Propagation of electrostatic upper-hybrid emission andZ mode waves at the geomagnetic equatorial plasmapause

first_imgA theory proposed for the generation of terrestrial myriametric radiation (nonthermal continuum) invokes the linear conversion of electrostatic upper‐hybrid emissions to escaping left‐hand polarized ordinary (L‐O) waves by virtue of propagation primarily in a plasma density gradient. The electrostatic waves first become electromagnetic Z mode waves and these subsequently escape by propagating through the radio window where the wave frequency equals the electron plasma frequency. A realistic model of the plasmapause based on spacecraft data is adopted and the electrostatic wave ray paths are computed by using Poeverlein’s construction. The electromagnetic Z and L‐O rays are obtained by using a full ray‐tracing program. The accessibility of the radio window to the waves is discussed and possible inferences concerning the portion of the wave dispersion branch on which the initial instability occurs are considered.last_img read more

Cephalopod prey of the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina L.

first_imgIn the austral summers of 1986 and 1988–1989, 51 southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) at Husvik, South Georgia (54°10′S; 36°43′W), were stomach lavaged after chemical immobilization. Only cephalopod remains were retrieved, including 1070 lower beaks that were identified and measured. In total these were estimated to represent a wet weight of 187.8 kg. Fourteen species of squid from 11 families and 2 species of octopod from 1 family were present. The most important species overall were the squids Psychroteuthis glacialis in terms of numerical abundance (33.7%) and Moroteuthis knipovitchi in terms of estimated biomass (31.2%). The remaining biomass was mainly comprised of the five large muscular squids, Kondakovia longimana (24.0%), P. glacialis (15.4%), Martialia hyadesi (11.2%), Alluroteuthis antarcticus (10.8%), and Gonatus antarcticus (3.6%). Larger seals of both sexes fed on a wider variety of cephalopod species than smaller seals, with large males taking the greatest diversity. Between the two summers of the study there were some changes in the relative importance of the various cephalopod species consumed; in particular, in 1988–1989 M. knipovitchi and M. hyadesi were less important and P. glacialis was more important. The taxa and size of cephalopods taken by southern elephant seals at South Georgia are almost identical to those taken by the grey-headed albatross (Diomedea chrysostoma), but the relative proportions are quite different. The biogeography of the cephalopods eaten suggests that southern elephant seals sampled at South Georgia do not forage to the north of the Antarctic Polar Front but probably travel southwards towards the Antarctic continent or Peninsula.last_img read more

Yourkeys to launch The Reservation Engine

first_img Yourkeys has teamed up with a dozen of the country’s top housebuilders and estate agents, to launch over 1,000 units with their new ‘automated reservation technology’. The Yourkeys ‘Reservation Engine’ completes all of the due-diligence, forms and checks needed for a house purchase in minutes, which means that buyers can get into their new homes faster.With the fall-through rate reaching 40% in 2018, Yourkeys uses technology and smart integrations to dramatically accelerate the time to exchange of contracts, by automatically pulling together 200 sets of verified, reliable data about the property and the buyer in real-time, allowing conveyancers, lenders and mortgage brokers to immediately proceed.The industry average to exchange is 60+ days, Yourkeys aims to do it in less than 10 days.Yourkeys’ CEO Riccardo Iannucci-Dawson, a winner of the Young Entrepreneur of the Year award, is delivering new tools to change how properties are sold.Dawson says, “Yourkeys is the result of lots of talented people collaborating to make the process better. The Reservation Engine is the start of the journey; we’re focussed on new-build, but we plan to launch into the second-hand market in 2020. Our mission? Make the buying and selling process easier, faster and more enjoyable – that’s what drives us!”automated reservation technology Yourkeys ‘Reservation Engine’ smart integrations new-build technology Riccardo Iannucci-Dawson Yourkeys technology due diligence February 27, 2020Jenny van BredaWhat’s your opinion? Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.Related articles BREAKING: Evictions paperwork must now include ‘breathing space’ scheme details30th April 2021 City dwellers most satisfied with where they live30th April 2021 Hong Kong remains most expensive city to rent with London in 4th place30th April 2021 Home » News » Yourkeys to launch The Reservation Engine previous nextProptechYourkeys to launch The Reservation EngineThe Negotiator27th February 20200523 Viewslast_img read more

