@ISIDEWITHQuestionsscienceStarted 8yrs agoActive 6 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

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 664k Canada voters.

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 Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 664k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 664k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Canada 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…3yrs3Y

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.

 @9ZKX2DJfrom Ontario  answered…6 days6D

It is true that nuclear energy would drastically decrease CO2 emssions, unfortunately, we live in a high volatility world. There are a lot of wars happening right now therefore, nuclear development is not a godd idea for human civilization right now

 @9ZKRZJDfrom Ontario  answered…7 days7D

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

 @9ZJ52HDfrom Ontario  answered…1wk1W

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

 @9YXKBJFfrom Ontario  answered…2wks2W

One of the best sources of energy if waste is dealt with properly. So spend the extra money to deal with it long term

Latest News

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

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…7mos7MO

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…5mos5MO

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.