If there's one country that does not need nuclear power it's Australia. Plenty of solar there and the sun comes out every day to the extent that in that part of the world it's a very reliable and predictable source of energy. All they need to do put down some panels and watch the meter do its thing for the next few decades.

Yes nuclear is cleaner than coal. But also way more expensive than everything else even before you consider that. Note how the article carefully dodges the cost topic. That's because it probably is quite a bit of money per mwh. Nobody installs nuclear because its cheap. There's always a secondary objective; usually military. Countries like being labeled "a nuclear power". It's not about the electricity. It's a label that comes at an extreme premium. The price of the energy they sell simply does not cover the cost of the plant over the lifetime.

The cheapest options in the market are solar and wind. Not by a little bit but by a wide and growing margin. That's just at current prices; they are widely predicted to continue dropping for a long time and there is very little consensus on where it will bottom out except perhaps nowhere close to current price levels. Cheap energy storage solutions are also becoming available and also dropping in price. Solar in Canada is not good enough to rely on exclusively. But wind is fine. Lots of coastal areas; lots of empty planes. Lots of wind.

Electrical cars won't be that big of an impact. They will actually have a balancing impact on the grid because they can be both sources and sinks of energy. They can absorb oversupply and supply back to the grid during peak hours. A single EV can keep a house hold going for several days. With millions of EVs on the road, a large percentage of them will be plugged in and either charging or ready to discharge at any time. Even using just a small percentage of that capacity means you can pretty much permanently turn off a bunch of gas peaker plants. 1 million cars supplying 1 kw of power for 1 hour would amount to about 1GW of capacity and 1GWH of power delivered. The same as running 3 of these fancy new nuclear plants for 1 hour. Charge them with a few solar panels and they pretty much become net producers rather than consumers of energy too.

The us drives about 3.2 trillion miles per year apparently. A good EV might get 4-5 miles per kwh. Lets call it 3.2 miles for the sake of easy numbers. So, that's 3.2 trillion kwh. Or 3.2 billion mwh. Or 3.2 million gwh, a common metric of the output of energy producers. The US generates about 4 trillion kwh per year. So switching overnight would cause some issues but also be a completely impossible scenario because the battery production volume wto make that happen simply does not exist to make that happen. Not even close. It will take decades to construct that. But gradually phasing in storage and renewable energy sources over say decades, would be plenty of time for the less than 2x increase in energy production. It's not an energy crisis but a healthy growth scenario for any energy company worthy of the name.

That's why the investment space around renewables is so hot right now. Nuclear, not so much. Risky investments, poor ROI (if not outright negative), long lead times to plants actually coming online, politics very uncertain, high chance of budget overruns, etc.