What would a transition to unconventional nuclear power cost? Answer, if other conditions are met and sanity prevails, STA!

The necessary conditions are that we become the worlds preferred and safest repository for its nuclear waste! And earn annual billions for providing this service! And a service which to us also provides centuries worth of essentially unspent fuel. The annual billions could be tasked with mass-producing a tried and tested operational prototype and polishing it over time. I'd select the FUJI 360 MW and modify it to use fluoride salt instead of sodium.

Some would run on thorium and the rest on unspent donated fuel we'd be paid to accept, i.e., nuclear waste!

Tripling the reactors on a particular site produces a 1000 MW carbon-free power station and six multiples a 2,000 MW facility. Plus power prices below 3 cents PKWH!

[Folk protected from all rouge emissions by a combination of water jackets and concrete cubes housing the reactors.]

This won't happen overnight but could be achieved over a decade

Our current energy exports and then plus some could be sent via undersea graphene cored cables as. Electricity.

Our forbears managed to lay a cable from here to London with far fewer folk and far fewer taxpayer funds!

Energy prices below 3 cent s PKWH would return energy manufacturing to these shores and force our competition to emulate us or lose market share to us.

Finally, we need to build a national fleet of nuclear submersibles that carry our trad goods to their final destinations or associated rapid rail links. Therefore should be large enough to roll on and roll off, complete trans.

So, only impossible in the minds of folk who are against transitioning away from coal and fossil fuels. And all economic upsides!
Alan B

Chris Lewis, you are yet to give us any thing at all to actually link CO2 to any increase in the planets temperature.

The only thing alarmists have is that 30 to 40 years ago CO2 & temperature were going up at the same time. Some dill decided that he couldn't think of what else might be causing the increase, so blamed CO2. Now even that is is no longer tenable. CO2 is still climbing quite quickly, but much of the planed is cooling, or not increasing temperature.

What the hell is this thing about meat. In really cold climates, [ones that would profit from a lot of global warming], cattle kept in barns all winter may have some miniscule effect. In range land grazing, as in Oz, & many other places, if cattle don't eat the grass, wildlife, or termites will. If not eaten it will rot, & the same level of CO2 will be released into the atmosphere, where it came from to grow the grass. We will still have the same CO2 cycle, but we will have to grow some other food for carnivora like us, [dogs/cats etc.] Cattle are merely a useful machine for turning indigestible Cellulose into something humans can digest.

When looked at rationally the global warming scam is simply an attempt to take control of the population for no useful reason.

r u serious?

I am not a climate scholar; I have a qualification in politics.

as I have said many times, I agree with the literature linking human activity and global warming. that is my right and choice in response to the debate and the information I have observed.

What deniers go on about seems like a lot of rubbish to me.

cheers.

Poor Chris Lewis I see you have met up with Hasbeen.

Hasbeen is the one and only ever recipient of a Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree from the University of Sydney.

Do I need to say any more?

So Chris you don't think the grass will still be consumed by termites or rot, giving off the CO2 it consumed to grow, if not consumed by cattle, sheep kangaroos or rabbits?

What do you think will happen to it?

The author's article is a bit dated "Bush fires in Australia are threatening Sydney".

Floods have been threatening and now inundating Australia's southeast coastal communities, including Sydney, for a week.

Could it be global Cooling at work?!