- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:33 am to SirWinston
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:33 am to SirWinston
First satellite image of destroyed Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant
Iryna Balachuk — Tuesday, 6 June 2023, 14:38
Skhemy, an investigative reporting project by Radio Liberty, has published the first satellite image of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) that has been destroyed by the occupiers.
Source: Skhemy with reference to Planet Labs satellite data for 6 June
Quote from Skhemy: "New satellite photos by Planet Labs for 6 June 2023 show the aftermath of the blowing up of the Kakhovka HPP.
We can see that almost the entire building of the hydroelectric power plant has been destroyed, compared to the picture taken on 4 June."
Ukrainska Pravda
Iryna Balachuk — Tuesday, 6 June 2023, 14:38
Skhemy, an investigative reporting project by Radio Liberty, has published the first satellite image of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) that has been destroyed by the occupiers.
Source: Skhemy with reference to Planet Labs satellite data for 6 June
Quote from Skhemy: "New satellite photos by Planet Labs for 6 June 2023 show the aftermath of the blowing up of the Kakhovka HPP.
We can see that almost the entire building of the hydroelectric power plant has been destroyed, compared to the picture taken on 4 June."
Ukrainska Pravda
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 8:44 am
1
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:33 am to GOP_Tiger
Was pretty certain Ukraine had something to do with this until the tankies came in here drooling all over the thread.
Talking points are out, comrade.
Talking points are out, comrade.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:38 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:
Also, the cooling pond at the ZNPP is full and should be fine. It may get harder to pump water into it from the Dnipro, but it shouldn't be that hard.
The head of Ukraine's power agency said: LINK
quote:
Since September 2022, the power units of the ZNPP have not been operating, therefore active evaporation of water from the cooling pond does not occur, and there has been no need to feed it yet. And even if there will be no water in the Kakhovsky reservoir at all, the project provides measures to replenish it. One of the latter is the use of underground water from wells at the ZNPP site.
OK, so maybe we can quit freaking out about the nuclear plant. The cooling pond can be sustained by onsite wells and is not actually dependent on the reservoir.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:43 am to GOP_Tiger
I'm still on the fence myself.
I see benefits to both sides, I see liabilities to both sides.
Upside for Russia:
1) Disruption of any Ukrainian river crossing as part of their objective.
2) Another crisis for Ukraine to deal with during an offensive, the hope being that it disrupts the Ukrainian timetables
3) Sucks all the oxygen out of the news cycle and takes the focus off whats going on in Belgorod which is a disaster for Russia
3a) Takes the news focus off the Ukrainian offensive
Downsides for Russia:
1) The loss of the canal supplying Crimea with water. The canal has only been open for about a year since Russia captured it in the initial stage of the invasion. My point is that Crimea had been getting along for years without this canal delivering water. Is it really that big of a deal???
2) It swamps their defensive positions in the marshy swamp areas south of Kherson
Upsides for Ukraine:
1) It swamps the Russian defenses south of Kherson
2) It creates a positive political environment for requesting more advanced weapons and support from the west
3) It makes Russia look bad
4) Once the flood waters recede over the next 2 weeks, it could make it easier for Ukraine to cross the river in certain places.
Downsides for Ukraine:
1) Potential to disrupt their offensive timelines
2) Major flooding to deal with
3) Loss of power generation and water
4) Nuke plant issues
I'm sure there are other upsides and downsides I haven't thought of.
I see benefits to both sides, I see liabilities to both sides.
Upside for Russia:
1) Disruption of any Ukrainian river crossing as part of their objective.
2) Another crisis for Ukraine to deal with during an offensive, the hope being that it disrupts the Ukrainian timetables
3) Sucks all the oxygen out of the news cycle and takes the focus off whats going on in Belgorod which is a disaster for Russia
3a) Takes the news focus off the Ukrainian offensive
Downsides for Russia:
1) The loss of the canal supplying Crimea with water. The canal has only been open for about a year since Russia captured it in the initial stage of the invasion. My point is that Crimea had been getting along for years without this canal delivering water. Is it really that big of a deal???
2) It swamps their defensive positions in the marshy swamp areas south of Kherson
Upsides for Ukraine:
1) It swamps the Russian defenses south of Kherson
2) It creates a positive political environment for requesting more advanced weapons and support from the west
3) It makes Russia look bad
4) Once the flood waters recede over the next 2 weeks, it could make it easier for Ukraine to cross the river in certain places.
Downsides for Ukraine:
1) Potential to disrupt their offensive timelines
2) Major flooding to deal with
3) Loss of power generation and water
4) Nuke plant issues
I'm sure there are other upsides and downsides I haven't thought of.
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 8:45 am
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:43 am to CitizenK
quote:Oh my.
Not required for the nuke plant, there is both a large evaporation pond
Where pray tell do you suppose the pond water comes from.
The plant cannot operate without coolant water. It's output was being rechannelled away from Ukraine to Russian areas. It appears the Russians have ability to conduct a cold plant shutdown, but have resisted it.
Meanwhile, Ukraine announced pointblank, it would not permit any of the six reactors at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to generate electric power until Russia had given the occupied installation back to Ukraine.
Draining the reservoir accomplishes that purpose.
quote:
Ukraine told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) it would not permit any of the six reactors at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) to generate electric power until Russia had given the occupied installation back to Ukraine. Ukraine’s statement challenges Russia’s resolve to prolong and tighten its grip over Europe’s biggest nuclear power station, and it has narrowed the field of options for managing the nuclear plant as the war continues.
