@9GVZCJ7 5mos5MO
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
@9GVZX7C5mos5MO
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 5mos5MO
No other method of alternative energy is as safe and efficient as Nuclear Energy. If you're serious about clean energy, go nuclear.
@9GVQT985mos5MO
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.
@9GVQXL3Peace and Freedom5mos5MO
Solar and wind power are cleaner forms of energy. We do not need to use nuclear power period. plant more trees!!
@9FZJVZD 6mos6MO
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 7mos7MO
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 7mos7MO
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!
@jneufeldLibertarian6mos6MO
Modern nuclear energy technology enables mechanically safe reactors which create more fuel as they generate power. This generation of clean, sustainable nuclear power plant is more productive, safer, and longer lived than the traditional clean energy alternatives.
@9FSBMSV 7mos7MO
Most people don't understand what Nuclear Energy really is, and plus it is one of the most low-carbon energy sources.
@9FSLBRW7mos7MO
Nuclear energy is the cleanest energy available to us, the only issue with nuclear energy is the security risk.
I absolutely agree. The form of energy has been demonied so much that, even when people learn how rare disasters are, they're still trying to find any other reason to be against it.
@9H2M58H 5mos5MO
Only nuclear power can replace rather than merely supplement fossil fuels. There are no other carbon free power sources that can run 24/7, can be sited nearly anywhere, and can produce high amounts of heat needed for industrial processes. It is also by far the safest form of power generation in existence. Nuclear waste is minimal problem that can be solved by on-site storage. The volume of waste is FAR smaller than other power sources (including renewables).
@9H2N2LL5mos5MO
I strongly agree but we can not only live off of Nuclear at this moment so a system of Wind, Solar, and Nuclear could significantly help us switch quicker and more efficiently to green or clean energy.
@3SVJ5K9 7mos7MO
Nuclear power is safer (deaths per MW of energy produced) than hydroelectric and wind, produces less greenhouse gasses than solar, and provides a much more consistent power production compared to other green energy sources.
@9FT5ZX57mos7MO
with nuclear power if there was a disaster they could kill everyone in a 100 mile radios and if it got into the water sourses it could take down the whole world.
@9FVXY3T 7mos7MO
At the moment, Nuclear is the cleanest form of energy with vast potential. Similarly, nuclear produces much more energy than solar and wind, while producing much less comparative environmental damage.
@9G2JJ64 6mos6MO
Nuclear Energy has absolutely no emmissions compared to wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal. It also doesn't depend on one thing, like wind, water, or sunlight. So it is super efficient, prodes 0 emmisions, and can work day and night. This will definetly save us from our problems right now.
@9G39NRY6mos6MO
I agree with this statement because everyone is scared of nuclear energy because of a select few instances but overall there has been no problems or harm to the environment and it creates way more energy than any other source.
@9HH3ZDW 4mos4MO
There is too much fear mongering around nuclear energy. It gives us a consistent source of energy and we have already found ways to dispose of the nuclear waste. The only thing in the way of vast amounts of clean energy is lobbying and fear. Is it the best solution? No. But it can and should replace the vast amounts of oil and coal being burned which wind and hydroelectric have not been able to do. That isn’t to say they are useless. I believe a good combination is important, however a good combination means primarily nuclear.
@9HHMH354mos4MO
I do agree with this sentiment, and I believe that it's important to recognize the usefulness of nuclear energy in modern society, especially as industries centered around fossil fuels continue pollute the Earth.
@9HH7JD34mos4MO
I agree with this statement because nuclear energy is better than oil and coal. People are so worried about nuclear energy when the fossil fuels we use are just worse.
I agree. Nuclear energy has been proven to be a sufficient and safe way to regulate energy and power countries.
No. Technology has progressed extremely far since Chernobyl. Along with that, Nuclear energy is extremely clean when the waste is handled properly, and offers a LOT of energy. It is much better than any alternatives in almost every aspect.
@9GKGKQ2 6mos6MO
Those options are not bad per se, they are just all less cost, space, and time effective than nuclear. The only reason that nuclear energy does not account for the vast majority of today's energy supply is because of widespread public fear surrounding the technology as a result of events such as the Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island disasters, neither of which are strong condemnations of nuclear energy when examined factually.
