ipl-logo

The TED Debate

1545 Words7 Pages

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 …show more content…

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 …show more content…

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

Show More
Related
810 Words | 4 Pages

There is no way we can claim that we will be able to store nuclear waste for 10,000 years" (Muller 210). Not only was he able to address objections, he was also able to guide his

Read More
565 Words | 3 Pages

In Richard Muller’s essay on Chemical Waste in America, he points out many different problems in todays disposal techniques of nuclear waste. He brings in readers by appealing to American citizens with his visual texts, guilt, and how we must start feeling some empathy for our future generations and find a solution to prevent a massive chemical waste epidemic. Mullers argument bases off his visual texts, by showing us a reality that is going on today. Among the visual texts, Muller explains the exact quantity of chemical wastes in the United States by telling his audience that, “we have already generated more than enough nuclear waste to fill up Yucca Mountain,” which is a storage bunker for chemical waste products. Muller even includes a picture of Yucca Mountain so the audience can get a feel for the absurd amount of waste we have built up.

Read More
721 Words | 3 Pages

In Richard A. Muller’s “Nuclear Waste”, he discusses the problem with left over nuclear waste and how it is causing headaches for scientists and politicians. The University of California at Berkeley professor agrees that nuclear waste does present a threat to our well being, but also states that society assumes there is a much larger danger than actually exists. Muller does a great job at proving his point by explaining how nuclear waste is not a forever lasting danger and by also providing alternative methods of storing the waste. Regardless of whether one supports the development of nukes, Muller mentions that this waste already exists and a solution must be made for it.

Read More
607 Words | 3 Pages

Nuclear power produces fewer carbon emissions than traditional energy sources because energy is not produced by burning molecules but splitting atoms. ‘An energy mix including nuclear power has the lowest impact on wildlife and Ecosystems’ as shown by a Conservation Biology paper. Consequently, greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by nearly half which shows the benefits and popularity of nuclear power use. Nuclear power has many environmental benefits such as small waste production, leaves no adverse effect on water, land or any habitats. By reducing fossil fuel consumption and switching to Nuclear Energy, we will sustain the environment, quality of air, improving the overall quality of

Read More
1283 Words | 6 Pages

Many debates, or so called “hot topics”, pop up worldwide on a daily basis. Usually they are just ideas blown out of proportion by people hoping for their 15 minutes of fame, but sometimes these topics are much more. A recent topic of great discussion has hit home here in Pennsylvania, and today Governor Bodley, I wish to have your attention so we may discuss it in full. I’m here to address you today about the closure of TMI, Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant, in Londonderry Township just south of Harrisburg, and why its closure must be prevented. To understand what the closure of TMI would mean for us you first need to understand the importance of nuclear energy.

Read More
1167 Words | 5 Pages

This paper is supposed to advocate nuclear energy and its benefits so why did the last paragraph discredit nuclear energy as a whole? The reason is that while past ideas are flawed beyond repair, the new ideas in nuclear research are the future. Ideas such as small underground fission reactors, nuclear fusion, and thorium salts are tremendous concepts still in development. What if there was the possibility that a nuclear reactor could be built in a factory and stored underground?

Read More
326 Words | 2 Pages

Another man named James H. Rust who published a book called “Nuclear Power Safety” also agrees with Tucker that nuclear power should be on the fore front of science in todays society and not over looked because of all the safety concerns. Rust gives an honest opinion on what he wants the readers to get from the book and that is, “Given the fact that a reactor is not a bomb, and I hope the other chapters in this book will have at least convinced the readers of that one fact, there is still the possibility of escape of radioactive materials, both during normal operation and in case of accidents” (Rust, 36). Even a man who believes in nuclear power can not promise the public a completely safe nuclear plant that does not effect the people surrounding

Read More
225 Words | 1 Pages

The Article “Why Greens Must Learn to Love Nuclear Power” that was written by Mark Lynas and published in New Statesman. He describes that the nuclear power is a suitable solution to solve global warming. In one hand, Lynas arguing that the nuclear power is an appropriate solution for the global worming because it is clean, affordable and renewable. Also, people who die from coal and oil every year are more than people who die from nuclear power.

