Yes, where nuclear plants exist they should continue and be maximised to produce relatively clean energy. Of course, in Australia, and other sunny locations building new nuclear plants is extremely costly compared to solar, even accounting for storage and would be wildly irresponsible.

The latter (sorry character limits created the ambiguity). Agree with you, given that accounting for species protection only adds 2-3%cost, it would be interesting to see what the cost contribution of the renewables are alone. Would help to put that 2-3% in context.

He accounted for infrastructure to go the longer distance from the network when avoiding threatened species. Don't think there would be a difference in storage requirements with the increased distance. Storage is mostly about the baseline cost of renewables the % increase is on top of that.