The idea of nuclear in Australia is mostly just a con to keep coal going longer by the conservative side of politics. They are not currently in power and even if they do get elected this year market forces will basically scupper the plan in the medium term anyway.
It's 100% about their connections to the resources (coal) and oil & gas political donors, nothing to do with actual policy. At worst a few billions will go to politically connected people to keep some coal plants running a few more years, but I doubt any nuclear plants will actually pass any kind of business case because they will cost too much and take too long to build (we would have needed to start 25 years ago for them to be economically viable, so they could have replaced the coal plants while the renewables were being built out).
This is currently the same in Europe and especially in Germany.
Social media has been pushing a pro-nuclear power stance since Russia invaded Ukraine (you’ll notice this on /r/europe), with people using the “ecological” no-carbon argument, and are also simultaneously pushing an anti-wind and solar policy.
The neonazi AfD has not held back about its anti-renewables stance, and pro-Russian perspective, but even the probable new German Chancellor came out recently saying that he hate wind turbines because they are “ugly”.
It’s clear that nuclear is being peddled as an option because it’s clear to fossil fuel peddlers that nuclear is a great Trojan horse. It claims to be carbon free but it’s a 25-30 year program until one is operational and when you take everything into account, they actually cost more to run. The insurance alone is devastatingly expensive.
Australia is increasingly conservative when it comes to politics. We've had it too good for too long and so have lost the pioneering spirit.
Solar panels on homes are so popular that energy providers struggle to deal with the output during sunny days, whilst on the other hand solar and wind energy generation plants are looked at with suspicion and are politically unpopular.
Just look at the political reaction to the installation of the "biggest battery in the southern hemisphere" at the time. You'd expect politics to jump on it as advertising how progressive and advanced the country is. Nope, the prime Minister at the time mocked it (the same party proposing nine nuclear reactors): https://www.9news.com.au/national/sa-s-big-battery-just-anot...
Everyone agrees the Australian energy mix will involve lots of solar power. The coalition's policy [0] is keeping all the options open - just insistent that nuclear should be in the mix. And lifting the major legal impediments to developing nuclear power is just common sense, our policy on that has been insane for decades.
Although I don't want to be seen as defending the their overall plan. The part where they want the government to own a nuclear reactor is raw madness and it is hard to see how it'll come together as anything but an expensive disaster. Especially if the Labor party offers any resistance of any kind.
Most important component seems to me the investment security. If you silence all the idiots and go all in on batteries and solar (because your country is a raging inferno) you get very clean cut investment opportunities. The only problem for investors seems that solar keeps getting cheaper(?) I see a calculation where cost drops by 20% every time global capacity doubles.
If, in stead, you force the population to invest up-front into expensive imaginary future energy you don't get the nice investment landscape. Your solar will have to compete with the nuke plants. By the time the nuke plants are online there will be so much solar capacity that they won't be able to compete in the day time market.
They want to build seven plants of which only 2 will be operational in 2035 and do it faster and cheaper than countries that already have them where they always go over budget, never finish on schedule and are actively closing them.
https://www.news.com.au/national/australias-nuclear-future-b...