Iea: Fill & Download for Free

Yes, Baba Saheb Ambedkar was the first Indian to pursue an doctorate in economics from abroad .Source: IEA. "DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR’S ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL THOUGHTS AND THEIR CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE". IEA NEWSLETTER The Indian Economic Association(IEA) (PDF). India: IEA publications. p. 10.

Much faster than anyone associated with traditional energy analysis understands. This assessment of historical projections by the International Energy Association (IEA) is very instructive. The IEA is the most trusted international source of data and analytics on energy; it's the gold standard.Basically, every year or so the IEA has released a projection of the growth of renewables, every year or so the IEA has significantly undershot the actual growth and they are still not understanding the scaling of renewables.This is indicative of a paradigm shift problem, a systemic inability to perceive the actual drivers of growth. It's important to pull this apart because it informs an awful lot of the disconnects in discussions about forms of generation and how they will play in a decarbonizing grid.Traditional forms of generation -- nuclear, hydro, coal and gas -- scale vertically much more than horizontally. They are like mainframes. If you want more power, make the unit bigger. Thermal generation has vertical scaling limits of about a GW per unit which were reached decades ago. That's a very large individual capacity, so many fewer units need to be built. While this has advantages, it has significant disadvantages compared to renewables that traditional generation analysts don't understand. Let's take the specific example of nuclear reactors. There are about 450 of them worldwide in 29 countries and each is an instance of about 17 different designs. What this really means is that each nuclear reactor is an individual, custom, engineering mega-project that starts from a common design, but ends up unique. And with so few, supply chains are exercised every ten years, so every process is virtually reinvented for the specific transaction. Quality control is unique as well, and this leads to obvious impacts such as the French pressurized water containment vessels -- all six of them for six different reactors -- having exactly the same manufacturing flaw which will likely cause them to be unfit for purpose for any reactor, leading to years and billions more.Modern renewable forms of generation -- specifically wind and solar -- are in a different paradigm of horizontal scaling, much like the arrays of microcomputers that 99.999% of the internet runs on. To get a GW of wind, put up 500 identical wind turbines. To get a GW of solar, put up a big field of 5 million identical solar panels. My latest estimate is that we've built about 1.8 million utility-scale wind turbine blades so far, and there are factories in China which pump out more than a million solar panels a year. All of those blades and panels zip around the world on well-oiled logistics networks which are optimized by constant use. All of those blades and panels get set up in parallel by lots of normally skilled resources -- nuclear engineers need not apply -- and get tested at each step of manufacturing, logistics and construction by quality assurance people and tools which test identical things every day, so quality control issues disappear. As you look at generation with this lens, what you see is a highly optimized set of parallel activities of high quality and low cost. Which is why the price of renewables is plummeting and the cost of nuclear keeps going up.Traditional analysts have been extremely slow to understand the paradigm shift in scaling. They aren't from the consumer electronics or computing worlds, they are from the generation world and they are users of computers, which is a very different thing.

It does not solve the same problem that Theresa May had at the end of phase one talks when coming to an agreement with the EU to progress to further talks.Let’s say that Theresa May does what she is told and chucks Chequers, and adopts the Boris/IEA plan.Boris/IEA plan becomes UK Government policy for Brexit.DUP says ‘No’.Conservative/DUP confidence and supply arrangement breaks down.Conservative Party no longer in Government and/orBoris/IEA plan can’t get through UK Parliament.Boris/IEA plan is not the basis for any UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement.Let’s say that it is Theresa May who is chucked and we have Prime Minister Boris with his Boris/IEA plan. Simply swop his name for Theresa’s in steps 1–6.There is a reason why the Boris/IEA plan was written in a thinktank by some unelected bloke. It’s the same reason as the Boris/IEA plan wasn’t the product of Davis and Baker’s time in the Department for Exiting the EU. It cannot be the policy of this Conservative Government because to do so means that the Conservatives are not in Government any more.It was not a failure of Theresa May’s imagination in December 2017 that led to the backstop clause. Both the EU and May were fine with a similar arrangement, an agreement was all but reached until the DUP said ‘No’.The DUP ‘No’ is the UK Government’s problem - and it is the price of the ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement that allowed them to govern after June 2017.The delivery of a four red line Brexit is incompatible with the deal made with the DUP.Simply not saying that out loud doesn’t make it otherwise.Boris’ plan has to get past Arlene Foster and the DUP, and to do that it has to be compatible with Foster’s demands from last December, which is why Theresa May had to produce something like the hated Chequers plan. She’d have much rather have produced something else, I would think.If Boris’ plan doesn’t pass the ‘Arlene test’, both Theresa May and Chequers can go, and nothing changes. If they are booted out for PM Boris and his DUP-say-No plan, a couple of more months will go down the toilet. Boris’ plan becomes No Deal once it passes the threshold of Westminster, so realistically, we may as well treat it as No Deal now and be honest about it.‘Foster swiftly put out a statement insisting that she would not accept any special status for Northern Ireland as the UK left the EU in March 2019.Speaking at Stormont, she noted the speculation emerging from ­negotiations. “We have been very clear,” she said. “Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom. We will not accept any form of regulatory divergence which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the United Kingdom. The economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom will not be compromised in any way,” she said’ - May's weakness exposed as DUP derails Brexit progressThe Conservatives formed a Government because of the DUP deal.The backstop clause last December was the consequence of that DUP deal.Chequers was the consequence of the backstop which was the consequence of the DUP deal.No deal is the consequence of Boris’ new plan and chucking Chequers, which was the consequence of the backstop, which itself was the consequence of the DUP deal.The consequence of the DUP deal failing is a UK Government collapse, with consequence that the Conservatives don’t deliver any kind of Brexit at all on their own.All that for a mere one billion pounds paid upfront.DUP say ‘No’ (again)‘Sammy Wilson of the Northern Ireland party - which is propping the PM up in power - said a Canada-style blueprint backed by Tory Eurosceptics was 'not something we could support'.The stance is a glimmer of light for Mrs May as she struggles to keep her Chequers proposals alive in the face of fierce resistance from her own MPs and the EU.'I am not sure if this report is deliberately vague or just not very well thought out,' he said.'It talks about the goods which are regulated differently in EU member states, and uses the phrase 'of which there are many'.'Are they saying that the UK government would commit to, or the NI Executive would be required to commit to, copying all of the EU regulations in relation to that myriad number of goods? That is not clear.'Mr Wilson also raised doubts about laws for some goods being specific to Northern Ireland rather than the whole UK.'What does that do to the government's guarantee that we would not be divorced from our main market in GB?' he said.The East Antrim MP - who has also condemned Mrs May's Chequers plan -added: 'It talks about checks being done away from the Irish border, and I have no difficulty with that.'But why would checks need to be done if there was a guarantee that all the regulations would be similar? There would be no need.'Mr Wilson said the rival Brexit plan 'is not something we (the DUP) would support'DUP rejects 'vague' Canada-style Brexit plan backed by Eurosceptics