If the west wanted Putin to pull his horns in?

All they need do is develop thorium energy!

This would have a threefold effect, 1/ It would kill energy created inflation dead in its tracks and 2/have Putin, the M. E./the energy barons and China back peddling for all they're worth. And 3/ give their respective energy dependant economies a humongous boost the like of which we never ever seen.

Yes, there would be some losers or "rich" folk not wise enough to see the writing on the wall, cop their losses and reinvest in something better than oil, gas and or coal, e.g., thorium powered hydrogen production and a world market wide open for the first hydrogen energy baron!

Which by the way includes Tweedle dumb and Tweedle dumber/most Australian governments/current labor and Howard's, dumbest of all, a reflection of an ideologically driven, co-op dismantling "leader"?
Alan B.

Well, with around 40% of the world's thorium reserves we could've, and sill could be a producer of liquid hydrogen that dramatically undercuts current petrol prices.

Most petrol engines can be re-tuned to run nearly as well on compressed hydrogen or compressed methane/biogas or methanol.

Every Australia family produces enough organic waste that converted via a biological on site digestor, produce enough methane/biogas to power their house and car.

The current price of skyrocketing energy makes retrofitting such a system, an economical exercise.
Alan B.

Hi Allen,

The domestic biodigesters I have seen look very rustic, so I would guess the economic incentive is not great. What should be realised is that if you make energy cheap enough, all manner of recycling can become profitable. According to stats collected by the Nuclear Energy Agency, nuclear power provides the cheapest dispatchable energy.

https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/

The main problem with nuclear is the lack of government support, primarily because of the renewable energy con. Hopefully the focus will shift quickly to nuclear as the shortcomings of pursuing renewable energy become apparent. There is lots of support for nuclear, but governments need to get serious about it.

https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu-sn&q=msr+thorium+copenhagen#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:9e0d7d92,vid:HUue5-QjT_o,st:0

Fester: The locally invented two tank system is a smell free, closed cycle system that maximises the methane production. [And retrofitting the nation, a huge boost for the steel industry, which would go gangbusters if powered by nuclear waste burning MSRs.]

Byproducts include reusable nutrient loaded water suitable for underground taped irrigation and carbon rich soil improver.

In a land as arid and dry as Australia, it's economic madness to pump millions of litres of water/effluent out to sea, given pumping inland as reusable irrigation water is out of the question given current humongous industrial energy costs.

However, if we had nuclear waste powered MSRs using fuel we are paid annual millions to take, it'd be a completely different story! Incidentally, MSR can also burn weapons grade plutonium.

[And some nuclear waste can be encrusted with manmade blue diamonds that convert radiation into usable electrical energy. They're called, nuclear batteries (AAAAA) that can pump out power for literal centuries.]

We could export raw MSR waste burning MSR produced electrical energy to an energy starved world, via cables, for more money than we get for selling rocks, hydrocarbons and our surplus food production.

And thereby do our bit towards saving our planet as opposed to contributing to runaway climate change with our hydrocarbon exports!

The latter could be trebled if we used recyclable water/effluent as envisaged! There are no downsides in this suggestion, just win, win outcomes all round!

Much of this food production could be cryovaced then safely exposed to nuclear radiation the product of a nuclear reactor. And as raw unprocessed food. Meat, fruit and veges, as fresh as the day they were picked or processed, for refrigeration free decades!

And sold to the world when premium prices were available? Or conversely, gifted as food aid to the starving poor as goodwill building diplomacy?

What prevents such outcomes? Answer: Canberra and a dumbed down sports addicted electorate!
Alan B.

Which is cheaper?

I'd argue candles for lights around the house and wood fireplaces for cooking and staying warm.

It time to go back to the good old days.

Alan,

Conventional nuclear power would be a good start, but there are still many people with a strong ideological objection to it.

If energy gets more expensive, living standards will drop. That is guaranteed with the moronic approach of the federal government.

Nathan

"It time to go back to the good old days."

Yes, when a far smaller population wiped out vast areas of forest and other natural resources. Like the hunter gatherer existence it would kill human beings orders of magnitude more quickly than Pol Pot. Think about that next time you light a candle, and be mindful that candles are a significant cause of house fires. But I wish you well and hope you live the life you'd like to live.