Park Life

Limitless Quite a well spun tale of psy drama. 7/10

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197 New religion is already here.

Me either btw. I just think he will do the best he can for the reasons given and he isn't the real problem.

Think it's only a matter of days now.

He had a really posh accent at Yale btw. He was told to dumb it down when running for office. True story. I think that was one of the worst insults this country has even been subjected to. We're the fourth military power of the world, fifth or sixth biggest economy depending on which gauge you use, historically and culturally the world's most important country, one of the most influential players in mankind, and that absolute arsehole speaks to our leader like he's some president of some Carribbean island with 6 rocks and a sewage outflow. Imagine Cameron going "how Putin here pal", he'd be Litvinienko'd before you could say pipe down. I agree, but it was partly Blair's fault, no gravitas behind the fake charisma. Too concerned with lapdogging his way into the history books. In a strange way I notice that most of the time if we are clever we can get the americans to do our dirty work for us. If that makes sense.

He had a really posh accent at Yale btw. He was told to dumb it down when running for office. True story.

Indeed. And fossil fuels are fucked and renewable resourcing just doesn't have the infrastructure or means to power the entire UK so nuclear is the only viable consideration. Lot of hot air about it recently for obvious reasons but in respect of the Fukishima plant, it's 40 years old and was built to standards that are a fraction of what is allowed these days. It's the most expensive, uneconomical, dangerous and madly subsidised way of boiling water ever devised by man or sparrow. Why you have to ask yourself has it become seemingly the only answer? Come on then Parky, what's the alternative? China and India are 10-20 years away according to this article. Thorium http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/?p=2968 "The advantage of using thorium over uranium-only-fuelled light water reactors (LWRs) is that the raw material is found in quantity around the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggests that it is between three and four times more abundant than uranium and also much more efficient in the fuel cycle, too – potentially between 100 and 300 times more fuel efficient than a standard light-water reactor, for example, in terms of material usage. It also generates less waste as a result of this efficiency. In addition, once started, the reactors work at low pressure, minimising the risk of catastrophic accidents – such as Windscale in 1957, Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. Most of the waste will have a much shorter half-life, requiring storage for just a couple of hundred years instead of the thousands of years that standard nuclear waste needs to be stored for. This fact alone could drastically slash the costs associated with nuclear power." I guess that's the end of the alternative sheep bleeting noise in here and it only took me 2 mins of cursory lazy googling... Yes James you totally destroyed the 'what's the alternative to nuclear fuel?' argument by replying 'cheaper, cleaner nuclear fuel'. This is not an anti-nuclear thread, just a nuanced debate about improving the efficiency of nuclear fuel? I did have Japan and the UK in mind. The rest of the world WILL find alternatives, but it is harder for little islands who aren't allowed to go back to coal. Think the 200 year storage compared to 20,000 year half life is a massive plus point and makes it almost non nuclear. In the future all our energy will probably come from either man made tiny black holes or lightning, we just need to get through the next 50 without destroying the oceans with leaking nukes and such. If I had the funding all the worlds problems would be solved in a matter of weeks. But as you know there is no money in solving the energy crisis, the energy crisis is a big money maker.

It was still a lot of shopping you didn't need.

I can see you haven't the first clue how much the nuke industry spend on pr and spin. Do you? Course you don't. as opposed to...? Your attempts to chat up the girl in Tecos.

Ironically Japan is the world leader in hydrogen fuel cells and magnetic drive for cars. I see the Nissan Leaf went on sale here today. 10 hours charging for 100 miles driving, the range goes down by 10% if its cold, 25% if you put the heater on and 45% if you put the A/C on. Would take over a week to get from London to Edinburgh. Marvellous. And they were calling it 'zero emissions' on the news. What? If you plug it into a socket fed by a fossil-fuel power station it actually produces more co2 per mile than a 1.6 diesel. Early days and all that.

I can see you haven't the first clue how much the nuke industry spend on pr and spin. Do you? Course you don't.

Ironically Japan is the world leader in hydrogen fuel cells and magnetic drive for cars.

That whole period of driving around West London and soliciting young girls from the back of his Bentley was rather raffish if I may say so.

Have to agree although Will has done well for a cheapie.

So are Dennis Wise's eyes, another wrongun. Look what he did to that taxi driver. The eye distance test has never let me down. Or the thin elongated head (John Terry). What has Nicholas Lyndhurst ever done to you? He's played the get out of jail free comedy card so no need for further scrutiny.

So are Dennis Wise's eyes, another wrongun. Look what he did to that taxi driver. The eye distance test has never let me down. Or the thin elongated head (John Terry).

Eyes are a bit close together.

Think the Americans are desperate to take a back seat in this one after having let loose the Tomahawks.

