With thorium nuclear chemistry process being a far safer technology, and thousands of years worth of supply (c.f. 70-80 years supply of uranium) the choice is a no brainer.
The usual specious argument brought out by the uranium industry is that there are no thorium reactors. Of course the same argument is better applied to the fast (breeder) reactor. Uranium enthusiasts argue it might be available in 15-20 years (if we were to start now). The thorium reactor is considered to be cheaper and less risky to design/build.
So why build an uneconomic uranium reactor with limited future fuel supply? Could vested interests be the explanation?
Looks like China will be forging further ahead of Australia in non-fossil fuel power (they already have an effective carbon tax considerably higher than that proposed by the Labor party).
