Yes, it generally is but a nuclear plant could refer to nuclear reactors which are basically the things that produce the power. So in essence, yes, a nuclear plant is the same thing as a nuclear power station
Most nuclear reactors started being built in 1974. Changing economics and the Three Mile Island accident most planned projects were canceled. The Three Mile Island accident was a partial nuclear meltdown. Over 100 planned nuclear power reactors were canceled. Most of those were already under construction. George W. Bush's Nuclear Power 2010 Program was an effort to start build nuclear reactors again. But the 2010 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster the majority of planned projects were canceled.There are a few new nuclear projects. The construction of the second unit at Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station in Tennessee was 80% complete in the 1980s but construction was abandoned due to a decrease in power demand. In 2007 construction was approved to continue and construction was finally finished in 2015.In March 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved construction plans for Unit 2 and 3 at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station. Unit 2 began construction in March 2013 and Unit 3 began in November of the same year..In February 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved construction plans for Unit 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Like the Summer plant, Unit 3 began construction in March 2013 and Unit 4 began in November.
Step up Transformers. To transport the electricity from the power generating plant over long distances you step up the voltage using transformers to reduce line / cable losses. When you step up the voltage at the same time you lower the current for the same power. The line loss is due in major part to the cables resistance, more current the more heat generated and lost in the cable itself. It's all basic OHMS law.
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.
Since asking the questions I have had more luck with my research and found a terrific paper directly on point. I knew that as of 1980 three percent of total US electric production (25% of total nuclear electric generation) was used simply to run the country's three nuclear fuel processing labs. So adding in the cost of mining, construction, operation and waste storage had to add significantly to the total power cost. However, the statistics to which I had access were 28 years old. I decided it was time to find something more recent. It is remarkable how little information there is on this point on the internet. You can find a lot of information regarding the carbon footprint of nuclear power. The industry (and certain politicians) want us to believe that nuclear power plants have a much smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuel electric plants. The truth is that nuclear power plants do generate fewer carbon emissions than coal, gas or oil emissions; however, if you take into account the carbon emissions of the entire nuclear cycle (i.e. mining, refining, processing, fabricating & storage of the fuel, and construction, decommissioning and storage of the plant, the carbon footprint is about the same for both the nuclear and the fossil fuel industry). In any event, Nuclear power - The Energy Balance, a report by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, Senior Scientist, Ceedata Consultancy, Chaam, Netherlands, and Philip Smith, and updated as of February 2008, is available at http://www.stormsmith.nl/ This report concludes that after taking into account mining, refining, processing, fabricating, recycling and storing nuclear fuel, constructing, operating, decommissioning and storing nuclear power plants, and the quantity and guality of known and suspected world-wide deposits of uranium ore, that the net electric output of the nuclear cycle is profoundly negative. In particular the report concludes that the industry while marginally positive now, will drop sustantially into the negative between the years 2030 and 2050 as minable uranium deposits decline in quality. (fn. The carbon footprint of the nuclear industry increases in inverse proportion to the quantity and quality of minable uranium deposits. The world's known and suspected supplies of uranium ore are expected to be wholly depleted by 2050 or earlier). Personally, I think the author has made some assumptions that are more favorable to the nuclear industry than is deserved. For example, he assumes every nuclear power plant will have a useful life of 50 years, though not a single reactor has reached that grand old age and several have been retired prematurely (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are two well known examples. The Enrico Fermi plant in Detroit, less well known than the other two, melted down on it's first day of operation and was encased in concrete. The story is the subject of the book "We Almost Lost Detroit.", so-titled after a quote by one of the emergency service workers, and Gil Scot Heron's song of the same name. But little quibbles aside, the report's unmistakable conclusion is that investment in nuclear energy is a losing proposition, that on balance the nuclear industry CONSUMES more electricity than it produces. To the person who answered "A small proportion," your answer though short and pithy, lacked citation to any sources, provided no background information regarding your own qualifications to make such a statement, or any information concerning the analysis you undertook, or read, to support your answer. I would be happy to see an open debate on this issue, supported by citation to evidence or credible research. This is an important issue of energy policy and there is almost no discussion of it on the internet.
Until they implode, same as the old subs.
The difference is in the name; nuclear power plants produce electricity via a nuclear reaction producing head to turn a turbine, whereas coal fired power plants burn coal to produce the same efffect.
Rejected to the turbine cooling system, but this is the same in any power plant running on the Rankine cycle, whether nuclear or fossil fuelled
Power plants come in various different types depending on the fuel used, coal, natural gas, oil, wind, solar and so on. Nuclear is one type of power plant in this general category.
The same thing as in a fossil fueled or hydroelectric power plant.
converts the rotation of the steam turbine shaft to electricity. same as in a coal fired plant.
The electricity is exactly the same as from a fossil fired power station, generated from the same type of generator
The following answer applies to water used to cool the non-nuclear portion of the electricity generating cycle at a power plant, by far the largest use of water in any electrical plant that uses water for said cooling. Water used in the non-nuclear portion of the electrical generation cycle of a nuclear power plant is not wasted. It is drawn in from a reservoir, such as a river or bay, and then discharged back into the same reservoir essentially unchanged in every way except for being warmer than it was before. While this can cause serious problems with ecosystems downstream, the water was not wasted in any other sense. Ordinary power plants of the same electrical capacity as a nuclear power plant that use water in their cooling cycles will use essentially the same amount of water and warm it to the same degree as a nuclear power plant.
The bad thing about living near a nuclear power plant is that radiation will end up affecting you in the long run. No matter what you will be exposed to the radtiation somehow. Everyday you will worry about a melt down occurring and hopefully you wont have kids who will also be exposed to that as well.
The type of transformer in a nuclear power plant is the same as that in a fossil plant. After all, we are still using electrical alternators, typically producing 24KV, which needs to be stepped up to grid level, typically 138Kv, depending on the particular grid.
Not really. It depends on what you are trying to do. A nuclear power plant is a power plant that uses a nuclear reactor as its source of energy. A nuclear reactor, on the other hand, is a more generalized term for a device that uses nuclear energy (specifically the release of binding energy from the Strong Atomic Force) to do something. In the general case, we use the reactor to generate energy for the power plant to use in generating electricity. Sometimes, we use the reactor for other, research type things, such as generating a neutron flux to study the physics of nuclide activation.
I would want them to build it somewhere else, but the same would apply to any type of power plant or industrial plant
Once you convert the solar energy to electrical energy, it makes no difference where it came from. Distribution of such energy is exactly the same, whether it came from solar energy, a nuclear power station, a tidal power station, a geothermal power station, etc.