"The sooner we go nuclear, the better."
We ARE nuclear. Solar IS nuclear.

Oh dear - the usual nuclear propagandists have wasted no time in attacking Jim Green, in their usual style - ad hominem attacks. I note with amusement that one of them describes Australia as mostly a desert - therefore suitable for nuclear waste dumping But he doesn't mind a radioactive trash dump on FARMING LAND.

Another writer assumes that Jim is in favour of importing short-lived radioisotopes. Evidently that writer did not understand (or perhaps even read) the part about cyclotron-produced radioisotopes.

Sorry, nuclear lobby, you'll have to produce some new shills, as nobdody's going to be persuaded by the present lot.

Both Pro fossil fuel Jim Green and his alter ego, coal-fired Christinamac are the ones who haven't bothered to read?

I could be wrong but their time warp from the fifties, commentary serves the aforementioned as well as coal-fired tomato head BJ! Given we are discussing ultra-safe, clean, reliable, dispatchable 24/7, cheaper than coal, carbon-free energy!

And given the amount of energy consumed in a cyclotron is prohibitively expensive! And the radium they would bombard is radioactive material! Their preferred coal-friendly alternative doesn't stack up if you ask for a comparative business case!

Moreover, the aforementioned cyclotron might well cost more to build than a thorium powered, molten salt reactor. Where the medical isotopes would be produced almost free as final nuclear decay products we can harvest and use in all manner of medical radiology. One of which (bismuth 213) holds out hope for all manner of death sentence, cancers!

One of which is ovarian cancer that was the subject of several successful European clinical trials in 2006! Trials according to the notes, did not include significant damage to the healthy surrounding cells.
Alan B.

To Christinamac1

1. Only shadowminister could be said to have carried out an ad hominine attack on Jim Green. All of the other contributors simply pointed out, quite truthfully, that Green was a Greenie. That all sensible people know that Greenies are virtue signalling, spoiled brat, blithering idiot Luddites, who are a disappointment to their usually wealthy families, did not have to be brought up, as it is already common knowledge. So I think your criticism was unfair.

2. If you don't know that most of Australia is desert could you please purchase a book called "an atlas" and enlighten yourself on the geography of Australia? One supposes that the reason you have no knowledge about your own country is because, if you live in Sydney, you are a denizen of the eastern suburbs, and have never gone further west than the Gladesville Bridge in your whole life?

3. On the subject of persuading anybody about anything, you first you have to submit a reasoned argument and then defend your position. So where is yours? Sneery hit and runs will not convince anybody of the validity of your position.

I genuinely hope that this post by me will aid you in promoting your cause, and help you to explain your position? The fact you did not even bother to do so, I presume was because you don't know yourself why you oppose nuclear energy? It is just a fashionable view among public servants, and the siblings of the wealthy, who think that they are the new aristocracy. Among this regressive class, who have a compulsive need to think that their class is better than everybody else, advocating fashionable causes exhibits their class identification. Class identification is extremely important to you, and you know how to chant the fashionable mantras.

Oh dear, again!. the ad hominem attacks on anti nuclear opinion continue - ''all sensible people know that Greenies are virtue signalling, spoiled brat, blithering idiot Luddites, who are a disappointment to their usually wealthy families, did not have to be brought up, as it is already common knowledge'' - (from ''Lego'')
However, I was flattered to learn that I am Jim Green's ''alter ego'' (from Alan B) I have long admired Jim Green, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of nuclear issues. I did not aspire to seen as equally knowledgeable, or to actualle be him!
I did note, to give Alan B his due, that cyclotrons are costly to build, but Australia does already has several cyclotrons, so the cost is not prohibitive. As for nuclear costs - well, they pretty much are prohibitive now, and that's without doing full costing, which would include the virtually eternal problem of nuclear waste disposal and security.

To Christinamac.

Throughout history, people have disagreed over everything. Where two groups of people disagree over a subject, it is as natural as breathing that they will not like each other, will make personal attacks upon each other, and call each other nasty names. Your own caste of educated elitists are probably the worst at that game. To your mob, anybody who does not possess a degree is a an ignorant peasant. And that includes the former president of the USA, Donald Trump. So spare me the virtue signalling melodramatics.

I do not like Luddites like yourself, or Mr Green, because you are holding back the prosperity of my country and my people, because of your religious objection to nuclear energy. The funniest thing about your opposition to coal was that it opened up the question as to how an advanced society could fulfil it's energy requirements without fossil fuel? The only credible answer is nuclear power. But like Christian Scientists with appendicitis, your coven of educated, Gaia worshipping religious fanatics will just never concede what your belief system tells you is heresy.

University types such as yourself in Russia once cheered on Lenin's armies. In Korea they cheered on Kim il Sung's armies as they marched into Seoul. In Cambodia they cheered on Sorbonne educated Pol Pot. They could not recognise reality until they were being herded against the wall for their executions. It just the way that educated ideologues like your good self think. They can not see reality until their backs are against the wall.