No, we should invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal

I agree we should. But I think if we got Nuclear right we could use existing Nuclear waste up quickly and just fix the future quicker.

Nuclear energy IS a clean alternative. There is virtually NO emissions on nuclear energy. It is one of the safest industries, and we should not allow a few disasters from decades ago to influence our policy now and scare us away from unlocking nuclear's perfect solution to our energy issues until we can achieve fusion.

While these are all viable sources of energy, nuclear is by far the most effective and efficient method. Nuclear energy also has exponentially less emissions than fossil fuels, so it would be a worthwhile investment. The turn off for many is the byproducts of nuclear energy which yes are dangerous but with increase space lift capacity and better storage it is a non issue compared to other forms of energy creation.

Nuclear energy is extremely efficient and doesn’t require as much space compared to its alternatives

some areas in land can not sustain those, however I do not exactly "not support" the idea I think we should support this as well

While these are all viable sources of energy, nuclear is by far the most effective and efficient method. Nuclear energy also has exponentially less emissions than fossil fuels, so it would be a worthwhile investment

I believe that while cleaner alternatives like wind, hydro, thorium, and geothermal have potential, they are not yet capable of fully meeting global energy demands. Nuclear energy is a proven, reliable, and low-carbon option that can provide stable power regardless of weather, unlike wind and solar. Hydroelectric power is limited by geography, and thorium and geothermal technologies are still in development. With advancements like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), nuclear energy is safe, efficient, and ready to support our energy needs while we scale up renewable alternatives.

I agree with this argument however we currently do not have the institutions to power Canada using these energy sources so nuclear energy is the next best.

Other sustainable options are better than the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is highly dangerous when pushed and refined the correct way, some of the most dangerous bombs in the world are nuclear bombs conforming all that energy into one area and have something go wrong could be fatal to hundreds. Although the risks of wind and other forms of sustainable energy are less risky and safer.

I don't understand the question. Its worded poorly. I think we should invest in Nuclear Energy more than these other alternatives (hydro is actually very environmentally harmful it ruins farmland and water purity) and I do not recall saying otherwise. I dp ike wind power though (its not to efficient unfortunelty)

These methods of energy are proven to be cost effective and clean, as long as we invest in these alternatives slowly and steadily. there should be no major disruption in the economy.

Nuclear energy is much more efficient, faster to collect energy with. Wind & hydroelectric arent efficient enough. Whilst thorium and geothermal are efficient, not to the effect of nuclear energy (thorium being the exception).

Thorium is nuclear

The government would spend more money on the research to create new alternatives. Which we might not even use.

I agree with Thorium, it is a part of nuclear energy. Hydroelectric is of course a great option, but carries risk with displacing ecosystems and aquatic life in rivers and other bodies of water. Wind depends fully on the wind per year, and can alternate significantly ,not reliable, very expensive too, birds are threatened by them. Geothermal I am not fully educated on, but from what I know in a limited sense it is not a bad idea, but cannot be implemented as largely as other projects - nuclear or hydro.

Nuclear energy provides lots of jobs and when done properly and waste is disposed of in a safe way it is beneficially and still environmentally safe.