when and how was nuclear energy created?
96718
Nuclear energy was created a few seconds after the big bang. The 'Bang' itself had resulted in the creation of several radiocative elements, several of which almost immediately began to decay and release nuclear energy.\n\nHow was it created? An electron spiraled into the nucelcus of an unstable atom, most likley tritium. That resulted in the ejectionof a proton and the releease of the energy that had bound the proton to the nucleus.
636112
The fact that Hitler was trying to take the world over and the fact that Germany succesfully split the U235 atom on 12-19-1938.  Albert Einstein wrote President Roosevelt a letter describing the destructive power a weapon that utilized nuclear fission would render.  Hence "Project Manhattan" was born.
1143118
Einstein theorized that energy and matter are interchangeable. He postulated that nuclear fission takes place via chain-reaction and the energy (measured in ergs) produced from the "splitting of atoms" is equal to the atomic mass of an element multiplied by the speed off light squared (mc2). Einstein wasn't thinking of creating a "bomb" when he first developed the theory. Other nuclear physicist came up with the bomb idea. That is why the isotope of the heaviest element (uranium) was used to make an atomic bomb. Also, a small amount of matter is capable of producing a tremendous amount of energy. The testing of the atomic bomb actually proved Einstein's E=mc2 theory.
840554
well i dont know what to say about plants being constructed but here is a kinda link of a map of nuclear power plants, you'll have to copy it and paste it on the adress bar\n\nhttp://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_fall03/images/reactor_map.jpg
478122
The world's first practical nuclear power plant was put into successful operation in May 1953 at Arco, Idaho, where a prototype power plant for the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered submarine had been under construction for several years. Electric power has also been obtained from other nuclear reactors both in this country and in England, but merely as a by-product of the operation of the reactor. Thus much of the research and engineering required to solve the unique problems peculiar to a highly radioactive environment has been done and it now appears feasible to construct a power plant for the production of industrial power. Last year the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) let contracts to four leading industrial firms to make independent nuclear power feasibility studies and their reports have been uniformly favorable. However, as yet no private business has announced its willingness to risk its own capital on such an enterprise. Therefore, in order not to lose the nuclear power race at the international level, the Federal Government has agreed to finance such a project. The first nuclear power plant designed primarily for the production of industrial power will accordingly be built by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation and should be in operation in 3 or 4 years.\n\n© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
972561
Nations such as France and Japan use nuclear power to generate massive amounts of electricity.  That means they're using less oil, coal and natural gas.
152530
NUCLEAR POWER\nIn the mid-1950s, nuclear physicists confidently predicted that nuclear energy would usher in a golden age for humanity: the cost of energy would be so low it would be "too cheap to meter." They predicted that, by the year 2000, there would be one thousand commercial reactors and one thousand "breeder" reactors producing unlimited amounts of power. Like the horse and buggy, oil and coal would become little more than historical curiosities.\n\nNuclear power has exceeded some of these early predictions. Its safety record, when compared, say, to the airline industry, is vastly superior. Compared to the air pollution and acid rain caused by the coal industry, its environmental record is admirable. It currently generates over 15 percent of the nation's electricity and has thus reduced the dependence on scarce fossil fuels. Some claim it may also reduce the impact of the greenhouse effect.\n\nIronically, however, this same industry is also teetering on the verge of collapse. Contrary to previous expectations, the United States now has over one hundred commercial reactors, the breeder reactor program is defunct, and there has not been a single reactor order since 1978, one year before an accident at Three Mile Island. Over one hundred reactor orders have been canceled, and costs have escalated so that the Nine Mile Point reactor in upstate New York will soar beyond $6 billion, or about six times the cost of a coal plant of similar power.\n\nNever in modern history has a major technology, with the full backing of industry and the government, come to such an abrupt halt. Well over $100 billion has been invested in nuclear energy, yet the people of California voted to close down an operating reactor, and the people of Long Island, New York, are closing down the fully completed $5 billion Shoreham reactor before it opens.\n\nUtilities that invested heavily in nuclear power have been driven to the wall by its mounting costs; the Washington Public Power Supply System went bankrupt, and the Long Island Lighting Co. incurred billions in losses. What went wrong? \n\nAlthough the reasons for this unprecedented collapse are complex, many of the problems can be traced to unwise decisions made in the 1950s. Specifically, when the Nautilus nuclear submarine sailed effortlessly beneath the North Pole, it touched off a stampede among corporations interested in the commercial development of nuclear energy. The 1960s marked the "gold rush" in reactors, when General Electric, Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, and Babcock-Wilcox scrambled to bring this technology to the marketplace. In fact, Con Edison even applied for a license to build its Ravenswood reactor in the heart of New York City opposite the United Nations.