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.
yes
Expensive to build, cheaper to run than using fossil fuels once it is built.
Building a nuclear plant is expensive because of the very high quality engineering involved and the complicated safety systems. However once built the fuel costs are less than for coal or natural gas.
because itv cost more because it a renewable resource.
extracting energy from nuclear fuels is more expensive than extracting energy from fossil fuels
More expensive to instal, cheaper to run
Nuclear is about the same as fossil fuel in total costs, but more expensive to build the plant. Solar and wind power are more expensive and have to be subsidised to make them economic for power companies to use
A part of mass is transformed in energy.
they are less expensive They can be used again
Extracting energy from nuclear fuels is more expensive than extracting energy from fossil fuels.
The nuclear energy obtained from uranium or plutonium is the most important alternative to fossil fuels. Oil and methane will be exhausted in less than 100 years. Wind, geothermal, solar, organic wastes etc. are useful but not serious alternative for 10 billions inhabitants.
In terms of energy per atom, nuclear fusion produces more energy than nuclear fission. Fusion reactions involve the combination of lighter atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei, releasing large amounts of energy in the process. Fission reactions, on the other hand, involve the splitting of heavier atomic nuclei into smaller fragments, releasing energy.