This was posted 6 years 16 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

"NUCLEAR PHYSICS Explained" (2018) Video Course ~$50 AUD (Was ~$250 AUD) @ The Great Courses

50
"NUCLEAR PHYSICS Explained" (2018) Video Course ~$50 AUD (Was ~$250 AUD) @ The Great Courses
Go to Deal
IVI on 07/11/2018 - 12:13 thegreatcourses.com.au (71 clicks)
Last edited 10/11/2018 - 10:04 by 1 other user

So, now that:

  1. AU's new PM has said ~he's not against Nuclear Energy, if it turns out to be Economic
    (presumably, when Liquid-Fuel Molten Salt Reactors become available ~2029); AND

  2. the esteemed (if not by me) "60 Minutes" has devoted ~23 minutes to follow-up on AU "going Nuclear"

At least some OzBargainers may like to dig into the Science behind Nuclear Energy, ie:

  • NUCLEAR PHYSICS

So, that's where this course could come in handy.

Source: The Teaching Co. (TCC), in their "The Great Courses" (TGC) series
(Likely the Same library of courses)

BEFORE I FORGET: There's a FREE TRIAL (14-days?) for the Subscription
(ie, another way to access this & their other Courses)

From the course's webpage:

"24 lectures | Average 30 minutes each:

1 A Tour of the Nucleus and Nuclear Forces
2 Curve of Binding Energy: Fission and Fusion
3 Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Decay
4 Radiation Sources, Natural and Unnatural
5 How Dangerous Is Radiation?
6 The Liquid-Drop Model of the Nucleus
7 The Quantum Nucleus and Magic Numbers
8 Particle Accelerators: Schools of Scattering
9 Detecting Subatomic Particles
10 How to Experiment with Nuclear Collisions
11 Scattering Nucleons in Singles or in Pairs
12 Sea Quarks, Gluons, and the Origin of Mass
13 Nuclear Fusion in Our Sun
14 Making Elements: Big Bang to Neutron Stars
15 Splitting the Nucleus
16 Nuclear Weapons Were Never "Atomic" Bombs
17 Harnessing Nuclear Chain Reactions
18 Nuclear Accidents and Lessons Learned
19 The Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Advanced Reactors <== (as in Royal Comm'n & MSR, resp.)
20 Nuclear Fusion: Obstacles and Achievements
21 Killing Cancer with Isotopes, X-Rays, Protons
22 Medical Imaging: CT, PET, SPECT, and MRI <== (He may "Molecular Breast Imaging" (MBI) later)
23 Isotopes as Clocks and Fingerprints
24 Viewing the World with Radiation"

While on the Nuclear Energy, here are some Resources:

  • EnvironmentalProgress.org [Michael Shellenberger's] - incl's lotsa arguments FOR Nuclear Energy

  • GenerationAtomic.com (folks who actively promote Nuclear Energy… Singing to Door-Knocking, etc.

  • Live.GridWatch.CA Ontario's Energy-Mix (nearly real time data) Scroll Down for Energy Export$

  • ElectricityMap.org (or: app "ElectricityMap") For most places on Earth, shows their Energy-Mix

(Qld. + NSW are shown in BLACK, due to their Burning of Toxic Coal. I'm Happy NOT to Breathe there)

Above, I've given you One way to access it: Buy it as a Download (in "M4V" ? or "WMV")

I didn't recognize "M4V" (Does VLC play it? If not, which player(s) can.)
I think "WMV" is something Windows Media Player can handle

But there are at least Two more ways to get it: DVDs & as part of a Subscription to their (streamed) Course Library.

DVDs cost $20 more (1-off)

Subscription costs $29 / month (1-off) OR $18.76 / month (12-months, paid in Advance)

I rang to confirm Currency was AU$ (It is).

(Hey, @60mins interviewed a guy at a Nuclear Power Plant in Ontario, & later asked a
Mum in South Australia how paying 75% More for Electricity feels, etc.)

Education DVD Nuclear Physics Streaming Video Course

Related Stores

The Great Courses
The Great Courses

closed Comments

  • congo on 07/11/2018 - 12:21
    +1

    The great courses are AWESOME!!
    I travel a lot of have completed many courses.
    Well worth it :-)

  • WARvault on 07/11/2018 - 12:26

    Check if Kanopy has this course. I know my library has MANY Great Courses videos. For free!

    • IVI on 07/11/2018 - 12:35

      WOW!

      So, what's Kanopy? (Maybe it covers "all" courses?)

      SA's Public Libraries all have Lynda.com's collection, but Not TGC"s (yet…)

    • congo on 07/11/2018 - 13:11
      +1

      Here the link:
      https://www.kanopy.com/category/supplier/great-courses

      • IVI on 07/11/2018 - 14:29

        I saw "The Science of Energy" but not the above NPE course… :-(

        NPE is new 2018, Maybe Kanopy need to refresh its TGC collection?

  • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2018 - 12:30
    -3

    Fukushima this for a good idea.

    • IVI on 07/11/2018 - 12:43

      Most "Advanced Reactors" (some aiming to arrive ~2029)
      are so Very Different fr "Fukushima era" Nuclear Reactors

      See: Bob Hargraves' "Thorium: Energy Cheaper than Coal"
      (It gives overviews of lotsa Reactors: historical thru future.
      Cheap (ie, Excellent Value) as a Kindle eBook.

      • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2018 - 13:25
        -1

        Ad in the usual massive cost blowouts of building nuclear reactors with technology that not even here yet then divide by years of service plus gov subsidy to get an idea of "low" cost of running over its lifetime.
        Power companies are already complaining in Qld because solar hooked into the grid is reducing the need for coal baseload power,
        reducing their profit while they are still maintaining the grid.
        Go solar , wind ,
        even gas turbine Power Station reduces CO2 emissions by half ,trash and wood burning power produced at sugar mills also macadamia shells at processing facilities all reducing need for coal or nuke.

        • Namesareapain on 07/11/2018 - 14:16
          -1

          What a load of BS, it is not just CO2 that is the problem e.g gas power stations offset their lower CO2 with much higher methane releases from gas extraction.

          The most common type of solar can only provide power when it is day time, household battery storage is not really economical (e.g the tesla powerwall only breaks even near the end of it's life) and wind power requires a lot of turbines to balance the change of wind conditions.

          P.S Fukushima Daiichi was only caused by a huge natural disaster and still could of been prevented with ease.

          • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2018 - 16:00

            @Namesareapain: Methane can also be burnt .

            How do you trust people with this technology when they go and build on active faults on the coast.

            Tell me how safe the Indonesian plans are for new reactors?

    • incipient on 07/11/2018 - 13:37
      +2

      For reference the fukushima daichi station was built in 1967. That's over 50 years ago. Imagine driving around in a 50 year old car.

      Tech and safety has come a LONG way since then.

      • Russ on 07/11/2018 - 21:39
        +2

        Age had a part to play, but so did profit. Private industry only rarely prioritizes safety, when it costs money.

        • incipient on 08/11/2018 - 11:54
          +1

          Private industry priorities safety, not because they care about you (they don't, nearly no one does) but because major incidents damage reputation and subsequently damage profits.

          I'm sure some risk assessments were done to justify running with the known risks; eg shallow earthquake and tsunami. Low likelihood/high consequence.

          The option to mothball it simply wouldn't have been viable. To manage that power costs would increase accordingly, which people would complain about. Ultimately, people don't value their own safety.

          • Russ on 08/11/2018 - 12:20

            @incipient:

            I'm sure some risk assessments were done

            They were. There was a lot of detailed information available at the time, but all I can find at the moment are summaries. They knew the design of the reactor was unsafe, and "In a rare moment of introspection, an internal taskforce set up to reform the embattled utility said the firm feared that improvements in safety would highlight the risks to nuclear power plants and encourage the anti-nuclear lobby."

            There was also corruption: "In a damning report released in July, a parliament-appointed panel criticised years of "collusion" between Tepco, industry regulators and politicians, and described the disaster as "manmade""

            In a nutshell, the company running the reactors (Tepco) colluded with the regulators so they wouldn't apply more stringent safety standards, and they did have reports saying it was unsafe, but ignored those. "Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) said it had known safety improvements were needed before the disaster, but had failed to implement them." "The report noted that Tepco had not made any safety improvements to the Fukushima Daiichi plant since 2002"…

            Above quotes are from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/fukushim…

            The option to mothball it simply wouldn't have been viable

            Simple improvements were needed, not mothballing. Like "don't put the Diesel generators that power your emergency system in the part of the building that is most likely to get flooded".

  • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2018 - 12:44

    Science Scmience, there's so many free old testicle err testament courses! fact are so overrated

    But here's a free 10min explainer from CrashCourse (who have sooo many good courses for free)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUhJL7o6_cA

  • INFIDEL on 07/11/2018 - 12:48

    ElectricityMap.org shows their Energy-Mix
    (Qld. + NSW are shown in BLACK, due to their Burning of Toxic Coal. I'm Happy NOT to Breathe there)

    That's the trouble with interpretation of data… Same data set but slightly different interpretation.

    I'm looking at ElectricityMap.org on the web, viewing Consumption.
    NSW is a darker brown, with Qld, Vic & WA slightly lighter brown. (Carbon Intensity: 727, 665, 586, 529 gCO2eq/kWh) with similar placing for low-carbon & renewables.
    SA is light green (112) & TAS very green (22) - 100% renewables with hydro in Tas. We know how Scomo & Co hate SA's renewables!
    Also, some States are shown as exporting their electricity to other States (it varies over time) - which may elevate those states Carbon Intensity.
    Cut off points for shading seem arbitrary.

