The short answer is, "Not a lot, providing that nothing goes wrong for a time much longer than human history."
Nuclear power is a source of carbon dioxide, a global warming gas, as a result of the mining, refining, enriching and transportation of fuel, the construction of the plant, the decommissioning of the plant, and whatever handling of nuclear waste we eventually decide to do. Its production of carbon dioxide per unit of power produced is much lower than that of fossil fuels, even when they are used in the most efficient ways known. By contrast such processes as burning methane from sewage, landfills, and farms is said to be carbon-negative because the pollution it creates is nowhere nearly as bad as the pollution it destroys.
Nuclear power also creates radioactive waste, which can pollute when it is accidentally released, and this can have a very considerable environmental effect as well as economic. The Chernobyl disaster rendered large tracts of land unusable for any purpose for years, and smaller tracts unusable for centuries. For many years, 20% of the GNP of Belarus went into cleanup. There were agricultural losses over a thousand miles away, in places considered to be upwind.
The radioactive waste also has to be stored safely for about six million years before it is as safe to handle as naturally occurring uranium ore, which is not really very safe to handle. There are about seventy thousand tons of this waste in existence at this point, and the plutonium in this waste has been calculated to be sufficient to kill all animal life on earth several times over. We have to consider the possibility that some of this will be released as part of the understanding of nuclear pollution.
Other names for nuclear energy include atomic energy, nuclear power, and atomic power.
Around 10% of the world's energy is generated from nuclear power.
Currently, nuclear power accounts for around 10% of the world's total energy production.
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed.' In other words, energy can be converted into matter and vice verse, but energy cannot create energy. Thanks much ^_^ Edit: Seems you are missing a part of the law, namley "only transformed". In any case, how would you explain that solar panels convert sunlight into a electrical enegy, without creating matter?
The energy stored in the nucleus is nuclear energy, which is released during nuclear reactions such as fission or fusion. This energy is much more potent than chemical energy due to the large amount of energy stored in the nucleus of an atom.
It requires almost as much energy to create nuclear fusion as the energy it creates. :)
There are no nuclear generating plants in Colorado
Not much pollution unless there is a nuclear reaction.
Indiana has no nuclear power plants.
Other names for nuclear energy include atomic energy, nuclear power, and atomic power.
Compared to what?
Yes much less
Recycling does not create energy. It reduces the expenditure of energy.
Nuclear energy itself, in a nuclear reactor, does not produce noise. The associated steam turbine plant will produce some noise, but probably not much outside the plant boundaries. The exception would be when a turbine has suddenly shutdown and steam has to be blown off for a while, that would probably be heard for a mile or two.
Chemical energy can be converted into nuclear energy through processes like nuclear fission or fusion. In nuclear fission, the nucleus of an atom is split into smaller parts, releasing a significant amount of energy. In nuclear fusion, nuclei are combined to form heavier nuclei, also releasing energy. These processes release a much larger amount of energy compared to chemical reactions.
Nuclear fusion has not yet been achieved on Earth but it is the process by which the un and stars are believed to gain their energy. At the moment nuclear reactors use nuclear fission, which is the splitting of radioactive nucleii. Nuclear fussion is the combining, or the fusion, of atoms which would release much much more energy. Many scientists believe that this is the way we need to go to solve the energy crisis.
Yes, nuclear fuels typically have a much higher energy content compared to biomass fuels. This is because nuclear fuels have very high energy density due to the large amounts of energy released during nuclear reactions, whereas biomass fuels derive their energy from organic materials with lower energy density.