> The 300MW Thurrock Storage project, developed by Statera Energy, is now energised and delivering electricity flexibly to the network across London and the south east.
> With a total capacity of 600MWh, Thurrock Storage is capable of powering up to 680,000 homes, and can help to balance supply and demand by soaking up surplus clean electricity and discharging it instantaneously when the grid needs it.
Unless they updated the original post, that all sounds correct to me. It's a 2-hour battery, rather common in the industry.
Yup, this happens for any technology with journalists. A noob journo will be absolutely clear that it's crucial they interviewed Jim Smith and not Jane Smith even if it so happens that gender was not at all important to the story, like maybe Smith witnessed a massive lightning bolt destroying the bandstand.
But they will muddle bits and bytes, nanograms and milligrams, volts and amps and they barely even seem to notice that they did it.
I think the main reason is that the (big!) ships just don't have room to pass each other anywhere other than on Gatun lake. They can't pass in the Gaillard cut, and not really in the approach harbors either. So it's one way traffic basically.
Also, anything taking the old locks out of operation for a few weeks/months is basically a no-go. That's just too costly.
As a side note, do keep in mind that water is already "saved" a little by going up in a convoy. With the three lock chambers, you get to reuse the same water three times. Not exactly true of course because convoys start and end, but you get the idea.
And see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38256185 for why the water saving basins are not as great as you would think (at least for the new locks). For the old locks, adding them would probably just add too much too the leveling time. And the construction would take those locks out of operation for at least a couple months, and they just cannot afford that.
In the Netherlands there are locks with pumps for directly leveling, reducing/preventing salt intrusion, or "evening out" the loss of water with a separate pumping station (look up Krammersluizen and Kreekraksluizen). But we're talking a meter or 2 water level difference, not a whopping 26 meters. And those locks are generally not as big, and even then we tend to get rid of those systems where we can (Krammersluizen) as it's just too expensive to operate and maintain.
The thing that complicates the use of the water saving basins, is that they tend to make the salt intrusion into the lake a lot worse [0]. So to limit the salt intrusion (through the new locks), they have to _not_ use the water saving basins, or flush the locks every now and then using a lot of fresh water from Gatun lake.
This was (and is) not as much an issue with the old locks, as passage of ships there is ridiculously fast with the use of mules. With the new locks, it's mostly tug boats, and substantially bigger/slower ships obviously.
[0] Mostly on the Agua Clara side. The Cocoli side is generally fine, as the salt wedge doesn't reach the lake. Drinking/irrigation water intakes there probably have to be (or have been) moved though.
> > The ability to redeem LUSD for ETH at face value (i.e. 1 LUSD for $1 of ETH) [...] create a price floor
That is not entirely true though; it costs money to redeem LUSD for ETH. Earlier today it was 2%, so not particularly cheap. That would put the floor at 0.98 at least momentarily.
> You can take an interest free loan out against your Ethereum
Well, you do have to pay to take out a loan. Closing a loan is free, and redeeming LUSD for ETH (if it's not your loan) costs _at least_ 0.5%. And being liquidated costs you money (10%?) as well I guess.
> What happens if many people do that and never repay the loan?
Nothing? What do you think is supposed to happen?
> you are suddenly dealing with real like risk that cannot be ignored.
The only risk I know of is a cascade. If a trove drops below 110% because the ETH price drops, and someone liquidates the trove and gets the ETH at a 10% discount, and then _sells_ the ETH, the price drops even more causing other troves to be liquidated, etc.
The cascade problem is systemic: all algo stable work inevitably in a similar way, so if it starts somewhere all the protocols will reinforce the death loop. At the limit, the whole ecosystem of ether + ether-based algo stablecoins becomes terra/luna.
Crypto has no global risk manager in charge of keeping the total sum of algo stables small enough to be safe.
But what _is_ the reason they can't get through the pipeline (and that you think is a "very good" one)? Isn't just the SEC saying "We don't feel like answering your request. Continue as you see fit, but we can't promise we won't come after you for whatever reason"?
> the massive risks and manipulation inherent in the ecosystem, making it effectively impossible to "provide full, fair, and truthful disclosure and investor protection"
I don't know for sure, as I don't work for the SEC, but it certainly seems likely that if cryptocurrency-centered securities aren't getting through the registration process, it's likely because cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency asset prices are inherently massively unstable, subject to manipulation by unknown forces uses both fair means (large currency and cryptocurrency hodings) or foul (looking at you tether), and in general it's probably not possible to provide such a disclosure or any real evaluation of risk.
