Facebook Twitter Pinterest <Einbetten>
  • Alle Preisangaben inkl. MwSt.
Nur noch 1 auf Lager (mehr ist unterwegs).
Verkauf und Versand durch Amazon. Geschenkverpackung verfügbar.
Nuclear 2.0: Why a Green ... ist in Ihrem Einkaufwagen hinzugefügt worden
+ EUR 3,00 Versandkosten
Gebraucht: Wie neu | Details
Verkauft von ---SuperBookDeals---
Zustand: Gebraucht: Wie neu
Kommentar: 100% Geld zurueck Garantie. Zustand Wie neu. Schneller Versand, erlauben sie bitte 8 bis 18 Tage fuer Lieferung. Ueber 1,000,000 zufriedene Kunden. Wir bieten Kundenbetreuung in Deutsch.
Möchten Sie verkaufen?
Zur Rückseite klappen Zur Vorderseite klappen
Hörprobe Wird gespielt... Angehalten   Sie hören eine Hörprobe des Audible Hörbuch-Downloads.
Mehr erfahren
Alle 3 Bilder anzeigen

Nuclear 2.0: Why a Green Future Needs Nuclear Power (Englisch) Taschenbuch – April 2014

4.5 von 5 Sternen 2 Kundenrezensionen

Alle Formate und Ausgaben anzeigen Andere Formate und Ausgaben ausblenden
Preis
Neu ab Gebraucht ab
Kindle Edition
"Bitte wiederholen"
Taschenbuch
"Bitte wiederholen"
EUR 8,99
EUR 5,26 EUR 6,99
15 neu ab EUR 5,26 4 gebraucht ab EUR 6,99
click to open popover

Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone

Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.

Jeder kann Kindle Bücher lesen — selbst ohne ein Kindle-Gerät — mit der KOSTENFREIEN Kindle App für Smartphones, Tablets und Computer.



Produktinformation

Produktbeschreibungen

Pressestimmen

"A passionate appeal to environmentalists to embrace all the tools available that can tackle climate change. This book deserves to be read." -- David MacKay FRS, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy & Climate Change

Über den Autor und weitere Mitwirkende

Mark Lynas is an environmental writer and campaigner. He is a visiting research associate at Oxford University s school of geography and the environment, and vice-chair of the World Economic Forum s Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies. He was the climate advisor to the president of the Maldives from 2009 to 2011 and is the author of "The God Species," "High Tide," and "Six Degrees.""

Kundenrezensionen

4.5 von 5 Sternen
5 Sterne
1
4 Sterne
1
3 Sterne
0
2 Sterne
0
1 Stern
0
Beide Kundenrezensionen anzeigen
Sagen Sie Ihre Meinung zu diesem Artikel

Top-Kundenrezensionen

Format: Kindle Edition Verifizierter Kauf
Mark Lynas is a well known green activist, and he is something of an outsider because he belongs to the small group of environmentalist who are in favour of nuclear power. He thinks that CO2 concentrations are the hell for climate (what is not my opinion) and now has come to the obvious conclusion that nuclear power is the sole practical solution to plentiful, relatively cheap, reliable and sure energy (which is also my opinion). The small book does not hold anything new, nor does it go into great details, but stresses the cause of small modular reactors (like the molten salt thorium reactors) which are safe by design.
It is a welcome booklet coming from the green spectrum, and should be handy to put under the nose of the crowd of very short-sighted nuclear alarmists which have brainwashed several generations into thinking that this carbon-free energy is devils work.
Kommentar War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein Feedback senden...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte erneut versuchen
Missbrauch melden
Format: Kindle Edition Verifizierter Kauf
Das Buch hat mich überzeugt. Kein Ideologe ist hier am Werk gewesen, sondern jemand der Chancen, Risiken und Kosten verschiedener Szenarien darstellt und so ein realistisches Bild entwirft von den Möglichkeiten, dem Nutzen und der Erforderniss
wieder verstärkt in Kernenergie zu investieren. Der Autor macht klar, dass der Ausstieg aus der Kernenergie fast ausschließlich zugunsten der Kohle erfolgt und dass so der Klimaerwärmung nicht zu begegnen sein wird. Der Autor befürwortet einen Energiemix aus Wind, Sonne, Kernenergie, Gas, Kohle und Öl. Im Gegensatz zu ideologisch gefärbten Lektüren sind hier Zeiträumen und Zahlen genannt, die auch politisch machbar erscheinen. Der Author geht verständlich auf neue Kernkraftwerkskonzepte ein, sowohl geplante, wie auch momentan schon im Bau befindliche. Sicher keine Lektüre für Besserwisser, aber eine für Wissenwoller.

Rainer Livschütz
Kommentar War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein Feedback senden...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte erneut versuchen
Missbrauch melden

Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 4.4 von 5 Sternen 73 Rezensionen
40 von 44 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen The case for a grand alliance of low carbon 11. Juli 2013
Von J. M. Korhonen - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition
As a PhD researcher and an environmentalist who is deeply concerned about the utter lack of progress in reducing CO2 emissions, it has been dismaying to follow how the mainstream environmental movement has been spending money and energy in fighting the one technology that has actually - and not just in projections printed in glossy brochures - decarbonized entire nations. So far, the result is, as recent statistics show, an utter stagnation in the share of energy the world generates from clean energy sources: we are actually no closer to a carbon-free society than we were in 1990, despite all the hype surrounding various renewable energy schemes, and total global emissions only keep on growing.

