Reduction of greenhouse gases is essential if we are to prevent an irreversible climate disaster. At the same time, demand for electricity is increasing across the world. In developing countries, electricity is required to raise the basic standard of living for billions of people. In order to tackle these issues, we need to use all the tools at our disposal. There is plenty of debate about whether to invest in more nuclear energy or intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar. This debate is counter-productive to winning the fight against climate change. The argument should not be to choose between nuclear and renewables, but rather to reduce carbon fuels and increase all low-carbon energy sources. Why should nuclear be included in this conversation? Let's look at the facts. First, nuclear is one of the few realistic options for reducing CO2 emissions from electricity generation. We need nuclear energy, along with increased electricity efficiency, expanded use of renewable energy sources and carbon capture as part of an overall carbon emissions management strategy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes nuclear as one of the lowest lifecycle emissions energy sources available. This accounts for the entire lifecycle of nuclear, including uranium mining and decommissioning. The IPCC's plans for climate change mitigation all include increases in nuclear energy. The Clean Air Task Force in the United States also identifies nuclear energy as an essential component of any climate plan. Here in Canada, Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan has affirmed, "We have not seen a model where we can get to net-zero emissions by 2050 without nuclear." Wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric, tidal and geothermal all have a low-carbon footprint and should all be considered low carbon options. Secondly, coping with intermittent renewable generation like wind and solar is challenging because the wind isn't always blowing and the sun isn't always shining.  Presently, batteries cannot store enough electricity for long enough to be a reasonable backup solution. Wind and solar therefore need to be paired with another energy source which can be dispatched as needed, and currently this is almost always carbon fuels or large hydro. In fact, no country or state has ever decarbonized using intermittent power sources alone.  As an example, Germany closed nuclear generating facilities as a result of public pressure and saw a significant rise in CO2 levels.  Levels came down slightly as wind and solar were added but have since flat lined to due to the country's failure to close coal-fired plants.  These coal-fired plants will be required for at least two more decades to compensate for intermittency, leaving the country with no chance of meeting their emissions targets.  At present, Germany generates only 45 per cent low-carbon electricity. Conversely, we know that scale-up of nuclear power can be done in time to meet climate goals: it has been done by France and Sweden.  These two countries generate close to 95 per cent low-carbon electricity and built their entire nuclear program (approximately 55 reactors in France) in under 15 years as a response to the oil crisis in the 1970s and 1980s.  At their peak, France and Sweden built a nuclear power generating facility in five years. Nuclear power is a low-carbon source that can be used to provide base-load electricity.  Next generation advanced small modular reactors (SMRs) being designed in New Brunswick will have the ability to scale up and down to offset intermittent sources and meet electricity demands.  Due to their design simplicity, costs and timelines are reduced. Thirdly, nuclear power produces relatively little waste in the form of used fuel bundles that are safely contained.  SMRs being designed in New Brunswick will have the ability to recycle their own waste, along with existing nuclear waste, and use it as a fuel source.  Advanced SMRs will create significantly less used fuel than conventional reactors as well as reduce storage time. We must continue to utilize nuclear energy as a valuable tool to combat climate change.  New Brunswick has a longstanding history of providing low-carbon, reliable and safe electricity with nuclear, enabling the province to reach 80 per cent non-emitting electricity.  The research and development of advanced SMRs in the province is projecting readiness this decade. Tackling climate change will require a massive, concerted effort by multiple stakeholders around the world.  It is necessary that we embrace all low-carbon energy options, including a proven source like nuclear. Dr. John Crompton is the author of the Climate Change and Nuclear Energy Blog. Gordon W. Dalzell is a clean air activist.