<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.
Answer:
D. All of the above
Explanation:
Enzymes are proteins, act as biological catalysts, and are sensitive to factors like pH and temperature.
Hope this helps!
I thought their were only 3, lift, drag, weight
Answer:
Yes, meteorology could be useful when studying other planets such as Mercury and Mars; atmospheric science has been extended to the field of planetary science and the study of the atmospheres of the planets of the solar system.
Answer: D. Hypothesis B is more useful because it suggests a way to test the relationship between heart rate and caffeine intake.
Hypothesis A and B both are suggesting that caffeine intake is related to higher heart rate. But hypothesis B is proving it more certainly by suggesting the affects of caffeine intake on heart rate. As, heart rate of most people will be higher 30 minutes after they drink a cup of coffee is testifying the fact, that higher heart rate is related with caffeine intake.
Therefore, hypothesis B is more useful because it suggests a way to test the relationship between heart rate and caffeine intake.