Carr’s Milling reports large profits

first_imgCarr’s Milling Industries has reported a 21.5% increase in profit before tax, according to latest figures.The group’s full-year results show pre-tax profit at £15.9m, up from £13.1m last year. Revenue for the period increased by 15.8% to £468.1m, rising from £404.1m in 2012.  Ebitda was reported as up 20.3% to £22.2m, previously £18.4m.Carr’s proposed a final dividend of 16.5p, up 13.8% resulting in a total for the period of 32p. In 2012 this was 29p.Net debt increased from £2.5m at 1 September 2012 to £22.1m, which, according to Carr’s, reflected total capital expenditure during the period of £19.1m, of which £9.2m was refinanced on a long-term finance lease.Food revenue was reported as up 17% to £94.2m, with profit before tax up 26.5% to £0.6m. This, the group said, reflected increased sales volumes and the benefit of port locations for imported wheat following the poor UK wheat harvest.In the report, the group’s chief executive Tim Davies said he had been “very impressed” by what he had seen and experienced at Carr’s, noting the potential the business has for “further sustainable growth”.Chris Holmes, chairman, said: “With a new chief executive and group finance director this has been a year of transition for Carr’s, a transition which has been effected smoothly and successfully. The group has achieved a record profit for the year, building on last year’s success. “This success can be attributed to strong operational performance, ongoing pursuit of our strategic aims, benefits from the investments in assets, research and innovation, as well as assistance from adverse weather conditions, particularly in the UK and the USA.”last_img read more

Nicotine letdown

first_imgNicotine replacement therapies (NRT), specifically nicotine patches and nicotine gum, did not improve smokers’ chances of long-term cessation in a study by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the University of Massachusetts Boston.The study appears Jan. 9 in an online edition of Tobacco Control and will appear in a later print issue.“What this study shows is the need for the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees regulation of both medications to help smokers quit and tobacco products, to approve only medications that have been proven to be effective in helping smokers quit in the long term and to lower nicotine in order to reduce the addictiveness of cigarettes,” said co-author Gregory Connolly, director of the Center for Global Tobacco Control at HSPH.In the prospective cohort study, the researchers, including lead author Hillel Alpert, research scientist at HSPH, and co-author Lois Biener of the University of Massachusetts Boston’s Center for Survey Research, followed 787 adult smokers in Massachusetts who had recently quit smoking. The participants were surveyed over three time periods: 2001-2002, 2003-2004, and 2005-2006. Participants were asked whether they had used a nicotine replacement therapy in the form of the nicotine patch (placed on the skin), nicotine gum, nicotine inhaler, or nasal spray to help them quit, and if so, what was the longest period of time they had used the product continuously. They also were asked if they had joined a quit-smoking program or received help from a doctor, counselor, or other professional.The results showed that, for each time period, almost one-third of recent quitters reported to have relapsed. The researchers found no difference in relapse rate among those who used NRT for more than six weeks, with or without professional counseling. No difference in quitting success with use of NRT was found for either heavy or light smokers.“This study shows that using NRT is no more effective in helping people stop smoking cigarettes in the long term than trying to quit on one’s own,” Alpert said. He added that even though clinical trials have found NRT to be effective, the new findings demonstrate the importance of empirical studies regarding effectiveness when used in the general population.Biener said that using public funds to provide NRT to the population at large is of questionable value, particularly when it reduces the amount of money available for smoking interventions shown in previous studies to be effective, such as media campaigns, promotion of no-smoking policies, and tobacco price increases.Smoking cessation medications have been available over the counter since 1996, yet U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that the previous adult smoking rate decline and quitting rates have stalled in the past five years.Funding for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute, State and Community Tobacco Control Interventions Research Grant Program.last_img read more

