A need for alternative energy has never been greater than today.  Unfortunately it seems that humanity always waits until the need for change is so great that the issue can no longer be ignored to bring about this change.  What is even worse is when the proposed change is no better and sometimes even worse than the current situation.  Many politicians today claim to be environmentalists and claim that they recognize the need for alternative energy and their solution is often nuclear energy.  While nuclear energy addresses some of the problems created with burning fossil fuels, it brings forward a whole different set of problems.  To switch from coal powered energy to nuclear power is like replacing a cigarette with a heroin needle; you may get rid of the negative effects of the cigarette such as cancer and tooth discoloring but you are replacing them with other problems such as infections and heart failure.  This is why not many counselors helping people quit smoking recommend heroin as the solution but rather nicotine patches or gum to help transfer and eventually nothing at all.  This is the type of solution we need to obtain clean renewable energy.  First we must begin a transition period using both fossil fuel and renewable energy and eventually we should cut out fossil fuel entirely and use only renewable energy. 

One of the first issues with nuclear energy is the cost to produce and maintain nuclear power plants.  Some experts contend that the price to produce nuclear energy is far below that to produce energy from coal or natural gas.  Mary L. Walker, former assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy under the Reagan administration claims that the average cost to produce one kilowatt-hour is a mere 1.83 cents compared to 2.07 cents for coal and 3.18 for natural gas.  Yet the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has recently found that the actually cost is much higher at 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour.  Some may think, “That’s a pretty large difference, what could cause that?”  Often advocates of nuclear energy like to leave out hidden costs of nuclear energy in order to make it seem more appealing.  For example the fact that the nuclear industry is subsidized by the U.S. government and would only pay 9.8 billion out of the 560 billion dollar insurance liability cost in the event of an accident; that’s only two percent of the cost.  There are many other hidden costs as well such as storing nuclear waste, and the fact that cheap nuclear materials required to fuel nuclear plants would be depleted within three to four years if the United States became completely nuclear power dependent, which would cause the prices of nuclear power to skyrocket.  The government has recently increased their estimate to store such waste since 2001 due to inflation and the increase in waste and will likely increase it again due to relatively little information on the topic. 

There is also another hidden cost that is often left out.  This is not the financial cost to create nuclear power but the environmental cost.  Many advocates of nuclear power claim that is an environmentally friendly form of energy with no carbon emissions, the leading cause of global warming today.  This ignores the long and arduous construction required for nuclear power plants.  The fact that you must first enrich the uranium for use in the plant, which requires the use of coal energy today, shows that the idea of emission free nuclear power is false.  The other issue here is that the actual process to create enriched uranium is a very environmentally costly process. The chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) releases from two of the enrichment facilities in the United States represent 93% of all CFC emissions in the nation.  Considering that CFC’s are about 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon emissions the production of nuclear energy are just as large as a threat to the environment as fossil fuels.

Assuming that all of these issues disappeared somehow; that is to say that the price of nuclear power was truly as low as proposed, and that its production was truly emission free, there is still one hidden cost that many people fail to recognize: the health cost.  One of the played down products of nuclear technology is strontium 90.  Strontium 90 was largely evident in the atmosphere after nuclear tests began in the 50’s and 60’s and especially after the Chernobyl power plant meltdown.  Its presence should have dropped to nothing after the ceasing of nuclear tests yet it is still found today primarily in areas surrounding nuclear power plants.  The other thing about strontium 90 is that it closely resembles calcium and often fools the human body into depositing it into the bone structure which doesn’t cause weaker bones or any similar side effects.  Some may ask, “What’s wrong with strontium 90?  So what if it is in my bones, they are still just as strong.”  The major thing about strontium 90 is that it also happens to be a carcinogen as in it causes cancer. 

The fact that anyone thinks that a source of energy that can cause cancer is a viable alternative to today’s situation is ridiculous.  It is crazy to even propose nuclear energy when there are so many clean forms of energy such as wind and solar power, which by the way both happen to be cancer free.  Like I said early it is like putting down a cigarette and picking up a heroin needle; you’re trading you current problems for much worse ones.  This is why nuclear energy is not a solution to today’s energy crisis.  It is merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing because it is very profitable and will require a large upkeep to maintain.