The TED Debate

Since the nuclear accidents of Chernobyl and Fukushima, people around the world have hotly debated the efficiency, wastefulness, environmental footprint, and overall safety of nuclear energy. In the TED Talk, Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy, Stewart Brand, a staunch advocate for nuclear energy, and Mark Jacobson, a critic of the alternative source, lectured to prove their form of energy was superior. Accompanying the TED debate were the articles Nuclear Power Is a Viable Source of Energy, written by Mario Salazar, and Nuclear Power Does Not Compare to Other Renewable Energy Sources by Mark Clayton. These articles also differed idealistically in what constituted a reliable energy resource. When discussing the same topics, the advocates

Both Stewart Brand and Mark Jacobson discussed the need for an efficient, reliable energy source able to meet the demands of an increasingly urbanized world. In his argument for nuclear energy, Brand first suggested energy was a luxury and greatly desired by those without it (Brand & Jacobson, 2010). By highlighting the lack of resources and the suffering endured by those with electricity, he appealed to the audience’s emotions, and made them eager for his nuclear solution. Then, he reminded the audience, even though he was going against wind energy, he was still a devoted environmentalist. When discussing pre-existing renewable energy, Brand comments “Wind is wonderful; I love wind,” (Brand & Jacobson, 2010). He reiterated his credibility by emphasizing how much he enjoyed renewable energy even though he did not believe it was efficient. He finally appealed to the audience with facts. To describe energy in cities, Brand refers to baseload electricity, which is the constant use of coal, nuclear, and hydro-electric power (Brand & Jacobson, 2010). He was subtly suggesting energy must be continual and consistent, unlike renewable resources. Brand also added Denmark and Germany

First, Brand described nuclear waste from an environmental standpoint (Brand & Jacobson, 2010). He restated his established title as an environmentalist to remind the audience he cared about the effects energy resources had on the environment, making him seem credible. Then, to depict the amount of nuclear waste in a way the audience could understand, Brand compared a lifetime of nuclear waste to a soda can which could then be placed in a concrete cask and stored (Brand & Jacobson, 2010). By making a comparison between waste and an everyday object, the waste seemed less harmful to the audience. Finally, he emphasized the controllability of nuclear energy. Brand pointed out once coal releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, there is no way to get it back (Brand & Jacobson, 2010). This suggested coal was unmanageable when compared to nuclear waste in a concrete cask. In agreement with Brand’s position, Mario Salazar downplayed the disposal of nuclear waste. Salazar claimed the was no difference between disposing of fossil fuel waste in a landfill or ocean and nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountains (2013, p. 3). Although the logic was faulty, by making a moral equivalent, he made the single mountain of nuclear waste seem not as severe. Oddly enough, a critic of nuclear energy, Mark Clayton, provided credible sources supporting