To-date, the cleanest most effective provision of energy would have to hydro electric with nuclear second. So-called Green energy is far too polluting & far too much funding is syphoned off by people who would not get a foot in the door in nuclear energy as is the case with Green Energy. Hydro electric has reached the limit in Australia so, nuclear is the way to cope with the demand.
The funds saved from syphoning off would probably pay for a couple of small, manageable nuclear power plants to start with.

Individual,

Are you aware of the argument that nuclear is faster to build than wind or solar when you consider the power produced?

https://medium.com/generation-atomic/is-nuclear-too-slow-to-deploy-compared-to-wind-and-solar-443d0c326184

Australia has 33% of the world's uranium deposits and
we're the world's largest producer of it.

So of course we're going to periodically have people
singing its praises in the media - claiming it's the
only option for clean and reliable electricity in
Australia.

The fact is - according to the Climate Council, one
third of Australia's electricity is already powered
by renewables and new initiatives like the
Capacity Investment Scheme are set to push Australia
towards 82% renewables by the end of this decade.

We're told that while the move to clean energy is
not happening fast enough it is underway and
starting to speed up.

We don't need distractions like nuclear to derail
the progress now.

Fester,

While nuclear power plants do produce significant amounts of consistent power once operational, the claim that they are faster to build than wind or solar, considering the power produced, does not hold up against recent evidence.

The article suggests that nuclear reactors can be built in 5 to 10 years, but recent projects tell a different story. For example, the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland, initially projected to be completed in 4 years, took over 15. Similarly, the Vogtle reactors in the U.S. have faced significant delays and cost overruns, now exceeding 15 years.

On the other hand, wind and solar projects have much shorter construction times. Wind farms typically take 1 to 2 years to build. For instance, the Hornsea One offshore wind farm in the UK, with a capacity of 1.2 GW, took around 3 years to complete. Solar farms usually take less than a year to a few years to construct. The Topaz Solar Farm in California, with a capacity of 550 MW, was constructed in about 3 years.

The article points to the Gansu Wind Farm taking over a decade to reach its full capacity, but it’s important to note that this is not typical for most wind projects. Most wind farms reach operational status much faster. In contrast, the Barakah nuclear power plant in the UAE took around 9 years to complete its first reactor. Although it produces substantial power, similar or greater total capacity can be achieved more quickly through multiple smaller renewable projects.

It's also important to consider capacity factors when comparing these energy sources. While nuclear has a high capacity factor, the integration of energy storage solutions, such as batteries, and the advancements in grid technology I so often mention, can mitigate the intermittency of renewables.

Renewables can be deployed incrementally. Multiple smaller projects can be built in parallel, providing immediate benefits and flexibility. This modularity allows for quicker responses to changing energy demands and technological advancements, unlike the large, centralised nuclear plants.

Anyway, even when accounting for their lower capacity, renewables can still be deployed much more rapidly (and flexibly.)

Safety concerns following previous high profile disasters
have made nuclear a controversial topic.

Nuclear power stations take too long to build. This
comes from the industry's own analysis.. We're told that
nuclear stations take an average of 9-4 years to build
and probably much longer with no domestic experience in
Australia.

In contrast, major wind and solar projects take between
1-3 years.

Nuclear power stations we're told are - extremely
expensive and -that nuclear
is not renewable and it is not safe.

When we consider the facts presented - that nuclear is -
expensive, dangerous, and decades away from powering our
homes and businesses - it surely makes no sense to pursue
nuclear.

On the other hand energy from the sun and wind is cheap,
abundant, safe, and available now. To pursue renewables
makes sense.

Let's get on with building more renewable energy.

It would be bad policy not to

The argument that nuclear takes too long to build as compared to the various renewables strikes me a counter-intuitive. If it were true, and I'm not conceding it is, then the argument seems to merely indicate that we need to get started yesterday.
The question is should our future power be generated by nukes? If the answer is yes or partially yes, then the claim that it'll take a long time to build vis avis alternatives simply means that we need to accelerate the start of the process and removal all obstacles (eg lawfare) to that start.

But so far here, we only seem to be talking about big 1600MW units. But that isn't the only game in town. The process and progress of Small-Modular Reactors (SMR) technology is accelerating and, by the time we get around to making a call, will be very much available. These things can be installed in very short time frames if that is your concern. Whatismore, given their relatively small footprint, they can situated in far less problematic locales than a big reactor, or a big solar farm for that matter.

Additionally, given the extraordinary sums expended to link solar-wind farms to the grid, SMR's can be placed close by those farms and utilised the already installed connection lines.