Since we are depleting the natural resources of Earth already, we’re bound to run out of fossil fuels within the next 100 years. Yet if we start using nuclear energy, the waste byproducts of all this radioactive energy must go somewhere, so might as well dump it in a lake somewhere. Either way it sounds like we’re all screwed, but if I were to choose an ideal situation, I’d choose the nuclear energy. I would choose this because its cleaner, lasts longer, the plants would last longer, and it means that it would save the planet and its small amount of natural beauty I has left. Even though nuclear power has a costly down side, the benefits and positive side effects outnumbers those specific disadvantages. Sure, fossil fuels won’t cause a nuclear meltdown, and mass radioactive waste polluting our planet, but we at least need to consider it as a viable back up, because when not if, but when we run out of natural resources, have scraped the earth to its bare minimum, and the earth beneath us is crumbling because of thousands of holes drilled into the earth for oil and coal, were going to regret the way we treated earth. If radioactive waste is the positive outcome we must look forward to, in order to save our planet, then so be it. Humans started using fossil fuels just over 200 years ago, and we have used almost all of them. It took almost 600 million years to create the abundant sources we had and now look where we are. Nuclear energy has no greenhouse gas emission, so it saves the atmosphere from further damage, and it has up to 90% capacity factor. As well as being literally (in some cases), and figuratively “green” nuclear energy has no Sulphur dioxide or chemical pollution. Fossil fuels have polluted the earth for far too long where it’s getting to the point of no return.

When it comes to cons of nuclear energy most of them aren’t any concern at the moment. “But the power plant could explode or have an accident like Chernobyl!!” well, Chernobyl was a fantastic way to figure out how to get the most efficient and safe power plant, and the accident at Chernobyl isn’t very good to compare to now because there has been so many advancements in technology. If it was a power system failure during a test run, that means it was an operators fault, as well as their system wasn’t very good in the first place. Nowadays, nuclear energy plants can last up to 40 years, and if kept in perfect condition, no accidents, no failures, no mishaps; they can last another 20 years. We’re looking at up to 60 years per plants, that already had a 90% capacity factor, and that’s 60% less air pollution. The only “pollution” that these power plants give off are miniscule chemical particle pollution. And that is even 40% less damaging that the intense grey, or black smoke that oil or coal plants emit. Im just saying, that if we were to really, I mean really look at the comparisons and differences, the nuclear plants have more positives than negatives, and if we really want to save our planet from absolute ravaging in the next 100 years, we need to seriously consider nuclear power.