Anybody who believes that carbon is what threatens all life on the planet? will agree we need to decarb our economy! No question! Right?

And if that then also allows us to turbocharge our economy! What's the problem with that? WELL?

And if we can do just that, in complete safety while seriously massively reducing the stockpile of nuclear waste! Why not?

Must we continue to allow fear mongering/monumental BS and completely unfounded claims to effectively prevent just that?

And even progressively reduce the world's stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium as part of the bargain and with a technology that not only can't melt down! No question, but has fail-safe passive safety design features built in!

And the only available source of miracle cancer cure, bismuth 213, that's the only possible hope for literally thousands of Australians!

Brain cancer remission by any means has hardly moved in the last thirty years, and remains higher than the national annual road toll! The average lifespan, from diagnosis to death, averages just 14 months! WAITING, WAITING, WAITING!

Yet Dr Digitalus and co., ( the greens) continue to resist, cheaper than coal, carbon-free thorium and with it the only hope of THOUSANDS of terminally ill Australians.

Is this is what is meant by, at least DO NO HARM, I wonder?
Alan B.

' Regardless of cost you cannot put a price on this planet.
Our ONLY home.'

relax Ateday you are obviously to young to remember all the other scares based on pseudo science that have been pushed by the high priests. No one could be so stupid to believe that when God calls it a day then its not going to be the day. God has much better form in bringing to pass His word then these pseudo scientist who actually base a lot of their fairytales from the evolution fantasy. Despite the arrogance of those who claim humans can change the climate the fact is they can't.

I detect that a lot of people with just a little technical knowledge
are becoming very frustrated at the ignorance of the political people.
There seems to be a very fundamental problem that pollies do not
understand that 4 - 5 produces a negative number.
Applied to Liddel they do not seem to grasp what that will mean.

If you assume the sun stood still at midday and the wind blew
strongly constantly you can work out exactly how many solar farms
and wind farms you would need to supply the country as a constant x.
Now taking that figure x and allow for summer/winter differences
and with the proviso that you have a large geographical area to get a
reliable power system you have to multiply X x 12.
This is a figure I have seen suggested as a realistic value to
compenstate for variability of wind & sun.
Now that 12 times produces a figure I have seen argued that we cannot
afford.
Oh yes, you have to add a country wide grid capacity where WA can
supply the whole east coast because of time zones.
Looking at the o/p of my solar cells and watching the wind it does
seem a rather optimistic value.
Another problem might be that Australia is not big enough.

Can we get rid of these b^&*(y dreamers in Canberra.
Either that or send them back to primary school.

actually being brainless with uni degrees seems a prerequisite to be a mainstream journalist these days. Look at how deranged they become every time Trump ensures egg is all over their faces. The commercial stations seems to be on par with the abc/sbs when it comes to reporting narratives rather than facts.

Sovereign risk? Whose? Ours? Well, were any of the owner's (taxpayers) objections noted or factored into the privatised arrangements.

And if you are genuinely technology agnostics? Why would you be twisting the arm of AGL, trying to get them to sell to a Chinese (government owned?) company?

Could it have something to do with flagged plans to import shipping container sized, nuclear power modules ( power plants in boxes) And set them up as small regional power stations not needing to be wired into the national grid?

[That would put paid to all of the price gouging and those who support or benefit from it!]

And able to supply industrial (carbon-free) power for around quarter of the current going rate?

And or, be used to decompose water to create copious hydrogen, via the cheap, cracking the water molecule, method, as well as create some really important, life saving medical isotopes?

Now, lighter than air hydrogen (a reductant) can be piped under its own motive power to the highest convenient spots then burnt in ceramic fuel cells to create electricity on demand (day and night) and absolutely pristine water.

All of which could be so sited as to flow westward? And do some work while it went back down.

Now, it would not take much in the way of reliable westward water flows to alter the face of this continent. And encourage progressive reforestation of some arid areas along with considerable desalination of salt-affected land.

[And the best possible reason to eliminate foreign control in any part of our comparatively primitive energy market!]

In my book a win/win outcome all round!

Except if you're part of the current political class or a covert fifth column, (the greens?) and with a security harming deindustrialization agenda?
Alan B.

As the Israelis were smart enough to engage the French to develop their nuclear arsenal, we should be smart enough to invite the French into Australia to develop a network of nuclear power stations..