Do you support the use of nuclear energy?

Yes, as long as there is strict training of nuclear power plant workers and thorough, regular monitoring and review of equipment functionality, energy release and measures to mitigate potential hazards.

As long as the waste is handled correctly for the environment

Nationalise and militarise the industry, and have the armed forces running, guarding and protecting the bases.

Yes, but I think a better option is to invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal

Yes, and offer a capped number of shares to the public to ensure a financial return in addition to protecting energy infrastructure and public oversight.

using it sustainable can be a good solution, using it ultimately temporarily while increasing use of green energy

No, we should go all in on renewable energy. Nuclear energy should be a last resort as we have no real solution for dealing with the waste

Yes, and invest in the better diposal of the waste along with investing in other clean energy sources.

Coal,windturbines,peet

No, fund research into nuclear fusion plants

Not really a question of ‘do you support’ it’s more a question of, is it essential and if so then yes, if not no

No, only because I am not well educated enough in the matter to know whether it produces more toxic waste or if it is an efficient way to produce energy and what the alternative would be.

I kinda do as its cheap but also i disagree as it harms the earth

Nuclear for energy is brilliant and it's clean problem is no one has come up with the solution where they're going to put all the nuclear waste

Yes but only until we are able to move to cleaner alternatives. No more nuclear power stations should be commissioned and contracts for nuclear power should not be awarded to companies owned by potentially hostile foreign powers, eg China.

Yes whilst we increase funding and preparation for cleaner forms of energy- nuclear energy should be nationalised to prevent companies from ‘over-profiting’ on peoples necessities.

If we can push the efficiency of nuclear energy and keep investing in research around safety and best options for disposing of waste, nuclear energy could answer some of the worlds energy crisis, but it shouldn’t be ur main or our long-term option

Yes, it is better for the environment and would essentially solve the energy crisis with unlimited clean energy

yes we should use alternatives like wind or solar energy but we also need some nuclear energy to fix planes and the over and underground trains

Nationalise the energy industry, and use nuclear while we increase invest in other green alternatives.

Yes, but we should focus on making the technology safer. We should also be investing in cleaner alternatives and battery technology to allow them to take over in time.

Yes, as long as these power sources are able to run themselves should an event happen that requires people to no longer keep them manned. I don't want another Chernobyl incident and I would like for a town or city or country to not be wiped from the map and have irreversible conditions formed over them.

It is contextual to the location of the development and the regional hazard exposure/vulnerabilities

Yes, but increase funding to renewables and research into nuclear fuels that do not produce weaponizable material as a by-product (e.g. thorium)

Yes and party nationalise the industry to keep energy prices cheap. Also increase the use of other renewable sources too. Make all energy companies owned by the UK wholly, no foreign shares should have a stake in UK energy companies.

Some what In the middle. It's bad for the environment but it can be useful and helpful I that area.

Not conventional nuclear power station but yes to new modular nuclear reactors being developed but we should continue to use Coal and Natural Gas and it should all be publicly owned.

I support it, and it should be nationalised while we look into renewable alternatives, not for the climate, but for efficiency and economic gain.

Yes, so long as that independent committees of nuclear physicists are responsible for the operation of these plants, to avoid accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima Daichi

Yes, nuclear is part of a tapestry of energy supply that is needed to ensure independence and stability

Yes, though the risks and long term waste and impact should be noted and looked into, this would include more funding in research and ONR (Office for Nuclear Regulation)

temporarily with 100% focus on safety and not run by any private company in any way

Yes if evidence suggests it is financially and environmentally sound.

Yes, but very vert limited and definetely not for weapons

Generally, no, but I see no viable alternative.

It is fine, however renewables, hydrogen, and when it's finally possible, nuclear fusion are better.

It is fien, however renewables, hydrogen, and when it's finally possible, nuclear fusion are better.

Yes it produces zero carbon

If it's causing major damage to the environment then no, if not then I guess I do.

I like that it is a clean source of energy but it is not one hundred percent perfect

I mean they are alright i dont mind them

Only as a last resort as nuclear energy is dangerous when not handled carefully

I think coal and oil are better

Yes, but only in areas which are distant from settlements and the public

Yes, this is the only safe way to a cleaner environment

Yes, as long we develop a safe way to store waste and prevent disasters

i am uneducated in nuclear energy

Yes, preferably fusion but fission will have to do for now.