And let's not forget of the two available sources of MIRACLE CANCER CURE. bismuth 213, only U233 and radium are the available choices.

Radium is bombarded in a linear particle accelerator, with massive energy and cost outlay, to produce a few piddling grams of inordinately expensive millionaire medicine.

Whereas the MSR, thorium>U233> Bismuth213 route, produces almost free, alpha particle, bismuth 213, as a desirable byproduct of nuclear decay inside a U233 fuelled MSR thorium reactor.

Big pharma has had its (profit protecting?) way here? As has the foreign-owned and controlled, fossil fuel industry?

Why?

Because as the only credible explanation, our pollies, (political puppets) serve them? Rather than the electors?

1 in 3 of who, will over the course of a single lifetime, also become (hung out to dry) cancer victims!
Alan B.

Asking Jim Green a anti nuke activist for an honest opinion on nuclear reactors is like asking a radical vegan for an honest assessment of the nutritional benefits of beef.

The single greatest barrier to renewable power generation is its inability to provide base load.

Clean reliable nuclear power will do this.

Great article, Jim Green. As it is packed with information - facts and figures, especially on the diseconomics of nuclear power, - well, it's no surprise that the usual pro nuclear commenters are having trouble in disputing this article.

You know that the nuclear lobby is in desperate defensive style when they come out with ad hominem attacks like -

"Risible rubbish in, risible rubbish out by well known anti-nuclear activist, moribund Ideologue, Jim Green."

VALCOE: "the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently proposed the idea of a “value-adjusted” LCOE, or VALCOE, to include the elements of flexibility and incorporate the economic implications of dispatchability. IEA calculations using a VALCOE method yielded coal power,for example, far cheaper than solar, with a cost penalty widening as a grid’s share of solar generation rises."

http://energypost.eu/iea-solars-exponential-growth-could-make-it-less-competitive-not-more/

If you are unconvinced of the truth of the above statement, here's something a non-expert can grasp:

http://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0319-MM.pdf

Sir David Attenborough thinks poorer people should be dissuaded from air travel to reduce emissions (via a ticket tax). http://7news.com.au/news/environment/david-attenborough-says-air-travel-should-be-more-expensive-to-fight-climate-change-c-208037

He says "we can't be radical enough" to deal with emissions, yet stops short of advocating the only proven solution, nuclear energy. He needs to grasp the physics and instead of exhortations to development renewables should push for synthesis of jet-fuel from CO2, or H2O. No more need for fossil fuels after the electrification of urban transport, production of industrial heat and of synthetic fuels for aviation, shipping, and long-haul transport, the list goes on. To think renewables can deliver this as well as the normal electrification of people's lives is to believe in magic.

The bottom line to Jim, ChristinaMac1 and other dreamers is there is no economically viable, feasible storage solution to make renewables capable of driving a modern civilization, only dispatchable solutions. Only nuclear energy provides emissions free dispatchable energy 24/7/365.

Just to add, the task is to present a viable alternative to nuclear, not to diss it with cherry-picked failures, which one could go to town on over renewables too.

South Korea's nuclear position, which is hardly a phase-out, is entirely political. Its cookie-cutter approach to building LWR's, built with their input here, would smash renewables even further out of the park. Taiwan continues a nuclear phase-out despite citizens voting at a referendum to continue down the nuclear path: http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Taiwan-government-maintains-nuclear-phase-out. Nuclear shut-downs in the US are based on cheaper, CO2 emitting, fracked-gas that may, or may not be, busy backing up intermittent renewables.

Jim Green and Co. have little else beyond hoary old chestnuts with which to fight the coming wave. They've had their time in the sun (and the wind). it's time to solve the emissions problem with science, not magic.

Another superb Murdoch Media defying article from Jim Green.

Oddly the pro-nuclear power crowd in Australia are (with one exception) all men all right-wing and can be found in the:

- On Line Opinion
- the National Party
- Minerals Council of Australia
- media shock-jock Alan Jones
- "shock JILL" (you saw it here first) Peta Credlin
- the MURDOCH MEDIA (especially The Australian),

But in Australia, support for nuclear power is increasingly marginalised to the far-right. Indeed support for nuclear power has become a sign of tribal loyalty: you support nuclear power (and coal) or you’re a cultural Marxist, and you oppose renewables and climate change action or you’re a cultural Marxist.

‘SMALL MODULAR REACTORS’ (SMRS)

The far-right repeatedly claim that SMRS will come to the nuclear industry’s rescue. But real-world experience with SMRs under construction suggests they will be hideously expensive.

According to a December 2018 report by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator, the cost of power from SMRs would need to more than halve to be competitive with wind and solar PV even with some storage costs included (two hours of battery storage or six hours of pumped hydro storage).

Rightwingers hope support for nuclear power drive a wedge in the unions, GetUp, the Greens and the Labor Party.

Abbott ‒ and some others on the far-right ‒ would undoubtedly oppose nuclear power if Labor and the ‘green left’ supported it and they would be pointing to the A$14‒24 billion price-tags for new reactors in western Europe and north America.

Howard’s nuclear promotion did nothing to divide the Labor Party. On the contrary, it divided the Coalition, with at least 22 Coalition candidates publicly distancing themselves from the government’s policy during the election campaign.

The policy of promoting nuclear power was seen to be a liability and it was ditched immediately after the election.

Those of us opposed to nuclear power can take some comfort in its increasing marginalisation to the far-right.

MORE SEE http://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-power-exits-australias-energy-debate-enters-culture-wars-47702/ OF 13 JUNE 2019