text:
33 Signs You've Found Your Life's Work
by GuestAuthor
When I work with patients, I always ask them whether they're doing their life's work, because I truly believe that how we spend most of our day, and whether it's in line with our life's work, affects our health. When I ask a woman if she's doing her life's work, way too often, she stares at me blankly.
So how can you tell? How do you know if you're doing your life's work? There's no easy answer to that question other than "You just know." But to give you a sense of what it feels like to discover and then commit to fulfilling your life's work. I've created this list of signs for you.
Related: Got a Narcissist at Work? This is How to Deal with Real Life Horrible Bosses
1. You're scared shitless.
2. You notice that the pieces of the puzzle of your life's work all line up, and you can tell that The Universe has got your back.
3. You feel like you're on a rollercoaster (simultaneously exhilarated and nauseous).
4. There's a "plunk" sort of feeling in your gut that affirms that you've found your life's work.
5. Your whole life – the triumphs and the setbacks – suddenly makes sense.
6. Magical things start happening, and although you feel a sense of wonder, you're not surprised.
7. None of your choices feel safe.
8. Everybody suspects you've officially lost it.
9. You've quit listening to what everybody thinks.
10. You feel guided.
11. You've got butterflies in your tummy.
12. You feel like you've risked everything but it's all okay.
13. You feel a wee bit lonely, because nobody has ever blazed this trail exactly the same way you have.
14. The nightmares are replaced by dreams that affirm your direction.
15. You feel spiritually in tune.
16. There's a good chance you have no employer matching your 401K contribution.
17. You naturally attract those that help further your life's work.
18. You're pushed to the very edge – and just as you start to question your life's work, everything falls into place.
19. The money shows up right when you need it.
20. You sometimes wonder if you're totally nuts.
21. You feel giddy for no apparent reason.
22. You have a sense that you're on the right path, even if you don't know where you're going.
23. You're life's work might seem hard to others, but for you, it's a piece of cake.
24. Others are better off because you're doing your life's work.
25. You feel a perfect mix of total panic and inner peace beyond comprehension.
26. You can't wait to do your life's work every morning. In fact, it's hard to drag you away from it, even on vacation.
27. You'd do your life's work even if nobody ever paid you for it.
28. You find yourself turning down other work, even if it's more stable and more lucrative.
29. You're on a mission, and you know it.
30. You don't notice aches and pains the way you used to.
31. Your health improves.
32. Abundance just appears in your life in unexpected ways.
33. You smile more than you ever have in your life.
Keep in mind that your life's work doesn't have to be a job. Your life's work could be raising 21 children. Or volunteering in Africa or at your local soup kitchen.
As someone who has found her life's work, I can say with absolute certainty that you know it when you've found it.
Have You Found Your Life's Work?
Tell us if you're one of the blessed who knows what you're here on this earth to do.
Living my life's work,
Lissa
Lissa Rankin, MD: Founder of OwningPink.com, Pink Medicine Revolutionary, motivational speaker, and author of What's Up Down There? Questions You'd Only Ask Your Gynecologist If She Was Your Best Friend and Encaustic Art: The Complete Guide To Creating Fine Art With Wax.
*Reprinted with permission from OwningPink.com.
How to Construct the Perfect Blog Post
Queen Bee QT: 7 Keys to Being Diplomatic in a Difficult Conversation
This Weekend Only: Get ALL My Weight Loss Secrets for Free
New ebook published – 100 Days to Greatness
Missouri's Soup Restaurants, Kitchens Make a Splash
Does Beauty Need to Hurt?
By Laura Fenamore, Owning Pink
I have a secret.
While it's true that I care more about women making peace with their bodies than most people, and although I live my life committed to supporting women in liking who and what they see when they look in the mirror, I was one of the first in line to see Sex & The City II when it came out a few years ago.
Seems so shallow to admit that. Let's face it ladies, as much as many of us love these four characters, they are not exactly representational of most women today – many of whom are struggling to take care of their children while working full time. But while Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda do not represent most women, they do represent something that makes my heart just sing. I fell in love with the characters from the get-go. I literally cried my way through the last episode of the series, and have watched every episode a few times each. The pretend world they occupy feels and looks so glamorous, and I love how they strut around exuding power in a way that feels sincere and effortless.
While I do like to look nice, I am not a shopper and I am not someone who goes crazy about fashion. But whenever I am trying on clothes, I make believe I am Carrie – my favorite character on the show. I am nothing like her, and yet she is my alter ego. I just love how she walks around NYC in her high heels and cool clothes.
My own "Carrie" moment
So yesterday, I am in Banana Republic and I put myself into Carrie mode. I see this pair of heels that are so fun, so cool, and so not me, and yet I had this feeling come over me, and suddenly I HAD TO HAVE THEM! I did not care what they cost, how high they were, how much they hurt – I just had to have them.
I wear a size 10 wide, and it is difficult to find shoes in my size. However, the store had a 10, and on my feet they went. They were too tight and so not right. I said to Michael, the gay guy helping me, "These shoes are so tight, but I want to be like Carrie."
Michael cracked up. Then he looked at me very seriously and said, "Honey, beauty is painful."
I said, "You are so right, and it is so unfair."
Of course I got them. After all, they were on sale.
Does it have to hurt?
I care more about our insides than about how we look. I care about how we talk to ourselves every day, and I want to live in a world where we are less critical and more self-loving. I care more than anything about the obesity epidemic that plagues us, and I care about the fact that we are seduced by the beauty industry. I care that models starve themselves and that "beauty is painful." Women – myself included – do all kinds of whacky things to make themselves look good at the expense of their health and their soul.
I am passionately committed to these causes. I so want to live in a world where beauty is no longer cruel. But I also have an inner Carrie who, in a perfect world, can still have sexy black high heels. It's one of those great paradoxes that makes me who I am. I own both parts, and know they're right. (I just wish the Carrie side didn't have to hurt!)
What about you? Are you willing to suffer for beauty? Have you suffered long enough? Where along the continuum from inner beauty to outer glamor do you spend most of your time?
Teetering in tight heels,
Laura Fenamore, CPCC
Body Image Mastery Mentor
www.onepinky.com
*This post originally published at and copyright of OwningPink.com. Reprinted with permission.
Forgive That Jerk: Set Yourself Free
Be Your Own Kind of Beautiful: Every Body is Different
Five Ways to Get Your Beauty Sleep
The Secret to Being Happy
The Pressure To Be Perfect
How I Lost 100 Pounds and Counting (Video)


After numerous mention from the fine cliental of RENDEROSITY, I have finally got around to fixing up the site.
JAG poser ready props all started when I could not upload my 3d models to any site as most files are stored off-site. I have been obsessed with the creativity of Poser & the power of 3d modelling in Lightwave.


text:
Lesson in loss: Board asks questions after two teachers leave Roseland
Published 9:04 am Wednesday, January 13, 2016
By Jesse Wright
The Picayune School Board wants answers after two teachers at Roseland Park Elementary asked to be released from their contracts.
The requests came at Tuesday's board meeting, and the board approved the requests, albeit grudgingly. Board member Frank Feeley asked Assistant Superintendent Brent Harrell to report back to the board just how many teachers the school has lost.
Board member Frank Ford went further and asked for totals for all schools.
Then Feeley asked about replacements at Roseland Park.
"We're losing two at Roseland Park and were recommending one," Feeley said. "Is that because we don't have anyone else?"
Harrell said the principal is actually interviewing three teachers, but had only settled on one to recommend for hire.
Harrell reported that one teacher had been planning to leave for some time and the other teacher is pursuing job at the community college.
The board also approved buying some new Ford vehicles for $105,000. The vehicles are coming from Bay St. Louis, and Feeley asked whether anyone had tried to purchase them locally.
"I hope we exhausted our efforts because that's disappointing," he said.
Superintendent Dean Shaw said the district had tried, but couldn't find better prices in Picayune than in Bay St. Louis.
"I know the Ford dealership tried very hard to do this for us but they just couldn't," Shaw said.
During the middle of the meeting, the Picayune Memorial High School Show Choir stopped by to perform three songs. The songs were well-received, and then the board continued its meeting.
In other news, the board:
Approved all financial items, including a change order and project renovations for Early Head Start and a sole source purchase order.
Approved all consent items, including budget and financial statements, payroll certification, travel request, donations and broken/obsolete items.
Approved grants.
Held an executive session for a student matter, a parent request and a personnel matter.
The next Picayune school board meeting will be held on Jan. 26 at noon.
SPCA, adoption event, food pantry and back to regular priced spay/neuters
Senate Legislation Backed by Lt. Governor Hosemann Aimed at Reducing Crime
Mystic Krewe of Pawdi Gras parade, and best-dressed pet contest
Governor Reeves Appoints Brad Touchstone as 15th Circuit Court District Judge

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Campsicnemus bryanti är en tvåvingeart som beskrevs av Malloch 1932. Campsicnemus bryanti ingår i släktet Campsicnemus och familjen styltflugor. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Externa länkar

