Ethics

Although securing long-term supply of energy in the United Kingdom is a major priority for the government, the implications of the resolution to go on with the nuclear power programme reach far beyond calculations of the cost of electricity production. There are other factors to be put into consideration, for example its effect on the environment its effects on the health of the human race, animals, plants, etc. There are also questions on the methods to be used to dispose of radioactive waste and the economic sustainability of the programme, though long-term. Security is also another major concern. Whenever global warming is mentioned, the nuclear issue also arises, because the advantages of nuclear energy are the main focus while its disadvantages are usually underplayed (Teller  Latter nd, 104-157). This report is therefore meant to explain why the government should stop considering adoption of nuclear power over the next thirty years.

Advantages of Adopting Nuclear Power
Greenhouse gases are the major contributors to global warming. The warming caused by these greenhouse gases has major impact on weather, leading to storms and rise of ocean levels. Carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, has dramatically increased in concentration in the atmosphere. This is believed to have caused global temperature rise (Sachs 2008, par 6).

However, nuclear power generation process has been proven to emit fairly little carbon dioxide as well as other greenhouse gases and, therefore, its effect on global warming is quite insignificant. A single nuclear plant can generate a very high amount of power, therefore reducing the number of plants required for producing electricity. Setting up more nuclear-power-generating plants could highly enhance energy security by reducing gas and oil imports whose prices keep fluctuating. Also, nuclear technology being readily available, there is no need of having to first develop it (Beedie 2007, par. 2).

Disadvantages of Adopting Nuclear Power
There is still a big problem with radio-active waste disposal methods. Nuclear energy waste being very dangerous, both to human life and also the environment, it will surely take years and years thousands and thousands of years of carefully looking after it. Up to today, the United States has single-handedly produced above eighty thousand tons of very toxic radioactive wastes without sustainable storage sites. This nuclear waste will always be deadly to the health of humans and also to the environment for a period of more than two hundred and fifty years to come and more waste is still being produced, meaning that future generations will have such a big burden on generations and generations to come.  The contaminated steam and water being daily emitted by these nuclear reactors leak deadly toxins to the soil and ground water, threatening life in water bodies (Slater 2009, par 3).
Radiation can be harmful to humans. Radiation, beyond doubt produces harmful changes in todays children though it may only show up in their future offspring or generations. This is a terrifying piece of information knowing that the harm will carry on to future generations. The cost of producing nuclear power is not proportional to the price of the nuclear fuel, whose price is not more than that of normal fuel. Where other fuels are expensive, nuclear fuel might soon be able to save the situation, although this is not an advantage in the real sense because the cost of producing nuclear energy is high.

With terrorism having been on the rise over the last few years, nuclear power stations and also nuclear waste could be easy targets for terrorists. An attack on an atomic power plant would obviously have disastrous impacts the world over. Uranium is the source of energy for nuclear power plants. However, it is such a scarce resource in the world and therefore also considerably very expensive. This obviously raises concerns about Uraniums continuous supply for nuclear power generating plants to continue running, with its supply being likely to last just for the coming thirty to sixty years, in proportion to the actual demand. Nuclear waste from nuclear power plants could be used to produce nuclear weapons, which are a great threat to the survival of mankind and other life on earth. The technology used in the designing of nuclear energy plants can also be applied to make nuclear weapons. The seriousness of the impact the by-products of nuclear plants could have calls for high standards of security to curb the risks. However, accidents are still most likely bound to occur, whereby a little mistakes effects will always last with the results being grave for the human race and also for nature. A single nuclear power plant takes a very long time to set up because of the procedures involved like planning and the formalities (Beedie 2007, par. 3).

Security of the supply of materials is of big concern while the prices of fossil fuels continue to rise, because the costs on the emission of carbon has completely changed the economic view of generation of clean electricity. Stronger constraints on emission of carbon in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world have been proposed with increased efforts on conservation of energy, and more assistance for renewable sources going up to two billion pounds every year (Buchanan 2010, par 11).

