Nuclear Power: A Very Short Introduction Paperback, $19.06 + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $59 Spend) @ Amazon UK via AU

140

Nuclear Power: A Very Short Introduction Paperback, $19.06 + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $59 Spend) @ Amazon UK via AU

Affiliate

Go to Deal

Cashback

henrus on 19/06/2024 - 10:38 amazon.com.au (93 clicks)
Last edited 19/06/2024 - 13:33 by 1 other user

This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Cheaper than the current camel tracking and many local bookstores have it for $20-23, get your short introduction to nuclear power today.

The description seems to be rather fitting today:

With the World desperate to find energy sources that do not emit carbon gasses, nuclear power is back on the agenda and in the news, following the increasing cost of fossil fuels and concerns about the security of their future supply.

Price History at CamelCamelCamel.

Books & Magazines Book Paperback

15 Jul 7:12pm

Related Stores

Amazon AU

Marketplace

Amazon UK Store

closed Comments

- - - - 1st-Amendment on 24/06/2024 - 16:27
        
        @illogicalerror:
        
        I never said that
        
        This was the link YOU sent…
        
        you leap from being dumb deliberately to
        
        And there we have it.. straight to the Ad hominem logical fallacy… username is perfect.
        
        Off river pumped hydro is way cheaper and quicker to install. Just a fraction of the time and cost to install
        
        So your magic bullet is Snowy 2.0, the $20B white elephant? Please show the maths on how many of those we would need to cover the national demand. Do you actually know that number?
        
        There are other technologies coming to fruition as well
        
        And there we have it. The wishful thinking approach.
        APR1400 actually exists in real life in South Korea, one of the most technologically advance nations on earth. But you keep telling yourself what you need to deny reality.
        
        SBOB on 24/06/2024 - 16:42
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        The wishful thinking approach.
        
        as opposed to Nuclear SMR's, which is one of the technologies being put forward by the LNP?
        
        1st-Amendment on 24/06/2024 - 16:54
        
        @SBOB:
        
        as opposed to Nuclear SMR's
        
        I never mentioned SMR's
        
        which is one of the technologies being put forward by the LNP?
        
        I didn't mention them either.
        
        As with most political messaging, it is mostly BS so best to ignore it. This doesn't detract from the fact that Nuclear is the cleanest, greenest, most reliable energy source there is, and our irrational fear over the last 50 years is now costing us.
        
        illogicalerror on 24/06/2024 - 17:19
        
        @1st-Amendment: "As with most political messaging, it is mostly BS so best to ignore it. This doesn't detract from the fact that Nuclear is the cleanest, greenest, most reliable energy source there is, and our irrational fear over the last 50 years is now costing us."
        Most reliable, yes. Cleanest, as long as everything is perfect always… which it always isn't.
        
        Did you stop to think about why most of the world is shutting down their reactors and only tiny overpopulated and sh*tty countries are actually building this tech? This really is something valid to think about. 7 years ago the writing was on the wall, but as usual Australia is 20 years behind.
        https://e360.yale.edu/features/industry-meltdown-is-era-of-n…
        
        1st-Amendment on 24/06/2024 - 17:48
        
        @illogicalerror:
        
        Did you stop to think about why most of the world is shutting down their reactors
        
        Yes. Let me use you own words "…is a perfect example of government mismanagement,"
        
        It's the exact same reason. Pure government stupidity.
        
        Let me give you an example. Germany announced with much fanfare that they would close their coal industry to 'save the planet'. Much patting of backs was done, and social media muppets went wild with many many likes. But was it shut down? They shut the mines, lots of people lost their jobs, but the power plants still run. Now instead of using German coal from their own backyard, employing Germans who pay taxes, they then shipped their coal from Russia and the US, keeping Russians and Americans employed, and increased shipping across the world which all requires the most filthiest diesel there is. Then after they decommissioned some of their plants they had to re-open them again because they couldn't keep the lights on.
        
        I'll repeat your words because you've answered your own question "…is a perfect example of government mismanagement,"
        
        illogicalerror on 24/06/2024 - 17:01
        
        @1st-Amendment: Don't try to deny your poor discussion tactics by crying ad-hominem. You were acting deliberately dumb pretending you didn't know what I was saying, then pretending to be smart putting words in my mouth from a Google search link (you know we don't get the same search results right?)… I wasn't just calling you a dumb count. That would be ad-hominem.
        
