TL;DR – Nuclear energy has an unfair reputation and is good for society

Nuclear energy has long been demonized. Events like the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters have soured people's views of nuclear energy, which is understandable, but not empirically valid. Nuclear energy is, in fact, the safest form of energy we have. Nuclear energy's environmental impact is, however, less clear-cut—both the pro- and anti-nuclear sides have valid points. Certain aspects of nuclear energy are significantly more efficient than alternatives; in terms of air quality and land usage, for example, nuclear energy far surpasses other (admittedly controversial) methods like gas, oil, and coal. On the other hand, nuclear energy is expensive to employ and has indirect carbon emissions (primarily through the enrichment of uranium)—and, of course, has examples of catastrophic though isolated disasters.

We must look primarily at statistics in order to judge nuclear fairly. Nuclear energy has a similar footprint to solar and wind. Nuclear energy has by far the fewest deaths relative to energy production of the major energy sources. Nuclear accidents are very rare. With these statistics in mind, it is clear that nuclear energy, at the very least, has strong potential. If society invests further into it, it could become even safer and more efficient: a societal good.

Harnessing nuclear energy as a main power source would help reduce the effects of climate change. It could also make events like Chernobyl and Fukushima a common occurrence.

It isn't just Homer Simpson’s livelihood anymore, as it could be the answer in minimizing the repercussions faced from climate change. Nuclear Energy fueled by uranium housed in a cement dome. Here, a nuclear reaction occurs, creating heat to make an internal turbine spin, which generates energy. The pros and cons to this method of energy production include:

Pros

→ Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy source.

→ The capacity factor, or ratio of energy produced over a given amount of time, is higher than almost any other form of energy.

→ Nuclear fuel is denser than any other energy source. A one-inch uranium pellet is equal to 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 120 gallons of oil, or one ton of coal.

→ Most forms of non-nuclear energy release more radiation into the environment than nuclear energy.

Cons

→ Nuclear energy is not a renewable energy source.

→ When accidents occur, they are catastrophic.

→ There is no solution to the disposal of nuclear waste.

While the benefits seem to outweigh the negative, it’s hard to reconcile with increasing the likelihood of causing a nuclear meltdown.

Despite the gruesome image it often conjures, nuclear energy has proven to be one of the safest and most sustainable sources of energy for the world.

The images of the two largest nuclear disasters in the world — Chernobyl and Fukushima — continue to haunt humanity. Conceivably, its reputation is nowhere near that of innocent windmills or solar panels, yet, from a statistical perspective, nuclear energy has proven to be greatly efficient and has benefited humanity ever since its cultivation.

The most convincing statistics for the safety of nuclear energy may be from Our World in Data, which stated that the death rate from energy production of nuclear power is around 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour, compared with 32.72 of brown coal and 18.45 of oil. The only reason why nuclear power often gives us a fearsome image is similar to that of commercial aviation, which, for the vast majority of time, is safe, but whenever one incident occurs, the media extensively covers it.

The efficiency of nuclear energy is also well testified. The International Energy Agency, in a report published in 2018, stated that nuclear power produced 10% of the total world energy throughout the world, exceeding that from wind, solar, and oil. Most European countries rely largely on nuclear power, with France deriving 70.6% of its national energy from this one source of energy. Hence, nuclear power certainly has proven its merits around the globe.

The advantages of nuclear power are not worth the dangers and health risks that come with it.

• 30 deaths and health implications for thousands of people are the ongoing repercussions of Chernobyl. In addition to this, millions of people have had to relocate.
• We should be looking at the dangers of nuclear plants, how they increase chances of cancer, how they increase chances of having to relocate, and how they can cause deaths.
• In 2011 a tsunami caused three nuclear plants in Fukushima to release radio activity, which has now caused cancer rates to rise.
  The advantages of nuclear power are not worth the dangers and health risks that come with it.

Nuclear energy is expensive, dangerous, and unsustainable.

The extraction of nuclear fuels - tritium for fusion and uranium for fission - is not renewable. Uranium is mined, and its reserves do not regenerate. Similarly, there are technical limitations to the regeneration of tritium in fusion reactions, in which case we may have to rely on fission reactions to generate more.

Nuclear energy may not emit greenhouse gases, but the construction of nuclear power plants and the extraction of uranium do as fossil fuels are burned to generate the required energy. One may argue for the establishment of a sufficient nuclear energy source, so that nuclear energy fuels the further manufacturing and mining of nuclear technology and raw material, but this in itself would likely require the construction of numerous plants. Likewise, though nuclear is the most efficient energy generator
, it does not generate a surplus and this is not likely to be a feasible solution.

Though the day-to-day casualties associated with nuclear fission - and fusion in theory - are minimal compared to those associated with the fossil fuel industries, the consequences of a nuclear meltdown are propagative. While single individuals can perish in accidents at the coal mine or at the oil refinery, a mishap in a nuclear powerplant will impact generations of individuals in the region and render the location uninhabitable for decades - "melting reactors continue to release large amounts of radiation even today, years after the disaster[s]" in Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Advancements in nuclear energy could be potential advancements in nuclear weapons technology, though it is worth noting that his claim holds little beyond speculation. The necessary pathways in nuclear reactions that can be exploited for the construction of malicious tools are heavily guarded. There is also little historical association between the construction of nuclear power plants and the development of weapons, with the infrastructure for weapons-grade enrichment and plutonium reprocessing often constructed in isolation from energy projects. Yet, if we continue to invest in nuclear energy and resources arguably become more easily accessible, and/or we develop a more complacent attitude towards the technology, proliferation may become a more concerning possibility. A greater availability of nuclear resources may easily present opportunities for diversification into weapons development.

I strongly agree with this.

We simply cannot meet the immense energy demands of our technological civilization with the use of renewables. Not only is it a safer alternative than fossil fuels; but it also requires far less land that would otherwise be used for solar panels and wind turbines, which also kill millions of birds and bats each year. Hydro is a good choice for renewables, they have good efficiency rates, but they are very expensive to construct and maintain. They also have a tendency to transform entire ecosystems.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors should be the future. My reasoning for this are many.

-Thorium is one of the most abundant elements in the Earth's crust, it can actually be refined from dirt.
-Thorium contains 35 times the energy potential of Uranium
-Thorium-based reactors are safer because the reaction can easily be stopped and because the operation does not have to take place under extreme pressures.
-Compared to uranium reactors, thorium reactors produce far less waste and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived.
-Waste from thorium reactors is fertile, which means it can be impregnated to produce U-233, further increasing its efficiency
-Compared to mining of uranium for nuclear fuel, mining thorium is considered as safer and more efficient. Also, thorium's ore monazite generally comprises significant amounts of thorium, making the element's extraction efficient, cost effective without a huge impact on the environment.

However, once we are capable of producing a stable fusion reaction, we should switch from fission reactors to fusion reactors. This is the energy source that our universe runs on, it cannot be wrong for that reason; and its energy potential is almost limitless.