Nuclear energy plants therefore obviously pose unique security as well as health threats, because nuclear storage amenities and the energy plants themselves are prone to attacks or even accident and health hazards involved in transportation of nuclear waste from the power stations. A recently released report says that Chernobyl disaster might eventually lead to Two hundred and seventy thousand cancer cases, ninety three thousand of which could end up in deaths (Slater 2009, par 7).

Nuclear disarmament attempts in recent history speak a lot about the reality of the threats these nuclear plants pose to world peace. More and more nations are seeking to go on with nuclear technology which can easily be converted to nuclear weapon technology. Countries like Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea have used their nuclear programmes to make nuclear weapons under the pretence of producing only nuclear energy for general electricity production. Recently, Iran has also raised concerns by standing up to claim its right to uranium enrichment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Wherever nuclear technology has been used, be it in the civilian or even the military sector, there are also higher occurrences of cases of cancer, genetic mutations and even birth defects than in the opposite (Slater 2009, par 5-6).

In 2005, a study by the US National Research Council found that being exposed to X-rays and gamma rays can cause cancer, even if at low-level dosage, ten times more than from a CT scan. What about the thousands upon thousands of tons of nuclear waste which accumulate at the reactors without sustainable storage They release radioactive toxic waste into the water bodies, the air and the bringing about contamination that will last for generations and generations to come. The health and security threats being so obvious, it is still being proposed as being highly potent of preventing future climatic calamities because it is assumed that it is pollution-free or greenhouse-gas-emission-free. The mining of uranium and other agents used in nuclear energy production, development of the plants, the production of power itself, the means of transportation used up to the nuclear waste disposal emit greenhouse gases because they depend on fossil fuels. Analysis points out that the generation of nuclear power electricity produces up to forty percent of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of a gas-fired system when the full system is considered (Slater 2009, par 5-6).

Technologies with low-emissions in the developed countries will have to be adopted quickly in the developing countries. Protection of patents and the promotion of innovations could slow down the spread of the technologies to the poorer countries if actions to compensate are not taken. While economists may set corrective prices but leave the rest for the market to decide or set. This cannot work with nuclear technology. Large-budget funding will be required for the technology to spread to the poorer countries. A lot of time will have to be consumed (Sachs 2008, par 2-3).

Nuclear energy is the most slow and most costly way of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide. Funding nuclear power consumes a lot of resources which could be invested in development of renewable energy. It is not in order to use huge amounts of money on setting up and developing nuclear plants while less money could be used to develop wind and solar and even for power efficiency. Using large budgets for nuclear plants will only end up delaying the measures of curbing issues like global warming. Fifteen hundred other nuclear reactors will have to be put up all over the world by the time we are halfway into the century according to a study about the future of nuclear power by  a Massachusetts Institute of Technology in order to reduce greenhouse gases by just a small margin (World Nuclear Association, 2009).

Furthermore, because the sole role of nuclear power would be to produce electricity, its effect on curbing issues threatening our future, like global warming. Nuclear energy is also unable to compete in an electricity market which is liberated, despite the huge budgets that have been allocated to the nuclear industry in nuclear power development since it was started, yet they still requires subsidies an incentives to run. For instance, in the United States, over thirteen billion dollars were allocated in subsidies, to the industry in the Energy Bill of 2005 directly or indirectly, to cater for research and development of new technologies. The United Kingdom government could use such amounts of money on other renewable energy sources like wind and solar energy (Slater 2009, par 6).
Cost of construction is not the sole commitment made towards nuclear plants. The United Kingdom has a legacy for high-level as well as intermediate-level of the nuclear waste that is put to around 475,000m, including a complex combination of military and civil waste that is hard to dump (Beedie, Par 9, 2007).

