The Stereotype of Intolerance Essay Example for Free

The Stereotype of Intolerance Essay I have many international friends in my area, with whom I have shared good times and bad.   I have slept in their homes, and even been considered by their parents a genuine part of their families.   Yet I disliked the fact that Indian families may often act only the basis of emotions.   I blamed their emotionally charged natures on the Indian soap operas they watched day after day.   I disliked those Indian shows even though I had watched only two of them in my entire life.    Still, I knew that it was best not to feel negative emotions in myself.   I had to stop being stereotypically intolerant, after all, and love my friends as I loved my own family.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Indian dramas that my friends’ families loved to watch daily were just slow motion pictures in my opinion.   Each moment of each drama focused on lethargic and unreal adventures in emotions.   Nothing went very far.   Crying; getting offensive about everything under the bright blue sky; and blaming one another were the themes of the shows.   I disliked them with all my heart.   And, whenever it was time for my friends’ families to watch those Indian shows, I found myself leaving their homes.   I was even uncomfortable leaving in those moments, given that my own negative emotions were obnoxious enough to seem to strangle me because I did not understand them at all.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In order to understand my emotions, in the face of the fact that I loved my Indian â€Å"families,† I made an effort to watch â€Å"Kyunke Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thee† (2006) with my friends another time.   While watching the show this time, I was observant of my own reactions and feelings.   At the same time, I observed the others in the TV lounge watching the show with me.   Two of Vijay’s aunts sobbed during the show.   To my surprise, Vijay, his mom, and his dad also started to laugh during the show soon after I had witnessed the sobbing aunts.   I relaxed there and then, and from that point on, the show was a breeze.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Even though â€Å"Kyunke Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thee† lasts only thirty minutes each time, five days a week, I disliked it the first two times I watched it.   I believed that it was the TV drama that had taught my Indian friends to overreact to certain emotional issues in the past.   I also believed that the emotional drama was a bad influence on me. Obviously, I was being oversensitive at the same time as I blamed the drama for teaching oversensitivity to its viewers.   Besides, I was not thinking that it is the individual himself with the prerogative to allow conditioning of any sort.   Nobody can force us to be influenced by anything.   Thus, being stereotypically intolerant is nobody’s problem except our own.   The good news is that it is possible for us to get rid of our stereotypes by analyzing them like I did.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Now I have stopped detesting the Indian shows that I previously could not digest.   I can stay in my friends’ homes as long as I please.   Apart from this, I have understood that my Indian â€Å"families† have a right to feel and believe whatever they do.   Choosing emotions over the intellect many a times is their choice and responsibility.   And if I love them, I must do so regardless of the different perspectives we have about dealing with ourselves and others. While I imagine that I am granting my Indian friends this â€Å"space to breathe,† in actuality this space is mine to occupy.   I give up my stereotypical intolerance today – and for ever – but only after realizing that I had adopted this stereotype subconsciously, or perhaps just by observing it in society.   After analyzing this stereotype, I feel like a different, freer person altogether.   For sure, it was difficult to breathe in negativity. References â€Å"Kyunke Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thee.† Star Plus (30 December 2006). TV Series.

