Pros and cons of nuclear energy. Prospects for the development of nuclear energy. What are the pros and cons of nuclear power plants
1. TPP. Thermal Energy (electro) Stations. They are based on the processing (burning) of solid fuel carriers, such as coal.
1. Large amount of power generation.
2. The most easy to operate.
3. The very principle of operation and their construction are very simple.
4. Cheap, readily available.
5. Give jobs.
1. They provide less electricity than hydroelectric power plants and nuclear power plants
2. Environmentally dangerous - environmental pollution, greenhouse effect, require the consumption of non-renewable resources (like coal).
3. Due to their primitivism, they are simply obsolete.
HPS - Hydro Electro Station. Based on the use of water resources, rivers, tidal cycles.
1. Relatively environmentally friendly.
2. They give many times more electricity than thermal power plants.
3. May provide additional sub-production structures.
4. Jobs.
5. More easy to operate than nuclear power plants. .
1. Again, environmental safety is relative (dam explosion, water pollution in the absence of a purification cycle, imbalance).
2. High construction costs.
3. They give less energy than nuclear power plants.
NPP - Nuclear Power Plants. The most perfect at the moment ES in terms of power. Uranium rods of the uranium isotope -278 and the energy of an atomic reaction are used.
1. Relatively low resource consumption. The most important is uranium.
2. The most powerful power generation plants. One ES can provide entire cities and metropolitan areas, the surrounding areas, in general, cover vast territories.
3. More modern than thermal power plants.
4. Give a large number of jobs.
5. Open the way to the creation of more advanced ES.
1. Constant pollution of the environment. Smog, radiation.
2. Consumption of rare resources - uranium.
3. Use of water, pollution of it.
4. Probable threat of ecological super catastrophe. In case of loss of control over nuclear reactions, violations of the cooling cycle (the clearest example of both mistakes is Chernobyl; the nuclear power plant is still closed by a sarcophagus, the worst environmental disaster in human history), external impact (earthquake, for example - Fukushima), military attack or undermining by terrorists - an environmental catastrophe is very likely (or - almost one hundred percent), and the threat of an explosion of a nuclear power plant is also very likely, - this is an explosion, a shock wave, and most importantly, radioactive contamination of a vast territory, the echoes of such a catastrophe can hit the whole world. Therefore, a nuclear power plant is, along with WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction), one of the most dangerous achievements of mankind, although a nuclear power plant is a peaceful atom. For the first time, a nuclear power plant was created in the USSR.
Energy needs to be developed not only in the direction of the use of renewable resources, but also to develop more advanced types of ES, which will be fundamentally new in their basis and type of work. Hypothetically, space exploration will soon begin, as well as penetration into other secrets of the microcosm and, in general, physics can give amazing results. Bringing nuclear power plants to maximum perfection is also a promising way for the development of the energy sector.
At this stage, of course, the most probable and feasible option is the development of windmills, solar panels and BRINGING HPPs and NPPs to the maximum perfection.
The advantages of nuclear energy in comparison with other types of energy production are obvious. High power and low total cost of energy opened up great prospects for the development of nuclear energy and the construction of nuclear power plants. In most countries of the world, the advantages of nuclear energy are taken into account even today - more and more power units are being built and contracts are being signed for the construction of nuclear power plants in the future.
One of the main advantages of nuclear energy is its profitability. It consists of many factors, and the most important of them is low dependence on fuel transportation. Let's compare a CHPP with a capacity of 1 million kW and an NPP block of equal power. CHPPs require from 2 to 5 million tons of fuel per year, the cost of its transportation can be up to 50% of the cost of energy received, and about 30 tons of uranium will need to be delivered to nuclear power plants, which will practically not affect the final price of energy.
Also, in the advantages of nuclear energy, one can safely write down the fact that the use of nuclear fuel is not accompanied by a combustion process and the emission of harmful substances and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which means that the construction of expensive facilities to clean up emissions into the atmosphere will not be required. A quarter of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere are accounted for by thermal power plants, which has a very negative impact on the environmental situation of cities located near them, and on the state of the atmosphere in general. Cities located close to nuclear power plants operating in the normal mode fully feel the advantages of nuclear energy and are considered one of the most environmentally friendly in all countries of the world. They constantly monitor the radioactive state of the earth, water and air, as well as analyze the flora and fauna - such constant monitoring allows you to really assess the pros and cons of nuclear energy and its impact on the ecology of the region. It is worth noting that during the observation period in the areas where the nuclear power plant is located, deviations of the radioactive background from the normal have never been recorded, unless it was an emergency.
