Why are nuclear power plants dangerous? Applications of Nuclear Energy: Problems and Prospects Benefits of Nuclear Technologies
Developed energy is the foundation for the future progress of civilization. If at the dawn of the world and domestic energy industry, they staked on obtaining the maximum electricity for industry, today the question of the impact of power plants on the environment and humans has come to the fore. Modern energy causes significant harm to nature, and countries have to make a difficult choice between thermal, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.
Thermal power plants - "hello" from the past
At the beginning of the 20th century in our country, they staked on thermal power plants. At that time, they had enough pluses, and little thought was given to the impact of this type of energy production on the environment. Thermal power plants operate on cheap fuel, which Russia is rich in, and their construction is not so expensive compared to the construction of a hydroelectric power station or nuclear power plant. Thermal power plants do not require large areas and can be built in any area. The consequences of technological accidents at thermal power plants are not as devastating as at other power plants.
The share of thermal power plants in the domestic energy system is the largest: in 2011, thermal power plants in Russia generated 67.8% (that's 691 billion kWh) of all energy in the country. Meanwhile, thermal power plants cause the most significant damage to the environment compared to other power plants.
Every year, thermal power plants emit a huge amount of waste into the atmosphere. According to the state report "On the state and protection of environment RF in 2010”, the largest sources of pollutant emissions into the atmospheric air were precisely the state district power station - large thermal power plants. In 2010 alone, 4 GRESs owned by OAO Enel OGK-5 - Reftinskaya, Sredneuralskaya, Nevinnomysskaya and Konakovskaya GRES - emitted 410,360 tons of pollutants into the atmosphere.
The combustion of fossil fuels produces combustion products containing nitrogen oxide, sulfuric and sulfurous anhydride, particles of unburned pulverized fuel, fly ash and gaseous products of incomplete combustion. When burning fuel oil, vanadium compounds, coke, sodium salts, soot particles are formed, and aluminum and silicon oxides are present in the emissions of coal-fired thermal power plants. And all thermal power plants, regardless of the fuel used, emit colossal amounts of carbon dioxide, which causes global warming.
Gas significantly increases the cost of electricity, but burning it does not produce ash. True, sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxides also enter the atmosphere, as with the combustion of fuel oil. And the thermal power plants of our country, unlike foreign ones, are not equipped with effective exhaust gas purification systems. AT last years Serious work is being done in this direction: boiler units and ash collecting plants, electrostatic precipitators are being reconstructed, automated systems environmental monitoring of emissions.
The issue of lack of high-quality fuel for thermal power plants is quite acute. Many stations are forced to operate on low-quality fuel, which, when burned, enters the atmosphere along with smoke. a large number of harmful substances.
The main problem of coal thermal power plants is ash dumps. They not only occupy large areas, but are also centers of accumulation of heavy metals and have increased radioactivity.
Moreover, thermal power plants discharge into water bodies warm water and they pollute them. As a result, a violation of the oxygen balance and overgrowing of algae, which poses a threat to the ichthyofauna. They pollute reservoirs and waste water from thermal power plants, which contain oil products. At the same time, at TPPs operating on liquid fuel, discharges of industrial waters are higher.
Despite the relative cheapness of fossil fuels, they are still irreplaceable. natural resource. The main energy resources in the world are coal (40%), oil (27%) and gas (21%), and according to some estimates, at the current consumption rate, the world's reserves will last for 270, 50 and 70 years, respectively.
HPP - "tamed" element
Taming the water element began at the end of the 19th century, and the large-scale construction of hydroelectric power stations throughout the country coincided with the development of industry and the development of new territories. The construction of the hydroelectric power station not only solved the issue of providing electricity to new industries, but also improved the conditions for navigation and land reclamation.
The maneuverability of hydroelectric power plants helps to optimize the operation of the power system, allowing thermal power plants to operate in an optimal mode with minimal cost fuel and minimal emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.
One of the main advantages of hydropower is that it causes less damage to the environment compared to other power plants. Hydroelectric power plants do not use fuel, which means that the electricity they generate is much cheaper, its cost does not depend on fluctuations in oil or coal prices, and energy production is not accompanied by air and water pollution. The generation of electricity at HPPs provides an annual saving of 50 million tons of standard fuel. The savings potential is 250 million tons.
