MSR thorium cannot meltdown because it's designed to operate in a molten state/if for any reason the power fails, it automatically shuts down! For that reason, it's walkaway safe.

One can literally fire up the reactor, allow it to peculate away for months without any oversight/just check on it very occasionally.

It's far safer than coal fired power which has many concerns.

Moreover, you'd be very surprised at the list of highly toxic wastes that emanate from coal smokestacks, particularly ROM coal fired power stations, arsenic cadmium and uranium, to mention but a few!

Even then, the very cheapest you could do coal fired power anywhere was 6 cents PKWH and looking at upward of 58 cents next year.

At least twenty times as dear as our own owned and operated MSR thorium.

The trick here is to keep it out of price gouging foreign hands charging whatever the market will bear!

We here in Australia own around 40% of the world's thorium and enough to power this nation until the universe collapses around 13 billion years from now. And that is because these reactors are so efficient, they only need to burn kilograms per annum while comparative coal needs hundreds of tons per annum!

Coal runs out here in around 700 years, whereas with thorium we have so much we can never run out it in the life of the planet or the universe! We could transition to MSR thorium now and still mine mucho plenty coal, and sell all we can possibly mine, to an energy hungry world!

A win, win for us every which way! We give the economy a huge boost, kill inflation dead in its tracks and put massive downward pressure on the cost of living!

There are no downsides here, just in Canberra and a moribund public service, which (would shite itself) or go into orbit if it conceived a new idea or considered our own MSR thorium, which China has perfected, and now operates in a number of military vessels and for domestic power, from the Gobi Desert!?
Alan B.

Indyvidual wrote:
"Yes, because of so many hypocritical exploiter do-gooders who've had it too good for too long !"
Maybe you mean those who want/have more than replacement number of progeny and/or use artificial means of conception.

WTF? quotes CSIRO: "an additional process is undertaken to calculate the integration cost of variable renewables". This is an admission that LCOE does not work for renewables as originally conceived. An embroidered LCOE is not a simple calculation and requires a significant complex set of assumptions, reducing the confidence and likely accuracy of the result when renewables are part or all of the generating system.
Two further observations:
My electricity bills are increasing as renewables are rolled out. This speaks to me more loudly than a CSIRO or AEMO calculation based on self-serving arbitrary assumptions. AEMO has advise of shortfalls in supply to come.
Also, so far as I know, no organization in the world is claiming success in building and operating a stand-alone intermittent renewables affordable and reliable electricity generating system. This won't happen at least until or unless storage becomes safe and affordable.
Attempting net zero with expensive renewables while we export as much coal as we can is not only futile (we contribute less than 1% of global emissions) but expensive and hypocritical.

Agree Chuckles, the whole idea of net zero is a pipe dream;

"This won't happen at least until or unless storage becomes safe and affordable."

Even then it will be very inefficient as each energy transition loses
energy. Big loss converting from primary energy, storage loss, then
another loss getting back to electricity then more losses getting it
to where it will be used.
They become rather large.

WTF?

Chuckles - talk about no wriggle room.

Chuckles went all-in on the notion of LOEC invalidating CSIRO and AEMO calculations.

Now it's my turn to tell you to go back reread the article.

The author talks about the problems with using the LOEC for renewables - this is the basis of his argument.

The CSIRO knows that it does not work on renewables so they adjust for this.

It is a simple tool.

The CSIRO uses other more reliable tools for comparison.

The AEMO does not use the LOEC.

So when you say "If AEMO and CSIRO have used LCOE as methodology the results are invalid" you now can say "AEMO and CSIRO results are valid."

Once again - the AEMO is able to document a decrease in the cost of electrical production due to the use of renewables - if this cost decrease is not being passed onto consumers it is not the fault of the renewables.

If dairy farmers are being paid less for their milk and the price of milk is going up at supermarkets don't blame the dairy farmer.

As I said from the start - the article is rudimentary.

Locking onto the LOEC as some type of "got ya!" moment leaves you with no wriggle room on deeper analysis

ateday,
I mean those who want to perpetuate modern slavery for consumerism without a thought for those who actually work to satisfy their greed.
Think of the Cobalt mining by children, the sweat shops, etc. Then there are those with five or more children on welfare etc.
Children existing in absolute misery with no chance of living a life of even just basic decency. The do-gooders who rather see children live in misery rather than have free & voluntary birth control for people who can't even feed themselves properly let alone a family. People who put their mostly stupid ideologies & pursuit of wealth before the quality of life of others.
Parasites who shun symbiosis yet bleat Democracy, hypocrites who donate only when the donation is Tax deductible ! Those who keep pushing renewable energy without actually doing anything themselves to curb pollution !
These people are all around & even within us.