more, more, yes please more!
Less power will be created.
Nuclear power plants emit no greenhouse gases at all.
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.
About 20 percent, or a little less
Yes. Nuclear power is environmentally friendly.Even when you consider the ramifications of accidents, the overall environmental and safety impact, when you look at the big picture, is less than with fossil power.
No. A lahar carries far less power than a nuclear bomb. However, large explosive eruptions, which can lead to lahars, can be as strong as or stronger than a nuclear explosion.
They don't have any less of a right to have nuclear weapons than any other country.
Nuclear power has no dangers. It is the opposite. Nuclear energy is a clean source for power production. It is even cleaner than solar energy. Power generation from nuclear energy is cheaper than that produced from solar, wind, gas, oil, and wind energy sources. Nuclear radiation from nuclear power plants is 100 times less than nuclear radiation from coal fired power plants. Nuclear weapons are of mass destruction nature due to emitted nuclear radiation, heat, and pressure air waves.
A cause for nuclear power?I think you are asking why it should be supported (if not re ask your question and explain more thoroughly)Nuclear power is virtually green house gas free and could power literally every power need on the planet fixing global warming in this generationThe production of this power is relatively low cost (in comparison to fossil fuels)There are many detractors of this power source, but as the world warms their objections start to look less appropriate.
For this, you can blame public media,nuclear power can be good or bad but, if the people get scared they will not want to live near or go anywhere near them. Take the recent nuclear news for example
the conventional military is less important than nuclear weapons
Uranium. Plutonium can also be used in both but less commonly in nuclear reactors (but extensively in weapons).