Fossil fuel. It is cleaner, even considering the risk of contamination. Even fossil fuel plants produce radioactivity, something that many people either don't know, miss, or deliberately ignore. Add environmental issues to that, and nuclear energy comes out the big winner, when you look objectively at the big picture.
As far as less expensive, well, that is subject to debate. Certainly, given the current costs of design and construction, even before Fukushima Daiichi, nuclear energy was more expensive in the short and mid term. In the long term, however, it is still less expensive, in my humble opinion.
nuclear
yes it is very expensive.
the most expensive is nuclear energy
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
Thorium is considered an alternative to uranium for nuclear power. Thorium reactors offer certain advantages such as greater abundance of thorium compared to uranium, reduced nuclear waste, and lower risk of nuclear proliferation. Research and development in thorium-based nuclear technologies are ongoing.
Some advancements in nuclear technology are making nuclear power cleaner by increasing efficiency, reducing waste, and enhancing safety measures. However, challenges like storage of radioactive waste and potential accidents still exist, so further research and improvements are needed to maximize the cleaner potential of nuclear power.
yes it is
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.
- nuclear radiation - nuclear residue
Nuclear energy
Actually it's obviously nuclear.
yes nuclear power