No. Onsite renewables is the greenest option in my opinion but far from the cheapest.

There seem to be two extreme views on the availability (or lack of) of nuclear fuels. The pro-nuclear people say there is loads of it and the anti suggest there is little remaining and we have already passed peak production. Frankly, I don't think anyone knows at the moment and I think there should be an authoritative and independent effort to find out. I certainly don't know what to believe.

Fuel issue aside, I've no problem with nuclear from a safety or cost point of view and rate it as greener than fossil fuels and bio-fuels (unless they derive from the by-products of other useful process). Solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal and hydro need to be exploited to the full but I don't think we'll get what we need from these alone plus reducing consumption.

It will pretty soon become apparent that we have to choose between burning more coal and building more nuclear power plants. If we want a grid we can rely on then more gas generation is out of the question. If we can do the carbon capture thing then I'd plump for the former because of the doubt over nuclear fuel supplies. If we can't, then I'd go for nuclear and take the risk that supplies can be expanded.