Some may get caught, but I would guess that most get through. Especially since it can be smuggled as jewelry

It's hard to turn down a 100% rebate though

There's always the option of installing an air-to-water with the grant, and then if the CoP turns out to be really bad in practice (easy to measure precisely on air-to-water), also add in a good air-to-air 2/2

A decent air-to-air will almost definitely have a higher CoP than even top of the line air-to-water, but it will never be a complete solution since it can't make domestic hot water 1/2

youtu.be/mP_OpD6Ye5A

Russia and the US can reach agreements, but they can't force Ukraine into anything

Tbh I'm skeptical that the topic of Ukraine was even discussed at any of the US-Ru meetings so far. After Alaska, officials seemed confused when the press asked them about Ukraine

I try not to talk online about where exactly I am

Notice how 47 is bragging about how many weapons he's selling, and remember that he cut off aid to Ukraine in hopes that higher civilian casualties would force them to agree to the original mineral deal

It's all war profiteering. 2/2

It's like the "going to heaven" story and the "Nobel peace prize" story, the US is trying to convince the global audience that they want peace, so that we slow down aid to Ukraine and slow down sanctions on Russia, such as to prolong the war and keep demand for US-made weapons higher 1/2

And how would this affect the rest of Europe? Would it not have pushed the gas dependency onto other European countries? Because there would have been more Russian gas for cheaper, so very tempting

Which is why I say, "fracking on the other hand..."

Sorry for the late reply 5/5

It's still challenging because of increasing safety standards, industry prone to delays, actual fuel supply (France alone consumes 20% of global uranium mine output) 4/5

So another 300TWh of nuclear electricity to actually push out gas, while pushing out coal as a sort of a side effect (as is happening today IRL), about a 6-fold increase in nuclear energy vs peak? But without putting a dint in oil demand 3/5

With the state of heat pumps at the time, that 700TWh of gas in direct combustion would have probably taken 700TWh of electricity to electrify

But this alone would have likely just pushed the gas into replacing coal in the electricity sector, instead of pushing gas out of the economy entirely 2/5

Actual nuclear electricity production peaked at 171 TWh in 2001, while fossil fuel consumption in the same year was 3460 TWh, of which gas was 874 TWh, of which at least 700TWh for direct combustion, not electricity 1/5

True, seems I should have zoomed out further

If he was truly an old billionaire fearing death, why does he still do market manip?

Adding tariffs to buy the S&P low, lifting them to sell high. Fake beefing with Elon to buy Tesla stock low, then forgetting about it to sell high

Why would I believe that the rest of his policy is different? 2/2

It smells like manipulation to me.

Just like the Nobel peace prize side quest, it's a red herring intended to hide the fact that their real foreign policy is to sow conflict in an attempt to profit off of the humanitarian crises

Money is the goal 1/2

True, but also, the individuals among them who reject the crime lifestyle also abandon the communities and often the ethnicity, and those who stay are happy to see them gone, so the stable "community" never improves