All you poor suckers above, milling around in congregation awaiting a decision of a politician which will actually serve the greater good of the community they are intended by design of Democracy, to serve.

Let the Chinese do it. That's what will happen in the end anyway. Let the back-hinders flow, without the slightest consequence to a politician.
That is the problem.

Dan

diver dan,
The footy & the Cricket are still broadcast, so what's the panic ?

Alan,

what is this "decades long ban on thorium" about?
Has the govt prohibited the idea of thorium?
If so why, I can't believe they would openly show their hand like that.
Politicians don't like to commit one way or another.
Do you have any info on this, I most certainly would like to know more, if you could please let us know.
Thank you.

An "Individual " I may be...and you are!

Well I may be confused too, when I log into OLO, but just as well I do see a spunky Ukrainian school girl , splashed across the screen of my iPad, dressed in high heels trying to sell something. I do believe the something is herself.

True, It's not cricket, and I have no money to waste on Ukrainian anything. Especially their fall-out from Chernobyl.
But maybe a Ukrainian school girl in high heels in a fall-out shelter under the shadows of Chernobyl...I wonder!

Dan

The author exercises some logic when he points to country/provincial places that just happen to use VERY LARGE CONVENTIONAL REACTORS, ie:

- "France" where:

; all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi GW. A Gigawatt being 1,000 Megawatts. Note France is now constructing reactors of 1.6 GW.

; France cross subsidises its knowledge and civilian reactor base with its nuclear weapon/submarine propulsion base. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#France

- "Sweden", which:

; first embarked on reactors for its 1940s-ended 1970s nuclear weapon program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program

; which provided a lower cost knowledge/infrastructure base for Sweden's civilian nuclear sector

; where all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi GW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Sweden and

- "Ontario [Province] Canada". Noting:

; Canada first embarked on nuclear reactors in support of the US MANHATTAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROJECT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Canadian_sites which provided a lower cost knowledge/infrastructure base for Canada's civilian nuclear sector

; OPERATIONAL in Ontario are at the Pickering complex of reactors equaling 3GW and Darlington complex equaling 3.5GW

So for France and EVEN FOR SWEDEN AND CANADA they began with Nuclear weapons reactor knowledge-infrastructure bases which then transitioned to VERY LARGE civilian electricity reactors
_________________________________________________

So the author falls down when he suggests NON-COMMERCIALLY proven VERY SMALL MODULAR REACTORS (which are up to 300MW) http://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors

Australia's low nuclear knowledge/reactor base and very small electricity market compared to the main reactor building nations (US, UK, France, China, Japan, Canada, Russia, India) means AUSTRALIA by itself CANNOT DEVELOP AND DEPLOY Small Modular Reactors without spending maybe $100 Billion.

Australia needs to wait for Small Modular Reactors to be:

- developed
- legally/publically accepted
- then deployed

in North America, Europe of Asia
___________________________________________

Visions of SMALL Modular Reactors being deployed in SMALL Australian country towns-small cities (Alice Springs? Longreach? Kalgoorlie? Broken Hill?) forget

the HUGE public/political/legal/police security opposition that would descent AGAINST EVEN VERY SMALL, HIGH COMMERCIAL RISK, reactor proposals

and delay them at Federal, State, Local GOVERNMENT and COURT (Supreme and High Court) levels for DECADES.