Is nuclear power part of Australia's global warming solutions?

Forty years ago, I was preparing for my final exams. Having studied electrical engineering and science part-time for seven years at the University of New South Wales, I did well enough to spend the following year doing honours in physics. I then went to the United Kingdom for doctoral studies at the University of York, supported by the UK Atomic Energy Authority. At the time, like most young physicists, I saw nuclear power as the clean energy source of the future. Here, I want to tell you why my professional experience has led me to reject that view. There is no serious doubt that climate change is real, it is happening now and its effects are accelerating. It is already causing serious economic impacts: reduced agricultural production, increased costs of severe events like fires and storms, and the need to consider radical, energy-intensive and costly water supply measures such as desalination plants. The alarming consequences of climate change have driven distinguished scientists like James Lovelock to conclude that the situation is desperate enough to reconsider our attitude to nuclear power. I agree with Lovelock about the urgency of the situation, but not about the response. The science is very clear. We need to reduce global greenhouse pollution by about 60%, ideally by 2050. To achieve that global target, allowing for the legitimate material expectations of poorer countries, Australia's quota will need to be at least as strong as the UK's goal of 60% by 2050 and preferably stronger. Our eventual goal will probably be to reduce our greenhouse pollution by 80-90%. How can we reach this ambitious target?