\n\nBecause large plants are more economical than small ones, designers started with the small (40-megawatt) Nautilus reactor and essentially scaled it up many times to the current 1,000-megawatt design, without clearly thinking through the consequences. Decades later, this would lead to three serious problems. First, in retrospect, scaling up the Nautilus design was a poor choice to begin with because the light-water Nautilus reactor is highly susceptible to a rapid melting of the uranium core. Alternate designs (e.g., gas-cooled high-temperature gas reactors) were much more stable against a meltdown but were ignored. Second, this meant that elaborate and expensive emergency core cooling systems had to be installed, which would later add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the reactor and delay construction for several years. Third, no attention was paid to how reactors would be decommissioned after thirty to forty years of use or where the radioactive nuclear waste would be disposed of.\n\nIn 1957, a prophetic, but secret, report was issued by the Brookhaven National Laboratory, called wash—740. It estimated that a meltdown, a Class 9 accident, could cause $7 billion in pro
218083
I assume you mean nuclear "bomb"...\n\nIn simplistic terms, and nothing you can't easily find elsewhere, a nuclear bomb is made up of material that fissions (meaning that its atoms can be split to release energy) - this is either Uranium-325 or Plutonium.  Uranium is found in nature but the vast majority is U-238 which doesn't fission - natural uranium must be enriched to create a fissionable amount of uranium - this is true for commercial power reactor fuel too.   Plutonium is made in nuclear reactors from bombarding other materials with neutrons.\n\nTo have a "nuclear yield" the fissionable material in a bomb must be forced into a 'critical mass' configuration which means that it is so dense (atoms close together) that once the material starts to fission and release energy and neutrons, other atoms will capture the released neutons and then they will fission releasing more energy and neutrons and so on and so on with the chain reaction making the boom.\n\nWith the early plutonium bombs (Fat Man), the material was in a sphere and was forced together with high explosives uniformly to create a ball (critical mass). In the first uranium bomb (Little Boy, which they didn't even test until it was dropped on Japan since they were confident it would work) 2 uranium blobs were forced together by essentially thrusting/throwing/shooting one to the other to create the critical mass.  The math behind all this physics is incredibly complex.\n\nTo add bang for the buck they started adding the gas Tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, hence the name Hydrogen bomb versus just the Atomic Bomb...  Tritium makes the yield much bigger.
774531
A nuclear weapon is a weapon which derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions of fission or fusion. As a result, even a nuclear weapon with a relatively small yield is significantly more powerful than the largest conventional explosives, and a single weapon is capable of destroying an entire city.\n\nIn the history of warfare, nuclear weapons have been used only twice, both during the closing days of World War II. The first event occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945, when the United States dropped a uranium gun-type device code-named "Little Boy" on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The second event occurred three days later when a plutonium implosion-type device code-named "Fat Man" was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. The use of these weapons, which resulted in the immediate deaths of around 100,000 to 200,000 individuals and even more over time, was and remains controversial — critics around the world charged that they were unnecessary acts of mass killing, while others claimed that they ultimately reduced casualties on both sides by hastening the end of the war. This topic has seen increased debate recently in the wake of increased terrorism involving killings of civilians by both state and non-state players, with parties claiming that the end justifies the means (see Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a full discussion).\n\nSince the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, nuclear weapons have been detonated on over two thousand occasions for testing and demonstration purposes. The only countries known to have detonated such weapons are (chronologically) the United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France, People's Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Various other countries may hold nuclear weapons but have never publicly admitted possession, or their claims to possession have not been verified. For example, Israel has modern airborne delivery systems and appears to have an extensive nuclear program with hundreds of warheads (see Israel and weapons of mass destruction), though it officially maintains a policy of "ambiguity" with respect to its actual possession of nuclear weapons. Iran currently stands accused by a number of governments of attempting to develop nuclear capabilities, though its government claims that its acknowledged nuclear activities, such as uranium enrichment, are for peaceful purposes. South Africa also secretly developed a small nuclear arsenal, but disassembled it in the early 1990s. (For more information see List of countries with nuclear weapons.)\n\nApart from their use as weapons, nuclear explosives have been tested and used for various non-military uses.
