The U.S. energy industry needs to start incorporating more nuclear energy into their energy portfolio in order to reduce their environmental impact. Nuclear energy has a highly efficient and plentiful source of energy that produces zero emissions. Moving towards nuclear power would mean the closing of many natural gas and coal powered plants. The extraction and combustion of these fossil fuels is destroying the environment and poisoning people and the environment with its toxic emissions.

I have always been fascinated by nuclear power. It is amazing that so much energy can be released by so little fuel. Living close to a nuclear power plant probably had something to do with that. I constantly hear people expressing their concerns about the plant contaminating the environment or having a meltdown. Meanwhile, we can no longer eat the fish from the lakes or rivers nearby (and in most of South Carolina) because of the emissions from coal plants. It astounds me that people are so afraid of nuclear power being dangerous when the threat of fossil fuels is so obvious. I think this experience and the research that I am doing now qualify me to write about this.

"Energy For The World  --  Why Uranium?" 

The focus of this article is on why uranium is the fuel of the future. The prospect of renewable energy is very appealing but it has many limitations, which is why it only makes up 3% of the world's electricity. Non-renewables are a more realistic option because of how much they can produce. Coal has been the most dominant source of energy, but it destroys the environment. A 1000 MWe coal plant produces waste in the millions of tons whereas a nuclear plant of the same size, produces tens of tons of waste. 97% of uranium waste can be reused and the rest can be easily isolated. This is important for electric companies (World Nuclear Association). 

This article was written by the World Nuclear Association which gives it credibility. The association has done a good bit of research to support their position. Because it is a pro-nuclear website, there is some bias, but it can still be trusted because of their thorough research.

"Deaths per TWH by energy source"

This source looks out how fatal each energy source can be. It collects data and statistics from many different studies that have been done and it puts them into one place. What stands out is that coal's death rate is 160 deaths per TWh and nuclear is at 0.04 death per TWh. The reason coal is more deadly is because of its life cycle. From mining, to generation, and to waste, coal can kill many people. On the other hand, very few people die from uranium mining and the few that have died in a nuclear accident are outliers (Wang).

This data is perfect for the general public. I want to show the public how nuclear energy is safe and this statistic is a good way to show that.

In addition to being the author of NextbigFuture.com, Brian Wang is a lecturer at Singularity University. The article really was not about nuclear energy specifically so there is not a significant amount of bias.

"The New Nuclear Energy Revolution"

Nuclear energy is a technology that has lost a lot of its momentum. People are not as excited about it now as when it first came out. The reason why it has stagnated is a bombardment of regulations from people who fear nuclear energy. These regulations have made it extremely expensive to build nuclear reactors, especially in America, so companies have not been building many. If America had invested in this technology when it was booming in the 60s, we would have cut our CO2 emissions by 30% (Bailey).

Because this article has to do with the cost of production, this information mostly affects the private electric companies.

Ronald Balley is a scientist who now writes for reason.com. His argument is good but he is writing for people's entertainment instead of solely to inform so that makes him susceptible to bad bias. However, I looked into the articles citations and arguments and they check out.

Logistical Analysis

People have argued that we should move towards nuclear ever since the technology was created. The argument can be made by the abundance of empirical data from reliable sources. As Cambridge Physicist David MacKay puts it "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic," (MacKay, 169). 

Every source has its own focus within the topic of nuclear energy but all have data to support nuclear technology. One thing they have in common is that they all mention the great qualities of uranium as fuel. This is exactly what I find so amazing about nuclear technology so I was glad to see that most sources do too.

In order to limit this issue to 2500 words, I fill need to choose one audience to appeal to. I will not be able to convince corporations of the economic advantage of nuclear while trying to show the taxpayers why nuclear is a safe clean energy source. 

