Given the conservatives were in office for almost a decade why didn't they push for nuclear power plants under Tony Abbott in 2014? Mr Abbott enjoyed a Labor-crushing majority in the lower house and could have legislated to overturn the ban on nuclear power if he had wanted to.

If, as shadow energy minister Ted O'Brien said on Sunday, "the best experts around the world with whom we've been engaging, are saying Australia could have nuclear up and running within a 10-year period", the Coalition has much to answer for.

If true, they missed the chance to put Australia on the high road to what, following an epiphany on the way to the next election, they now say is the best form of baseload power generation that has ever been.

Or maybe nuclear wasn't cost effective in 2014 and still isn't today.

Another big question mark over the Coalition's as-yet-unreleased nuclear policy is that it is all over the shop. What type of nuclear plants do they plan to deliver?

A few weeks ago small modular reactors were the top of the pops with Peter Dutton, Mr O'Brien, Angus Taylor and the rest of the crew. They were affordable, wouldn't take long to build and were carbon-emissions-free once in operation, it was claimed.

But they do not, as yet, exist in any workable form anywhere in the world. Oops.

With journalists asking the obvious question about betting the energy farm on an as yet non-existent technological fix the Opposition Leader made a significant pivot last week.

When asked if there was now a place for traditional large-scale nuclear reactors in the Coalition's policy, Mr Dutton did not rule this out. "There are different solutions depending on the capacity that you need at those individual sites," he said.

Mr O'Brien specifically referenced large reactor technology when he spoke about the United Arab Emirates commissioning four nuclear plants in just over a decade - "in the midst of COVID" - on Sunday. "Now countries around the world are doing this," he said.

The next obvious question? Just where would these (potentially large) reactors go?

The Coalition says it could achieve massive savings by building reactors on the sites of decommissioned coal-fuelled power stations because the transmission infrastructure is already in place. This means a handful of areas in NSW, Victoria, Queensland, and Western Australia are front and centre. They include the Latrobe Valley (Vic), the Hunter Valley (NSW), Gladstone (Qld) and South Burnett (WA).

READ MORE:

Given the majority of federal MPs in these regions are in the Coalition this could be a problem. People who might support nuclear in principle are usually far less enthusiastic about it when told it will be in their backyard.

That, probably more than any other factor, is going to doom this initiative - seen by many as a cynical ruse to keep coal and gas in use for longer as "transition fuels" - to electoral oblivion.

The Coalition would be better off campaigning for the lifting of the ban on nuclear on the basis that, while it is too costly and too far off time wise to help meet current emissions reduction targets, it may well have a place in Australia's long-term energy future.

If the ban was lifted, which makes sense given the decision to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, the viability of emerging technologies such as small modular reactors could be closely monitored.

In the meantime Australia needs to press ahead with the renewables transition as a matter of urgency.