The physical construction time in some countries has been less than a year. In the US, regulatory requirements alone can require 3 to 5 years before any actual work is done.
No
Because coal is the most abundant fossil fuel in the world, a coal power plant can last for many, many years to come. It is also a cheaper fuel, which makes it more reliable than petroleum or natural gas.
Coal is used in furnaces to heat water in a boiler to superheated (above 100 degrees Celsius) temperatures, and this steam is used to drive a turbine which, in turn, drives an alternator. A hydroelectric plant uses the vertical fall of water to drive a water turbine which drives an alternator.
Coal Advantage *World's most abundant fossil fuel; *Large resource base. *Relatively cheap to mine and transport by rail.
solar power from a concentrated solar power plant costs the same as electric from a fossil fuel pant. if you install home photovoltaic solar panels, it will cost up to $25,000. after installation, there is little maintenance and the panels will last over 30 years.
A fossil fuel power plant is a system of devices for the conversion of fossil fuel energy to mechanical work or electric energy
Some power plants do. Any plant that burns oil, coal, or gas from underground resources could be considered a "fossil fuel" plant. There are however nuclear, solar, hydro-electric and wind powered power plants.
Three positives about fossil fuels are:1. Fossil fuel power stations are relatively inexpensive to build and maintain.2. Fossil fuel power stations can produce large quantities of electricity.3. Fossil fuels are easily distributed.
Nuclear power is NOT a fossil fuel.
They both use steam turbine/generators
It provides them with power, without polluting the environment like a fossil fuel power plant would.
Both power plants generate electricity, but a fossil fuel power plant burns coal, oil, or gas to produce heat that boils water into steam to drive a turbine, while a nuclear power plant uses nuclear reactions to heat water into steam. Nuclear plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions, while fossil fuel plants do. However, nuclear plants produce radioactive waste that needs to be safely managed for a long time.
away from urban areas and less distance from fossil fuel areas to power station
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
You could approach this for a particular plant that is operating by going to the operating company. I can give you a link to a paper which tries to examine the situation for new build plants. The general conclusion is that costs of new nuclear are similar to new fossil fuel plants. The costs are made up differently however. For a nuclear plant the capital costs are very high but the fuel costs low, for fossil fuel plants it is the opposite. this means there is a lot of uncertainty in any prediction. See link below
To convert the heat of combustion to steam which can be used in an engine.
no it is not