Hi Noel/ChristinaMac1

Yes approach and reaching the desired audience are problems.

On a different matter. Nuclear reactor competitiveness has always been illusory. Even more so when it is was started by and still intimately connected with state spending on nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion for warships (e. AREVA France). The big exception, Japan, wouldn't have closed down its reactor industry for years (sincle 2011) if Japan had nuclear weapons.

Where this is going is that for Australia this means we should only get into the nuclear enrichment and power reactor game if we anticipate military nuclear uses. This is only a policy in the very long term - and not terribly attractive, of course.

Pete

Nuclear weapons were the real goal, supported by both Liberaland Labor, when the uranium industry and the first Lucas Heights reactor were set up after WWII.
http://workersbushtelegraph.com.au/2013/04/14/australia-and-the-bomb

The push for nuclear submarines in South Australia, and for defense industries there, suggest that Australia's involvement in USA's military nuclear strategy is likely to increase.

It's *not* waste people, it's fuel! Breeder reactors burn nuclear waste, multiplying our nuclear fuel by a factor of 60! We have 400 reactor-years experience with breeders.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Fast-Neutron-Reactors/

Some famous ones include:

THE EBR2 — Experimental Breeder Reactor 2 (1965 - 1995: the American program Clinton finally closed). This is the world’s only real INTEGRAL Fast Reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II#Integral_Fast_Reactor

The old Soviet BN-350 (1964–1992)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-350_reactor

The Russian BN-600 still works.
Japan paid a billion for technical specs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

The Russian BN 800 is brand new!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
From the news on the Russian BN 800!
"Fuel for breeder reactors could even be made from nuclear waste, which from an ecological point of view is a priceless advantage…..Humankind has already produced so much nuclear waste that it would take decades, if not hundreds of years to process and recycle it. "
http://rt.com/news/188332-mox-nuclear-fuel-production/

INDIA have a development program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor

The French had the massive 1200MW reactor the Superphenix which worked perfectly until ignorant anti-nuke campaigners closed it down!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix#Closure

The Chinese have a test fast reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Experimental_Fast_Reactor

GE have a blueprint for the PRISM reactor, based on the old EBR2. It's ready to get built in the first country that will approve it.
http://gehitachiprism.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor)

But my all time favourite reactor is the LFTR (say Lifter). Watch this 2 hour documentary in half-hour chunks, and you'll get a sense of why even many anti-nuclear greenies I know grudgingly admit they would accept a fast build of LFTR's around Australia. They're inherently safe, and even Homer Simpson couldn't break one of these babies!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Advances in battery technology are certainly making solar and windpower much more efficient and competitive. See http://www.solaraustralia.com.au/akasol_neeoqube.html and http://www.afr.com/business/energy/electricity/australia-primed-as-heartland-for-batterystorage-revolution-20150529-ghba6h .

This increased renewable energy efficiency mean utilisation of centralised electricty networks will decrease in Australia even further.

All this means is that nuclear power reactors are even less justifiable in Australia.

Please tell us how much it would cost to store enough solar power to last winter?

Yes tell us Max.