There is more intractable waste produced by wind power than by nuclear, as the rare earths required for the generators are hugely messy to extract and leave behind square miles of earth deeply contaminated with thorium, which usually is found associated with the rare earths. Imho it was one of China's more ecologically sensitive decisions to massively boost the price of these elements, the intolerable environmental damage was not reflected in the market value.
I do agree that the economics of nuclear today are cloud cuckoo absurd, but if we are to lift several billion out of dire poverty, we need reliable power without massive emissions.
Australia in theory has everything needed to show that solar is the answer, lots of sun, plentiful land and supportive regulators and governments. Sadly, the experience to date has been spotty, erratic power at inflated prices. That is what keeps people looking at nuclear, warts and all we know it works reliably.
The missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle (apart from Solar PV panels actually on every rooftop instead of on 'farms' displacing arable land) is the transmission network. It's just not designed for omnidirectional networked electricity flow - it needs a major redo.
Under the cover of global warming alarmism, the publicly owned network was 'gold plated' (in terms of redundancies to reduce maintenance of the traditional network). Then, again, under a further round of global warming alarmism, this public asset was sold off for a song to an oligopoly of private companies supposedly to reduce the electricity price paid by consumers. However it is the same old story of corporate mafioso - again under the guise of global warming alarmism, the retail price was jacked up manyfold and has increased on that trajectory ever since. Virtually none of those profits stolen from the public have been invested in making Solar PV viable. The 'robber barons' are alive, ridiculously fat and happy !
Ding effin' Ding !!!