It isn’t

Absolute rubbish….heavily subsidized capital initial spend and then there is the uncountable cost when things go wrong!

We have no existing nuclear industry, only a small reactor for isotopes. In other places around the world where nuclear is relatively cheap, they have decades-old commercial nuclear operations.

This will explain things https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-patiently-and-methodically-slaps-down-peter-duttons-nuclear-nonsense/

That’s not interesting at all, a quick google search shows the opposite, for reference the USA just opened a brand new reactor a few months back, $35B USD and 15 years to construct, from their own website it states it can power 500,000 homes, yet the Golden plains wind farm in Victoria is costed at $2B Aus and can supply 700,000

Because it costs a fortune to build the facility and storage facilities for the waste. Building new renewable capacity is cheaper than any other new capacity.

France has many nuclear plants…. But continue to build huge solar farms and install wind turbines all through the farmland.

Not really comparing apples with apples! It’s highly subsidised and electricity prices aren’t any cheaper. Ontario which Libs love to quote is highly subsidised. Hinkley point in UK was due to open in 2017 at £35bil but will now cost £90bill and slated to come online in 2031…. maybe. Nuclear power plants are uninsurable and the libs want to insure … with your money.

Because the nukes are old and they are being subsidised by the arms industry they supply and they supply big populations. Australia doesn't have any of the three reasons why nukes are cheap in other countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#:~:text=Lazard's%20report%20on%20the%20estimated,%24155%2FMWh%20for%20offshore%20wind. Rubbish it's double the cost in countries that have already spent billions building them. Try reading more and typing less lies. Ignorance isn't an excuse to spread disinformation.