The pursuit of green energy is a necessity to combat climate change; this much is certain. However, the way we are approaching this transition to renewable energy needs to be reevaluated. Green initiatives across the world tout wind, solar, and a distancing from fossil fuel-based energy production as goals not only in their respective countries, but globally. One green source of energy seems to be missing from this conversation, and that is nuclear. Nuclear energy has become unfavorable in the eyes of climate activists for several reasons, mainly their association to nuclear weapons and the possibility of meltdowns. What these activists have not been studying, however, is new progress in liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR). These reactors are meltdown-resistant via new safety features. LFTRs feature a dump tank sealed off by a salt plug that melts in the case of an emergency. These reactors also cannot meltdown, since the core reaction is already in the molten state. Obtaining weapons-grade uranium from an LFTR is difficult, since these products are in solution with molten salt in the reactor. In addition, these reactors do not produce as much long-lived nuclear waste as traditional uranium-based reactors. Nuclear energy is the only real, efficient solution to our energy crisis, and therefore deserves a front and center place in global discussion.
Comments
Begining and End
The begining was a great way to say what your paragraph was going to talk about and why you are talking about it. The ending of the pargraph brought the whole thing back to the point that it is a potential use to end our dependency on fossil fuels. I found my self a little lost reading about trying to take weapons grade uranium from the reactor. Possibly explain why that would happen? Is it known to be stolen for weaponry?
casual, yet scientific
I appreciate the use of colloquial speech, and the way the paragraph is written so that it conveys information in a casual manner. I wish you delved more into the negatives of the topic, to give the reader a chance to see both sides of the argument you put forwards. I also feel like some statements assume a lot, such as "unfavorable in the eyes of climate activists" where I'm sure not all climate activists feel so negatviely about nuclear energy. Overall excellent and informative
incomplete sentence
"Green initiatives across the world tout wind, solar, and a distancing from fossil fuel-based energy production as goals not only in their respective countries, but globally. " sounds very off when it is by itself. The second portion of the sentence that talks about distancing from fossil fuel makes it wrong. Maybe try breaking it up or reexplaining your idea about green initiatives after the comma.