@9GKNQK46mos6MO
The impact of the pollution and waste created by nuclear waste is far worse, and negatively impactful than those of "green energy". Though green energy may not be as productive, with greater expansion and dedication to it, it will become much more effective.
@9CJ6CB66mos6MO
Ah yes, the weakest argument against it. Nuclear energy has not happened in 12 years, Fukushima Daiichi (at most a minor accident in the history of energy) being the most recent. The only real issue on the list of disasters is Chernobyl, which only ever broke as OLD technology, WITHOUT it's safety systems on, and the workers were even misinformed on what button to press. A large series of failures had to happen to make it explode, and that tech is considered ancient compared to today. Regulations in place for those reactors make them take decades to build, and have heavy supervision. Nuc… Read more
@9GL9P5C6mos6MO
As climate change increases, no cleaner way of energy is solar or wind power. Nuclear Energy does nothing but further pollute our air. Our world does not need to go nuclear but we do it because it is easier. We should be putting time, money, and our resources into a more valuable sustainable energy source.
Nuclear Energy is so unbelievably safe and clean that we can use it as a placeholder for renewable energy until we find more efficient renewable technology.
@9GQRTFB5mos5MO
Nuclear is by far, the most efficient, most effective, alternative to fossil fuels. It generates an absurd amount of power and is far safer than the media would have you believe.
@9GQVGTV5mos5MO
I think Nuclear Energy done right, with the correct protocols is safe, and the waste produced is much better than the waste produced in an equivalent coal plant.
@9GQTVZ35mos5MO
This energy type should be adopted until 2035 and then it should be slowly phased out until 2050 for solar or wind energy, the government should be fun
@9GQVC29Independent5mos5MO
I think that nuclear energy is a vastly useful resource and agree that the precations taken make it an incredibly safe means of energy.
@9GQV3KW5mos5MO
100% agree, nuclear is without a doubt the cleanest source by yield volume we currently have available, and that will only increase with research into fission and fusion capabilities.
@8L9KT2Q3yrs3Y
Thorium is nuclear. Thorium is just a different fuel and chemical/atomic reaction process.
@9CJ6CB610mos10MO
Yes it requires the assist element plutonium to start a reaction so it's really hard to make into a nuke. Not to mention that it's actually more energy dense than uranium it just takes a bit more of a kick to make it radiate. It's also overall cleaner and much more common.
@IntellectualPursuits10mos10MO
While it's true that thorium is more energy dense and harder to weaponize compared to uranium, it's worth noting that the development and deployment of thorium-based reactors are still in their infancy. For example, India has been working on their thorium-based Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) for years, but it's yet to become fully operational. Moreover, the costs and challenges associated with setting up a thorium-based nuclear industry shouldn't be underestimated. How do you propose we tackle these issues while transitioning from uranium-based reactors to thorium-based ones?
@96G7MCK2yrs2Y
“we should invest in cleaner alternatives”
Nuclear energy is clean, for the most part. Storage technology is incredibly advanced, so it would not be harming the environment, especially since the only biproduct being released is steam, other than the safely stored depleted uranium. Nuclear energy is a great way to transition into those cleaner alternatives, because they are not yet efficient enough to sustain the vast amounts of energy required to power most modern societies.
@9GG6Q9T 6mos6MO
The world will almost always turn to oil as many strong countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia possess high amounts of oil and will always sell it. A country that gets most of its income from oil will not invest in cleaner alternatives, as it doesn't benefit them.
@9GG88926mos6MO
Although this is a valid argument, I feel that if we create a world in which nuclear energy is so effective that it creates more energy than oil, which it does, it will create incentive for these countries to switch over.
@9GF3LWFRepublican 6mos6MO
Nuclear energy is 100x more efficient than all of those combined, HOWEVER, thorium reactors can work alongside uranium reactors.
@8L3GV3M3yrs3Y
Thorium energy is nuclear energy
@9GZGPBP5mos5MO
Nuclear is the cleanest and most powerful form of energy. It is the right way to go. It is more space-efficient power efficient and overall and absurdly clean compared to things such as coal energy.
@9GSXP565mos5MO
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.
@9GB65KX6mos6MO
Nuclear energy is the cheapest and cleanest power we have available. When properly managed and put in a good environment it is extremely safe and many countries have already implemented it effectively.
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
