who created nuclear power and why?

who created nuclear power, why did they do it, what has it done to the earth and economy, does its presence in the world make the globe a better or worse place........

3 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    If you believe in a supernatural being, then I'd say God created nuclear power. Nuclear reactions are a part of nature. No man created them, they just learned how to harness them. Enrico Fermi was responsible for the first nuclear reactor - a "graphite pile" reactor at the University of Chicago. However, many other scientists had to contribute to particle physics and quantum mechanics for Fermi to do the work he had done. For example, Albert Einstein made great contributions with his famous equation E=mc^2. Enrico Fermi worked on nuclear power, like all scientists, because he had an interest in the field. He knew these processes took place and wanted to try and control them because he saw the potential it could have. The government then exploited the work of scientists like Fermi, Oppenheimer, and Einstien because they saw the potential of a nuclear powered weapon.

    Nuclear power was both a blessing and a curse. Nuclear weapons give mankind capability of more destruction than they were ever capable of. Some will say that the bomb ended Japan's involvement in World War II and therefore, it has positive uses, but I disagree. Dying of radiation poisoning is a terrible way to go and I personally believe that war is rarely the answer, but I guess that's just my opinion. Nuclear power was a blessing because, when harnassed, it is capable of creating large amounts of power that can be put to good use. Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized this and wanted to promote nuclear power useage for the right reasons, so he introduced his "Atoms for Peace" program in 1953. It was said electricity generated by nuclear power would be too cheap to meter. Well, that's not really the case, but nuclear power is inexpensive and it's clean. There's the issue of nuclear waste, but with reprocessing, it's not an unsolvable problem.

    I don't know what direct impacts nuclear power would have made on the economy. It allows utilities to build nuclear power plants, which generate energy, which is the life blood of an economy, but if nuclear power weren't available, the utilities would just use coal, oil, natural gas, renewables, hydro, or any other power producing source.

    It makes the world both a better and worse place, but it's like any tool that human kind has invented. It's all in how you use it. Take a hammer, for example: you can build homes to shelter people or bash somebody's head in in a conflict. A car can be used to get you from point A to B or can be used to kill somebody if used irresponsibly. Personally, though, I think that nuclear power makes the world a better place because the positive benefits we have gotten out of it (many gigawatt-hours of clean power) outweigh the negative impacts it has had. Of course, what's the value of the human lives lost when the bombs were dropped? Although, many lives were lost due to coal mining, which is the alternative to nuclear. Like I said, it's how you use it, though. If humans can just work more on their morales and respect for human life, then nuclear power offers an incredible tool to humanity. After all, if not with nuclear power, we'll find other ways to kill large amounts of people, if we so desire. This has been demonstrated all throughout history.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    err.. let's see.. here's what I know - nuclear fission was acheived by Enrico Fermi when he was experimenting with uranium and neutrons, in 1934. Later on, he and a fellow scientist, Leo Szilard, created the first man-made reactor for nuclear power...which I think was in december of 1942. This led to the Manhattan Project, where plutonium was breeded for use in nuclear weapons. errm... nuclear plants are somewhat reliable, and they can have various levels of radioactive waste... the impacts on the environment by nuclear power include uranium mining, effluent emmissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste heat.

    ... as of whether or not its presence betters the earth? who really knows? It's constantly debated throughout the scientific community, the risks and effects on the environment being ever-present, although this could be helped with new technology...and... its pros may outway its cons if you're talking about the economy...

    ... hope this helps!

    - { chuck. } [ the girl. ]

    Source(s): ( check out wikipedia. )
  • 4 years ago

    particular it extremely is made. Radioisotope thermoelectric turbines, like the single that ability area probes, and count on the disintegration of a radionuclide (generally Plutonium 238) to offer approximately 4 hundred W (or a pair of million/2 horse ability) for nicely over 2 a protracted time. as quickly as ought to envision the non-end output of a few of those to furnish ability to recharge batteries of an electric powered automobile. the draw back is, of direction, the cost -- plutonium isn't precisely inexpensive -- and the reality that outstanding containment could be mandatory to confirm not one of the radio lively fabric might get away in case of an coincidence. To have greater ability, you may envision a fission reactor, the place fissile fabric is actively broken down in a chain reaction (as detrimental to decay of radio lively fabric). the subject right this is that a nuclear reactor ought to contain a serious mass well worth of fissile fabric, and that's a risky notion -- every physique ought to scavenge that to purpose and construct a bomb. apart from, that plenty fissile fabric ability particularly some ability being produced, so which you does not have potential for one automobile, yet for an entire deliver. and additionally you may wish a deliver sized motor vehicle to haul that around, as you like shielding to avert frying everybody around with nuclear radiations and neutron flux. So, interior the tip, the sensible good value answer is not any. Nuclear reactors, in spite of in the event that they could be made sufficiently small, might require ancillary help kit that must be incompatible with the dimensions of street autos.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.