Debate.

For this task I decided to watch a TED debate about nuclear energy and whether it was needed or not.

 

 

At the start of the debate the audience was asked to state whether or not they were in favour of nuclear energy – it was found that 75% of people were in favour and 25% were not.

First to speak was Stewart Brand who was in favour if nuclear energy, here are some points he made to try and make people agree with him:

• Nuclear energy is more environmental than coal and gas
• It produces less waste than coal and gas
• Nuclear waste doesn’t cause pollution, other means of energy emit a lot of co2
• He talks about how nuclear energy can be used for nuclear weapons, and these have helped fight off Russian war lords

 

Next to speak was Proff. Mark Jacobson, who was against nuclear energy and in favour of wind and solar energy. Here are some of his points:

• Nuclear energy takes along time to set up and get running, in total about 10-19 years
• Because of the above nuclear energy ends up giving off more co2
• Nuclear terrorism and war causes over 270,000 deaths
• Wind energy has a small footprint and doesn’t take up that much space, it can also be placed in the sea which isn’t even land
• Wind energy is much less harmful
• Nuclear energy requires uranium mining
• Using wind and solar energy will prevent the ice caps from melting

 

At the end of this debate it was again asked who was in favour of nuclear energy, it turned out that 10% of the audience had changed their minds during the debate and would now prefer wind and solar energy.

I personally agree with the second speaker, this is because using wind and solar energy could restore the ice caps and the damage we have already done to the earth. Also we are vastly running out of materials to use for other kinds of energy. Having to dig up uranium mines just for energy seems silly and looks worse than solar panels or wind turbines.