Styltflugor
bryanti

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
ironoak's blog
To Be Bearish or Bullish: Big Oil & Gas Investing Billions in New Energies
Photo by Zbynek Burival on Unsplash
By: Dr. Chris Wedding
If you think the "energy transition" is just for Democrats or greenies, then consider this quote from a Goldman Sachs natural resource executive:
"I've probably spent more time talking with oil company executives about the energy shift and renewables in the last 2 years than the previous 23 put together."
Last year, $6.4B was invested in hydrocarbons versus $5.8B in renewable energy, according to PitchBook. That's a pretty tight race.
And a CDP report notes that 2018 expenditure on clean energy sector by the world's 24 largest oil and gas companies was roughly 1.3% of total budgets vs. 0.7% last year.
On one hand, that's almost 200% growth year-over-year. Or (slight reframe) its chump change as a fraction of overall investments, with 98.7% of capital still going to conventional energy lines of business.
Plus, over 70% of those investments came from EU-based oil and gas majors. Maybe that's because the science of climate change is magically different across the ocean. (Yep, sarcasm)
As further evidence that times are changing, here's a look at three organizations…
Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund has divested from oil and gas investments.
Vitol, a leading energy and commodity trading company with 5,000+ employees, is now "supportive of the need to move to more renewable sources of energy" and is focusing on investments in wind and energy storage.
Ørsted, formerly Danish Oil and Natural Gas Energy and the largest power producer in Denmark, has successfully transitioned from fossil fuels to primarily renewable energy. They publicy note that they can "prove numerically that the profitability of the oil and gas business was lower than the renewable investments" that were made, "when compared to the risk of each investment area."
Why are oil and gas major making these investments now?
#1. They are already experts in the energy sector.
This is partly a situation of a [very powerful] hammer seeking a nail.
Decades of experience in conventional energy can translate into efficient capital deployment, project development, and new technology commercialization in the new energy sector, too.
Building and operating offshore oil rigs is complicated. The same is true for offshore wind projects, and this is a market expected to reach $60B by 2024. "Have skills, should apply."
Running gas stations is not rocket science, but profitability is also not a given. So, it makes sense for Chevron to add EV charging to its gas stations, as long as they get the rate tariffs right so they do not drown in pricey demand charges.
#2. Clean energy investments can be a hedge against softer demand for oil and gas.
When Fitch Ratings talks about the growth in electric vehicles potentially creating an "investor death spiral," it's worth listening to their reasons.
#3. Renewable energy markets are not little runts to ignore anymore.
Bloomberg projects that over 70% of all new power capacity investment between now and 2050 is expected to be in solar and wind projects.
Their research further shows that clean energy sector investment has exceeded $300B globally for the last five years.
Finally, analysis suggests that the advanced energy economy (clean power, alternative transportation, energy-efficient buildings) now exceeds $1.4T, or twice the size of the global airline industry.
#4. Corporate sustainability reporting is becoming mainstream. "We are watching you."
At least 85% of Fortune 500 companies now engage in sustainability reporting.
Drivers of this trend include stakeholder demands, global trends towards greater transparency, peer pressure, and a realization that sustainability topics can be material to financial risk and return.
Samples of third-party sustainability reporting include the following:
CDP (formerly, Carbon Disclosure Project) — It covers disclosure by companies and cities regarding carbon, water, and supply chain impacts, and is backed by a "network of investors and purchasers, representing over $100 trillion."
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) — This is the oldest corporate sustainability reporting framework and is used by the majority of Fortune 500 companies.
SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) — This one provides investors with intel regarding a portfolio's exposure to specific sustainability risks and opportunities, and has over $26T of investor support, including former leadership by Michael Bloomberg.
Task Force for Climate Disclosure -- TFCD is focused on "climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies in providing information to investors, lenders, insurers, and other stakeholders," and is backed by the G20 Financial Stability Board.
What kinds of new energy investments are oil and gas majors making in the last two years?
I will only focus on the top four oil and gas majors in terms of their investments in and commitments to lower carbon energy. This includes Total, BP, Equinor, and Shell. (See graph below).
I am mostly listing investments by their VC arms, with some other infrastructure investments sprinkled in here and there.
Finally, I am not listing companies that are "kind of" related to clean energy, such as ride sharing or financial settlement technologies for the energy sector.
Total Energy Ventures
AutoGrid — $32M Series D — Big data analytics, distributed generation, energy storage, demand response (Jan. 2019)
Sunfire — $29M Series C — Hydrogen fuel cells (Jan. 2019)
Tado — $50M Late stage VC (6th round) — Energy efficiency, smart home (Oct. 2018)
MTPV — $18M Series C — Waste heat to energy (Sep. 2018)
Ionic Materials — $65M Series C — Energy storage (cobalt-free, solid state) (Feb. 2018)
United Wind — $8M Series B — Wind energy (small scale) (Jun. 2017)
BP Ventures (plus some larger corporate deals)
PowerShare — Series A (unknown amount) — EV charging (Feb. 2019)
C-capture — $4.9M Series A — Carbon capture (Dec. 2018)
FreeWire Technologies — $15M Series A — Energy storage, EV charging (Oct. 2018)
Voltaware — $3.3M Seed round — Energy monitoring, AI (Jun. 2018)
Chargemaster — $170M Buy out — EV charging (Jun. 2018) (link)
StoreDot — $20M Late state VC (5th round) — Energy storage, EV charging (May 2018)
Lightsource — $200M Private equity growth — Large-scale solar, independent power producer (Dec. 2018) (link)
Fulcrum BioEnergys — $51M Late state VC (7th round) — Waste to energy (Nov. 2017)
Lightning Systems — $8M Late state VC (6th round) — Electric vehicles (Oct. 2017)
Equinor Technology Ventures
Yellow Door Energy — $65M Private equity growth — Distributed solar (Jan. 2019)
Scatec Solar — $85M Secondary market transaction — Large-scale solar, independent power producer (Nov. 2018)
Guanizul 2A — $95M Buy out — Large-scale solar, operating plant in Argentina (Jun. 2018)
Fos4Xy — $9.6M Series B — Wind technology (Jun. 2018)
Shell Ventures (and some bigger Shell New Energies deals)
Innowatts — $18M Series B — Digital energy, smart meters, AI, machine learning (May 2019)
Aurora (Automotive) — $530M Series B — Autonomous vehicles, machine learning (Feb. 2019)
Makani — Undisclosed amount — Wind power, distributed energy (Feb. 2019) (link)
Sonnen — Acquisition — Home energy storage (Feb. 2019) (link)
Greenlots — Acquisition — Electric vehicle charging software (Jan. 2019) (link)
Sense — $20M Series B — Home energy efficiency, machine learning (Jan. 2019)
Ample — $31M Series A — Electric car charging (Aug. 2018)
Sonnen — $71M Late stage VC (5th round) — Home energy storage (May 2018)
Axiom Energy — $7.6M Series A — Thermal energy storage, Internet of Things (May 2018)
C3 IoT — $106M Series F — Big data analytics, Internet of Things, AI, machine learning (Jan. 2018)
Silicon Ranch — $217M for 44% stake — Solar project development and ownership (Jan. 2018) (link)
Husk Power Systems — $20M Late stage VC (5th round) — Biomass, solar, microgrids, energy storage (Jan. 2018)
SteamaCo — $3M Series A — Renewable energy, off grid (Dec. 2017)
SolarNow — $9M Series B — Residential solar, Africa (Dec. 2017)
NewMotion — Acquisition — Electric vehicle charging network, EU (Oct. 2017) (link)
Glasspoint Solar — $15M Series D — Solar thermal, industrial steam (Sep. 2017)
Innowatts — $6M Series A — Digital energy, smart meters, AI, machine learning (Aug. 2017)
Sunseap — Undisclosed amount in late stage VC (3rd round) — Solar, Africa (Aug. 2017)
How will investing in renewable energy be different than their historic energy investments?
If recent history is a good predictor (not always true), then low carbon investments are likely to be different than conventional energy investments in the following ways:
Lower risk and lower reward (i.e., from infrastructure investments)
Less commodity volatility (i.e., no oligarchies for sunshine or wind)
Fewer geopolitical risks (i.e., excluding debates around cobalt)
Better stakeholders relationships (e.g., environmental NGOs)
Better shareholders relationships (e.g., the energy sector, largely conventional energy, has produced the lowest annualized return over the last 10 years among all other S&P 500 sectors)
How does the increasing involvement of oil and gas majors create winners or losers in the clean energy sector?
The (potential) winners include:
Entrepreneurs who need growth capital or an exit from their venture
VC investors that also need an exit to deliver returns to their limited partners
The (potential) losers include:
Private equity and venture capital investors who need to place historic amounts of capital ($2 trillion), without a proportional increase in deal flow. Yet these financial investors can not compete for the best deals on a pure financial return basis. There are few ancillary benefits they derive from strategic benefits to other business lines.
Should you be bearish or bullish?
Bearish perspective:
Why these trends can be easily ignored
Return risk — If solar and wind projects have lower risk but lower returns, then investors can not make a 1:1 switch from one to the other. (Note: Conventional energy talks a "big return" game, but this version of history tells a different story.)
Policy risk — Renewable energy is too policy dependent. It is a roller coaster that will make some people want to yack. (Note: Lazard's annual Levelized Cost of Electricity report shows that unsubsidized renewable energy projects outcompete most other forms of electricity on cost. See page 2.)
Tech risk — Cleantech venture capital investments have too much risk. (Note: While these investments between, say, 2006 and 2011 were nasty, and most all VC and early stage technology investments are risky, keep in mind that early stage investments in clean energy made up less than 3% of 2018's $332B invested globally in these sectors.)
Risk premia — There is a supply vs. demand imbalance, with too much capital chasing solar and wind infrastructure. As such yields (IRRs) have fallen, while interest rates have risen. Where's the spread, the risk premium?
Uh, chump change — Oil and gas majors investing 1.3% of their 2018 budgets into low carbon solutions is only a drop in the bucket, a (bad) rounding error.
Bullish perspective:
Why investors and entrepreneurs should pay more attention
Not just a niche for "enviros" — The low carbon sector is now a large and fast-growing market, with over 70% of new power capacity investment projected to go to solar or wind between now and 2050, and over $1.4T in annual revenue for clean power, alternative transportation, green real estate, and related sectors. (By the way, I am one of those "enviros," trained in environmental science decades ago, so talking about trillion-dollar markets in this debate is a refreshing change of pace.)
Obvious reasons for greater involvement by conventional energy companies — Oil and gas majors are the world's foremost energy experts, based on aggregate years of experience and capital committed. And their skills are largely transferable. (By the way, the same is true for electric utilities.) Moreover, investing in clean energy provides benefits for branding and relationships with stakeholder and shareholders. Finally, these alternative investments provide a hedge against changing consumer preferences (e.g., "I want an EV that costs the same to buy, but also has 50% lower operating costs), regulatory shifts (e.g., current and future carbon markets), and economics (e.g., solar and wind are often the cheapest form new power). So their role in the low carbon economy makes a lot of sense. (Note: Cannibilizing your existing business may, for some strange reason, be viewed negatively by some investors.)
Big sand box — There is space for everyone to play, including oil and gas investors, impact investors, VC and private equity investors, and other strategic investors. For some fun math, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that $2.4T of investment is needed per year to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. But today the clean energy sector earns just over $300B per year. So, there is a lot of room for all parties to play nicely together. Actually, the real questions are these: "Where will all that money come from? And are we all doomed?"
