Of course, the other thing is, just because we have some reserves, it doesn't mean we HAVE to use them all up, it's not mandatory. 
No, lets use the cheap Australian open cast stuff up first. 
France has been on nuclear power for decades and as far as I know they sell their electricity throughout Europe and make some good money out of it (EDF is French).
I never could understand why Britain didn't copy them.
I agree in principle about sustainable energy but the best way I can think to answer the point about nuclear power is to give a real life illustration. Bare with me, this might turn into a ramble.
I used to work as an automotive consultant, specialising in the field of vehicle exhaust emissions, and have done work for Ford Motor Company, Burmah Castrol, Jaguar, Land Rover etc, so I know what I'm talking about.
Back in the late 70s and early 80s people were (rightly) getting more concerned about Urban pollution and impact of motor vehicles on that. Now at that time, there were if you like two approaches. One approach, favoured by the US was to use exhaust gas after treatment. The other approach, favoured by European engineers, was to concentrate on engine technology so that engines did not emit the pollutants to start with (or at least severely reduce them and use minimal exhaust gas after treatment).
The major causes of concern were (are) Carbon Monoxide (CO) total hydrocarbons (THC - basically unburnt fuel) and Oxides of Nitrogen (mostly NO but also some NO2 so collectively referred to as NOx). Note that this "list" of polltants did not include CO2 because it was not and never will be a pollutant (despite what you may hear).
The "US" approach used the three way catalytic converter (commonly called a "catalyst" although that's technically incorrect). This works by reducing NOx to Nitrogen and Oxygen, the Oxygen (along with any other Oxygen left over from the combustion process) is used to Oxidise CO into CO2, and THC into CO2 and water. It is a very effective technology. However, there is s downside (of course). This is that for the "catalyst" to work, it needs to be "fed" a very precise ratio of gases. It is what is know as the stoichiometric air/fuel ratio which for gasoline is about 14.7:1 be mass. If the air/fuel ratio is too rich (too much fuel) there will be insufficient oxygen in the exhaust gas to oxide the CO and THC (although practically all the NOx will be reduced). If the air/fuel ratio is too "lean" (not enough fuel) the free oxygen will combine with the CO and THC but the NOx will not get reduced.
The "European" approach was to develop engines which produced very little pollution before any exhaust gas after treatment. I won't go into all the technical details but the theory and processes were well understood but not yet practically applied. Basically it involves very finely atomised droplets of fuel mixed by creating high levels of turbulence with the combustion chamber to make an engine which would run on very high air/fuel ratios, without missiring and with sufficient excess air to effectively "quench" the formation of NOx. This technology was called "Lean Burn" technology and hundreds of millions were being invested.
However, the environmentalists won the day with their argument that we could have lower emissions NOW, by adopting US style exhaust gas after treatment, rather than wait a few years for Lean Burn to become a reality. So, almost over night Lean Burn was abandoned and now all cars have three way cataylitic converters.
Why does this bother me? Because, as I stated earlier, for the catalytic converter to work with all three pollutants, it has to fueled at stoichiometric air fuel ratio of 14.7 under ALL conditions. On part throttle, where all of us do most of our driving, any engine can (and used to) run "leaner" - more like 16 or 17:1. So all cars, use more fuel and hence produce more CO2 - approx 10%) than they need to, in order to reduce the polutant gases.
Had Lean Burn research not been effectively stopped by environmentalists wanting a "quick fix", we could all now be driving cars with the same levels of reduced polution but at air fuel ratios in excess of 20:1. That is to say about 50% less fuel (and therefore CO2).
So, before we say "Lets build loads of nuclear power stations, worldwide, NOW", with all the associated problems that might lead too, we'd better be damn sure we are doing the right thing and for the right reasons.
Right now, there is a lot of research going on into other forms of renewable energy (that's my lean burn analogy) and if we adopt nuclear (US style exhaust gas after treatment analogy) NOW becuase of the hysteria about AGW, then that research will stop. We could end up with mountains of radiactive waste, ecological disasters and terrorists getting hold of enriched plutonium or whatever.
We need to be concerned about the use of fossil fuels, and we need to find alternatives becasue they will run out in time and/or become very expensive to recover. BUT at the same time we need to put a break on the AGW hysteria so that we have enough time to develop other technolgies and not rush down the "nuclear path".
Just my twopence worth of course.
You can plagierise the words but for gods sake don't plagierise my thinking. 
Environmentalists is why. Governments don't want to lose the votes of the "Greenham Commonists". Partly why they like to harp on about AGW I suspect. Now they can go nuclear and the "open toed sandlers" won't object too much because they think it will save the planet from AGW.
It IS summer there at the moment you know, so if it wasn't hot there now, your arguments might carry some weight.
But this is the exact response I expected.
The Minister of State at the "Department of Energy and Climate Change" is none other than Joan Ruddock -Ex CND head honcho in the 80s.
We often buy electricity from France. There's been a cabling between us since the mid-80s.
Most of France's nuclear power plants are inland and rely on river water for cooling. In times of drought, they have to shut them down or go on restricted power output as a result. //static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/facepalm.gif
They had to do that last summer, which resulted in them needing to buy electricity from us, as well as other neighbours.
Constant government dithering over the last 20-30 years is what's left us behind. Now we'll have to pay through the nose for uranium and a crash build project of new nuclear plants.
I am Head of Sales for a Plc IT company, and I do a lot of work with Central Government, I am meeting the CEO of this department next week 
From a sales point of view, will have to bite my toungue on my actual views lol