The advantages of nuclear energy do not end there. In the context of the impending energy shortage and the depletion of carbon fuel reserves, the question naturally arises of fuel reserves for nuclear power plants. The answer to this question is very optimistic: the explored reserves of uranium and other radioactive elements in the earth's crust amount to several million tons, and at the current level of consumption they can be considered practically inexhaustible.
But the advantages of nuclear energy extend not only to nuclear power plants. The energy of the atom is used today for other purposes, in addition to supplying the population and industry with electrical energy. Thus, one cannot overestimate the advantages of nuclear energy for the submarine fleet and nuclear icebreakers. The use of nuclear engines allows them to exist autonomously for a long time, move over any distance, and submarines can stay under water for months. Today, the world is developing underground and floating nuclear power plants and nuclear engines for spacecraft.
Taking into account the advantages of nuclear energy, we can safely say that in the future mankind will continue to use the possibilities of nuclear energy, which, if handled carefully, pollutes the environment less and practically does not disturb the ecological balance on our planet. But the advantages of nuclear energy faded significantly in the eyes of the world community after two serious accidents: at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 and at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in 2011. The scale of these incidents is such that their consequences can cover almost all the advantages of nuclear energy known to mankind. The tragedy in Japan for a number of countries was the impetus for reworking the energy strategy and shifting the emphasis towards the use of alternative energy sources.
Pros and cons of nuclear power plants "Let the atom be a worker, not a soldier." Pros and cons
nuclear power plants
“Let the atom be working, and
not a soldier."
NPP device
Nuclear power plant (NPP) - a nuclear installation for the production of energy
Nuclear power plant (NPP) nuclear installation forenergy production The world's first industrial
power plant - Obninsk (USSR) 1954
Power 5 MW Nuclear power is one of the most
promising ways to satisfy the energy
hunger of mankind in the conditions of energy
problems associated with the use
fossil fuel.
Pros and cons of nuclear power plants
What are the pros and cons of nuclear power plants?What more?
Advantages of a nuclear power plant
1. Consumes little fuel:2. More environmentally friendly than thermal power plants
and hydroelectric power plants (which run on fuel oil,
peat and other fuels.): because nuclear power station
runs on uranium and partly on gas.
3. You can build anywhere.
4. Not affected by optional
energy source: To generate a million kilowatt-hours
electricity required several hundred
grams of uranium, instead of an echelon of coal.
Wagon for the transport of nuclear fuel
Costs fortransportation of nuclear
fuel, as opposed to
from the traditional
insignificant. In Russia
this is especially important
in European
parts, because
delivery of coal
from Siberia too
road.
Wagon for the transport of nuclear fuel
10. A huge advantage of a nuclear power plant is its relative environmental cleanliness.
At TPPs, the total annual emissions of harmfulsubstances per 1000 MW of installed capacity
are approximately 13,000 to 165,000 tons per year.
11. There are no such emissions at nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plant in Udomlya12.
TPP with a capacity of 1000 MW consumes 8million tons of oxygen per year
fuel oxidation, nuclear power plants do not consume
oxygen in general.
13. The most powerful nuclear power plants in the world
Fukushima"Beam"
"Gravelin"
"Zaporozhskaya"
"Pickering"
"Palo Verde"
"Leningradskaya"
"Trikasten"
14.
FukushimaGraveline
bar
Zaporozhye
15.
PickeringPalo Verde
Tricasten
Leningradskaya
16. Cons of nuclear power plants
1.thermal environmental pollutionenvironment;
2. conventional radioactivity leakage
(radioactive release and discharges);
3. transportation of radioactive
waste;
4. nuclear reactor accidents;
17.
In addition, a larger specific (per unitproduced electricity) emission
radioactive substances gives coal
station. The corner always contains
natural radioactive substances
burning coal, they are almost completely
enter the external environment. Wherein
specific activity of TPP emissions in
several times higher than for nuclear power plants
18. The volume of radioactive waste is very small, it is very compact, and it can be stored under conditions that ensure it does not leak to the outside.
19. Bilibino NPP is the only nuclear power plant in the permafrost zone.
The cost of building a nuclear power plant isat about the same level as
construction of a thermal power plant, or somewhat higher.
