AIX-EN-PROVENCE, FRANCE  — Saturday marked the 30th anniversary of the Three Mile Island incident, the largest American nuclear disaster, resulting in a partial core meltdown, nuclear contamination and an end to nuclear expansion in the U.S. But in recent months federal officials have received 26 applications to build nuclear plants — the first since the disaster — across the country.  Louisiana is on the list — in September, Entergy was among the utility companies who sought permission for new reactors, requesting a permit to build at the same site as its River Bend power plant in St. Francisville. During the same time America shied from nukes, many European countries continued erecting reactors with iconic cooling towers. The most wholehearted adoption of nuclear energy though has been from the French, who derive roughly 80 percent of their energy from nuclear reactions. For Louisiana — on par with the national average — approximately 20 percent of its power comes from its two nuclear plants.The new calls for nuclear plants are overwhelming. Utilities have pushed nuclear power as a response to growing concern about global warming. At the 2008 Republican National Convention the “drill baby, drill” mantra was accompanied by a call for more nuclear power. And Americans give it the nod — a recent Gallup poll found 59 percent of Americans favor nuclear power.But like its carbon-based cousin, the cheer for nuclear power displays the prevalence of short-sighted thinking that has kept big energy companies in business and America from responsible energy policy.Nuclear is not an ideal source of energy. Nuclear plants don’t produce carbon directly. Extracting and enriching the uranium does. And while few consider Chernobyl-like catastrophes a possibility today given new technology, building standards and regulations, there are many other possible dangers to nuclear power. Opponents paint nuclear energy as a threat to national security, citing theft of nuclear materials or attacks on plants. Although some nuclear fuel can be reprocessed or stored on site, what ultimately becomes of the waste has been a problem generating no consensus. Earlier this month the Obama Administration announced its opposition to the controversial Yucca Mountain waste repository, charging Energy Secretary Steven Chu with the task of finding some alternative. Good luck with that one, Chu. You can’t build a Wal-Mart in the U.S. without inciting a protest. Besides the obvious environmental woes, there is the “lock-in” cost of building new nuclear plants. While they cost tons of money to build, they are relatively inexpensive to operate because of their fuel source. This means in the 10 to 15 years it takes to get these plants operational — when the price of alternative energies drops — nuclear will still be competitive alongside clearly superior renewable technologies, undercutting their implementation. And with all new plants commanding a government backed return to investment for utilities, taxpayers will be on the hook.Relative to fossil fuels, nuclear is a better option. And we should do what’s best for the environment now — but not at the expense of the long term. That’s been America’s story for too long.If given serious government   support — by way of proper tax breaks, money-back guarantees (like those already afforded to nuclear projects), quotas and research grants — in the coming years the costs of alternative energy sources will fall dramatically, making them competitive when the plants being built today finally go online.But we have to start today. This means instituting aggressive policies now, so that clean energy’s success — and nuclear power’s death — are guaranteed.Mark Macmurdo is a 22-year-old history and economics senior.—-Contact Mark Macmurdo at [email protected]