From planta's link,

"Hence, we must find a way to support nuclear. The problem is that, on any realistic analysis, there’s no chance of getting a nuclear plant going in Australia before about 2040.

So, the nuclear fans end up.... saying that we will have to rely on coal until then. And to make this case, it is necessary to ignore or denounce the many options for an all-renewable electricity supply, including concentrated solar power, large-scale battery storage and vehicle-to-grid options.

As a result, would-be green advocates of nuclear power end up reinforcing the arguments of the coal lobby. … In practice, support for nuclear power in Australia is support for coal."

Firstly, if we get cracking, we can have modular nuclear running well before 2040. They'll be ready to go mid-2020's

Secondly, concentrated solar power and large-scale battery storage, at a grid level sufficient to make renewables dispatchable 24/7/365, are totally unviable.

Thirdly, re the vehicle-to-grid option, http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/vehicle-to-grid :

"However, this strategy is facing stronger challenges, which is lacking public acceptance. V2G techniques imply violation of the recommended charging pattern and an increased number of charging/discharging cycles. Consequently, this causes accelerated wear and tear of the batteries, reducing their lifetime and performance. Taking into account the current battery technology, it seems that this strategy will—for a while—remain not practically applicable, unless incredible incentives are offered for the car owners."

Add to this the trend towards diminished vehicle ownership and driverless transport and you have the remnants of yet another Green dream.

Finally, a decent carbon-tax would wreck the VALCOE of renewables to the benefit of nuclear energy. Don't renewables advocates want a carbon-tax, or do they support fossil-fueled emissions until that wonderful day when some miracle storage breakthrough? Support for renewables is support for fossil-fueled backup and higher emissions intensity.

Jim Green, if cost is the issue then support lifting the ban, safe in the knowledge nuclear can't possibly compete!

Oh bugga, http://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/27/nuclear-energy-is-the-fastest-and-lowest-cost-clean-energy-solution/?fbclid=IwAR26fsA0RDrGG8w7dZOR6Iw3vtnYeJgYU6VBzy0H3agEIEqnNL1SHjBCKOg

In your blog at https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor you state,

"Support for nuclear power has become a sign of tribal loyalty for the far-right, and they claim nuclear is cheap despite an abundance of contrary evidence. They are lobbying to have national legislation banning nuclear power plants repealed, but that seems unlikely."

Finnish Greens are pro-nuclear, and why are Aussie Greens? Do you know something Finns don't?
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/6/26/the-greens-are-no-longer-anti-nuclearin-finland-1