Bilibino NPP is the only one in the zone of eternal
permafrost nuclear power plant.
20.
NPP is more economicalconventional thermal
stations, but most
most importantly, when
correct them
exploitation is
clean sources
energy.
21. A peaceful atom must live
Nuclear power, having experienced hard lessonsChernobyl and other accidents, continues
evolve to maximize safety
and reliability! Nuclear power plants produce
electricity in the most environmentally friendly
way. If people are responsible and
competently treat the operation of nuclear power plants, then
the future belongs to nuclear power. People shouldn't
be afraid of a peaceful atom, because accidents occur according to
man's fault.
Nuclear power is mostly associated with the Chernobyl disaster that happened in 1986. Then the whole world was shocked by the consequences of the explosion of a nuclear reactor, as a result of which thousands of people received serious health problems or died. Thousands of hectares of polluted territory where it is impossible to live, work and grow crops, or an ecological way of obtaining energy, which will be a step towards a brighter future for millions of people?
Advantages of nuclear energy
The construction of nuclear power plants remains profitable due to the minimal cost of energy production. As you know, coal is needed for the operation of thermal power plants, and its daily consumption is about a million tons. In addition to the cost of coal, the cost of transporting fuel is added, which also costs a lot. As for nuclear power plants, this is enriched uranium, in connection with which there are savings on the cost of transporting fuel and on its purchase. 
It is also impossible not to note the environmental friendliness of the operation of nuclear power plants, because for a long time it was believed that it was nuclear energy that would put an end to environmental pollution. Cities that are built around nuclear power plants are environmentally friendly, since the operation of reactors is not accompanied by a constant release of harmful substances into the atmosphere, and the use of nuclear fuel does not require oxygen. As a result, the ecological catastrophe of cities can only suffer from exhaust gases and the operation of other industrial facilities.
Savings in this case also occur due to the fact that it is not required to build treatment facilities to reduce emissions of combustion products into the environment. The problem with pollution of large cities today is becoming more and more urgent, since often the level of pollution in cities in which thermal power plants are built exceeds the critical indicators of air pollution with sulfur, fly ash, aldehydes, carbon oxides and nitrogen by 2–2.5 times. 
The Chernobyl disaster has become a great lesson for the world community, in connection with which it can be said that the operation of nuclear power plants is becoming safer every year. Practically at all nuclear power plants, additional safety measures were installed, which greatly reduced the possibility that an accident like the Chernobyl disaster would occur. Reactors of the Chernobyl RBMK type were replaced by new generation reactors with increased safety.
Cons of nuclear energy
The main disadvantage of nuclear energy is the memory of how, almost 30 years ago, an accident occurred at a reactor, an explosion at which was considered impossible and practically unrealistic, which caused a worldwide tragedy. It happened because the accident affected not only the USSR, but the whole world - the radioactive cloud from the current Ukraine went first towards Belarus, after France, Italy, and so reached the United States.
Even the thought that one day this could happen again causes many people and scientists to oppose the construction of new nuclear power plants. By the way, the Chernobyl disaster is not considered the only accident of this kind, the events of the accident in Japan at Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant and Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant - 1 where a fire started as a result of a powerful earthquake. It caused the melting of nuclear fuel in the reactor of block No. 1, due to which a radiation leak began. This was a consequence of the evacuation of the population, which lived at a distance of 10 km from the stations.
It is also worth remembering a major accident at, when 4 people died and over 200 people were injured from hot steam from the turbine of the third reactor. Every day, through the fault of man or as a result of the elements, accidents at nuclear power plants are possible, as a result of which radioactive waste will enter food, water and the environment, poisoning millions of people. It is this that is considered the main disadvantage of nuclear energy today. 
In addition, the problem of disposal of radioactive waste is very acute, large areas are needed for the construction of burial grounds, which is a big problem for small countries. Despite the fact that the waste is bituminous and hidden behind the thickness of iron and cement, no one can accurately assure everyone that it will remain safe for people for many years. Also, do not forget that the disposal of radioactive waste is very expensive, due to the cost savings on vitrification, incineration, compaction and cementing of radioactive waste, their leakage is possible. With stable funding and a large territory of the country, this problem does not exist, but not every state can boast of this.