Mark Lynas's new single is therefore a welcome, well-grounded argument in support of the view that we simply do not have the luxury of picking and choosing only those carbon abatement options we have an ideological preference for. As modeling specifically undertaken for the book shows, "all of the above," including not just renewables but nuclear and carbon capture as well as efficiency improvements and shifts in consumption patterns (when possible), is the only strategy that offers even a hope for limiting global warming to less than 2°C, and it seems to be the only strategy that has some realistic chance in keeping the warming below 4°C. Interestingly, even the Greenpeace "Energy Revolution," by far the most optimistic of the 164 renewable energy scenarios considered by IPCC in its 2011 SRREN report, even if executed perfectly, is not enough. If the most optimistic of already optimistic non-nuclear proposals cannot do the job even if everything goes according to the blueprint, then perhaps the plan needs to be changed.

Lynas tackles the usual talking points offered against nuclear power with great skill and verve, supporting his claims with a decent list of references. For someone new to the subject, this is probably the best and most concise overview of the debate and what actual science shows, for example, about the risks of radiation. While there is little new to those who have actually researched the subject by themselves, the book is still valuable as an overview and for its discussion about the origins of the anti-nuclear movement and for interesting details about coal plants that have followed "no" to nuclear. Despite all the nice words about being against both nuclear and coal, the sad fact is that anti-nuclear activists have unwittingly made themselves "useful fools" for the fossil fuel industry; you may not have known - for example - that Germany is one of the only countries in Europe still building and opening new coal-fired power stations. To paraphrase a late Finnish president, it seems that if you moon to uranium, you simultaneously bow to coal. (Incidentally, one coal plant missing from the examples is Finnish Meri-Pori coal generating station, built immediately after a "no" vote to new nuclear in 1993. Interestingly, it has almost the same power rating as the proposed reactor. As far as the claims that the German coal plants have nothing to do with the most recent nuclear shutdown, these are casuistry of the highest order, omitting cleverly the fact that most plants were approved during earlier nuclear phase-out decision.)

As Lynas shows, much of the anti-nuclear activism is grounded on misconceptions, poor science, and even blatant disinformation, spread by well-meaning but ideologically blinkered activists. The problem for these activists is that the scientific consensus does not, by and large, agree with their views. Radiation is a carcinogen, but a fairly weak one; Fukushima's casualties will come from fear, not from radiation; and, when compared by impacts per energy unit produced, nuclear power is actually by far the least deadly of any energy source ever employed by humans. The length of the book prevents detailed discussion, and one could take some issue with certain phrasings such as the claim that there is no convincing evidence showing a statistically significant correlation between cancer incidence and radiation exposures of less than 100 mSv (there are some recent studies that contest this), but overall the book is at the very least a good starting point.

Lynas is also careful to point out that nuclear power is not a panacea, and the good qualities of nuclear are no reason to shun renewables - where they are appropriate. While Lynas glosses over some of the rather formidable problems with large-scale renewables (grid-scale energy storage being one of the most pertinent), this is a highly commendable position, partly because renewables do have their own, significant merits and are in many cases excellent choices, and partly because they are (at least for a while) much more acceptable to the general public than new nuclear power stations. An engineering-only analysis might show that nuclear alone (using novel fourth-generation reactors) could easily power the world, and with much less environmental impact than today's power sources, but politics are different. And in any case, cooperation is more likely to produce results than infighting between which exact low-carbon technology should be promoted. It is heartening to read that this seems to be what the UK branches of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth seem to be tacitly doing: a recent joint statement, calling for "low-carbon unity" to take carbon almost completely out of the UK's electricity system by 2030, included the British nuclear and renewables industries, and the growing carbon capture and storage trade group. Such grand alliance may be our last, best hope for saving a planet fit for human habitation.

This is perhaps the most important environmental book of the year, and one of the most important of the recent years as well. It is highly recommended to anyone with an interest in pressing environmental issues, it should be required reading for politicians, and one hopes that a print version will be available just so that one could hand them out to interested parties on occasion.
21 von 24 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
4.0 von 5 Sternen Important and useful perspective 11. Juli 2013
Von Rod Adams - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition Verifizierter Kauf
As a nuclear energy professional and nuclear energy advocate since 1968, I am always happy to welcome converts to the cause. Lynas is one of the world's most effective climate campaigners because he understands numbers and the scale of the challenge.

With the combined production of both nuclear and renewable power sources, we have a chance of mitigating the most dire consequences of CO2 build-up. We might even manage to increase the world's total energy supply and reduce the economic power of the global fossil fuel industry.

