Try the political quiz

22.2k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes

 @9GG6Q9T from Connecticut agreed…1mo1MO

Nuclear energy is clean, powerful, and reliable. It needs to be de-stigmatized in order for the general public to agree on this.

 @9GG7QQD from Rhode Island disagreed…1mo1MO

It is a huge target for the united states, if something every went wrong or if it was attacked, its practically a nuclear bomb waiting to go off.

 @9H2M58H from Florida commented…2wks2W

Incorrect. Nuclear power plants are not very similar to nuclear weapons and cannot cause a nuclear detonation. In addition, all US facilitated are encased in enough concrete to completely contain any incidents.

 @9G8T8WF from New York agreed…2mos2MO

There has been a significant amount of research in nuclear energy, especially thorium reactors. They're significantly safer due to the reaction not needing to be under heavy pressure, thorium is easier to process and three times more abundant than uranium, and it is impossible for it to undergo a meltdown since the thorium reaction is not self-sustained.

 @9G94XQ5 from Pennsylvania agreed…2mos2MO

Traditional uranium reactors make more sense compared to thorium reactors. Looking at current statistics for nuclear energy per ton of carbon compared to coal it makes sense to use nuclear energy. Coal against nuclear energy per unit make about 273 times more tones of emissions and around 1230 time more deaths. Deaths in nuclear energy really don't happen apart from 3 main meltdowns which have all be the cause of operator error or being hit by a tsunami. None of these problems really have to do with nuclear power in of itself. When looking at public perception of climate change against nuclear energy you will notice a negative association which makes absolutely no sense other than people being stupid. We need better education of nuclear energy in schools.

 @9G957PQ from Texas disagreed…2mos2MO

Nuclear power is created for the cause of destruction, most times against innocent lives, something that everyone should be against.

 @9GFNG2KProgressive  from Washington agreed…1mo1MO

Nuclear energy is a safe and compact alternative to coal and gas plants and should be implemented instead. It makes up for the weaknesses of solar and wind power that require huge energy storage solutions to function, because it functions all hours of the day and never stops producing energy.

 @R3volutionDovesGreenfrom Maine disagreed…1mo1MO

The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters highlight the catastrophic consequences when things go wrong. Every day nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste, which remains hazardous for thousands of years and for which we still don't have a safe, long-term storage solution. The process of mining and refining uranium, which is used as fuel in nuclear reactors, also has significant environmental impacts.

 @9GFNG2KProgressive  from Washington commented…1mo1MO

Regarding the urgency of climate change, the best option we have now without development into new technology in nuclear. Renewable sources like wind and solar are plentiful, but require energy storage technology that we can't deploy on a large enough scale in time. Hydro-electric dams are a solution, but the negative impacts of dams on the environment limits us from deploying on a large enough scale once again. Nuclear plants can be built anywhere, can produce energy at all hours of the day, and are safer than what they were 12 years ago.

 @9GFQYPW  from Washington agreed…1mo1MO

I completely agree. The general public has been scared away from nuclear energy and its potential because of Chernobyl and the widespread fear of anything nuclear that stemmed from the Cold War. We should be investing more in nuclear energy and destigmatizing it in the eyes of the public.

 @9GFQWT8Constitution from Texas agreed…1mo1MO

I definitely agree with Nuclear Energy because Solar and Green energy doesn't produce enough energy to be sustainable in the U.S. which requires a lot of energy. Nuclear energy is safer than most realize, the media has portrayed Nuclear energy as dangerous and cite disasters for proof but all those disasters are caused by human negligence.

 @9H3JJK3Republican  from Idaho agreed…2wks2W

Nuclear power is a powerful, versatile, clean energy source. The technology behind it is mature, and there are many promising new nuclear technologies designs in the pipeline that can be deployed in the coming years to bring down costs and meet a wider variety of societal needs, including small modular reactors and reactors that provide heat for industrial applications. The problems of nuclear waste are purely political, not technological, and are often greatly exaggerated by a public who does not understand nuclear science very well.

 @9H3QNFX from New York agreed…2wks2W

This is true. Any problems with nuclear power are often signs of not only old reactors, but mismanagement and human error as well.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No

 @9FBMLVC from Wisconsin disagreed…3mos3MO

With modern technology and safety precautions nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, and most efficient form of energy we have available to us

 @NourishingChoughGreen from Ohio disagreed…3mos3MO

While modern technology undoubtedly makes nuclear energy safer than it was before, it's important to remember that it's not infallible. The Fukushima disaster in 2011, despite all modern precautions, is a poignant reminder of this. Moreover, the issue of nuclear waste remains unsolved. This waste remains dangerous for thousands of years and storing it safely is a significant challenge. How would you propose we handle this ongoing issue of nuclear waste?

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2mos2MO

Yes

Fukushima Daichi failed due to it's placement. It wasn't designed to be in that part of Japan, and to this day, pretty much no one actually died directly due to the radiation. We've solved the waste problem by now, we have methods for this kind of thing. We store it deep underground in layers of concrete, lead, sand, and anything to hold it back. We put it in one spot, hide it below water sources, and it's already bought us thousands of years.

 @9H7VDPM from Arizona commented…6 days6D

Nuclear waste can be stored in the middle of the desert deep underground, trust me, we arent using it for much

 @9FBD5V4 from New York disagreed…3mos3MO

Nuclear energy is statistically the safest most efficient and most abundant fuel resource currently available to us

 @9FPM4ZKIndependent from Texas disagreed…2mos2MO

While modern technology undoubtedly makes nuclear energy safer than it was before, it's important to remember that it's not infallible. The Fukushima disaster in 2011, despite all modern precautions, is a poignant reminder of this. Moreover, the issue of nuclear waste remains unsolved. This waste remains dangerous for thousands of years and storing it safely is a significant challenge. How would you propose we handle this ongoing issue of nuclear waste?

 @9FC6KFVIndependentfrom Maine disagreed…3mos3MO

It has been proven that in our days, nuclear energy is now safe, and accidents entirely preventable. With trust in the individual, the use of nuclear energy is completely safe. Furthermore, I see no better way to address the climate crisis without jeopardising the lives of individuals with lower incomes.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

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

 @9GVZCJ7  from Pennsylvania disagreed…3wks3W

Top Disagreement

Nuclear if properly regulated is just as clean and much more efficient, furthermore we're falling behind countries like china in terms of nuclear energy because they completely accepted it bacm in the 80s/90s

 @9GVZX7C from Nebraska agreed…3wks3W

I agree with this claim. Nuclear energy is an important aspect in the fight against climate change, however it has been given a bad reputation in the past by mismanaged plants.

 @9GVQ2RP  from Oregon disagreed…3wks3W

No other method of alternative energy is as safe and efficient as Nuclear Energy. If you're serious about clean energy, go nuclear.

 @9GVQXL3Peace and Freedom from Missouri disagreed…3wks3W

Solar and wind power are cleaner forms of energy. We do not need to use nuclear power period. plant more trees!!

 @9GVQT98 from Florida agreed…3wks3W

Nuclear has the added downside of nuclear waste. Arguably, that is the most dirty pollution of all. It is safe and controlled when controlled properly by nuclear engineers.

 @9FZJVZD  from Georgia disagreed…2mos2MO

Nuclear energy is the most energy efficient method we have that does not produce carbon emissions, and methods for their safe handling have existed for decades contrary to the fear-mongering in response to previous disasters brought on by not following proper procedure such as Chernobyl.

 @88YXWFL  from Washington disagreed…2mos2MO

There are no cleaner and safer alternatives than nuclear energy. Believe it or not, as a nuclear operator, I receive a lower radiation dosage than a coal miner. Additionally, nuclear plant accidents are the least frequent compared to other forms of energy production per hour ran. It's not fair to compare nuclear accidents from other countries to those that have happened in the US. The only one that occurred on US soil was 3-Mile Island, and it was not as bad as people make it out to be. In fact, people still live right next to the nuclear power plant to this day, which is a testament to the high standards of operations and engineering in our country compared to others. Furthermore, nuclear energy is the most efficient form of energy available.

 @8QMPJHW  from Minnesota agreed…2mos2MO

I completely agree, not to mention safety standards for nuclear plants have gotten better in the decades since the three mile island incident. Nuclear it’s the safest, most efficient and most practical form of energy production we have access to!

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives

 @97SNJT6Libertarian from Minnesota commented…1yr1Y

Nuclear energy is extremely clean, especially the thorium type. I find wind turbines and solar panels unreliable and inefficient, though clean, I feel they aren't worthwhile investments. Instead, nuclear power is extremely efficient and reliable.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…5mos5MO

Yes

Perhaps we could use renewables like solar for more home-based areas like cities, individual houses, or farms. Wind has plenty of promise in certain areas of the world, just not everywhere. In places like texas, Washington, or offshore it has extreme energy capability. Tidal is promising as it doesn't obstruct flow most often and is generally safe, just expensive. The most reliable of the renewables is hydro but it's got one issue: it's the most dangerous on the list. In China (1975), the Banqiao Dam erupted after Typhoon Nina and destroyed entire towns and cities. The devastat…  Read more

 @LegislativeLifelineLibertarian from Michigan disagreed…5mos5MO

While it's true that the Banqiao Dam disaster in 1975 was catastrophic, it's important to consider the context and advancements in dam engineering since then. The tragedy was primarily due to inadequate design and lack of safety measures which led to the failure of the dam. Modern hydroelectric dams are designed with advanced technology and safety measures that significantly reduce the risk of such disasters.

