Nuclear plants are expensive to build but cheaper to run than fossil fuelled plants. Overall the cost delivered to consumers is much the same
Nuclear energy supplies a proportion of electricity used, in the US this is about 19 percent, so a consumer imports that proportion of nuclear energy. The actual amount clearly depends on how much electricity that consumer uses.
There are no nuclear power plants in that province
In Australia they use no nuclear energy. They only have on reactor which is only used for medical purposes.
That depends on the yield.
Nuclear power, atomic power used to be the term used but is now not used so much.
I think the government spends money (on regulation for instance) rather than making it
Nuclear energy supplies a proportion of electricity used, in the US this is about 19 percent, so a consumer imports that proportion of nuclear energy. The actual amount clearly depends on how much electricity that consumer uses.
There are no nuclear generating plants in Colorado
Not much pollution unless there is a nuclear reaction.
Indiana has no nuclear power plants.
All being invented are spend too much energy, so there's no full-powered renewable energy yet
There are no nuclear power plants in that province
If you have a group of people together, start off by saying how much you approve of nuclear power, how much it benefits the earth, and how it should be expanded. This should provoke some discussion.
Yes much less
Compared to what?
In Australia they use no nuclear energy. They only have on reactor which is only used for medical purposes.
Nuclear fusion produce energy 400 times more than nuclear fission for the same mass.