The year is 2050.  The urban streets are fairly empty, aside from an occasional sickly dog, digging through the garbage that humans left behind.  The hospitals, not long ago exceedingly capacity, are slowly vacating as their patients continue to die off.  The city that once thrived in the heart of New York, now stands in ruins, encompassed by a thick, impermeable veil of polluted smoke. On the outskirts of the city, still standing are the nuclear power plants responsible for the catastrophic The contaminated city is no longer habitable for humans, and the contagion is quickly spreading to other parts of the United States. 

This is America's future if it continues to pursue nuclear energy as an alternative to the commonplace fossil fuels.  These currently-used resources, such as coal, oil and natural gas, are damaging the environment and quickly depleting.  The most-accepted solution to this problem is to find a renewable, cleaner source that can be mass-produced to provide for all of the global energy needs.  While an alternative is certainly necessary, nuclear power is impractical and the United States should stop pursuing it.  When compared to other renewable resources, such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, nuclear energy is hazardous to humans, expensive to produce, and harmful to the environment.

Since the beginning of the 18th century, fossil fuels have become increasingly critical to the American economy.  Fossil fuels are natural resources, such as coal, oil and natural gas, that are formed from decaying organisms.  Their energy is used to heat homes, fuel vehicles and produce electricity.  The United States, a world leader in energy consumption, would likely cease to exist with the absence of fossil fuels.  Specifically, the United States has largely depended on foreign oil and coal, as it is cheaper and more readily available than domestic fossil fuels.  While these resources have undoubtedly contributed to America's success as a nation, when burned to produce energy, they release carbon dioxide, affecting the stratospheric temperature and ultimately contributing to global warming ("Ozone").

Though the ecological consequences were not at first apparent, as energy consumption rose with population increase, environmental analysts realized the dangerous correlation between fossil fuels and global warming. Despite United States congressional efforts to regulate and ultimately reduce carbon dioxide emissions, America's dependency on fossil fuels continued to worsen.  Now, in the 21st century, America is at its highest consumption rate yet, and the fossil fuels are nearly exhausted ("U.S.").  With demand at its ultimate highest and supply at its lowest, America can no longer ignore this issue. 

Where safety is a concern, nuclear energy is not the answer.  Nuclear power is produced by "a nuclear reaction, especially by fission or fusion," which is the process of splitting or joining atoms such as uranium ("What is Nuclear Energy").  During this process, radioactive gases and liquids are released.  Radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves, and is harmful to humans in that it can "penetrate deep inside the human body [and] damage biological cells" (Cohen).  Though a human experiences minimal radiation on a daily basis, via sunlight, television, and cell phones, the amount that nuclear power plant workers would be exposed to on the job is drastically higher, and would potentially lead to cancer or genetic disease.

Workers may be exposed to this radiation a number of ways.  One way is in the case of a failed nuclear reactor, which is the complex machine that produces and controls the release of nuclear energy.  Though the technology has built-in lines of defenses to prevent such an accident, the risks are too high to ensure complete safety.  The worst U.S. case of this is the Three Mile Island accident of 1979.  A reactor malfunctioned when "a combination of stuck valves, misread gauges and poor decisions led to ... the release of radioactive gases into the atmosphere" (History.com).  Though the amount of radioactive material released was not considered a serious threat, had the accident gone unnoticed for longer, there may have been enormous casualties (History.com).

A less fortunate city to be affected by a nuclear disaster is Chernobyl, Ukraine.  During a system test of nuclear reactors, "there was a sudden surge of power output," which resulted in a reactor vessel rupture and "a series of explosions" ("What is Chernobyl?").  Considered to be the worst nuclear catastrophe in the history of the world, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident happened in 1986, and is directly responsible for thirty-one deaths ("What is Chernobyl?").  When accounting for indirect casualties, such as cancer caused from the radiation of the fallout, estimates from different agencies range from 30,000 to 985,000 deaths ("What is Chernobyl?").  Upwards of 350,000 people were evacuated and relocated from the contaminated area, and the area remains restricted and guarded by military personnel today ("What is Chernobyl?").  Both the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters demonstrate that the failure of nuclear reactors is possible, and with that failure comes consequences, including human lives.  

Human exposure to nuclear radiation may also occur through the radioactive waste produced by the power plants.  The toxicity of this material is lethal when it first comes out of the reactor, and though it decreases over time, it takes tens of thousands of years to return to a safe radiation level ("Radioactive").  During that time, it must be stored somewhere remote that poses no threat of radiation exposure to humans.  While short-term interim storage facilities are currently being used to store the radioactive waste, technology for long-term disposal of the material is still under development ("Radioactive").  The most accepted proposal so far has been to deposit the waste deep into the earth ("Radioactive").  Though this seems like a plausible solution, it offers a threat to future generations.  All it would take is one earthquake to rupture the ground, and allow hazardous amounts of radioactive gas to leak and jeopardize the health of those living near the buried deposits.  Also, there is a finite amount of land available for waste burial, and when that land is all used up, officials will have nowhere to put the hazardous material.  Transporting the material may also result in exposure, as workers would be in direct contact with the toxic waste.

