Wind farms and solar power plants are also Government supported.
Development of both in Australia occurred because there was a Mandatory Renewable energy target set by the previous govt and when that target was meet the industries faltered .
If there is no Government support there is no renewable power industry.
Coal is just too cheap.
The first Thorium reactor was powered up in the 1950's but did not produce any plutonium so the authorities lost interest.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf
leads to interesting paper on thorium powered power stations.

I’m still not sure where Jake Lynch is going with this obtuse article. Overall it smacks of anti nuclear and pro renewable. Some might suggest that had it not been for the “Green” opposition to nuclear energy, the West might have made a very large dent in carbon emissions over the last 60 years.

“We made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear
weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. I think that’s as big a
mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.”
Patrick Moore,
former Director of Greenpeace International

Uranium can be used 60 times more efficiently in fast breeder reactors, which burn up all the uranium. Almost all the recoverable uranium is in the oceans, not in the ground: seawater contains 3.3mg of uranium per m3 of water, which adds up to 4.5 billion tons worldwide. Japanese researchers have found a technique for extracting uranium from seawater at a cost of $100–300 per kilogram of uranium.

Thorium is a radioactive element similar to uranium, it is about three times as abundant in the earth’s crust as Uranium. Thorium is used in nuclear reactors in India. If uranium ore runs low, thorium will probably become the dominant nuclear fuel.

Professor David Mackay estimates total sustainable energy production of theoretical or practical renewable resources in the UK at 18 kWh per day per person.

Tide: 3 kWh/d
Offshore: 4 kWh/d
Hydro: 0.3 kWh/d
Biomass: 4 kWh/d
Solar PV: 2 kWh/d
Solar HW: 2 kWh/d
Wind: 3 kWh/d

His analysis is supported by the Institute of Electrical Engineers, the Tyndall Centre, the Interdepartmental Analysts Group, the Performance and Innovation Unit; and the proposals from the Centre for Alternative Technology.

This is 18 kWh per day per person against average demand of 125 kWh per day per person. Granted that this is for the UK but I can’t imagine Australia bettering their potential for sustainable alternative energy contributions.

Renewable energy? Surely we have to be joking.

All data sourced from Professor David MacKay’s book “Sustainable Energy” Visit www.withouthotair. The book download is free.

Did I miss a memo?
Does everyone here accept that the world is going to end in 100 years, or 200 years, or 500 years?
The problem with coal or oil or uranium, is that they are non renewable resources.
Once you use them, they are GONE.
Forever.
Do we really have the right to steal these valuable resources from the unborn generations for the next thousands of years, for just a few years of electric can openers?
Does anyone stop to wonder how historians a thousand years hence, will judge us?
Or will it be our fault that there will be no historians, a thousand years hence.

I think nuclear weapons proliferation is a greater concern than nuclear waste or reactor safety. People like Pr. Barry Brooks make strong arguments for the use of nuclear but he talks about IFR technology that would run entirely off existing nuclear waste, gradually eliminating most of the long lived stuff. It would need no fresh uranium for the foreseeable future.

Nuclear has to be on the agenda - the seriousness of climate change demands it but with a real carbon price a lot of other technologies look a lot more attractive. Right now most renewables would be cheaper than coal with sequestration and Australia should, being well endowed with renewable resources be going for them vigorously.

Economies of scale and ongoing technological improvements will continue their trend of getting cheaper. Australia will not be first to commit to new gen nuclear but can't sit idle waiting for it (whilst massively expanding coal mining and export) and seriously be considered to be facing the greatest challenge of our time head on with eyes open.

Inst it hilarious to see all these global warming skeptics with their blatant biases and inconsistancies.

On the one hand we have nuclear scientists and they are infallible, prescient and just "lets stick our tongues up their dates" worshipful.

But global warming and climate scientists! Oh no they are evil commo latte sippers out to destroy the world and send us back to the dark ages.

Youre a bunch of condescending idiots who dont seem to understand that the majority says no and since this is a democracy you suck it up and we dont get nukes

Hey some joke this nuclear energy thing.

Australia requires at least 25 nuclear reactors by 2050 to provide just one third of the nation's electricity (add a few more reactors given the predicted population explosion.) That's at least one reactor built every 1.6 years. Huh?

Will it mitigate Australia's abominable CO2 emissions? No, particularly given the myriad of low U grade operations ready to crank up thus increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

Will it mitigate the abominable record Uranium mining operations have in this country on occupational health and safety and environmental catastrophes? I doubt it.

“Western Australia has a strong regulatory
framework for uranium mining through existing
legislation under the Mining Act 1978, the Mines
Safety and Inspection Act 1994, the Environmental
Protection Act 1986 and the Radiation Safety Act
1975”

Funny that since “In its 1996 Environment Progress Report, released in July 1997, WMC (now BHP) "admitted leaving a contaminated trial uranium mine (Yeelirrie) exposed to the public, with inadequate fencing and warning signs, for more than 10 years".

"A spokesperson for WMC said a 1995 inspection revealed the problems and also admitted that the company could have known about the problem as early as 1992." 1992? Wasn't the mine abandoned in 1987?

“Western Mining said there were inadequate signs warning against swimming in a dam at the site, which was found to be about 30 times above World Health Organisation radiation safety standards and admitted that people used the dam for "recreational" purposes including swimming, but did not drink the salty water." Well that's comforting.

A friend of mine used to swim in a tailings’ dam at Yeelirrie. He's no longer with us.

More recent breaches of licence, spills, leaks and radiation exposure of workers in Australia continue in the 21st century.

And currently about 100,000 litres of contaminated water is seeping each day from a tailings dam at the Ranger mine in Kakadu. Legislation states that a dam lining must endure for 100 years. Yeah right you are boss!