Could please check my writing?

Despite the interest that this proposal might stir up, the use of nuclear power represents a dangerous shortcut for the solution to the problem mentioned above.
Nowadays, in fact, [but I would delete it anyhow]when facing a new challenge, modern science must pay attention to the sustenability of its projects. That means that every solution proposed for current environmental problems musts prevent any possible damage and future risk either for nature and human beings.
It is necessary to rember though, that unfortunately nuclear energy can’t assure[not being human, nuclear energy has no capacity to assure - rephrase this]any safety at all on this regard, yet.
The terrible effects of the use of nuclear power can still be seen on a large part of Chernobyl’s population, even though many years have passed since the tragic nuclear desaster occurred.
Although it is undeniable that, as Dr.Symonds discussed, the knoledge and control of nuclear energy have improved very much in the last decades, we are not sure of the consequences of the nuclear scores on a long term use for nature and human beings. Even worse, in case of an accident, nothing assures that we won’t assist  [ meaningless - rephrase]to the same environmental desaster as the one in Chernobyl.
So, if nuclear energy is not able to garantee our safety, how can we consider it as a real solution for our problems?
Every environmental issue, as the running out of energy resources, needs to be faced with a perspective view of our future. As far as we know, other energy resources respond to this very important request, such as sun, wind, water or hydrogen. Only “clean” energies nowadays can be reckoned by science a smart and useful supply to the running out of carbon fueles, without impeding risks for the environment.

Dr.Symonds's proposal of using nuclear energy as a main solution to the running out of carbon fuel resources represents quite an attractive suggestion for the energy policy of many countries.

Despite the interest that this proposal might stir up, the use of nuclear power represents a dangerous shortcut for the solution to the problem mentioned above.
Nowadays, when facing a new challenge, modern science must pay attention to the sustenability of its projects. That means that it must prevent any possible damage and future risk either for nature and human beings.
It is necessary to remind that unfortunately the use of nuclear energy can’t guarantee any safety at all on this regard, yet.
The terrible effects of nuclear power can still be seen on a large part of Chernobyl's population, even though many years have passed since the tragic nuclear disaster occurred.
Although it is undeniable that, as Dr.Symonds discussed, the knowledge and control of this energy have improved very much in the last decades, we are not sure of the consequences of the nuclear scores on a long term use for nature and human beings. Even worse, in case of an accident, the risks of an environmental disaster as the one in Chernobyl would be still very high.
So, if nuclear energy is not able to guarantee our safety, how can we consider it as a real solution for our problems?
Every environmental issue needs to be faced with a perspective view of our future. As far as we know, other energy resources come up to these requirements, such as sun, wind, water or hydrogen. Only “clean” energies can be reckoned by science a smart and useful supply to the running out of carbon fuels, without impending risks for the environment.

May ask you some questions, please?

-The second paragraph starting with "despite", could I write "But despite" or not? Perhaps only if it was anticipated by a comma? 

-I tried to replace "assure" with "guarantee", I dont' know if it's still the same mistake. Should I rather change the subject of the setence?

-Do you find it repetitious also because I use the same verbs or nouns? Or is more a metter of concepts? I guess I should make it shorter.... what do you think?

Thank you, Chiara

Chiara wrote:

Dr.Symonds's proposal of using nuclear energy as a main solution to the running out of carbon fuel resources represents quite an attractive suggestion for the energy policy of many countries.Despite the interest that this proposal might stir up, the use of nuclear power represents a dangerous shortcut for the solution to the problem mentioned above. Nowadays, when facing a new challenge, modern science must pay attention to the sustenability of its projects. That means that it must prevent any possible damage and future risk either for nature and human beings.It is necessary to remind to remember  that unfortunately the use of nuclear energy can’t guarantee any safety at all on this regard, yet. The terrible effects of nuclear power can still be seen in a large part of Chernobyl's population, even though many years have passed since the tragic nuclear disaster occurred. Although it is undeniable that, as Dr.Symonds discussed, the knowledge and control of this energy have improved very much in the last decades, we are not sure of the consequences of the nuclear scores on a long term use for nature and human beings. Even worse, in case of an accident, the risks of an environmental disaster as the one in Chernobyl would be still very high. So, if nuclear energy is not able to guarantee our safety, how can we consider it as a real solution for our problems? Every environmental issue needs to be faced with a perspective view of our future. As far as we know, other energy resources come up to these requirements, such as sun, wind, water or hydrogen. Only “clean” energies can be reckoned by science a smart and useful supply alternative to the running out of carbon fuels, without impending risks for the environment. May ask you some questions, please? -The second paragraph starting with "despite", could I write "But despite" or not? Perhaps only if it was anticipated by a comma? As you will se, I have re-paragraphed your essay. I think "Butdespite" would not be acceptable in this para. -I tried to replace "assure" with "guarantee", I dont' know if it's still the same mistake. Should I rather change the subject of the setence?  I think the sentence is fine - and "guarantee" works well. -Do you find it repetitious also because I use the same verbs or nouns? Or is more a metter of concepts? I guess I should make it shorter.... what do you think?  The repetition is more concept than words. However, it seems to be reading quite well now (with the additional changes. I think you will have to work on the nature of paragraphs - which really should be more than one sentence. Thank you, Chiara