The Economics of Nuclear Energy Book Price in India, Specifications, Reviews & Offers. Buy online at Amazon.

Write a review
Product Code: 238824
Stock Instock
Buy The Economics of Nuclear Energy Book online at Amazon.
Please wait..Prices are getting updated..

Price Comparison

Price at Amazon is ₹2,301
In Stock

The Economics of Nuclear Energy Book Features

The lowest The Economics of Nuclear Energy Book Price in India is ₹2,301 at Amazon.
Buy The Economics of Nuclear Energy Book online at Amazon.
Check out the latest prices and availability at major retailers like Amazon and Flipkart.
The online price is valid across the cities in India including Bangalore, Chennai, New Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune. Before purchasing, please refer to the specific online store for any variation in the price.
Prices are subjected to change, please check the latest price at the respective store.
Check the Estimated Delivery, Shipping Cost, Cash on Delivery (COD) and EMI options while purchasing this product.
Please go through The Economics of Nuclear Energy Book full specifications, features, expert review and unboxing videos before purchasing.
Shop The Economics of Nuclear Energy Book at Amazon at the best price in India and save big! With a low price / discount / promotions, for a great value.

Write a review

Note: HTML is not translated!

Bad            Good

TAGS: The, Economics, Nuclear, Energy
Synthesis On The Economics Of Nuclear Energy, The Cost Of Nuclear Power Stations, The Cost Of Nuclear Plant, What Is The Cost Of Nuclear Energy 2022, How Is Nuclear Energy Bad For The Economy, Is Nuclear Energy Good For The Economy

The Economics of Nuclear Energy Book Reviews from YouTube

The Economics of Nuclear Energy
Economics of Nuclear Reactor
The Economics of Nuclear Energy
India's Nuclear Power capacity to reach 22,480 MW by 2031 - UPSC GS Paper 3 Infrastructure Energy
Are factory-built, truck delivered SMRs the key to rapid production and start-up times? Install them sequentially, or in any scheme that works best? Having one or two spares off-line would allow maintenance/repair with no drop in plant output in a plant with many reactors or with common heat and generation units.
Secret nuclear weapon building is not a problem in the USA. Secret nuclear weapons building in other countries with their NEW nuclear industries is the problem. Renewables has to be the world's solution to CO2 reduction. People are talking about SMR, like BWRX300 from GE Hitachi and Rolls Royce. 100,000 SMR around the world. Electric transportation around the world. Homes AND Industries AND TRANSPORTATION. TRIPLED ELECTRICAL ENERGY DEMAND. TRIPLED GRID DEMAND AND so TRIPLED grid size. Including the poles and wires to the streets and homes. TRIPLED. When ever a larger grid is spoken about, people fall over themselves to say you can not bring energy from distant Renewables supply. THE LOGIC FAILURES ARE STUPENDOUS.
Stop talking in such a limited framed way. IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE IN THE REAL WORLD. THE REAL WORLD HAS MILITARY COSTS. HELLO HELLO is anyone home? I see the lights on but I can not hear any thinking. You talk abou financial risks but not military costs. All nuclear Dictatorships did not buy their nuclear industries, they stole the nuclear technology and created the cold war. Now you are saying nuclear energy in every country to stop CO2 and climate destabilisation ? ? ??????? The Cold War problem was NUCLEAR WINTER, hello hello 👋 hello 👋 That was a really pressing climate destabilisation problem and the world acted, does anyone remember??????
High tech jobs, it's all they can offer the politicians.
USA Terrorist nr 1. They profited and made trilions from the PLANdemic 🏳‍⚧5gy
France is intelligent country because she is protecting the global environmental including he is on country by using renewable energy and nuclear energy
No CO2 in the world and all Dictatorships with nuclear industries.????? Nuclear winter is very cold. Now that's climate change.
Well made video. Would be interesting to do a follow up on how the economics has changed with current Gas Prices, Ukraine war etc. I wonder if the economics would change if the price of electricity was calculated at the point of consumption rather than at the at the point of generation. LCOE doesn't seem to factor in grid cost. The difference being that Nuclear is part of a centralised grid and Renewables are much more widely distributed. They require much more wires and transmission lines. Where I live the cost of grid maintenance alone is 45% of my electricity cost. If you build more grid you basically guarantee me a higher price. Decentralised grids seem to be attractive to the public but consumption is not decentralised the way renewable grids are. It should also be stated that rooftop solar is double the price of utility scale solar (although again grid cost often seems to be omitted).
still better to have a consistent supply over a variable one
If somebody has enough money and patience then nuclear will create more profit. Hopefully as time goes by the cost of nuclear is reduced and efficiency is improved.
How efficient is a solar cell? How often does a solar cell wear out and is replaced?
Tldr: it’s Mat Groening’s fault
This is why government is important, they don’t have to turn a profit. As more are built, it will become cheaper as well and take on a more standardized form. Look at NASA, it costs billions until SpaceX did it for a fraction of the price. Processes will improve and it is essential for the survival of our planet
Excellent Points from some quarters, but what will be the P/L graphs of Fusion power plants, and advanced fission plants? It might be cheaper to support our rapidly growing electrical vehicle needs (perhaps half as much power as being replaced ) with cheap, quick NG power generation, then start adding various new designs of fission/fusion as they are developed. SMRs added to existing power plants appear to be the fastest way to get nuclear power into production since the grid connections already exist.. Elon Musk may be the man to develop advanced nuclear power since he will need it for rapid space travel.
Nuclear could be way better and way cheaper, it isn’t because it’s insane to invest money into R and D when there is a good chance the state or city you want to build a new reactor in probably will say no. Nuclear reactor tech is out dated and no one is willing to take the risk of investing in new reactor tech.
If the external costs of CO2 is the point. The external costs of nuclear power, in a world with 90% of the world's population is in dictatorships, is extra military costs. The USA is the biggest target in the world. Dictatorships with nuclear industries is stupid, stupid, stupid. And expensive.
Much of the cost of nuclear is a direct consequence of the anti-nuclear lobbying. An example from the video, needing to retrofit the cooling because it uses sea water isn’t saving anything, it is just a cost that can be pinned to nuclear to make it less profitable. As for safety, if other forms of energy were required to be as safe as nuclear, they would be as expensive as nuclear. The storage problem is realm, but slowly improving as more electric batteries are on the road and in the grid. Perhaps in the near future we will be forced to look at the ‘true cost’ of different forms of energy, including geopolitical risk, and famine risk. In that case, nuclear will look good again, especially if we can remove the special interest tax. We forget, but the modern world can not exist without abundant energy.
One year later we find California has delayed shutting down the Diablo plant.
If this graph is even close to accurate I still support natural gas. For the cost of one nuclear plant I can build five gas plants. In 2 years. Produce five times the electricity the only negative is cost of natural gas. Which is safe. Also if everyone uses nuclear power the cost of uranium will go up. I can buy wholesale price for my gas and smoke the nuclear plant in terms of profit.
Can someone please explain how we obtain 56 million dollars of yearly payment for a 1 billion dollar load over 25 years with 3% interest rate?
I am from Bangladesh and my country is building a 2400mw nuclear plant. A lot of people including the opposition party were against building it, but its good that the govt went with their plans. We are also planning a 2nd one. I hope all goes well
he is very good at writing backwards :o
You left out the cost of decommissioning, processing and transporting the spent fuel. Neither of these things are cheap, and they will be required at some point.