        Snowy river is a perfect example of government mismanagement, and now you want these guys to build nuclear reactors? They can't even build a dam. Power projects absolutely have to be private if they are going to be privately owned, otherwise it will blow apart in costs and time.
        
        We are not the most advanced nation in the world. We can't even make our internet work properly. I have no idea why you think we could mimic the Koreans.
        
        Obviously grid storage has to be diversified, and the need to have some thermally generated power is currently a prerequisite. Dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into a plan that is guaranteed to cost us way more than any other, will take decades to complete, will jeopardise all other sources of energy and is wildly unpopular due to people not liking highly toxic radioactive waste is a sure fire fail.
        
        We'll see hey. Doesn't matter what you or I say. Are you watching what's happening to Dutton's plan in the media? Doesn't seem to be going down all that well, unsurprisingly.
        
        1st-Amendment on 24/06/2024 - 17:26
        
        @illogicalerror:
        
        words in my mouth from a Google search link (you know we don't get the same search results right?)
        
        So if you know that why post a search link rather than a direct citation? Don't blame me because YOUR citation is flaky.
        
        Dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into a plan that is guaranteed to cost us way more than any other,
        
        Citation?
        
        Dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into a plan that is guaranteed to cost us way more than any other,
        
        China, Korea, UAE are all completing projects in about 10 years, similar timeline to Snowy 2.0, similar cost to Snowy 2.0, but more than 20x the energy output. Do the maths on that.
        
        due to people not liking highly toxic radioactive waste
        
        So irrational fear is the only counter-argument?
        
        Are you watching what's happening to Dutton's plan in the media?
        
        No because I don't follow people who's job is to deliberately deceive me. Constantly subjecting yourself to that distorts your view of reality, try doing less of that and see if you world view changes.
        
        illogicalerror on 24/06/2024 - 18:17
        
        @1st-Amendment: So your argument that the undeniable fact that nuclear is considerably more expensive and holds far more risks than any other power source should be used, is that I should cite it? (I already did)
        
        That you're concerned about being deceived so trust the government over 3rd party engineers and scientists as to what is viable? (linked to articles before)
        
        That governments are stupid everywhere except China, India, Ukraine and a few other cramped places that are building nuclear… that the US, everyone everywhere is just plain old dumb?
        
        C'mon. You're not linking or citing anything and you're perfectly able of proving and disproving things for yourself and engaging in conversation. I'm sick of the deceitful arguments and pitiful line by line quoting, with quips, false narrative and baiting. You're very much like American people online. That's not a compliment.
        
        1st-Amendment on 24/06/2024 - 19:28
        
        @illogicalerror:
        
        So your argument that the undeniable fact
        
        You opinion in not fact. You agreed that YOUR proposed solution Pumped Hydro is a lemon. It is expected to cost more than a Nuclear plant which will then deliver ~1% of the energy output.
        
        that nuclear is considerably more expensive
        
        Snowy 2.0 is set to cost $20B compared to the recent Barakah Nuclear facility in UAE which cost about the same (depending on exchange rates).
        
        Snowy is planned to deliver 350GWh/year of energy, Barakah delivers 32000GWh/year That is nearly 100x as much. 100x!!!
        
        Your claim of being 'the most expensive' is based on flaky calculations.
        
        Renewable advocates use the same flaky maths because they never include the cost of solar at night, or when the wind when it stops blowing. This is a real thing that happens every day. How much does a kWh of solar power cost at night time?
        
        I already did
        
        Where? You linked a search result page which you admitted is flaky. That is not how citations work.
        
        so trust the government
        
        I just said they are incompetent. Your comprehension skills need improving
        
        over 3rd party engineers and scientists
        
        Like these? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/03/climate-…
        
        You're not linking or citing anything
        
        You haven't asked for any. Let me know which points I made that you disagree with you want and I will.
        
        I'm sick of…
        
        Deflection.
        
        You are yet to provide a cited proven solution that reliably supplies 24/7/365 electricity to an entire country. Nuclear does that. Solar doesn't. Wind doesn't. Pumped Hydro doesn't. Nuclear has been doing it cleanly and reliably for 70 years, it's time for Australia to catch up.
  - illogicalerror on 19/06/2024 - 19:50
    
    +1
    
    The framing of the study is loaded to give a false impression. Who pays for this propaganda?
    Burning stuff and generators creates higher background radiation, sure, nuclear plants aren't doing this. But coal fired plants don't create many tons of radioactive waste that needs to be dealt with for the next 1000+ years. Nuclear is still probably better than coal though, if you want to race the two against each other.
- RecklessMonkeys on 19/06/2024 - 13:38
  
  There are companies having a crack at it.
BuyoTheCat on 19/06/2024 - 13:57

+2

It is important to evaluate based on the facts

case for nuclear power:
Chernobyl nuclear power plant and fukushima daiichi were built in the 1970s. procedural mishaps contributed to the disaster.

