I think you mean why is more electricity produced by fossil fuels than by nuclear? Largely history I think, and the availability of reasonably cheap coal and natural gas in the US. In France for instance, with little coal and no natural gas, nuclear has been developed to supply roughly 75 percent of electricity.
There are no perfect sources of power. Since we do want to have electric power, we live with the problems that are caused by whatever method of power generation that we use. Burning fossil fuels in power stations causes air pollution, but that is also true for cars that burn gasoline, yet we continue to drive cars that burn gasoline. Environmentalism is a popular cause, however, we make compromises because we also have other important concerns, such as our convenience and our economic prosperity.
Both methods of electricity production utilises turbines. Turbines are giant motors that produce electricity when spun.
Hydro and coal-fire are two method of spinning the turbine. Hydro uses the natural force of gravity that pulls the water downwards. Thus the turbine will be spun as the water passes.
However coal-fire is burnt to produce heat, this heat is then used to heat up water into steam. It is this steam that spins the turbines. Not all of the energy from the coal will go into the water, and not all the energy from the water will go into spinning the turbine.
Vice versa, there will be energy lost from the flow of water via friction etc.
A coal-fired power plant is about 30% efficient in converting coal energy into electrical energy.
Coal and wood actually produce fairly similar amounts of carbon dioxide when burnt. However, the carbon dioxide produced from the wood originally came from the atmosphere and was converted by the original tree into wood - so burning the wood simply returns this to the atmosphere and there is no net increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When we burn coal, the carbon dioxide is produced from carbon that had been sequestered underground for millions of years, so by this means we do add new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
coal burns cleaner than wood
Burning coal was easier because coal burned longer than wood
There is more energy to release. I saw a comparison that one thimble sized Uranium fuel pellet has recoverable energy equivalent to that in the coal of a 100 mile long coal train.
pop goes the Iron weasel
The natural resources are geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind power. These are important because they produce efficient energy and most important of all they are renewable.
Hydroelectric power is betters because it takes longer to run out geothermal energy goes away faster.
Norway.
No. Not even close. Hydroelectric refers to creating electricity using water power. Hydrogen is a flamable gas.
Petroleum
There are hundreds of hydroelectric power stations in England.
Hydroelectric power is about 90% efficient while fossil fuels are about 60% efficient.
a hydroelectric dam is efficient because it generates power
because the conditions for a hydroelectric power stations in the uk aren't right so only a few can be built.
A power station that harnesses power from running water.
Hydroelectric power stations certainly have their advantages and disadvantages, as do all forms of electrical generation. Probably the best solution is to use a combination of different means of producing electricity, with hydroelectric stations as part of the mix.
Moving water can be used to generate electricity in hydroelectric power stations.
It is efficient at 35% (When created in power stations)
yes
No, they can't, they have to be powered up and down over several hours - especially nuclear power stations. This is why hydroelectric power stations are so useful to deal with surges in power demand, they can go from zero to full in seconds - Dinorwig Hydroelectric powerstation is the fastest, taking 12 seconds to go from 0 - 1,320 mw.
for the passage of flood discharge
i don't now so haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa