开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io

EVs & American car culture

 

开云体育



Will a country of SUV lovers buy small EVs?
?

Welcome to The Weekly Planet, a newsletter that provides a guide for living through climate change.

Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up .

Editor-in-Chief at InsideEVs

First: Electric cars are getting smaller. Then: America has a hot-steel problem.

Smaller May Be Better

Photo illustration of giant car tire driving toward a tiny pedestrian crosswalk

(Illustration by Ben Kothe / The Atlantic. Sources: Getty.)

?

Ford didn’t invent the car, but it might as well have. The Model T—cheap, simple, and small—brought the automobile to the masses. By the early 1920s, about half of the world’s cars were made by Ford. But these days, Ford is only nominally in the car business. Of the 1.9 million vehicles that Ford , a mere 48,636 were listed as “cars.” (Ford sells just one in America, the Mustang.) The rest were SUVs and trucks, such as the ubiquitous F-150.

It’s the same deal at the other “Big Three” automakers, General Motors and Stellantis (the vaguely pharmaceutical-sounding conglomerate that now owns Chrysler, Jeep, Ram, and Dodge). Although all once had lineups of sedans, station wagons, coupes, and hatchbacks, they now primarily focus on trucks and SUVs. Companies keep making bigger and bigger cars, and Americans keep buying them. Visit another country and you’ll quickly realize how exceptionally chunky the vehicles are stateside: By , cars in the U.S. are 20 percent heavier than those in Europe.

And yet in June, Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, something almost heretical coming from an American auto executive: “We are just in love with these monster vehicles, and I love them too, but it’s a major issue with weight.” Americans, he added, need to “get back in love” with smaller cars. This can feel a bit like hearing the CEO of Anheuser-Busch say, You know, Americans are just drinking way too much beer. Farley’s primary concern with weight is not pedestrian safety () but electric-vehicle batteries. Bigger electric cars require heftier batteries—and because batteries , those come with a higher price tag. Asking customers to foot the bill hasn’t worked out. Yesterday, Ford , canceling a large, three-row SUV. “We could not put together a vehicle that [would] be profitable in the first 12 months,” the Ford executive John Lawler said on a conference call.

Ford is making a similar calculus as many other car companies: With EVs, smaller may be better. But that strategy only pay off if people actually buy these cars. Persuading drivers to go electric has already proved to be a tough ask. Persuading them to go smaller may be even tougher.

A large part of why Americans prefer bigger cars is that carmakers have been very successful at pushing them on us. It’s a matter of basic economics: With gas cars, bigger vehicles aren’t much more expensive to build than smaller ones. But the former are sold at much higher prices. For that reason, since the end of World War II, American car companies have never been particularly good at, or interested in, making puny compacts.

For decades, the full-size luxury sedan—functionally loaded with creature comforts—was the pinnacle of American carmaking. Over time, the emphasis shifted to big trucks and SUVs, with features that push profit margins even higher. “Look at the evolution of the F-150 from work truck to luxury barge on wheels,” Ivan Drury, the director of insights at the car-buying website Edmunds, told me. The F-150 ranges from spartan $37,000 workhorses to fully loaded tanks that cost $90,000 and mix luxury with intense towing and hauling power. You’d be hard-pressed to find such expensive add-ons with smaller cars. To goose profits, Farley’s predecessor to focus on trucks and SUVs.

All of this has gone a long way in shaping the way that Americans now tend to equate “small” cars with “dinky” or even “unsafe.” Maybe you want a Mini Cooper, but wouldn’t you feel safer putting your child in a giant Ford Expedition? Car buyers have learned to want more than they need. “We really do buy vehicles for the future and not the now,” Drury said. “Like the occasion where you have family members visiting: ‘Well, I gotta have a seven-seater,’ even if you drive by yourself 99 percent of the time.”

Recently, rising prices and interest rates have meant that some smaller and more affordable cars are gaining momentum, but America is still overwhelmingly a truck and SUV country. You can find lots of small cars for sale, but not typically from the biggest American automakers. Over time, they largely ceded the sedan and small-car market to companies such as Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai. Today, Toyota sells more cars in the U.S. than Ford does.

So far, Ford and GM have approached the EV era by making battery-powered versions of the big trucks and SUVs that buyers know so well. At the end of last year, GM stopped production of its sole small EV, the Chevy Bolt. But sales of many big EVs have lagged behind expectations, in large part because of the price tags. Ford’s all-electric F-150 Lightning retails for at least $10,000 more than its gas-powered counterpart. The only Chevy Silverado EV pickup truck you can buy retails for almost $97,000, thanks to its giant battery, and that’s two or even three times the cost of a gas Silverado.

Over time, as lithium-ion batteries get cheaper, big EVs should also come down in price too; GM, for one, . But the basic economics of building a car are simply different in the electric age. For the foreseeable future, bigger EVs will be much more expensive to make than bigger gas cars—and much harder to profit from. But America’s carmakers have another reason to start downsizing. They face a potentially devastating wave of Chinese competitors selling EVs that are smaller, cheaper, more , and . If Ford can’t compete with the Toyota Camry, how can it keep up with BYD’s ? The Chinese company has already introduced its models in many countries, and it globally sold more EVs than Tesla last year.

Right now, the only things keeping Americans from flocking to options from BYD, Nio, or Zeekr are tariffs and geopolitical tensions. But those are a Band-Aid at best, especially as Chinese carmakers build factories in Mexico with the likely aim to eventually sell vehicles in the U.S. Or maybe they’ll just build cars in Ohio. Donald Trump now says that if he wins a second term, he wants Chinese automakers Farley has been unusually candid about the stakes: “If we cannot make money on EVs, we have competitors who have the largest market in the world, who already dominate globally, already setting up their supply chain around the world,” . “And if we don’t make profitable EVs in the next five years, what is the future?”

For Ford, the answer is tasked with designing a new family of electric models that are smaller, more efficient, profitable, and hopefully priced from $25,000. GM and Stellantis have similar moves planned, like the soon-to-be-reborn Chevrolet Bolt and Jeep Renegade, both of which could cost $30,000 or less. To convince Americans that small isn’t bad anymore, automakers may have to bank on the inherent strengths of EVs: Without an engine to account for, these smaller cars can be designed with much more space inside. Great compact EVs may just result from engineers being forced to rethink how to make them newly appealing, Edmunds’ Drury said. “Put the handcuffs on some of the product designers, product planners, engineering ... Necessity is the mother of invention, right?”

Still, American buyers have to learn that, no, they might just not need the biggest SUV possible for the one weekend a year their sister-in-law and her kids come to visit. Environmental concerns take a back seat to convenience, real or imagined. In one survey, American buyers claimed that they couldn’t go electric until EVs have or more and can fully recharge in minutes; we always seem to be on the verge of some imaginary long-distance road trip and yet we on average. Removing such deep-seated ideas from our collective consciousness may be harder for automakers than pivoting their businesses toward cars that run on batteries and software.

