I mostly agree with you - the title of the post includes claims that aren't substantiated by the documentation, and that isn't great.
Something makes me uneasy though: a radical, risky innovation that could significantly reduce operational costs albeit at an environmental cost to be paid at a later date and/or even used as a point of leverage? It feels plausible (and dangerous) enough to warrant inquiry and consideration.
Something makes me uneasy though: a radical, risky innovation that could significantly reduce operational costs albeit at an environmental cost to be paid at a later date and/or even used as a point of leverage? It feels plausible (and dangerous) enough to warrant inquiry and consideration.