If the coal industry can find an economic way to capture CO2 emissions from conventional power stations then that would represent a pretty big shift in the whole electricity generation industry. Nuclear would then have a serious universal (as opposed to hydro which is location dependent and gas which is increasingly too highly valued in $ terms for baseload power generation) competitor which produces minimal emissions.
There's some serious work underway investigating the possibility of CO2 capture and liquefaction at Callide A power station in Queensland. Whilst the proposed unit retrofit is relatively small (the retrofitted 30 MW unit (one of 4 such units at Callide A) could realistically produce no more than 0.5% of Queensland's electricity) the technology could be applied to the other 3 units at Callide A and of course every other coal-fired power station in Queensland and elsewhere. If it captures 90% of the CO2 as intended then that pretty much fixes the greenhouse problem as far as electricity generation is concerned.
The great benefit of this approach is that it could be applied to existing power plants rather than needing to build completely new power stations (power plants don't come cheap). The vast majority of coal-fired generating capacity in Australia will be in operation for at least another 20 years, much of it considerably longer than that, so such an approach ought to be a winner in economic terms. The USA, NZ, UK, Japan, China and many others also have large coal-fired plants with several decades of remaining life. And all of these countries are needing to either build new generating capacity or shift fuels (away from depleting gas sources or expensive oil) in the next few years.
There's also the question about using alternative nuclear sources for power generation. Thorium is far more abundant than uranium, doesn't react without being constantly "pushed" (so it can't blow up no matter what goes wrong), doesn't involve the production of materials suitable for use in nuclear weapons and the waste is hazardous for about 500 years (versus many thousands of years for conventional reactor waste). Indeed the reason the industry went with uranium in the first place was the ability to produce weapons grade fissile material in the reactors (political decision in the 1950's).
So whilst it's clearly booming now I'll be watching the fundamentals closely. Uranium could end up being about as useful as sand in a desert if coal-fired CO2 capture and/or thorium turns out to be a goer (a lot of vested interests against the latter though).
In the Australian domestic context there's also the question of large scale geothermal energy in SA. If it's a goer then, combined with existing and some new hydro (critical due to production flexibility) plus the necessary transmission lines, the combined geothermal / hydro system could supply the entire power requirements of SA, Vic, NSW and Tas quite easily and probably much cheaper than nuclear. It's certainly somewhat safer and leaves the uranium available for export so makes economic sense too. Existing fossil fuel plants would be retained until the end of their useful lives for both economic and practical reasons (time and $ to build up the geothermal industry and expand hydro - a couple of decades at least).
Given that the political possibility of building a domestic nuclear power plant in Queensland is virtually zero (how, exactly, does one explain that to the world whilst also trying to sell coal as preferable to nuclear...) that leaves no viable market for nuclear power in Australia. The NT is far too small in terms of power use and WA is also too small. And WA has literally just started building a new coal-fired plant.