I may have given the impression I'm anti-nuclear.
I'm only anti-nuclear compared to other renewables (wind, solar, hydro etc), and only then if the total costs involved (taking into account further reductions in the cost of wind and solar, and ALL costs involved with nuclear - including the ore mining lifecycle, security, storage of spent/radioactive material, construction blowouts and decommissioning) are more for nuclear than wind/solar.
If the LNP can show modelling by a respected firm which puts those all-up costs (and the final price to the consumer) as lower than the equivalent generation by wind/solar/storage, then they should do so. If they can't, then why are they chasing this?