erentz

15 ms·

151.
by erentz 4y ago
For an elaborate operation like this as described in Hersh's story, would you rig just one? Or would you have multiple redundancies? Is it likely that all of the redundancies failed on the same pipeline, that is also the new pipeline?
152.
by erentz 4y ago
Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 are not just two pipelines. It's four total. The two pipelines of Nord Stream 1 were demolished. But only one of the pipelines of Nord Stream 2 was demolished, the second was untouched. https:/&#x2
153.
by erentz 4y ago
Claims and sources are supposed verified in journalism. In the case of anonymous sources a journalist can't just bring to his manager a quote and say he's anonymous because that journalist (as many have over the years) might have
154.
by erentz 4y ago
Why leave one of the brand new, larger pipelines undamaged, so that Russia could then offer after the event to work with Germany to activate it? Which naturally they did. This pipeline had been completed but activation was stopped due to th
155.
by erentz 4y ago
He's lost his credibility over the years. Which is likely why this didn't get published by NY Times. It's long but after reading this ask why you would believe this man who, in this new article, is making plenty of assertions
156.
by erentz 4y ago
I grant you it's long, but it's not just about bin Laden. Give that article a read to start. Then ask yourself why you think assertions from this person should now be believed first, disproven later, rather than corroborated and p
157.
by erentz 4y ago
It would be very counter to the suggested goals of the US for it to demolish just 3 of the 4 pipelines. Leaving one of the brand new, larger pipelines untouched. A pipeline that had just been completed but the activation of which had been p
158.
by erentz 4y ago
Seymour Hersh is not credible anymore. This is all based on a single anonymous source, that hasn't been supported by any other sources or evidence. He is known to have just made stuff up to suit, which is probably why the NY Times and
159.
by erentz 4y ago
Here's a map with many of the locations and routes: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1FdGZI6DDRPe3Y9-dtpLG...
160.
by erentz 4y ago
It was a term invented by a Wall Street analyst that had no meaning except to identify some emerging market countries. That it somehow got turned into a weird idea of a political block for a set of countries which have very little in common
161.
by erentz 4y ago
This is really weird. FTA: "These gauges are designed to be robust and to be used in industrial settings where they may be exposed to weather and vibration,” Dr. Robertson said at a news conference on Saturday, “so it is unusual for a
162.
by erentz 4y ago
> I got my Master's in the US in the late 2000s and was gainfully employed there for a few years... > > Ideally, I would prefer to go back to the US...because I actually was happy there. There's a lot of really helpful re
163.
The Allure of San Fran-Sicko(darrellowens.substack.com)
1 points by erentz 4y ago|0 comments
164.
by erentz 4y ago
Right. But if you want to look at 12 months (fair enough) then 50% being dirty electricity generation is nothing to be proud of is it? It's still one of the dirtiest grids in the planet with an average >500gCO2/kWh. And it&#x27
165.
by erentz 4y ago
Yes that's the point right. It's gone and decommissioned for really bad reasons. A political deal that satisfied those who were more anti-nuclear than anti-pollution. In an alliance with those who were more pro-fossil-gas than pro
166.
by erentz 4y ago
As mentioned taken from a snapshot at the time of Electricity Maps, check it out: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
167.
by erentz 4y ago
Why do you say nuclear is as clean as diesel? That is clearly not true. CO2 emissions equivalent to wind and solar (actually slightly better). Safety (deaths per kWh) also equivalent to wind and solar. And land use much much better. Waste i
168.
by erentz 4y ago
This is untrue. 20GW of nuclear shut down over the past 20 years. That is almost as much as the coal that is being burned at the moment. Coal and gas are currently providing 66% of demand (40GW). Wind+solar only 7%. If that 20GW of nuclear
169.
by erentz 4y ago
Looking at electricity maps: Currently burning 28GW of very dirty coal, 46% of demand, 72% of emissions. 12GW of gas, 19% of demand, 17% of emissions. Wind+Solar combined is only supplying 7% of demand. They decommissioned ~20GW of clean nu
170.
by erentz 4y ago
Seems to have been directed by CAISO for both Palo Alto and Alameda: https://twitter.com/nukebarbarian/status/1567358316174622720
171.
by erentz 4y ago
No you’re not being consistent. Your argument is no reprocessing, breeder, or seawater farming technology is allowable in calculations about the sustainability of fission. But all kids of similar recycling, or new chemistries, or not yet pr
172.
by erentz 4y ago
No because no one defines sustainability on the infinite terms you do. If people did then your batteries, wind, and solar would not qualify either. You then proceed to ignore the facts on CO2 emissions because you don’t like them. Adding ba
173.
by erentz 4y ago
No, I was reflecting your argument back to you but it goes straight over your head apparently. > Unlike Uranium, which is relatively scarce and the cost of which, in $ and kg of carbon, after mining and enriching to 5% LEU is considerabl
174.
by erentz 4y ago
Batteries and storage haven’t proven to be economical at scale. And also aren’t infinitely sustainable either (renewables and their storage don’t grow on trees, they use more resources and valuable minerals than nuclear). So by your measure
175.
by erentz 4y ago
Nobody died in Germany from this. Yet tens of thousands have died in Germany and neighboring countries from the pollution form its coal plants that is delayed shutting down so it could shutdown nuclear sooner, and now tens of thousands more
176.
by erentz 4y ago
Ukraine disagrees with you. They’ll be building more nuclear power after the war. There are much easier ways to terrorize people than trying to cause a radiological release from a plant like this. And that is already happening! Witness the
177.
by erentz 4y ago
Also the electricity sector is organized around provinces in Canada. So it makes a sensible comparison.
178.
by erentz 4y ago
> There is not and never will be enough uranium on this planet to completely power humanity for more than a few decades. This source says up to 4 billion years. Nuclear power is sustainable. https://whatisnuclear.com/blog
179.
by erentz 4y ago
Saw this interesting chart recently on the French case. Shows generally decreasing costs between first to last of a generation but then stepwise cost increases when moving to the next generation. https://twitter.com/autommen
180.
by erentz 4y ago
The footage was released by the Russians in their telegram accounts and spread on their social media. Of them torturing and dehumanizing and then killing a POW. Precisely to dehumanize the Ukrainians. This article just identifies the perpet

More ›