Labor is lying and Dutton is backing the wrong horse. We should be looking at what Copenhagen Atomics is doing with their cautious development of a 40 MW Thorium fueled reactor which basically is designed to produce heat. They should have this producing power by some time in 2017. This reactor will fit inside a 40 foot container and can be set up in multiples to either generate electricity or drive some other industrial process such as producing hydrogen, ammonia or steel.

David

"They should have this producing power by some time in 2017. "

I don't think we can wait that long!! :)

Adding new modern technology coal fired plants to the energy mix and cutting back on unreliable renewables would also be a great idea. But with the huge propaganda campaign demonising CO2 emissions (even though they are very low at about 420 parts per million and have been more than 10 times higher in the world's long history) means the populace have been conned and probably wouldn't accept them. Adopting nuclear in the mix would be a good start.

Agree Mikko2. I've said for a long time that we have such vast amounts of coal that we should be burning it like its going out of style (which it is) and then sell all the yellow cake the world will take. But the jihad against the dreaded CO2 and coal is such that its no longer possible. There's no longer any discussion about whether we should be trying to control CO2 emissions just the assertion that its axiomatic. (There's witches in Salem so we don't need to discuss it - just get on with the hangings).

We once had the lowest electricity prices in the advanced world because we relied on coal. Now we among the highest? And the future looks even worse than that.

The article contains several inaccuracies and misleading statements that warrant correction.

Firstly, it claims nuclear energy is cost-effective on a levelized basis, but this overlooks that nuclear power has some of the highest upfront capital costs. According to the IEA, the initial investment for nuclear power is significantly higher than for renewable energy sources. Although operational costs may be lower, the high initial investment is a substantial barrier.

The article uses the UAE's nuclear program to suggest nuclear plants can be built quickly. In reality, the global average construction time for nuclear reactors is around 10 years, with many projects facing delays and cost overruns. The UAE's success is not easily replicable due to differences in regulatory environments, financing, and expertise.

The view that renewable energy is unreliable and impractical due to land requirements fails to consider significant advancements in energy storage and grid management, which have increased reliability. Moreover, strategic planning can mitigate the impact on land use, balancing energy needs with environmental preservation.

The article downplays environmental risks associated with nuclear energy, such as radioactive waste and potential catastrophic accidents. While nuclear power emits low levels of carbon, the long-term storage of radioactive waste is a significant challenge, and past accidents have shown the devastating potential of failures.

It asserts that the transition to renewable energy is prohibitively costly, underestimating the long-term economic benefits. The cost of solar and wind energy has been falling rapidly, making these sources increasingly competitive. Over time, renewables offer lower operational and maintenance costs compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Contrary to the claim that Australia is isolated in not embracing nuclear energy, many countries prioritise renewable energy due to its economic and environmental advantages. Nations like Germany and Japan are actively phasing out nuclear power in favour of renewables, reflecting a broader global trend.

The article does not accurately represent the benefits and advancements in renewable energy technologies. A holistic approach to energy policy should weigh all factors, including economic feasibility, safety, environmental impact, and technological potential.

John Daysh seems to have taken a big dose of the Labor lies and misinformation, especially : "It asserts that the transition to renewable energy is prohibitively costly, underestimating the long-term economic benefits. The cost of solar and wind energy has been falling rapidly, making these sources increasingly competitive. Over time, renewables offer lower operational and maintenance costs compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power..."
Yeah right, apart from the $1.3 to $1.5 trillion estimate from expert independent research group Net Zero Australia, after 15 to 20 years you have to start replacing it all, with a huge disposal problem that no one pushing unreliable renewables wants to talk about. And how many accidents have there been at Lucas Heights since 1957? How many in France with its 70% nuclear power which it exports to other green leaning nations such as Germany? None. How come nuclear subs based in Australian ports will be safe but land based nuclear reactors which have made huge advances in recent years, are "too dangerous". All BS! The examples quoted are all from legitimate sites and illustrate Labor's lack of credibility.