EVs & American car culture
开云体育Will
a country of SUV lovers buy small EVs?
![]()
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![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 ? 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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:
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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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!_______________________________________________________________________________________ ? ? 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 ? ? ?
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!_______________________________________________________________________________________
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 AllTwo 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?
![]() By? 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
![]() 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
![]() 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. Our
team in Paris.
More
than two dozen Times journalists are
bringing you news, enterprise, analysis
and the photos and graphics that always
elevate our coverage of the Olympic Games. .
“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 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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. ? ? Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die volgende bepalings bere?l. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:
|