But scolding people about their driving habits is no substitute for making great EVs. China’s car companies have already done that, and now they’re posting up just south of Texas. If Ford and other companies can’t do things differently, American jobs and technology might not be the only things that suffer. U.S. carmakers may have no choice but to respond to affordable foreign cars by doing what they’ve always done: leaning further into gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs.

Three More Things

  1. Extreme heat is making railways, roads, power lines, and batteries falter, . To keep up, engineers need to start designing infrastructure for temperatures the world has never seen.
  2. Police departments across the country are now deploying electric cars in their patrol fleets, . In most cases, the climate benefits are secondary.
  3. Suburban Utah has become ground zero for deer conservation, . Step one: a giant fence.

Explore .

Most Popular on The Atlantic

Take $20 off gift subscriptions

?

When you give someone an Atlantic subscription, you’re giving them more than unlimited access to our journalism. You’ll be helping them learn to think critically, research deeply, question their answers, and live well. For a limited time, take $20 off gift subscriptions, for a student, educator, or any curious mind in your life.


This email was sent to bernhard@...
You've signed up to receive newsletters from The Atlantic.

If you wish to unsubscribe from The Atlantic newsletters, .

To update your email preferences, .

The Atlantic Monthly Group LLC · 610 Water Street, SW · Washington, DC 20024


Transmissielyne

 

Een van die maatskappye wat gekontrakteer is om transmissielyne te bou:

Take Five to make Ten General Trading.

Iemand het 'n sin vir humor. Maar ek het 'n idee hierdie gaan dalk nie snaaks eindig nie.

PW


What the Oil Industry doesn't want you to Know

 

开云体育


"Throughout the 1980s, oil industry reps discussed the dangers of burning fossil fuels, acknowledging the risk their product posed to the future of humanity. However, instead of warning the public or pivoting towards renewable energy sources, they doubled down on oil — and launched a decades-long campaign to discredit climate change science."


Ultradun Fotovoltaiese Perovskiet 27% doeltreffend

 

开云体育


Sommige aanspreke lyk effens oordrewe (of so nie, dan swak beskryf).


Re: Nobel Laureates on Climate Change

 

开云体育

Crutzen se bydraes was nogal besonders!

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of bernhard via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 11:03 PM
To: [email protected]; Egmont Rohwer <egmont.rohwer@...>; Emil Roduner <ipcemro@...>; Eggie Scheffler <ee.scheffler@...>; Daniel Scheffler <dbscheffler@...>
Subject: [ZA-energie] Nobel Laureates on Climate Change

?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

?

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder's arguments are always a pleasure to watch, and usually* 100% correct.

Unlike Clauser, who has zero publications in Atmospheric Science, the late Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen has a few hundred, as recognized by his 1995 Nobel Prize.? His reasoning and conclusions in that field is (again unlike Clauser) quite sound.? He co-coined the term Anthroposcene for the current era, to recognize humans' important influence on earth (as can be easily seen from space -- in daytime or at night).

_______________________________________________________________________________________

*Not always -- she is, after all, human

?

The integrity and confidentiality of this email are governed by these terms.
Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die volgende bepalings bere?l.


Nobel Laureates on Climate Change

 

开云体育

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder's arguments are always a pleasure to watch, and usually* 100% correct.



Unlike Clauser, who has zero publications in Atmospheric Science, the late Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen has a few hundred, as recognized by his 1995 Nobel Prize.? His reasoning and conclusions in that field is (again unlike Clauser) quite sound.? He co-coined the term Anthroposcene for the current era, to recognize humans' important influence on earth (as can be easily seen from space -- in daytime or at night).


_______________________________________________________________________________________

*Not always -- she is, after all, human



Gevaarlike, SA vernietigende snert oor Sonkrag

 

开云体育

A slightly corrected and hopefully more readable version:

'n Ekonoom wat minder as niks verstaan van moderne energie-ekonomie.? Lyk nie asof hy al ooit behoorlik van die gesaghebbende IEA se stellings (of enige betroubare moderne data) oor energie kennis geneem het nie.? Volgens die IEA reeds jare gelede is ". . . solar PV the lowest cost electricity in history"?

Of enigiets van die kardinale belang van mensgemaakte klimaatsverandering verstaan nie.? Talle verantwoordelike kommentators bestem dit as "the greatest challenge facing humanity".? Sy web-koerant Daily Friend verkondig gereeld die grootste snert – en uiters skadelike, skandalige blatante leuens daaroor, soos "the?brazen dastardly lie?that: "the?anti-scientific?nonsense of?climate?alarm, where some power stations are punished for emitting CO2". That while the top US and UK academies of science have long united to state the exact opposite: that human-caused climate change seriously threaten the welfare of all on earth" in

Daardeur sterk hy en Daily Friend die korrupte en onbevoegde vorige "minister" van Minerale en Energie in sy kwaad.? Kwaad wat volgens talle senior kommentators –? soos vandeesmaand (Augustus) die "executive director of the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC)" in die berig

‘Gaps between SA’s energy and climate policies must be closed’

die grootste risiko vir, en skade aan SA se toekoms inhou deur die ekonomie en daarmee goed-betalende werksgeleenthede op skaal te vernietig.? Byvoorbeeld kan SA se motorvervaardiging (ons grootste vervaardigingsbedryf) nie oorleef as hy nie elektriese voertuie op skaal begin vervaardig nie.? Gebalanseer natuurlik met 'n net van son+battery gedrewe herlaaistasies soos die goed (privaat) befondsde Zero Carbon Charge. So ook kan ons mynbou (ons grootste bedryf) nie oorleef met gwede as minister nie.? Van 2500 aansoeke om minerale regte in 2023 was geeneen beantwoord teen Junie 2024 nie. ? So ook Petroleum en veral die effens minder skadelike Aardgas, waar oorsese beleggers ook tans aktief aan ons vaderland onttrek.

Dit terwyl, soos in die 2 skakels binne die laaste skakel hierbo aangedui,?

(1) die wereld se top-akademies van wetenskap (ook buite die VSA en VK) sowel as NASA presies die teenoorgestelde as Daily Friend reeds vir dekades lank verkondig, en ook daardie feite en gevolgtrekkings

(2) deeglik met honderde versigtige, deur talle hoogs-opgeleide wetenskaplikes akkuraat gemete en aan dekades se "peer-approval" onderwerpte feite staaf.?

