You can argue for or against solar and nuclear but only one of...

You can argue for or against solar and nuclear but only one of them requires tens of Billions of government dollars to become economically viable.

And it wouldn't generate a Watt of new capacity for at least 10 years so I'm not sure how that's expected to lower energy costs or help manufacturing inputs.

Your comment on the immediate impact to energy prices from renewables is risible. We had no energy investment of ANY type for the 10 years of the LNP government except the boondoggle that is Snowy Hydro 2. That couldn't even agree on a policy for creating a policy and they still can't. Nuclear would go nowhere.

Say what you like but the facts are:
1. Energy prices were going up because we had no stable energy policy for 10 years and consequently modest investment in new generation.
2. The announcement pages of AGL and ORG are testament to a wave of new generation capacity in the past 3 years.
3. As a direct consequence prices are progressively stabilising (except when the coal fired generators fail)

As for BHP I agree they shouldn't be involved in Lithium simply due to the fact they could never achieve a comparable scale as they have in Iron Ore or even Copper. Although even those short term commodity forecasts aren't particularly flash.