Discussion
Recently, the German government has recommended an initiative for International Renewal Energy Agency and is seeking for partners of like minds to help in the formation which would help in empowering developing countries to access solar and wind energy which is free, geothermal energy, train, and spread information on the implementation of sustainable power programme. The agency would also help to arrange for and allow for the conveyance of science and skills of energy technologies which are renewable, and in general be responsible for enabling the world to make the crucial transition to a future of sustainable energy (Slater 2009, par. 10-11).

The inspiring as well as sensible Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy of New Zealand and its extensive vision in embracing the New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050 Powering Our Future, led to the United Nations Environment Programme giving Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, its Champions of the Earth Award.  The United Kingdom should consider partnering with such countries for the better of future generations and the well-being of mankind and the environment. Diplomats, academics, politicians, activists, businesspeople and workers all do share a collective tie and a common accountability to help realise these objectives by backing a faster shift to sustainable energy. Its barriers are more political than technological (Slater 2009, par. 10-11).

Nuclear energy is an untenable as well as irrational choice because of its inadequacy in reducing emission of greenhouse gases as compared to the declines that could come about because of use of the same amount of money for the development of energy which is sustainable. The other reason is that it is irrational and unsustainable because of the massive proliferation as well as issues related to waste. True security in energy can only be reached through effectiveness as well as renewable energy ensuring stability and reliability of supplies of energy and expansion of the access throughout the world (Slater 2009, par.12).

There exists the technology to exploit the great potential the sun, the wind and water has, wind, as well as geothermal energy.  A self-sufficient and earth-friendly energy infrastructure can yield the earths abundance of free resources. A network of more than two thousand organizations found in ninety five countries, known as Abolition 2000 and which works to do away with nuclear weapons, has established that nuclear weapons and nuclear power are inextricably linked. It therefore recommends that its Model Statute be adopted for an International Sustainable Energy Agency, requesting for funding by transferring the two hundred and fifty billion dollars billion dollars used in subsidies annually to nuclear and fossil fuels to development and production of clean energy (Slater 2009, par.12).

Nuclear energy is neither renewable nor sustainable. Its waste has a deadly effect on life. Future generations have to deal with the effects of the toxic waste from the nuclear reactors. Because Uranium is being consumed daily and is not renewable, its supply is obviously bound to decline and eventually deplete (Beedie 2007, par 3).

The United Kingdom governments advisory panel, the Sustainable Development Commission, recently reported that the risks linked with nuclear energy by far overshadow its input into curbing the emission of carbon dioxide. The report points out the major disadvantages of nuclear energy, including inadequate lasting solutions to the disposal of radioactive waste, the high cost involved, the unfair subsidies and the large costs that over-burden taxpayers, not to mention threats to international security and also the risks of proliferation. The report further concludes that, because of these enormous disadvantages, nuclear power is not the answer to climate change.

Conclusion
Considering all the above-mentioned advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power stations, it should be apparent that nuclear energy should never even be considered a solution to world problems, but rather the cause of far-reaching effects on the earth, risks which are not in any way worth taking. People should not continue burying their heads in the sun and looking at the situation from a single perspective. If we be honest with ourselves, we will be totally reluctant to accept nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy, considering the grave security, environmental as well as health hazards involved, which will not only affect us, but also carry on to generations and generations. The electricity industry should be awake to the general drawbacks.  Spending of billions of pounds on such a disastrous long-term venture is not sustainable. Building more nuclear plants will be an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers while we could find alternatives in solar, wind, geothermal energy, to mention only a few.

UK should also look for ways of conserving the energy it has as this will make sure it does not use energy unnecessarily.  We all should have the will as politicians, academics, scientists, workers, activists, etc. to make sure we put into place measures to prevent dangers on our human race as well as our environment. After all, nuclear energy would sometime have to end because the resources for producing nuclear energy will one day be depleted. What will we do, then What about when countries use them to make weapons of mass destruction We could end up destroying ourselves though wars or even accidents. Whichever way, we will end up destroyed, probably together with our environment. We therefore have a responsibility to assure our survival and the survival of the future generations of the human race and nature. All we need to have is the will to survive, the need to create a safe environment for our children and their offspring.