I’m not letting this misinformation without any citations go uncontested. I’ll try to cite my claims but really the burden of proof lies with you, so I shouldn’t have needed to do this in the first place.

Solar is highly unreliable,

Sure, weather conditions can vary the power output of PV cells (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X23006734). This is why batteries are typically built with them, which usually completely solves this problem.

requires endless mining of non renewable materials,

One of many double standards here. This is correct, metals like silver and copper are needed to make cells (https://blog.ucs.org/charlie-hoffs/mining-raw-materials-for-solar-panels-problems-and-solutions/), but they are minor components and are one-time costs. The same goes for batteries, although they need quite a bit of lithium. But are we going to ignore the fact that uranium is also a non-renewable material? And since it’s a fuel, this is the material that is truly endlessly mined. One-time uses of mined materials is far better than continuously mining (and refining) uranium to power these reactors.

takes up insane amounts of space to make the same power as any other method,

Couldn’t find a source quickly, but you can put panels above parking lots or grazing areas to provide shade, so it’s not wasted space. Also, nuclear waste needs to be put somewhere…

requires endless manufacturing (and disposal) of batteries that are also made with mined, toxic materials that end up in landfill,

Already addressed the materials issue above, but would like to note that batteries can be recycled. Also, would you rather literal nuclear waste in your backyard?

and the cost of transmission infrastructure needed are in the trillions.

I don’t understand what this means. Are you implying that adding solar as a power source requires infrastructure that nuclear doesn’t? Other than the batteries that they would presumably be built with.

Nuclear as the backbone, topped up with solar, is the only realistic way to the fabled “net zero”.

Ah, here it is: the “nuclear as a backbone” argument. This is an absurd argument to be making considering the energy grid composition in Australia right now. Firstly, there is no legislation or expertise here to even start construction of such a plant. This is already ridiculously expensive compared to solar + batteries (https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Electricity-transition/GenCost), but building even a SMR would take decades, at a minimum. This would mean extending the lifetime of existing coal- or gas- fired power plants to cover needs during that time, costing millions more. Secondly, we don’t need a “nuclear backbone”, renewables already make up 36% of energy generation (https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/renewables), and continues to get more affordable as time goes on. We’d be spending way more and burning more fossil fuels for a “realistic way to net zero”?

Face it, renewables already have this handled here. There is no reason to continue down the nuclear rabbit hole, unless you happen to have coal and gas industry interests in mind. Do you?