A common argument made against Diablo Canyon is its effect on people’s health and safety in the community. The purpose of Diablo Canyon and other power plants is to produce electricity and energy by fuel and heat. This heat is produced by using chemicals called uranium as a fuel to generate power. If the handling of uranium gets out of hand, then radiation leaks can occur. Power plants also produce radioactive gases during the process of making energy. If these gases such as carbon dioxide get mixed with the atmosphere, it can cause people to get ill and put their health at risk. This is why people are against power plants, but nevertheless if power plants are shut down because it risks the health of the community, then how are we supposed to live without electricity?
how can i write the last sentence better? i know it's a run on. i want to end the paragraph with a question as a transition to my next paragraph which includes my solution to this problem.
and don't worry, this in not my finalized paragraph. i plan on including statistics and other resources.
If this is a debate where your opponent can't heckle, don't use questions
The main problem I see with your essay is that it avoids the main issues, and focuses on trivia.
The main issues are
1) to generate power or not (which means to use power or not)
2) and if to generate, fossil or nuclear. (yes, a trivia amount can be geothermal, wind, and solar, but at a staggering cost).
On the first issue, you discussed Cal Poly students. Hmmmm. Do you really think anyone in the community cares about college students? Duracell would love your solution...batteries. Hospitals, schools, home air conditioning, refrigerators, all shut down. Whilst many advocate reduced power consumption, most favor that option for the other folks. You might mention the critical living issues without power.
A favorite California option for many years was to put the power plant in somebody else's state. That dog won't hunt these days for a number of reasons, you can research that problem.
Lastly, nuclear vs fossil. There are a number of challenges here: Safety, fuel availability, cost, and pollution. Where did you get the idea that Nuclear power plants emit radioactive carbon dioxide? Coal burning plants emit worldwide the carbon dioxide that is radioactive. You missed it there.
Safety of nuke plants is the argument, as arguments can be cloaked in heuristics, speculation, wishful thinking, and "what if" witchcraft. I recommend focus on debunking those popular myths, some are downright ludicrous. Some of the safety issues are important, and it emphasises the importance of active inspection by OUTSIDE agencies, in my opinion.
Now, your essay. It reads ok, even if I see it missing the point. The sentences are longer than necessary. Short sentences connect to the brain and stay attached. Long sentences can put the brain to sleep. Yes, that last sentence....
This is the stated reason of some who oppose nuclear energy. Nevertheless, power is needed, and nuclear is the best option here.
Does that read better? Notice sentence length.
I didn't check grammar, I am an engineer, and avoided learning that somehow.
Bob Pursley is right. One of the main issues in our country right now is to decrease the use of fossil fuels whether to power cars and trucks and planes or for electricity-producing power plants. Here are the results I found when I googled coal vs nuclear power:
And if you want to see the results of one particular type of coal mining continuing to happen in our country, look at these:
And we all know what our country's dependence on oil has resulted in.
Rethinking looks to be the order of the day for you!