max002

No, actually it has been proven that writing by hand activates many other regions of brain so that might be the cause why youre feeling the difference.

Torrent, vod, old good dvd. You just need to control what they watch. As well watching more than one or two hours of tv by kids was proven to have negative effects on their concentration and grades later in primary school.

So maybe: - selection of vod, - books reading, - something else than stupid box which as well cuts down on their imagination (you know, fiest elephant ive heard about from mothers book story... I had to imagine that bastard!)

Netflix has option for kids, but its still little control. There are ghosts whatever. Not really for kids in all age groups.

They told edison and tesla theyre crazy too, dont stress and dont undermine power of human minds when it comes to working together on global solution (see vaccine).

As you said, by next year they will close all nuclear plants.

There's still 100x more ideas to clean coal pollution, bot nowhere near that to remove atomic solution. Saying something is viable over thousand of years is just dreaming.

Thanks (multiple) gods that wr dont bae science on god.

Read posts below about people 1/3rd of kids from area. The fact that you dont see it straight away doesnt mean there are no victims.

This cost is nothing if you compare it to cost of sagely storing waste from plants for thousands of years.

Is it better to product radioactive waste thats gonna leak and cost hundreds of generation insane amounts of money and we will happily live on one bug radioactive dump?

Its better to use invest in renewables

Yes, the production is one thing, but whaat i wantex to say is: 1. Germany is plan to shutdow all atomic 2. They dont plan to build any new coal

And what about all users that got their code fucked up? Yeah, that return statement was just a joke. Goes aggainst all good practices of programming.

Linus is my god :) dont like it? Switch off all your servers :) and as anyone he has right to be pissed off from time to time. From what ive read its not first time.

So youre nice 1 time, then 2nd time, then 3rd... And well then you loose your patience.

Dont take it personally, just shut up and fix that shit xD

Germany is proving that you can go without nuclear without going back to coal. Instead they went into renewables. Im not sure if any other country in Europe/on continent did it. Love them for that.

True, they shut them down to replace with renewables. And because keeping old ones active is becoming more and more expensive.

I think article says its a matter of decission. Once you take hard stance/decission its a matter of time amd retries.

Goos tip is to find replacemet, a healthy one. You can get addicted to gentle (not stupid) weight lifting, running (please, on grass, not on cement or next to road full of cars, not on asfalt, its not good for your knees and lungs) reading a book.

Replace it with hobby that you like or put that time into something you wanted to do, but never had time.

But you don't plant a new forest where there was fire last year... Or you do? xD

About molten salt. I love idea, but we will have soon just 1st one right? Or is it already operational?

Btw. 660 bill on clean up thats nowhere to be done is big impact.

Fukushima. Current clean up cost around 600 billions dollars... Estimated costs over next 20 years? Unknown.

How much lives we could save or improve with that money... damn.

It wont be ever save in japan. Just have a look at continental setup. Its cou try with biggest amount of earth quakes (statistic. Thats a fact.) on planet.

Night owls perform best in evening hours. There's more and more research about this - hopefully this will get incorporated into school and work system in coming years. At the moment its just "one for all" approach and it works great for larks, but brings problems to owls (not only in schools, but later on in adult life).

I dont eat my pets, but i do feed them with raw meat xD

So you say an oil tank burned hmmm... Yeat another argument to ditch fossil fuels completely.

https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=304070... and... Its just one of many options. Thank you :) you did compare with 50 years, what abkut 150? 300? 500? 1000? Or we dont think about shit thats beyond our lifetime? You dont want to leave nice clean planet for your kids? Or for kids of other people/in your familly? We need to think beyond our lifetime. Keeping up and fixing nuclear plants is extremely huge cost and needs to be done constantly. And the waste needs to be paid for for 100,000 years. Not for 50.

As for night time harvesting energy, we've already solved the issue (and one i link is not the only one) : https://www.saurenergy.com/solar-energy-news/arriving-soon-s...