It is also worth noting that during the operation of nuclear power plants, as in every production, accidents occur, which causes the release of radioactive waste into the atmosphere, land and rivers. The smallest particles of uranium and other isotopes are present in the air of cities where nuclear power plants are built, which causes environmental poisoning.
findings
Although nuclear energy remains a source of pollution and possible disasters, it should be noted that its development will continue, if only for the reason that it cheap way to get energy, and hydrocarbon fuel deposits are gradually being exhausted. In skillful hands, nuclear energy can indeed become a safe and environmentally friendly way to generate energy, but it is still worth noting that most disasters have occurred precisely because of man.
In problems related to the disposal of radioactive waste, international cooperation is very important, because only it can provide sufficient funding for the safe and long-term disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
The use of nuclear energy in the modern world is so important that if we woke up tomorrow and the energy of a nuclear reaction disappeared, the world as we know it would probably cease to exist. Peace is the basis of industrial production and life in such countries as France and Japan, Germany and Great Britain, the USA and Russia. And if the last two countries are still able to replace nuclear energy sources with thermal stations, then for France or Japan this is simply impossible.
The use of nuclear energy creates many problems. Basically, all these problems are related to the fact that using the binding energy of the atomic nucleus (which we call nuclear energy) for one's own benefit, a person receives significant evil in the form of highly radioactive waste that cannot simply be thrown away. Waste from nuclear energy sources needs to be processed, transported, buried, and stored for a long time in safe conditions.
Pros and cons, benefits and harms from the use of nuclear energy
Consider the pros and cons of the use of atomic-nuclear energy, their benefits, harm and significance in the life of Mankind. It is obvious that only industrialized countries need nuclear energy today. That is, peaceful nuclear energy finds its main application mainly at such facilities as factories, processing plants, etc. It is energy-intensive industries that are remote from sources of cheap electricity (like hydroelectric power plants) that use nuclear power plants to ensure and develop their internal processes.
Agrarian regions and cities do not really need nuclear energy. It is quite possible to replace it with thermal and other stations. It turns out that the mastery, acquisition, development, production and use of nuclear energy is for the most part aimed at satisfying our needs for industrial products. Let's see what kind of industries these are: the automotive industry, military industries, metallurgy, the chemical industry, the oil and gas complex, etc.
Does a modern person want to drive a new car? Want to dress in trendy synthetics, eat synthetics, and pack everything in synthetics? Want bright products in different shapes and sizes? Wants all new phones, TVs, computers? Do you want to buy a lot, often change equipment around you? Want to eat tasty chemical food from colored packs? Do you want to live in peace? Do you want to hear sweet speeches from the TV screen? Do you want to have a lot of tanks, as well as missiles and cruisers, as well as shells and cannons?
And he gets it all. It does not matter that in the end the discrepancy between word and deed leads to war. It does not matter that energy is also needed for its disposal. So far, the person is calm. He eats, drinks, goes to work, sells and buys.
And all this requires energy. And this requires a lot of oil, gas, metal, etc. And all these industrial processes require atomic energy. Therefore, no matter what anyone says, until the first industrial thermonuclear fusion reactor is put into series, nuclear energy will only develop.
In the advantages of nuclear energy, we can safely write down everything that we are used to. On the downside, the sad prospect of imminent death in the collapse of resource depletion, nuclear waste problems, population growth and degradation of arable land. In other words, nuclear energy allowed man to begin to master nature even more strongly, forcing it beyond measure so much that in several decades he overcame the threshold for the reproduction of basic resources, starting between 2000 and 2010 the process of consumption collapse. This process objectively no longer depends on the person.
Everyone will have to eat less, live less and enjoy the natural environment less. Here lies another plus or minus of atomic energy, which lies in the fact that countries that have mastered the atom will be able to more effectively redistribute the depleted resources of those who have not mastered the atom. Moreover, only the development of the thermonuclear fusion program will allow mankind to simply survive. Now let's explain on the fingers what kind of "beast" it is - atomic (nuclear) energy and what it is eaten with.
Mass, matter and atomic (nuclear) energy
One often hears the statement that “mass and energy are the same”, or such judgments that the expression E = mc2 explains the explosion of an atomic (nuclear) bomb. Now that you have a first understanding of nuclear energy and its applications, it would be truly unwise to confuse you with statements such as "mass equals energy." In any case, this way of interpreting the great discovery is not the best. Apparently, this is just the wit of the young reformists, the "Galileans of the new time." In fact, the prediction of the theory, which has been verified by many experiments, says only that energy has mass.
Now we will explain the modern point of view and give a short overview of the history of its development.
When the energy of any material body increases, its mass increases, and we attribute this additional mass to the increase in energy. For example, when radiation is absorbed, the absorber becomes hotter and its mass increases. However, the increase is so small that it remains outside the measurement accuracy in conventional experiments. On the contrary, if a substance emits radiation, then it loses a drop of its mass, which is carried away by radiation. A broader question arises: is not the entire mass of matter conditioned by energy, i.e., is there not an enormous store of energy contained in all matter? Many years ago, radioactive transformations answered this positively. When a radioactive atom decays, a huge amount of energy is released (mostly in the form of kinetic energy), and a small part of the mass of the atom disappears. The measurements are clear about this. Thus, energy carries away mass with it, thereby reducing the mass of matter.
Consequently, part of the mass of matter is interchangeable with the mass of radiation, kinetic energy, etc. That is why we say: "energy and matter are partially capable of mutual transformations." Moreover, we can now create particles of matter that have mass and are able to completely transform into radiation, which also has mass. The energy of this radiation can go into other forms, transferring its mass to them. Conversely, radiation can be converted into particles of matter. So instead of "energy has mass" we can say "particles of matter and radiation are interconvertible, and therefore capable of mutual transformations with other forms of energy." This is the creation and destruction of matter. Such destructive events cannot occur in the realm of ordinary physics, chemistry, and technology, but must be sought either in the microscopic but active processes studied by nuclear physics, or in the high-temperature furnace of atomic bombs, in the sun and stars. However, it would be unreasonable to say that "energy is mass". We say: "energy, like matter, has mass."
Mass of ordinary matter
We say that the mass of ordinary matter contains a huge amount of internal energy equal to the product of the mass and (the speed of light)2. But this energy is contained in the mass and cannot be released without the disappearance of at least part of it. How did such an amazing idea come about and why was it not discovered earlier? It was proposed earlier - experiment and theory in different forms - but until the twentieth century, the change in energy was not observed, because in ordinary experiments it corresponds to an incredibly small change in mass. However, now we are sure that a flying bullet, due to its kinetic energy, has an additional mass. Even at 5,000 m/sec, a bullet that weighed exactly 1g at rest would have a total mass of 1.00000000001g. White-hot platinum weighing 1kg would add 0.000000000004kg in total, and practically no weighing would be able to register these changes. Only when huge amounts of energy are released from the atomic nucleus, or when atomic "projectiles" are accelerated to speeds close to the speed of light, does a mass of energy become noticeable.
On the other hand, even a barely perceptible difference in mass marks the possibility of releasing a huge amount of energy. Thus, hydrogen and helium atoms have relative masses of 1.008 and 4.004. If four hydrogen nuclei could combine into one helium nucleus, then the mass of 4.032 would change to 4.004. The difference is small, only 0.028, or 0.7%. But it would mean a gigantic release of energy (mainly in the form of radiation). 4.032 kg of hydrogen would give 0.028 kg of radiation, which would have an energy of about 600000000000 Cal.
Compare this to the 140,000 cal released when the same amount of hydrogen is combined with oxygen in a chemical explosion.
Ordinary kinetic energy makes a significant contribution to the mass of very fast protons produced by cyclotrons, and this creates difficulties when working with such machines.
Why do we still believe that E=mc2
Now we perceive this as a direct consequence of the theory of relativity, but the first suspicions arose already towards the end of the 19th century, in connection with the properties of radiation. Then it seemed likely that radiation had mass. And since the radiation carries, as on wings, at a speed of energy, more precisely, it is energy itself, then an example of a mass belonging to something “immaterial” has appeared. The experimental laws of electromagnetism predicted that electromagnetic waves must have "mass". But before the creation of the theory of relativity, only unbridled fantasy could extend the ratio m=E/c2 to other forms of energy.
All kinds of electromagnetic radiation (radio waves, infrared, visible and ultraviolet light, etc.) have some common features: they all propagate through empty space at the same speed, and they all carry energy and momentum. We imagine light and other radiation in the form of waves propagating at a high but definite speed c=3*108 m/sec. When light strikes an absorbing surface, heat is generated, indicating that the light flux carries energy. This energy must propagate along with the flow at the same speed of light. In fact, the speed of light is measured exactly in this way: by the time of flight of a large distance by a portion of light energy.
When light strikes the surface of some metals, it knocks out electrons, which fly out just as if they were hit by a compact ball. , apparently, is distributed in concentrated portions, which we call "quanta". This is the quantum nature of the radiation, despite the fact that these portions, apparently, are created by waves. Each portion of light with the same wavelength has the same energy, a certain "quantum" of energy. Such portions rush at the speed of light (in fact, they are light), transferring energy and momentum (momentum). All this makes it possible to attribute a certain mass to the radiation - a certain mass is attributed to each portion.
When light is reflected from a mirror, no heat is released, because the reflected beam carries away all the energy, but a pressure acts on the mirror, similar to the pressure of elastic balls or molecules. If, instead of a mirror, the light hits a black absorbing surface, the pressure becomes half as much. This indicates that the beam carries the momentum rotated by the mirror. Therefore, light behaves as if it had mass. But is there any other way to know that something has mass? Does mass exist in its own right, such as length, green, or water? Or is it an artificial concept defined by behaviors like Modesty? Mass, in fact, is known to us in three manifestations:
- A. A vague statement that characterizes the amount of "substance" (Mass from this point of view is inherent in substance - an entity that we can see, touch, push).
- B. Certain statements linking it to other physical quantities.
- B. Mass is conserved.
It remains to define mass in terms of momentum and energy. Then any moving thing with momentum and energy must have "mass". Its mass should be (momentum)/(velocity).
Theory of relativity
The desire to link together a series of experimental paradoxes concerning absolute space and time gave rise to the theory of relativity. The two kinds of experiments with light gave conflicting results, and experiments with electricity further exacerbated this conflict. Then Einstein proposed to change the simple geometric rules of vector addition. This change is the essence of his "special theory of relativity".
For low speeds (from the slowest snail to the fastest of rockets), the new theory is consistent with the old one.
At high speeds, comparable to the speed of light, our measurement of lengths or time is modified by the motion of the body relative to the observer, in particular, the mass of the body becomes greater the faster it moves.
Then the theory of relativity proclaimed that this increase in mass was of a completely general nature. At normal speeds, there are no changes, and only at a speed of 100,000,000 km / h does the mass increase by 1%. However, for electrons and protons emitted from radioactive atoms or modern accelerators, it reaches 10, 100, 1000%…. Experiments with such high-energy particles provide excellent evidence for the relationship between mass and velocity.
At the other end is radiation that has no rest mass. It is not a substance and cannot be kept still; it just has mass, and it's moving at speed c, so its energy is mc2. We speak of quanta as photons when we want to note the behavior of light as a stream of particles. Each photon has a certain mass m, a certain energy E=mс2 and a certain amount of motion (momentum).
Nuclear transformations
In some experiments with nuclei, the masses of atoms after violent explosions do not add up to give the same total mass. The liberated energy takes away with it some part of the mass; the missing piece of atomic material seems to have disappeared. However, if we assign a mass E/c2 to the measured energy, we find that the mass is conserved.
Matter annihilation
We are accustomed to think of mass as an inevitable property of matter, so the transition of mass from matter to radiation - from a lamp to a flying beam of light looks almost like the destruction of matter. One more step - and we will be surprised to find out what is actually happening: positive and negative electrons, particles of matter, when combined together, completely turn into radiation. The mass of their matter turns into an equal mass of radiation. This is a case of the disappearance of matter in the most literal sense. As if in focus, in a flash of light.
Measurements show that (energy, radiation during annihilation) / c2 is equal to the total mass of both electrons - positive and negative. An antiproton, when combined with a proton, annihilates, usually with the release of lighter particles with high kinetic energy.
Creation of substance
Now that we have learned how to manage high-energy radiation (super-short-wave X-rays), we can prepare particles of matter from radiation. If a target is bombarded with such beams, they sometimes produce a pair of particles, for example, positive and negative electrons. And if we again use the formula m=E/c2 for both radiation and kinetic energy, then the mass will be conserved.
Just about the complex - Nuclear (Atomic) energy
- Gallery of images, pictures, photos.
- Nuclear energy, atomic energy - fundamentals, opportunities, prospects, development.
- Interesting facts, useful information.
- Green news - Nuclear energy, the energy of the atom.
- References to materials and sources - Nuclear (Atomic) energy.
