4 ms·
> Only shows how little trust could be put on fixed infrastructure these days You either introduce redundancy to get rid of single points of failure, or you in
by voytec 2y ago
> Only shows how little trust could be put on fixed infrastructure these days
You either introduce redundancy to get rid of single points of failure, or you invest in more reliable means to fulfill given requirements, and keep former main "pipe" as backup.
- anovikov 2y agoDoesn't work with gas pipeline, especially not with undersea ones. They scale down terribly poorly, becoming incredibly expensive to build and operate per bcm/y if made thinner/"smaller" to have many of them for redundancy. Also too long, equally well attacked at any point, thus impossible to defend, and impossible to fix once attacked (saltwater getting inside -> pipes are wrecked after a few days, long before they can be sealed and drained).
- voytec 2y agoMy point is that you don't need gas specifically, but energy. Find ways to get energy without dependency on gas if the source is unstable.
- anovikov 2y agoThat's true. We should depend less on things that are so vulnerable. LNG is partially a solution though - a liquefaction or regasification terminal is easier to protect, and defence of shipping at sea is a well-debugged thing since WWI.
- CRConrad 2y ago> defence of shipping at sea is a well-debugged thing since WWI. When (presumably) the Royal Navy was in charge of it. Since WW2 it's been the US one that's handled it, but... Some pundits *cough*PeterZeihan*cough* have been saying for a while now that America is withdrawing from the role of World Police.
- nradov 2y agoYou need gas specifically if you want to have a chemicals industry that uses natural gas as a feedstock. https://cen.acs.org/business/Germanys-chemical-industry-survive-gas/101/i19 https://cen.acs.org/business/Germanys-chemical-industry-surv...