"Ma's China narrative puts Taiwan at risk"

I don't think it's any coincidence that former Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou trip to China coincided with Tsai Ing-wen's trip to the United States to meet with US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other US lawmakers.

- Furthermore I'd argue that Taiwans flirtations with the West instead put Taiwan at risk of becoming the next Ukraine.

If you think this trip is an alarming development for Australia affecting our 'strategic environment', I'd argue that our nation being dragged into a war by the US against China, (our largest trading partner) is a far more alarming, affecting our 'strategic environment' in far worse ways.

- We might as well just nuke ourselves instead rather than end up in a war with the US against China for the damage it will do to our country.

Cuban missile crisis revisited.

I have never heard the theory that one country invades another because the country invaded is "is unable to defend its own sovereignty".

Weird. Highly unlikely.

Russia invaded Ukraine to protect its borders - rightly or wrongly; it doesn't care about Ukraine's "sovereignty".

In the meantime, like 99.9% of Australians, I have never heard of former president Ma, and couldn't care less about him.

Many of these opinion pieces, coming from people wanting to get something off their chests, are too arcane for the average person struggling with their own problems: like Australia's increasingly Marxist government; the same government's attempt to divide us by race via the Voice; bizarre climate hysteria; cost of living; absurdly high and unnecessary immigration, and the loss of industry and investment because of unaffordable, unreliable energy.

Its always problematic to think that the words and deeds of past leaders somehow represents the views of the current leadership or the populace. Ma was always more pro-China than any of his predecessors or successors.

His views most certainly don't represent the views of the current Taiwanese people who know they would bear the brunt of the tender mercies of the CCP in the event of unification, peaceful or otherwise. Leaders like Ma are much more sanguine about joining China since they would (or at least imagine they would) slide seamlessly into the luxuries of CCP leadership.

Ma's visit is meaningless in terms of current international politics although the CCP will lay it for all the propaganda value they can. Imagine Keating ducking off to Malaysia to tell them how bad our pro-USA policy is. Although it'd garner the usual swooning coverage from our anti-Great Satan warriors, it'd be meaningless in terms of understanding the current thinking of Australian leadership or the electorate. Think of Ma's visit in those terms.

Agree!
Alan B.

To be fair I haven't finished reading the article... but

Ma sounds like a traitor to Taiwan and perhaps should be tried and gaoled/ jailed.

The relationship between Taiwan/ China and Austria/ Germany were/ are different. Yes in both situations common ethnicity/ race exist but the primary issue with Taiwan/ China is Communist Maoism/ Dengism/ Xi-ism.

ttbn said- "the loss of industry and investment because of unaffordable, unreliable energy"

Answer- Kudos ttbn. Interesting now high electricity price is biting because of Communist/ Leftist/ Labor Party influencers- many have moved to solar to try and insulate themselves- but they will soon learn that this is useless- however I do admire them for their attempts at self sufficiency. They have substituted one tyranny for another- "controlled opposition"- they are feeding the beast that is destroying them- giving their existential enemies more money overall in the form of increased spending on electrical energy.

They are running from the night beast- they don't know how far it is behind- but the monster is coming. Face the beast!

If electricity prices are going up- find ways of minimizing use of electricity- insulate your home by putting insulator over the windows and blocking the drafts (heating)- use more preserved food perhaps in the form of home dried meat, fruit, veg, herbs so you require less or no refrigeration- wash your clothes by hand.

You probably need lights and computers so you may not be able to get rid of electricity entirely- but there are options here too- lights with a bit of thought can be run off a standard power bank and with a readily available vehicle power supply your laptop can be charged.

In Australia the grid connection charges are extremely high and you'll find that even if you manage to reduce your use these charges are significant. Hopefully you will be able to reduce your exposure to energy market price growth and in time community pressure will invoke more practical energy and feeder policies. In a sense the solution to energy price growth may be outside the energy industry domain. Population growth is likely to influence energy prices if the energy infrastructure isn't easily scalable. Demand for energy production capability will also.

We could see a perfect storm of increased population growth in Australia increasing "demand" as well as an increase in offshoring of energy costs (through Chinese made solar panels) reducing native "supply"- effectively doubly increasing costs of energy.

CM. you've made my case for me and the long overdue introduction of nuclear energy. AS MSR thorium and power prices as low or lower than 3 cents PKWH. As an island nation entirely dependent on imported oil/petrol, we need a home-grown alternative that will not be accompanied by massive and record business/domestic bankruptcies.

The gormless, moronic, labor party can continue to bury their heads somewhere warm and comfortable, while Australia goes to hell in a hand basket. And Great depression no.2! As they cling to coal to support 12,000 CMFU unionists and the half a dozen or so foreign coal barons.

