas or nuclear.

i.e. when the cows come home: what mug company would give away subsidies in the 'meantime' ?

Cheers,

Joe