Growing up, I lived 12 miles away from Indian Point Energy Center, a nuclear power plant that supplies 1/4 of New York City's energy, which is a massive amount of power when you consider that over 10 million people live in a city and its metropolitan area.

But despite the plant's huge energy output, residents constantly worried about pollution and safety surrounding the 57-year-old power plant.

My mom would often lay out an emergency escape plan for me and my siblings just in case Indian Point failed and there was a disaster on par with Chernobyl, Fukushima or Three Mile Island.

These three disasters have persisted as spectres in the imaginations of the world including many New Yorkers and as a result have led to a backlash big enough to decommission the Indian Point nuclear center for good in 2021.

But considering that this nuclear power plant has provided a quarter of all New York City's energy for over 50 years, is this actually a good thing?

What I really want to know is what role does nuclear power play in a full transition away from fossil fuels and towards a zero-carbon future?

As I came to realize while researching this video, the debate behind nuclear power is complicated.

And in order to really analyze the value of nuclear power as an energy source it's important to look at emissions, waste, cost and safety.

Let's start with emissions, which are a huge factor when trying to understand whether nuclear power is a serious option for mitigating climate change.

Many proponents of nuclear point to the lack of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants as a major reason to increase nuclear energy production.

While this is true for the actual nuclear fission process that creates energy, the processes surrounding nuclear, like uranium mining and refining, demand emissions.

A life cycle assessment of various fuels conducted by the IPCC reveals that the average greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power production is relatively the same as its renewable counterparts.

But when compared to natural gas and coal, nuclear emissions are drastically lower.

So as an alternative to gas and coal, nuclear power is certainly less emissions heavy and could be a viable low-carbon energy option.

But waste also comes hand-in-hand with emissions.

This is a big sticking point for the anti-nuclear movement.

And rightfully so no one has really implemented a viable long-term solution for a nuclear waste storage.

There are currently three main options right now, onsite storage, long-term deep storage or reprocessing fuel for use in other nuclear energy plants.

Reprocessing spent fuel sounds like a perfect solution, but it's really not.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, one consequence of reprocessing spent fuel could be the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The byproduct of the recycling process is more plutonium, which can easily be used to build weapons.

In addition, only a little bit of the reprocessed waste can be used again and you're still left with a host of other radioactive materials.

And on top of all that, recycling this waste has a substantial cost tied to it.

So ultimately the only answer right now to our current nuclear waste is long-term storage.

Unfortunately, the only country that is currently setting up a facility is Finland, the rest just stockpile their waste onsite with no options or outlooks for long-term storage.