Nuclear energy is a better choice for meeting increasing demand. Do you agree or disagree?

It is often argued that nuclear power is a better alternative to satisfy the world’s rocketing demand for energy. While I accept the apparent advantages of nuclear energy, I believe that there are also potential dangers involved. Nuclear power has several benefits for the environment. First of all, it is considered to be a relatively sustainable source of energy. The nuclear reaction releases a million times of energy compared to other methods such as solar energy or hydro energy. Hence, a vast amount of electricity can be generated and meet the demand of people. Secondly, nuclear energy plants are significantly cleaner than other types of power stations. As there is no emission of methane or carbon dioxide during a nuclear reaction, it is likely that there would be no direct air pollution and environmentally friendly. On the other hand, the use of energy also has some negative impacts which could outweigh its merits. To begin with, the accidental radiation leak is one of the most severe drawbacks of nuclear power. Although it is taken over by governments, if safety measured failed, it would result in detrimental effects associated with the environment such as imbalanced ecosystem and the loss of biodiversity. Furthermore, despite a great deal of energy produced from a nuclear power plant, it requires large capital to develop a nuclear power station. Therefore it is feasible to install and maintain it in some underprivileged nations like South Sudan or Ethiopia. Moreover, the production of radiation could be taken advantage of by terrorism to proliferate nuclear weapons and pose a threat to world peace as it can cause a large-scale devastation. In conclusion, I do agree with the opinion that nuclear energy should be used as an effective alternative to meet global needs. However, the downsides of nuclear power exploitation should not be forgotten.