In conclusion, here are some potential action items
I will describe these as the 3 "C''s, with questions for you to ask yourself, answer, and do something about over the next 30 days.
(Or just hide under them rug for a while. What could possibly go wrong?)
#1 - Canary
What do these trends mean in terms of "canaries in the coal mine" for your overall investments in the conventional power, oil, and gas sectors? (Pun intended.)
If a Shell executive refers to their "buying spree" in the low carbon sector like this -- "It's all about survival" — then how or why would your investment allocation to the conventional energy sector be different, and therefore, not face some new risks?
If McKinsey and Mining.com report that electric vehicles will likely reach cost parity with conventional vehicles in the early 2020's, and if Fitch Ratings talks about how this shift in transportation choices could cause an "investor death spiral," how might you view current or future investments in the oil sector?
#2 - Clock
Even if you agree that historic changes are coming to energy markets, the key question is this: When?
When do you (or sources you trust) think that these shifts in energy investments will actually affect your portfolio?
By way of analogy, at some point we may live on Mars, but now is likely not the right time to invest in Martian real estate. (Unless you're a billionaire who thinks that all hope is lost for long-term survival on this planet.)
#3 - Collaboration
There may be winners and losers, but it is not a zero sum game.
This discussion needs a reframe. Let's consider a newly created 21st century word: "Coopetition" — collaboration between competitors for mutually beneficial results.
For environmentally minded entrepreneurs, how can oil and gas majors be strategic partners, investors, and customers, instead of the enemy, a monolithic group to badmouth for all the world's problems, the 800-pound gorilla that must be defeated.
For VC or private equity investors, how can oil and gas major's investment decisions serve as an anchors to derisk your capital allocation alongside them? How can you build relationships with them for a future exit opportunities?
Finally, thank you...
A big shout out to Pitchbook, IPE Real Assets, Greenbiz, Preqin, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Advanced Energy Economy, Greentech Media, Reuters, CDP, RW Baird, Energy Storage News, Columbia University's Earth Institute, Oilprice.com, Bloomberg, Mining.com, McKinsey & Company, ThinkProgress, Wind Power Engineering, and Governance & Accountability Institute for their research and reporting on this topic.
4 Key Takeaways from a Recent Energy Investor Conference
By: Dr. Chris Wedding, Managing Partner
I recently spoke about investing in energy storage at the SuperReturn Energy investor conference in Boston. In this blog, I hope to pass along 4 of my top 100 takeaways.
(OK, slight exaggeration, but productive indeed.)
Unfortunately, I am unable to also magically transmit the decadent Legal Seafoods' lobster tails and sushi rolls from the sponsored dinner (#WeLoveLawFirms) or the conference bling (#MyKidsLoveGiftsFromWorkTravel).
1. Natural gas is misunderstood.
First, low commodity prices will not always mean low power prices. The costs of distribution of gas to the power plant, plus the transmission and distribution of the electricity it produces take place on an ancient grid. (That's a technical term. But Edison would recognize today's grid if he magically reappeared in his Florida laboratory.)
Recent research suggests that the average age for power lines is 28 years, while the U.S. DOE quotes studies by the Brattle Group (for the Edison Electric Institute) estimating about $2T in investment needs for the grid from 2010 to 2030 just to maintain the service reliability.
Second, natural gas is not a perfect "bridge" to a low carbon future.
On one hand, its emissions factor (pounds of CO2 per BTU emitted when burned) is roughly 43% lower than burning coal (whose butt it is kicking).
On the other hand, the operational emissions factor for natural gas is infinitely higher than solar or wind (#DivideByZero). Also, methane leaks during exploration and distribution likely counteract its lower greenhouse gas emissions (compared to coal, that is) when combusted at power plants. As you know, methane's greenhouse gas impact is at least 30x more potent than CO2.
Third, there are two giants in the natural gas ecosystem that see some writing on the wall, and I think they see lots of four-letter words there.
GE has laid off 12,000 workers in its power generation business, and now Siemens is considering selling off its natural gas turbine business, whose Q2 revenue was down to $114M from $438M in Q2 2017.
And with Bloomberg estimating 157 GW of renewables added vs. just 70 GW of conventional power in 2017, we can understand why they might be making those moves.
Having said all of that, I don't pretend to live in a world of rainbows and unicorns. Conventional energy will likely be part of the global mix for many decades to come. Even in a world where solar and wind power dominate, this analysis shows that natural gas will have a large, though diminishing role over time.
2. $1T of clean energy investment presents challenges for entrepreneurs and investors.
Most climate change scientists, policymakers, and private sector leaders project a need for $1T of low-carbon investment needed per year in companies and projects in order to keep global temperature increases below 2o C.
However, last year Bloomberg suggests that global clean energy investment stood at just $333B. By my math, that's 67% lower than the amount of capital we will need.
To get there, we need at least two things:
Investor interest
Good deal flow
As for investor interest, it is growing.
When I first began speaking at the SuperReturn investor conference series three years ago in Boston, London, and Berlin, I was often part of the 1%. (No, not that 1%. I am a pauper compared to my colleagues in attendance who manage billions in capital.)
What I mean is that I was often the only guy talking about the future opportunities and threats presented by the mainstreaming of energy storage and electric vehicles, or the continuation of investment opportunities in solar, despite the challenges of (and false conflation with) the cleantech VC missteps of the late 2000's.
Today, many more investment professionals -- with decades on Wall Street instead of roots in the jungles of the Central American rainforest -- are making big investment commitments to renewables, exploring new deals in energy storage, or analyzing the threats that EVs pose to mid- and long-term oil prices.
[You can read more here about the mainstreaming of renewable energy investing in my feature piece for Preqin, a global leading for market intelligence for private capital markets.]
In contrast to this growing interest, investors worry about yield compression.
With lots of capital chasing a disproportionately smaller number of good deals at scale, and with risks being hammered out of renewable energy infrastructure, IRRs have gone down.
[Note: Although IRRs are a helpful underwriting metric, many investors prefer to look at the "multiple of invested capital," or total cash out vs. total cash invested.]
When I first began investing in solar power projects, we underwrote to private equity returns north of 20%. Today investors in operating projects might get 6-9%, while those investing in development plus operation and/or platform plays (investing in the development company, too) are targeting "mid-teens" returns.
To clarify, these are leveraged returns.
And when most oil and gas investors hear this, they laugh a little on the inside when comparing these numbers to their target returns from 20-30%. But this is apples-to-orange, due to risk. Renewable energy infrastructure returns are based on [15-25]-year contracted cash flows, while oil and gas investments often depend on far riskier exploration and development, plus volatile global commodity markets.
As for deal flow, scale and quality are the two constraints.
Regarding the scale of these markets, things are getting better. For example, annual U.S. solar project installations are up roughly 50% versus just two years ago, and by 2023 total installed U.S. solar capacity is expected to increase by more than 2x.
But we still need more entrepreneurs to build more projects and companies worthy of investors' capital. (A tantalizing call to action, for sure.)
Regarding quality, over the years, we've vetted 100s of MWs of solar projects. But very few have passed review and made it to investment committees. Again, things are getting better. Developers and entrepreneurs are learning from past mistakes (e.g., using venture capital, the most expensive capital on earth, to built factories to make s*#t).
For more about what it takes to increase a company's chances of raising capital, we've written a few primers, structured in numbered lists, with attempts at humor included.
Checklist: Are You Ready to Raise Investment Capital?
How to Kiss Frogs: (aka) Tips for Bringing in the Right Investor
11 Ways to Ruin an Investor Meeting: What NOT to Do
3. We overestimate the impact of new tech in the short-term, and underestimate its impacts in long-term.
This quote from Bill Gates highlights a comment from an investor panelist: In the current energy transition, trillions of dollars will be created and destroyed.
Another investor put is this way: If you have no strategy on the growing role of clean energy, then you're leaving value on the table.
For my panel on energy storage investments, the topic on most investors' minds was this: "Is energy storage a real market today?"
Opinions varied. But here is the right one: Heck ya, it's real today. But it's not real everywhere...yet. Hence the confusion.
There are hundreds of millions of investment already committed to or invested in batteries each year at the utility, commercial and industrial, and residential level, including projects involving our clients.
Consider these stats from Greentech Media:
21 U.S. states have 20+ MW of energy storage projects proposed, in construction or deployed.
10 U.S. states have pipelines greater than 100 MW.
Leading state markets include California, Hawaii, Texas, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts.
To be sure, the bulk of energy storage investments have yet to come. Bloomberg estimates $100B invested by 2030. For a great graph of billions of dollars projected to be invested, check out the black bar graph here.
But even today, giants like NextEra estimate that no new gas peaker plants will be built post-2020 due to the falling price and increasing performance of large-scale battery storage.
[For more about energy storage investing, you can read our research here -- Financing Energy Storage: A Cheat Sheet.]
Despite early indications of massive growth for new clean energy solutions like storage or EVs, most people see them as a long-term thing. Not a material consideration for today's portfolio.
However, this graph from NYT / HBR shows that often new technologies are being adopted on increasingly quick timelines, following S-curves with step change growth, not incremental linear progress.
Of course, when comparing EV adoption to smartphone adoption, investors at the conference pointed out that there is a massive difference in the CapEx among these items; hence much slower adoption is possible.
But if any fraction of Tony Seba's projections in his ReThinkX report on the future of transportation are correct (the question may be "when, not if"), then we could be talking about switching from a CapEx discussion to an OpEx discussion, thereby making the mass transition from ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles to EVs much quicker.
According to one investor panelist, this research estimates that most Americans spend about $10,000 per year on their cars, while ReThinkX projects that autonomous shared EVs could reduce personal travel costs by 90% while also delivering convenience, too. (Ah...to relax and work while going to the airport in a Lyft, instead of navigating traffic and crowded parking garages in my own vehicle.)
Building on that theme, while at the event, I received an update from Bloomberg on their EV projections for 2040: 55% of new sales and 33% of global fleet. (#ThatAintNoNiche)
[Quick aside: Some panelists laughed at the idea that EVs meant clean energy. True, it depends on the grid mix of high vs. low carbon energy sources. But this calculator from U.S. DOE shows that EV CO2 emissions are roughly 50% less than gasoline-powered cars based on average in the U.S. The calculator lets you see differences by state location, too.]