For instance, the Three Gorges Dam in China is currently the world's largest hydroelectric power station and has been operating without any major incidents. It produces…  Read more

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2mos2MO

Yes

That's why I stated that if we do hydro, it needs extremely heavy funding and regulations, same way as nuclear energy. It has changed a lot since then, and was mostly human error, but I would say that hydro is more historically dangeorus, not that it should be stopped. All things considered, most anything that isn't fossil-fuels must be pursued if we care to survive and thrive in the next 100 years.

 @BillBrowser from California disagreed…5mos5MO

While it's true that the Banqiao Dam disaster in 1975 was a devastating example of hydroelectric power gone wrong, it's important to consider the advancements in dam engineering and safety measures since then. For instance, modern dams are designed with advanced safety features such as spillways and monitoring systems to prevent similar catastrophes. Additionally, dams have multiple uses beyond power generation, such as flood control, water storage, and irrigation, which can be beneficial to communities.

However, it's also worth noting the environmental impact of dams, such…  Read more

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2mos2MO

Yes

Yes, we just need to more heavily regulate these forms of energy, the risks are exponential, but I think it can work well when done right since it's a constant source of energy.

 @9FNMXCD from Minnesota disagreed…2mos2MO

I believe that we have to be ready for when or if the surrounding countries were to destroy our country with nuclear energy. In that, China created nuclear energy before we did

 @9FM6WRHLibertarian from Indiana disagreed…2mos2MO

while nuclear energy can provide a source of low-carbon electricity in the short term, it comes with significant challenges related to safety, waste management, cost, and public perception. Many argue that a more prudent approach would be to prioritize investments in renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, which do not carry these same drawbacks and can provide a cleaner and more sustainable long-term solution to our energy needs.

 @9FDF55Y from Pennsylvania agreed…3mos3MO

Nuclear energy right now is one of the cleanest forms of energy on the planet as well as creates a lot more energy then wind and solar power

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…3mos3MO

Yes

The whole argument over which is better is rather senseless. To fight climate change, no non-fossil fuel options should be left out. It really depends how hard we want to make things for ourselves, and employing every technology possible to help curb it is necessary not just to people's safety, but to the future of mankind. Taking every precaution to prevent disasters like rapid climate change is what provides us a better and safer future, so leaving any options out makes it riskier later on.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes, and nationalize the industry

 @9FNRLH8Peace and Freedom  from California disagreed…2mos2MO

Nuclear energy is destroying our planet and should be ban and illegal. It will put irreversible damage to our planet.

 @9FNTKK3 from Massachusetts disagreed…2mos2MO

No it does not, in-fact pollution put out from nuclear power is significantly less then fossil fuels. while being wildly more efficient. Nuclear waste isn't as big as a danger as you think it is. Big Oil wants you to think that Nuclear is bad because its a threat to them.

 @9FNTTGGIndependent from California agreed…2mos2MO

The use of nuclear energy is just a way to ruin our world even quicker. This will effect the agriculture, air qaulity, and more.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2mos2MO

Yes

Nuclear energy has no actual emissions, the energy density of it is astronomical and is just perfect to help areas with low renewable energy abilities. Agriculture is not affected by nuclear if the leftover material is actually stored and reused. I'd suggest looking into how nuclear energy is actually stored and transferred, it's thousands of times safer than you think.

 @9G2JJ64  from Connecticut agreed…2mos2MO

Top Agreement

There are already nuclear power plants in some parts of the U.S., and France's energy production is 70% based on nuclear energy. If the United States as a world power would replace energy production that releases carbon dioxide, we can prevent global warming from escalating. Carbon dioxide is the main reason why global warming is happening, it traps the heat from the Sun. We all should work together to reduce these emissions to save humanity.

 @9G3XRRCDemocratdisagreed…2mos2MO

United States, but the world should also stop the use of nuclear energy in order to reduce global warming.

 @9G3XH8PPeace and Freedom from Ohio disagreed…2mos2MO

using nuclear energy is terrible for the environment, what happened to making a better environment by making everything electric. Nuclear energy is pointless in todays life i feel like

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...