Water is a renewable source of electricity and unlike fossil fuels, it can be used countless times. Hydropower is the most developed type of renewable energy sources, it is able to provide energy to entire regions. Another plus, since HPPs do not burn fuel, there are no additional costs for waste disposal and disposal.
At the same time, the HPP also has a number of disadvantages from the point of view of ecology. During the construction of hydroelectric power stations on flat rivers, large areas of arable land have to be flooded. The creation of reservoirs significantly changes the ecosystem, which affects not only the ichthyofauna, but also the animal world. True, as some ecologists note, with the implementation of a set of environmental measures, it is possible to restore the ecosystem in a few decades.
Nuclear power plant - the energy of the future?
Nuclear energy was discovered relatively recently, and the world's first nuclear power plant was launched in 1954 in Obninsk. Today, the nuclear industry is developing at an active pace, but the tragedy at Fukushima has forced many countries to reconsider their views on the future of nuclear power plants.
In the domestic energy system, nuclear power plants account for a small part of the energy produced. In 2011, the country's nuclear power plants produced 172.9 billion kWh, which is only 16.9%. Nevertheless, the state corporation Rosatom has serious plans for the development of the nuclear industry in Russia and abroad.
Nuclear power plants, despite the high cost of construction, are economically profitable: the electricity they produce is relatively cheap. And from the point of view of ecology, nuclear power plants have a number of advantages.
Nuclear power plants do not emit ash and other hazardous substances resulting from fuel combustion into the atmosphere. The main share of pollutant emissions into the atmosphere falls on start-up boiler houses, boiler houses of dispensaries and periodically switched on standby diesel generator stations. According to the state report, in 2010, all nuclear power plants in the country emitted only 1,559 tons of pollutants into the atmosphere (for comparison, the above 4 GRESs emitted 410,360 tons). The share of nuclear power plants in the total volume of emissions of pollutants into the atmospheric air by all enterprises of the country has been less than 0.012% for many years.
Stocks of nuclear fuel - uranium - are much larger than other types of fuel. Russia possesses 8.9% of the explored uranium reserves in the world, being in the fourth place in the general list.
But, despite the obvious advantages, countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and a number of others have abandoned nuclear energy. In Germany, the share of nuclear power plants in the energy system is 32%, but by 2022 the last station in the country will be turned off. The main reason is the safety of nuclear power plants for the environment and the population. A peaceful atom in an instant can become the culprit of the death and serious illnesses of millions of people and animals, and cause irreparable damage to the environment. The catastrophic consequences of accidents at nuclear power plants immediately cross out all these advantages.
Moreover, during the operation of nuclear reactors, radioactive waste is generated that must be stored for hundreds of thousands of years until it becomes more or less safe for the environment. And the world has not yet found a solution how to make their storage safe. Part of the nuclear waste is sent for processing (regeneration) with partial extraction of uranium and plutonium for subsequent use (but as a result of processing, new waste is generated that exceeds the original amount of waste by thousands of times), or for burial in the ground. From an environmental point of view, the process of mining uranium, as well as its conversion into nuclear fuel, is also not perfect.
It is worth noting that even at properly operating nuclear power plants, part of the radioactive material enters the air and water. And even if these are small doses, it is difficult to predict what impact they will have on the environment in the long term.
Progress does not stand still and it is difficult to say exactly what the energy of the future will be like. But we must understand that energy, as well as any other human activity, has a certain negative impact on the environment. And to avoid it completely, unfortunately, is impossible. But it is quite realistic to make every effort to minimize the damage to nature. For example, choose those technologies (albeit expensive ones) that are the most environmentally friendly. Thus, hydropower, which is the only one on such a scale to use a renewable energy source - water - despite a number of shortcomings from the point of view of ecology, still causes minimal damage to the environment compared to other electric power facilities.
...Electricity without harm to the environment: myth or reality? Harm and benefits of nuclear power plants
The device of nuclear power plants. Harm and benefit (Balakovo NPP)
BalakovskayaBeloyarskayaVolgodonskayaKalininskayaKolaKurskLeningradskayaNovovoronezhskayaSmolenskMay 12, 1993 - 4 power unit.Booklet Balakovo NPP |
rpp.nashaucheba.ru
how real is it? How do nuclear power plants work? How dangerous is this type of electricity production?
Catastrophes always frighten with their consequences, the mere thought of a possible repetition drives one into fear. But what if all the measures to prevent such incidents create even more problems? And this is not about terrorism, as one might think.
Nuclear power - state of affairs
There were 191 nuclear power plants around the world in 2015, all of which provided 10% of the world's electricity demand. True, the percentage is also calculated taking into account countries in which nuclear power plants have never been.
France, Ukraine and Slovakia are among the top three in terms of providing their own electricity needs at the expense of nuclear power plants. From 50 to 75%, which is impressive, given the low cost of production and certain difficulties with operation.
In Russia, only slightly more than 20% of the energy consumed is generated at nuclear power plants, and there are prospects for development in this direction.
The loudest case was the refusal to build new stations in Japan, after the events at Fukushima. But in the past few years, the Japanese have begun to increase the amount of energy extracted in this way again, due to the unenviable situation with minerals.
Fear of consequences fades into the background when there is a very real need that must be satisfied, in any way.
What is the danger of an accident at a nuclear power plant?
When it comes to such disasters, everyone remembers Chernobyl and Fukushima. In fact, there were at least a dozen accidents, but only two had such serious consequences for the environment, people's lives and the economies of countries. Any outlier radioactive substance entails:
- Pollution of the surrounding area with active isotopes decaying over thousands or even millions of years;
- Consequences for neighboring countries, due to precipitation and sea currents;
- An increase in the incidence of oncology for hundreds of kilometers around;
- Risk of death of plant employees and liquidators;
- Station shutdown and energy collapse.
Everyone who knows that a nuclear power plant is located near his city, at least once wondered if something bad would happen? In the event of a disaster, panic is possible even in remote cities, everyone will worry about their health and try to find out how far radioactive elements can spread due to tailwinds and other natural phenomena.
There might not have been any special fear, if not for the sad experience. Anyone who has ever been burned will bypass stoves, stoves and other hot objects. Such sentiments are actively used by politicians to manipulate public opinion and achieve their goals.
How do nuclear power plants work?
Many do not really understand how a nuclear power plant works, and are already worried from this moment alone.
In general terms, this can be explained as follows:
- There is an active zone in which heat is generated due to radioactive elements;
- The coolant transfers it to water located in a separate tank;
- Having reached the boiling point, the liquid begins to rotate the turbine;
- The movement of the turbine ensures the accumulation of charge in the generator and the further distribution of electricity;
- The steam condenses into water, which is returned to the reservoir and reused.
It may seem that the water is polluted in this way, but it is not. The liquid does not come into contact with anything radioactive, it returns to the reservoir in its “original form”. Unless it gets a little warmer, which is the only type of pollution that the stations have - thermal.
Otherwise, the station is absolutely safe as long as it works in normal mode and is not violated technological process. From the point of view of ecology, it does not cause any harm, unlike CHP.
The real danger of nuclear power plants
Why did we abandon the massive use of nuclear power plants and switch to a new type of energy? What about “peaceful atom in every home” and other loud slogans? It's all about public opinion and fear of the consequences.
Contamination with radioactive isotopes is dangerous because the area where the disaster occurred will be inaccessible to humans for decades, if not centuries. An example of this is Chernobyl, with its zone - a catastrophe occurred in the last century, but so far no one has seriously discussed the possibility of returning a person to Pripyat and to nearby territories.
Almost all accidents have occurred while testing a new mechanism or making adjustments to the manufacturing process. Maintaining the operability of a nuclear power plant, with strict observance of all the developed instructions, is not the most difficult task. But we are talking about 191 stations and more than 400 blocks that operate constantly, without breaks and days off. At such a long distance, the mistake of this person can have serious consequences for the entire energy sector, what can we say about the environment and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Atomic energy in the world
In the last century, science fiction writers dreamed that in every household appliance there will be a miniature nuclear engine, like a battery. Unfortunately or fortunately, such bold hopes did not come true, there are no more than two hundred nuclear power plants and not a single country in the world provides all its needs at the expense of this type of energy.