Panelists also noted that major adoption of EVs in the U.S. could lead to 2x growth in utility power output, even describing this monumental revenue-generating opportunity as a "w*t dream" for utilities.
(And, yes, the room was mostly full of men. I apologize. Just the messenger...)
In a time when Moody's just gave the utility sector a negative outlook for the first time in history, maybe Elon Musk is right: The electrification of transportation could be a much needed savior for the challenged power sector.
Considering that the average capacity factor for U.S power plants is roughly 40%, the utility sector has lots of excess capacity in sunk costs to harness with 100+ EV models coming online by 2020.
[Background: Most grids tend to overbuild capacity in order to manage peak loads, thereby underutilizing power plants and perhaps wasting CapEx for perhaps 90%+ of the hours in a year.]
On a related note, solar plus storage has until recently been an enticing topic for discussions at conferences, or fun projects for my graduate students. But this, too, is changing quickly.
Today almost all renewable energy RFPs from utilities in deregulated markets require the inclusion of energy storage capacity.
And suprisingly, the bids are coming in at very low prices. As an example, Xcel Energy's recent process resulted in 10+GW of bids for solar plus storage at 3.6 c/kWh and wind plus storage at 1.8 c/kWh, which are both new record low prices.
Finally, investors often feel limited in their consideration of long-term trends and multi-decade infrastructure assets due to the [8-10]-year life of most private equity funds.
In response, panelists came out in two camps:
New fund model -- More funds are experimenting with "evergreen" structures, wherein the investors seek long-term yields and capital appreciation, without forcing arbitrary asset sales within the typical limited-life funds. However, finding these is a bit like seeing an albino deer, which ironically happens to live in forests near my house. (Does that mean I should go raise an evergreen fund?)
The next buyer's terminal values -- It is helpful to think about the secondary or tertiary investor considerations. When a GP sells a long-life clean energy asset, the buyer is thinking about their cash flows during the hold period and the terminal value from running a discounted cash flow analysis in the out years. If you stack the cash flow and terminal values for 2-3 investors, you get pretty close to the full lifecycle of some renewable energy projects.
4. Definitions of ESG and sustainable energy vary widely.
Despite the concern that ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) or sustainable investing is for hippies who love to earn below market financial returns, many investment giants would disagree. Below are samples of their thinking:
Sustainable investing: more than doing good (BlackRock)
The ESG Investing Enlightenment: How Principle and Pragmatism Can Create
Sustainable Value through ESG (State Street)
Sustainable Signals: More Asset Owners Embrace Sustainability (Morgan Stanley)
ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies (Deutsche Bank)
Scaling mission-driven companies (Bain Capital)
KKR launches unit focused on impact investing (KKR)
Yet still there is confusion about what the terms mean.
Some panelists said their investments in oil and gas have been doing ESG for many years. Now they just needed to add social sustainability goals.
However, they were equating ESG with HSE -- Health Safety, and Environment. While there is overlap, and both are important, there is at least one key difference:
HSE is mostly about legal compliance (e.g., not hurting or killing workers). It is often about today's known risks.
ESG is about elective goals that go above what regulations require (e.g., carbon reduction goals). It is often about tomorrow's less certain risks.
Furthermore, some conventional energy asset managers, intending to do better in ESG, described their greenhouse gas footprinting efforts, and believe that that their conventional energy holdings are low carbon.
Some said the CO2 impacts of oil and gas investments were very low impact because exploring, drilling, and transporting via pipelines constituted a very small amount of the sector's air pollution.
This is true relative to the combustion of those resources. However, companies are increasingly being expected to consider and account for broader life cycle impacts of their investments, inside and outside of their direct corporate control.
In this new world order, a new analogy may apply: Making guns, but not accepting some accountability for gun deaths, could be a dead argument.
(Yep, pun and controversy intended.)
For more short (and sweet?) commentary on clean energy finance, along with tips on productivity, life hacks, and trivia for your next dinner party, check out our (mostly) weekly newsletter -- 2 Bullet Tuesdays.
It's a quick 4-minute read, with bullets and short paragraphs, plus links for you to learn more if you somehow have more than 24 hours in a day.
Photo by Jesse Collins on Unsplash
Who Will Win the Energy Storage Race? Lithium vs. Everyone Else
It's easy to assume that the energy storage market is plagued with technology risks.
With over 70 battery chemistries being tested or deployed, it is no surprise that many financiers worry about backing the wrong horse and earning a "goose egg."
However, as the Transformers comic series so wisely noted years ago, this is another situation where there is "more than meets the eye."
(Get your nerd on, and read more at the Transformers Wiki. Yep, it's a real thing.)
In this post, I will call out 7 factors that are projected to make lithium-ion batteries the top energy storage technology through at least 2025.
1. Lithium — Not One, But Many
This dominant type of battery is a leader in part because it is not defined by just one type of chemistry. So, the math is not quite fair.
Many of these versions of lithium-ion batteries actually compete amongst themselves.
Lithium-ion batteries include varieties with cobalt oxide, manganese oxide, iron phosphate, nickel manganese cobalt oxide, nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, and titanate (titanium oxide).
Use cases for this smorgasbord of lithium-ion options cover areas of great interest to us at IronOak Energy Capital — such as grid services, demand charge reduction, and EV uses — as well as non-power sector applications such as medical devices and power tools.
For more, here's a good summary from Investing News.
2. Experience with the Technology
Lithium-ion is about as innovative as a middle-aged person.
(That was meant to terrify all Millennial readers.)
With roots in the 1970's, lithium has gone from science labs and discussions of the distant future to billions of dollars of investment and global dominance.
In terms of actual energy storage installations, lithium-ion batteries increased their market share considerably: 29% (2012), 40% (2013), 46% (2014), 71% (2015), and 93% (2016) of all batteries installed globally. (Source: IHS and Navigant)
The numbers are even higher today. In the U.S., lithium-ion batteries led all energy storage installations for the tenth straight quarter, including a roughly 97% market share in Q1 this year. (Source: GTM)
The next biggest player was vanadium flow batteries with 3% market share.
Source: GTM Research
With each additional quarter of lithium's leadership, the whole host of market players becomes more comfortable with the technology, from regulators and developers to investors and suppliers.
Furthermore, costs for lithium batteries have fallen 50-70% since 2010 and are expected to fall another 25-50% by 2020. (Sources: Lazard, Moody's, Tesla)
In addition, each year their performance continues to increase.
As such, competitors to lithium face a moving target, one where the bar is constantly rising.
3. Scale of Invested Capital: Divided and Conquered
With dozens of lithium-ion competitors trying to win over technology investors, they each receive less capital than they need to scale quickly.
Lux Research notes that "beyond lithium" battery companies raise an average of $40M over 8 years.
Compare this to the $5B invested in Tesla's Nevada Gigafactory. Or the three additional gigafactories they announced in February of this year.
In addition, this trend is happening outside of Tesla's magnetic media coverage.
Experts suggest Tesla's factory is only 1 of 12 such factories around the world.
In Asia, Amperex Technology, Panasonic, LG Chem, and Boston Power are all planning new lithium factories in China. And Samsung and BYD plan to expand their existing plants.
And in Europe, Daimler announced in May this year its own big ole' lithium-ion battery plant. But it will only cost about $500M. (Yep, sarcasm.)
4. Size of Balance Sheets
Startups are known for innovation, being nimble, and disrupting 800-pound gorillas. While exciting, those are also correlated with company-level risk and balance sheets that leave something to be desired.
So, if you are the developer and investor in a large stationary battery installation serving the power grid, or the global manufacturer of thousands of electric vehicles, do you choose an innovative startup or an 800-pound gorilla to supply your batteries?
Yep, you guessed it. Big and boring wins the day when it comes to scale. As an imperfect proxy, think of large market capitalizations — Samsung ($254B), Panasonic ($26B), LG Chem ($18B), or Tesla ($57B).
As they say, "You won't get fired for hiring McKinsey."
It reminds me of another grim expression: "I want just one throat to choke." If something goes wrong with those batteries years down the line, you want to be able to … well, you get the idea.
5. Expert Analyst Projections
With its considerable inertia, the lithium-ion battery market is expected to continue leading the battery market through at least the next decade.
Projections vary, but here are a few to digest:
Lithium market to grow 1.5x between now and 2020 (Source: Albermarle)
Lithium used for stationary energy storage to grow 3x by 2020 (Source: Lux)
Lithium-ion battery market to grow 3.2x between now and 2025 (Source: Market Watch)
It's worth noting that some lithium competitors may have stronger Compound Annual Growth Rates than these projections imply. However, they are starting from a much smaller base so percentages can be deceiving.
6. U.S. Government Projections
When countries don't have what they need, they look for alternatives. (Or go to war. But let's stay positive.)
In terms of known global lithium reserves, the U.S. has roughly 0.3%.
That's not so great when projections suggest $1.4T of U.S. infrastructure could be underutilized over the next 15 years without feasible energy storage solutions.
It can also be a limiting factor when electric vehicles hold the keys (yep, bad pun) to managing grid stability as renewable energy penetration grows. As an example, consider that California, the sixth largest economy in the world, is eyeing a new 100% renewables target by 2045.
Accordingly, U.S. national laboratories are on the hunt for lithium alternatives. The most notable initiative is Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), an innovation hub based at Argonne National Laboratory.
So, what is their latest conclusion after considering dozens of next generation battery technologies?
Well, one of the two is still based on lithium — that is, lithium-sulfur batteries, which are lighter and have greater energy density than today's lithium-ion versions.
7. Will Lithium Popularity be Its Demise?
You have undoubtedly seen articles suggesting that lithium is a rare metal whose availability will be entirely consumed by Tesla's Gigafactory.
OK, now forget all of that.
Let's talk about the difference between lithium reserves vs. resources.
Reserves = what is extractable given economic feasibility today
Resources = locations where lithium might be extracted in the future at higher market prices
Quiz time: Fill in the blank.
_________ stand at roughly 14 million tons.
_________ are estimated at 40 million tons.
So, which is reserves and which is resources?
Duh, right? Resources refers to the lower, much higher number. Reserves applies to the upper, lower number.
Moreover, the volume of resources should continue to climb higher as projected future demand for lithium entices companies to invest more in exploration.
Now consider some wild numbers from Mr. Musk: The world could be powered 100% by clean energy if we had the storage capacity output form 100 gigafactories.
If true, and if you assume that the full volume of resources is static, then experts suggest we would still have enough for 50 years of lithium supply.
All in all, no one can predict the future.
But it's nice when many prognosticators are saying similar things: Lithium batteries make up 97% of new installs in the U.S. (and similar dominance globally). In addition, the seven factors above suggest that its market appeal is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
That said, lithium-ion batteries are not perfect.
