loudmouth2, I have wondered why Alan's Thorium salt reactors have not been revived.
The little research I did explained that the trials and further development were abruptly stopped by one of the latter POTUS, in that the US, or those running it from behind the scenes, saw a valuable potential in funding nuclear technology in weapons manufacturing rather than "wasting" the funding on a thing which was not going to benefit those few who controlled the US and the power it gave them by having nuclear weapons.
The public are held in contempt by these kinds of people and we are seen as a means of making them wealthier and more powerful, rather than finding ways of making OUR lives more comfortable and less arduous.
As for the dreamers and the do-gooders, they are easily led and have never gotten over the "bad press" of the old nuclear reactor accidents, which were few, but boy did they blow them way out of proportion.
And so it is through ignorance and naivety with a touch of arrogance, that the fate of nuclear is forbidden in countries which still listen to these same children with blurred glasses and closed minds.

Joe,

Apart from safety and waste management concerns from
the community. There are technological impediments to
setting up a nuclear industry.

Developing such an industry and the professionals needed
to run it would take decades according to Professor
Ken Baldwin, Australian National University.

There's more at:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/progress/scienceshow/your-guide-to-australias/renewable-energy-options/6569874

The link although somewhat old, is still relevant
and goes through Australia's energy options including
nuclear. It's worth a read to get a bigger picture.
Perhaps some of the problems mentioned and why we're
not using some of them - might no longer apply in
our future as we manage to solve the impediments.

Interesting take on things.

Foxy,

I wonder how long it took France to get its nuclear energy generation up and running ? Decades ?

Wouldn't they now have a technological package which is safe, and able to be duplicated relatively quickly ?

Joe

I notice that in the last comment a link was given and a reference quoted from it.
The authors bias is exactly what I speak of.
Attention is drawn to the comments about how long it would take to construct/implement a new nuclear power station.
The time frame is vastly exaggerated as the expertise and knowledge of building new nuclear power stations today is a far cry from past models.
So again we are mis-led because of personal and bias agenda.
Forgetting nuclear for the moment, I still have not seen any response or reason as to why Alan's Thorium salt reactors are not a front runner for the title of power generation instead of all these useless feeble examples of so called renewables.
The only thing that's renewable about them is the rate of change or replacement of the units, through failures, either mechanical or just plain lack of performance.
There is NO benefit in having acres upon acres of these panels and wind mills, if they can't supply based load, consistently and reliably as coal or nuclear, or even hydro for that matter, and I don't mean that stupid idea of "Hydro II".
Another waste of money joke.
I'd like those who are not technically or practically familiar with these topics to stop commenting on them, they are not helping, but merely confusing everyone into believing that renewables are the answer.
They are NOT!
At least not now, and I doubt they will ever be without excessive financial assistance from the govt and the public.
In other words, we will not get any cheaper, more reliable power than we already have today.
And that being the case, what moron would promote something that only works against us.

Joe,

There's a reasonable coverage of nuclear power in
France given in Wikipedia that pretty much sums up
its history the operational considerations, and
public opinion. It should answer your questions.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France