This thread is rather premature as no one will take nuclear, thorium
or uranium, seriously until perhaps later this summer if we start
getting regular load shedding.
We may continue on as we are with politician's promises of batteries
etc for a few years but the shutting of Liddel and others will finally
exhaust the public patience.

How much patience do you think cities of hundreds of high rise
buildings will have every peak hot day when faced with a 15 story climb to the sky ?

They will demand nuclear energy tomorrow morning or else !

Here, for example, the question of security is addressed.
http://www.nuscalepower.com/smr-benefits/secure. The Wauchope argument against underground placement is particularly feeble.

France has run large nuclear reactors safely and successfully for 50 years and Wauchope et al have no sensible alternative to address AGW.

Reliable, affordable wind/solar/storage is a pipe-dream, SMRs are not. These need to go where distribution networks determine they should, i.e. where coal-fired power stations are now located.

We can avoid building any new coal generation at all and reduce our emissions markedly if we plan now. Urban EV's and synthetic fuels for long range transport etc. would flow sensibly from nuclear where we can add modules as these develop.

Instead of accepting the status quo over the current prohibition of nuclear, Finkel should have challenged it. He is either weak of mind or heart not to have done so but I think it's the former given his call for more storage recently. Here's something in relation to this http://euanmearns.com/grid-scale-storage-of-renewable-energy-the-impossible-dream/ where the comments are also informative.

Yes the successful French example has certainly been economical through dual-use nuclear knowledge that is shared with France's nuclear weapons program.

ALSO France's civil nuclear power reactors have become more economical because French reactors have become steadily LARGER.

From of 900 MWe to 1300 MWe to 1450 MWe. France is now looking at 1650 MWe reactors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Technical_overview

This is bad news for advocates of inefficient, uneconomical, Small Modular Reactors, ie. of less than 300 MW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

Small modular advocates are left up proverbial s--- creek with a teaspoon for a paddle.

Crystal balls at ten paces. The thing that is certain, IMO, renewables plus storage don't/won't cut it.

Here's something relating to your wiki reference, plantaganet. NuScale will have a product to sell in 2026, and I believe the volume will be there http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35863846

For 8 billion bucks eight small molten-salt uranium reactors could replace Hazelwood's megawatts.
http://www.terrestrialenergy.com/

24/7/365, clean, rampable electricity that can grow easily with future needs (just add modules).

But no, we can't have that, it would lead to bombs!

Changing the subject, any thoughts on how to defend ourselves as China eyes off all before it from the SCS.

Yes, Joe renewables will not cut it.
I have just read this article;

http://tinyurl.com/yb85rk8o

on how hopeless is that battery backup idea.
It is very interesting and it shows what I have been saying about
what happens when you get a string of still overcast days.
The month of January 2016 in the UK had a wind lull of six days.
The article shows that the UK would need 14,000 batteries the size
of Sth Australia's battery.
Also it shows that solar is hardly worth the cost and that wind is
the only practical renewable generator, but it is hopeless anyway.
Look at the area under the solar compared to wind on the graph.