How and why the Supreme Court made climate-change history

first_imgHanging on the wall of his Harvard Law School office, Professor Richard Lazarus has a framed copy of the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling signed by Justice John Paul Stevens.It is a symbol of the significance of the case for Lazarus, who has written the book “The Rule of Five: Making Climate Change History at the Supreme Court,” which tells the inside story of the landmark environmental case.The Gazette sat down with Lazarus, a Supreme Court advocate and the Howard and Katherine Aibel Professor of Law, before the coronavirus quarantine to talk about his book, his passion for environmental law, and the legal strategy behind the environmentalists’ victory.Q&ARichard LazarusGAZETTE: When did you first have the idea for writing a book about Massachusetts v. EPA?LAZARUS: I’ve wanted to write a book like this for several decades, from the time when I was working in the Solicitor General’s office and litigating cases in the Supreme Court, back in the 1980s. I knew I wanted to bring to life Supreme Court advocacy and make people realize how fascinating, important, and exciting it can be on both sides of the lectern. On one side, there are the advocates, who are writing briefs and presenting oral arguments, and on the other side, there is advocacy among the justices themselves when they’re trying to persuade their colleagues. The question became, what case I could write about? When the Supreme Court decided Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, I went, “Bingo.” I knew I’ve got my case because it brought together two things I do as a law professor and as a scholar: one is that I write and teach about Supreme Court advocacy and decision-making, and two, my real passion is environmental law. There’s no greater problem that overwhelms us these days in environmental law than climate change. And the reason why I chose to write about Massachusetts v. EPA is because the court gave environmentalists their biggest win ever. That’s when I knew that I had my case.GAZETTE: Some people say that the ruling is as significant to environmental law as Brown v. Board of Education was to school integration. What is your take?LAZARUS: First of all, there’s no Supreme Court ruling as significant as Brown v. Board of Education, which is the most significant Supreme Court decision perhaps ever because it established that segregation in public schools is unlawful as a matter of constitutional law. Massachusetts v. EPA is the most significant decision for environmental law because not only did the Supreme Court take the case and then rule in favor of the environmentalists, but also because the rule in itself had huge sweep and impact. It’s because of Massachusetts v. EPA that we have the 2015 Paris accord, where 195 nations came together to agree to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. That would not have happened without the Massachusetts case. The decision itself, when it came down to it, was significant, and its aftermath, in lawmaking, has been massive.GAZETTE: Many people were skeptical of a positive outcome when the lawsuit was first filed in 1999 by attorney Joe Mendelson. What were the factors that led the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Massachusetts?LAZARUS: There are a few things to focus on. One is some extraordinary personal courage by several individuals, combined with their great skill as lawyers, and on the other side, there were really bone-headed, stupid moves. Those together were probably necessary. It began in 1999 with Joe Mendelson, who worked for a shoestring public-interest organization no one had ever heard of. Mendelson, who said he’d had enough because nothing was happening with the promises of Clinton and Gore to address climate change, stayed up late at night drafting this petition, and everyone was saying, “Joe, don’t rock the boat.” But Joe filed the petition. It took enormous courage on his part, personal and professional, to do what he did. And he was not the only one. Jim Milkey, a career attorney with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, decided to take this case to the Supreme Court. Everyone was telling him, “Don’t do it.” He did it anyway.On the other side, you have some colossally stupid decisions made during the Bush administration. George Bush had campaigned on a pledge to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions in the U.S. and put several committed people in his cabinet: Christine Todd Whitman as EPA administrator, Paul O’Neill as Secretary of Treasury, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. All of them thought this was a pressing issue we had to address, but Vice President Dick Cheney outmaneuvered them. He got Bush to sign a letter to Congress, not just saying, “I’m not going to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions,” but saying that the government did not have the authority to do it. That was really stupid, and he did it without consulting any lawyers, so Cheney overreached. Then several people in the Bush administration declined to listen to the advice of their career lawyers about what to say, how to argue, and how to present their case before the courts. As a result, while they managed to squeak out a win in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, they presented a far weaker case than they had to before the Supreme Court.,GAZETTE:  Your book provides a window into the inner workings of the Supreme Court. What does it take to win a case before the Supreme Court?LAZARUS: It takes a highly skilled lawyer. There’s no substitute for that. It’s what they say about Carnegie Hall. It takes practice, practice, practice. If you argue before the Supreme Court, you have to recognize you’re going to have nine very smart lawyers asking you questions. They ask about 50 to 75 questions in 30 minutes, and you have very little time to answer them. You have to be prepared for all the questions and you have to figure out how to answer the questions quickly and efficiently. You also have to know your justices. Of the nine justices, you have to convince five of them. That’s why the book is titled “The Rule of Five.” It’s all about training, how you frame an issue, and knowing that some arguments are weak, and others are strong.GAZETTE: What went on behind the scenes of the legal strategy that led to the victory of the environmentalists?LAZARUS: Coming in, the environmentalists knew that the fifth vote was Justice Anthony Kennedy, and they thought long and hard about how to keep those five votes. They understood their strengths, their weaknesses, and the other side’s weaknesses. They figured out what was the only thing they could possibly argue in a very targeted way to allow a win. And that worked. Sometimes advocates before the Supreme Court aren’t willing to acknowledge that something’s a little weak, and they try to pretend they have a strength they don’t have, and the court gets frustrated. Here, Milkey (HLS Class of 1983) started his oral argument with his strengths. When the court quickly pounced on him, identifying his weaknesses, he knew exactly the right argument to make, the only one he could make that could possibly win the case. Ironically, it was to de-emphasize in certain respects the fact this is a big climate-change case, and he turned it into good lawyering; focusing on administrative law and standards review. He made just the argument to win the case. At one point, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “You really need to argue that? Because if you argue that all you win is X. You don’t win more than that.” Milkey said, “That’s our argument.” I’m sure environmentalists who had slept on the sidewalk outside the night before to hear their champion lecture the court about the importance of climate change were like, “He doesn’t sound like an environmentalist.” And that’s because Jim was being a really good lawyer. The best environmentalists who are lawyers are not the best environmentalists; they are the best lawyers.GAZETTE: What role did the justices play in the outcome of the case? What happened between the oral argument on Nov. 29, 2006, and the ruling on April 2, 2007?LAZARUS: That process is incredibly important, and it’s completely unseen. People don’t appreciate how important it is. When Milkey sat down, and the Chief Justice