These few more important than the outcome for around 23 million Australians. Who can go FT.

WE earn SFA from our coal and need to get out from under this foreign control of our energy market.

Locally owned and operated (co-ops) nuclear plants as SMRs/MSR thorium would allow that to occur.

If that then came with some foreign owned stranded assets? Tough titties!
Alan B.

I agree with everything Alan B said except for one minor problem - there is no such thing as a thorium power plant.

China’s Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s#xj4y7vzkg

"China is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35."

- We should've been selling them every single chunk of coal we could before there is no longer any demand for it.
- There will be a race for uranium in coming years and prices will increase a lot I think.

*Attention Alan B. -
China’s ‘Particle Beam Cannon’ Is a Nuclear-Power Breakthrough
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/06/chinas-particle-beam-cannon-nuclear-power-breakthrough/368082/

"It promises to recycle spent nuclear fuel, making it cheaper and less dangerous—and moving Beijing toward energy independence.

The prototype “particle beam cannon” recently completed by Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Modern Physics may sound like science fiction, but it is a novel new technology that promises to recycle dangerous waste produced by a nuclear reactor. A product of China’s huge investment in advanced nuclear-energy systems, the breakthrough could move the country toward energy independence and further cement its global leadership in climate-friendly technology."

- What do you make of this?

China is Fast Outpacing U.S. STEM PhD Growth
http://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/China-is-Fast-Outpacing-U.S.-STEM-PhD-Growth.pdf

- Only a fool would think the West can keep up with their rapid progress.

Alan B, mhaze- Even though there may be some issues with thorium reactors there are still fourth generation modular reactors. The good thing about nuclear over renewables is that they are their own storage medium. But it's tricky to use nuclear in civilian transport shipping or road vehicles- potentially you can use electricity in the form of batteries but there isn't enough lithium- are they are much less effective than oil. I'm sure nuclear can be used as part of the solution- especially for grid power- and to stabilize the world security- military strategists talk about risk/reward and stability/expansion. Their are probably larger scale power storage systems that can be used for civilian shipping but road vehicles are a more difficult problem that will need research and development- the only solution I can see is the creation of a closed carbon based fuel ecosystem- burgeoning world population adds to this challenging problem.

Alan B said "WE earn SFA from our coal and need to get out from under this foreign control of our energy market."

Answer- Yes Australia needs to produce more value added goods either for our own use or for others. And hang on to our natural resources more- but there is a lot of pressure from large miners to sell these as fast as possible- and also the superannuation markets etc.

More valued added approach leads to more employment, more returns, but often more investment- most prefer not to sell into markets that are based purely on price (like raw materials) but free trade is predicated on this basis- also many value added goods sell into consumer markets where distribution chains are more complex- smaller economies confront more challenges due to economy of scale issues- this has caused a population arms race between competing nations. All businesses need money, people, resources- nations will use different strategies to maximise their returns. Those with a lot of resources can use some sort of denial strategy to equalize other disadvantages- same for people and money- some of these strategies are outlawed in international frameworks- are these objective or are they based on power- but power always exists and it can create stability

"Even though there may be some issues with thorium reactors"

No Canem, there are 'some issues'...there is one issue. They don't exist.

They may exist in the future but there is no such thing just now. There may be a Dyson Sphere in the future but we can't base energy policy on that.

Small modular reactors do exist and ought to form part of our energy policy now. But conflating them with possible future thorium reactors is invalid.

Mhaze. Wrong mate. Thorium power plants are currently being built in Scandinavia. In towable double hull barges that can be towed almost anywhere there's a suitable waterway.

That said, there's no viable reason we cannot build them here. Yes, there are solid fuel uranium fuelled reactors. But they use fuel that is as rare as platinum and as expensive before the fuel needs to be enriched.

Then with this type of water-cooled reactor, they operate at enormous pressure and must have absolutely reliable power supply and continual monitoring. The fuel rods are lowered and raised by electromagnets and if power is cut for any reason these electromagnets stop operating to continually control the reaction. And should this occur a meltdown is almost inevitable.

Thorium as MSR has none of these problems and uses fuel four times more abundant than uranium. does not require enrichment or constant monitoring and should there be a power failure the system self-drains into purpose-built tanks where no reaction is possible and therefore is walkaway safe.

There is very little waste from MSR thorium and the 5 or so % is far less toxic and eminently suitable as long-life space batteries. All of these factors and ability to operate unattended at ambient atmospheric pressure make power prices as low or lower than 3 cents PKWH.
Alan B.

Mhaze. In MSR technology it's possible to use nuclear waste as fuel we are paid annual millions to take! Where all practical purposes it is largely most unspent fuel. And in the process of burning it, reduce the half-life of the waste from thousands of years to 3-400 years.

