What saith Prof Garnaut, National High Priest for Net Zero 2050? He reckons (p73) "other sources of zero-emissions" power are a better opportunity for now, though nuclear might "enter the picture" from the 2030s, costs permitting.

Much as I might learn to love the fission, the real weakness in Net Zero 2050 is not the energy mix. It's Garnaut's pivot that, with markets, we could coax Australia’s soils and forests to reabsorb 1,000 Mt GHG a year. That's 2x our physical emissions.

As things stand, landscapes can't reabsorb anywhere near 1x earth's vastly increased emissions. That's why we have rising CO2 and temperatures in the first place

are the liberals out there promoting nuclear energy at the party leadership level?

I think you have to win over public opinion before you have nay hope of nuclear energy in this country.

Alan B, I am interested in what u think hollywood has to say.

https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/

The Coalition isn't noticeably into the idea of nuclear power, either.

Albo will not be getting my vote. Apart from his tribal no-nukes stand he thinks we should keep up coal exports. Perhaps in his muddled thinking he thinks pixie dust will save us. We've had the Renewable Energy Target since 2001 yet emissions are essentially flatlined so it isn't working. We need an axe to cut through the emissions impasse and I think nuclear is it. To those who disagree explain why France has about 50 grams per average kilowatt hour of electricity while Australia has 800.

FWIW I am beginning to doubt that Snowy 2 will go ahead. Some are saying that batteries will store intermittent wind and solar. Trouble is when you start costing it at over $200 per megawatt hour levelised cost. SMRs work out cheaper.

Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/18/3575/htm

"Abstract:
This paper tests the validity of the FUND model’s energy impact functions, and the hypothesis that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would negatively impact the global economy. Empirical data of energy expenditure and average temperatures of the US states and census divisions are compared with projections using the energy impact functions with non-temperature drivers held constant at their 2010 values. The empirical data indicates that energy expenditure decreases as temperatures increase, suggesting that global warming, by itself, may reduce US energy expenditure and thereby have a positive impact on US economic growth. These findings are then compared with FUND energy impact projections for the world at 3 °C of global warming from 2000. The comparisons suggest that warming, by itself, may reduce global energy consumption. If these findings are correct, and if FUND projections for the non-energy impact sectors are valid, 3 °C of global warming from 2000 would increase global economic growth. In this case, the hypothesis is false and policies to reduce global warming are detrimental to the global economy. We recommend the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Our analysis and conclusions warrant further investigation."