Regarding the use of thermal power plants instead of nuclear power plants, there are some problems here. We will not be able to name a single serious disaster that occurred in connection with the burning of coal. But living close to such "sources of energy", it is very difficult to think about nature. Interferes with constant smoke and background radiation.
Yes, when coal is burned, radioactive isotopes are activated, which were found as impurities in fossil resources. Even in this parameter, nuclear power plants bypass their closest competitors.
By the way, the prospect of nuclear energy directly depends on oil prices. The lower this indicator, the more accessible black gold» and other carbon energy carriers. Under such conditions, it makes no sense to develop a more "dangerous" direction, when you can get a lot of cheap energy, getting the only necessary resource through the oil pipeline.
Fear pushes people to rash and senseless actions. One of these is the rejection of nuclear energy and further environmental pollution.
Video about accidents at nuclear power plants
In this video, Timur Sychev will talk about 7 accidents at nuclear power plants, which the government carefully concealed, not allowing disclosure:
1-vopros.ru
...Electricity without harm to the environment: myth or reality? | Question answer
Developed energy is the foundation for the future progress of civilization. If at the dawn of the world and domestic energy industry, they staked on obtaining the maximum electricity for industry, today the question of the impact of power plants on the environment and humans has come to the fore. Modern energy causes significant harm to nature, and countries have to make a difficult choice between thermal, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.
Thermal power plants - "hello" from the past
At the beginning of the 20th century in our country, they staked on thermal power plants. At that time, they had enough pluses, and little thought was given to the impact of this type of energy production on the environment. Thermal power plants operate on cheap fuel, which Russia is rich in, and their construction is not so expensive compared to the construction of a hydroelectric power station or nuclear power plant. Thermal power plants do not require large areas and can be built in any area. The consequences of technological accidents at thermal power plants are not as devastating as at other power plants.
The share of thermal power plants in the domestic energy system is the largest: in 2011, thermal power plants in Russia generated 67.8% (that's 691 billion kWh) of all energy in the country. Meanwhile, thermal power plants cause the most significant damage to the environment compared to other power plants.
Every year, thermal power plants emit a huge amount of waste into the atmosphere. According to the state report "On the State and Protection of the Environment of the Russian Federation in 2010", the largest sources of pollutant emissions into the atmosphere were precisely the state district power station - large thermal power plants. In 2010 alone, 4 GRESs owned by OAO Enel OGK-5 – Reftinskaya, Sredneuralskaya, Nevinnomysskaya and Konakovskaya GRES – emitted 410,360 tons of pollutants into the atmosphere.
The combustion of fossil fuels produces combustion products containing nitrogen oxide, sulfuric and sulfurous anhydride, particles of unburned pulverized fuel, fly ash and gaseous products of incomplete combustion. When burning fuel oil, vanadium compounds, coke, sodium salts, soot particles are formed, and aluminum and silicon oxides are present in the emissions of coal-fired thermal power plants. And all thermal power plants, regardless of the fuel used, emit colossal amounts of carbon dioxide, which causes global warming.
Gas significantly increases the cost of electricity, but burning it does not produce ash. True, sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxides also enter the atmosphere, as with the combustion of fuel oil. And the thermal power plants of our country, unlike foreign ones, are not equipped with effective exhaust gas purification systems. In recent years, serious work has been carried out in this direction: boiler units and ash collecting plants, electrostatic precipitators are being reconstructed, and automated systems for environmental monitoring of emissions are being introduced.
The issue of lack of high-quality fuel for thermal power plants is quite acute. Many stations are forced to operate on low-quality fuel, the combustion of which releases a large amount of harmful substances into the atmosphere along with smoke.
The main problem of coal thermal power plants is ash dumps. They not only occupy large areas, but are also centers of accumulation of heavy metals and have increased radioactivity.
Moreover, thermal power plants discharge warm water into reservoirs and thus pollute them. As a result, a violation of the oxygen balance and overgrowing of algae, which poses a threat to the ichthyofauna. They pollute reservoirs and waste water from thermal power plants, which contain oil products. At the same time, at TPPs operating on liquid fuel, discharges of industrial waters are higher.
Despite the relative cheapness of fossil fuels, they are still an irreplaceable natural resource. The main energy resources in the world are coal (40%), oil (27%) and gas (21%), and according to some estimates, at the current consumption rate, the world's reserves will last for 270, 50 and 70 years, respectively.