And that's if the players involved are honestly attempting to do that, many/most players in the crypto space seem to be cowboys.
> Isn't just the SEC saying "We don't feel like answering your request. Continue as you see fit, but we can't promise we won't come after you for whatever reason"?
No.
The SEC is saying that these schemes are securities, and you categorically cannot operate unregistered security schemes. The SEC is saying that these things must be registered, and until/unless they are registered they must stop.
This one commissioner is then saying "But that's not fair because we don't see crypto security schemes getting through the securities registration process".
I don't think she's wrong, they probably aren't getting through even if they do apply, but I also don't think the denial is wrong - it seems highly unlikely they can meet the criteria.
And dear god no, we should not be carving out exceptions to the securities laws for crypto-hucksters to get easier registration status without having to meet the same bar for honesty, transparency and investor protection as 'traditional' finance schemes.
> This one commissioner is then saying "But that's not fair because we don't see crypto security schemes getting through the securities registration process".
This appears to be a misrepresentation of Peirce's statement. She isn't saying that it's not fair that the SEC isn't letting these things get approved, she's claiming that the SEC isn't doing its job and isn't providing clarity on why they aren't getting approved and how they can get approved in the future. Clarity can be as simple as "we beleive that the volatility makes crypto offerings too risky", but they're instead making one-off settlements and vague statements.
There have been crypto products that were held in limbo for years without clarity on why they were being rejected by the SEC, which is irresponsible on their part.
No, that's what _you_ think the reason is or should be. I'm asking what the reason (or answer) is that the _SEC_ gives in the application process.
> The SEC is saying that these schemes are securities, and you categorically cannot operate unregistered security schemes. The SEC is saying that these things must be registered, and until/unless they are registered they must stop.
My question was about the registration. If you _want_ to register, and the SEC replies with "<silence>", what are you supposed to do? Or if you ask if you should register, and get met with silence. I don't disagree with your assessment of "The SEC is saying that these schemes are securities", but instead of answering the question upfront they seem to prefer to punish/fine after the fact. Worst of all, they ban Kraken from ever offering any staking services in the future, even _if_ there is/will be a legal way to do it.
I _understand_ Gary's SEC's stance of keeping everything deliberately vague that way, because it gives him a lot of power to punish and discriminate on a one-off basis. I agree with Peirce (and CFTC's Pham) that's it's a bad and very lazy way to "regulate" (air quotes) though.
> If you _want_ to register, and the SEC replies with "<silence>", what are you supposed to do?
Not start selling your unregistered scheme! That's the point here, in terms of what actions you are allowed to take, if you don't have registration, you cannot sell the security.
It's not that they 'prefer' punishing after the fact - there's not supposed to be a fact.
Your options are to walk away or find some way to get them to take action. Your options do not include "fuck it we'll just go ahead and see if it bites us".
I was under the impression that you'd just get fined if you don't get your shot. It's not like they are going to take you prisoner and stick a needle in you.
Until when? when the next wave comes and the unvaccinated are 40% instead of 30%, do you think they wont start forcing the needle?
How many people would get the booster? and the next booster after that?
I think its reasonable to assume that every 6 months the unvaccinated group with grow with 5% or so, how long until they become more than the vaccinated?
What will happen when they elect the new government in 2 years
> do you think they wont start forcing the needle?
The article is about _fining_ people, i.e. negative monetary incentives. Your reply outlined a bunch of positive monetary incentives. There's probably enough research out there which of the two works better (negative or positive), so I won't get into that. I will say that I think it's quite a stretch to say that either is a step-up to "forcing a needle in you", and that I find it a bit disingenuous to imply that this slippery-slope argument only applies to negative monetary incentives.
> With a total capacity of 600MWh, Thurrock Storage is capable of powering up to 680,000 homes, and can help to balance supply and demand by soaking up surplus clean electricity and discharging it instantaneously when the grid needs it.
Unless they updated the original post, that all sounds correct to me. It's a 2-hour battery, rather common in the industry.
EDIT: Ah, you mean the https://stateraenergy.co.uk/news/thurrock-energisation is wrong, with the fantastically outrageous statement of "delivering its full output of up to 600MWh within seconds."