Hi Ludwig. Comments made by the IEA (Tanaka) that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the responsible body for assessing the long term availability of future uranium supplies is perhaps an unreal expectation. The IAEA is currently starved of funds and is in no position to take on that responsibility. Ernesto Zedillo chaired the international commission that was asked to look into the future of the IAEA which has been responsible for maintaining the global nuclear order for fifty years, but is now is struggling to do its job because of a chronic lack of resources. He said that :-

“My colleagues and I were impressed by the agency’s technical competence, whether in
assessing Iran’s nuclear program or helping to fight hunger by using nuclear techniques to
breed more resilient varieties of rice. But we were frankly shocked to learn that the IAEA,
one of the most respected international organisations, has been operating virtually on a
shoestring for nearly two decades. The cost to the world of a single act of nuclear terror is more than serious accident in a nuclear power plant would be incalculable. In contrast, the cost of strengthening the IAEA to help prevent such catastrophes is modest. The resource situation of the IAEA is now critical. Years of zero growth policies have left the organisation with a failing infrastructure. Vital elements of its work - for example nuclear safety and security - are funded largely on an unpredictable and unstable voluntary basis.” (Zedillo 2008)

Ensuring safety in the use of nuclear energy and the security of nuclear and other radioactive materials is important. Unless the IAEA is given adequate human and financial resources it will be unable to properly fulfil this crucial role. The Australian government, before investing in nuclear infrastructure, needs to satisfy itself that the US, the EU and China ensure that the IAEA gets the A$135 million it needs to do what it can do well. (Zedillo 2008).
The IAEA needs to be a partner in the multinational R&D program for the design and testing of thorium nuclear reactors.

colinset: I think you have it about right.
Thorium is technically interesting...but the devil is in the details. As Geoff says, it may not be as simple, safe and cheap in a real-world setting.
The decision to invest in nuclear power has so far been based on more strategic and military usage than for "cheap, safe energy". There has certainly not been any shortage of subsidisation of the nuclear industry!
I'm hoping that either Pebble Bed reactors or Thorium, or even Fusion do result in cheap, safe nuclear power...but in the meantime renewables do have a part to play. Yes they are subsidised...just like all national infrastructure, including fossil fuels. (tax concessions) The real battle is centralised vs distributed power. Industry just *hates* the idea of not being subsidised by household consumers!

This sounds very interesting. What I have against nuclear is that
it requires 200,000,000 liters a day to keep the reactor cool. In Australia the only way we can supply this is via the sea? Not use underground aquifers as we would run out very quickly, and they can't be replenished by rain water.

How much water would these reactors need to keep them call, if any at all?