Is nuclear the answer?

I found this article and think that it is worth sharing through my blog:

"Many environmentalists would like to consign nuclear power to the dustbin of history, but it seems that it's an energy source that just won't go away.

Opposition to nuclear power was at the heart of the green movement of the 1960's and 70's. However the role of carbon emissions in climate change has switched the focus of not just campaigners, but politicians and large sections of the business community, against fossil fuels. Nuclear power has been highlighted by its supporters as a very low carbon emitter, which has given the industry a boost and could hail its renaissance.

The hazardous legacy of nuclear waste and the difficulty of disposing it, added to the catastrophe at Chernobyl meant that many countries lost their appetite for nuclear power. Germany has pledged to phase out all of its nuclear facilities by 2021 because of the potential safety risks, replacing them with renewable power sources

For developing countries nuclear power plants haven't gone out of fashion - China plans to spend $60 billion on new nuclear power plants by the end of the next decade - while France still generates around 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy.

As governments look to how they will fuel the future, nuclear power has been trying to clean up its image. There are innovative plans on how to dispose of the highly hazardous waste. A report by the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said that a portion of nuclear waste could be used as a power source, suggesting the building of a $2 billion fuel processing plant could turn the UK's 60,000 tonnes of nuclear waste into reactor fuel to provide 60 percent of the country's electricity until 2060.

While the plan had the support of the UK government's chief scientist, Sir David King, many environmental groups raised concerns that it would create a "plutonium economy" in the UK and lead to huge quantities of nuclear fuel transported to and across the country.
Nuclear back on the agenda

The UK government has recently given formal backing to plans for a new generation of commercial nuclear power stations, a move that has dismayed many supporters of renewable energies and environmentalists.

While it is agreed that many of the UK's nuclear facilities will need to be replaced by 2018, opinion is divided as to whether new power stations will contribute to filling the predicted energy gap.

One thing that can be agreed is that the public, governments and energy companies across the world are having the face up to the same energy problems. According to the World Energy Council, global energy supplies must double from their 2007 level by 2050 to meet worldwide household energy needs, while reductions in carbon emissions have to be met to stave off the effects of climate change.

Critics of nuclear power have traditionally focussed on the hazards and costly nature of the industry, as well as the catastrophic effects of a nuclear accident and the threat of nuclear proliferation. However as the debate over energy sources become more sophisticated, anti-nuclear activists also point to its other flaws.

"There are two [other] reasons why new nuclear will play no part in ensuring our energy and climate security: cost and time. Nuclear costs too much, the costs are too uncertain and the reactors cannot be available in time," energy expert Tom Burke CBE, said in an address to the Law Society in 2007.

Building a nuclear power station is an expensive and long process. In the U.S. and UK projected costs of nuclear power stations have been dwarfed by the final total. The Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland is currently under construction but has been beset by problems; costs have spiralled from $3.6 billion to $5.8 billion. Doubts persist that the number of nuclear power stations in the UK that would be needed to plug the perceived energy gap could be built in time, with average construction time taking around 5 years and lengthy consultation and approval times potentially doubling the build schedule.

Reducing CO2 emissions?
It has been argued that building more nuclear power stations would not lead to the necessary reduction in greenhouse gases as nuclear power only provides around 16 percent of the world's electricity. A report by the Sustainable Development Commission in the UK established that even if the UK doubles its nuclear facilities there would only be an 8 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2035.

Critics of nuclear power also suggest that the carbon dioxide produced by nuclear power is not as low as many in the industry claim. If mining the uranium and decommissioning the power plants is taken into account, Greenpeace contend that nuclear power stations produce around 50 percent more greenhouse emissions than wind power.

Nevertheless there are many that believe nuclear power has an important role to play in reducing carbon emissions and plugging a potential energy gap.

Malcolm Grimston, Association Fellow of Chatham House, believes that nuclear power is the best way to lower greenhouse gas emissions and in the UK's case, providing sustained and reliable baseload energy.

"Baseload requirement for electricity is somewhere around 20,000 megawatts, 24 hour. That has to be coming reliably, and you just can't be sure when the wind is blowing or the sun is going to be out. In terms of baseload energy, it's not about nuclear vs. renewables, they aren't appropriate because of their intermittency. It's nuclear vs. gas or coal," says Grimston.
Supporters of nuclear power point to the advances made in the industry in the last 30 years. Modern reactors are safer than they were in the 1970s, with safety shut-downs far less frequent.

While the capital costs of nuclear power are much larger proportion than other energy sources, supporters of nuclear power point out that the costs of the fuel, uranium, are relatively stable, and not subject to the same market fluctuations.

"Nuclear had its economic problems, but it has a track record that proves it can deliver, and some of the renewables don't have that. At current fossil fuel prices it's very clear that nuclear is the most economically attractive option. There isn't a single snappy solution to providing energy in the future," says Grimston."

I strongly think that Nuclear power is the best way to curb rising cost of Oil. If the Oil prices go above 150 $, the world economies will crash and there would be a world war.

Think about it.

How to Lose Tummy Fat, Flabs?