Read the book to see how this optimistic result might happen.
9 von 9 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen Short - factual - best book on this topic for the general public 19. August 2013
Von Amazon Customer - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition Verifizierter Kauf
The author supports an "All-of-the-above" approach to stationary electricity production with reduced carbon dioxide emissions. He shows that renewable energy (Wind, SolarThermal, Solar PV Electric) will make significant contributions towards the goal, But there is no substitute for baseline Nuclear Power Generation. Significantly, the book shows why this is true

The book is focused on the lay reader. The facts are presented clearly.. Converting the public's "fast thinking" aversion to "Radiation, "Nuclear" trigger words is a huge challenge. I've read more than 8 books on the subject. This is the one I am giving to non-technical friends.
7 von 7 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen A timely and well reseached warning 23. August 2013
Von Trevor Gibbons - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition Verifizierter Kauf
OK, so I needed no converting to be pro nuclear! Mark Lynas has presented clear arguments in this short book - well supported by references (20% on my Kindle). I read of a world awash with new coal and oils supplies hoodwinking people to thinking that raising efficiency and increasing wind and solar would allow us to continue to ignore the threat of carbon. Ignore the facts so we hold old views - . Mario Livio in "Brilliant Blunders" called this "intellectual dissonance". There is a lot of it around the nuclear issue. Maybe it won't happen because the ones who should read this book probably won't. Well done Mark
5 von 6 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
4.0 von 5 Sternen Pro-Nuclear Guide 4. April 2014
Von David Lindsay - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Taschenbuch Verifizierter Kauf
This book is written by an environmentalist for other environmentalists. Its main objective is to explain that nuclear power is safe. The author, Mark Lynas, claims that there is no alternative to nuclear power given the need to reduce CO2 emissions and slow down climate change. The book is well written and easy to read. It is aimed at the average person who knows little about the subject. It is short, about 25,000 words, and a little superficial. I was a little frustrated that there was not more detail, but it works as a high-level overview.

The US gets 19% of its electricity from nuclear power, but the last nuclear plant completed in this country started operation in 1995. Anti-nuclear campaigners have helped kill off the industry in the US. Nuclear energy is a complicated subject and because so few people in the media and politics seem to understand the science, emotion has triumphed over hard facts and reason. Lynas goes through each of the urban legends surrounding nuclear power and demolishes them one by one. The evidence from Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Fukushima shows that humans can withstand a lot more radiation than was originally anticipated. Studies show that the Japanese 'A' bomb survivors had only a 0.5% increased risk of dying from cancer. About 50 people died as a result of the Chernobyl accident not the thousands that were predicted. At Three Mile Island the release of radiation was so small that nobody was harmed. Nuclear waste can be stored safely. In the film The China Syndrome it was suggested that the molten core of a nuke could bore through the Earth and literally reach China. The accident at Fukushima proved this was pure fantasy. On the positive side, a 2013 study from James Hansen showed that the use of nuclear power between 1971 and 2009 avoided the premature deaths of 1.84 million people, thanks to its air pollution benefits.

It has become too expensive for the average utility to build a nuclear plant in the US. The over-engineering and over-regulation makes the costs horrendous. Southern Company, which is one of the biggest utilities in the US is building a new facility in Georgia at a cost of $16 billion. Even they are getting financial assistance from the US government. Given the fear of US investors for all things nuclear, new projects can only get built with government help or risk sharing.

What Lynas makes clear is that we can't reduce CO2 with renewables alone. Renewables are intermittent and produce a much smaller bang for the buck. In 2012 wind produced 2.3% of global electricity and solar 0.4%. In the US the numbers were 3.5% and 0.1%. A solar plant in Germany will produce less than 10% as much electricity as a nuclear plant of the same capacity in MW. Solar only really makes economic sense in sunny countries. Onshore wind is unpopular and offshore wind is too expensive. Greenpeace has advocated a "pie-in the sky" strategy whereby wind would produce 22% of global electricity by 2030 and solar 17%. The cost would be $8.8 trillion and there is just not the land available for all those windmills. This clearly is not going to happen.

France has embraced the nuclear dream and has 58 working nuclear plants, generating 80% of the country's electricity. French nukes have a great safety record and all of their high-level waste is stored in one facility about the size of a basketball court. Germany is situated next door and has invested heavily in renewables. It now gets about 12% of its electricity from wind and solar and 18% from nuclear. Its retail electricity rates are 82% higher than those in France. One can only speculate at the eventual cost to customers if Germany realizes its 80% renewables target in 2050. Germany is now closing its nukes because it has a powerful anti-nuclear lobby, but it is having to build coal plants to replace the lost output. Make sense?

Unlike most countries, the US has plenty of gas and coal. Building new coal plants in the US has become very difficult, the public does not like them them and gas fired plants are cheaper. Since nuclear is off the table, gas has become the favored base load option. However, gas also produces CO2, so it is not an ideal solution.

Reading this book I concluded that the US and Germany had abandoned nuclear power mainly for irrational reasons. Lynas tries to placate his friends in the environmental movement, and convince them that he is not a traitor. He does not blame them for their misguided activism and the misinformation that they spread over the decades. Had the environmental movement not become obsessed with nuclear power we would probably be in a much better position today.
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich? Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.