Fester. The quickest build of a conventional solid fuel reactor took just six months with the reactor commissioned and operational in twelve. Your nuclear knowledge is at least a century behind the curve.

We could if we wished, have (off the shelf) MSR thorium here inside twelve months in barges that are towed where we want.

8 years? Garbage. the Chinese have already installed bug free operational thorium reactors in a number of their warships and subs.

MSR thorium is clean, safe and cheaper than coal power. Yes, I'll concede conventional nuclear energy is dirty and unsafe.

That's not true for MSR thorium. Where conventional nuclear power creates as much as 95% as nuclear waste, MSR thorium burns 95% of its fuel creating just 5% as waste. Waste that is far less toxic and eminently suitable as long life space batteries that burn up with reentry.

Interestingly, buried nuclear waste decays (in around thirty years) to mostly plutonium. Which then can be burnt in MSR technology, as can conventional nuclear waste reducing the waste product to as little as 5%. Which has a half life of just 300 years.

Forget the fact free fearmongering, Fester and take a butchers at LFTR in five minutes. Then listen to prize winning investigative Journalist and science writer, Richard Martin and his tech talk on U tube, on thorium. After that, try talking from a little higher up!

You'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

Alan,

If Thorium is so simple and cheap then why have the Chinese only built a 30 megawatt experimental gen 4 reactor that the IAEA knows about? In fact, why isn't Thorium powering the world as there is no cheaper energy source? Yes, plenty on the internet, where you can also learn how to make free energy and cold fusion machines. Hell, I just learned that it's the natural order of things for sh$t to flow uphill. I must get my toilets replumbed immediately!

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx

Why must have we have renewals only, why not combine the coal, with renewables? Australia produces so little of the world's carbon there is no need for this drastic billion dollar costs and causing food and petrol shortages to have only renewables.

China is not going to ever swap all their coal power for renewables.
No matter what they say at world conferences and a couple of photos they might show. They produce a third of the world's carbon.
Australia produces 1.3%. India produces 11%, I suspect they don't count the millions of poor people living in shacks and villages who light fires every day to cook,warm themselves and have light.
Burning wood puts lots of carbon into the air. Trees absorb carbon and
and give off oxygen. They are the lungs of the earth.

Also burning wood destroys big Forrests of trees.
Western countries have big re-afforestation industries.
When they estimate the carbon percentages do they factor in the well trees countries and how much carbon is recycled by the trees..

Then there is the fact that the climate is cyclical not linear,
Physicists who not on the political power or money gravy train created by Climate change, will tell you that the planet constantly goes through mini warming and cooling periods, some lasting a few decades,come a few centuries. They know this by carbon dating and finding Fossilised tree trunks under one of the present day world's biggest glaciers. The trees date back a few centuries.

Who wishes their cost of power and inflation to go skyhigh because of this manmade climate change delusion.

It's hysterical delusion. A waste of time and money.
There have always been, huge floods, huge fires,years without a lot of rain. It's a pity our countries and our children have to be put through this

Albo wants to radically slash our emissions while also running a Big Australia mass immigration program. Absolutely bonkers.

As economist Leith van Onselen rightly asks: "With the fierce debate around Australia meeting its “net zero” emissions obligations by 2050, it is worth asking how this target could realistically be achieved with the nation projected in the latest Intergenerational Report (IGR) to add 13.1 million people (a 50% increase) over the next 40 years on the back of extreme immigration levels of 235,000 people a year?"

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/10/how-will-australia-meet-net-zero-with-50-more-people/

Albozo promised to reduce electricity prices this clearly shows that he was lying through his teeth.

The Coalition's heavy electoral loss was in (large?) part because of Morrison's supporting Net Zero, which drove away many Coalition voters. If Albanese's plans come to grief, as they will, the Coalition can only benefit if it repudiate's Morrison and ongoing emissions' reduction policies and reverts to what was once one of Australia's few advantages in world competion, low cost reliable power supplies. I live in hope rather than expectation.