Chernobyl disaster was purely procedural.
Even for fukushima getting hit by earthquake and tsunami, if the reactors were flooded early, the core would not have melted down. The operators did not want to because it would be hard to restart the reactor after the flooding.

new technology, materials and planning to learn from past failures can reduce the chances of such incidents. However it will never be zero percent.

Small module reactors (SMR) has potential but not close to being rolled out in the near (or far future)

Case against:
Cost. nuclear power plants are not cheap. extremely not cheap.
time to built. it will take about 10 years to build a power plant. it can be done quicker.

All big projects have time and cost overrun so whatever in stated, add at least 50%

SMR are a pipedream at the moment.

There will be waste to handle.

There are people against wind farms because it spoils their view. power plants will need to be built like disneyland for people to want it near them.

Conclusion:
It will be foolish to take nuclear power off the table without considering all the factors.
At the moment, there are solutions that can be rolled out almost immediately. at cost that we know.

There is no reason to build renewables AND nuclear at the same time. My non-expert opinion is renewables NOW and evaluate nuclear 5 yrs later -> 10 years later.

this really should not be an issue driven by politicians. this is should be driven by science and technology and planning for the future.

do not let important issues be politiced. Call them out for politicking rather than doing what is good for the people.
- Aureus on 19/06/2024 - 15:09
  
  +1
  
  Power grids should ideally be mostly baseload, or mostly micro. A robust hybrid grid will cost a lot more, which will make net zero even more expensive.
  
  There is zero reason to build nuclear power plants in Australia if they are not cheaper then solar/wind + storage.
  
  I support whatever renewable tech is the cheapest. Maybe nuclear will get there, but right now it would be another costly LNP blunder.
  - 1st-Amendment on 24/06/2024 - 19:50
    
    if they are not cheaper then solar/wind + storage.
    
    Where is the maths on this?
    
    We know a $20B nuclear plant would provide 50+ years of energy to run an entire state. We have all the uranium here so this is locked in a fully known quantity.
    
    Where are these batteries that can supply an entire state for lengthy periods of time? Hornsdale is 194MWh at $100M a pop, you'd need thousands of those to run a country AND you'd need to replace them every what 15-20 years? What is the cost of mining and processing all that? Because almost every step of battery production requires fossil fuels.
    
    Hardly 'clean and green' is it?
- Russ on 20/06/2024 - 08:43
  
  You left out a negative: having a small number of power stations makes you completely vulnerable in the event of a war. Seven nuclear power stations can be "taken out" by seven ICBMs, or seven terrorist attacks.
  
  Just look at how Russia has targeted power stations in Ukraine. Fortunately Russia hasn't directly bombed the nuclear power plant in Ukraine, because Russia wants to occupy that land after the war is over. A country that just wants to win a war at any cost, and doesn't want to occupy that area, would have no such qualms - they'd attack the nuclear reactor itself, spreading nuclear waste far and wide, similar to the Chernobyl explosion.
  
  How would you like to have no power for a decade, while you wait for new nuclear power stations to be built?
  
  Compare that to many solar farms and many distributed batteries, that's much harder to damage in a way that isn't repairable in days or weeks.
  - 1st-Amendment on 24/06/2024 - 19:37
    
    having a small number of power stations makes you completely vulnerable in the event of a war
    
    That's where a credible defence capability comes in.
    
    Compare that to many solar farms and many distributed batteries, that's much harder to damage in a way that isn't repairable in days or weeks.
    
    I don't think you've thought that through. All of the solar panels and batteries are all made by our most likely enemy. That is an even worse proposition, they could simply impose an embargo like they have already done before and we'd be screwed. No ICBM's required.
    - Russ on 25/06/2024 - 21:16
      
      All of the solar panels and batteries are all made by our most likely enemy.
      
      Incorrect, in both cases.
      
      There are a couple of Australian battery makers:
      https://reneweconomy.com.au/vanadium-electrolyte-factory-to-…
      https://redflow.com/zbm3-battery
      
      There are Australian-made solar panels: https://tindosolar.com.au/our-product/tindo-panels/
      
      And don't forget the large number of solar cells that could be reclaimed from house rooftops and put into solar farms, where they're more likely to be connected to batteries, and probably produce more power due to ideal positioning and lack of shading. Inland solar farms typically see less cloud cover than coastal cities, too.
      