For example, their maximum duration is four hours of storage.
Yet experts suggest that in the years ahead power markets will demand longer duration batteries that allow for over four hours of capacity. Some even call for seasonal storage — think multi-month capacity.
And lithium batteries are also not perfectly scalable. So, a 5x increase in size may not mean a 5x increase in power, as would be the case for a flow battery.
But keep in mind that the perfect is the enemy of the good when it comes to controlling market share.
A Confusing Debate: Electric Vehicle Growth Projections
Ah, to have a crystal ball and see this future play out.
Or better yet, to be a character in the movie Back to the Future. Also about futuristic cars, I might add.
(If you don't know what I'm talking about, go ask a super "old person," like a 41-year-old. Oh how my kiddos define "old.")
Maybe you care about future growth estimates for electric vehicles (EVs) because you stand to win…
For example, EV manufacturers, utilities that can better monetize sunk costs in power generation assets during off-peak hours, battery makers, NGOs working to protect human health, or lithium and other precious metal supply chains.
Or maybe you care because you're industry stands to lose, at least initially…
For example, major car manufacturers, government leaders concerned about falling revenues linked to gasoline taxes, utilities unable to manage peak power challenges, or...um...the oil industry.
Whatever the motivation, one thing is for sure…
There is no agreement on how, when, or if EVs will come to dominate the transportation sector.
And importantly, the same metric used for these EV projections is often not the same.
It could be "percentage of new sales" or "percentage of total vehicles on the road."
Even trickier is the fact that calculations from various sources do not use the same year for the end state.
Some use 2030, others 2040, and...well...you get the idea. It's almost intentionally confusing so as to prevent an apples-to-apples comparisons among different EV projections.
So, here are five things to keep in mind regarding the "all over the map" nature of future EV growth.
1. Calculations for EV expansion continue to be revised upward (more favorably)
No one is perfect, and all estimates of future EV growth are wrong.
As such, credible sources for these data frequently offer updated projections.
Consider the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Almost everyone considers this to be an authoritative source on energy trends, though many agree they have been conservative when envisioning (or being blind to) renewable energy's rapid recent growth. (See explanation from David Roberts at Vox.)
The US EIA's vision for EV sales three months ago is 2x higher than one year ago, and 10x higher than its estimates from ten years ago.
2. Estimates for EV penetration by 2020 vary by 11x, depending on the source
Consider the range of EV adoption from these trusted sources:
1% - US EIA
3% - Deloitte
5% - Boston Consulting Group
7% - CIMB
7% - Roland Berger
10% - PwC
11% - Deutsche Bank
It's also worth stating the obvious: The disruptive nature of EVs is significant enough that non-transportation management consultancies and big banks like PwC, Deutsche Bank, Deloitte, and BCG are spending time making forecasts to win new business in the sector.
#NotaTinyNiche
(Yep, Millennial readers, I'm so hip that I just dropped a hashtag.)
3. Non-proponents of EV (Fitch Ratings, big oil executives) are taking notice of its potentially significant impacts
It's not uncommon to hear the term "death spiral" in reference to utilities who face increasingly tough competition when electricity from solar plus storage becomes cheaper than grid power.
But those statements, sometimes deemed hyperbolic, tend to come from renewable energy proponents. Biased, one might say.
This time, it is instead coming from Fitch Ratings, one of the big three credit ratings agencies.
Bloomberg summarizes below the takeaway from Fitch's October 2016 report, Disruptive Technology: Batteries:
"Batteries have the potential to 'tip the oil market from growth to contraction earlier than anticipated,' according to Fitch. 'The narrative of oil's decline is well rehearsed -- and if it starts to play out there is a risk that capital will act long before" and in the worst case result in an 'investor death spiral.'" (link)
And despite very conservative EV projections from BP and OPEC (see below), many oil executives are aware of EV's impacts on the sector, and are, in part, noting a decline in oil demand starting in the late 2020s or early 2030s.
But note: Though there are still critics who believe the coming EV tidal wave is totally overblown. Here is a good counterpoint from the Financial Times.
For a deeper dive into how oil and gas majors are increasing their investment in renewable energy, check out our other article: "Oil and gas companies' and renewable energy: Passing fad or major trend?"
Also, check out this graph that represents the 120 EV car models coming to market by 2020. All of these car manufacturers bets on EV can't be wrong, right? (Tongue twister, I know.)
4. EV market share by 2040 varies by 13x, depending on the source
As you can guess, the potential for errors increases as the length of time in the projection increases.
So, how do projections for EV penetrations vary for 20 years in the future?
6% of vehicles not powered by gasoline or diesel, by 2040 - Source: OPEC (link)
6% EV penetration, by 2035 - Source: BP (link)
8% EV penetration, by 2035 - Source: BHP Billiton (link)
35% EV penetration, by 2035 - Source: Carbon Tracker (link)
40-80% EV penetration, by 2040 - Source: On Climate Change Policy (link)
And how about projections for EVs as a percentage of all new car sales?
15-30% of global vehicle sales, by 2030 - Source: Total (link)
35% of global vehicle sales, by 2040 - Source: Bloomberg (link)
12-85% of U.S. vehicle sales, by 2030 - Source: Wood Mackenzie (link)
65-90% of global vehicle sales, by 2040 - Source: On Climate Change Policy (link)
Are you confused yet?
Yep, me, too.
But that can be the sign of a sector that presents opportunities for above-market returns.
5. Adoption of new technologies has historically happened quicker than common sense would suggest
Consider the microwave, dishwasher, cell phones, refrigerator, internet, VCRs, or computers. They are not perfect comparables to a vehicle, but suspend disbelief for just a second.
These technologies often went from zero to 80%+ market penetration within about 25 years after their initial 1% market adoption (i.e., roughly where EVs are today). This graph shows these trends well.
Here are some assumptions you could use to create your own simple spreadsheet:
Annual growth rate for EVs: 40-70% p.a. in recent years (link)
Annual growth rate for EVs between no and 2035: 25% p.a. (link)
Annual growth rate for for light duty vehicles globally through 2035: 3.5% p.a. (link)
EVs on the road today: 2 million (link)
Cars on the road globally, 2015 vs. 2040: 1.1 billion to 2.0 billion (link)
Potential results:
40-80% EV market penetration (that's stock, not flow)
Assumes higher year-over-year growth rates in the near term (e.g., 40-60%), and lower growth rates as the EV ownership base becomes material (e.g., 10-20%)
When it comes to predicting the future role of EVs in the transportation or energy sector, no one is right.
However, it's a little bit like deer hunting with a bazooka.
(Bear with me...I'm born and raised in the South.)
It doesn't require the precision of a bow and arrow, so odds are you're going to be putting some free range meat in your freezer after that trip to the great outdoors.
Translation: Abundant opportunities exist for entrepreneurs, large corporates, and investors in the EV market in the short and long term.
As the Chairman of Bloomberg New Energy Finance noted recently, with 100+ EV models on the road within three years, EVs will make internal combustion vehicles look old fashioned.
How Investors (Should) Think about the Electric Vehicle Sector
It is easy to relegate a discussion about electric vehicles to Tesla toys for the affluent.
But that would not be the whole truth.
As an illustration, I recently served on the Advisory Board for Vulcan in its Smart City Challenge partnership with the U.S. Department of Transportation, which jointly awarded US$50M to a single U.S. city to support transportation innovation, including electrification.
In all, 78 cities competed. The enthusiastic response, impressive potential for scale, and wide-ranging innovation were a pleasant surprise.
Although there are only about two million electric vehicles on the road globally today, that estimate is expected to grow to roughly 100x if the Paris Climate Accord has its targeted impact (International Energy Agency, 2016).
Electric Vehicle Projections, 2010-2030
(Source: International Energy Agency, 2016)
Although these vehicles are often deemed to be "too expensive," many electric vehicles actually offer a lower total cost of ownership than conventional vehicles when assess over their entire lifecycle.
Moreover, by 2022, the average first cost of electric vehicles is projected to be the same as the average first cost for conventional cars.
With cost concerns removed, plus the other benefits of less noise, no gasoline smell, fewer moving parts, and the "cool factor," this market is expected to grow quickly from this point forward (BNEF, 2016).
In fact, the growth of electric vehicles is expected to be so meaningful that Fitch Ratings recently stated that the sector's rise presents potential for "investor death spiral" negatively impacting the oil sector (Financial Times, 2016).
And at the Oil & Money Conference last month, Statoil's CEO noted that electric vehicles could catalyze oil's peak sales within five years, with a steady decline thereafter (Climate Home, 2016).
Considerations for infrastructure investors:
Today vs. tomorrow — Most capital flowing into this sector is relegated to angel and venture capital investments, which have seen investments across the entire transportation sector increase by 200 percent since 2010 (i3, 2016). Accordingly, large asset finance opportunities are limited for now, but early investors may be rewarded with larger share of the electric vehicle market in the years ahead.
Chicken vs. egg — Larger investment opportunities may be possible by answering the "which comes first debate" — more vehicles or more charging stations — and investing in both at the same time within the same boundary (e.g., campus, headquarters, town).
Opportunity to rebuild the global gasoline station network? — This grandiose investment potential is unlikely to be realized in its entirety due to increasing battery ranges and the expanded vehicle charging at homes or work locations. Consider that recent surveys suggest new car battery ranges can meet 98 percent of typical driving needs before recharging (Carbon Brief, 2016). However, it is fair to say that private capital will be needed to fund some fraction of this new public charging infrastructure. And as the saying goes, "A small percentage of a large number is also a large number."
Third-party ownership of the vehicle batteries — This could provide two benefits. First, the barrier of higher first costs would be removed, thereby facilitating more rapid market uptake of electric vehicles. Second, batteries could be treated as assets to the broader grid, which could result in additional revenue streams from utilities (e.g., frequency regulation) and building owners (e.g., resilience during power outages).
V2G Revisited: Big Mistake or Huge Opportunity?
The Chief Technology Officer of Tesla, J.B. Straubel, stated recently that it doesn't make sense for electric vehicles to send electricity back to the grid.
In the same remarks, he also noted the following:
reuse of old EV batteries (so called "second-life batteries") is not economical either (implying that the best thing to do with them at the end of their life is to send them to the recycling bin)
dynamic, time-based charging of EVs does make sense, and thus will be coming
What the CTO is criticizing — vehicle-to-grid or V2G -- is essentially distributed energy storage on wheels.
The function It takes advantage of unused EV battery storage capacity to allow for power sales back to the grid, either by draining some power when the vehicles are not in use or reducing the vehicle charging rates.
At a basic level, V2G has three requirements:
charging station electronics that allow for bidirectional power flows between car and grid
real time communication between the grid operator and vehicle owners
precise metering software
Vehicle-to-Grid Schematic
Source: Jim Motavalli, The Azimuth Project
The EV technology and services company AC Propulsion, a V2G proponent, outlines the potential benefits of V2G as related to grid services: peak power sales, spinning reserves, base load power, peak power (either as a form of direct load control or to reduce demand charges), and reactive power.