Kingfisher Beer Company Case Analysis Essay Example for Free

Kingfisher Beer Company Case Analysis Essay Kingfisher Beer Company (KBC) has enjoyed being in top position in premium beer segment for the past fifty years and is now facing a potentially identity–changing challenge: the traditional premium beer market has been declining due to changes in consumer preferences at a compound annual rate of 4% and KBC for the first time is experiencing a decline in revenue, whilst a change in leadership infuses new energy to bring a change in their product line. Jake Hope, son of the retired president and owner of KBC faces the challenge of whether to introduce a ‘light’ beer in a growing beer segment, as maintaining status-quo would no more be an option to sustain their existing position in marketplace in the next few years (see Exhibit 2). I recommend that Jake would go for the light beer product venture. The recommendation is based on a complex assessment of the company’s financial viability and of more qualitative reflections. Even if for the year 2007 (the case is restrictive for only a 2-year horizon quantitative analysis) projected Operating Margin does not reach levels KBC had enjoyed in prior years, it is positive and growing substantially. Growth from $599,734 to $2,205,235 ($1,605,601 in absolute growth) from 2006 to 2007 with introduction of Light Beer versus of decline from $4,015,024 to $3,414,586 ($600,438 in absolute decline). If KBC will manage to reduce its lost sales of famous Lager (due to market conditions in the premium beer market) from 20% to slightly lower levels then the company could break-even in 2 years (Exhibit 1). From the case’s limited data it is still certain that introducing Light Beer and managing relatively moderate levels of cannibalization (20% or below – Exhibit 3) of the Lager sales opens opportunities to increase the firm’s financials. Moreover, it is essential to capitalize on growing light beer market (4% annually) which also will help fuel possible future expansion or to retain sustainability. According to market research, targeted segment where light beer drinking segment holds â€Å"anti-big-business† values, is already aware of the KBC brand so the firm can leverage on being independent family owned small regional company. In addition, the introduction of a new product will eliminate the risk of being on a single product brand and reduce risk of being in an unfavorable position with regards to distributors who favor more product offerings. On the other hand the introduction of the light beer will affect the brand image, alienate core customers, and squeeze margins. In addition, it is most likely the Company will not be able to sustain advertising and distribution cost against bigger competitors (high entry barrier, competitors strong presence in light beer market). This will lead also to additional unwanted cannibalization of Lager sales and more uneven relationships with distributors and retailers. My recommendation rests on several assumptions (exhibit). The key assumption is that the KBC will attain the 0. 25 market share to break even in 2007. Another assumption is that the light beer market will sustain its growth and consumer preferences will hold in the nearest future.

Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) Model for Wind Farms

Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) Model for Wind Farms A Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) Model for Wind Farms with Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) The cost of energy is an important issue in the world as demand for renewable energy resources is growing. Performance-based energy contracts are designed to keep the price of energy as low as possible while controlling the risk for both the Buyer and the Seller. Price and risk are often balanced using Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). Since wind is not a constant supply source, in order to keep risk low, wind PPAs contain clauses that require the purchase and sale of the energy to fall within reasonable limits. However, the existence of those limits creates pressure on prices, causing increases in the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE). Depending on the variation in capacity factor (CF), the power generator (the Seller) may find that the limitations on power purchases required by the utility (the Buyer) are not favorable and will result in higher costs of energy than predicted. Existing LCOE models do not take into account energy purchase limitations or variations in energy production when calculating an LCOE. The challenge addressed in this paper is that the price schedule in a PPA is determined using the LCOE provided by the Seller, but the energy delivery limits imposed within the PPA impact the LCOE in ways that are not accommodated by existing models. A new cost model has been developed to evaluate the price of electricity from wind energy under a PPA contract. This paper presents a method that an energy Seller can use to develop an appropriate Cost of Energy (COE) based on desired energy delivery quantities. The new cost model can then be used as a basis for setting an appropriate PPA price schedule. During the PPA negotiations, LCOE is calculated and used by the seller to determine an appropriate COE for each unit of energy that falls within the conditions set within the contract. As the COE isnegotiated and determined to be too high or too low by either party, the PPA terms are changed to adjust for the desired PPA prices. PPA energy purchase limitations can