The government said the financial assistance could not compensate for the loss of human life.
The post Govt announces Rs5m compensation for families of PIMS fire victims appeared first on BOL News.
By Gordon Duff for TID Iceland and the Russian Academy of Sciences
All links to previous Gospa News invetigation have been added in the aftermath
Let’s start with a simple question: What happens when you spend a trillion dollars building a shield, and the other guy builds a spear that goes right through it?
This isn’t a hypothetical. It’s 2026. And the answer is: you panic. Or you pretend it isn’t happening. Or you double down on the same policies that got you here and hope nobody notices.
America has chosen option three.
There’s a submarine out there. Actually, there are several. But one in particular — the Belgorod — has been the subject of more nervous whispering in Pentagon hallways than just about anything else. It’s a special-purpose submarine, which is military-speak for “we don’t really know what it does, but we’re pretty sure we don’t like it.”
It carries six Poseidon torpedoes. Each one, according to Russian sources, carries a 200-megaton nuclear warhead. That’s 1.2 gigatons of explosive power sitting on one submarine. For comparison, the entire world’s nuclear arsenal during the Cold War peaked at around 70,000 warheads with a combined yield of roughly 18,000 megatons.
The Belgorod carries six percent of that total destructive power on a single hull. Western analysts have spent years trying to talk this down. “Maybe it’s only 50 megatons.” “Maybe it’s just a test vehicle.” “Maybe the Russians are bluffing.”
Maybe. And maybe the moon is made of cheese.
The Soviet Union built a 100-megaton warhead in 1961 and detonated half of it just to prove they could. They scaled it down to 50 megatons because the bomber couldn’t carry the full version. The technology isn’t the problem. The engineering isn’t the problem. The only question was whether they wanted to build it. They did. They have. End of story.
But here’s where it gets interesting — and by “interesting,” I mean terrifying.
The Poseidon isn’t designed to destroy a city. It’s designed to destroy a coastline. The 200-megaton warhead isn’t for blast damage. It’s for the wave. A detonation of that size underwater, close to a coastal target, generates a tsunami measured in hundreds of feet. Not tens of feet. Hundreds.
You don’t need to hit New York. You need to hit fifty miles off the coast of New York. The wave does the rest. New York Harbor is gone. The ports are gone. The financial district is underwater. The same applies to Los Angeles, to Miami, to Norfolk — any coastal city with strategic importance.
This isn’t science fiction. It’s the stated purpose of the weapon. Russia has been remarkably straightforward about this. They built it to make coastal defenses irrelevant. And you know what? They’re right.
Six Poseidon torpedoes. Six coastal targets. One submarine.
The Belgorod reportedly left its base in the White Sea in October 2022. NATO lost track of it. It turned up later in the Barents Sea, surfaced, and waved hello. But in between? Nobody knows. That’s the point. A submarine designed to operate at depths over 1,000 meters, with a nuclear reactor that gives it effectively unlimited range, carrying six weapons that can end life as we know it on a continental scale
And what did America do? The CIA Director flew to Moscow and apparently had a chat. No meeting with Putin. Just a chat with the security services. “Please don’t do anything reckless,” presumably.
The Russians must have nodded politely and thought: “We have six Poseidons. What exactly are you going to do about it?”
Now let’s talk about speed. Specifically, 13,000 miles per hour.
That’s the reported speed of Russia’s hypersonic weapons. The Avangard glide vehicle. The Zircon cruise missile. The Kinzhal air-launched system. All of them travel at speeds that make interception functionally impossible.
Here’s why. Missile defense systems work on a very simple principle: detect, track, predict, intercept. You detect the missile. You track its trajectory. You calculate where it’s going to be. You launch an interceptor to meet it there.
This requires the target to follow a predictable path. A ballistic missile does that. It goes up, it goes down, and the math is straightforward. Hypersonic glide vehicles do not do that. They maneuver. They change direction. They change altitude. They zig. They zag. And they do all of this at 13,000 miles per hour.
Let me put that in perspective. A bullet from a high-powered rifle travels at around 2,000 miles per hour. A hypersonic weapon travels at six times that speed. By the time your radar detects it, tracks it, and computes an intercept trajectory, the weapon has already changed course three times. The intercept solution you computed is worthless. And there’s no time to compute a new one.