In turn, the EV owners get paid for the energy services provided. But aren't all of these benefits just the same as those for storage, but in EV form?
The figure above seems very similar to one that would be drawn for fixed batteries.
The challenges of V2GSeveral hurdles would have to be crossed in the current market and policy environment for V2G to be commercially viable.
Among the not-so-attractive characteristics of V2G:
Additional wear and faster degradation of the EV battery due to more frequent charging and discharging. Whether the car owner could be fully compensated for this -- both for the loss of vehicle value as well as the inconvenience of having to replace it more quickly -- is yet to be determined. Such compensation to the EV owner would have to be in addition to that received for power sales.
Additional cost of interconnection at the charging site. According to the Tesla CTO, current regulations would treat power downloaded from an EV the same as that coming from a solar system, and the implications could get complicated.
Finally, unverified availability of EV power. V2G enthusiasts point to a data point often, that most vehicles are parked 23 out of 24 hours of the day. This seems to allow for 23 hours of potential charging and discharging time available to the grid. But what happens when all of these vehicles are unplugged from the charging stations, being driven home during a rush hour commute -- a time that happens to coincide with peak late afternoon electricity demands?
V2G Lite -- Commercial Fleet Applications
The first of those challenges above could potentially be met with a market-derived refund incentive, though it is unclear how many EV owners would be willing to own a car with a shorter lifespan in exchange.
Alternatively, EV battery manufacturers could design future batteries for more frequent power cycling, but that would require a major and disruptive shift from the current design parameters that do not take V2G into account.
The second challenge would seem to be one of public policy, and conceivably overcome if stakeholders from the EV space were united in pushing for V2G (which they're not).
The third challenge might be addressed with commercial EV fleets. In this "V2G Lite" scenario, a fleet owner -- who with the help of data analytics has a good sense of the driving patterns of the fleet -- would be able to sign a power supply contract with a utility that guarantees a certain amount of EV battery capacity at different times during the day.
Fleet contracts could be bundled, so risk is spread and utilities only have to deal with a few intermediaries when relying on this stored power source.
Even if a fleet was designed to spend most of the day on the road and most of the night charging, there could still be some battery capacity free at certain times, available to be used by (and sold to) the grid.
Along these lines, Nissan is notably optimistic about V2G's horizons, and has been so since last spring when it announced cooperation on V2G efforts with Endesa, a subsidiary of the Italian energy multinational Enel.
Now the automaker is working with Enel and the Californian V2G services provider Nuvve to install a commercial V2G hub in Copenhagen, Denmark. The 100 kW project is admittedly small, with 10 Enel 10 kW V2G charging units paired with 10 Nissan EV vans and a Nuvve platform to coordinate when idle vehicles can send energy back to the national grid on demand.
V2G Strong -- V2G for Everyone? Or, what might be good for the public isn't necessarily good for Tesla
A group of EV researchers at the University of Delaware is at the leading edge of EV research and those advocating for full V2G penetration.
In one study the numbers and justification for a full V2G push are impressive: if we put 20 million light duty V2G EVs on the road (just 10% of the current total U.S. fleet), and conservatively assume a peak power rating of 50 Kw for the cars, we could have a combined power capacity equivalent to the entire U.S. Electric grid.
Paired with renewables, the V2G EV fleet would bring game-changing results for CO2 emissions and other transportation sector pollution.
The EV future is being built now, with new cars, new charging stations, and new rules and practices.
As this new EV built environment grows and develops, integrating V2G capabilities may just add an additional layer of complexity to the overall project, without a certain return.
But if we were to make a major push for V2G capabilities to be integrated at the ground level, the benefits for society and the planet could be large.
The Delta Dilemma: EV Cost Savings Miss the Point
(Source: RMI Electric Vehicles as Distributed Energy Resources)
Where are you, rational car buyers?
The myth of the rational economic man lurks around the issue of electric vehicles (EVs).
See, rationality is something to which many learned folks aspire, but it turns out to be a mirage. Yes, we stumble towards it in a thirsty stupor, dreaming of drinking up its cool, clean sensibility. But, we never get there. It always remains a misty illusion just out of reach.
The rationality dilemma with EVs is pretty simple. Let's make it clear -- EV purchasers are no more rational than EV skeptics. EV purchasers will look at the graph above, and say -- ha! -- I am saving money on a per mile basis compared to all of your fools with internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. They are not wrong, but neither are they entirely right.
EV skeptics will look at the graph above and say -- ha! -- you are being duped into assuming this is an apples-to-apples comparison. Again, they are right, but that is not the whole picture, either.
Why you are going to lose the "EVs are cheaper over the long haul" debateIt boils down to this.
Yes, electricity is a great source of energy, and it is cheaper on a per mile basis than gasoline (even the highly subsidized gasoline that we enjoy, and abuse, in the US).
But electricity is electrons, difficult to contain, eager to be used immediately. Gas is a portable, energy dense liquid fuel that affords the owner of this magical worker unsurpassed flexibility in how and when to use it. Ironically, in certain places electricity and gas are made of the same stuff -- oil. I am looking at you, Curacao and Gibraltar, where 100% of electricity is generated from oil!
So the real calculation about EVs is more complex because the services that you gain from gas and electricity are not interchangeable.
What value do you place on your American right to cruise the highways to your heart's delight? If the answer is high, then the comparatively lower cost of an EV-mile is meaningless. Your peace of mind in hitting the road without a worry in the world as to how your next mile will be fueled is, in economic terms, infinite. It trumps all other concerns. The term of art for this is "range anxiety."
What value do you place on cheap, clean transportation within a relatively small driving radius? If the answer is high, then the EV vs. ICE cost comparison is how your explain to your beloved significant other why you just purchased a car that cannot comfortably drive the family to visit your in-laws. Oh, and by the way, the sticker price was a little steeper than that conventional car you had agreed to purchase.
But really, the EV question is even more complicated than that
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other factors -- your comfort with rapidly improving battery technology, your assumption that EV charger networks will continue to expand, your belief that manufacturers will not bail on EVs in the future, etc. -- that ultimately weigh heavily on any rational calculation justifying or dismissing the idea of purchasing an EV.
Dilemmas breed a "let's wait and see" attitude, how boring
Which brings me to the last point. I grant you permission to purchase (or lease) an EV (or PHEV if just want to dip your toes). Don't feel like you have to explain yourself to your neighbors (though this tactic will not work with your significant other).
After all, why did they buy that Honda Odyssey? Was it on a purely rational, benefit-cost maximizing basis? No, they wanted something comfortable and reliable for the family, period.
They just wanted it, just like you just want an EV. And let's be real, you want it because it is cool, wave-of-the-future technology. Because it allows you to avoid ever patronizing another neerdowell, franchised Exxonmobil (or BP, or Shell, or fill-in-the-blank) gas station. Or maybe you just like getting all the best EV charger parking spots.
It doesn't matter - embrace the irrationality. Be an early(ish) adopter. Get onboard, because EVs are where we are headed, like it or not. Queue EV hockey stick graph.
2 graphs - Electric vehicles (EVs): Annual growth rate & who's winning
Most investors we talk to are not investing in electric vehicles for a few reasons:
The market is too small
The competitive landscape is unclear
It's mostly a game for venture capital or corporate balance sheets, not third-party equity and debt
They're too busy investing in solar and wind projects
In this and our future market insight pieces, we'll address these concerns.
Yep, the EV market is tiny, but it will be mainstream in just a few years.
The time to get smart on EVs and take action is now.
The data below is from the good folks at Deutsche Bank.
Note a 3x growth by 2020 and 5x growth by 2025.
Who's winning the EV race?
1. Duh, it's Tesla.
2. What? Tesla is not the only EV in the world?
3. The competition is global. Many investors have never heard of some leading EV car lines.
Again, great stuff from the environmental NGO....uh...I mean, global investment giant Deutsche Bank. Kudos.
EVs and the Hockey Stick
(Source: IEA)
The International Energy Agency must love the Stanley Cup Playoffs because their recently published Global EV Outlook was full of hockey sticks!
The hockey stick graph, you may recall, was popularized as a key piece of evidence supporting the existence of climate change. Rest assured, there will be no debate of climate change here. I am a deep believer in the appropriate use of sports metaphors to describe complex phenomena. The greenhouse gas emissions hockey stick graph tells about as simple a story as can be told about climate change.
The hockey stick is a pithy way of showing how a creeping linear trend jumps into an exponential growth (or decay) phase. Our minds are wary of things that change exponentially. They are just not normal. That is because from one time period to the next, your worldview, let's call it your umwelt, is dramatically different. Yet, as history shows, this Law of Accelerating Returns holds to key to understanding technological progress over the course of history.
We see hockey sticks everywhere now. Some, we should get excited about like renewable energy deployment. Others, we might be wary of like the growth of the economy. Some indicate a phase shift, as in the case of the transition to renewable energy. Others might indicate a boom-and-bust cycle, with exponential growth followed by precipitous declines. The trick is understanding the underlying drivers of change.
So, about EVs. Not long ago, EVs were very rare, too expensive, and only the most ostentatious environmentalist among your friends was even considering buying one. Skip ahead five years, and all of sudden, your umwelt has changed. The Law of Accelerating Returns has been hard at work. Now, you are starting to see EVs everywhere you look, EV charging stations are taking up the best parking spots, and your neighbor down the street likes to park their EV in the driveway to show it off while it charges. And this is just the beginning.
What changed? Well, largely it was a story of rapid technological innovation leading to dramatic cost reductions. The most important of these is with the battery, of course. As batteries make up around ⅓ of the cost of an EV, the increases in energy density coupled with the reduction in battery cost have started to bring EV costs down from the stratosphere. And not to dismiss, also helped alleviate the all-important "range anxiety." We Americans do have a pastime of hitting the open (or congested) road without a worry until the next gas station. If battery technology continues its march of progress, look out for the Law of Accelerating Returns to come into full force in the EV sector.
sign up for ironoak's Newsletter
Sent about twice per month, these 3-minute digests include bullets on:
Renewable energy | Cleantech & mobility | Finance & entrepreneurship | Attempts at humor (what?)
Dr. Chris Wedding is an investment professional, entrepreneur, and award-winning professor focused on investment, innovation, and strategy in clean energy, green real estate, and corporate sustainability. He has over 20 years of experience in private equity, startups, renewable energy, green building, cleantech, and education. Full bio here...
Impact (ESG)
Photo by Patrick Fore on Unsplash
© 2009-2020 IronOak Energy Capital, LLC | (888) 249-3013


