@ISIDEWITHQuestionsscienceStarted 9yrs agoActive 1wk 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 3.1k Ottawa West--Nepean voters.

66%
Yes
34%
No
56%
Yes
25%
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 3.1k Ottawa West--Nepean voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 3.1k Ottawa West--Nepean voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Ottawa West--Nepean voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @5H7PKLTfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

look into anti-matter

 @B2HHSTVfrom Alberta  answered…1wk1W

Yes, but with intense scrutiny of safety and commissioning, decommissioning and waste disposal costs, and any secondary costs to any impacts to nearby residents and wildlife.

 @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.

 @B2CMT6Q  from Montana  answered…2wks2W

Yes, as something such as the Chernobyl disaster was not caused due to the use of nuclear energy, but instead due to the negligence of the Soviet Union who decided it was better to cut corners and use cheaper components than follow worldwide safety procedures. When operated safely, nuclear factories provide no inherent risk to the public, and the fuel generated is much cleaner and efficient than propane, gasoline, and coal.

 @B2BMK7Bfrom Alberta  answered…3wks3W

Yes, but only if it is 100% publicly-owned, strictly regulated, constantly updated, & only set up in remote areas.

 @B29X83Bfrom Newfoundland  answered…3wks3W

Yes, but as long as all safety requirements are met and not polluting the environment with byproducts

Latest News

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

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…9mos9MO

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…7mos7MO

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…4mos4MO

Federal Judge blocks California deepfakes law

Federal Judge blocks California deepfakes law A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a California measure restricting the use of digitally altered political “deepfakes” just two weeks after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law.The law channels rising alarm about artificial intelligence’s capacity to disrupt elections by sowing misinformation, with voters increasingly confronted with deepfake images and audio impersonating candidates. Musk, who owns X, stoked that debate when he shared the AI-altered video of Harris in July, drawing Newsom’s public promise to prohibit similar practices.The ruling is a blow to a push by the state’s leading Democrats to rein in misleading content on social media ahead of Election Day.Chris Kohls, known as “Mr Reagan” on X, sued to prevent the state from enforcing the law after posting an AI-generated video of a Harris campaign ad on the social media site. He claimed the video was protected by the First Amendment because it was a parody.The new California law — which will take effect before the November election — channels rising alarm about artificial intelligence’s capacity to disrupt elections by sowing misinformation, with voters increasingly confronted with deepfake images and audio impersonating candidates. Musk, who owns X, stoked that debate when he shared the AI-altered video of Harris in July, drawing Newsom’s public promise to prohibit similar practices.

▲  3111 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

GOP looks to avoid disaster in Nebraska Senate race

Republicans are looking to avoid a disaster in the Nebraska Senate race amid signs that an independent candidate could be giving Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) a run for her money.Independent Senate candidate and political newcomer Dan Osborn is challenging Fischer for her seat, betting that Nebraskans are hungry for a nonpartisan senator in a state former President Trump won by close to 20 points in 2020.Despite Nebraska’s reliably red political leanings, the dynamics of the race have shifted in recent weeks: Republican groups have started spending in the race, and the nonpartisan election handicapper Cook Political Report last week shifted the race away from Fischer.“As a pragmatist and a realist, generally in politics, you don’t spend money if you’re not worried or at least interested in making sure that you protect your seat,” said Brent Comstock, a consultant in the Cornhusker State who primarily works with Democrats.“He’s appealing to the average moderate Nebraskan who realizes that one, the political parties are challenging, and two, that people want to elect someone who stands up for their rights and not for a party boss,” he added, while noting the clear Republican registration edge in the state.Osborn, who has leaned into his bio as a steamfitter who led a major strike against Kellogg’s in 2021 in Omaha, has started to pick up traction in the Nebraska Senate race.Outside groups Retire Career Politicians PAC and Nebraska Railroaders for Public Safety have poured money into the race in support of Osborn, including at least $3.2 million from the Retire Career Politicians PAC alone, according to AdImpact. Both groups have received sizable contributions from the liberal-leaning dark money group Sixteen Thirty Fund.

▲  237 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

AOC Sparks Backlash After Ditching Gender Pronouns

Famously progressive Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised eyebrows by removing her pronouns from her X account. The move from Squad lawmaker, 35, seen as one of the most liberal members of Congress, was seen by some as a sign that the cultural tide is turning following Donald Trump's election win. Journalist Benjamin Ryan said records showed AOC removed her 'she/her' pronouns sometime between August 3, 2023, and May 28, 2024. Critics branded her a hypocrite, and noted that just two years ago AOC apologized to followers for not having pronouns in her Instagram bio, claiming they 'fell off' and she didn't realize. Conservatives were quick to mock AOC after it was realized that she had removed the pronouns from her account bio. Some also noted that she changed her moniker from the genderless 'Representative' to 'Congresswoman' as she removed her pronouns. Ocasio-Cortez has long been a supporter of transgender rights, including so-called gender-affirming care for children, and transgender girls competing in female sports.But the Democrats more extreme stances were blamed as a massive vote loser for Kamala Harris in the recent election.An advert showing her supporting taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgeries for illegal migrant prisoners was played on repeat by Team Trump.Many Dems' insistence that opposing hormones for trans children or banning trans girls from joining female sports teams was transphobic further alienated centrists.Immigration and inflation were the issues that ultimately swung the election for Donald Trump, but the Dems' unpopular trans stance has now forced a reckoning within the party.

▲  2117 replies