LINK
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:46 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
One of the major drivers of invasion was Ukraine's continual shutting down of Crimea's water supply vis-a-vis the Crimean Canal
Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. I didn’t know they invaded to provide water to Crimea. Thanks for sharing that.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:47 am to Chromdome35
quote:There is no loss of power generation and water for Ukraine. Russia controlled those. The Russian side was the beneficiary. Same with the nuclear plant.
Downsides for Ukraine:
1) Potential to disrupt their offensive timelines
2) Major flooding to deal with
3) Loss of power generation and water
4) Nuke plant issues
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:47 am to Eurocat
quote:
Russia completely flooded their first line of defense (genius!)
And possibly created an even better line of defense.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:47 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Where pray tell do you suppose the pond water comes from.
Man, don’t you look like a dumbass now
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:48 am to Chromdome35
quote:
The loss of the canal supplying Crimea with water. The canal has only been open for about a year since Russia captured it in the initial stage of the invasion. My point is that Crimea had been getting along for years without this canal delivering water. Is it really that big of a deal?
The canal feeds several reservoirs in Crimea. Those reservoirs were full in 2015 when Ukraine turned off the flow, and Crimea, so the impact wasn't immediate.
Nevertheless, Wikipedia says that agricultural land cultivated in Crimea fell from "130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017."
So, the North Crimean Canal is not essential for people in Crimea to have enough water to drink, but it is essential for agriculture in the region.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:50 am to NC_Tigah
Think long-term. After the war ends, Ukraine will have to rebuild the dam before the nuke plant can be restarted.
In its current shutdown state, the plant is fine, but it can't be used to generate electricity without the cooling waters provided by the lake.
The dam itself had a power generation capability which has been destroyed. That generation capability will have to be restored after the war.
Think down the chess board.
In its current shutdown state, the plant is fine, but it can't be used to generate electricity without the cooling waters provided by the lake.
The dam itself had a power generation capability which has been destroyed. That generation capability will have to be restored after the war.
Think down the chess board.
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 8:52 am
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:52 am to doubleb
quote:
Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. I didn’t know they invaded to provide water to Crimea. Thanks for sharing that.
No, the canal was constructed from 1963 to 1976. When Russia took over Crimea in 2014, Ukraine closed the canal, which took away most of the water that Crimea needed for agriculture.
Last year's invasion allowed Russia to reopen the canal.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:52 am to cypher
Any explanations for how the dam was breached in 3 separate areas?
Looking at the satellite photo it appears there are 3 separate voids.
Looking at the satellite photo it appears there are 3 separate voids.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:52 am to doubleb
quote:The Crimean Canal provides most of Crimea's fresh water. It originates from the Dnipro Reservoir just above the dam. That area was controlled by Ukraine until last year. Under their control, they continually disrupted water supply via the canal. It devastated Crimean agriculture, and made life on the peninsula quite hard.
Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. I didn’t know they invaded to provide water to Crimea.
quote:You're welcome.
Thanks for sharing that.
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 8:54 am
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:53 am to cypher
When the first video started emerging, there were only 2 breaches, it looks like the dam has failed further since then.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:57 am to GOP_Tiger
From The Guardian:
That is not conclusive, but it would certainly very much argue against my theory that the dam collapsed due to prior damage, mismanagement, and a 30-year high in the water level.
quote:
Two residents living in Nova Kakhovka, the Russian-controlled Ukrainian city where a dam was blown up overnight, told the Guardian that they heard loud explosions at about 2am.
“I was woken up by a very loud noise,” said Tatyana, who declined to give her full name. She said she heard a noise that sounded like water flowing shortly after the initial blast.
Yelena, another resident in the city, said she was woken up by what she thought was an explosion at about 2am. “We have become used to loud bangs, so I did not think it was anything serious,” she said. “It is hard to know for sure where the blast came from.”
That is not conclusive, but it would certainly very much argue against my theory that the dam collapsed due to prior damage, mismanagement, and a 30-year high in the water level.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:57 am to GOP_Tiger
All the reporting hyperbole keeps mentioning "drinking water for millions". That's not really the case.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 8:59 am to GOP_Tiger
DefMon retweeted this, which is some anecdotal evidence of what you mentioned in your post.
https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1666031693248045056
He also retweeted this
https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1665997969672347650
This is obvious BS an 80km radius would encompass all of Kherson and lots of other population areas. No one I've seen has talked about their windows being blown out by a blast.
https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1666031693248045056
quote:
I checked these chats, and indeed, there were messages about explosions around 1-2 am, with water noise growing louder afterward. Still, I'm not convinced the dam, likely mined after RU retreat from Kherson last year, was intentionally blown up.
He also retweeted this
https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1665997969672347650
quote:
Eyewitnesses told us that there was a deafening explosion from #Kakhovka in the early morning, with sky turned to white and windows breaking as far as 80 km away.
This is obvious BS an 80km radius would encompass all of Kherson and lots of other population areas. No one I've seen has talked about their windows being blown out by a blast.
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 9:02 am
Posted on 6/6/23 at 9:00 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:
it would certainly very much argue against my theory that the dam collapsed due to prior damage
Page 2826 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News