Section 2 finished in 2007 (just within your 20 year cutoff!)
It links the channel tunnel with London St Pancras. Much of the London part is in tunnels and it is 100% grade separated.
The uk High Speed 2 route was also going to do this and build a new high speed rail line and station into London, but the exact issues you describe seem to mean that it will be halting at a point outside London instead possibly using existing tracks.
Overall though, High speed rail doesn't need new tracks into cities unless all the existing lines are full (or they are too slow)
It's much easier to build high speed line in the countryside and link it to the existing lines that run to existing stations in cities.
(Also the Elizabeth line in London, but's more like a metro really, even if it is 'heavy' rail)
It is pretty impressive and they're looking at building an extension. however oddly its operation speed has been significantly reduced from 268mph to 186mph.
The basic problem is that Maglev is on average more expensive to build and operate
and cannot (unlike ordinary high speed rail trains) ever operate on ordinary (non high speed) rail track.
It's also still pretty experimental, the Shanghai one is operational and high speed, all other operational systems are either low speed or experimental test beds.
A complete discussion by a lawyer directly writing might be better, but I haven't seen one that isn't working for, or aligned with, one side or the other.
While an undersea cable requires continuous operation and the agreement from a single country where it starts. If they suddenly decide for whatever reason to turn it off (say they're short of electricity) then the supply is immediately stopped.
I think the closest US equivalent in this case is chapter 7 bankruptcy.
If I've got it right chapter 11 is more a reorganzation and restructuring, while chapter 7 is disposing of the assets to pay off the creditors.
This is the latter and UK administration process is usually a sell off of the assets, occasionally a company is sold as a going concern, but mostly it can't be and gets sold as parts.
Very broad indeed, though I think it's just qualification for asking, not grounds for acceptance, (thankfully)
One thing I'm curious to know is what it's like on the distribution side though, getting these requests and then approving them (or not)
I wonder if they only get serious requests (say steel mills and hospitals) or if they also get requests from non-essential businesses who shouldn't be on the list?
Most data centers should have back up power, so the question of whether Facebook, Twitter and Amazon get cut off probably doesn't need to be asked.
This appears to be a contingency plan 'in the "unlikely" event supplies of gas fall short of demand.'
The report showed, under a base case scenario, that margins between peak demand and power supply were expected to be sufficient and similar to recent years thanks to secure North Sea gas supplies, imports via Norway and by ship.
Any operator that didn't have such contingency plans would be negligent.
Is it going to happen in reality: hopefully not
Edit: I have a feeling that the article may be referring to the 3 hour Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) service level target for the year.
This isn't quite the same as a three hour blackout.
I'm not sure though because the sky article doesn't reference its sources.
Found it, its not the LOLE target, but the response to scenario 2 on page 10 of the second link:
scenario 1:
"In this scenario we assume that we have no electricity interconnector imports from France, Belgium and the Netherlands (these are assumed to provide a de-rated capacity of 3.9GW in the Base Case). It is assumed that we import 1.2GW from Norway and export 0.4GW to Northern Ireland and Ireland."
scenario 2:
"In this scenario we assume the same assumptions as Scenario 1, but with an additional 10GW CCGTs unavailable for a two-week period in January1. These assumptions have been chosen to illustrate the potential impact on the electricity system if there was insufficient gas supply in Great Britain."
"Should this scenario happen, it may be necessary to initiate the planned, controlled and temporary rota load shedding scheme under the Electricity Supply Emergency Code (ESEC). In the unlikely event we were in this situation, it would mean that
some customers could be without power for pre-defined periods during a day – generally this is assumed to be for 3 hour blocks. This would be necessary to ensure the overall security and integrity of the electricity system across Great Britain. All possible mitigating strategies would be deployed to minimise the disruption."
Which I think would then follow this set of rules:
Personally I've always preferred HTML tags to markdown, primarily because I can usually understand simple HTML by looking at it, while the markdown needs a cheatsheet if I haven't been working on it recently.
I think this could probably be done as a web component if the browsers didn't implement it directly.
Plus most GUI tools produce HTML and that could probably be modified to output a more restricted format.
The whole package has now been deprecated by the maintainer:
'PyPI wants me to enable 2FA just because I maintain this package, and both that and the mess resulting from a stunt of mine, I thought it'd be a good time to deprecate this package. Python 3 has os.replace and os.rename which probably do well enough of a job for most usecases.'
'I decided to deprecate this package. While I do regret to have deleted the package and did end up enabling 2FA, I think PyPI's sudden change in rules and bizarre behavior wrt package deletion doesn't make it worth my time to maintain Python software of this popularity for free. I'd rather just write code for fun and only worry about supply chain security when I'm actually paid to do so.'
I can see the maintainers point, even if it may be inconvenient.
I would think that means that if the number of washing tablets went from 12 to 9, then packaging would display in prominent letters "Same price, now 9 tablets instead of 12"
Similarly for unit weights:
Chocolate biscuits, "same 12 biscuits, now 20g instead of 25g. Pack size reduced from 300g to 240g"
Section 2 finished in 2007 (just within your 20 year cutoff!) It links the channel tunnel with London St Pancras. Much of the London part is in tunnels and it is 100% grade separated.
The uk High Speed 2 route was also going to do this and build a new high speed rail line and station into London, but the exact issues you describe seem to mean that it will be halting at a point outside London instead possibly using existing tracks.
Overall though, High speed rail doesn't need new tracks into cities unless all the existing lines are full (or they are too slow)
It's much easier to build high speed line in the countryside and link it to the existing lines that run to existing stations in cities.
(Also the Elizabeth line in London, but's more like a metro really, even if it is 'heavy' rail)