Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Doesn't work with gas pipeline, especially not with undersea ones. They scale down terribly poorly, becoming incredibly expensive to build and operate per bcm/y if made thinner/"smaller" to have many of them for redundancy. Also too long, equally well attacked at any point, thus impossible to defend, and impossible to fix once attacked (saltwater getting inside -> pipes are wrecked after a few days, long before they can be sealed and drained).


My point is that you don't need gas specifically, but energy. Find ways to get energy without dependency on gas if the source is unstable.


That's true. We should depend less on things that are so vulnerable. LNG is partially a solution though - a liquefaction or regasification terminal is easier to protect, and defence of shipping at sea is a well-debugged thing since WWI.


> defence of shipping at sea is a well-debugged thing since WWI.

When (presumably) the Royal Navy was in charge of it. Since WW2 it's been the US one that's handled it, but... Some pundits *cough*PeterZeihan*cough* have been saying for a while now that America is withdrawing from the role of World Police.


You need gas specifically if you want to have a chemicals industry that uses natural gas as a feedstock.

https://cen.acs.org/business/Germanys-chemical-industry-surv...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: