Finally the events are quite cherry-picked. It is a conclusion looking for a result, when the statistical reason for choosing those 4 events simply isn't evident when you look at the data itself. There is no mathematical rule you could apply to your dataset that would distinctly highlight those 4 periods.

A lot of good ideas only look bad in hindsight. It costs time and money to determine goodness, and that deserves funding.

Only step beyond this is neural implants putting purchasing decisions directly into your grey matter.

Batteries are an expensive solution that doesn't scale well at the grid level. It is useful for grid stability (fast frequency response) but simply a non-starter when you're dealing with national grids.

Batteries are an added cost to the system, without producing more electricity, and as a result prices will go up.

A far cheaper source of flexibility is Demand Side Response. Particularly data centres that are willing to be market actors. Compute can happen anywhere, so it should happen where the wind blows and the sun shines. It is cheaper to transmit bits than Megawatts.

China is heavily reliant on coal.

The US Grid is presently less carbon intensive than the Chinese grid.

It also does nothing to help transmission grid frequency stability and control.

An exercise to the reader, calculate the space and materials required to replace the average norwegian hydro reservoir with batteries.

Nuclear tech doesn't provide required ramp rates at a useful price. I do agree however that more nuclear helps.

The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.

Gas power generation is a necessary evil to balance out the variability of intermittent energy generation (i.e. wind and solar).

Hydropower isn't a feasible alternative because the easy resources have been developed.

The only alternative source of flexibility available today is demand side response.

Edit: I appreciate the down votes, as I've not explained in detail. It is a complex issue. My opinions are based on having a phd in the topic, 10+ years in control rooms, years of market operations and design, and years contributing to europe-wide risk assessment methodologies.

I emplore anyone who is actually interested in how energy mix actually impacts grid stability/reliability to look into the Eirgrid DS3 programme (https://www.eirgrid.ie/ds3-programme-delivering-secure-susta...).

Is 4 a number?

Is 4/2 a number?

Is 3 a number?

Is 3/2 a number?

etc...

All of these symbols represent precise points on the numberline. Pi also represents a precise point on the numberline, so is it not a number?

The existence of the tech isn't the issue, it is the logistics, cost and practicality of building it at grid scale. If you try to calculate how many batteries you'd need to store the equivalent energy of a hydro reservoir, or one hour of a nuclear plant, then try to estimate the land required, you'd quickly discover how intractable the issue is.

- They had long tongues that they used to catch bugs.

- They have long tongues that they use to catch bugs.

- They had long tongues, which they used to catch bugs.

- They have long tongues, which they use to catch bugs.

They're a cool little team based in Copenhagen. Would be useful, for example, to look at the correlation between your weather data and regional energy production (solar and wind). Next level would be models to predict national hydro storage, but that is a lot more complex.

My advice is to drop the grid itself to the bottom of the list, and I say this as someone who worked at a national grid operator as the primary grid analyst. You'll never get access to sufficient data, and your model will never be correct. You're better off starting from a national 'adequacy' level and working your way down based on information made available via market operators.

My feel for this type of puzzle is that there is a 'gravity' from the higher to lower value integers. So you want to help integers flow from the 7 to the 3. The state of the list then represents a sieve that dynamically restricts the flow paths from one step to the next. So at any time step your possible paths to flow the integers from 7 to 3 are quite restricted.

The first step of 753 -> 7143 may seem arbitrary at first, but you quickly realise that most other options result in long awkward paths where you move integers back and forth, or deadends.

For example, if you decide to split the 7 first your valid moves are 753 -> 6153 or 753 -> 1653. The first move still leaves you overloaded at the left most position, and you still need another split because you cant combine 1+5 or 5+3 due to duplicates or exceeding 7. So you don't really feel closer. Same with 1653, putting you in a position where all combinations exceed 7, and you need to further breakdown numbers, but you've already used up all your valid odd numbers, so you have to break 6 into 2 and 4 -> 12453. This is a dead end.

Fun morning coffee puzzle.