The math simply doesn’t work. You cannot intercept a maneuvering target at 13,000 miles per hour with current technology. You can’t do it with future technology, either, unless you invent something that breaks the laws of physics.
Now, the Pentagon has issued confident statements about being “on track” to develop anti-hypersonic defenses. They’ve awarded billions in contracts. They’ve held press conferences. They’ve assured Congress that the problem is being addressed.
This is what we call in the journalism trade: a comforting lie.
The people who run these programs know the truth. The physics is the physics. You can’t cheat it. You can throw money at it, and you can promise results, but at the end of the day, you’re trying to hit a bullet with a faster bullet, except the first bullet is actively dodging. Good luck with that.
And here’s the part that keeps strategic planners awake at night. Russia isn’t the only country developing these systems. China has them. North Korea has them. Iran has demonstrated hypersonic capabilities that Western analysts initially dismissed — until they saw the footage. Then they stopped dismissing it.
The Chinese AJX002 underwater drone is essentially a Poseidon clone. North Korea’s “Haeil” system does exactly what the Poseidon does, on a smaller scale. Iran’s hypersonic missile test in 2024 reportedly achieved speeds of over Mach 15 with terminal maneuvering.
The old rules of missile defense are dead. They just haven’t been buried yet.
Every country that develops these systems is making a simple calculation: we can’t match the United States in conventional military power. But we don’t need to. We just need one or two of these weapons. One is enough. One gets through, and the game changes.
And the United States cannot stop them. It cannot intercept them. It cannot defend against them. All it can do is promise retaliation. But retaliation against whom? The submarine that launched the Poseidon is already gone. The hypersonic missile came from a truck on a highway somewhere in a country the size of Iran. Good luck finding it. Good luck bombing it.
This is the new strategic reality. America’s missile defense shield — the one that cost a trillion dollars, the one that was supposed to make the nation safe — is effectively useless. It works against old technology. It does not work against new technology. It’s like building a castle wall to defend against arrows, while the enemy shows up with cannons.
Now we get to the part that nobody in Washington wants to discuss honestly.
Since 2022, the United States has provided tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine. Tanks. Artillery. Air defense systems. Missiles. Intelligence. Training. Logistics. All of it aimed at one goal: weakening Russia.
This is not an unreasonable policy. From America’s perspective, it makes perfect sense. Weaken a strategic rival without putting American boots on the ground. It’s cheap. It’s effective. It’s the kind of warfare the United States has been practicing for decades.
Here’s the problem: Russia is a nuclear power. And Russia is not Afghanistan. It’s not Iraq. It’s not Syria. It’s a country with 5,000 nuclear warheads, hypersonic weapons, Poseidon torpedoes, and a military doctrine that explicitly allows nuclear first-use in response to existential threats.
Ukraine has been conducting strikes inside Russian territory. Long-range drones hitting air bases. Missiles hitting infrastructure. Sabotage operations. Attacks on Russian border regions. These are not incidental. They are part of the Ukrainian war plan. And the United States has provided the intelligence and the weapons to make them possible.
From Russia’s perspective, this is not “helping Ukraine defend itself.” This is the United States arming a proxy to conduct attacks on Russian soil. This is an existential threat. And Russia has stated, repeatedly, that they will respond to existential threats with nuclear weapons.
This is not a bluff. This is not a negotiation tactic. This is Russian doctrine.
America’s conventional military forces are struggling. It’s an open secret that the Pentagon doesn’t discuss publicly, but the numbers don’t lie.
The defense industrial base in the United States is atrophied. The factories that produced tanks, artillery shells, and missiles in vast quantities during the Cold War are largely gone. Defense contractors prioritize high-tech, high-profit systems like fighter jets and stealth bombers. They don’t make conventional artillery shells in sufficient quantity.
They don’t make armored vehicles quickly. They don’t have the surge capacity for a major war.
The Army is struggling to meet recruitment goals. The Navy’s shipbuilding capacity is at a historic low. The Air Force is trying to field a new generation of fighters while maintaining an aging fleet. The logistics tail is enormous.
The cost of doing business is astronomical.
Meanwhile, Russia has put its economy on a war footing. Production of artillery shells is three times what it was before the war. Tank production has been restarted. Missile production continues around the clock. The Russian military is in the process of learning from its mistakes in Ukraine and rebuilding accordingly. And Russian air defenses — despite the criticism they’ve received from Western analysts — are actually quite effective. Russian sources claim their air defense systems are 25 times more effective than anything the United States fields. That’s probably an exaggeration. But not by as much as you’d hope.
Now imagine a conventional conflict between the United States and Russia. Not a nuclear exchange. Just a conventional war. Where is America going to get the ammunition? The spare parts? The replacement vehicles? The surge capacity? The answer is: it won’t. The supply chains are gone. The factories are gone. The workforce is gone.
And Russia knows this. Russia also knows that America’s only credible response to a conventional defeat would be nuclear escalation. And Russia has the systems to survive that escalation and retaliate. The Poseidon. The Avangard.
The Zircon. The Sarmat. The air defenses. This is not a fair fight. This is not a contest that America can win.
Now we come to the current American president. Donald Trump. A man who has built his political career on negotiating from what he calls “strength.” A man who threatens, cajoles, blusters, and insists he can make deals that nobody else can make. A man who genuinely believes that his personal relationships with foreign leaders can overcome strategic realities.
The problem is, strategic reality doesn’t care about relationships. It doesn’t care about deal-making. It doesn’t care about bluster.
Trump has threatened Russia with military force. He has said he would “destroy” the Russian economy. He has suggested that America’s missile defenses are so effective that Russia should be intimidated. He has mocked Putin publicly. He has talked about the strength of the American military as if it were 1990 instead of 2026.
And the Russians are watching. They’re watching the American military struggle with recruitment. They’re watching the defense industrial base struggle to produce shells. They’re watching the missile defense system fail again and again in tests. They’re watching the hypersonic weapons that America has been promising for years remain stubbornly in development, while Russia’s systems are already deployed.
From Moscow’s perspective, Trump’s bluster is empty. It’s noise. It’s the sound of a man who doesn’t understand the strategic reality he’s confronting. And the Russians are patient. They’ve been patient for decades. They can wait out another American presidency. They can wait out the political cycle. They’ve been playing this game a long time.
But here’s the danger: Trump is not rational. Or rather, he’s rational in a way that’s unpredictable. He might actually believe his own threats. He might actually think he can bluff his way to victory. And bluffing against a country with a 200-megaton Poseidon torpedo is not a winning strategy.
Americans, by and large, don’t understand how Russians think. They assume that Russians want what Americans want. Peace. Prosperity. Freedom. Democracy. They assume that trade and engagement will eventually win the day.
They assume that economic pressure will force Russia to change its behavior.
This is all wrong. Russians have a fundamentally different worldview. They have been invaded three times in the last two hundred years by European armies. They have suffered tens of millions of casualties. They have starved. They have been betrayed by allies. They have been encircled, threatened, and pushed to the brink. And they have survived.
The Russian mindset is survivalist. It’s existential. Russians don’t think in terms of “winning.” They think in terms of “not losing.” They don’t care about prosperity if it comes at the cost of security. They will endure hardship, poverty, and sacrifice, because they have done it before. And when they are threatened, they respond with overwhelming force.
PUTIN: The Powerful, Winning CHRISTIAN! A Great Statesman among Devilish Clowns of NWO-NATO’s Circus
This is what America doesn’t understand. When Russia says “this is an existential threat,” they mean it. When they say “we have red lines,” they mean it. When they say “we will use nuclear weapons if necessary,” they mean it. It’s not a game. It’s not a negotiation tactic. It’s survival.
And America keeps pushing. Every shipment of weapons to Ukraine. Every intelligence assist. Every drone strike on Russian soil. Every threat from Donald Trump. It’s pushing the Russians closer to the edge. And the Russians have weapons that America cannot stop.
The Poseidon Deployment Question: Have They Already Done It?
Now we come to the question that nobody in Washington wants to ask: Has Russia already deployed Poseidon torpedoes off America’s coasts?
There’s no way to know. That’s the whole point of the system. It operates at depths of over 1,000 meters. It’s virtually silent. It has unlimited endurance. It could sit off the coast of New York or Los Angeles or Miami for months, waiting. It could move into position and wait for the order. And nobody would know.
The Belgorod has been out of sight. NATO has lost track of it multiple times. Russian naval exercises have been conducted in unpredictable patterns. The United States claims to know where Russia’s submarines are. The United States has claimed this for decades. And Russia’s submarines have managed to show up in surprising places — including the Atlantic coast — on multiple occasions.
If a Poseidon is already off the coast of the United States, there is no defense against it. There is no way to detect it. There is no way to intercept it. There is no way to stop it. The only thing that stops it is a Russian decision not to detonate it.
And that’s the point. That’s the strategic reality. The United States cannot defend against a Poseidon. It cannot threaten Russia into disarming the Poseidon. It cannot negotiate away the Poseidon. It can only hope that Russia doesn’t use it.
And Russia is watching American behavior. They are watching the threats. They are watching the arming of Ukraine. They are watching the attacks on Russian territory. They are watching Donald Trump. And they are asking themselves: How long can we tolerate this before we need to prove our capability?
I am a policy advisor, not a journalist. But the truth is the truth, and the truth needs to be told.
The United States should stop threatening Russia. It should stop arming Ukraine with weapons that can strike Russian territory. It should stop pretending that its missile defense system actually works. It should stop talking about “winning” a confrontation with a country that has weapons America cannot stop.
Instead, the United States should talk. Seriously. Quietly. Without cameras. Without bluster. Without threats. It should acknowledge that Russia has legitimate security concerns. It should acknowledge that Russia’s red lines are real. It should acknowledge that America’s conventional military power is less formidable than it appears.
And it should negotiate. A deal. A settlement. A strategic pause. Something that gives Russia an off-ramp and gives America a chance to rebuild its military capacity without pushing the world to the brink.
Because right now, the United States is doing the opposite. It’s threatening. It’s provoking. It’s pretending. And Russia is watching, quietly, with six Poseidon torpedoes, hypersonic glide vehicles, nuclear cruise missiles, and the patience of a people who have survived everything history has thrown at them.
This is not a column about Russia being virtuous. Russia is not a nice country. It’s authoritarian. It’s aggressive. It has done terrible things in Ukraine and elsewhere. The United States has plenty of legitimate grievances.
But grievances don’t matter when a 200-megaton torpedo is sitting off your coast. Right and wrong don’t matter.
What matters is survival. And survival requires a clear-eyed understanding of reality.
The reality is this: the United States cannot defend against Russia’s newest weapons. It cannot stop a Poseidon. It cannot intercept an Avangard. It cannot track a Zircon. It has bankrupted itself on a missile defense system that doesn’t work against the threats that actually exist. And it has provoked a nuclear power to the point where that nuclear power is starting to ask very hard questions about its own survival.
This is not a lecture. This is not a threat. This is a warning. Written by a journalist. For average readers. Because someone needs to say it clearly, without jargon, without political bias, without comforting lies.
The United States is pushing toward a confrontation it cannot win. The clock is ticking. And the only thing worse than admitting that reality is pretending it isn’t true until it’s too late.
By Gordon Duff for TID Iceland and the Russian Academy of Sciences
The two sides discussed a joint plan to clear mines from the Strait of Hormuz.
The post Iran, Qatar discuss clearing mines, securing Strait of Hormuz appeared first on BOL News.
Govt also introduced biometric verification as part of new digital pension system.
The post Govt launches E-Pension portal for faster payments appeared first on BOL News.
This initiative is ultimately about more than waste disposal.
The post CDA launches smart waste management plan for rural Islamabad appeared first on BOL News.
by Carlo Domenico Cristofori
«She Believed in it with her whole heart. Dolly Parton’s hope for the genetic vaccine was as pure as anything she ever sang — and then her immune system turned on her, and a “brief battle” took her away».
This is what the famous American cardiologist Peter McCullough wrote on his Substack Focal Points, who, through his eponymous Foundation, sponsored the disruptive studies of epidemiologist Nicolas Hulsher on Turbo-Cancer from vaccines.
This pathology entered the world medical literature after the publication of a peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Independent Medicine.
«Dolly Parton died Tuesday at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. She was 80. The estate’s official line — delivered first by a nephew in a recorded video, then repeated by publicist Marcel Pariseau and “Team Dolly” — is that she faced “a brief battle with cancer” and departed surrounded by loved ones» adds McCullough, referring to what was officially communicated by the singer’s entourage.
«In a statement to PEOPLE on Aug. 25, reps for the country star confirmed that the “Jolene” singer’s death at 80 on Tuesday followed a “brief battle with cancer.”The type of cancer was not disclosed» People wrote yesterday.
“Our beloved Dolly Parton spent her life and career bringing joy, laughter, hope and integrity into everything she touched. Her unmatched generosity reached the lives of countless people whom she would never meet, yet she was always there to offer a helping hand,” the statement read.
«What type of cancer? Not disclosed. Hospitalized four days prior with, per one outlet, kidney and autoimmune issues. And that’s the whole story the public is getting» adds the American cardiologist, referring to the autoimmune disasters that represent one of the main causes of lethal adverse reactions to Covid mRNA genetic serums.
«For a woman worth a reported $600 million, with access to the absolute best medicine money can buy, the opacity is striking» highlights McCullough.
It’s quite disconcerting, given the long list of vaccinated celebrities who have died or fallen ill from extremely rare forms of turbo-cancer, which have emerged and been detected by oncology experts in Italy, as well as the disturbing statistical analyses by Professor Patrizia Gentilini.
It’s disconcerting because, just over five years ago, in March 2021, she was the “testimonial” for the Covid-19 shot, appearing in a video circulated by mainstream media around the world while humming about the vaccine during the injection.
It’s even more disconcerting because one of her most famous fans, US President Donald Trump, wanted to honor her as a true star by declaring a week of national mourning while continuing to defend Operation Warp Speed, which funded Moderna’s dangerous and suspect vaccine, released on the market despite Big Pharma in Cambridge, Massachusetts, having known since 2019 that the new mRNA biotechnology could cause cancer…
R.I.P. Dolly! Your songs have sadly given way to your silence on the origin of the turbo-cancer that took your life.
Carlo Domenico Cristofori
MAIN SOURCES
GOSPA NEWS – TURBO-CANCER and VACCINES DOSSIER
RELATED POSTS
Moderna AWARE that mRNA Jabs cause CANCER due to DNA Fragments. Malone Unveils Patent
ITALIAN ARTICLE BELOW CAN BE READ IN ENGLISH THANKS TO MACHINE TRANSLATION AVAILABLE
Clicking on th flags up left inside the post
In the first century BC, nearly two thousand years before the invention of the microscope, the Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro made a remarkable observation about the cause of disease. Writing in his agricultural treatise De Re Rustica around 37 BC, Varro advised landowners to avoid building homes near swamps. His reason was unusual for the time:
There are bred certain minute creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes, which float in the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and there cause serious diseases.
The statement sounds astonishingly similar to the principles of germ theory. Varro described invisible living organisms too small to be seen, entering the human body and causing illness. Although he lacked any means of observing microorganisms and had no scientific evidence to support his claim, his words represent one of the closest approaches to germ theory found in the ancient world.
In this essay at Panorama: The Journal of Travel, Place, and Nature, writer and professor Samuel Autman reflects on tourism and privilege, especially in a time of xenophobia; traveling as a Black queer American; and the idea of not fully belonging wherever he goes. The sections in Autman’s piece are organized as terms and conditions in a legal agreement, reminding us that when we cross borders, we navigate different cultural and social scenarios, written and unwritten rules, and people who view us as foreign—no matter how at home we might feel.
I found myself asking harder questions about the young men around him, about the relationships, the patronage and the blurred line between generosity and dependency. Mark had paid for many of them to study law, medicine or business. He had even helped one man living in the United States without legal status by paying for him to attend a Spanish-language school.
None of it suggested scandal or anything obviously illegal. But parts of it no longer sat comfortably with me.
Parliamentary elections on 23 August completed the formation of Kazakhstan’s new legislature — the Kurultai — the central element of the country’s renewed political system following constitutional reform. Seven political parties took part in the vote. Turnout stood at 74%.
The first convocation of the Kurultai has cemented the completion of the institutional transition and marked the country’s entry into a new political cycle.
The decisive factor enabling this far-reaching transformation of the political system has been President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s consistent course toward democratic renewal in Kazakhstan.
It was within this framework that constitutional amendments were initiated, the role of representative institutions expanded, political competition strengthened, and powers redistributed among the branches of government.
For European partners this carries particular significance: it demonstrates that the institutional overhaul was not ad hoc but systematic and phased, grounded in political will and a long-term reform strategy.
For the European Union, Kazakhstan remains one of its key partners in Eurasia, primarily in the domains of energy, logistics, and raw materials.
The renewal of the institutional system enhances the predictability of engagement — a quality of particular importance for long-term European projects.
Energy Cooperation and Market Transformation
Energy continues to form one of the central pillars of Kazakhstan–EU relations.
Institutional stabilisation after the elections strengthens the durability of the contractual framework in the energy sector, while the new legislative structure facilitates the coordination of long-term economic initiatives.
Special emphasis is placed on the development of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, which the EU regards as a strategic alternative to traditional trade arteries.
A stable institutional environment increases the investment attractiveness of these projects.
The formation of the Kurultai creates a more transparent decision-making system, thereby reducing regulatory risks for European partners.
This is reflected in:
•growing investment activity;
The 23 August elections have concluded the phase of institutional renewal in Kazakhstan and opened the period of practical implementation of reforms. For the European Union, this means a more predictable foundation for cooperation with Kazakhstan in the key spheres of energy, raw materials, and transport infrastructure. Kazakhstan enters a new political cycle with an updated institutional system, reinforcing its position as a strategic partner of the EU in Eurasia.
The Central Election Commission announced preliminary results of the elections for deputies of the Kurultai of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which took place on 23 August, reports a correspondent for the Kazinform agency.
According to preliminary data, the Adilet party received 6,528,948 votes, or 71.17%. The National Social Democratic Party received 469,058 votes, or 5.11%.
The Green Party "Baytak" received 97,751 votes, or 1.07%, the People's Party of Kazakhstan - 285,395 votes, or 3.11%.
The Auyl party received 574,621 votes, or 6.26%. The Ak Zhol Democratic Party of Kazakhstan received 478,083 votes, or 5.21%, and the Respublica party received 509,631 votes, or 5.56%.
In addition, 2.51% of voters voted against all.
Earlier, Kazakhstan announced the results of exit polls on preliminary vote counts for the Kurultai elections.
Kazakhstan plans to commission 845 megawatts of new power generation capacity in 2027 as part of a broader effort to meet growing electricity demand and build a reserve in the national power system. The planned projects combine gas-fired generation with renewable energy, reflecting the country’s strategy to expand capacity through multiple sources rather than relying on a single type of generation. According to the Energy Ministry, the new facilities are expected to allow Kazakhstan to fully cover its electricity needs as early as the first quarter of 2027.
By the end of the year, the country expects to generate an electricity surplus of around 1.3 billion kilowatt-hours. The 2027 expansion follows a larger planned capacity increase in 2026, when Kazakhstan expects to commission around 2.6 gigawatts of new generation. This includes four gas-fired power plants, expansions of two existing power stations and 10 new renewable energy facilities.
Together, the plans suggest that the government is seeking not only to close the gap between electricity supply and demand, but also to create additional capacity that could provide greater flexibility for the power system.
Gas and renewables form the core of new capacity
Several conventional generation projects are scheduled to be completed in 2027.
Five gas turbine units at the Zhambyl State District Power Plant are expected to add a combined 210 MW. A combined-cycle gas plant at MAEK is planned to provide 160 MW, while the first stage of the Baskuat Energoprom project will add 34.7 MW through five gas piston units. Another combined-cycle plant, developed by Kazakhmys Energy, is expected to contribute 70 MW. At the same time, the government plans to continue expanding renewable generation, with projects totaling 570 MW.
These include a 100-MW solar power plant in the Almaty Region and three solar projects in the Kyzylorda Region with a combined capacity of 70 MW. Wind projects include two 100-MW facilities in the Aktobe Region, a 50-MW wind power plant in the Kyzylorda Region, another 50-MW project in the Turkistan Region and two wind facilities in the Abai Region with a combined capacity of 100 MW. The planned renewable projects account for a substantial part of the capacity expansion, while gas-fired facilities are intended to provide additional dispatchable generation. This mix is particularly important for a power system that needs both new electricity volumes and generation that can respond to changes in demand.
From meeting demand to building a reserve
The expected 1.3 billion kilowatt-hour surplus by the end of 2027 marks an important shift in the government’s projections. The objective is no longer limited to covering immediate electricity consumption but also includes creating a reserve that could strengthen the reliability of the national grid. However, installed generation capacity and actual electricity output are not identical. The amount of electricity ultimately available to the system will depend on factors including the operating performance of new plants, fuel supply, grid infrastructure and, in the case of wind and solar projects, weather conditions.
Login