Wetenskap gaan oor deeglik onderlegte feite –驳补补苍 eerlike ekonomie nie ook daaroor nie?? Of gaan dit slegs soos sommige energie-beriggewing oor propaganda?? Watter web-nuusmedia word deur die steenkool- of fossielbrandstof-industrie befonds?? Of word deur daardie skatryk industrie se sku-vir-eerlike-feite propagandiste oor hernubares soos son en wind, en oor die kardinale belang van mensgemaakte klimaatsverandering mislei??

Die snels-groeiende groot ekonomie – China – se breukdeel elektrisiteit (in GWu/jaar gemeet) uit sonkrag styg vinnig. Volgens die groot tabel in ? groei sonkrag daar van 0.004% in 2008 tot 6.2% in 2023? 'n byna vierduisendvoudige toename van 152 GWu in 2008 tot 584 150 GWu in 2023!? Son + wind se kraglewering het oor dieselfde tydperk gegroei van 0.4% in 2008 tot 15.5% van die veel groter totaal in 2023.

China se elektrisiteit uit steenkool is enorm, maar kwyn van 78.8% in 2008 tot 60.1% in 2021, en sy breukdeel uit alle fossielbrandstowwe van sowat 82% in 2008 tot 66.3% in 2023.?

En wat dink beleggers oor sonkrag? ? Kry hulle nie van vertroubare ekonome raad nie???? "Don't they put their money where their mouth is?"? In skerpe kontras met Daily Friend en korrupte en onbevoegde gwede wat so graag met belastingbetalers en armes se geld speel deur hernubares te blokkeer ten gunste van onbekostigbare kragskepe en ander fantasiee.? Daar is die afgelope jare reeds soveel sonkrag installeer dat sonkrag in sewe jaar (tot einde 2024) sowat 2 TW genererende kapasiteit opbou – teenoor minder een vyfde soveel vir kernkrag oor 7 dekades.? En baie na aan die globale steenkoolkrag kapasiteit (2.13 TW) wat oor eeue opgebou is.? Dit kan maklik steenkoolkrag kapasiteit verbysteek in 2025.?

Son- + wind het volgens Statista in 2023 reeds byna 12% van wereldkrag opgewek.?

In terme van nuwe opwekkingsvermoe is in 2023 473 GW aan nuwe sonkragkapasiteit in diens geneem (54% meer as die vorige jaar se rekord).? Globale Steenkoolkrag-kapasiteit, het in dieselfde jaar 'n blote 2% gegroei.

Groete,? ?? Bernhard


Gevaarlike, vernietigende snert oor Sonkrag

 

开云体育

'n Ekonoom wat minder as niks verstaan van moderne energie-ekonomie.? Lyk nie asof hy al ooit behoorlik van die gesaghebbende IEA se stellings – of enige betroubare moderne data – oor energie kennis geneem het nie.? Volgens die IEA reeds jare gelede is ". . . solar PV the lowest cost electricity in history"?

Of enigiets van die belang van antropogene klimaatsverandering verstaan nie.? IEA en talle ander verantwoordelike kommentators bestem dit as "the greatest challenge facing humanity".? Sy web-koerant Daily Friend webwerf verkondig gereeld die grootste snert – en uiters skadelike, skandalige blatante leuens daaroor, soos "the?brazen dastardly lie?that: "the?anti-scientific?nonsense of?climate?alarm, where some power stations are punished for emitting CO2"". That while the top US and UK academies of science have long united to state the exact opposite: that human-caused climate change seriously threaten the welfare of all on earth" in ??

Dit terwyl, soos in die 2 skakels binne die laaste skakel hierbo aangedui,?

(1) die wereld se top-akademies van wetenskap (ook buite die VSA en VK) presies die teenoorgestelde reeds vir dekades lank verkondig, en?

(2) deeglik met honderde versigtige, deur talle hoogs-opgeleide wetenskaplikes akkuraat gemete en aan dekades se "peer-approval" onderwerpte feite staaf.??

Wetenskap gaan oor deeglik onderlegte feite –驳补补苍 eerlike ekonomie nie ook daaroor nie?? Of gaan dit slegs soos sommige energie-beriggewing oor propaganda.? Watter web-nuusmedia word deur die steenkool- of fossielbrandstof-industrie befonds?? Of slegs deur daardie skatryk industrie se sku-vir-harde-feite propagandiste oor hernubares soos son en wind, en oor die kardinale belang van mensgemaakte klimaatsverandering mislei??

Die snels-groeiende groot ekonomie – China – se breukdeel elektrisiteit (in GWu/jaar gemeet) uit hernubares styg vinnig. Volgens die groot tabel in ? van 0.004% in 2008 tot 6.2% in 2023? 'n byna vierduisendvoudige toename in GWu!? Son + wind se kraglewering het oor dieselfde tydperk gegroei van 0.4% in 2008 tot 15.5% van die veel groter totaal in 2023.

China se breukdeel elektrisiteit uit steenkool kwyn van 78.8% in 2008 tot 60.1% in 2021, en sy breukdeel uit alle fossielbrandstowwe van sowat 82% in 2008 tot 66.3% in 2023.

En wat dink beleggers oor sonkrag? ? Kry hulle nie van vertroubare ekonome raad nie???? "Don't they put their money where their mouth is?"?? Daar is die afgelope jare reeds soveel sonkrag alleen installeer dat sonkrag in sewe jaar (tot einde 2024) sowat 2 TW genererende kapasiteit opgebou het – teenoor minder een vyfde soveel vir kernkrag oor 7 dekades.? En baie na aan die globale steenkoolkragkapasiteit (2.13 TW).

Son- + wind het volgens Statista in 2023 reeds byna 12% van wereldkrag opgewek.??

In terme van nuwe opwekkingsvermoe is in 2023 473 GW aan nuwe sonkragkapasiteit in diens geneem (54% meer as die vorige jaar se rekord).? Globale Steenkoolkrag-kapasiteit, het in dieselfde jaar 'n blote 2% gegroei.

Groete,? Bernhard




Re: A Kenny on Nuclear Power

 

开云体育

A Kenny skryf ook gereeld vir Daily Friend, wat ewe sy snert publiseer.? En so enorme skade aanrig!

On 2024/07/31 16:30, Wolhuter, Riaan, Dr [wolhuter@...] via groups.io wrote:

Probleem is, dit het so ‘n skyn van kennis en ingeligtheid en die redakteurs kyk nie krities na die inhoud en vra paar vrae nie.

rw

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Pieter Van der Walt via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 4:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ZA-energie] A Kenny on Nuclear Power

Die ou skryf graag in die onkritiese?Biznews. Dit lyk nie of hulle redakteurs vorige kommentare verstaan en ter harte neem nie.

PW?

?