change the LCOE by as much as a factor of two depending on the energy limitations. The application of the model on real wind farms shows that the actual LCOE depends on the limitations on energy purchase within a PPA contract as well as the expected performance characterist ics associated with wind farms. Cost of Energy (COE) becomes a major concern for the public and utilities as the demand for power from renewable energy sources, such as wind, increases. Utilities may become reluctant to purchase more renewable energy than they are required to purchase if the COE is too high. COE is the actual cost to buy energy while LCOE is the break-even cost to generate the energy. The LCOE is a commonly accepted calculation of the Total Life-Cycle Cost (TLCC) for each unit of energy produced in the lifetime of a project[1]. In addition to the increase in the use of renewable energy sources, there is an increase in the use of PPAs for all sources of energy. PPAs are Performance-Based Contracts (PBCs) that aim to create a fair agreement for the purchase and sale of energy between a utility (the Buyer) and a generator (the Seller). The use of PPAs has been increasing around the world and they are commonly used in Europe, the U.S., and in Latin America. In Germany alone, offshore wind projects with PPAs totaled over 1.2 GW in capacity in 2013[2]. In the U.S. there existed a total of 29,632 MW of capacity in 343 signed or planned PPAs in 2014-2015[3]. Between 2008 and 2016, 650 MW of new capacity was signed in the U.S. and in 2015 the use of PPAs in the U.S. grew to 1.6 GW[4]. In Latin America, the government typically awards PPAs. In 2014, the government of Peru awarded PPAs to projects with a total of 232 MW of capacity[5]. ` PPAs use an LCOE calculation to determine a fair price of energy, much like a standard retail energy contract[1]. However, Buyers in a PPA can create terms that limit the annual purchase of energy, thereby affecting the actual LCOE. Buyers can create a limit for the minimum annual amount of energy that needs to be delivered and/or the maximum amount that energy will be bought at full price. The PPA contract limits create penalties; a penalty is incurred when the Seller does not fall within the energy delivery requirements. In a normal energy contract (such as a standard retail contract, a market retail contract, and in a PPA), the LCOE is calculated over the period of the contract and energy is purchased as it arrives at the agreed upon point of delivery. PPAs are used to share and reduce the risks of added costs, however, in some cases the costs are not accounted for within LCOE models. Conventional LCOE models include all the costs associated with an energy project. PPAs address and outline the capital costs, operational costs over the lifetime of the project, the energy produced, tax credits, and the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) within a specific project.[2] The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and others have developed and used LCOE models that typically consider all or most of these parameters [6][7][8]. The terms of the PPA are important because they create costs that affect the actual LCOE. However, current LCOE models do not include the effects of the energy delivery limits and their penalty costs imposed by PPAs as a cost to the wind farms. If the LCOE does not reflect the break-even cost, the Seller risks the projects failure and the Buyer risks the loss in profit from not providing enough energy to its end-use consumers. A more accurate LCOE could prevent the failure of a wind farm and benefit the Seller, the Buyer, and consumers. In this paper, a new LCOE model is proposed to address the PPA annual energy delivery limits, which we refer to as penalties. Although the application of penalties as a cost appears to be straightforward (because of their direct and indirect costs to the Seller), the penalties are more complex to analyze when uncertainties are introduced. The difference between the LCOE with and without penalties can be significant (see the Wind Farm Case Study). The effect of penalties on the LCOE can vary depending on the capacity factor (CF), the variation in CF, as well as the limits on the purchase of energy. Determining the best limits in a PPA depends on the needs of the Buyer in conjunction with a desire for a COE that reflects the actual LCOE for the Seller within the contract. This paper develops a method that provides a tool that the Seller can use to negotiate penalties and an appropriate COE within their PPAs. PPAs define every aspect of the project including: the terms for the entire projects construction, operation and maintenance (OM), insurance, the interconnection and grid, government involvement in the project, the delivery of energy, and any other third party involvement in the project[9]. Each of these aspects is a responsibility of the Seller that affects the cost of the wind farm. Normally, PPAs are viewed as just the relationship between the utility (Buyer) and the generator (Seller), however, this paper views the PPA as a plan with specific features defined for the success of the wind farm and all parties involved. During the negotiation of the PPA, the length of the agreement, the PPA price and the price schedule are determined[10]. All the costs determined during negotiations are reviewed to calculate the LCOE for the whole project and then the LCOE is used to determine a fair value for each unit of energy. The negotiation of the COE and PPA terms is iterated until both parties are satisfied. If the COE