Max Green,

Never one to deny making a mistake, I have, it appears, confused you with one Jim Green, anti-nuclear campaigner and general ratbag.

But, given the garbage you are spouting (still calling people 'deniers', for heavens sake!), you have much in common with Jimbo.

"Peer-reviewed science"! You must be joking.

Anti-vaxers. Tin foil hats. Your rhetoric is 'old hat'.

People like you turn up from time to time, all piss and vinegar, out to shut everyone down. We've heard it all before. You won't last long.

"Every calorie in a Big Mac uses 10 times the calories in fossil fuel energy to grow that food, let alone transport and cook it."

Well I was just thinking about McDonalds...
They've got a November special on for a $3 Quarter Pounder

'calories in fossil fuel energy' - Hmm... This is interesting.
I might stop at the servo on the way home and buy 5000 calories worth of diesel.
- Maybe I can use some with my breakfast cereal.

No seriously, I'm curious about this... please explain

after we've built solar panels for 100 years it's going to use up the sun!
Max Green,
Is that as in maximum green behind the ears ? Certainly gives that impression.
After a hundred years of unsuccessfully deposing of out-dated & unusable Green technology, we will run out of land to bury the remnants of this fabulous technology !
Alan B has got it right with his Thorium thingo, it'd be like the Sun's offsider right here, nuclear n'all that ! No millions of tonnes of glass, plastic & aluminium polluting the planet !

TTBN - you're right about one thing. I do tend to have a track record of posting here for about a month and then moving on for a year or so. You won't have to put up with me long. As I said, sheer morbid curiosity makes me come back here to see if you Deniers are still the same. I hear your rhetoric and false claims and Mhaze ranting about climate science as the new 'cult' - and realise you're all still the same - and move on! So yes, apologies that this won't be a long conversation. You guys are all the same = simply not interesting enough! There's a whole world of interesting things happening in the REAL WORLD of peer-reviewed science. Why would I waste my time listening to your ilk for too long as you assert rubbish and then pat yourself on the back for doing so?

Hi Indyvidual,
I'm with Alan B! I love nuclear. I've watched weeks worth of Kirk Sorenson and Ed Pheil - and had a number of Facebook chats with Ed about his MCSFR. It's my favourite reactor. I'm not sure if the industry is as bullish as he is on their having solved the corrosion issues - but yeah. It's an amazing technology, especially for colonising Mars where 6 month global dust storms would kill everyone on the base if they were relying on solar!

BUT... it remains illegal and unpopular in Australia. For the longest time I tried to promote nuclear with friends and family and only managed to sway a few people with videos about Molten Salt Reactors. Anti-nuclear is just in the cultural air we Aussies breathe. Meanwhile, Australia is adopting wind and solar 3 times faster than the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is adopting wind and solar 3 times faster than ALL other forms of new power stations combined!

By the time the nuclear movement has a coherent proposal before parliament, we'll be 90% finished with renewbles anyway. That last 10% is going to be interesting as will they shoot for longer transmission lines or more pumped-hydro to help firm the wind and solar?

I'm also with you on how renewables require more physical material and space than nukes. A lot more concrete and steel - as they're catching scattered energy sources and concentrating them into our cities. Fortunately there's so much solar that 1 hour of sunshine on earth would power our civilisation for a year - so there's plenty of rooftop space and desert to run today's world many thousands of times over.
And the waste? Again I hear you. 1.5 MILLION tons of solar panels by 2050.

https://theconversation.com/theres-a-looming-waste-crisis-from-australias-solar-energy-boom-117421

But they're working on recycling it, a whole new industry.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/16/australian-research-finds-cost-effective-way-to-recycle-solar-panels

https://youtu.be/3JqzSsStwF4

I find the whole notion of colonising Mars 'romantic but stupid'.

Why would anyone want to take a one way trip to a planet that can't support human life?
Good luck with your mental health, once you arrive and the reality sets in that you can never come back.
At this point, earth may as well not even exist because you will never again live to see it.

What real purpose does colonising it even serve?