No one mentioned hydrogen which was being hold by OPEC, but now its getting traction.

Thats just silly reply :) its about not being materialist and consumpionist. Not about living in the woods and hunting with spears. Its about balance and having things in life more important than new watch (another one), new suit (how many do you need?). You know... Love, friends, familly. Real time with your kids, reading them more books instead of putting them in front of tv and tablet.

The reality is that we now work and already have technologies that increase solar efficiency (and some really clean solar collections) coming to market within next 5 years. Thats not enough to construct even one plant. As well in field of batteries there's some extremeley interesting stuff coming to market. Batteries that can have 10 time more recharge cycles are coming. Same with lithium replacement. Prototypes and ready ones are already being tested with multiple different materials.

650 billions dollars as for now to clean up... What about costs of keeping that stuff safe for next 50 years? What about costs for next 300 years? I dont want grandkids of my grandkids to pay for that. You can buy a lot of powerwalls for that. Thats why tesla got contracts to reduce tensions on electrical grid in california.

6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0. Of this, 64 to 102 g-CO2/kWh over 100 years are emissions from the background grid while consumers wait 10 to 19 years for nuclear to come online or be refurbished, relative to 2 to 5 years for wind or solar. In addition, all nuclear plants emit 4.4 g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh.

In fact, China’s investment in nuclear plants that take so long between planning and operation instead of wind or solar resulted in China’s CO2 emissions increasing 1.3 percent from 2016 to 2017 rather than declining by an estimated average of 3 percent. The resulting difference in air pollution emissions may have caused 69,000 additional air pollution deaths in China in 2016 alone, with additional deaths in years prior and since.

7. Waste Risk Last but not least, consumed fuel rods from nuclear plants are radioactive waste. Most fuel rods are stored at the same site as the reactor that consumed them. This has given rise to hundreds of radioactive waste sites in many countries that must be maintained and funded for at least 200,000 years, far beyond the lifetimes of any nuclear power plant. The more nuclear waste that accumulates, the greater the risk of radioactive leaks, which can damage water supply, crops, animals, and humans

2. Cost The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for a new nuclear plant in 2018, based on Lazard, is $151 (112 to 189)/MWh. This compares with $43 (29 to 56)/MWh for onshore wind and $41 (36 to 46)/MWh for utility-scale solar PV from the same source.

This nuclear LCOE is an underestimate for several reasons. First, Lazard assumes a construction time for nuclear of 5.75 years. However, the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors, though will take at least 8.5 to 9 years to finish construction. This additional delay alone results in an estimated LCOE for nuclear of about $172 (128 to 215)/MWh, or a cost 2.3 to 7.4 times that of an onshore wind farm (or utility PV farm).

Next, the LCOE does not include the cost of the major nuclear meltdowns in history. For example, the estimated cost to clean up the damage from three Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor core meltdowns was $460 to $640 billion. This is $1.2 billion, or 10 to 18.5 percent of the capital cost, of every nuclear reactor worldwide.

In addition, the LCOE does not include the cost of storing nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years. In the U.S. alone, about $500 million is spent yearly to safeguard nuclear waste from about 100 civilian nuclear energy plants. This amount will only increase as waste continues to accumulate. After the plants retire, the spending must continue for hundreds of thousands of years with no revenue stream from electricity sales to pay for the storage.

4. Meltdown Risk To date, 1.5% of all nuclear power plants ever built have melted down to some degree. Meltdowns have been either catastrophic (Chernobyl, Russia in 1986; three reactors at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Japan in 2011) or damaging (Three-Mile Island, Pennsylvania in 1979; Saint-Laurent France in 1980). The nuclear industry has proposed new reactor designs that they suggest are safer. However, these designs are generally untested, and there is no guarantee that the reactors will be designed, built and operated correctly or that a natural disaster or act of terrorism, such as an airplane flown into a reactor, will not cause the reactor to fail, resulting in a major disaster.