I'm interested in this research topic mostly because it is a very debatable topic. When I sat down to decide upon a topic I tried to pick something that was both debatable and interesting. My research doesn't particularly affect my core values. What it does affect is my opinion of the topic. Prior to me starting this paper I always thought that solar or wind power would be the solution to our diminishing fossil fuel problem. I now realize that nuclear energy is the future on powering our homes. My expertise in the field isn't a lot but I do have some. When I was in 7th grade I took a trip up to Madison, WI to go the University of Wisconsin to get my nuclear energy merit badge (I was working towards getting my Eagle Scout at the time). There I got to see one of the few remaining Nuclear power cores used for research on college campuses in America. I would not consider that my main qualification to write about this topic. I consider my main qualification to write about this topic be the fact that our generation of people may live to see the end of carbon emitting sources of electricity. Nuclear power plants don't produce any carbon emissions in the process of creating its energy and technology in nuclear power cores are up to 90% efficiency. 

My first sources main claim is that nuclear fusion is a technology that needs to be further developed. Nuclear fusion is the type of reaction that powers the sun and if we can harness energy like that in a nuclear reactor than we can solve the problem that stems from current nuclear cores. Current nuclear cores use what is called nuclear fission which at the end of the process leaves nuclear waste that have to be dealt with accordingly following its full use in the reactor. The major value of the article is that nuclear fusion is a technology that creates carbon free and green electricity without creating nuclear waste. Interests at stake are everyday people. Greenhouse gases created from carbon emission are leading towards an increase of surface temperature. Greenhouse gases get there name from creating a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere by not allowing heat to escape back into space and trapping it in our atmosphere thus raising surface temperature. The credibility of the author lies in the fact that he is a senior writer for ABC Australia which is a major news reporting network. The bias is at a minimum as it is a very factual article. ABC tends to have close to unbiased articles for its reporting. 

My second source comes from the Smithsonian's website. The author of the article is a freelance science writer for the Smithsonian. Her credibility is high as the Smithsonian is a factual source for information. The bias is low because her article is a report on Germany's new experimental nuclear fusion power core. The central claim is that Germany is close to a breakthrough on creating a nuclear fusion power core that would provide us with renewable green energy. Her main sources come directly from the German science team that researched and built this experimental core. The major stake in the article is the nuclear power field. If the can make a breakthrough following these experiments than the nuclear energy industry will completely change. Nuclear fusion is a much more sustainable source of energy that nuclear fission as nuclear fission creates uranium nuclear waste that cannot be broken down and must be disposed and stored properly until science can figure out further what to do with the waste. 

My third discusses how feasible funding is for the building of nuclear plants in America is. The article's main claim is that there is bipartisan support from our government. The sources for the article are quotes from congressman from both parties and reports from within congress itself. It also discusses what occurred at a recent nuclear summit where furthering technology in the field was their main goal. The main stake in the article is the American tax payer. The article discusses the availability of public funds for research and development of nuclear plants for energy sources for the American people. It also discusses congress's view of the energy source. Leaving a stake in congress and the bipartisan support it has. Source of this article is website that I'm not familiar with called the energy collective. One must be immediately skeptical of the fact it is an unrecognized website. After researching the author though he does possess expertise in the field which eases that skepticism I originally had. The author possesses a background in nuclear submarines which gives him ethos for his article. 

The research question is arguable because there are several methods of electricity that can solve the carbon and fossil fuel crisis. Nuclear energy is controversial because meltdowns and unforeseen events have caused several nuclear reactors to release radiation into the atmosphere which makes some people skeptical about its practicality and future use to fit the growing needs of electricity around the globe. The major agreement for my sources is that for nuclear energy to take off there needs to be a breakthrough in nuclear fusion technology. Where disagreements occur is how sustainable nuclear fission is. With it creating nuclear waste and cores only being 90% efficient some may not view nuclear energy as the future. Countries in Europe like France can upwards of 65% of their countries power supplied by nuclear energy which gives the industry hope without the much needed breakthrough in fusion technology. Following up after reading through my peer reviews I decided to look at nuclear energy as a way to solve the world energy crisis and not just America's problem. The U.S. will be my focus but I will prove that the world energy crisis can be solved by nuclear energy.