HPP - "tamed" element
Taming the water element began at the end of the 19th century, and the large-scale construction of hydroelectric power stations throughout the country coincided with the development of industry and the development of new territories. The construction of the hydroelectric power station not only solved the issue of providing electricity to new industries, but also improved the conditions for navigation and land reclamation.
The maneuverability of hydroelectric power plants helps to optimize the operation of the power system, allowing thermal power plants to operate optimally with minimal fuel consumption and minimal emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.
Photo source: russianlook.com One of the main advantages of hydropower is that it causes less damage to the environment compared to other power plants. Hydroelectric power plants do not use fuel, which means that the electricity they generate is much cheaper, its cost does not depend on fluctuations in oil or coal prices, and energy production is not accompanied by air and water pollution. The generation of electricity at HPPs provides an annual saving of 50 million tons of standard fuel. The savings potential is 250 million tons.
Water is a renewable source of electricity and unlike fossil fuels, it can be used countless times. Hydropower is the most developed type of renewable energy sources, it is able to provide energy to entire regions. Another plus, since HPPs do not burn fuel, there are no additional costs for waste disposal and disposal.
At the same time, the HPP also has a number of disadvantages from the point of view of ecology. During the construction of hydroelectric power stations on flat rivers, large areas of arable land have to be flooded. The creation of reservoirs significantly changes the ecosystem, which affects not only the ichthyofauna, but also the animal world. True, as some ecologists note, with the implementation of a set of environmental measures, it is possible to restore the ecosystem in a few decades.
Nuclear power plants - the energy of the future?
Nuclear energy was discovered relatively recently, and the world's first nuclear power plant was launched in 1954 in Obninsk. Today, the nuclear industry is developing at an active pace, but the tragedy at Fukushima has forced many countries to reconsider their views on the future of nuclear power plants.
In the domestic energy system, nuclear power plants account for a small part of the energy produced. In 2011, the country's nuclear power plants produced 172.9 billion kWh, which is only 16.9%. Nevertheless, the state corporation Rosatom has serious plans for the development of the nuclear industry in Russia and abroad.
Nuclear power plants, despite the high cost of construction, are economically profitable: the electricity they produce is relatively cheap. And from the point of view of ecology, nuclear power plants have a number of advantages.
Photo source: russianlook.com Nuclear power plants do not emit ash and other hazardous substances resulting from fuel combustion into the atmosphere. The main share of pollutant emissions into the atmosphere falls on start-up boiler houses, boiler houses of dispensaries and periodically switched on standby diesel generator stations. According to the state report, in 2010, all nuclear power plants in the country emitted only 1,559 tons of pollutants into the atmosphere (for comparison, the above 4 GRESs emitted 410,360 tons). The share of nuclear power plants in the total volume of emissions of pollutants into the atmospheric air by all enterprises of the country has been less than 0.012% for many years.
Stocks of nuclear fuel - uranium - are much larger than other types of fuel. Russia possesses 8.9% of the explored uranium reserves in the world, being in the fourth place in the general list.
But, despite the obvious advantages, countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and a number of others have abandoned nuclear energy. In Germany, the share of nuclear power plants in the energy system is 32%, but by 2022 the last station in the country will be turned off. The main reason is the safety of nuclear power plants for the environment and the population. A peaceful atom in an instant can become the culprit of the death and serious illnesses of millions of people and animals, and cause irreparable damage to the environment. The catastrophic consequences of accidents at nuclear power plants immediately cross out all these advantages.
Moreover, during the operation of nuclear reactors, radioactive waste is generated that must be stored for hundreds of thousands of years until it becomes more or less safe for the environment. And the world has not yet found a solution how to make their storage safe. Part of the nuclear waste is sent for processing (regeneration) with partial extraction of uranium and plutonium for subsequent use (but as a result of processing, new waste is generated that exceeds the original amount of waste by thousands of times), or for burial in the ground. From an environmental point of view, the process of mining uranium, as well as its conversion into nuclear fuel, is also not perfect.
It is worth noting that even at properly operating nuclear power plants, part of the radioactive material enters the air and water. And even if these are small doses, it is difficult to predict what impact they will have on the environment in the long term.