An Extra large LED Light that can be seen up to half a mile away.
Easy to use On/Off push button.
Ideal for keeping an eye on your dog when out at night.
Easily clipped on to the collars with a secure stainless steel clip.


Need to be More Professional ... Whatever that Means.
By: GRACE, John J. Naval War College Review Volume XXVII, Number 6/Sequence Number 255 May-JunREITZEL, William RALSTON, David B.
Man Midwife : The further experiences of John Knyveton, M.D., late surgeon in the British Fleet. no dj.
By: GRAY, Ernest, ed. KNYVETON, John, M.D.
H.M.S. Victory : Official Guide and Short History. 14th imp.
H.M.S. Victory : A Short History and Guide. 8th imp.
Sea-Toll of Our Time : A Chronicle of Maritime Disaster during the Last Thirty Years. 1st.
Former Naval Person : Churchill and the Wars at Sea. 1st pbk.
Sovereign of the Seas. 1st UK in dj.
By: HUNTSMAN, A. G. Biological Board of Canada Bulletin 9) TANNER, H. E.
Histories of New Food Fishes : 1. Canadian Plaice. ex-lib.


text:
Het Children's Museum of Oak Ridge (afgekort als CMOR) is een non-profit museum in  Oak Ridge in de Amerikaanse staat Tennessee. Met als motto: "spelen, leren en groeien", is het gekend voor tentoonstellingen, speelgoed, interactieve sessies en educatieve programma's. Het is ook het hoofdkwartier van het Manhattan Project National Historical Park en de National Park Service Rangers.

Geschiedenis

Het  museum opende op 11 maart 1973 in de bibliotheek van de voormalige Jefferson Junior High School.

In januari 1974 verhuisde het naar de voormalige Highland View Elementary School, waar het vandaag nog steeds gevestigd is.

Collectie
Meer dan 20.000 tentoongestelde en opgeslagen voorwerpen en meer dan 20 interactieve sessies.

 kinderspeelgoed
 treinen
 lokale muziek
 geografie
 milieu
 Oak Ridge Manhattanproject
 memorabilia
 reconstructies
 historisch documentenarchief

Activiteiten
 rondleidingen
 interactieve sessies
 kinderverjaardagfeestjes
 jeugdkampen

Externe link
 Children's Museum of Oak Ridge

Referenties

Museum in Tennessee


text:
package com.netflix.config;

/**
 * The definition of configuration source that brings dynamic changes to the configuration via polling.
 *
 * @author awang
 */
public interface PolledConfigurationSource {

    /**
     * Poll the configuration source to get the latest content.
     *
     * @param initial true if this operation is the first poll.
     * @param checkPoint Object that is used to determine the starting point if the result returned is incremental.
     *          Null if there is no check point or the caller wishes to get the full content.
     * @return The content of the configuration which may be full or incremental.
     * @throws Exception If any exception occurs when fetching the configurations.
     */
    public PollResult poll(boolean initial, Object checkPoint) throws Exception;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Peters Research was established in 1997 and is based in Great Missenden, 35 miles west of London, UK. We provide lift (elevators) and escalator training around the world, and at our dedicate lift training and research centre in the UK.
Courses are normally presented in English but can also be offered in Spanish and Arabic by prior arrangement. If you have a group of 6 or more people to train, ask us about group discounts or private courses. We also offer one-to-one online training.
Duties of Lift Owners, Operators & Managers - Great Missenden, U.K.
Elevate Training Seminar (Advanced) - Singapore.


text:
<?php
class C { public static $p = 'original'; }
class D extends C {	}
class E extends D {	}

echo "\nInherited static properties refer to the same value across classes:\n";
var_dump(C::$p, D::$p, E::$p);

echo "\nChanging one changes all the others:\n";
D::$p = 'changed.all';
var_dump(C::$p, D::$p, E::$p);

echo "\nBut because this is implemented using PHP references, the reference set can easily be split:\n";
$ref = 'changed.one';
D::$p =& $ref;
var_dump(C::$p, D::$p, E::$p);
?>
==Done==


text:
Four different kinds of membership
Active member – This alternative is for you who are employed by a Swedish company or employed by a foreign company on a CBA signed by MOA. As an active member you have support against the employer, the right to vote and being elected as a congress delegate, the right to sign advantageous insurances, apply for membership loans etc. The membership fee is SEK 274 per month.
Interactive member – This is an alternative for officers employed by a foreign company without a CBA with MOA. You have got limited support against the employer but all other membership rights. The membership fee is SEK 67 per month.
Passive membership – This is an alternative for you who are not working at sea, because you are either an ex-seaman who permanently has begun working ashore or have being retired. You have no right to vote for congress delegates and can't be a candidate as congress delegate. The membership fee is SEK 180 per year.
Students membership – This is an alternative for you who are not working at sea because you are a student at a maritime academy. You have no right to vote for congress delegates and can't be a candidate as congress delegate, but the right to apply for membership loans and scholarship. The membership fee is SEK 180 per year.
Members, regardless of membership, also have got these rights:
Participate in meetings with the right to speak and make proposals
The periodical Sjöbefälen, eight issues per year, mostly written in Swedish
Other sorts of written information; but some information only concerning seamen working at sea, is not sent to passive members.
If you wish to become a member, please contact us:
Phone: +46 8 518 356 00
E-mail: sbf@sjobefal.se
Or click here to fill out the application form


Microsomal prostaglandin E synthase-1 (mPGES1) (genetic determinant of early onset breast cancer and predisposition to cancers of the ovary, colon, prostate gland and Fallopian tubes) is the downstream enzyme in the prostaglandin pathway. Expression of mPGES1 is inducible in conditions of inflammation and hypoxia and its expression is regulated by a number of transcriptional factors. Clinical studies have shown increased levels of mPGES-1, associated with increased PGE2 production, within a number of human cancers, including colon, lung, stomach, pancreas, cervix, prostate, papillary thyroid carcinoma, head and neck squamous carcinoma, brain tumors and melanoma.
The "10132 - m-PGES1, Melanoma, TME" APP detects nuclei and classifies them as either negative, 1+, 2+ or 3+ based on the m-PGES1 staining expression present in each nucleus' vicinity.
Step 1: Load and run the APP "01 Detect TumorStroma" for tumor and stromal tissue identification. Maually correct the result if necessary.
Step 2: Load and run the APP "02 m-PGES1 Analysis" for the quantification of cells.
Nuclei surrounded by m-PGES1 negative and weakly positive staining.
Nuclei classified as negative (blue) or 1+ (yellow) based on the m-PGES1 staining of each nucleus' surroundings.
Nuclei surrounded by m-PGES1 intermediate and strongly positive staining.
Nuclei classified as 2+ (orange) or 3+ (red) based on the MIF staining of each nucleus' surroundings.


