@ISIDEWITHQuestionsscienceStarted 8yrs agoActive 5 days ago

Do you support the use of nuclear energy?

Nuclear power is the use of nuclear reactions that release energy to generate heat, which most frequently is then used in steam turbines to produce electricity in a nuclear power station. About 15% of Canada's electricity comes from nuclear power, with 19 reactors mostly in Ontario providing 13.5 GWe of power capacity. Proponents argue that nuclear energy is now safe and emits much less carbon emissions than coal plants. Opponents argue that recent nuclear disasters in Japan prove that nuclear power is far from safe.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 2.8k M6H voters.

62%
Yes
38%
No
51%
Yes
29%
No
8%
Yes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives
9%
No, we should invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal
1%
Yes, as long as there is no public subsidy
1%
Yes, and nationalize the industry
1%
Yes, but with public subsidy

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 2.8k M6H voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 2.8k M6H voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from M6H voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @5H7PKLTfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

look into anti-matter

 @9G5NKD7from British Columbia  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but under proper protection with nationalize industry, while investing in cleaner alternatives.

 @8T7NNYCfrom Alberta  answered…4yrs4Y

Oil & Gas all the way!

 @996M5VFfrom Ontario  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes. The reason being, is that nuclear energy is actually one of the cleanest energy sources on earth. It's just people are afraid to use it due to the Chernobyl incident, when in reality, that was an accident, and not something that would happen when nuclear energy is used.

 @B23B8DTfrom Saskatchewan  answered…6 days6D

yes nuclear energy is our future need we need to put more money into it and our nuclear weapons' program

 @9ZZ37MKfrom Alberta  answered…2wks2W

Yes, this is a massive power source but we need to research this more and understand it and figure out ways to use this in a safe way

 @9ZKRZJDfrom Ontario  answered…1mo1MO

As long as funding is given to research how to implement it safely and properly dispose of nuclear waste.

 @9ZJ52HDfrom Ontario  answered…1mo1MO

I support nuclear energy use, but only if it doesn't become the main energy source and is temporary while we find better alternatives. Also when using nuclear energy if should majorly affect citizens

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Nuclear Energy” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…8mos8MO

The Fantasy of Reviving Nuclear Energy

Representatives from more than 30 countries gathered in Brussels in March at a nuclear summit hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Belgian government. Thirty-four nations, including the United States and China, agreed “to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy,” including extending the lifetime of existing reactors, building new nuclear power plants and deploying advanced reactors.“Nuclear technology can play an important role in the clean energy transition,” Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, told summit attendees. But she added that “the reality today, in most markets, is a reality of a slow but steady decline in market share” for nuclear powerThe numbers underscore that downturn. Solar and wind power together began outperforming nuclear power globally in 2021, and that trend continues as nuclear staggers along. Solar alone added more than 400 gigawatts of capacity worldwide last year, two-thirds more than the previous year. That’s more than the roughly 375 gigawatts of combined capacity of the world’s 415 nuclear reactors, which remained relatively unchanged last year. Pledging to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 is a little like promising to win the lottery.For the United States, it would mean adding an additional 200 gigawatts of nuclear operating capacity (almost double what the country has ever built) to the 100 gigawatts or so that now exists, generated by more than 90 commercial reactors that have been running an average of 42 years. Globally it would mean tripling the existing capacity built over the past 70 years in less than half that time in addition to replacing reactors that will shut down before 2050.The Energy Department estimates the total cost of such an effort in the United States at roughly $700 billion. For much less money and in less time, the world can reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of renewables like solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal power.

 @JudiciaryPiper from Illinois submitted…6mos6MO

Russian nuclear power plant workers injured in Ukrainian attack

A Ukrainian attack on a substation used by the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant has injured eight employees of the facility, officials reported on Wednesday.Kiev allegedly launched three quadcopter-type kamikaze drones at the Raduga facility in Energodar, the city hosting Europe’s largest nuclear power station. The injured workers were part of a crew that was repairing the damage caused by a previous Ukrainian attack, the statement claimed. At least one worker is said to be in a serious condition.The initial strike on the Raduga substation happened two weeks ago and was confirmed by a monitoring mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog. Another site called Luch was hit in a separate strike.Neither station is critical for the work of the nuclear power plant, but its secondary facilities depend on them for power supplies. The strike on Wednesday once again disrupted the grid after both Raduga transformers were damaged.The IAEA has declined to attribute the attacks on substations in Energodar, but its chief, Rafael Grossi, has stressed that “whoever is behind this, it must stop.”“Drone usage against the plant and its vicinity is becoming increasingly more frequent. This is completely unacceptable and it runs counter to the safety pillars and concrete principles which have been accepted unanimously,” the official said.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Billion-Dollar Bust: Kamala’s Campaign Drowns in Debt After Star-Studded Spending Spree

Kamala Harris's campaign ended with at least $20 million in debt, per two sources familiar. Harris raised over $1 billion and had $118 million in the bank as of Oct. 16.Rob Flaherty, this staffer said, is currently shopping around the Kamala fundraising email list to anyone who wants it to try to raise the money back. This includes other campaigns and outside groups.Flaherty is the deputy campaign manager and reports to Jen O’Malley Dillon.“Jen blew through a billion dollars in a few months and it was all Jen’s idea to do all the concerts.” — Kamala campaign adviser told meThis source added that O’Malley Dillon did these “concerts,” like Katy Perry, Lizzo, Eminem, Bruce Springsteen et cetera at the expense of “prioritizing and spending money on social media and other campaign priorities.”Apparently a group in Georgia had to lay off 100 people because they couldn’t pay them. It’s unclear at this time if the campaign PAID the talent to perform but the cost of production for the events was “immense.”What’s more, this Kamala campaign staffer said several people who were working for the Kamala Harris for President campaign are still awaiting several overdue payments they were promised for their work. IE, they didn’t pay the staff.“People didn’t like working with her. Many people on the campaign felt like we lost because Kamala wasn’t allowed to run her campaign. They were running Joe Biden’s campaign instead of a Kamala campaign. Obnoxious and very much a gate keeper and interfering with the vice president’s people who were trying to do their job.”

▲  2611 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4wks4W

Donald Trump nominates Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States, should he reclaim the presidency in the upcoming election.Bondi, a prominent figure in Republican politics, served as Florida's Attorney General from 2011 to 2019. She gained national attention for her legal battles on issues such as health care reform, consumer protection, and opioid abuse litigation. Known for her steadfast support of Trump during his presidency, Bondi also served as a key adviser during his first impeachment trial, where she defended his administration against accusations of abuse of power.In a statement released by his campaign, Trump praised Bondi’s “unwavering commitment to justice” and her “track record of standing up for everyday Americans against the abuses of Washington’s elites.”“Pam Bondi has been a fearless advocate for the people, and she embodies the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law that are sorely needed to restore trust in our justice system,” Trump said. “She is the right person to lead the Department of Justice into a new era of integrity and excellence.”While Bondi’s nomination has been met with applause from conservative circles, it has also reignited criticism from Democrats and ethics watchdogs. Her acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation in 2013, which coincided with her decision not to pursue an investigation into Trump University, has drawn scrutiny in the past and resurfaced following the announcement.Democratic leaders have already voiced opposition, questioning Bondi’s ability to lead the Department of Justice independently. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) called the nomination “a political power play” and urged a focus on “restoring integrity, not entrenching partisanship.”

▲  2317 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1023 replies