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 8:16?AM bernhard via <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:

The article has many false claims, as pointed out in comments like

1. The article claims "Solar and wind?have proved an expensive disaster in every country that they have been tried for grid electricity". Now test this statement for China, which last year (2023) generated more nuclear power** (406.5 GWh) than any other country except the USA (779.2 GWh). More even than France** (323.8 GWh):

China* last year (2023) produced 34%?more electricity from solar?PV (584 TWh) than from?nuclear?(435 TWh). And?solar + wind power?delivered?thrice as much?(1470 TWh) as nuclear. Some disaster!

_______________________________________________________________________________________
*See the big table in?
**See the table in?

?

2. Anyone trained in?nuclear physics?or aware of the?history?and?current status?of nuclear, solar and wind power can see at a glance that this article shows little respect for the facts, and is more aimed at propaganda than at accurately informing the reader.

Calder Hall?quickly became part of the?Sellafield?nuclear site, where the worst disaster in British nuclear history occurred in 1957 -- just a year after the opening of Calder Hall. That "event", better known as the?Windscale fire?is rated 5 on the scale of nuclear disasters against the 7 of Chernobyl.?Fatal amounts?of?radioactive nuclides like?iodine-131, polonium-210 and strontium-90 were released, and according to?BBC News, The Telegraph?&?The Irish Times?caused between 100 and 240?fatal cancer?cases. Also, millions of tons of?milk?produced over a huge area was?destroyed?to avoid ingestion of these radioactive nuclides. Had it not been for the?insight, dedication?and sustained?bravery?of the reactor manager Tom Tuohy, the result might have been very much worse. So while being quick was sensible for military reasons at that time, it did have a cost in?human lives.

?

3. As the Kenhard?solar plus battery?project shows, even in the toxic Mantashe-ruled environment solar plus battery cost around $1000 million for an assured 150 MW, or about?$6.666 per watt, which easily beats the most recent French nuclear plants?Olkiluoto 3?and?Flamanville 3, as well as the still incomplete?Hinkley Point C*. Moreover, Kenhard was completed in about 2 years, while the others took (or are taking) as many decades. In a true free market absent destructive goverment interference the solar + battery cost will probably come down.

And like Koeberg is now being?refurbished?(at well over R20 billion), after serving 30 or so years, solar farms will also be refurbished with new panels, which will be more efficient. Unlike Koeberg's case, solar PV refurbishment will mean upgrading, as has already happened with 6 or 7% efficient amorphous silicon panels being replaced with 19 or 22% monocrystalline silicon panels in SA, thereby tripling the output from the same support structure on the same site.

*Whose predecessor Hinkley Point A was also a?Magnox?reactor.

?

4. One should also note?what investors believe?- as reflected in?what type of generation capacity predominates. As the article so clearly points out, commercial nuclear dates from the 1950s. Commercial grid-scale solar PV is much more recent, and global PV generation capacity only recently passed the gigawatt mark. Yet?solar is today above 2 TW, whereas cumulative?global nuclear generation capacity is still below 400 GW = 0.4 TW. So solar has achieved in a mere five years what nuclear has not in seven decades.

5. The article lauds Koeberg, which provides 5% of our electricity when both units are operational -- but where since December 2022 at most one unit has been operational at any given moment. It claims that nuclear "often provides the?cheapest electricity". But a simple Google search shows that today nuclear costs more than four times as much as solar PV or onshore wind power?

This result is confirmed by dozens of other independent sources

6. The article states that nuclear "has the best?safety record?of all energy technologies". But many people have been killed by nuclear "incidents", and as far as is known,?not a single one by or at a solar photovoltaic farm. Of course people have fallen from roofs while installing PV panels, and perhaps also from a CSP solar tower or from the generator of a modern wind turbine.

7. To state that "South Africa could have a?new nuclear power station in five years, but excessive regulation, political obstruction and green propaganda would ensure it took far longer" ignores the obvious fact that the "much?safer designs of reactors and fuels" of today requires far?more sophisticated engineering?than that of Calder Hall's simple natural uranium fuel in aluminium-magnesium tubes cooled by CO2 and with carbon blocks which had?caught fire?at Windscale (and - for a quite different reason - at?Chernobyl). Modern nuclear fuels are not simple uranium in aluminium-magnesium tubes, with carbon moderators. The?TRISO fuel?developed for the "intrinsically safe" pebble-bed reactors is far more complex, requires a lot of very costly?isotopic enrichment, and is?much more expensive.

And it is crystal clear that these so expensive "intrinsically safe" reactors are?not safe at all against extrinsic factors. According to??Koeberg's construction had already been sabotaged by Umkonto we Sizwe during its construction. How can a 35 MW modular reactor be?economically?made safe against such extrinsic action?

If the same sabotage used during construction (before fission,?when radioactivity is minimal) should happen after decades of fission operation, the radioactivity released will be?vastly more. And may even approach that of the much bigger Chernobyl


Re: A Kenny on Nuclear Power

 

开云体育

Probleem is, dit het so ‘n skyn van kennis en ingeligtheid en die redakteurs kyk nie krities na die inhoud en vra paar vrae nie.

rw

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Pieter Van der Walt via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 4:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ZA-energie] A Kenny on Nuclear Power

?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

?

Die ou skryf graag in die onkritiese?Biznews. Dit lyk nie of hulle redakteurs vorige kommentare verstaan en ter harte neem nie.

PW

?

?

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 8:16?AM bernhard via <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:

The article has many false claims, as pointed out in comments like

1. The article claims "Solar and wind?have proved an expensive disaster in every country that they have been tried for grid electricity". Now test this statement for China, which last year (2023) generated more nuclear power** (406.5 GWh) than any other country except the USA (779.2 GWh). More even than France** (323.8 GWh):

China* last year (2023) produced 34%?more electricity from solar?PV (584 TWh) than from?nuclear?(435 TWh). And?solar + wind power?delivered?thrice as much?(1470 TWh) as nuclear. Some disaster!_______________________________________________________________________________________
*See the big table in?
**See the table in?

?

?

2. Anyone trained in?nuclear physics?or aware of the?history?and?current status?of nuclear, solar and wind power can see at a glance that this article shows little respect for the facts, and is more aimed at propaganda than at accurately informing the reader.

Calder Hall?quickly became part of the?Sellafield?nuclear site, where the worst disaster in British nuclear history occurred in 1957 -- just a year after the opening of Calder Hall. That "event", better known as the?Windscale fire?is rated 5 on the scale of nuclear disasters against the 7 of Chernobyl.?Fatal amounts?of?radioactive nuclides like?iodine-131, polonium-210 and strontium-90 were released, and according to?BBC News, The Telegraph?&?The Irish Times?caused between 100 and 240?fatal cancer?cases. Also, millions of tons of?milk?produced over a huge area was?destroyed?to avoid ingestion of these radioactive nuclides. Had it not been for the?insight, dedication?and sustained?bravery?of the reactor manager Tom Tuohy, the result might have been very much worse. So while being quick was sensible for military reasons at that time, it did have a cost in?human lives.

