There is no comparison between France and Australia.
When you get stumped for words you resort to the welfare of koalas the trees and the environment in general.
Tell us why SMR,s do not exist in any capacity to be viable.
Large scale nukes require large scale safety zones and large scale permanent water supplies, The only permanent water supply here is ocean water.
The world shows the science in nukes is still in motion and far from settled as a source of heating water, when the heating medium needs cooling to make steam to drive generators there is significant risk of oversight and irreparable damage in the making.
Lets not forget what destroyed your political party.

"There is no comparison between France and Australia."

So a nation builds its electricity supply one and a half times over with nuclear in fifteen years starting half a century ago, and that is of no relevance to Australia or the world looking for cheap, low carbon electricity? How so? Wind and solar have struggled to get over twenty percent after two decades in every state which has deployed them. How then is wind and solar faster than nuclear? French nuclear power is a third the cost of German renewables. How then are renewables cheaper than nuclear?

"Lets not forget what destroyed your political party."

My support of nuclear is my own. You are the cult member. If cult leader Albo declared that nuclear power was a great option for Australia, you, WTF, the CSIRO, the ABC, and propably even Johnny Bullsheet would fall in straight behind him.

I own my thoughts. You think what your cult leader tells you to.