I think this technology would be useful near the Gulf Coast, around Florida, the Carolinas and New Jersey and New York.
 
        
             
        
        
        
<span><span>Large nameplate capacity per plant, typically around 1 GW.
</span><span>Typically 90% capacity factor, maximizing output from the nameplate capacity.
</span><span>Small fuel transportation volumes as the fissionable material just isn't that big or heavy compared to equivalent fossil fuel BTU sources.
</span><span>Low CO2 per MWH on a full life cycle basis. ~12 grams which is only slightly more than wind / solar. 
This is a reason nuclear is a much better source for one of the major pressing problems of today than fossil fuels: global warming.</span>No particulate matter pollution.No sulfur dioxide or other chemical pollution.<span>Low fatalities per TWH. 
Nuclear is higher than renewables according to current statistics, but much, much lower than fossil fuel generation.</span></span>
Nuclear power generates lots of clean, stable energy.
 
        
        
        
I think it would be the second one because some think that there is enough evidence and some do not.
        
             
        
        
        
Answer:
I'm pretty sure its blastomeres <3
Explanation:
 
        
                    
             
        
        
        
Answer:
nucleus 
Explanation:
eukaryotic has a nucleus, prokaryotic does not