?

?

3. As the Kenhard?solar plus battery?project shows, even in the toxic Mantashe-ruled environment solar plus battery cost around $1000 million for an assured 150 MW, or about?$6.666 per watt, which easily beats the most recent French nuclear plants?Olkiluoto 3?and?Flamanville 3, as well as the still incomplete?Hinkley Point C*. Moreover, Kenhard was completed in about 2 years, while the others took (or are taking) as many decades. In a true free market absent destructive goverment interference the solar + battery cost will probably come down.

And like Koeberg is now being?refurbished?(at well over R20 billion), after serving 30 or so years, solar farms will also be refurbished with new panels, which will be more efficient. Unlike Koeberg's case, solar PV refurbishment will mean upgrading, as has already happened with 6 or 7% efficient amorphous silicon panels being replaced with 19 or 22% monocrystalline silicon panels in SA, thereby tripling the output from the same support structure on the same site.

*Whose predecessor Hinkley Point A was also a?Magnox?reactor.

?

?

4. One should also note?what investors believe?- as reflected in?what type of generation capacity predominates. As the article so clearly points out, commercial nuclear dates from the 1950s. Commercial grid-scale solar PV is much more recent, and global PV generation capacity only recently passed the gigawatt mark. Yet?solar is today above 2 TW, whereas cumulative?global nuclear generation capacity is still below 400 GW = 0.4 TW. So solar has achieved in a mere five years what nuclear has not in seven decades.





5. The article lauds Koeberg, which provides 5% of our electricity when both units are operational -- but where since December 2022 at most one unit has been operational at any given moment. It claims that nuclear "often provides the?cheapest electricity". But a simple Google search shows that today nuclear costs more than four times as much as solar PV or onshore wind power?

This result is confirmed by dozens of other independent sources

?

6. The article states that nuclear "has the best?safety record?of all energy technologies". But many people have been killed by nuclear "incidents", and as far as is known,?not a single one by or at a solar photovoltaic farm. Of course people have fallen from roofs while installing PV panels, and perhaps also from a CSP solar tower or from the generator of a modern wind turbine.

?

7. To state that "South Africa could have a?new nuclear power station in five years, but excessive regulation, political obstruction and green propaganda would ensure it took far longer" ignores the obvious fact that the "much?safer designs of reactors and fuels" of today requires far?more sophisticated engineering?than that of Calder Hall's simple natural uranium fuel in aluminium-magnesium tubes cooled by CO2 and with carbon blocks which had?caught fire?at Windscale (and - for a quite different reason - at?Chernobyl). Modern nuclear fuels are not simple uranium in aluminium-magnesium tubes, with carbon moderators. The?TRISO fuel?developed for the "intrinsically safe" pebble-bed reactors is far more complex, requires a lot of very costly?isotopic enrichment, and is?much more expensive.

And it is crystal clear that these so expensive "intrinsically safe" reactors are?not safe at all against extrinsic factors. According to??Koeberg's construction had already been sabotaged by Umkonto we Sizwe during its construction. How can a 35 MW modular reactor be?economically?made safe against such extrinsic action?

If the same sabotage used during construction (before fission,?when radioactivity is minimal) should happen after decades of fission operation, the radioactivity released will be?vastly more. And may even approach that of the much bigger Chernobyl

?

?

?









The integrity and confidentiality of this email are governed by these terms.
Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die volgende bepalings bere?l.


Re: A Kenny on Nuclear Power

 

Die ou skryf graag in die onkritiese?Biznews. Dit lyk nie of hulle redakteurs vorige kommentare verstaan en ter harte neem nie.
PW


On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 8:16?AM bernhard via <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:


The article has many false claims, as pointed out in comments like

1. The article claims "Solar and wind?have proved an expensive disaster in every country that they have been tried for grid electricity". Now test this statement for China, which last year (2023) generated more nuclear power** (406.5 GWh) than any other country except the USA (779.2 GWh). More even than France** (323.8 GWh):

China* last year (2023) produced 34%?more electricity from solar?PV (584 TWh) than from?nuclear?(435 TWh). And?solar + wind power?delivered?thrice as much?(1470 TWh) as nuclear. Some disaster!_______________________________________________________________________________________
*See the big table in?
**See the table in?



2. Anyone trained in?nuclear physics?or aware of the?history?and?current status?of nuclear, solar and wind power can see at a glance that this article shows little respect for the facts, and is more aimed at propaganda than at accurately informing the reader.

Calder Hall?quickly became part of the?Sellafield?nuclear site, where the worst disaster in British nuclear history occurred in 1957 -- just a year after the opening of Calder Hall. That "event", better known as the?Windscale fire?is rated 5 on the scale of nuclear disasters against the 7 of Chernobyl.?Fatal amounts?of?radioactive nuclides like?iodine-131, polonium-210 and strontium-90 were released, and according to?BBC News, The Telegraph?&?The Irish Times?caused between 100 and 240?fatal cancer?cases. Also, millions of tons of?milk?produced over a huge area was?destroyed?to avoid ingestion of these radioactive nuclides. Had it not been for the?insight, dedication?and sustained?bravery?of the reactor manager Tom Tuohy, the result might have been very much worse. So while being quick was sensible for military reasons at that time, it did have a cost in?human lives.



3. As the Kenhard?solar plus battery?project shows, even in the toxic Mantashe-ruled environment solar plus battery cost around $1000 million for an assured 150 MW, or about?$6.666 per watt, which easily beats the most recent French nuclear plants?Olkiluoto 3?and?Flamanville 3, as well as the still incomplete?Hinkley Point C*. Moreover, Kenhard was completed in about 2 years, while the others took (or are taking) as many decades. In a true free market absent destructive goverment interference the solar + battery cost will probably come down.

And like Koeberg is now being?refurbished?(at well over R20 billion), after serving 30 or so years, solar farms will also be refurbished with new panels, which will be more efficient. Unlike Koeberg's case, solar PV refurbishment will mean upgrading, as has already happened with 6 or 7% efficient amorphous silicon panels being replaced with 19 or 22% monocrystalline silicon panels in SA, thereby tripling the output from the same support structure on the same site.

*Whose predecessor Hinkley Point A was also a?Magnox?reactor.