said, “The case is submitted,” that’s when the advocacy switched from one side of the lectern to the other side, where the justices were. It took a lot of advocacy within the Supreme Court to actually keep that vote of five necessary for the win. In general, what happens is that two days after the court hears an oral argument, the nine justices get together in a room, with no assistants, just the justices to discuss the case and vote. This time, they went around and the vote was five to four. Anthony Kennedy supplied the critical vote in favor of the environmentalists. At that point, though, it’s not a done deal. The Supreme Court ruling is not final until these five justices sign on to a written opinion, and the challenge is to write an opinion that can keep that vote intact. It’s not at all unusual for a justice to change his or her mind, and his or her vote. In this case, under the practices of the court, the senior justice in the majority decides who writes the majority opinion, and it was Stevens. He decided to write the opinion himself, and he wrote it in a way that looks like a group hug of Justice Kennedy. Stevens went out of his way to cite everything and anything Justice Kennedy has written in prior cases. It took eight drafts to bring Justice Kennedy over. By the 2000s, Justice Stevens had become the master of “the rule of five.” He had figured out exactly how to write things to keep their votes.GAZETTE: Is that why you dedicated the book to Justice Stevens?LAZARUS: Stevens gets Justice Kennedy and three others to join the majority of opinion to make it five. That’s not easy to do. That’s why I refer to him in the book as the “Jedi Master” of the rule of five. Stevens also wrote the opening paragraphs and they’re sweeping and make it all about climate change and about the pressing nature of the problem for the U.S. and the world. He actually writes a call to action.I dedicated the book to him partly because of the huge role he played, both in voting the way he did and in crafting the opinion and getting Kennedy’s vote. The other reason is that I met with him. He was the one justice I talked to on the record for the book. I talked to several justices off the record and on background, but Justice Stevens spoke with me on the record, and he was just fabulous. The highlight of my research was not just what I learned from him, but spending time with him down in Florida. Meeting Justice Stevens was a joyful experience. We were supposed to meet one more time, and he died about a week before our meeting. “The best environmentalists who are lawyers are not the best environmentalists; they are the best lawyers.” Want us to invest? Or to keep our investment? Get greener Related On the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, law professor reflects on the state of U.S. climate change regulation and the impacts of COVID-19 GAZETTE: In your book you described the oral argument as riveting. What were the highlights?LAZARUS: I attended the argument because I was part of a group which had helped prepare Jim Milkey to appear before the court. At that point, I was well versed in the case, and like others in the courtroom, I listened to every word. When the justices do oral arguments, it’s the first time they discuss a case together. They’re learning each other’s views while we’re getting a hint of them from the questions they ask. I remember the moment when Justice Kennedy asked Jim, “What’s your best case?” And after Jim gave his case, Kennedy responded, “Well, I think your best case is Georgia v. Tennessee Copper.” Everyone in the courtroom sort of bristled, including myself, because Kennedy had just cited a case that no one in 42 briefs filed had referred to, and that meant he and his chambers had done their own research to figure out what they thought was the best case. For the environmentalists, that meant they likely had five votes at least for the right to bring the lawsuit. If they had lost on that issue, it would have meant that no one could ever bring lawsuits based on climate-change injury in any federal court in the U.S. Kennedy’s question was extraordinary, a source of good cheer, a little muted, but still, I was thinking, “Oh, oh, rule of five; we’ve got five votes.” I walked out of that courtroom, like many, very optimistic.GAZETTE: How long did it take you to write the book? What were the challenges in writing it?LAZARUS: I decided to write the book in 2007, but I didn’t start researching until 2015 because there are lots of things I do, including some Supreme Court oral arguments, and I teach and write Law Review articles. As an academic, writing this kind of book is somewhat of a luxury item.In 2015, I started gathering documents. I had boxes filled with dozens of Freedom of Information Acts, public records requests, almost everyone’s email traffic, much to people’s horror — some were very unhappy with all the stuff that I had. But I wanted to have a good sense of what had happened behind the scenes on both sides. I spent probably a year and a half just compiling documents. In 2017, I had to take time off from it because I was running the Harvard Law School’s bicentennial. In early 2018, I began writing in earnest.Writing a book for a popular audience was fun, but also challenging for me as a law professor. I had to write in a different voice. I had never written in this voice before, and what people advised me was to make it about people, not about ideas or theories. I also had to write it in an engaging and informal way. And every time I finished a chapter, I sent it to about five of my law students, some of whom had experience in college journalism, and asked them for their opinions. They were great. I think they liked editing their professor. I also sent a draft to three close friends who are not practicing lawyers, but love to read. One of them suggested that I make the chapters shorter. He said, “When I read a book, I’d like to feel a sense of accomplishment, and the chapters are a little long.” The book has 20 chapters because I shortened them, doubling the total number of chapters. That was very good advice.GAZETTE: What lessons can attorneys, law students, and the general public learn from your book?LAZARUS:  There are several lessons. One is that a good lawyer can make a difference in the outcome of a case. The environmentalists were able to get the court to hear the case and they won because of good lawyering, there’s no doubt about it. The second lesson is that one needs to fight to make history. And the way to do it is by commitment and hard work, not just by sitting back and thinking that you’re on the right side of history and the others are on the wrong side. That’s not how it works. If you don’t fight for it, the history you favor is not going to happen. What scares you most about climate change?center_img Economist John Campbell details how new endowment strategy could foster wider environmental change than simple divestment Experts tease out the scientific, legal, economic, political, and philosophical costs and benefits of the problem — and the solutions No ‘silver lining’ for the climate The last lesson is that litigation is never enough in the world of environmental law. This case was a big win, and these kinds of wins are absolutely essential, but they’re never the end of the story. Every time you win a big environmental case, it’s inherently provisional because the same powerful forces that you had to beat in the Supreme Court don’t just disappear; they regroup and come back. It’s the nature of the beast. Environmental protection depends on win after win after win, over the longer term. That’s also true for climate change. You’ve got to keep those laws, get them enacted, maintain them, and enforce them, not just for one or two years but through decades. Litigation is essential, but it takes more than votes of justices to make transformative changes; it takes the votes of individuals. In the U.S. and in many countries, the ballot box is how we can really make transformative law. Brown v. Board of Education, decided in 1954, was incredibly important, and so was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the end of the day, it was a series of laws that Congress passed, spurred on by Brown v. Board of Education, which really led to more lasting change.This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.last_img read more