Proponents of nuclear energy refer to the toxic waste as "spent fuel," and claim nuclear energy to be a reusable resource because the waste holds potential to be put back into the reactor to extract more energy (McInnes).  While this may be true, eventually all of the energy will have been extracted and there will still be hazardous waste left over, and that waste will need to be discarded or stored correctly.  Additionally, proponents' claims that nuclear energy is reusable are untrue because it comes from uranium, a finite source.  Though uranium may be used several times before it is considered waste, eventually the earth's supply will deplete.  The nuclear energy waste problem remains unresolved.

Another concern regarding radiation exposure is that terrorists may view nuclear power plants as target zones.  Due to the instability of nuclear energy production, terrorists could essentially "disable cooling systems, trigger meltdowns, and release massive amounts of radiation" (Kuperman).  For all of the reasons previously listed, nuclear power is an unsafe method of producing energy.

Despite early-on projections, nuclear energy is much more expensive than alternative forms of fuel.  Critics argue that renewable sources such as solar and wind energy will take up too much surface area.  While it is true that the production plants for these systems are larger than nuclear power plants, when accounting for fuel, production, and waste management costs, nuclear power is far more expensive.  

While sun and wind are abundant and readily available, the uranium used to produce nuclear energy must be mined.  This costs in labor and technology.  Because uranium is a finite source and U.S. supply will eventually run out, as happened with oil and coal, America will be forced to either import uranium or expand its mining to foreign countries.  Both will result in the U.S. paying a tax on uranium.

As far as building nuclear power plants, "the first generation ... proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction" ("Cheap").  In 2009, the projected cost for the construction of one nuclear power plant was $9 billion ("Cheap").  To put this in perspective, this amount of money could establish 300,000 wind turbines (Birkhimer).  There are cheaper ways to reduce carbon emissions and while sustaining America's energy needs than to use nuclear energy.

Nuclear waste poses the biggest economical consequence of nuclear energy.  Because the waste is so toxic, immense funding will be necessary to supply the equipment and technology needed to protect power plant workers from radiation exposure.  This is, of course, after someone figures out what to do with all of the waste.  For decades, the government has procrastinated handling "the radioactive leftovers sitting at dozens of sites in 38 states" (Dixon).  The waste has caused damage to nuclear power utilities the amount to an estimated burden of $38 billion on taxpayers (Dixon).  This value will continue to increase until officials begin to collect the waste and dispose of it correctly (Dixon).  

Additionally, the federal government recently announced a "planned $54.5 billion program to kickstart a nuclear revival using government-backed loans," despite the Congressional Budget Office prediction of a 50 percent chance of failure (Sheppard).  These are taxpayer dollars being thrown away on nuclear projects that have a higher initial chance of failure than they do success.  If the government continues to ignore the obvious indications of the nuclear industry's failure, there will be no money left to find a successful solution to the energy crisis.  

A less-acknowledged argument against nuclear energy is that it is not environmentally-friendly.  Because fossil fuels like oil and coal have such high carbon dioxide emissions, the public often forgets that there are other factors that can harm the environment.  While nuclear energy releases a significantly lower amount of greenhouse gases, it poses a new, currently unsolvable problem of nuclear waste.  As previously mentioned, as of 2016, there is no successful method of waste disposal, resulting in large deposits of toxic material sitting around in nuclear storage facilities.  The toxic fuel often leaks and contaminates the surrounding water and air, eternally damaging the environment.  These environments become inhabitable, often resulting in deaths or illnesses of humans and wildlife in close proximity.  Nuclear power plants cannot be considered "green" if they destroy their environment, requiring a ten-mile radius from all civilization.  Uranium mining is another environmentally-damaging aspect of nuclear power.  Extracting uranium from the earth results in radioactive tailings and liquid waste, often "contaminat[ing] rivers and lakes" ("Dirty").  The nuclear industry replaces the global warming crisis with issues of its own.

Though the use of nuclear energy does not directly emit greenhouse gases, because it is usually combined with other fuel sources, nuclear energy cannot be considered greenhouse gas-free ("Uranium").  The nuclear industry is not established or reliable enough to run solely on the nuclear power produced in its plants.  That being said, it is an industry high in energy consumption, and typically uses coal-fired power plants where nuclear plants have failed/cannot supply enough energy ("Uranium").  Also, initial energy is needed to mine and convert uranium.  This is typically done through the use of fossil fuels, which are high in carbon dioxide emissions ("Uranium").  Though it is indirect consequence, the nuclear industry does not eliminate the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.  The public often considers nuclear energy to be an ecologically beneficial alternative to fossil fuels, when in actuality, it causes just as much harm, if not more.

When weighing the heavy consequences and insufficient pros of nuclear energy, one can see that it is not a feasible solution.  In the future, the United States should put the research efforts and funding it has wasted on the nuclear industry towards other, cleaner alternatives, such as renewable sources.  Every industry will have pros and cons, but naturally- derived energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power hold much more potential than nuclear energy, at a fraction of the consequence.

