61–70 of 280 posts
The fact that someone actually built this, sent it to the bottom of the ocean, and then put people inside it to weld a 1200km pipeline underwater boggles my mind. Meanwhile we inexplicably struggle to figure out clean/cheap energy at scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might be actually higher risk than space walks. There have been almost 1000 space walks (defined generously), and zero fatalities.
Aside from a micro meteor smashing into your face shield. there's very little risk and a lot of oversight in space. Whereas saturation workers are under the ocean with wildlife, and undertaking heavy construction work. It's way more extreme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Joe Biden threatened to do it live on air: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UKn8TM47BTc
> RussiaZ for victory Yeah, that seems like a real trustworthy channel... Btw. they were talking about heavy sanctions back in the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those 150k tons are for heating people's homes. Whereas the spend on the boat fuel is simply for construction of the pipeline so if you can optimize that, that's under your control, as the company laying pipe right now. Though maybe you prefer everyone die of cold until we have a solution to transition out of natural gas without returning to coal or wait 10 years to build more nuclear.
> or wait 10 years to build more nuclear Maybe not closing nuclear would have been enough.
I found this section from another page on the same site amusing: > Nord Stream developed a high environmently-conscious logistic concept which guarantees that transport vessels have not to travel more than 100 nautical miles (185 kilometers). [...] This concept of short trips and environmentally friendly transport saves roughly 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide when compared against other options and the use of existi…
Yes, but most likely the fact that the natural gas is being used instead of oil or coal leads to a large net reduction in carbon emissions
I found this section from another page on the same site amusing: > Nord Stream developed a high environmently-conscious logistic concept which guarantees that transport vessels have not to travel more than 100 nautical miles (185 kilometers). [...] This concept of short trips and environmentally friendly transport saves roughly 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide when compared against other options and the use of existi…
Those 150k tons are for heating people's homes. Whereas the spend on the boat fuel is simply for construction of the pipeline so if you can optimize that, that's under your control, as the company laying pipe right now. Though maybe you prefer everyone die of cold until we have a solution to transition out of natural gas without returning to coal or wait 10 years to build more nuclear.
For opportunity, consider that while setting up the pipeline needs a weird high-pressure residence and special training, blowing it up takes a fishing boat, scuba gear and underwater explosives. The equipment and training is cheap and available. So, those with opportunity is almost anyone. Practically, anyone with access to the Baltic Sea, boats, scuba equipment, underwater explosives; it doesn't have even to be anyone with military training, just skills in underwater demolition.
For motivation, consider who benefits from permanently reducing European dependence on Russian energy?
Resist going for "Clearly, Russia!". Just spitballing here, but why not a German opposition group? Norway? Poland? Any activist group opposed to EU dependence on Russia? Shit, why not Danish anarchists, for that matter?
It could be Russia who suddenly decided for some reason that sanctions will never end and blowing up the means of selling hundreds of billions of euros of energy to Europe is a better use of the pipeline. But before getting there, you have to explain why it wasn't any of the myriad other groups who did not have hundreds of billions of Euros riding on it.
Everyone seems to know it was Russia and is just casting out ideas to find a plausible motivation. I find that completely baffling. For opportunity, consider that while setting up the pipeline needs a weird high-pressure residence and special training, blowing it up takes a fishing boat, scuba gear and underwater explosives. The equipment and training is cheap and available. So, those with opportunity is almost anyon…
Ive been wondering why attacks on such a infrastructure is not more common - those pipes, internet cables, etc?
Everyone seems to know it was Russia and is just casting out ideas to find a plausible motivation. I find that completely baffling. For opportunity, consider that while setting up the pipeline needs a weird high-pressure residence and special training, blowing it up takes a fishing boat, scuba gear and underwater explosives. The equipment and training is cheap and available. So, those with opportunity is almost anyon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only believable explanation for the attack on Nordstream I have heard so far is this threat. That is, the supposed idea is to make Europe wonder if any other pipelines could be targets.
That what Russia could have done. But why do it since it is one thing to blow your own pipe and it is likely an act of war to blow ones that belong to other countries. The consequences for Russia are very bad in this case. My question was to the post that implied that it was the US who blew up the pipelines. If that was the case they have just legitimized the potential Russian response.