224064
Do you mean electrical power from a Nuclear power plant?\n\nIn a nuclear power plant, a reactor contains a supply of enriched uranium.  This radioactive material reacts with itself as it decays, producing heat.  This heat is used to heat water into steam, which turns a steam turbine, which turns a generator (much like in a coal burning plant).  Due to concerns over leaks of radioactive material, there is usually two steam/water loops, one that goes through the reactor and then through a heat exchanger to heat the water in the second loop that goes through the turbine.\n\nNewer reactor technology replaces the first water loop with helium gas instead, resulting in an even safer reactor design.
1049394
Yeah it's http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm\n\nthere is some good facts there
680137
To answer the first question, most power generation currently in use comes from burning things (coal, oil, gas, wood), that contain carbon in their molecular structure.  This carbon is combined with oxygen (typically from air), creating carbon dioxide, and releasing energy.  This carbon dioxide is released into the air.  Depending on the fuel source, other components and contaminants of the fuel may be burned or released as well, producing other types of pollution (such as mercury or acid rain).\n\nWith nuclear power (fission), the energy comes from a reaction contained entirely within a nuclear pile (generally made of uranium or plutonium).  Neither carbon nor oxygen needed for the process, and so CO2 is not produced.  In addition (at present), generally all of the waste products of the reaction are kept sealed and contained at special storage facilities.  While these waste products have the potential to be hazardous, because they are kept sealed, the environmental impact is greatly reduced.
828967
A piece of uranium or plutonium is put in water, and then the water begins to boil releasing a large ammount of of energy. That energy is collected. What`s left over from this reaction is known as nuclear waste.
888620
Nuclear fission—also known as atomic fission—is a process in nuclear physics in which the nucleus of an atom splits into two or more smaller nuclei as fission products, and usually some by-product particles. Hence, fission is a form of elemental transmutation. The by-products include free neutrons, photons usually in the form gamma rays, and other nuclear fragments such as beta particles and alpha particles. Fission of heavy elements is an exothermic reaction and can release substantial amounts of useful energy both as gamma rays and as kinetic energy of the fragments (heating the bulk material where fission takes place).\n\nNuclear fission produces energy for nuclear power and to drive explosion of nuclear weapons. Fission is useful as a power source because some materials, called nuclear fuels, both generate neutrons as part of the fission process and also undergo triggered fission when impacted by a free neutron. Nuclear fuels can be part of a self-sustaining chain reaction that releases energy at a controlled rate in a nuclear reactor or at a very rapid uncontrolled rate in a nuclear weapon.\n\nThe amount of free energy contained in nuclear fuel is millions of times the amount of free energy contained in a similar mass of chemical fuel such as gasoline, making nuclear fission a very tempting source of energy; however, the waste products of nuclear fission are highly radioactive and remain so for millennia, giving rise to a nuclear waste problem. Concerns over nuclear waste accumulation and over the immense destructive potential of nuclear weapons counterbalance the desirable qualities of fission as an energy source, and give rise to intense ongoing political debate over nuclear power.\n\nhere:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Physical_overview
340117
why nuclear why not solar. NASA had a solor UAV years ago.
312445
there is not much of a difference just that atomic bombs were the first to be built they both operate the same way. nuclear energy is taking the action of a nuclear bomb and controlling it to make power. what happens is the nuclear action that a reactor has produces heat which is absorbed by water that then turns to steam and the steam is used to turn a turbine that produces electricity.
45782
In most electric power plants, water is heated and converted into steam, which drives a turbine-generator to produce electricity. Fossil-fueled power plants produce heat by burning coal, oil, or natural gas. In a nuclear power plant, the fission of Uranium atoms in the reactor provides the heat to produce steam for generating electricity.\n\nHeat is produced in a nuclear reactor when neutrons strike Uranium atoms causing them to fission in a continuous chain reaction. Control elements, which are made of materials that absorb neutrons, are placed among the fuel assemblies. When the control elements, or control rods as they are often called, are pulled out of the core, more neutrons are available and the chain reaction speeds up, producing more heat. When they are inserted into the core, more neutrons are absorbed, and the chain reaction slows or stops, reducing the heat. \n  Most commercial nuclear reactors use ordinary water to remove the heat created by the fission process. These are called light water reactors. The water also serves to slow down, or "moderate" the neutrons. In this type of reactor, the chain reaction will not occur without the water to serve as a moderator.