Saint Mary’s promotes immigration awareness

first_imgSaint Mary’s La Fuerza, a club representing Latina culture on campus, is holding Action week in order “to create awareness about the realities of immigration in the U.S.,” said club vice president Brianda Salas, a sophomore. The first event held Monday was a viewing of the film “Papers,” which is “a documentary about undocumented youth and the challenges they face as they turn 18 and graduate high school without legal status,” Salas said.The week will continue with a bilingual mass in Le Mans Hall’s Holy Spirit Chapel at 9 p.m. Wednesday.On Thursday, La Fuerza will host Immigration Monologues, which will be “a short presentation about the myths and facts about immigration, followed by the real-life stories of individuals who have gone through the struggles of life as an immigrant and other similar stories,” Salas said.Salas said La Fuerza will also host guest speaker Enrique Morones, the founder of Border Angels.Salas said Border Angels is a non-profit organization made of volunteers who work to stop unnecessary deaths of individuals who travel through the Imperial Valley dessert areas and the mountain areas surrounding San Diego County.Morones will deliver a lecture on Tuesday at 7 p.m. in the Vander Vennet Theater. Though the lecture will not be part of Action Week, it is related to its message, she said. “We believe that by bringing Enrique Morones, it will enhance the Saint Mary’s College mission of commitment for social justice as well as promote student activism,” Salas said. “We not only wish to raise awareness, we want to promote action.”Salas said she hopes these events will help break down existing stereotypes and misconceptions about immigration.“La Fuerza wants to dispel those myths by presenting facts and real-life stories that will draw our audience closer to the realities of immigration and how it affects everyone and anyone regardless of migratory status,” Salas said.The week as a whole is only part of the group’s mission to bring knowledge to campus about Latina Culture.“As a group, we want to promote diversity and cultural education on our campus and the community,” Salas said. “With this event, we believe we are doing just that, educating the campus on immigration not just through opinions but facts.”Salas said the club does not discriminate and embraces all cultures and backgrounds. “We welcome anybody, not just Latinas,” Salas said. “Everyone is welcomed to become a member of La Fuerza and share their uniqueness through La Fuerza.”last_img read more

