http://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1488888833237398&set=a.225317139594580

Just spotted this article about small portable nuclear power plants.
Should investors support this technology instead of the Tax dollar guzzling ,massively polluting Solar & wind generator industry ?
For small applications solar & wind are fine but we need a lot of power for industry & whole cities & large towns.

Who knows the future?

There is a zinc battery that might last fifty years. There is a company that wants to refurbish reactors from retired US naval vessels. There are loads of things in development that could give viable alternatives to cheap coal generation.

What worries me are the greens and Albo cult zealots sucked in by the wind and solar grifter spiel. What I'd love to do is go off grid and give the nem the bird. I suspect a lot of Australians feel the same, but the technology as it stands does not yet provide me with that option.

Nuclear is the only way to replace coal currently. In ten years it might be a cheaper option. Until it is, Australia should stick with cheap coal generation if it wants to maintain the environment, food production and living standards.

I don't do social media, so I can't read what was said on Facebook.

I can say only that it's not much good pondering what investors should do - it's their money - and if we had politicians with an ounce of common sense, we wouldn't be talking about what should be happening. We already had the answer to cheap, reliable electricity in coal, until some maniacs decided to invent a load of nonsense about carbon dioxide, climate change and the notion that wind and solar was better.

The reality is: climate change is natural and unstoppable. It's too late and too expensive for nuclear power, and our only hope is a return to coal. Even that will be expensive, thanks to vandals running it down and blowing up plants.

We all need to regain our common sense and instinctive thinking abilities and stop listening to people we have never heard of.

Also a reality, Australia is rooted, thanks to all the twaddle Australians have fallen for; and the fact that mass immigration is putting more demands on our puny energy system.

It is said that people get the governments they deserve, and Australians are a glaring example of that.

on one hand indy is saying small portable nuke generators. Then says large scale power needed.
You need to clarify what is what and what size are you talking about.
Lukus heights reactor is classed as 100 KwH / day generator.
put that into large scale u would be looking at many hundred of thousands. of generators.

i seen what you are talking about and i would say that is B/S. An impossible task.
The size of that thing would power about 5 homes.

doog,
You don't see what I'm talking about.
Start the change by using smaller units such as they have in ships just to get started or are you so daft as to believe such a change could be achieved in one big hit overnight ?
As the use of small units proves useful, the technology gained & proven can be expanded to larger or more such units. If it proves not worthwhile then less harm is done than by clearing hectares of forest pollution from wind farms & even less money wasted. The important factor is to make a start !
At this stage of available technology small reactors are many times safer than the huge uncontrollable plants as we have already experienced. All I'm saying is, if we can have successful portable reactors for the past 50 years in ships then surely with the latest technology we can have reliable plants on land. Considering the massive energy requirements of an aircraft carrier one would think a similar plant could run a town of 200,000 without much difficulty. For those who keep bringing up the subject of cost just consider keeping unions away from such a project.
Also, keep in mind the Russians have been doing it since before you were born.