Yes

France has seen a much stronger energy economy through its nuclear program than Germany who has done the opposite

My best argument would be that it is quite harmful to the surrounding environment if not kept in a safe containment, whilst also the possibility of the numerous accounts of injuries of employees on the job.

Nuclear energy use will significantly be a better choice as it is a low-carbon energy source and has a smaller carbon impact, also a more reliable providing power regardless of weather changes and fluctuations.

I want a safe and peaceful country, and having nuclear energy puts canada world wide known as a nuclear and if we mess up we may have enemies that may press the button on us.

Germany has this scenario and now is having trouble because of their direct trade ties with Russia. They should have used nuclear energy.

Many things can go wrong with the implications of nuclear energy. Death, mutation and infection to species. It’s so toxic and dangerous, it doesn’t take much to crest a problem.

I do not agree with using Nuclear Energy because it polouts the earth and if something were to go wrong it could hurt the environment or a nuclear bomb.

If you want more sustainable energy, then nuclear is the best and most sustainable option. Batteries create more waste and require finite resources. Solar takes up too much space, and will destroy any area in which solar panels are installed in mass. Wind mills are literally buried in the ground when they are beyond repair, and require vast amounts of space an resources. Nuclear energy is the only path to having more sustainable energy, every liberal should be on board with nuclear. For the conservatives, nuclear is probably the easiest option to lower the price of energy and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. The liberals and natives will fight to their dying breath to keep Canada from building pipelines, which would improve the economy while lowering the price of energy. Nuclear is the only option both sides could easily get on board wit

Nuclear energy is ok for creating sustainable power, but when it is weaponized it should have to be put to a stop. It holds too much negative potential.

Because the nuclear energy can end up exploding or leaking, which now means that toxic chemicals are in the air and end up causing an explosion or radiating the planet.

That it simply just shouldn't be yes. Nuclear energy is already not good for nature, the world, and humans. So adding more nuclear-related things, in this case nuclear energy won't be good. and you can do certain things with many different energies.

Nuclear Energy is dangerous to use as we saw in the past in Cherbobyl and the Three Mile Island. I think that's why it should be illegal.

I think that Nuclear Energy could maby be the end of the world and the more Nukes the world has the more likely one is to go off, And if one goes off the rest might just go with it, And it makes wars with contries with Nuclear Energy very danegerous.

Why are you trying to blow up **** ? like yall we peacekeepers keep it that way no nuclear **** , it horrible for the environment

While yes, nuclear energy is the cleanest energy source in terms of carbon emission, there are many unresolved issues that come with it. For example, the water issue.

If you want more sustainable energy, then nuclear is the best and most sustainable option. Batteries create more waste and require finite resources. Solar takes up too much space, and will destroy any area in which solar panels are installed in mass. Wind mills are literally buried in the ground when they are beyond repair, and require vast amounts of space an resources. Nuclear energy is the only path to having more sustainable energy, every liberal should be on board with nuclear. For the conservatives, nuclear is probably the easiest option to lower the price of energy and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. The liberals and natives will fight to their dying breath to keep Canada from building pipelines, which would improve the economy while lowering the price of energy. Nuclear is the only option both sides could easily get on board with.

Nuclear Energy is the most power-to-effective option we have. The amount of energy produced from 1 kilogram of uranium provides 20,000 times more energy than 1 kilogram of coal. The amount of power nuclear energy offers can greatly increase our technological advances. Society can greatly benefit from nuclear power. The research in nuclear energy should also be more encouraged. If safety is the number 1 concern, then we should put more research into nuclear energy safety.

Nuclear energy is super bad for the environment and it can get in our drinking water, affect our plants and animals and kill so many people just by being around the radiation when working in a nuclear plant

nuclear power, although being more dangerous at faults in the systems, is way more clean for the environment compared to the coal plants. with the wind turbines and dams making power, the nuclear power plants would phase out all the other plants making lots carbon emissions.

Nuclear energy releases very little byproduct, and most of it will no longer be radioactive within 100 years, simple incineration or sealing it in concrete will be adequate containment for Nuclear waste.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20reactors%20do%20not,require%20large%20amounts%20of%20energy.

I feel that nuclear energy is unsafe. I think it's time that we use safe energy and also focus our efforts on conserving energy, rather than act glutonously about it.

nuclear energy is way worse then just mining for coal. with nuclear there is lots of nuclear waste which has to be stored underground which gets into our water system and can kill us all. also if a plant explodes or something goes wrong with it everyone has to be evacuated from all of the radiation and you probably wont be able to return.

nuclear energy is bad for the environment and a nuclear meltdown could have an enormous effect on Canada