The world and we as humans are at a pivotal point. How we address climate change now will have a drastic impact on our future. We do not want to sacrifice our standard of living, but we do want to preserve the earth. The solution may lie with nuclear energy. We cannot keep relying so heavily on fossil fuels whose emissions contribute greatly to climate change. Nuclear energy is an emission free source of electricity that has the potential to replace most of the world's fossil fuel power plants. The issue that nuclear energy, and in turn climate change, faces is opposition from everyday people and some energy companies. Taxpayers and environmental organizations have unfounded fears of nuclear energy and companies favor the cheap and dirty option. In order for nuclear energy to prevail, people need to become aware of and support nuclear energy because of it's safety, cleanliness, and long term benefits. 

I have always been fascinated by nuclear power. After learning more about it and living near a nuclear power plant, I understand its benefits. I have also come to see the effects of coal fired plants. In the Carolinas, we cannot eat much of the fish because of the pollution they create. It astounds me that people oppose nuclear energy because they think it is unsafe. They can plainly see which of the two is worse. I am concerned for the environment and for people's safety, so I do not want people to choose the more harmful option because they are simply uninformed. There is a better option.

The reason why nuclear energy is a great solution is because of uranium's exceptional qualities when compared to other energy sources. The World Nuclear Association, a trusted organization, explains why. 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 MWh coal plant produces waste in the millions of tons whereas a nuclear plant of the same size, produces tens of tons of waste. This may challenge many people's idea that fossil fuels are not that bad.  97% of uranium waste can be reused and the rest can be easily isolated. This makes uranium a remarkably useful fuel (World Nuclear Association).

It is important to understand the impact each energy source actually has on people's safety. Brian L. Wang of Singularity University has meticulously calculated the fatalities caused by each energy source. He goes into great detail in order to establish the study's credibility. The results are interesting. 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 is exactly the information I want people with an irrational fear of nuclear energy to hear. It calls into question the idea that nuclear energy is unsafe. 

Unfortunately, nuclear energy in America faces many roadblocks. This article from reason.com objectively compares the growth of nuclear energy in different countries and the possible causes. Nuclear energy has lost a lot of its momentum as a result of a fear of accidents. The reason why it has stagnated is a bombardment of excessive regulations. 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%. The world would be a better place if we had been building more reactors and furthering research. While safety is a very important value, these excessive regulations are holding back a technology that would make the world safer (Bailey).

I believe that question of nuclear energy can be argued from either side and it has been ever since the technology was created. The argument for it 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). The reasons for why we need to depend more on nuclear can be found in the data about its safety and environmental impact. The three sources I've used are all based on this important data. To be able to make an argument on the exigence, the sources cited need to be reliable. These facts and the educated authors of the articles makes them more credible.

I am excited to turn this into a final paper. Much of the research I've done agrees with my views that uranium is awesome and nuclear energy is a practically harmless solution to our world climate problem. In order to limit this issue to 2500 words, I will 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. Energy companies now have the data to make the right choices so I would rather try to convince those people who need it most in order for the current situation to change.

