I normally considered that nuclear would be the most expensive form
of electricity generation.
It can still look that way until you start to take the duplication
of renewables needed to generate for the highest load that occurs
in a year for every night with low wind speeds, or indeed no wind.
In a continent the size of Australia, you might find enough wind
somewhere to cover the peak time 5pm to 10pm. You might if lucky.
However you need to do better than good luck.
As I see it, it needs a program of installing hundreds of weather
stations around Australia in all the most likely spots and connecting
them to a central computer programmed to simulate the Australian
grid and see over a year or two if it ever fails to supply electricity
in some part of Australia.
The number of theoretical wind turbines on different sites can be
adjusted until it achieves 100% supply 100% of the time over a couple of years.
That is what coal, gas and nuclear can do, so surely we should not
accept less.
We will then know beyond argument which is the cheapest.
Surely a great project for CSIRO.

The village idiot does not appear to read. The SMR reactors are small and inherently safe reactors that cannot explode. The storage of waste is not a factor unless the green nutjobs make it one.

If one considers the full cost of renewable power, then nuclear is cheaper.

If one considers the full cost of renewable power, then nuclear is cheaper.
shadowminister,
What the pro-renewable crowd doesn't grasp is the fact that renewables are extremely effort demanding & polluting in an environmental sense. Nuclear is the cleanest & if kept contained to small plants it's very likely the safest, most efficient method to provide for the demand.
Renewables are nothing but a polluting wet dream for the tossers rejected by real Academia !

Indyvidual

Australia need only invest in cheap and reliable power, but that cannot happen unless there is an energy supply framework such as Western Australia's.

As for nuclear, we will have to wait for the gen 4 designs to be built and tested. If they prove successful it will probably be decades before we could get them, and all the anti-nukes would be out in force to stop that from happening. I agree that gen3s are very profitable in the long run, but with the energy supply framework and political reticence, I cannot see that happening either.

There is some promising tech out there, like this for example, founded by Bill Gates.
http://www.terrapower.com/
Problem is that guy has too much power, he has too much control at the WHO as he's their largest contributor, and he's bought out a large amount of farmland in the US.

You really don't want one guy having that much control over food, energy and global heath.

But beyond those issues, yes I'd support it.
The only way to make our nation more competitive internationally is reduce wages, transport or energy costs.

If we used river water to cool the reactors as France does, you could end up with ecological problems, algae outbreaks and fish deaths in higher temperatures which would limit their use though.

I think that nuclear power is a greater challenge than some believe.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/world-nuclear-performance-report/case-studies/htr-pm.aspx

If Bill Gates wants to spend his money on research reactors then good luck to him. The current anti-nuclear sentiment reminds me of the anti-science sentiment of the Catholic Church many centuries ago.