the libs are late to the party and i feel with the lead time needed to setup industry(5-10y) and then build times of 10y at best - in that timeframe the 'other' technologies will accelerate and be able to perform the base load function
the anu article mentions that clearly
"""
The Coalition planstatesthat nuclear plants “will start producing electricity by 2035 (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option).”
Even if this unlikely proposition were possible, this effectively means that nuclear won’t replace coal-fired power stations. Most, if not all, of those coal-fired stations would be gone by the time that nuclear comes online, and coal would have been replaced by renewables.
This negates the argument that ‘baseload’ nuclear generation will replace ‘baseload’ coal. It will have been replaced by renewables ‘firmed’ (supported) by storage to deliver flexible supply, which large thermal power stations struggle to provide because they are difficult to fully ‘ramp’ up and down quickly.
""
if you think the other tech - good ol pumped hydro, geotherm, maybe green hydrogen, better solar efficiency and battery, you are in a position where the infrastructure costs for that stuff become small compared to 20bn a piece + industry for nuclear
