The tree huggers? Wind energy etc... they certainly wouldn't advocate nuclear energy.
I'm quite strongly against fracking as it stands just now. A good number of clever people are looking at this from the middle ground of looking at the impacts of fracking already being done around the world and its side effects before sanctioning new sites in more densely populated areas, such as the UK's major potential drilling sites.
For example, in Alberta, Canada in 2009 there was one well controlled fracking site where there was an 8 hour undetected leak of hydrogen sulphide. It was simple human error rather than a process error but it only caused no fatalities because it was a good distance from any human settlement. How many potential sites in the UK are more than 50 miles from the nearest village or town? 20 miles? 10? 5? 2? 1?
The latest generation of nuclear power plants are safe, secure and far, far more reliable and trustworthy than a technology that has to have federal protection in Canada and the US so that it doesn't have to disclose what it's actually injecting into the ground. It's been a disgrace of the last 30 years of UK government that none have invested in nuclear power plants because they cost so much up front but don't pay back for 20+ years. The UK could quite easily be self-sufficient for power if the government bothered investing. Here's an idea, why not cancel the HS2 rail line and spend the money on nuclear power stations or modern incinerator generators. Let's assume the conservative (small c) government figure of £40bn for HS2, that's the cost of 20 new nuclear power stations (the latest nuclear power plant in Europe was built in Finland and cost £2bn), even then if we commissioned, say, 5 then you get some quite serious economies of scale if built as a parallel effort with skills and equipment transfers. If we built 5, that's £30bn left from HS2 scrapping, that's enough for a power generating waste incinerator in each county in England PLUS enough to fund a few truly massive offshore wind farms in the nearly perfect areas far off the visible coast of Britain among other environmental generation technologies.
Even then, the best and most efficient fracking drill sites cost 1 unit of energy for every 2 generated with 1 for every 1.5 being more typical. Not very good generating at 50% efficiency at best... Even further, I read an article estimating that for the UK to "break even" against the costs of importing gas would mean drilling 10,000 wells. (Note: in the interests of fairness, that's not as many or as devastating as you think but it's still not cheap in the slightest.)
I'm not saying fracking is a definite no for the future, just let's get some fully open, evidence based, peer-reviewed scientific studies of the consequences of long-term fracking on localised or densely populated areas with access to the full end-to-end process including all chemicals. It's all well and good saying fracking is fine if you're looking at a very secured area of the Canadian outback miles from nowhere but that's not Britain.
Surely that's a better compromise than the evidence-less black and white "the other side is WRONG" arguments that are being put forward by the pro- and anti-fracking communities.