Do we want to produce the world's lowest costing electricity?
Would it hurt us economically if it was carbon-free and available on-demand, 24/7?

Would we be hurt economically or jobs wise, if we produced the world's lowest costing steel or aluminium?

And would we be harmed if either of those generated here, product came, minus a carbon footprint?

Well, all possible with the following. giant arc furnaces that use hydrogen as the reductant, not coal. Hydrogen made possible as that generated via the cracked water molecule method thanks to the deployment of MSR thorium, walk away safe, nuclear energy! As the essential flameless heat source!

And or, nuclear waste burning MSR's as the power source.

All operated by, funded and facilitated, employee-owned co-ops that would ensure maximum efficiency, maximum productivity, maximum reliability as a preferred supplier, maximum economic flows that then make one dollar do the work of at least seven, in OUR economy!

Assisted by genuine tax reform manifesting as a 15% unavoidable, flat tax.

Nuclear power is the key to all this and us entering a new period as a supercharged superpower and CARBON FREE manufacturing hub for the world and never ever previously realised, unprecedented, universal prosperity! In a drought-proofed Australia!
Alan B.

Those for nuclear power, sign up. Those against it, get back in your caves !

Green Jim and the anti-nukes will have us all in caves if we don't get some politicians to put them in their place; the sort of politicians we don't have now and don't look to be having before it's too late.

Meanwhile as far as I know the advocates of full scale nuclear power never tell us what happens to the 400 or so nuclear power plants that are now in use when they come to their use-by-date and are de-commissioned.
And what about the hundreds more that are proposed by the nuke boosters?
Can the plants be safely demolished?
If not who is going to look after them and keep them safe for what probably amounts to forever-and-a-day. And pay the costs of doing doing.
The companies that now own and run the plants? Or the government, that is you and me the taxpaying ordinary citizen?
Of course one strategy for USA companies is to declare bankruptcy, thus leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Where and how are the demolished parts going to be stored or whatever? Who is going to look after them for forever-and-a-day? Who is going to pay for it?

And contrary to the boosters there is no guaranteed safe place to store the current nuclear waste. Such facilities need to be safe, and safely guarded for forever-and-a-day too.

I do wonder who reads this journal? - astonishing comments attacking
Jim Green. Jim supplied heaps of facts and logically argued points.
With the transition to renewable energy now well on the way, and the costs of nuclear power, especially of its radioactive wastes, now patently obvious - well, those comments sound like the work of "recalcitrant cave-dwellers""

Nuclear power is an outdated technology, now useful only because of its military, applications - and for space travel, which itself is mainly useful for military applications.

if the nuclear option is so viable, why not all countries doing it and using it for 100% of energy.