At my recent 20 year High School Reunion, my friends chuckled as they read my "Peek into the Future" prediction, written in 1996: First Grade teacher, married, two kids and a German Shepherd.
Truth is, the only missing piece is the dog. We opted to go the cat route, mostly because we knew our kids would drop the ball on pet care!
All jokes aside, I am blessed to be living the life I mapped out for myself all those years ago. I am proud to be a wife and a mother to two wonderful children. Our family life is very fulfilling, but I enjoy each school day in my classroom, as well. Every day is a new adventure with my curious, adventurous and energetic first and second graders. I've been in the same small, private, independent school, Cornerstone Academy, for my entire career. So many educational trends have come and gone during that time, but I'm lucky to work at a school where we truly focus on what each student needs to succeed. Recently, I learned about the benefits of Buncee in the classroom. My class has embraced this new technology and it has opened the door to many new opportunities for us to create projects, invitations, virtual field trips and more. In my very rare, precious, free time, I love to be home with a new book. Our family loves to ski and hike, take day trips to the beach and travel together during our vacations. Life is good...I'm pleased I trusted my instincts back in high school and worked toward achieving my dream!
Not an "official" motto but I like to remind the children that mistakes are an important part of the learning process. When we make mistakes, we work harder and our brains grow a little more. This makes mistakes less scary and my students are more willing to take risks and "grow" with me!
This is a difficult question! I try to find a success in simple moments each day. It is thrilling when little eyes light up as I read an exciting story or when my class was bursting to get on the Chromebooks when I was teaching the class how to make their own Buncees! However, there is a particular story that stands out.
During my first year of teaching, I had a group of nine second grade girls. I had been completely obsessed with "Little House on the Prairie" as a child, so I asked my director if I could do a "Pioneer" Unit with my class. At our school, we are extremely flexible with our curriculum and try to follow the interests of the children. She encouraged me to move forward with it because she could sense my enthusiasm. We built covered wagons. We created an Oregon Trail on the playground and we wrote journals. Additionally, we read the "Little House" books. As a way to explore the food of the time period, we made butter, we baked biscuits and maple cakes. We fully immersed ourselves in the unit. (Which has become a natural part of myteaching, now.) I knew the students loved it then and I felt good about the unit I had created.
However, what I didn't know then was that I had planted seeds for the future. Recently, a student from that class graduated from Mount Holyoke College. She wrote an alumni update for us and happily proclaimed that after studying business at Mt. Holyoke, she had decided to return to India and start her own business. What kind of business? A cupcake company...because she learned how much she loved baking during the Pioneer Unit in the Second Grade. Wow! Yes, that was a proud moment!
Buncee helped put the spark back into teaching for me. Technology is such an integral part of education and it is sometimes hard to find the right fit for my young students. I knew immediately, after being introduced to Buncee during online Professional Development, that this was the tool I had been searching for. Quite frankly, I am excited to use Buncee and I want to share what I have created with others. I am also VERY proud of the work my students have accomplished and I want to brag about them to the world! I love brainstorming with other educators and sharing new ideas. I also deeply appreciate the creative outlet Buncee has helped me realize. I appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with Buncee. Everyone at Buncee has been so eager to help. I feel energized by the enthusiasm and creativity I see there.


text:
by: TaTiana Cash
GREENVILLE, S.C. (WSPA) – The Safe Harbor Holiday Program ran from December 17, 18 and 19 between 10 a.m. – 5 p.m. The nonprofit took donations for families that have experienced domestic abuse.
An employee of one of the company donors, J. Freeman & Associates, Jodi Panagakos said she was happy to do her part.
"I mean, I just had a great time shopping for these kids and trying to pick up things that I thought they might like. So, I mean it was just joyful for me to do this," Panagakos said.
Long time volunteer, nearly 18 years, Norma Guzzardo, said she's always happy and surprised at the number of people who give each year.
Safe Harbor runs shelters in three separate counties: Greenville (their largest), Anderson and Oconee.
During this holiday season, the organization is housing more than 60 women and children that are survivors of domestic abuse.
Those families have left their situations, some had next to nothing, but they'll need something for Christmas.
Greenville County House Manager, Kathlyn Jackson, explained that they're grateful for the toys.
One anonymous donor gave over 40 bikes and helmets for the children.But, Jackson said, the donations don't have to be toys.
"We're in need of ladies pajamas, children pajamas, bedroom slippers, any household goods," Jackson said,"gift cards are always a great help."
Central Michigan University students helped Safe Harbor run its program.
The students spent a week in the Upstate helping the nonprofit however they could. Under Guzzardo's guidance, the group grew close while helping those in need.
Students put gifts in black plastic bags, to keep the gifts a true Christmas secret, for each Safe Harbor family.
Their volunteer work is part of the university program "Alternative Breaks".
Norma Guzzardo posing with the Central Michigan University students
Aaron Nowak & Sarah Cortez said their volunteer group had an amazing time volunteering with Safe Harbor.
"We've been able to work with shelters work at the toy exchange program. You know, work in just so many different parts and kind of just see the whole experience come together," Nowak said.
Cortez explained that giving up a small part of their holiday break to help others is part of a bigger plan.
"We're trying to develop everyone into an active citizen, that eventually leads us to serving our communities as life long partners," Cortez said.
Jackson said on average, Safe Harbor helps between 400 to 600 families a year. She said gifts that aren't used for Christmas, will be used for other occasions.
"We help out every day, like 7 days a week. Our shelter remains open 24 hours a day. So, it is a great need for domestic violence in the community," Jackson said.
While the Holiday Program drive has ended, Safe Harbor will take donations at the Resale Shop, at 2111 N Pleasantburg Dr, Greenville, SC 29609.
For more information about Safe Harbor, click here.


text:
News Top 10 Under 40
Top 10 Under 40: Luana Pascu, cybersecurity researcher, Flare Systems
By Neil Sutton
Luana Pascu explored a few different career options — including selling magazine advertising — before she discovered her talent for cybersecurity research.
Intrigued by the inner workings of the criminal mind, she now spends much of her time on the dark web, frequenting chat rooms and message boards. There, she absorbs information and generates reports for her employer Flare Systems, a Montreal-based digital risk protection provider. Those reports help Flare's clients better prepare their own cybersecurity processes and increase their awareness of the potential dangers lurking online.
Pascu's path to cybersecurity also included a trans-Atlantic move. She emigrated from her native Romania almost two years ago and is now settled in the Ottawa area. "I liked that Canada was really starting to invest in the tech sector and cybersecurity," she says. "At the time, it kind of felt like Silicon Valley was moving to Canada."
Pascu is no stranger to international travel — she has also studied in Amsterdam and lived in the U.S. for two years as a child. The pandemic created some unforeseen challenges in terms of settling into life in Canada, but she is confident the move is the right one for her, particularly in terms of the number of professional opportunities for women.
Her cybersecurity background includes work experience in Romania with technology company Bitdefender.
She has also written for a Toronto-based biometrics publication and is one of the organizers of the BSides Security conference, with a Montreal event planned for later this year.
Pascu initially thought her interest in criminal psychology might lead her to a career in law enforcement, but she's discovered her niche and has fostered an online persona that enables her to move around the dark web. "Basically I'm a completely different person," she says.
While there is a growing recognition of the importance of network security, Pascu says she would like to see more resources dedicated to cybersecurity education and raising awareness. "People are the weakest link," she says. "It's enough for someone to make a mistake and it can compromise your entire company."
She would also like to see fresh approaches to security implementation — it's unrealistic, for example, to expect most people to remember a dozen different passwords. "If we can figure out how to use biometrics in a safe way, this could be improved," she says.
Pascu says she has found a home in Canada and plans to stay for the foreseeable future. She has discovered important professional relationships since settling here and has found a supportive mentor in Dominic Vogel, chief security strategist at Cyber.sc, whom she met via LinkedIn. She was also recently accepted to the Accelerated Cybersecurity Training Program, Rogers Cybersecure Catalyst in the RBC Women in Cyber Stream, at Ryerson University. Pascu hopes to return to Romania to visit her family as soon as COVID-19 travel restrictions lift.
Top 10 under 40: Robert Hastings, Manulife
Top 10 under 40: Mike Wilkinson, Allied Universal Security Services
Top 10 under 40: Adam Hutchings, Canada Energy Regulator
Top 10 Under 40: Amir Atri, regional director, Gardaworld
flare systems
On the Clock: one year later
Top 10 Under 40: Kelpesh Mistry, regional loss prevention manager – robotics, Amazon