Officials Give Local COVID Update, New Tracking Map Unveiled

first_imgShare:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window),That’s because in Chautauqua county they ARE NOT testing ppl, Brooks memorial hospital said they ARE NOT TESTING ANYONE AND ARE TREATING EVERYONE LIKE THEY HAVE THE FLU!!! NO TESTING FOR CORONAVIRUS/COVID-19! How absolutely RIDICULOUS! So if you are sick, you won’t know what you really have!! SMH MAYVILLE – Health officials in Chautauqua County say there were no new positive tests of COVID-19 reported Wednesday.Officials released a new online mapping tool to help display data about positive cases.The tool divides the county info into the four fire battalions and will be updated regularly, said officials.Now, of the 10 confirmed positive cases, two people have recovered completely and were released from mandatory quarantine, one individual has died, and seven persons are continuing to recover under mandatory quarantine. In addition, there are several people who have received isolation and quarantine orders by the Public Health Director. This includes:25 individuals in Mandatory Quarantine (individuals confirmed positive of COVID-19 or a household contact of a confirmed positive COVID-19 case);30 individuals in Precautionary Quarantine (individuals with travel history to CDC level 3 country or proximal contact of a confirmed case of COVID-19);40 individuals in Mandatory Isolation (individuals who are symptomatic of COVID-19 and are pending COVID-19 lab test); and101 negative test results to date.The number of cases of the virus in Cattaraugus County increased to seven Wednesday.Officials there say a woman in the southeast part of the county, with no significant travel history, was tested for COVID-19 on Monday after being in close contact with another confirmed case.last_img read more

Casa Valentina Visits Kinky Boots!

first_img Billy Porter Mare Winningham This is just like that time The Jetsons met The Flintstones! Mare Winningham and John Cullum, alums of Harvey Fierstein’s Broadway drag drama Casa Valentina, took a field trip to see Kinky Boots on August 20. Fierstein also wrote the book for the Tony-winning musical, so he was thrilled to give Winningham and Cullum a backstage tour and introduce them to the show’s stars, Tony winner Billy Porter and Andy Kelso. Check out these shots of the stars colliding, then see Kinky Boots at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre! Andy Kelso View Comments Show Closed This production ended its run on April 7, 2019 Kinky Boots Related Shows Star Fileslast_img

Dominion files construction plan for 2.6GW, $7.8 billion Virginia offshore wind project

first_img FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Virginia Business:Richmond-based Dominion Energy Inc. announced Friday it has filed the required construction and operations plan (COP) with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to build the utility’s proposed $7.8 billion, 2,640-megawatt Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project.“This is an important step in the process toward bringing commercial-scale offshore wind to the commonwealth and shows Dominion Energy is committed to delivering the clean, renewable and reliable energy our customers expect from us,” Joshua Bennett, Dominion Energy’s vice president of offshore wind, said in a statement. “We look forward to working with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management as the CVOW commercial project moves through the permitting process.”Under the CVOW project, Dominion will erect 180 to 190 wind turbines, each 800 feet tall, 27 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach by 2026. When complete, the project will be capable providing enough to power 660,000 homes during peak winds. Construction is expected to begin in 2024.Dominion announced on Dec. 16 that construction has begun on its oceangoing vessel, the Charybdis, which will ferry construction materials and workers for the project, as well as assisting with installing and raising the wind farm’s turbines.The COP includes construction, operations and conceptual decommissioning information and plans for the wind farm to be installed within the 112,800-acre commercial lease area off the coast of Virginia Beach, which Dominion Energy acquired rights to in 2013.In October, Dominion announced that its two turbine, 12-megawatt, $300 million CVOW pilot project successfully completed reliability testing. The entire CVOW commercial project is tracking to start being constructed in 2024 and completed in 2026. At its completion, it will provide enough energy for up to 660,000 homes.[Sydney Lake]More: Dominion files construction, operations plan for $7.8B offshore wind farm Dominion files construction plan for 2.6GW, $7.8 billion Virginia offshore wind projectlast_img read more