A spinoff from SMR thorium is the almost costless production of the miracle cancer cure, the alpha particle, bismuth 213. This particle is attached to a cancer antibody then injected into the patient.

I've seen scans of a liver with three tumours (usually a death sentence) and after just 66 minutes completely clear. And completed without months in hospital the usual hair loss and nausea. The same outcome for many untreatable death sentence caners including some very nasty inoperable brain cancers. With little observable damage to healthy surrounding tissue.

Tell why you believe this is a bad thing for Australia and Australians. Informed Genius.
Alan B.

mhaze said "There may be a Dyson Sphere in the future but we can't base energy policy on that."

Answer- irony- A Dyson Sphere would be great- it could beam energy Down-Under and to the North during their winter- so we can always keep the heater on- there wouldn't be much need for storage- it could run the hot water systems, ovens, refrigeration- using large wave guide infrastructure. We could use Australia's space infrastructure to sell energy to the world. We could keep the Dyson satellites on the other side of the sun so that the Earth sunlight isn't blocked- and it could help with the beam distribution. We could even use the beam or the satellites to take out communist targets, mine asteroids, and beam spacecraft out of the solar system, as well as a virtually infinite supply of energy to use in subatomic particle research and the nature of reality. We will be well on our way to a type two civilization- at least in the west.

Hopefully with this easy life- digital control of weather- we don't revert to mouse utopia population disasters like China, India, and others- in a sense the better we get the worse we get- without discipline- some cultures don't seem to be ready for the responsibilities of technology. As the Unabomber says technology doesn't free it enslaves.

There were some issues with MSR thorium as a past tense fact.

Corrosion solved by traditional metallurgy and carbon blueing of the metal. The tritium problem sorted by using nitrate salt as the heat transfer medium. Nitrate salt absorbs tritium.

One would have rocks in their head to believe we can manufacture anything here using coal or gas fired power. Fusion and proton beams are still being developed but MSR thorium is available now.

Just because some labor party airheads don't want to do nuclear doesn't mean that MSR thorium doesn't exist or that we cannot do MSR thorium here and reap the reward of the world's lowest energy prices and carbon free energy to boot. And medical tourism worth annual billions as well.

I believe the why not has something to do with stalwart pollies coal and or gas energy investments and little else.

Unless you factor in insanity or the mass suicide lemming phenomena. And Australian energy consumers can get phucked.
Alan B.

Fa' God sake.

There isn't a single commercial thorium plant on the planet. Even those who are completely sold on the idea know that myriad problems remain to be resolved. It is said that China has now built a small pilot plant to test the idea and if all goes well, then they'll consider building a larger commercial plant next decade.

Given that this pilot plant was originally due for completion in 2016, those who look at this without using rose coloured glasses might realize that a commercial plant in 2030 is more hope than expectation.

Alan B has always had a problem with tense here. That a thorium plant might exist in the FUTURE doesn't mean that one exists NOW. Yet he continually complains that Australia isn't building something that doesn't exist AT PRESENT.

But those of us who inhabit the real world (you are welcome to join us Alan), not a single watt of commercial thorium electricity has ever been produced and won't be for at least a decade.

mhaze, Alan B- I must admit I favour small modular reactors over thorium- at least in Australia- but I suppose it depends on the context- if nuclear is going to be a temporary solution to world energy in the next 10 to 20 years- until we get Dyson Sphere's ;).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

"Advocates believe thorium is key to developing a new generation of cleaner, safer nuclear power.[8] In 2011, a group of scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology assessed thorium-based power as "a 1000+ year solution or a quality low-carbon bridge to truly sustainable energy sources solving a huge portion of mankind's negative environmental impact.""

"After World War II, uranium-based nuclear reactors were built to produce electricity. These were similar to the reactor designs that produced material for nuclear weapons. During that period, the government of the United States also built an experimental prototype molten salt reactor (MSR) using U-233 fuel, the fissile material created by bombarding thorium with neutrons. The MSRE reactor, built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, operated critical for roughly 15,000 hours from 1965 to 1969. In 1968, Nobel laureate and discoverer of plutonium, Glenn Seaborg, publicly announced to the Atomic Energy Commission, of which he was chairman, that the thorium-based reactor had been successfully developed and tested."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Perhaps we should be investing in Astro-Chicken technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrochicken

This is interesting..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

"Dyson disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change. He believed that some of the effects of increased CO2 levels are favourable and not taken into account by climate scientists, such as increased agricultural yield, and further that the positive benefits of CO2 likely outweigh the negative effects.[11][12][13] He was skeptical about the simulation models used to predict climate change, arguing that political efforts to reduce causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority."

"Politically, Dyson said he was "brought up as a socialist".[17]"