Read More
1010 Words | 5 Pages

Due to a few meltdowns, the vast majority are biased against nuclear plants without knowing all of the numbers. Unlike the Sun, certain elements won’t last as long as the human race does, “...nuclear power may not be seen as infinite, the rate that it is consumed is insignificant compared to the amount of the supply” (Nuclear Energy vs Solar). In contrast from solar energy, nuclear energy is not renewable. Nonetheless, humans will still have a plentiful supply of nuclear energy despite the fact that it is not renewable. Lastly, nuclear energy provides more power than solar, “One of the most appealing reasons for nuclear

Read More
1587 Words | 7 Pages

Propaganda from ecological groups like greenpeace have spread the idea of glowing green waste leaking into the water table and wreaking havoc on our environment. Their idea of a nuclear meltdown illustrates grand explosions throwing the lids off containment chambers and filling the air with deadly radioactive gases. Their belief is in a nuclear monster which typically has three issues: cost, safety, and environmental damage. Opponents argue that nuclear plants are useless when their cost is compared to the cost of installing a solar field or a wind farm. After all, why spend 40 million to build a single power plant when that same money could be spent building a wind farm,with less than a fifth of the same expense?

Read More
700 Words | 3 Pages

The building of a nuclear power plant within the state has been a very controversial topic. Many citizens think that its construction will be a huge benefit to the state, but other concerned citizens feel that a nuclear plant possesses a large threat to the environment and the community. After much research and consideration, the best plan is to build the nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants have beneficial contributions, such as medical use, a cheap source of energy, and an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. According to the U.S.N.R.C., “radioactive material serves many medical purposes.

Read More
1773 Words | 8 Pages

Nuclear reactors are a major source of power generation in the United States. They produce about 20% of all the United States’ electrical power annually (National Energy Institute, 2014, July) and 13% of the world’s energy (World Nuclear Association, 2015, January). Despite this large chunk of our electricity, most people do not know much about them. According to a survey by Yale University, only 47% of Americans supported building new nuclear power plants in 2011. In the same study they found that most people think of the word “disaster” in association to nuclear power.

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

Nuclear power is a vital tool in the war against climate change that is frequently scrutinized for its own drawbacks. The same people who wish for nuclear power to cease functioning are also green energy advocates who do not realize the advantages to nuclear power. One of the advantages to nuclear power is the superior amount of power it generates compared to any other method of producing energy in large quantities found to this day. Nuclear energy also does not release greenhouse gases so it is a much safer way to generate power than ancient carbon-ridden dinosaur juice being combusted. One reason nuclear power is a great source of energy is that it creates more energy than other sources of power.

Read More
769 Words | 4 Pages

Lastly, nuclear power is a very viable source of alternative energy because it’s much more affordable then fossil fuels. A big problem with power in our time is that it is very expensive. With nuclear power we can get more energy out of fewer materials which will in turn save money. Douglas Gregory states, “One uranium fuel pellet – typically measuring about 0.3-inch diameter by 0.5-inch long—can produce the equivalent energy of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil.” (The Use of Nuclear Power Should Be Increased).

Read More
573 Words | 3 Pages

At the present time, nuclear power is the cleanest energy source compared to coal, oil, and natural gas. To be sure, Nuclear power is a power that does not emit greenhouse gases, which destroy the atmosphere. Notably, It is important to notice that if handled in the proper way, nuclear power can be a reliable, low polluting source of energy that is worthier than the leading fuels. Further more, the cost of constructing nuclear plants is staggering, A point to remember is that the cost of uranium is considerably low being compared to other fuels that are in account.

Read More

More about The TED Debate

Related Topics

Open Document