Without meaning to be insulting, The main problem is that the fellow is working backwards from the outcome. Solar pre-heating at coal-fired power station considerably reduces the amount of coal they use, up to about 40% I believe. Shouldnt all our power stations have this simple measure installed, before we go mucking round with nuclear?

I don't question the overall safety record of the nuclear power industry. But do question the cost of the safety programs that are required to operate a plant. Cost may well reduce as more plants come on line globally but it is still a seriously subsidised form of power generation. Solar preheating is a fantastic idea especially in a country like Australia combined with some kind of carbon capture this would still be a better way to go.
In the end the sun is the largest controlled nuclear reaction getting around, so let's stop avoiding it and deal with it. There is just as much misinformation around about solar as there is about nuclear, it's one of the joys of the misinformation super highway we call the blundernet. So shall we have a poorly thought out power network globally to match the internet? I hope not.

Considering that the boiler water is re circulated, it is already at about 50C and is passed through economiser tubes where the heat is extracted from the flue gas to heat it to 80+C.

As most of the energy goes into evaporating the water, these economisers save a few % of the energy.

Solar preheating would only work a few hours a day, and where the power stations are situated, there is often cloud cover, so I would be surprised if the solar pre heating could deliver more than a fraction of 1 percent efficiency improvements.

Nuclear power is 2-3x more expensive than coal, but is still less than half the price of any available renewable source. It is also not subject to the weather or time of day. It would therefore require subsidy, but far less than wind or solar.

With respect, you would be surprised if it is a fraction of one percent, and I seem to recall a figure of up to 40 percent. Sorry I cant reference it properly, but I would think the CSIRO website might have some credible figures. Certainly, the idea is up and running and people are putting money into it, so despite your dismissive approach and assumptions of such a small percentage, somebody cleverer than me and you thinks it might be a goer.
Dont get me wrong, I am certainly of the thinking we need to have nuclear weapons (and the cynical view we already have them). Places like India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and many others have them- so being realistic we need them just in case. Just trying to tie it in with electricity generation/climate change is (in my opinion) rubbish.
Weapons yes, electricity no.

Sad to say but Shadow Minister's comments lost all relevance on this topic the moment he declared nuclear waste is safe for people to physically handle.

Pat,

The cooling towers you see expel huge quantities of waste heat, so there is little motivation for solar.

I would respectfully suggest that the efficiencies you read were not for steam driven systems.

If I was dismissive it was because when talking about nuclear there are always people claiming that nuclear will not be necessary because of xy or z new and unproven technology that will come to the rescue.

There is no magic bullet.

Tboy,

Firstly, I said that it was almost safe to handle, secondly, the reprocessed waste has a radiation level that would not inflict radiation burns if handled, but are still higher than recommended for handling.

Depleted uranium from the enrichment process has a radiation level so low that handling is not considered a risk, and has a similar toxicity to lead.

I would suggest that you expand you reading beyond the "chicken little" literature of the greens.