1. It does not produce nuclear waste 2. It is free to run in terms of fuel costs 3. The operations are simple and do not need specially trained staff 4. There is no need for an expensive regulatory authority like the NRC 5. When the plant is worn out it can easily be dismantled and scrapped
This will be a hydro plant, or a series of them, not nuclear
Hydropower is a more consistent and reliable source of renewable energy compared to wind power, which relies on wind availability. Hydropower also has the ability to store water in reservoirs for peak demand periods, providing better control over electricity generation. Additionally, hydropower tends to have a longer lifespan and can contribute to flood control and irrigation.
No, nuclear power is not banned in most countries. However, some countries have chosen to phase out or discontinue nuclear power plants for various reasons such as safety concerns, cost, or public opinion. Generally, nuclear power is regulated and subject to strict safety protocols.
There are currently (year 2013) 31 countries having nuclear power reactors. The rest are not having nuclear power.
Neither nuclear power nor hydro power produce greenhouse gases during operation. Burning biomass produces CO2, but it can be argued that during the growing of the biomass material it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, so it is actually neutral.
No.
If hydro power is available, go for it. Most places don't have enough water or height to produce much hydro though. I hope nobody has built nuclear where hydro is available.
Nuclear, Thermal, Hydro, Windmill.
There are: Hydro electric, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and Fossil fuels, Geo- thermal and Biofuels.Hydro electric has two categories : Tidal and Wave
Coal fired, Nuclear Power, Gas Fired, Hydro, Wind Power.
Coal fired, Nuclear Power, Gas Fired, Hydro, Wind Power.
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.
yes
If you mean nuclear power, it is just regular electricity, so it's transmitted along regular hydro lines to the power plants, where it is distributed.
Mining, Forestry, etc .
In my opinion the best way is hydro power, but there is not enough of it for all purposes