Want this question answered?
Not necessary, it depend on the designed plant size. Nuclear power plant can be as small as few hundred watts to Gigawatts of electricity capacity.
A geothermal power plant has a very low carbon footprint. However these types of plants are not efficient at producing energy.
About $10.5 million depending on the size of the plant. A large plant could be upwards of $50 million. Small geothermal plants can be anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000.
There area a few things that might limit the productivity of a geothermal power plant. One thing is broken equipment.
yes because geothermal uses the heated rock which is everywhere
a nuclear reactor converts binding energy into heat. a nuclear power plant uses a nuclear reactor to generate electricity.
the sun is powered by fusion, the power plant by fission
Not necessary, it depend on the designed plant size. Nuclear power plant can be as small as few hundred watts to Gigawatts of electricity capacity.
Nothing, except possibly size, but that would be because of different power rating of plant not different type of plant.
Since this question is in the "nuclear energy" category, I assume it relates to nuclear thermal reactor. To my knowledge there are no nuclear plants in New Zealand. It would make sense, however, for the question to refer to a geothermal plant and be in the wrong category. If that is the case, the the answer is the Wairakei Plant at Wairakei, at about the center of the North Island. This plant is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2011. When it is, the largest geothermal plant in New Zealand will be the Nga Awa Purua Power station in Taupo, which is also at about the center of the North Island.
Since hydropower involves the direct change of stored potential kinetic energy into electricity, rather than requiring going through a thermal transfer stage (i.e. heat->kinetic->electric vs kinetic->electric) as in nuclear or geothermal, the "efficiency" of a hydropower plant is certainly higher than a nuclear or geothermal plant. In terms of energy produced per unit of input source (i.e. fuel - water in the case of hydro, steam in the case of geothermal, and fissionable fuel in the case of nuclear), nuclear wins by a massive margin (on the order of millions of times more efficient).
The source of the thermal energy is obviously completely different, but the steam side, turbo-generator, etc is very similar.
That's like asking what is the difference between a potato and a plant. Nuclear fission is the splitting of atoms to release binding energy. Nuclear is the overall concept that structure and energy of the atom is contained within the nucleus.This answer assumes, by virtue of the category the question was placed in, that the intended topic is nuclear physics, and not biology, to which it could just have as easily been applied.
Solar, bio-fuels, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, nuclear (depending on the type of plant)
A nuclear power plant uses a slow, controlled nuclear chain reaction to heat water and generate electricity. A nuclear bomb uses a very rapid uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction in order to generate a massive explosion.
A bush is a plant
the difference is that banana plant is a dicotyledon while pineaple is a monocotyledon plant