• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Keir Starmer at it again..

Templeton Peck said:
Maybe don't take the role if that's how you feel about their leader? Or don't appoint him to the position? People let politicians off for this kind of thing far too easily nowadays
Click to expand...
I’d rather have an Ambassador who loathes Trump but plays the game than one who genuinely thinks he’s a good fellow!
 
Meanwhile Labour members of the government refuse to take position on Trumps planned takeover of Greenland - one of them saying clearly living in his Mommy's cellar because he says he's not heard of that at all, the other saying "let's see" despite Denmark desperately asking for support.

We'd all be slamming the far right Tories for this kind of shit.

When Trump talks of taking over Greenland and the Panama canal, when he threatens the Danish PM over the phone, when he says he wants Canada to become the 51st state, it's not bluster, rhetoric, or him just running his little twitter fingers. They are threats, and they need to be responded to in a way that reflects that.

Sick of fucking cowards
 
Fucks sake, this book isn't doing him any favours. His 'vocal coach'* popped round during covid lockdowns.

*"Kier Starmer's Vocal Coach isn't an edorsment that'll make one a millionaire.
 
I hope that he rubbishes any idea that Trump can take over the Gaza Strip, remove all of it’s inhabitants, and rebuild it as an international playground.
 
Sniffer said:
I hope that he rubbishes any idea that Trump can take over the Gaza Strip, remove all of it’s inhabitants, and rebuild it as an international playground.
Click to expand...

I mean it should be the easiest thing in the world to do. What he will say however is that he's "not going to provide a running commentary on everything the president says, their are lots of ideas and lots of challenges in a very difficult situation, and it's not helped by the £22bn black hole now look over there".

It's completely and utterly outrageous.
 
Our new ambassador to the US has a tough job. Weeding out the serious from the fantastical, dealing with a man that needs to WIN every conversation. There are going to be many tough moments, and he'll need a cool head, keep calm in the face of provocation, be of stellar moral fortitude and direction. The FT have done a big old interview with him today, and it's clear that he's really excited, until you mention Jeffrey Epstein

I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell. I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.

I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?
Click to expand...
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
That's good news.
Click to expand...
Not really.

SMRs have been ten years away from viablity for the last 50 years. Only two have been built in the whol world and both of those were one-off experimental systems. The only way you can make them commercially viable is if you relax the very regulations that make nuclear plants safe - so good luck getting anyone to agree to having one nearby.

And even if you can somehow get enough interest to build tens pof thousands of them, they'll still be at least a decade away and produce electricity that will be the most expensive on the market. But you'll have to pay the cost anyway because the only way you'll generate the capital investment in the first place is to hand the operators guaranteed price contracts. So you'll end up killing the renewables market which would otherwise give you electricity at a tenth of the cost and 5% of the capital outlay.

One thing they *are* good at is funnelling research money from the public sector to the the usual suspects (Lockheed, Rolls Royce, BAe systems) in the private sector, so...yay?
 
visage said:
Not really.

SMRs have been ten years away from viablity for the last 50 years. Only two have been built in the whol world and both of those were one-off experimental systems. The only way you can make them commercially viable is if you relax the very regulations that make nuclear plants safe - so good luck getting anyone to agree to having one nearby.

And even if you can somehow get enough interest to build tens pof thousands of them, they'll still be at least a decade away and produce electricity that will be the most expensive on the market. But you'll have to pay the cost anyway because the only way you'll generate the capital investment in the first place is to hand the operators guaranteed price contracts. So you'll end up killing the renewables market which would otherwise give you electricity at a tenth of the cost and 5% of the capital outlay.

One thing they *are* good at is funnelling research money from the public sector to the the usual suspects (Lockheed, Rolls Royce, BAe systems) in the private sector, so...yay?
Click to expand...

Other European countries announced yesterday, that they were changing policy and are gong to start building them too.
 
Start building them? Or invest in research?

The devil is in the detail.
 
Looking forward to the follow up series of Chernobyl (UK)...
 
Last edited:
I understand what you're saying Vis, but if done properly, Nuclear is (almost) the safest and cleanest method of creating energy.

Especially now the waste can be recycled.

1000080871.jpg
 
'If done properly'

One of the core tenets of SMRs is that you can build them cheaply by relaxing safety standards. So you cannot necessarily rely on nuclears previously good record when you're now operating in a new regulatory regime.
 
visage said:
'If done properly'

One of the core tenets of SMRs is that you can build them cheaply by relaxing safety standards. So you cannot necessarily rely on nuclears previously good record when you're now operating in a new regulatory regime.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I refuse to believe they are going to build unsafe SMRs though. They may relax things slightly to speed things up, but everyone is (wrongly) terrified of Nuclear, the standards are currently extremely safe.

It would have to go a long way to be as bad as the fossil fuels.
 
It's interesting, have to say I've not been paying attention to nuclear power for a long time, I grew up in the era when all aspects of nuclear based energy production was considered 'evil.'
Does the waste still need hundreds of years of storage before its safe or have they found a better way of dealing with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Deutsch Wolf
Kemi Bad Enoch at it again
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Tredman
Tredman
The Bear
  • Locked
Blackburn (FA Cup 4th Round) 9/2, Build Up & Match Thread
11 12 13
Replies
243
Views
5K
Alan
Alan
The Bear
Newcastle 3-0 Wolves: Verdict Thread
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
3K
Tony Towner
Tony Towner
Sniffer
  • Locked
Newcastle (A) 15/01 Build Up & Match Thread.
16 17 18
Replies
344
Views
7K
MARKakaJIM
MARKakaJIM
The Bear
Wolves 2-0 Aston Villa: Verdict Thread
7 8 9
Replies
178
Views
5K
pavlosmacwolf
pavlosmacwolf
Back
Top