@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.

60%
Yes
40%
No
50%
Yes
30%
No
8%
Yes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives
10%
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 Results

See how support for each position on “Nuclear Energy” has changed over time for 642k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

See how importance of “Nuclear Energy” has changed over time for 642k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Canada users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.

 @5H7PKLTfrom Ontario answered…4yrs4Y

look into anti-matter

 @996M5VFfrom Ontario answered…1yr1Y

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.

 @8FZ5VFDfrom Ontario answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but we should use thorium over uranium

 @8FN2LBNfrom Ontario answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, it is much safer than carbon

 @9M4Y94Nfrom Ontario answered…5 days5D

I do believe it should be banned but it's one of the best sources of energy we have so we cant ban It yet

 @9LJGNWT from British Columbia answered…4wks4W

Yes, without public subsidy but there should be no public subsidy into ANY industry. Let market forces drive research and innovation. There is much to be done with low yield, low half life reactors. It is possible to have a unit the size of a semi-trailer that powers an entire town. Safe operation should also address safe disposal of spent fuels until fusion energy becomes the preferred choice.

Latest News

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

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

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.

Other Popular Questions

Explore other topics that are important to Canada voters.