How is this guy writing backwards so easily?
Nice content as ever but forget that for a moment. Could anyone please tell me how one can manage that cool effect of writing on what seemingly is glass with the writing appearing the right way around for us users? Thanks in advance
Here are the actual numbers . Land and foundations 3 billion. Actual construction and raw materials as well as highly skilled labour . Engineers. Personnel . Purpose built machinery ect ect . 23 billion . But wait . The chances of a accident is reasonably high . The chances of issues and shut downs are huge . For every year it runs it will spend 6 month's or more in a state of repair and issues . Insurance ect is a fortune . The separation of uranium is not cheap and much much more than this. Also when quick cooled you lose over half of the initial materials . Then you have waste and storage . I'm not saying it won't potentially be a must but the initial outlay would be insanely big . Also 40 years no way . I think it would run for 25 before being closed due to major issues and operate for a maximum of 70 percent of this time . But several reactors would work and if you were to feed them on a light system you could then subject the walls to more time . Cost would be huge but it would work .
This was an excellent lecture. Thanks for going to all the trouble to explain this in a way people can understand.
Are these nuclear plant costs for a light water reactor? I would guess they are. Since you don't have the cost of a huge containment building, the cost of a molten salt reactor should be much less and should be completed in much less time. These Gen IV reactors could also be made modular and mass produced for a much lower cost. This is the way to go considering the lower fuel cost. And thorium would be even cheaper.
What about including hydro electric and costs associated with building a huge dam.
Impressive reverse writing. Good discussion. At Year 19 , Nuclear had a short of 1 profit. Coal produces more radiation pollution than nuclear over the past 60 plus years.
any one want to be impressed that he is writing backwards in his perspective?
Hello, hello, is anyone there??
So, every country, 200 countries in the world, need to go nuclear to stop CO2. So, the full cost of nuclear energy must include the military costs. "Little rocket man" in North Korea, Ayatollah in Iran, all dictatorships in the world, all low tech countries, are now to have their own nuclear industries? So 5,000 to 10,000 nuclear plants, and no theft or 'loss' of fuel, or miss use. We know that the Oklahoma bomber used only fossil fuel to demolish buildings. The USA is the biggest target in the world. The USA military costs must increase every year and be included in the calculations. Waste is external cost but included. You are looking at the full costs over the lifetime of the reactor, which can be refuelled for a couple of 20-year cycles, say 60 years. You must include monopoly costs and profits, and political corruption, yes?? Technical expert people speak to the world, and people trust the clever answer, but what the expert does not know is invisible, even if it could kill the world. So how about expanding on the military costs.
So presenter in this video compared the cost of building a 1GW new-gen nuclear reactor for the price of what is paying China hoping that the US could build for a similar price if mass-produced with the lower-end cost of natural gas power plant built in the US, and then he somehow forgot the cost of building necessary nuclear waste storage facilities that nobody wants in their neighborhood because of a long history of leaking waste storage sites in the US which making your house price depreciate if waste storage is built nearby, and also forgot the cost associated with cleaning various nuclear industry sites that are required to operate in order to supply and dispose of nuclear material which companies always left on taxpayers to pay for after they leave the area or just went bankrupt, nice, completely unbiased... If you believe that nuclear will be cheaper than gas, then you can call China to handle things for you, because nuclear when operated safely is not cheap by any measure even though nuclear power even when operated safely at the cost of higher expenses may be considered cheaper when taking into account cost of worsening climate situation we may created for ourselves by our actions since the industrial age.
I don't really like this video, it lacks depth that only hours of videos would cover and it assumes a lot. Interest rates for nuclear plants are higher than gas plants, there is more uncertainty. The fuel is cheap because very few need it, with the hypothetical increase in constructions the price would increase. The gas plant after it turns profits can reinvest those profits and generate even more money. I think the biggest overlooked part is other technologies outside of those two, i'm thinking about solar that right now is cheaper and the technology is still very youg and promising.
I think the calculation is missing the costs of plant decommission and the 300.000 years of storage needed until the nuclear waste becomes relatively "safe" again. It would also be great to have a comparison of solar power plants and nuclear power plants in terms of economics. That is a very important comparison, because if solar and wind energy can replace the nuclear and gas power plants 20 years from now, the nuclear power plant will be much more uneconomical in comparison to the gas power plant. An important factor besides the building time of these power plants is the building cost. If you just have to invest 1 billion $ into a gas plant, you can spend the other 4 billion $ on building more solar panels, wind turbines and batteries.
Very interesting shame the decommissioning cost was not factored in. Completely pointless economics without that
Dana Dumford and Kevin Blanch are scammers. I don't need to say anything except google the names of these scammers.
Click here to buy full UPSC course Study IQ's UPSC course is designed by some of the best faculties in our country. Our comprehensive UPSC course will help you excel in both Prelims and Mains examination.
We don't need to nuclear power plant
Still its too low.. in nuclear energy
It is better that nuclear energy must be taken in positive way not the other way around.
Thorium from monazite sands ?
Thank you Sir for the update. I am planning to buy the UPSC smart course next month. This month my budget is somewhat tight. Will the discount still be there?
Sir India me sea wave energy se electricity kyu nhi generate karte ... please reply 🙁
Thorium is answer to all nuclear doubts
Best current affairs class
Thank you sir
Waiting 🙏
1st comment

Related Products

India'S Nuclear Policy Price in India

₹501 ₹501
FREE Shipping
1 Stores
-28% OFF

Inelastic Ion–Surface Collisions Price in India

₹3,555 ₹3,555
FREE Shipping
1 Stores
-24% OFF