4. One should also note?what investors believe?- as reflected in?what type of generation capacity predominates. As the article so clearly points out, commercial nuclear dates from the 1950s. Commercial grid-scale solar PV is much more recent, and global PV generation capacity only recently passed the gigawatt mark. Yet?solar is today above 2 TW, whereas cumulative?global nuclear generation capacity is still below 400 GW = 0.4 TW. So solar has achieved in a mere five years what nuclear has not in seven decades.



5. The article lauds Koeberg, which provides 5% of our electricity when both units are operational -- but where since December 2022 at most one unit has been operational at any given moment. It claims that nuclear "often provides the?cheapest electricity". But a simple Google search shows that today nuclear costs more than four times as much as solar PV or onshore wind power?

This result is confirmed by dozens of other independent sources


6. The article states that nuclear "has the best?safety record?of all energy technologies". But many people have been killed by nuclear "incidents", and as far as is known,?not a single one by or at a solar photovoltaic farm. Of course people have fallen from roofs while installing PV panels, and perhaps also from a CSP solar tower or from the generator of a modern wind turbine.


7. To state that "South Africa could have a?new nuclear power station in five years, but excessive regulation, political obstruction and green propaganda would ensure it took far longer" ignores the obvious fact that the "much?safer designs of reactors and fuels" of today requires far?more sophisticated engineering?than that of Calder Hall's simple natural uranium fuel in aluminium-magnesium tubes cooled by CO2 and with carbon blocks which had?caught fire?at Windscale (and - for a quite different reason - at?Chernobyl). Modern nuclear fuels are not simple uranium in aluminium-magnesium tubes, with carbon moderators. The?TRISO fuel?developed for the "intrinsically safe" pebble-bed reactors is far more complex, requires a lot of very costly?isotopic enrichment, and is?much more expensive.

And it is crystal clear that these so expensive "intrinsically safe" reactors are?not safe at all against extrinsic factors. According to??Koeberg's construction had already been sabotaged by Umkonto we Sizwe during its construction. How can a 35 MW modular reactor be?economically?made safe against such extrinsic action?

If the same sabotage used during construction (before fission,?when radioactivity is minimal) should happen after decades of fission operation, the radioactivity released will be?vastly more. And may even approach that of the much bigger Chernobyl









Re: A Kenny on Nuclear Power

 

开云体育

Die man kry heeltemal persdekking as “kundige”

rw

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of bernhard via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 8:16 AM
To: [email protected]; Max Braun <mwhbraun@...>; Walter Meyer <walter.e.meyer@...>
Subject: [ZA-energie] A Kenny on Nuclear Power

?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

?

The article has many false claims, as pointed out in comments like

1. The article claims "Solar and wind?have proved an expensive disaster in every country that they have been tried for grid electricity". Now test this statement for China, which last year (2023) generated more nuclear power** (406.5 GWh) than any other country except the USA (779.2 GWh). More even than France** (323.8 GWh):

China* last year (2023) produced 34%?more electricity from solar?PV (584 TWh) than from?nuclear?(435 TWh). And?solar + wind power?delivered?thrice as much?(1470 TWh) as nuclear. Some disaster!_______________________________________________________________________________________
*See the big table in?
**See the table in?

?

?

2. Anyone trained in?nuclear physics?or aware of the?history?and?current status?of nuclear, solar and wind power can see at a glance that this article shows little respect for the facts, and is more aimed at propaganda than at accurately informing the reader.

Calder Hall?quickly became part of the?Sellafield?nuclear site, where the worst disaster in British nuclear history occurred in 1957 -- just a year after the opening of Calder Hall. That "event", better known as the?Windscale fire?is rated 5 on the scale of nuclear disasters against the 7 of Chernobyl.?Fatal amounts?of?radioactive nuclides like?iodine-131, polonium-210 and strontium-90 were released, and according to?BBC News, The Telegraph?&?The Irish Times?caused between 100 and 240?fatal cancer?cases. Also, millions of tons of?milk?produced over a huge area was?destroyed?to avoid ingestion of these radioactive nuclides. Had it not been for the?insight, dedication?and sustained?bravery?of the reactor manager Tom Tuohy, the result might have been very much worse. So while being quick was sensible for military reasons at that time, it did have a cost in?human lives.

?

?

3. As the Kenhard?solar plus battery?project shows, even in the toxic Mantashe-ruled environment solar plus battery cost around $1000 million for an assured 150 MW, or about?$6.666 per watt, which easily beats the most recent French nuclear plants?Olkiluoto 3?and?Flamanville 3, as well as the still incomplete?Hinkley Point C*. Moreover, Kenhard was completed in about 2 years, while the others took (or are taking) as many decades. In a true free market absent destructive goverment interference the solar + battery cost will probably come down.

And like Koeberg is now being?refurbished?(at well over R20 billion), after serving 30 or so years, solar farms will also be refurbished with new panels, which will be more efficient. Unlike Koeberg's case, solar PV refurbishment will mean upgrading, as has already happened with 6 or 7% efficient amorphous silicon panels being replaced with 19 or 22% monocrystalline silicon panels in SA, thereby tripling the output from the same support structure on the same site.

*Whose predecessor Hinkley Point A was also a?Magnox?reactor.

?

?

4. One should also note?what investors believe?- as reflected in?what type of generation capacity predominates. As the article so clearly points out, commercial nuclear dates from the 1950s. Commercial grid-scale solar PV is much more recent, and global PV generation capacity only recently passed the gigawatt mark. Yet?solar is today above 2 TW, whereas cumulative?global nuclear generation capacity is still below 400 GW = 0.4 TW. So solar has achieved in a mere five years what nuclear has not in seven decades.





5. The article lauds Koeberg, which provides 5% of our electricity when both units are operational -- but where since December 2022 at most one unit has been operational at any given moment. It claims that nuclear "often provides the?cheapest electricity". But a simple Google search shows that today nuclear costs more than four times as much as solar PV or onshore wind power?

This result is confirmed by dozens of other independent sources

?

6. The article states that nuclear "has the best?safety record?of all energy technologies". But many people have been killed by nuclear "incidents", and as far as is known,?not a single one by or at a solar photovoltaic farm. Of course people have fallen from roofs while installing PV panels, and perhaps also from a CSP solar tower or from the generator of a modern wind turbine.

?

7. To state that "South Africa could have a?new nuclear power station in five years, but excessive regulation, political obstruction and green propaganda would ensure it took far longer" ignores the obvious fact that the "much?safer designs of reactors and fuels" of today requires far?more sophisticated engineering?than that of Calder Hall's simple natural uranium fuel in aluminium-magnesium tubes cooled by CO2 and with carbon blocks which had?caught fire?at Windscale (and - for a quite different reason - at?Chernobyl). Modern nuclear fuels are not simple uranium in aluminium-magnesium tubes, with carbon moderators. The?TRISO fuel?developed for the "intrinsically safe" pebble-bed reactors is far more complex, requires a lot of very costly?isotopic enrichment, and is?much more expensive.