When comparing wind energy to nuclear, all one must do is look at China's outcomes from experimenting with the two energy forms over the past decade (Barnard).  The country has equally pursued both methods of producing energy, and has experienced much more success with wind energy (Barnard).  In one year, China was able to produce 6.5 gigawatts of wind energy and only 1.075 gigawatts of nuclear energy (Barnard).  India has experienced similar results, with wind power proving more effective (Barnard).  Wind turbines are cheaper to build than nuclear power plants, and do not experience such frequent failure.  The most prevalent counterargument against wind energy is the loud noise that the turbines produce.  This concern pales in comparison to those regarding nuclear energy, and would likely be solved with some minor improvements to the technology.  Because wind is free, readily available, and poses no environmental threat, it is a better option than nuclear fuel.

Solar energy is another superior alternative to nuclear power.  This energy is produced when light and heat from the sun is harnessed by technology and converted into useable energy.  The major argument against solar energy is its cost.  Though most would consider solar energy to be a more expensive form of energy, this is a short-term perspective.  The costliest aspect of solar energy is the initial installation of solar technology.  The sun provides "about ten thousand times more energy than we humans actually need- and it is set to keep doing so for the next four billion years" (Rotger).  After spending the initial money to install solar panels, one would be supplied with energy for a lifetime.  In contrast, the nuclear industry requires constant funding and maintenance.  In addition, the solar industry leaves no carbon footprint and is predicted to supply America with new employment opportunities.

A third clean and renewable form of energy is hydroelectric. Hydropower generates energy through the movement of water, and is conducted when flowing river water turns the blades of turbines.  Though this industry is relatively new and may not be established enough yet to be the sole provider of U.S. energy, it has the potential for significant contributions.  Hydroelectric power emits no greenhouse gases, is readily available all year at all times of the day, and has no ongoing fuel costs.  Similarly, to wind and solar energy, the most expensive part would be the initial installations of hydroelectric generators.  Hydropower poses no issue of hazardous waste disposal, or radiation exposure, and is a safe and environmentally-friendly alternative to nuclear energy.  The achievements of this industry are displayed by the success of Alexander Gorlov's environmentally-friendly free-flow turbines in Korea, which are projected to soon harness "up to 3,600 megawatts of power- about equal to the output of four nuclear power plants" (Davis).

In addition to the false claims that nuclear energy is safe, inexpensive and environmentally-friendly, are smaller, more specific counterarguments fabricated by nuclear activists.  One of these claims is that nuclear energy requires less surface area than alternative energy forms, such as wind and solar power.  When discussing solely the size of the power plant, it is true that wind farms and solar plants would be more extensive in size than nuclear power plants.  However, if these industries were successful, the land that is now being used to mine and convert oil and coal to energy would no longer be needed.  Therefore, this land would be readily available for the construction of wind farms or solar plants.  Additionally, this argument fails to acknowledge the vast amounts of land that would be required in order to store the highly toxic waste produced by nuclear power plants.

Another sub-argument in favor of nuclear energy is that the amount of radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants is insignificant when compared to that of the coal and oil industries.  While it is true that nuclear energy produces less waste per square foot, it is not the size of the waste that matters, but instead the toxicity (Mother).  Because nuclear waste is radioactive and highly toxic, safety should be a bigger concern than size. Also, the large land requirement for the disposal and storage of the waste takes away from any benefit of the smaller amounts of waste, as it will continue to accumulate.

There has been some concern raised regarding the decision of insurance companies not to insure nuclear power plants.  Proponents of the nuclear industry claim that this is simply because the insurance agencies "have no actuarial experience on which to base their rates" (Mother).  While this may be true, for an unstable industry with so much at risk to remain uninsured is a major concern.  A law passed by the United States Congress in 1957, known as the Price-Anderson Act, holds taxpayers responsible for any nuclear industry liability claims up to $460 million (Mother).  While this would be a large burden on taxpayers, in regards to a nuclear meltdown, this is a small sum, and the funds to cover any damages totaling above $460 million are unaccounted for.  Skeptics of the nuclear industry claim that "if the utilities were sincere about the safety claims that they make publicly, they would agree to repeal the Price-Anderson Act and say 'we'll put our assets on the line and insure each other'" (Mother).  Ironically, no nuclear power company has done so, raising some concern as to the true safety of the industry (Mother).

The United States is wasting its limited amount of time on the nuclear energy industry.  Nuclear power plants hold high potential to expose humans to radiation, whether that be through a nuclear meltdown or the transportation and storage of toxic waste.  The building of nuclear power plants, disposal of waste, and mining of uranium are all highly expensive processes that outweigh the benefits.  Additionally, despite public perception, the industry is not free of greenhouse gas emissions.  Because the industry is not fully-independent, it requires the assistance of fossil fuels and therefore, indirectly emits carbon dioxide.  There are many other energy sources that are less expensive and would pose less damage to the environment.  Nuclear energy may lessen the problem of global warming due to fossil fuels, but it raises a multitude of other concerns.  If the United States continues to pursue this impractical energy form, it will find itself in the midst of another energy crisis in the near future. 