      That's where a credible defence capability comes in.
      
      Some things are not possible to defend against. Our likely enemies have ICBMs, and they may decide to use kinetic warheads instead of explosive ones. Patriot missiles and similar interception methods largely depend on the incoming weapon being (a) explosive and (b) susceptible to nearby explosions; kinetic weapons are neither. A similar concept has been explored by the US military, read about "Rods from God": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
      
      Also have a read of the use of "concrete bombs", it gives you an idea of how dangerous even much slower kinetic weapons are: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/world/us-wields-defter-we…
      - 1st-Amendment on 26/06/2024 - 09:10
        
        @Russ:
        
        There are a couple…
        
        No there's not. You didn't even read the links did you?
        The first hasn't been built yet, the second manufactures their products in Thailand…
        
        If the argument is supply chain security, then nuclear wins hands down. We own all the uranium we need for 10000 years+. Energy independence right now.
        
        Our likely enemies have ICBMs, and they may decide to use kinetic warheads instead of explosive ones.
        
        They could use anything, that's why any credible defence strategy relies on a strong deterrent, it precisely why we are buying nuclear subs. Locally made solar panels is not a deterrent for conflict.
Stuj on 19/06/2024 - 16:06

Where is that block button, someone here has a clear chip on their shoulder, i pity them
- henrus on 19/06/2024 - 17:15
  
  Haha I posted this as a joke, thought more in the comments would also take it as a joke.
  - Stuj on 19/06/2024 - 17:35
    
    Sign of the times i guess :)
  - INFIDEL on 19/06/2024 - 20:51
    
    People do take politics & religion very seriously!
    The usual topics people warn to avoid.
INFIDEL on 19/06/2024 - 20:49

+3

After years of State LNP governments demonising taxpayer owned electricity production…
(Sold off to companies to their benefit.)

We were told privatisation would increase competition & lower prices!
It didn't work!

Federal LNP now wants taxpayers to fully fund public nuclear plants💰💰
At an undisclosed cost - likely to be dramatically more than predicted!!

Federally, we've had both major parties promising large reductions in electricity prices if elected.
Prices just increased!

Again the incentive for this enormous Govt spending is mainly…
To reduce power prices.

Unfortunately some will fall for this old trick, again😝
INFIDEL on 19/06/2024 - 21:10

-1

Was in Tokyo 2011. Just after the tsunami & nuclear "incident".
Most Foreigners who could had left Japan - out of fear.

Where I was staying, there was a European nuclear assessment team. So radiation detection gear was normal. Along with informed discussions.

Had studied Nuclear Physics & Electrical Engineering at Uni. So was more fascinated, not scared. Had learnt how to predict radiation plumes - so watched the weather & warnings.

Wasn't too concerned.
But I could leave, unlike locals.
Earth tremors were more scary for me.

Lack of information, secrecy, and rumours were what caused a lot of distress for Japanese. A common issue in nuclear incidents.

Enormous displacement of people & communities, while trying to fix the problems is an ongoing major issue. Continuity of their community is vital to Japanese culture. Some have returned, many can't.

That's the hidden price to pay when considering nuclear power. When things go wrong.
And living for decades to come with that possibility…
- Cmatthew on 30/06/2024 - 17:29
  
  -2
  
  You haven't studied anything, champ. You're just peddling the same fear-mongering nonsense Labor is.
  - INFIDEL on 30/06/2024 - 23:53
    
    Such delusion and ignorance!
    
    Half the comments you have ever made are in this 1 "Deal".
    All your tirades have been within last 8 hours in a Deal weeks old.
    
    You criticise others for expressing a view different to your own bias.
    Calling them nutters, dumb…
    And "Jesus christ, it is terrifying knowing people like you are voting…"
    Take a good long look at yourself😝
    
    Believe me the Japanese I met in Tokyo 2011 - just after the Tepco reactor incident were extremely fearful!!
    
    They didn't need to take advice from any political party to form that negative view of problems with the Nuclear Option!!
    
    (As I said, I wasn't worried as have studied in this field. And could easily leave Japan like most Foreigners did.)

This was posted 5 months 5 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Nuclear Power: A Very Short Introduction Paperback, $19.06 + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $59 Spend) @ Amazon UK via AU

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals