I think I got the conversation wrong... But it's definitely revealed at some point. My memory has gotten fuzzy! Definitely time to give it another play through.
Yeah it's Daedalus. I Googled it and I'm factually correct but I must have the conversations mixed up in my head... It might be one of the human characters who tells the player about it.
This reminds me of a detail from the plot of the original Deus Ex. Part way through the game, there is an optional dialogue with a benevolent AI. If you question it enough, it reveals that it is the rejected prototype for an anti-corruption/terrorism AI which was turned off for being too effective: eventually classifying its own masters as a criminal organisation.
> However, saying that renewables are the cause of this is the same as saying that nuclear is the cause of Chernobyl. Nuclear plants don't inherently melt down if they are properly designed and operated and renewables don't inherently cause load-shedding if they are integrated to a properly planned and operated bulk power system.
Isn't this just juggling semantics? Nuclear is very much a necessary condition for nuclear meltdown. Removing nuclear power is a foolproof option to avoid nuclear meltdown.
Likewise displacing dispatchable generation with renewables enables the conditions where we can get these super high spot prices. To guarantee supply during peak load you need a lot of redundant dispatchable generation sitting around gathering dust until the $14500 day. On that day it needs to pay for itself, hence $14500 per megawatt hour.
EDIT: Oh wait, I'm a dummy who didn't read your post correctly. I agree with your comments about the market needing to correctly price reliability of supply. In WA we have a capacity market for this reason.
Failure of a meshed power system cannot be attributed to the failure of any single sub-system. Rather it must be a combination of factors including those you just mentioned.
The dependence of the power system on renewables (specifically wind farms)contributed in two ways to the blackout:
1. The majority of wind turbines provide little or no system inertia. By displacing synchronous generation with wind generation, system inertia is reduced which results in greater ROCOF during an event where there is a change in active power demand/supply. In the SA blackout, fast ROCOF overwhelmed the system's last line of defence- under frequency load shedding.
2. Some wind turbines contained a fault ride-through setting which AEMO was apparently not aware of prior to the blackout. Specifically, the setting caused the turbines to disconnect after experiencing a sequence of voltage excursions within a set time period. The disconnection caused a loss of active power supply to the grid which contributed to the drop in frequency and eventual collapse.
> I'm writing from Canada. Mother and/or father can share up to 35 weeks of paid leave under the national insurance program. This maxes out at, I think, approx $500 per week. It's not a lot. But it helps.
This. I'm writing from Australia- it looks like we only get $622.10 for 18 weeks, but it seems like a nice middle ground to support new parents. At that low price I would probably agree that 35 weeks is reasonable.
I get confused when people argue strongly against the middle ground position. I don't even want to have kids but I don't begrudge the use of public money in this way- it's a direct investment in the future of society which shields both parents and businesses from undue financial stress without being profligate or forcing too much ideology on the rest of us.
> How can you say this with a straight face?! It's a fact that (some) women need to stay off work (bed-ridden before birth, in hospital after birth). It's also a fact that men don't need to.
You're referring to a timescale of days which a woman will likely need to spend in hospital. I believe
jschwartzi is referring to the weeks/months of maternity/paternity leave following the initial birth. There isn't a hard biological reason not to evenly share the load after the immediate medical concerns are completed.
> "This was a unique event, a moment that unveils a completely unexpected image of the power balance between inquisitors and the communities over which they held jurisdiction. The resulting picture is significantly less one-sided than has traditionally been imagined."
But then...
> "Unfortunately the success of this unique uprising was short-lived. By 1301, Guido of Vicenza was back to his old tricks, desecrating the shrine of a popular local holy man."
So the inquisition ultimately was not held accountable and the popular uprising was ineffective.
I understand this is what actuaries spend their days tabulating.
(I am an engineer not an actuary but in the past I been involved in efforts to apply the same maths to asset aging. However your mileage varies massively with the quality of your data).
I don't think you're arguing against education, but it kind of sounds like you are, which explains the downvotes.
I think your general point is correct though. We should be careful who we let set our curriculums and try to ride a reasonable line between ideology and hard data.
It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison anyway.
In general, nuclear lends itself to providing reliable baseload power, whereas storage is most economic when used for peaking or responding to contingencies on the grid.
But is it asinine and destined to fail? I'm not sure.
I think that it IS possible to share the roads but only under low-traffic and low-speed conditions.
The worst offenders are cyclists on busy dual-carriageways during peak hour and it is horrendously dangerous, with two lanes of traffic forced to snake around a single cyclist.
On side streets however I don't think it's a big deal at all.