Progress does not stand still and it is difficult to say exactly what the energy of the future will be like. But we must understand that energy, as well as any other human activity, has a certain negative impact on the environment. And to avoid it completely, unfortunately, is impossible. But it is quite realistic to make every effort to minimize the damage to nature. For example, choose those technologies (albeit expensive ones) that are the most environmentally friendly. Thus, hydropower, which is the only one on such a scale to use a renewable energy source - water - despite a number of shortcomings from the point of view of ecology, still causes minimal damage to the environment compared to other electric power facilities.
www.aif.ru
Nuclear (Atomic) energy - Application and use of the energy of the atomic nucleus, nuclear reaction, energy sources; Problems of security, development and production of nuclear energy, the significance of the discovery and explosion of the atomic bomb. Pros and cons, benefits and harms of nuclear energy at greensource.ru
20 11 2016 greenman No comments yet
Application of atomic energy
The use of nuclear energy in modern world turns out to be so important that if we woke up tomorrow and the energy of the nuclear reaction disappeared, the world as we know it would probably cease to exist. The peaceful use of nuclear energy sources 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 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.
Modern man wants to ride 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, atomic 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, a 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, they must be sought either in the microscopic but active processes studied by nuclear physics, or in a high-temperature crucible. atomic bombs, on 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 a total of 0.000000000004kg 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. Conventional kinetic energy makes a significant contribution to the mass of very fast protons produced by cyclotrons, and this creates difficulties in 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 in a vacuum 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. The energy of light appears to be 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 others 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 movement 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 discover 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 matter
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.
greensource.ru
Health and NPP
How many copies have been broken on the development of nuclear energy. As soon as the construction of a nuclear power plant starts anywhere in the world, parties and public associations immediately come out in favor of closing the stations and stopping construction. So, are nuclear power plants so dangerous and not environmentally friendly?
As you know, electricity is the main source of energy for mankind. They receive it at the main stations - hydroelectric power stations, thermal power plants, nuclear power plants. But nuclear power plants cause the most fear.
If you look, the cheapest electricity is obtained at nuclear power plants. The most expensive electricity is thermal, coal-fired. Organizations that fight against nuclear plants tend to stop their speeches when it comes to what is at stake. this place thermal power plant will be built. But here is the question. A coal-fired CHP emits so many harmful emissions that a good environmental situation near the CHP is out of the question. No filters save from coal dust. One station burns hundreds of thousands of tons of coal a year. And the mountains of coal reserves near it, coal dust, perfectly inflate the winds throughout the district for many kilometers. Oil shale stations have not gone far either. Even gas stations also emit tons of CO into the atmosphere. But it is the nuclear power plant that causes the greatest fear. The reason here is naturally in the Chernobyl accident and the accident in the United States. True, the leak there was not significant, compared with the Chernobyl disaster. The so-called Chinese Syndrome occurred at the station. In principle, the same accident as at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. But the only difference is that in the US, the staff managed to take control of the reactor. However, in the 70s, this accident made a lot of noise. But is a nuclear power plant really that dangerous? According to physicists, nuclear power plants in general are by far the most environmentally friendly station. Of course, there are alternative power plants. Solar, wave, wind. But their percentage in the share of electricity generation is so small that they are still not seriously taken into account.
But what about hydroelectric power plants? It turned out that they harm not so much the person himself, in terms of emissions, but harm nature and rivers. An example is the station in the state of Punjab, built with the help of Russia. Oddly enough, but it was these structures that caused a number of earthquakes in India. So say seismologists. Yes, and the Aswan Dam caused irreparable harm to vast territories in Egypt and beyond. True, this all became clear much later, after construction.
And what about nuclear power plants? 
Modern reactors are very reliable. The second Chernobyl is certainly not to be expected from new reactors. What can not be said about the old stations. But where does the spent fuel go? This is a question. Those repositories and technologies for recycling, rather, it is “Greetings from great-grandfathers”, for our great-grandchildren. While humanity hides them in burial grounds, blaming the problem of solution on future generations. But this is perhaps the only negative question in the controversy “For” and “Against” about nuclear power plants. If you look at the issue more broadly, choose between a CHP and a nuclear power plant, then of course, in terms of environmental friendliness, a nuclear power plant will give odds to any CHP with the most reliable filters. But, nevertheless, because of the phobia caused by Chernobyl, citizens of many countries are ready to inhale and enjoy the emissions of thermal power plants and boiler houses, die from lung diseases, oncology caused by carcinogens contained in combustion products, rather than allow the construction of a nuclear power plant, with its "terrible » radiation.
