vinapu Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 4 hours ago, Moses said: They called hydroaccumulating power plants and for them you need that reservoir to be very high located - at night pumps move water up and and day water flow down and powering turbines, but a) they are not possible in flat Cambodia, b) they are below 30MW of power that impressive falls up high on Mt Kulen would do nicely to power some hydropower station , spoiling environment in process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moses Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 7 hours ago, vinapu said: that impressive falls up high on Mt Kulen would do nicely to power some hydropower station , spoiling environment in process. There's no water to pump. The nearest water in sufficient quantities is in the Mekong 100 km away. But if it is pumped from the Mekong, then the electricity costs for pumping will exceed the electricity received from night releases of water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted July 26 Author Share Posted July 26 Yes, China is just trying to be helpful. As we speak it's trying to rearrange the South China Sea to relieve its neighbors of excess real estate. And its neighbors respond be being downright ungracious! vinapu and khaolakguy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moses Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 2 hours ago, reader said: As we speak it's trying to rearrange the South China Sea to relieve its neighbors of excess real estate. Not China. Chinese. They buying real estate everywhere. It is another side of the medal: 1.5 biln of people became more reach and now have money to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reader Posted July 26 Author Share Posted July 26 1 hour ago, Moses said: Not China. Chinese. They buying real estate everywhere. It is another side of the medal: 1.5 biln of people became more reach and now have money to buy. I should have been more clear. I was referring to China's 9-dash line (or 19 dashes; it seems to keep expanding) in South China Sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithambrose Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 On 7/26/2024 at 2:59 PM, reader said: I should have been more clear. I was referring to China's 9-dash line (or 19 dashes; it seems to keep expanding) in South China Sea. But surely, they own the South China Sea, even 2,000 miles away from their coast! khaolakguy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12is12 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 Why "surely", when the international court had already ruled that the "dash line" is immaterial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithambrose Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 22 minutes ago, 12is12 said: Why "surely", when the international court had already ruled that the "dash line" is immaterial? Er, Irony. But if they say they own it, that's that! They don't care about the International Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12is12 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 No it isnt. They dont own it just bcs they say so. They do whatever they like, but that doesnt mean ownership. Just as a thief doesnt own stolen property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinapu Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Their claim is based on the name , since it's called South China sea, very name says it's theirs. The same with Tibet, since 1000 years ago some Tibetan Prince married Chinese princess or other way around, that means Tibet was part of China since then they say. reader 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moses Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 11 hours ago, 12is12 said: Why "surely", when the international court had already ruled that the "dash line" is immaterial? China on par with Taiwan didn't recognize that "international court" (Permanent Court of Arbitration) and its jurisdiction, as well as rights of Philippines. China and Taiwan didn't participated in so called "China vs Philippines" case. Court decided it will not “rule on any issues of sovereignty... and will not delimit any maritime boundary”. China has rejected the ruling, as has Taiwan. This decision of the arbitral tribunal is not binding on either China or Taiwan, since under international law, in order for the decision to become binding, the parties to the dispute must voluntarily accept the right of the court to consider the disputed issue before the start of the trial, but neither China nor Taiwan has this right admitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithambrose Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 On 7/29/2024 at 11:00 AM, Moses said: China on par with Taiwan didn't recognize that "international court" (Permanent Court of Arbitration) and its jurisdiction, as well as rights of Philippines. China and Taiwan didn't participated in so called "China vs Philippines" case. Court decided it will not “rule on any issues of sovereignty... and will not delimit any maritime boundary”. China has rejected the ruling, as has Taiwan. This decision of the arbitral tribunal is not binding on either China or Taiwan, since under international law, in order for the decision to become binding, the parties to the dispute must voluntarily accept the right of the court to consider the disputed issue before the start of the trial, but neither China nor Taiwan has Even if they had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, China will not accept any decision they do not like! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinapu Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 6 hours ago, Keithambrose said: Even if they had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, China will not accept any decision they do not like! and likely neither Russia, USA and India unless ruling would suit them . Court is for small fish to sort out their issues without getting big powers involved and sucked in Moses 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithambrose Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 On 7/29/2024 at 12:08 AM, 12is12 said: No it isnt. They dont own it just bcs they say so. They do whatever they like, but that doesnt mean ownership. Just as a thief doesnt own stolen property. Er, irony! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
