The issues around nuclear power as a pathway to lower carbon are explored in a separate community topic. Nuclear power
Do we need to raise it again in this topic? Nuclear power has not contributed to the real reduction in GHGs in the UK. It is not relevant to any improvement. Nuclear has it’s own unique legacy issues. The UK has had a similar level of nuclear generation for decades.
I suspect it will simply distract us and would hope that discussion if necessary is continued over there, please. 
This topic is about, “The effects of climate change on the consumer”.
The article referencing the performance of the UK and it’s direction is relevant. Even without the issues around nuclear power the UK has demonstrated just how effective the bilateral consensus of their politicians has been in reducing GHGs.
It has been through other initiatives in replacing coal with combined cycle gas, wind and other sources that has driven the reduction.
It makes a great comparison for Australian consumers looking for leadership from parliament. It suggests how much more might be achieved through a bipartisan acceptance of the need for effective solutions. Australian consumers are now looking at the cost of playing catch to deliver real change. The UK has had a 30 year head start.
P.S. it may even be possible that the longer nations including Australia avoid effective responses, the greater the likelihood more nuclear will become an essential part of the solution? As others point out this is neither low cost or without risk.