And it is crystal clear that these so expensive "intrinsically safe" reactors are?not safe at all against extrinsic factors. According to??Koeberg's construction had already been sabotaged by Umkonto we Sizwe during its construction. How can a 35 MW modular reactor be?economically?made safe against such extrinsic action?

If the same sabotage used during construction (before fission,?when radioactivity is minimal) should happen after decades of fission operation, the radioactivity released will be?vastly more. And may even approach that of the much bigger Chernobyl

?

?

?









The integrity and confidentiality of this email are governed by these terms.
Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die volgende bepalings bere?l.


A Kenny on Nuclear Power

 

开云体育


The article has many false claims, as pointed out in comments like

1. The article claims "Solar and wind?have proved an expensive disaster in every country that they have been tried for grid electricity". Now test this statement for China, which last year (2023) generated more nuclear power** (406.5 GWh) than any other country except the USA (779.2 GWh). More even than France** (323.8 GWh):

China* last year (2023) produced 34%?more electricity from solar?PV (584 TWh) than from?nuclear?(435 TWh). And?solar + wind power?delivered?thrice as much?(1470 TWh) as nuclear. Some disaster!_______________________________________________________________________________________
*See the big table in?
**See the table in?



2. Anyone trained in?nuclear physics?or aware of the?history?and?current status?of nuclear, solar and wind power can see at a glance that this article shows little respect for the facts, and is more aimed at propaganda than at accurately informing the reader.

Calder Hall?quickly became part of the?Sellafield?nuclear site, where the worst disaster in British nuclear history occurred in 1957 -- just a year after the opening of Calder Hall. That "event", better known as the?Windscale fire?is rated 5 on the scale of nuclear disasters against the 7 of Chernobyl.?Fatal amounts?of?radioactive nuclides like?iodine-131, polonium-210 and strontium-90 were released, and according to?BBC News, The Telegraph?&?The Irish Times?caused between 100 and 240?fatal cancer?cases. Also, millions of tons of?milk?produced over a huge area was?destroyed?to avoid ingestion of these radioactive nuclides. Had it not been for the?insight, dedication?and sustained?bravery?of the reactor manager Tom Tuohy, the result might have been very much worse. So while being quick was sensible for military reasons at that time, it did have a cost in?human lives.



3. As the Kenhard?solar plus battery?project shows, even in the toxic Mantashe-ruled environment solar plus battery cost around $1000 million for an assured 150 MW, or about?$6.666 per watt, which easily beats the most recent French nuclear plants?Olkiluoto 3?and?Flamanville 3, as well as the still incomplete?Hinkley Point C*. Moreover, Kenhard was completed in about 2 years, while the others took (or are taking) as many decades. In a true free market absent destructive goverment interference the solar + battery cost will probably come down.

And like Koeberg is now being?refurbished?(at well over R20 billion), after serving 30 or so years, solar farms will also be refurbished with new panels, which will be more efficient. Unlike Koeberg's case, solar PV refurbishment will mean upgrading, as has already happened with 6 or 7% efficient amorphous silicon panels being replaced with 19 or 22% monocrystalline silicon panels in SA, thereby tripling the output from the same support structure on the same site.

*Whose predecessor Hinkley Point A was also a?Magnox?reactor.



4. One should also note?what investors believe?- as reflected in?what type of generation capacity predominates. As the article so clearly points out, commercial nuclear dates from the 1950s. Commercial grid-scale solar PV is much more recent, and global PV generation capacity only recently passed the gigawatt mark. Yet?solar is today above 2 TW, whereas cumulative?global nuclear generation capacity is still below 400 GW = 0.4 TW. So solar has achieved in a mere five years what nuclear has not in seven decades.



5. The article lauds Koeberg, which provides 5% of our electricity when both units are operational -- but where since December 2022 at most one unit has been operational at any given moment. It claims that nuclear "often provides the?cheapest electricity". But a simple Google search shows that today nuclear costs more than four times as much as solar PV or onshore wind power?

This result is confirmed by dozens of other independent sources


6. The article states that nuclear "has the best?safety record?of all energy technologies". But many people have been killed by nuclear "incidents", and as far as is known,?not a single one by or at a solar photovoltaic farm. Of course people have fallen from roofs while installing PV panels, and perhaps also from a CSP solar tower or from the generator of a modern wind turbine.


7. To state that "South Africa could have a?new nuclear power station in five years, but excessive regulation, political obstruction and green propaganda would ensure it took far longer" ignores the obvious fact that the "much?safer designs of reactors and fuels" of today requires far?more sophisticated engineering?than that of Calder Hall's simple natural uranium fuel in aluminium-magnesium tubes cooled by CO2 and with carbon blocks which had?caught fire?at Windscale (and - for a quite different reason - at?Chernobyl). Modern nuclear fuels are not simple uranium in aluminium-magnesium tubes, with carbon moderators. The?TRISO fuel?developed for the "intrinsically safe" pebble-bed reactors is far more complex, requires a lot of very costly?isotopic enrichment, and is?much more expensive.

And it is crystal clear that these so expensive "intrinsically safe" reactors are?not safe at all against extrinsic factors. According to??Koeberg's construction had already been sabotaged by Umkonto we Sizwe during its construction. How can a 35 MW modular reactor be?economically?made safe against such extrinsic action?

If the same sabotage used during construction (before fission,?when radioactivity is minimal) should happen after decades of fission operation, the radioactivity released will be?vastly more. And may even approach that of the much bigger Chernobyl









Olympic "Flame" without CO2 emissions, Honouring Montfolfier Bros

 

开云体育

?? Op skool en as student het ek ook Montgolfier ballonne gebou en gelanseer.

The Olympic Flame Isn’t a Flame at All

Two torches may have lit it to open the Paris Games, but that’s not a fire in the cauldron.

Listen to this article?· 4:15 min?
  • Share full article
A golden balloon from which the Olympic cauldron is suspended rises into the night sky over Paris.
This flame is actually “a cloud of mist and beams of light,” according to Paris 2024 organizers.Credit...James Hill for The New York Times

Andrew Keh went to see the Olympic flame for himself.

Don’t miss a moment at the Paris Olympics.??Sign up for our daily email to receive the biggest highlights, the latest medal count and the stories you won't see on TV.?Get it sent to your inbox.

The Olympic flame isn’t a flame.

Well, it’s sort of a flame. But it’s not made of fire. Even if it looks a lot like fire.

Wait. Let me backtrack. Every Olympic host city has a few basic tasks that force it to straddle the line between acknowledging the tradition of the Games while showing that it is keeping up with the times.?Essentially, each new host needs to play the hits but still surprise and delight the listeners. That’s how you end up, for example, with an opening ceremony featuring a nearly nude man on a barge,?.

