In many parts of world, fossil fuel is used to produce energy. Since this source of energy is damaging the enivorment, it is argued that we should adopt new energy sources such as solar and wind energy. I think this is positive development seeing as when we say alternatives, nuclear energy also is an option.
Although fossil fuels are an efficient source of energy, they are doing more harm than good. Burning fossil fuel to generate electricity is resaulting in many global problems. One of them is air pollution. When coal is burned to produce electricity, a lot of carbon emissions are released into the air, leading to pollution. Therefore it is suggested we stop using fossil fuel as main a source of energy. Instead wind farms and solar panels should be used.
The problem is that these energy sources are not as plausible solution to the problems as everyone thinks. The reason for this is that building wind farms and solar panels means the destruction of large areas of natural vegetation, and they cost exorbitantly expensive. In an attempt to preserve enivorment, destroying very enivorment is paradoxical. Moreover builing such as farms requires huge fund from goverments, meaning that many countries in the world may not be able to afford it.
However there is one energy source that is always overlooked, despite more being enivormentally- freindly and efficient: Nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants are zero-emission, which means they do not damage the enivorment. Also the cost of buildings such as reactors are relatively cheap, and the use of uranium – chemical substance used to generate energy- makes it even more attractive option, given its cost and abudant source.
In conculusion, the transition from fossil fuels renewable energy may appear to be a better solution, but it is not as good as adopting nuclear energy