Everything that is not done means that someone needs it. It means that it is beneficial for someone that all new thermal power plants would be built. Someone needs them to burn millions of tons and cubic meters of gas, coal, shale, fuel oil annually. And someone is vitally interested that there would be no abandonment of these stations in favor of nuclear power plants. And many people know how to intimidate the population with the prospect of building a nuclear power plant.
But interesting fact. The Gomel region of Belarus suffered the most from the Chernobyl disaster. It is followed by Brestskaya, Minska. But what's interesting. The first place in the incidence of oncological diseases is confidently held by the Vitebsk region. But after all, she suffered least of all from the accident at the nuclear power plant. The head physician of the Vitebsk region said that so far it has not been possible to establish the reason for such a high rise in the incidence. But quite recently, an increase in the incidence of cancer was directly linked to the Chernobyl disaster. It turns out not everything is so simple. There are still so many negative factors in our life that it is simply stupid to look for the cause of our illnesses in a newly built nuclear power plant. This is what the statistics say. And scientists have been talking about the dangers of CHP for a long time. But they are usually listened to last.
Discuss on the forum
vsezdorovo.com
The benefits and harms of the atom | NOU College Mosenergo
Nuclear energy with its capabilities acts as an attribute of a modern civilized society, demonstrates the development of social culture and is one of the most important areas in international relations. Nuclear energy directly affects the life of people and its main components in particular, namely, its demand in science and technology, politics, economics, health and environmental protection, as well as the well-being of society is undeniable.
There is a technogenic risk of using atomic energy in influencing the general data of life quality indicators, namely the average life expectancy, the "price of life", the quality of life and the ecological situation. In this regard, work is underway to manage those factors that are associated with the use of the atom, aimed at reducing its negative impacts.
The use of the atom undoubtedly has its positive sides, providing opportunities to improve the performance of life in general. For political and economic reasons, there are disputes caused by conflicts of interest of influential organizations at the international level. Bursts of radiophobia among the common population also accompany recurring nuclear accidents.
In what period was the effect of radiation on the life of people marked?
In 1895, Roentgen discovered X-rays, and a little later, Becquerel indicated the existence of natural radiation activity. Initially, these phenomena were used for the purpose of scientific research and increased knowledge and education, including in medicine. So, Maria Skladovskaya created an apparatus for urgent x-ray examination people who have been injured. She created at least two hundred X-ray installations, which brought great benefits to medicine and the treatment of the wounded.
What happened afterwards?
Initially, nuclear energy was used purely for science, but very soon nuclear weapons became the prerogative. The greatest discoveries and a colossal leap in scientific and technological progress thanks to discoveries in this area have brought humanity to a fundamentally new level of quality of life.
college-mosenergo.ru
| www.shkolageo.ru | 1 The device of nuclear power plants. Harm and benefit (Balakovo NPP)The work was done by students of the 11th grade Seliverstov V., Rudenko N. |
www.shkolageo.ru
slide 2
Purpose: to find out the purpose and benefits of atomic energy
slide 3
People have always treated nature pragmatically. It was this approach that led to the fact that in the twentieth century. there were global changes that made a real threat of self-destruction of mankind. One of them is the mastery of atomic energy. Today we will try to find out the positive and negative sides its application.
slide 4
With the development of human society, energy consumption has continuously increased. So. if a million years ago it was about 0.1 kW per capita per year, and 100 thousand years ago - 0.3 kW, then in the 15th century. - 1.4 kW, at the beginning of the 20th century. -3.9 kW, and by the end of the 20th century. - already 10 kW.
slide 5
Although fossil fuels are now almost half used, it is clear that their reserves will soon be exhausted. Other sources are needed, and one of the most realistic is nuclear fuel.
slide 6
The process of obtaining energy is always associated with consequences harmful to humans, regardless of the type of fuel, but the degree of harmfulness is different ... Nuclear fuel the safest, and its reserves are large. At present, nuclear energy is generated mainly in thermal neutron reactors; brooders (fast neutron reactors) have already been developed. nuclear reactors are constantly being improved, the level of security is increasing. The limiting dose is considered to be such when uniform irradiation for 70 years does not cause a deterioration in health, detectable modern methods. The annual dose of radiation that comes to us from space and other natural sources is 2 mSv. NPP personnel receive an annual radiation dose of 1.1 mSv. The radiation emitted by all nuclear power plants will be significant.