    As for I'm Happy NOT to Breathe there…
    it depends a lot on how close the coal fired power stations are & prevailing conditions. In QLD, these are a long way from population centres & some are very close in Vic.
    Is the air that much cleaner 100m on 1 side of a State border than the other? Particulates & other pollutants (from all sources) are not reflected in these figures, which are more important for breathing.
    So not so easy to make that interpretation. But it does reflect those States increased Carbon Intensity & lower renewable contribution.

    Thanks for the interesting info👍

    • IVI on 07/11/2018 - 15:10

      You're right on Distance from nearest Qld Toxic Coal Power plant…

      I once drove thru SA's Port Augusta - years ago - when it was home
      (more like Industry) to a toxic Coal burning power plant (located
      at the end of a tail line to Leigh Creek, where it got its Coal).

      As I past thru the centre of Pt Aug, I had trouble Breathing!
      And my windows were only open a tiny crack! 'glad that's gone!

      Vic. has what 1 Environmentalist called "The Dirtiest Coal Power
      Plant in the World" - he's the guy in the recent 60 minutes seg-
      ment on AU going Nuclear: Former OT "Ben Heard" (recently in an
      Adelaide Uni's PhD; may have graduated, by now..?)

      I'm just the messenger.

      Oh, Greenpeace just backstepped its traditional "NPPs make CO2"
      dogma, and (just in time for Safe Small Liquid-Fuel, (MSR)
      Molten Salt Reactor, due in near-future: ~2029) it looks like
      Greanpeace will be cautiously Embracing "new" MSR Nuclear soon.

      'bout time…

      The rest of you lot should, IMO, do the Math of Renewables
      (eg: YouTube "Conley TEAC8"), & dig into more of the
      Science of New NPPs (ie, based on the Molten Salt Reactor:
      introduced here: YouTube "Pedersen TEDxCopenhagen")

      …The Rest is Commentary ;~)

  • seb on 07/11/2018 - 13:14

    Thorium has much lower weapon proliferation potential than Uranium. Much lower total radioactive waste as well.

    Australia has lots of Thorium.

    We will need to mine something else to keep our economy going once the world starts buying less coal. Thorium could be it. Otherwise, if the world is buying 50% less coal in 20-30 years, the Australian economy will be toast.

    • INFIDEL on 07/11/2018 - 13:36
      +1

      Or we move away from a "rip it up & ship it out" boom & bust mindset for the Australian economy.

      • seb on 07/11/2018 - 13:51

        I agree. That's part of my point. If Australia invests in Thorium technology, then that technology would be available to other countries. So we would sell the Thorium (rip it up and ship it out), as well as the technology to use it.

        In principle, there's something like 500 years of coal left to dig up in Australia. However, a post-coal energy world might only be 30-50 years away. We have to start planning for that and building that now.

      • incipient on 07/11/2018 - 13:56

        Good sentiment (and one I believe in) but hard to execute.

        Transitioning to a value add economy is possible with automation allowing us to avoid our prohibitive labour costs, however our remoteness from intermediate material production (eg steel, components, plastics, etc) makes it more difficult.

        Of course that's all very simplistic, but moving away from a raw material economy is not simply a matter of choice.

    • Russ on 07/11/2018 - 14:25

      Thorium has much lower weapon proliferation potential than Uranium.

      Not really.

      I agree you can "burn" thorium more completely - but that's only because thorium reactors MUST be breeder reactors. Thorium, by itself, is not fissile. It can only become a satisfactory nuclear fuel once it is "bred" up to U233.

      The problem is that breeder reactors make it very easy to create the raw materials for nuclear weapons. They have a much higher yield of weapon-capable isotopes than conventional reactors. That's why the world is mostly against breeder reactors, it's too easy to add uranium to the fuel and end up with plutonium for nuclear bombs.

      If you can find a way (both technical and political) to ensure that only high-grade thorium goes into the breeder reactors, then I'm all for it. I agree that thorium is a wonderful fuel, much lower radioactive wastes, and they decay much faster than the wastes from conventional reactors. But until we can find a way to stop rogue states from using thorium reactors to create plutonium, it's a non-starter. Sad really.

  • 8anddrank on 07/11/2018 - 14:51
    +1

    Thanks OP! I'd never heard of Kanopy but now can watch up to 10 videos a month for free thanks to instant online digital library memberships available from some Australian councils.

  • bchliu on 07/11/2018 - 15:00

    Still too far away from sustained Fusion reactions…

    • Russ on 07/11/2018 - 21:36

      Agreed. ITER won't be complete until 2025, and first fusion won't happen there until 2035! Frustratingly slow.

    • INFIDEL on 08/11/2018 - 00:19
      +1

      True - the Sun is a bit far away😉

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join