The reductions to carbon emissions made by switching from coal, oil and gas powered electricity generation to nuclear power are very easily achievable, certainly compared to attempting to make reductions on a similar scale in transport and industry, for example. Indeed, as a number of fossil fuel powered generators (c.f. Kingsnorcth) come to the end of their natural lives they must be replaced in any event. So building new nuclear powered generators to maintain supply can be done without any upheaval to the status quo at all. As for the costs, these are high compared to coal fired generation, precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. Requiring coal powered generators to clean up their act, for example through carbon capture and storage (CCS) completely changes the economic picture in favour of nuclear power.

The 50 years worth of uranium only applies to easily extractable, proven supplies. By similar definitions, the world has only 50-60 years of oil and 100 years of coal left. When one considers reserve that are harder to extract or unproven (but indicated by existing evidence) the figure jumps to well over 100 years.

Similarly, the high amounts of carbon involved in processing and transport presume a highly carbon-intensive transportation and energy supply. If the electricity necessary to process uranium were generated by a low carbon source, then life-cycle emissions drop. Also, the life-cycle figures are based of expected (actuarial) lifespans for historic plants. For one thing, the overwhelming majority of existing plants are productive for years beyond their design life (most U.S. plants are permitted to run 20 years past design life, under a regime of enhanced inspections). When you consider a 50 year lifespan instead of a 30 year, the life cycle emissions associated with construction and decommissioning drop greatly. State-of-the-art reactor designs which use passive safety features and fewer high-pressure water systems have design lifespans far beyond the first generation of reactors, which are in service now. A life-cycle analysis of nuclear power based on existing technology, as opposed to the technology of 40 years ago (i.e. the plants in service today) shows significantly reduced carbon emissions as compared to any fossil fuel plant and emissions comparable to some methods of wind or solar generation. Remember, wind and solar are not 100% carbon free power under a life-cycle analysis because the carbon fiber composites (for windmill blades) and silicon solar panels both require energy intensive production practices and must also be transported to their final destination.

Branding nuclear power dangerous because of Chernobyl is a flagrant misreprentation of the realities.

The Chernobyl disaster took place at a time when our understanding of nuclear issues was much lesser than it is now, and was the result of poorly trained staff in the plant's control room, the result of cut backs in spending by the Russian authorities. The UK's power stations are better staffed, better maintained and better understood, and because the effects of an attack upon them are acknowledged, they are better defended and monitored by the armed services.

Beyond this, our understanding of nuclear power plant design has improved greatly in the last 40 years. New plants can be made passively safe, that is, designed to stop reactions unless human interaction promotes them. Older generations of reactors lacked this feature and would continue to promote reactions unless human actions inserted graphite control rods to shut them down. No system can be 100% safe, but solid design principles can minimize risk. The question is, is the slight risk of a nuclear accident a worse danger than the inevitable climate catastrophe that awaits us?

In addition, the use of nuclear power reduces our foreign energy dependency, and provides a sustainable supply until renewable sources become cheaper and easier to implement in large amounts. There are greater dangers in the current climate from the global scramble for fossil fuels, which has seen conflicts across South America, Africa and, recently, Eurasia both flaring up because of oil and threatening our supply because of the disruption it causes.

There is a massive distrust of nuclear power, that is for sure, but whether such distrust is viable is another issue. The fact is that the three historic nuclear disasters (1957 Windscale Fire, 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl) killed fewer people than the oil and coal industries have. So why is the risk of harm used to argue against nuclear power?

In addition to the comparatively low risk, modern reactors are safer now than the ones built 20/30 years ago, which means the risk is lowered still. This line of argument is not a government spin; it is common sense that technology is continually improving, especially in the energy sector.

Nuclear power is more expensive than fossil-fuel based methods of generation, but less expensive than most other renewable methods. In addition, nuclear plants can be situated near to demand, whereas most renewables, like wind, solar and geothermal, are only efficient in certain areas. The cost of building transmission capacity to provide renewable power to consumers is significant and in many cases, is blocked by NIMBY intrests.

The existence of nuclear power technology actually acts as a disincentive for the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose signatories include every state in the world apart from India, Pakistan and Israel (plus North Korea and Iran who sign, then unsign, then sign again...), is largely a provision for the sharing of nuclear power technology, which it promises to share among members who do not produce nuclear weapons (or, in the case of the 5 nuclear states, who commit to a gradual and continual reduction in weapons stockpiles). This has seen states including Brazil and Argentina abandon their nuclear weapons programmes, in order to gain access to nuclear power technology.

The treaty also establishes and sets the remit of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which all members are bound to grant unlimited access to in order to facilitate inspection of nuclear facilities.

In such a way, nuclear energy is a tool by which global security is benefited.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One definitely should learn more about nuclear weapons before relating it to nuclear powers. In an effort abolish nuclear weapon, in 2009, President Obama signed with Russia to reduce from 1700-2200 warheads in 2012 to 1500-1675 in 2016; from 1600 delivery vehicles in 2012 to 500-1000 in 2016. They focus on reducing delivery vehicles because they are faster to be get rid of and because they are the one and only tool to launch nuclear war. A warhead can kill no one without its vehicle with specifications. Therefore, as long as the number of delivery vehicles is reduced to minimum, there's no harm from nuclear warhead, let alone the nuclear power technology!