Slide 7
Radiation protection of the reactor is provided by many factors: thick walls and a reinforced concrete body, a closed cycle, etc.
Slide 8
Slide 9
The biggest problem is the processing and storage of spent fuel.
Slide 10
Over time, this problem will be solved. Now in our country there is solid radioactive waste in steel barrels and in salt beds.
slide 11
slide 12
slide 13
The use of atomic energy now solves some of the energy problems. But the harm from the use of nuclear energy is greater than the benefits. The entire technological process of mining the manufacture of atomic fuel at each stage is associated with the likelihood of radioactive contamination of the environment and exposure of people.
Slide 14
Mankind cannot do without the use of the phenomenon of radioactivity and isotopes. We use this phenomenon in almost all areas of activity: medicine, archeology, flaw detection, crop breeding
slide 15
For example, the use of labeled atoms makes it possible to diagnose many diseases: with the help of a radioactive isotope of iodine, diseases are diagnosed thyroid gland on the early stage, cancerous growths are first irradiated with radioactive cobalt, and then diseased tissues are removed, lung diseases are recognized at an early stage thanks to fluorography - a snapshot x-ray.
slide 16
In addition, we use a wide variety of equipment, which, at first glance, does not emit anything, but strong alternating electromagnetic fields are formed around working refrigerators, televisions, microwave ovens and other household equipment, i.e. electromagnetic radiation, which also affects our body and causes changes in it
Slide 17
Quite often, a person receives a dose in a year that significantly exceeds the allowable dose. Especially this danger has increased in our country after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, we get radioactive-contaminated products and materials. We know that radioactivity is an invisible killer, not causing painful reactions during exposure, but manifesting itself later, when a cure is no longer possible.
Slide 18
One of the most dangerous contradictions of the modern world is the growing gap between the degree of technological development and the level of life support, culture and morality of the main part of humanity. On this basis, technological terrorism arose. There are national borders and national interests, tough economic and trade competition in the world commodity and technology markets. One of the most dangerous species technological terrorism is nuclear.
View all slides
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 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, atomic 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, a 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 a total of 0.000000000004kg 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 in a vacuum 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 movement 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 discover 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 matter
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.
Nuclear energy with its capabilities acts as an attribute of a modern civilized society, demonstrates the development of social culture and is one of the most important areas in international relations. Nuclear energy directly affects the life of people and its main components in particular, namely, its demand in science and technology, politics, economics, health and environmental protection, as well as the well-being of society is undeniable.
There is a technogenic risk of using atomic energy in influencing the general data of life quality indicators, namely the average life expectancy, the "price of life", the quality of life and the ecological situation. In this regard, work is underway to manage those factors that are associated with the use of the atom, aimed at reducing its negative impacts.
The use of the atom, no doubt, has its positive aspects, providing opportunities to improve the performance of life in general. For political and economic reasons, there are disputes caused by conflicts of interest of influential organizations at the international level. Bursts of radiophobia among the common population also accompany recurring nuclear accidents.
In what period was the effect of radiation on the life of people marked?
In 1895, Roentgen discovered X-rays, and a little later, Becquerel indicated the existence of natural radiation activity. Initially, these phenomena were used for the purpose of scientific research and increased knowledge and education, including in medicine. So, Maria Skladovskaya created an apparatus for urgent X-ray examination of people who were injured. She created at least two hundred X-ray installations, which brought great benefits to medicine and the treatment of the wounded.
What happened afterwards?
Initially, nuclear energy was used purely for science, but very soon nuclear weapons became the prerogative. The greatest discoveries and a colossal leap in scientific and technological progress thanks to discoveries in this area have brought humanity to a fundamentally new level of quality of life.