Yeah. I can remeber when my budget for a good meal was 30p. Now its £3.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
OT - Lights going out in three years
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Well that's true..
Its cameroons fault for the health service changes started 5 years ago. Its cameroons fault there is no money left.
Oh hang on, it wasn't the Conservatives fault that the economy was booming when labour were elected.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
and here.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Bad news; Canned ones.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
It is an American company, you know.
Have a word with the manager of your local supermarket. My parents managed to get Acme to stock some British stuff.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
The cost of meat popped up a few times in early Doonesburys (early 70s I think)
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
and here ... jaffas the lot of us!
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Nobody here more bitter than you TurNiP.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Conversion to biogas? There's some people here full of shit so it would be an efficient process.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
What you need is an allotment.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
What are the Germans going to do when we can no longer supply them with electricity during the winter Europe-wide high pressure periods, where no wind-power at all is generated?
Terry Fields
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
I see that once again you demonstrate your lack of acquaintance with Logic and your lexical, but not scientific, acquaintance with 'efficiency'
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Build dirty coal powered stations. Apparently the LCP directive doesn't apply to them.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Some of us have principles and recognise that FIT payments to the likes of you distort the electricity market in a way that is completely unacceptable both from a moral point of view and a technical one.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Whatever leads you to that conclusion?
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
The fact that they are being built at all, and we are told we cant have any new coal.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Just who is saying that? The EU have not banned coal, they have only set emissions limits that can and are being met by existing coal fired stations across the UK and to some extent in other countries in the EU. If you can't meet those limits then there is an hours run limitation and a drop dead date applied.
But you'll have to go to the USA or Japan for your advanced burner technology. The world lead we had in combustion research was destroyed by Thatcher 25 years ago as a result of her rabid hatred of anything to do with coal. It wasn't just miners that Thatcher clobbered, she pulled the plugs on academia too.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
No one hated miners. It was the mining unions that were the target.
The Left spun that into hatred of miners - but that was bollocks. What people voted for when they voted for Thatcher was a nation that was run by its elected government, not by unions,.
And she did what we asked of her.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
It's a typical trick the Left plays to close down debate. The same happens whenever *anything* in the "public" [1] sector needs reform. The NHS is a typical example of this. Assert it needs reforming and you're accused of attacking our brave nurses and doctors.
[1] To be in the "public" sector means any organisation owned and operated by an unaccountable entity known as the "government" - so not owned by the public at all.- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
The impact from nuclear is small indeed:
formatting link
> Figure 24.13. British nuclear waste, per person, per year, has a > volume just a little larger than one wine bottle.
You should ignore that templar site. It gives you some VERY bad ideas. We must and can get away from that heat input by using nuclear energy. Let me explain why we must get away from it.
Since the end of the last ice age sea level rose by 132 meters because of a change in the earths orbit around the sun. We have had four such changes during the last 400 000 years. NASA have a good figure for that:
formatting link
reason for the last sea level rise of 132 m was a rise of 100 ppm CO2 during 14 000 years.
Now we are in for another sea level rise because of a new steep rise in CO2, as you can see from the end of the NASA figure. CO2 is now 394 parts per million. Another sea level rise of 132 meter is not possible as we do not have enough ice for that. A sea level rise of 70 meter is possible as we have enough ice for that.
The last sea level rise lasted 14 000 years commanded by the rate of change of the earths orbit. The new sea level rise will be faster, as we have already provided the heat for the melting of the ice.