When people think of carbon neutral energy sources, renewables come to mind, however renewables have downsides that a lot of people do not acknowledge. Solar and Wind energy are often seen as the quintessential renewable energy sources, however most do not acknowledge that solar panels only last for 25 years under optimal conditions (which could be severely shortened by storms and natural disaster), and after they break, it's likely they are not disposed of properly and the heavy metals they contain seep into the environment. Furthermore, Wind farms are very obstructive and pose a major hazard to birds, and can also be destroyed by storms. They also do not provide enough energy for entire cities, and all of these problems can be circumvented by nuclear energy. Nuclear reactors only cause a tiny amount of carbon emissions, but in exchange they provide an unparalleled level of energy. Through the use of Thorium, nuclear reactors eliminate the danger of a major meltdown, and thorium cannot be used in nuclear weapons, which are the two biggest concerns about nuclear. I think a greater emphasis needs to be placed on nuclear energy, since a lot of nuclear reactors were built several decades ago and modern technology could massively improve the efficency of nuclear reactors. Nuclear could be a long term solution to replace fossil fuels, which is a feat renewables likely cannot achieve due to the inconsistency seen in their energy, as solar and wind both heavily depend on the weather and climate to be functional, whereas nuclear would provide a constant stream of energy.