Brian of Buderim, as much as I lean towards nuclear, it is more the fact that renewables are NOT yet up to the minimum standard required by us, the consumer/user.
From what I understand of thorium salt technology, I like it.
It covers ALL the bases, but unfortunately the pigs in Canberra and their mates can't scam any money from it.
And so it goes that we will fuff around throwing money at renewables because the pigs are making BIG money out of all this so called research and development.
Luciferase, offers some very telling links to what I've been saying for years; they are inefficient, unreliable and when they don't break or crash and burn, their duty cycle is pathetic.
We would get much reliable base load, or otherwise power, if we employed mules walking around in circles driving turbines.
I would dearly like to see a thorium salt reactor at work, or at least some stats, by the sounds of it thus far it sounds like a better choice than all the other contenders, and can be up and running in record time compared to nuclear.
I suspect the reason it is not on the govt agenda is because the pigs won't be able to scam any money off it for them and their mates.

Philip S, you'd hardly use the full possible output in any event. The 6 kW will produce 6750 kWh, which is average Oz household consumption over a year, while covering charge/recharge cycle losses (I've been quite generous on this in my figuring because it's not generation capacity that's the killer, it's the firming). It's then a case of making this energy dispatchable 24/7/365 with batteries, whatever their chemistry (they all require maintenance and replacement).

What is the storage cost of days of overcast weather in winter (especially) while drawing power for home heating, clothes drying, water heating etc. Stuff the expectation to go hair-shirted on these in the 21st century by Green Malthusian ideology. The battery capacity required is huge for a householder. At a grid scale, it's just as ridiculous a proposal.

BoB, you carry on as if nuclear technology stalled in the 1970's, and you're wrong on so many other fronts I won't bother (e.g. nuclear EROEI absolutely craps on renewables, firmed or not). You sing from the Friends of the Earth/Greenpeace songbook. The German experiment proves you wrong and it's time to let grown-ups sort things out. Just stop opposition to lifting the nuclear ban, for Gawd's sake, and get out of the way.

Toni, 'fair dinkum' simply means thermal, of any colour.

Forcing providers to firm their offering by forward contracting drives them to thermal generation together with whatever level of renewables is mandated (which I hope will not grow, but for labor winning the next election).

I'm all for a carbon tax while lifting the nuclear ban, the RET, and all subsidies. That'd sort things because the Sth Koreans et al build conventional reactors cheaply or SMR's will rule as they come on. Gen IV reactors will evolve to deal with the miniscule waste and proliferation 'problems' FoE/Greenpeace are so fond of spruiking/shrieking.

Renewables had their chance and failed the great German experiment. Time to learn from that and move on rather than repeat the mistake. Renewables do NOT make power cheaper but do quite the opposite.

Luciferase, I assume by SMR you mean Molten Salt Reactor, or MSR? I find the technology offers great benefits over existing choices, I just don't know enough about it, nor do I need to.
It suffices to say that if something performs better and cheaper than existing systems, then it should be adopted, or at the very least, trialed.
The fact that these scumbags are pushing these useless and unreliable offerings like wind and sun, is an indictment on the mental state, and brings into question their ability to remain in office, and so should all be deposed and ejected from their current positions as the govt.
As I said, we could do a lot better with mules walking around in circles turning turbines, it would certainly be cheaper, and there are no end of mules or even donkeys, we can start with the greens and as they died off with exhaustion we keep running through the parliament, plenty of donkeys there.
At least that way the bastards would be earning their salary and actually serving the community, which is what they were put there to do.
So there you have it.
A win, win from Canberra.
Now when have you ever heard that before.

//Toni, 'fair dinkum' simply means thermal, of any colour.//

Oh. Really? Are we quite sure about that? In my experience the Liberals are happy to say they'll consider nuclear... and then fail to lift the ban. If they mean all thermal generation, they should say that. I'm sure I can't be the only nerd annoyed by our politicians talking down to us as if we're idiots that can't understand really technical terms like 'coal', 'nuclear', 'thermal' etc.

ALTRAV SMR = small modular reactor, e.g. http://www.nuscalepower.com/

Toni, Morrison has signalled LNP acceptance of nuclear. It needs to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Championing nuclear on climate change and dissing renewables could do it, with the right approach. If they lose this election they'll be out for years and we'll be in the hands of renewablista zealots taking the economy south, so it's hell or bust IMO.