Yes much less
See the attached link below for a survey of the economics of nuclear power
Because it is very dangerous to run and the technology is also very expensive.
Nuclear plants are expensive to build but cheaper to run than fossil fuelled plants. Overall the cost delivered to consumers is much the same
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.
The energy production cost is high. Much land should be cultivated. Much water should be used.
That is impossible to answer. There are many kinds of chemical energy and each costs a different amount. AA batteries are chemical energy. A car battery is chemical energy. Gasoline is chemical energy. Food is chemical energy.
The generating cost is much the same overall as coal, the fuel cost is lower but the plants are more expensive to build. Most nuclear plants run on base load because the fuel cost is lower.
There are no nuclear generating plants in Colorado
I think you must mean how much energy can nuclear power supply , not use, and it is in the world-where else? In the US there are about 100 nuclear reactors and they supply about 20 percent of the nation's electricity
Wind power can be quite costly over time, but nuclear power creates wastes that cost a lot of money to dispose of, let alone getting the nuclear rods in the first place. However, nuclear power can provide much more power than wind power, so they are more or less equals.
Not much pollution unless there is a nuclear reaction.