There all sorts of debates and discussions about the sources of energy, that nations need in order to sustain themselves; and of which, the question of the moment, seems to be, what is the most appropriate thing to do about the negative impact of greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions that are thereby contributing to undesirable climate change. The most sensible answer seems to be nuclear energy, of which the fundamental thing about nuclear energy is that it is a proven and reliable energy source, and for instance, in countries, such as France, it represents the majority of where that nation so generates its energy. In short, nuclear energy, alone amongst all the other energy choices, is reliable, cost-effective, scalable, and storable; in addition to the fact that it produces zero greenhouse gas or CO2 emissions.
That said, there are plenty of people and organizations, that are anti-nuclear, of which, on one side are all those that believe that all the energy that a given country actually needs can reliably come from renewable sources, so defined as biomass, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and wind. The reality is that, when it comes to energy, and especially things such as electricity, people and industries demand that such not only be reliable, but also that it needs to be instantaneous, and that which has been currently defined as renewable, does not now and probably will not ever, be able to successfully fulfill those fundamental requirements. Then there are those on the other side that are anti-nuclear, mainly because the companies and utilities that best represent nuclear, are correspondingly taking away business from coal companies, oil companies, and natural gas companies, signifying that those that directly compete against nuclear energy, do not thereby wish to lose profit and market share to nuclear.
The world, needs energy in order to sustain itself as a modern world, of which, humankind has demonstrated its great ability and knowhow to create the means to make energy through all of the standard ways that we so see today. Not too surprisingly, the amount of monies, investment, and profit to be made in the energy markets is gargantuan, and those that currently have market share are not wont to give up what they already have, come hell or high water. So then, the lobbyists for what has been labeled clean and renewal energy have their own agenda to pursue; and those that have been providing the bulk of the carbon intensive energy to this nation and to the world, over the last century or so, want to continue to support and even to augment their resources so as to remain the only real game in town.
This thus explains why nuclear energy has not achieved as great as market share as it deserves to represent, which is especially distressing in an era in which greenhouse gas emissions, CO2 emissions, and climate change still represent issues that seriously need to be responsibly addressed. It would seem, then, that the best answer to a lot of the concern about climate change, as well as the need for reliable energy can be resolved most appropriately by the continued use and expansion of nuclear energy, and of which, if more nations would make that use a real priority, and then some, this would help to alleviate a lot of the ills that plague us in regards to climate change.