And that’s how you get an Olympic flame that’s not a flame at all. A flame that is actually “a cloud of mist and beams of light,” according to Paris 2024 organizers. That flame (or is it “flame”?) rests in an enormous cauldron, comprises 40 LED spotlights and 200 misting nozzles and is tethered to what looks like a gigantic hot-air balloon that will rise into the air every night of the Games.

Image
A close-up of an enormous glowing orb.
The flame’s glow is produced by 40 LED spotlights and 200 misting nozzles.Credit...Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York Times

I visited that “flame” on Sunday in the Tuileries Garden, in central Paris, where it exerted a certain planetary gravity on its surroundings. Tourists gathered and held their cameras over their heads. Cyclists hopped off to take photos. Police officers took turns snapping selfies with it.

ADVERTISEMENT

It flickers like a fire, though as I walked alongside it, I felt a spray of cool mist on my legs, a reminder of the illusion at work. The entire structure — metallic, otherworldly and vaguely futuristic — creates an appealing contrast with the serene setting and the 19th-century sculptures that ring the garden.

Tony Estanguet, the president of Paris 2024, said in a statement the aim of this new flame was to capture the spirit of “daring, creativity, innovation — and sometimes madness! — of France.”

As many as 10,000 visitors a day can request free access to view the “flame” and its orb up close, though??and tickets for certain slots have been hard to come by. At sundown each day, the whole contraption ascends roughly 200 feet into the sky.

Image
People taking photos of the orb, which appears through the middle of the Arc de Triomphe.
As many as 10,000 visitors a day can request free access to view the flame and its orb up close, but it can be seen from all over Paris.Credit...James Hill for The New York Times

ADVERTISEMENT

Rony Gabali and his son, Nelson, 10, felt compelled to swing by on Sunday after seeing it on television. Gabali thought it would be a “wonderful souvenir” for his son to experience the object up close.

“It’s beautiful,” Nelson said, smiling and trying out some English before adding in French, “It reminds me of a?.”

That’s the goal. The setup was conceived by the French designer Mathieu Lehanneur as a tribute to the Montgolfier brothers, Joseph-Michel and Jacques-?tienne, who in 1783 invented the first hot-air balloon that carried people. The technology for this version was provided by EDF, a government-owned electric utility company.

The modern homage was another example of how Paris is using the beauty of its city as a stage for the Games. And it may be here to stay.

The Paris mayor, Anne Hidalgo, said on??radio Monday morning that she hoped the cauldron would become a permanent legacy of the Olympic Games, along with the Olympic rings on the Eiffel Tower and the statues of women that emerged from the Seine during the opening ceremony.

ADVERTISEMENT

She called the cauldron “extraordinary” and its location above the Tuileries Garden “magnificent.”

Yet the object, alluring as it is, raises another question: What happened to the flame, the actual fire, that had been lit and transported from Greece and??

Image
The lit balloon rising above Paris as spectators watch.
The modern homage was another example of how Paris is using the beauty of its city as a stage for the Games.Credit...Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York Times

The press office for the Paris Games wrote in an email that the electric flame should be considered the “true Olympic flame.”

“For the Olympic movement, only the symbol of a flame that does not go out before the end of the Games matters,” it said, adding, “Given the specificity of our cauldron and the technologies involved, we will still keep a lit lantern in the immediate vicinity of the cauldron for the public to admire.”

Sure enough, in one corner of the garden, I saw something curious: a little glass box set atop a white stand, like a museum display. “Lit in Olympia, from the sun’s rays,” a sign affixed to it read. Inside was a flame — a tiny, real flame.


Re: Loop vlieg!

 

开云体育

Ook die ding so uitgekyk!

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Pieter Van der Walt via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2024 4:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ZA-energie] Loop vlieg!

?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

?

Met KI en deepfake is enigiets moontlik! Wat my laat twyfel is dat daar nie plek is vir genoeg batterye nie!

?

On Sun, 28 Jul 2024, 15:00 Wolhuter, Riaan, Dr [wolhuter@...] via , <wolhuter=[email protected]> wrote:

Jy sal maar lekker stewig wil staan vir daardie een

rw

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Pieter Van der Walt via
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2024 11:56 PM
To: ZA_energie <[email protected]>
Subject: [ZA-energie] Loop vlieg!

?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

?

?

The integrity and confidentiality of this email are governed by these terms.
Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die volgende bepalings bere?l.


Re: Loop vlieg!

 

Met KI en deepfake is enigiets moontlik! Wat my laat twyfel is dat daar nie plek is vir genoeg batterye nie!


On Sun, 28 Jul 2024, 15:00 Wolhuter, Riaan, Dr [wolhuter@...] via , <wolhuter=[email protected]> wrote:

Jy sal maar lekker stewig wil staan vir daardie een

rw

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Pieter Van der Walt via
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2024 11:56 PM
To: ZA_energie <[email protected]>
Subject: [ZA-energie] Loop vlieg!

?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

?

?

The integrity and confidentiality of this email are governed by these terms.
Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die volgende bepalings bere?l.


Re: Loop vlieg!

 

开云体育

Jy sal maar lekker stewig wil staan vir daardie een

rw

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Pieter Van der Walt via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2024 11:56 PM
To: ZA_energie <[email protected]>
Subject: [ZA-energie] Loop vlieg!

?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

?

?

The integrity and confidentiality of this email are governed by these terms.
Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die volgende bepalings bere?l.


Loop vlieg!

 

?


PetroSA se R21.6 biljoen gas-transaksie toegeken aan . . .

 

开云体育

Het die Minister van Petroleum sy werk gedoen?? Of was hy 'n begunstigde?



Re: Unique 'wall of wind turbines' floating farm gets design approval

 

开云体育

Ja, dis reg, maar 1 MW is steeds nogal groot. Dis ‘n MUUR daardie

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of bernhard via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2024 12:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ZA-energie] Unique 'wall of wind turbines' floating farm gets design approval

?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

?

Daar is omgeveer 40 turbines in 'n "muur"van 40 MW.

On 2024/07/24 22:06, Wolhuter, Riaan, Dr [wolhuter@...] via groups.io wrote:

Interessante konsep. Ek sien egter hulle praat van ‘n 1 MW turbine as “klein”. Wonder of dit nie ‘n drukfout is nie

rw

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Pieter Van der Walt via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:32 PM
To: ZA_energie <[email protected]>
Subject: [ZA-energie] Unique 'wall of wind turbines' floating farm gets design approval

?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

?

?

The integrity and confidentiality of this email are governed by these terms.
Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die volgende bepalings bere?l.