For taking the stance for nuclear power, Stewart Brand presented a powerful argument. He said that nuclear energy plants can be safe and the emissions can be contained. When comparing nuclear energy with coal energy, greenhouse gas emissions are much more limited by nuclear energy. Brand also made the point that nuclear energy is more effective than renewable energies like wind and solar. This is why nuclear energy accounts for 19 percent of the United States base load electricity. This is also why it supplies 16 percent of the world's electricity. Wind and solar both require wind and sun, respectively, so such energy projects are limited to specific areas and environments.

For supporting wind energy, Mark Jacobson also presented an argument with equal sway. He noted that nuclear energy is dangerous since there are some countries that use the nuclear energy plants as a disguise for producing nuclear weapons. It is obvious that nuclear weapons threaten the world, especially in the hands of some countries. Land use is another factor in supporting wind energy. Nuclear energy is also unsafe because the radioactive materials require to power the plants can adversely affect both humans and the environment. Transporting the materials is also difficult. Wind projects take up little or no land if built in the sea. The time it takes to build energy plants is also different. It takes an average of 7.1 years to build a nuclear plant.

While both sides have good points, I think the correct plan of action is to continue to use both sources of energy until perhaps renewable energies become more efficient and cost-effective. The side effects of nuclear waste are clear and if renewable energy becomes truly renewable, that is going to be the best for the future. Overall, I thought the debate was very informative and helps people come to conclusions about wind and nuclear.