Nuclear power is not the way forward - sponsored by CND

Nuclear power stations produce lower carbon emissions than coal or gas-fired power stations. But, when the whole nuclear power cycle is taken into account (including uranium mining, processing, transportation, power station construction and decommissioning), renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency measures and technologies produce far less carbon emissions. Moreover, the world only has a limited amount of high quality uranium ore - maybe not more than 50 years' worth and less if there is a big global increase in nuclear power. Mining lower quality ore will increase carbon emissions because it is more difficult to extract and so requires more energy.energy. 
Without going into excruciating detail, how uranium ore must be processed to produce one pellet of nuclear fuel, how much coal must be mined to produce that one pellet of nuclear fuel, how much water must be used to produce that one nuclear fuel. Instead of trying to use nuclear energy as a point in a debate over clean energy sources, one should consider the amount of marketing that goes into trying to convince people that nuclear energy will reduce air pollution while air pollution increases at a rate that soon those cities and people that have to breathe that air pollution will have to decide whether they will continue to live in that poisonous environment. 
Then consider this, if nuclear energy is a low carbon source, why does it need global warming and climate change theories to convince people that we need nuclear energy. 
Another point to consider, why did the US wait over 40 years to admit that they poisoned its Native Americans and are now cleaning up the radioactive toxic mining waste on the Navajo reservation?

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.