I am not going to follow you Gish gallop and debunk every single "study" that uses the same old wrong assumptions to make nuclear look bad.
As an example, the Australian CSIRO "study" you cite is deeply flawed.
1. Incorrect lifetime assumptions
It assumes nuclear power plants only last 30-35 years. In reality they last 80-100 years. So they are actually 3x cheaper than reported. Same trick as used in the infamous Fraunhofer ISE "study"
2. Incorrect assumptions about sunk costs
The report incorrectly treats already spent capital costs (on renewable infrastructure) as "free".
3. Underestimation of system costs
The report incorrectly averages metrics over longer time periods and thus vastly underestimates the costs of intermittency.
4. Incorrect capacity factors for nuclear.
Capacity factors between 50-80% are assumed. In reality even the world-wide average is over 80% and well-run fleets like in the US are over 90%. Again, same shady trick used in the infamous Fraunhofer ISE "study"
So same-old same-old. And as I said before: not going to debunk every single instance of always-the-same disinformation.
Denmark is now looking at nuclear, because the renewables-only strategy has failed.
[dead]