Demand for electricity is increasing and fossil fuel consumption is reaching dangerous levels. Half of the pollution is caused by power plants that burn coal, gas and oil. Carbon dioxide is produced by burning coal and producing radioactive material. Power plants that run on coal release more radiation into the air than a nuclear power plant. Fossil fuels are running out and the coal used by many power plants is now sulphurous, causing more pollution than ever. With nuclear energy there are many disadvantages, and more disadvantages than with fossil fuels. Renewable energy appears to be the answer, but government bureaucracy has yet to actively increase its use. Renewable energy accounts for just 8%, nuclear energy 9%, and a staggering 80% for fossil fuels, with coal burning accounting for half of the 80% (Smith, p. 3). Why do so many believe that the nuclear alternative is the answer? And since “fracking” is a hotly debated topic in the United States, nuclear energy doesn't seem to be the answer either. In Jeffrey M. Smith's article, “The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power,” he mentions one pro and four cons for nuclear power. The pros are carbon-free electricity and the cons are the risk of catastrophe, long-lived nuclear waste, costs and problems with uranium mining. The cons outweigh the pros disproportionately. The two main focal points discussed in this paper will be costs and uranium mining. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The phrase, “Nuclear power plants are known to be expensive to build, but relatively cheap to operate” (Smith, p. 2), is misleading. It's fair to say that building the plants is expensive because it costs over $10 billion, but running them cheaply is a lie. The only reason it is cheap to run is because of the government subsidies they receive. This allows companies that own these reactors to offer substantially lower costs to the consumer to capture the energy market. The US government has had to support these plants for over 50 years and these subsidies come from taxes that consumers pay, making nuclear energy very expensive for consumers and the government. In the event of a disaster the costs would be astronomical. A report from Jamestown Community College on cost benefits indicated that the technology was already in use or available and the ability to produce large amounts of electricity. Cons listed in the same report primarily listed health concerns such as higher rates of industry-related deaths, immediate death and/or injury in the event of a meltdown, and lethal doses of hazardous waste that could last 12,000 human generations. Uranium may be cheap and more powerful to use, and uranium itself isn't bad, but the health and environmental problems far outweigh the benefits of using nuclear energy. The main problem is mining “waste”: “The main danger lies in mining waste; contains radium, which is highly radioactive” (Smith, p. 3). The health risks associated with this are lung cancer, bone cancer, and lymphoma (just for a few examples, if that wasn't enough). Health-related costs are also a scam with no visible benefits, and the extraction of the main ingredient of nuclear energy is the problem for both issues. There are too many pros and cons when it comes to nuclear energy. The use and implementation of renewable energy is critical to the survival of the globe and life on it.