I've had a bad day.

it takes someone like you to not see the hypocrisy of talking about the hysterical masses when you're being taken in by equally hysterical nonsense. the goths of the political spectrum tbh there's a reason people don't give you the time of day in a real debate Oh dear. I bow to your common sense and net neutrality.

Here little doggie...From the experts apparently they even wear shirts and ties... Nuclear Power without the Radioactive Waste?!? In his recent letter to Barack Obama, James Hansen (of NASA's Goddard Space Centre Fame) encouraged the President to develop a new form of nuclear power. It would generate little waste, would be 99% efficient, use existing waste as fuel and reduce the chance of nuclear proliferation. Is this a pipe dream or soon to be reality? A Letter on Climate Change James Hansen is a world-renowned expert on Climate Change and one of the most publicly vocal figures on the urgency to solve the problem. He has recently written open letters to the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, on the need to prevent all new coal fired power stations from being built (in reference to the planned Kingsnorth Power Station planned for Southern England). His letter to Mr. Obama was a prescription, of sorts. Energy efficiency, renewable energy and smart grids were all listed as being crucial to reducing US greenhouse gas emissions. However, nuclear power is not something usually promoted by an environmentalist. Current Nuclear Power In its current form, nuclear power is expensive, dangerous, unreliable and promotes the development of nuclear weapons. However, Hansen's suggestion was not to pour money into the construction of new nuclear power stations in their current form, but to develop new technology which removes many of the problems currently hampering the nuclear industry. This new technology is known as 4th Generation Nuclear Power. There are many current plans to build 'a new generation of nuclear power plants', in various parts of the world. These plans are for what is known as 3rd Generation Nuclear Power. 1st Generation Nuclear Power Plants were the prototype plants built for research purposes after the 2nd World War, with the 2nd generation plants being the commercial power plants currently coming to the end of their life. However, 3rd generation plants only offer a slight improvement in efficiency and safety over their 2nd generation counterparts. They still produce highly dangerous nuclear waste that will need to be stored in sealed, indestructible containers for the next 5000 years. They also waste most of the energy they produce and rely on rare nuclear fuels which require a lot of energy to enrich. Finally, any country that wants to build them will have the ability to make weapons grade plutonium. 4th Generation Nuclear Power Fourth Generation Nuclear Power is different. It uses Thorium, rather than Uranium, as its primary fuel. Thorium is currently found in vast quantities in various places, such as the waste heaps produced by coal-fired power stations as well as on hundreds of miles of Thorium-sand beaches in India and, most interestingly, in nuclear waste. Thus, 4th Generation Nuclear Power has the potential to burn harmful waste products from the nuclear and coal industries, as well as being commonly and cheaply found in areas easily accessible to Asia's new Superpowers: India and China. With the obvious need to encourage both India and China to reduce their emissions, this makes 4th Generation Nuclear Power an excellent long-term choice for electricity generation. Read English? Fucking tedious in here sometimes...

Indeed. And fossil fuels are fucked and renewable resourcing just doesn't have the infrastructure or means to power the entire UK so nuclear is the only viable consideration. Lot of hot air about it recently for obvious reasons but in respect of the Fukishima plant, it's 40 years old and was built to standards that are a fraction of what is allowed these days. It's the most expensive, uneconomical, dangerous and madly subsidised way of boiling water ever devised by man or sparrow. Why you have to ask yourself has it become seemingly the only answer? Come on then Parky, what's the alternative? China and India are 10-20 years away according to this article. Thorium http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/?p=2968 "The advantage of using thorium over uranium-only-fuelled light water reactors (LWRs) is that the raw material is found in quantity around the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggests that it is between three and four times more abundant than uranium and also much more efficient in the fuel cycle, too – potentially between 100 and 300 times more fuel efficient than a standard light-water reactor, for example, in terms of material usage. It also generates less waste as a result of this efficiency. In addition, once started, the reactors work at low pressure, minimising the risk of catastrophic accidents – such as Windscale in 1957, Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. Most of the waste will have a much shorter half-life, requiring storage for just a couple of hundred years instead of the thousands of years that standard nuclear waste needs to be stored for. This fact alone could drastically slash the costs associated with nuclear power." I guess that's the end of the alternative sheep bleeting noise in here and it only took me 2 mins of cursory lazy googling...

http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/?p=2968 Only a 200 year storage cycle against the massively long half lives of uranium or plutonium. Smaller amounts of fissile material needed 100 times more efficent.

Indeed. And fossil fuels are fucked and renewable resourcing just doesn't have the infrastructure or means to power the entire UK so nuclear is the only viable consideration. Lot of hot air about it recently for obvious reasons but in respect of the Fukishima plant, it's 40 years old and was built to standards that are a fraction of what is allowed these days. It's the most expensive, uneconomical, dangerous and madly subsidised way of boiling water ever devised by man or sparrow. Why you have to ask yourself has it become seemingly the only answer?

The Wolves revival is really irritating a few weeks ago they looked gone as didi wigan.