Trying to burn tummy fat can be a difficult thing to do! It seriously is!

The mainstream idea of how to burn tummy fat involves eating a small amount of calories combined with doing lots of crunches everyday. This is absolutely not true and is ineffective.

If you have ever tried this approach, you have almost undoubtedly found yourself to have slow results.

Doing lots of crunches might help you gain core strength, but it will not help to "spot reduce" your tummy. Spot reduction is a common myth that if you want to lose fat in a certain area, you do so by working the muscle underneath it.

You can never lose fat from just a part of your body. If you gonna do it, its gonna be from all over your body. And trust me, the tummy will be last part it would become visible that you are losing
fat.

To get fat out of your body, you need to a total body workout. Yea, exercise everypart of your body to get all muscles working. The more it works, the more calories your body will burn. Try and do about 300 Calories 4-5 times a week. Its pretty easy, 1/2 hour of running on the Tread Mill would do the trick.

Lift some wieghts before you do your cardio. Coz it would help you burn more calories coz your muscles are already worked up.

Some of these execercises are pretty good they say:
1. Inverted pushups
2. Lunges
3. Seated row
4. Hamstring leg curls on a stability ball
5. Ab crunches on a stability ball
6. Med ball squat, curl, and press

We you really ought to know that you can't eat tons of steaks, fries and other junk food and still expect to get thin! If you really wanna eat, you should do about 1000 Calories 4-5 times a day... hehe

Try it out and let me know whats better and whats not!

P.S: This post contains stuff that I have read from other articles!

How to enjoy a cheap night out in a cool club in Singapore?

Many people here could love clubbing, but can't do it too often coz of the cost involved. I mean I love to club and I visit clubs very often. Many of the places I go include OO, St. James, Zouk etc.

These places can turn out to be expensive if you visit too frequently. But yea, if you are smart, I'm sure you could adopt the following strategies to make your visit cheap :)

1) You wanna get seriously drunk and have some fun
Place to go: Double O, Entrance is usually 20 Bucks, but even Vodka Redbull costs just SGD 14 bucks here!

2) You wanna listen to great music with a great music system and a good DJ
Place to go: St. James Power Station, PowerHouse.
If you are a girl, go on Wednesdays. Perhaps a little early so that you can go home early as well. Gather as many friends as you can. The club provides 5 free drinks for every chic who gets in on Wednesdays. Guys, you could go on Wednesdays too, just try to bring along some girls with you if you can. If they don't drink you could get them to get you those free drinks!

And yea, if you could make it before 10 PM, you can enter free as well. Plus happy hour rates gives you a jug of housepour for just 14 bucks. Vodka redbull not included though.

Plus, if you wish to really save money, don't take a cab home, use the SMRT Night Rider service. Trust me, its very fast (Since there is almost no traffic) and it covers almost all the places. Esplanade is the point where all NR service bus comes, so you could change bus here if you cant get a direct bus home.

It would just cost you 3$ to get back home!

So on a Wednesday if you are a guy and you go with a girl to St. James powerhouse before 10 PM, you get
1) Free Entry
2) Five Free Drinks
3) A jug for SG$ 14 bucks if you buy before 10 PM

And ride back home for S$ 3!

Guse

Why is Singapore a Cool Place?

Singapore in unique in it's very own way. I'm sure many people think that this place can be boring. But I would strongly disagree to that. After all being such a small place it still offers us so much.

It's Clean!
First and formost, its by far the cleanest country I have seen or heard of. No one can deny the fact that we seldom see or feel the rough of thrash and dirt all over the places where you live, work and play. Every patch of land here has been painted green with the grass. It is a good feeling after all right? The amount of effor placed to achieve this is definetly applaudable.

It's Happening!
The night life of Singapore is amazing. For the people who knows where to go can always find the place that suits their mood and nature. The new clubs that open in town is always a hit attraction to many. Sustaining crowds can be seen at many places. Not just nightlife, but even the regular life is cool in a sense. The gyms are buffed with new equipments and great music, the saloons are fabulous in looks and delivery, the restaurants are amazing as well!

It's Mouth Watering!
The food is the best here. You get a blend from all countries and places. Which makes it one of the foremost reason I decided to make this place my home. The news papers write weekly about great places to dine for taste and pleasure. It doesn't need a further statement to believe that you get the best of Asia right here in Singapore.

Ofcourse there is more...
But I will write about them in another post soon :)

Have fun guys!

Membership contracts

Have you ever joined any clubs or fitness centers in Singapore lately?

I would recommend you to read the contractual terms very carefully before joining them.

It is almost certain that there would be some traps in the contract which would make you pay more than what is expected. They may not terminate your membership even after making the request for cancellation. Such cases has been blogged about in Singapore against clubs like California Fitness, True Yoga etc.

A couple of court cases in U.S. which has been won against such clubs (24 Hour Fitness, the parent of California Fitness in Singapore) are cited below:

http://www.weirclassaction.com/index.html

http://www.kitchinlegal.com/pickering.asp

Search through google about the club you wish to join before making the decision!