Hydro power depends on suitable water sources and terrain where you can build a dam to obtain the necessary head of water, so it can't be built anywhere, whereas a nuclear plant can be sited in most areas apart from earthquake zones, provided there is a supply of cooling water. So hydro is more limited in application, but I guess if there are the right conditions for building it, this will be the most economical in the long run, and there are no pollution worries. Nuclear plants should be compared with fossil fuel plants rather than hydro, as the choice is then more valid.
Hydro power depends on suitable water sources and terrain where you can build a dam to obtain the necessary head of water, so it can't be built anywhere, whereas a nuclear plant can be sited in most areas apart from earthquake zones, provided there is a supply of cooling water. So hydro is more limited in application, but I guess if there are the right conditions for building it, this will be the most economical in the long run, and there are no pollution worries. Nuclear plants should be compared with fossil fuel plants rather than hydro, as the choice is then more valid.
volcano weapons are more powerful than nuclear volcanoes
wind is better than hydro because wind generate more power then hydro
If by "bomb" you mean a conventional explosive weapon, then the nuclear weapon is more powerful.
Yes, geothermal energy is more expensive than hydro power
A nuclear reaction is much powerful than a chemical reaction.
Aftermath of Nagasaki and Hiroshima showed the power and catastrophe of the explosion. Too powerful and inhumane to drop on anyone.
no no it is not
Hydro electric power are very common in because they are cheap and more available source of power
Nuclear arms race was where Cold War was going with the belief that the more nuclear weapons you had, the more powerful you were
it should be easily accessible in about 4 years. when more dams show up, more use of hydro power there will be.