is too high, the terms are negotiated to drop the cost and if the terms create extra costs the COE is negotiated to a higher value. Although the PPA attempts to cover all the costs in the contract, the conventional LCOE models used do not consider the penalties on annual energy delivery limits as a cost. The purpose of creating annual energy delivery requirements is to be fair to the Buyer who takes on risk in acquiring negative profits by joining a new contract. The Buyer may not want to buy more expensive and unpredictable renewable energy, but may be required to by renewable energy requirem ents set by the government. This leads the Buyer to create limits on the amount of energy they are willing to purchase. However, the costs associated with these penalties are also a risk that could increase the LCOE without increasing the COE or the PPA price. Thus, causing a loss in profit for the Seller. The effect of penalties must be considered within the LCOE to ensure the fairness in the contract. In some cases, PPAs create minimum energy delivery requirements. If there is not enough energy being provided by the Seller, then the Buyer has to look for energy elsewhere at, possibly, spot-market prices. Spot-market prices vary daily (hourly) due to changing demand for energy buying and selling energy on the spot market is a risk that neither the Buyer nor the Seller wish to be exposed to. The Buyer creates the minimum energy delivery requirement to reduce their risk and the Seller has to pay at the PPA COE for every unit of energy under-delivered. Not all PPAs have minimum energy requirements and some that have a minimum requirement also have a maximum energy delivery requirement. The maximum energy delivery requirement has been used in locations that have renewable energy requirements mandated by customers or the government (and the Buyers would not otherwise purchase energy from renewable sources due to higher costs, e.g., the United States). Within a PPA, there are three diff erent requirements the Buyer can establish once the Seller has delivered the maximum energy delivery limit before the end of the contracted period. The Buyer could require that the energy generated cannot be sold, the energy could be sold at a fraction of the COE, or the energy could be sold in the spot-market. Both the spot-market and wind energy production are unpredictable. Energy could be produced during a period of very low demand and as such low spot-market prices would apply (e.g., at a faction of the LCOE). Although wind farms have energy that is bought and paid for monthly, the actual revenue is calculated at the end of the year. At the end of each year, the Sellers account is reviewed for penalty costs and the over purchase of energy to rectify the account balance. It is important to note that the LCOE model needs to review the annual CF and not the monthly CF and energy generation to determine the actual LCOE of a wind farm due to the PPA billing conditions stated above.[3] The levelized cost of energy, also known the levelized cost of electricity, or the levelized energy cost, is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating system over its lifetime divided by the total power generated of the system over that lifetime. LCOE is often used as an alternative to the average price that the power generating system must receive in a market to break even over its lifetime. LCOE is a first-order economic assessment of the cost competitiveness of an electricity-generating system that incorporates all costs over its lifetime accounting for the initial investment, the OM cost, the cost of fuel, and the cost of capital. The definition of LCOE is the cost that, if assigned to every unit of energy produced by the system over the analysis period, will equal the Total Life-Cycle Cost (TLCC) when discounted back to the base year [1][1], (1) where discrete compounding is assumed, Ei is the amount of energy produced in year i, r is the WACC (or discount rate), and n is the number of years over which the LCOE is calculated. E in year i is calculated as, (2) where RP is rated power, and CFiis the average capacity factor in year i. The TLCC in this model can be expressed as [11], (3) where I is the initial investment, and the Present Value of the total OM costs (PVOM) is given by[11], (4) where OMi is the OM costs in year i. LCOE is an equation that assigns a value for every unit produced during the given lifetime of a project. Traditionally, PPAs treat the contract length as the whole lifetime of the project, making short-term PPAs more expensive than long-term[11][12]. Since LCOE is by definition constant once calculated, it can be factored out of the summation in Equation (1) and the LCOE is given as, (5) Although the denominator of Equation (5) appears to be discounting the energy (and some authors have characterize it as such), the discounting is actually a result of the algebra carried through from Equation (1) in which revenues were discounted (energy is not discounted, only cost can be discounted). Based on the derivation of LCOE, the LCOE model must incorporate all financial parameters that contribute to the TLCC. Given this definition, this paper presents a model that includes PPA penalties in the TLCC. Several LCOE models currently exist and are used to determine fair prices for wind energy. NREL uses SAM (System Advisor Model) to compute the LCOE using wind farm data for PPAs[7]. Equation 6shows the LCOE model used in SAM (6) where CPEi is the cost to generate energy in year i and each parameter is given in the ith year.In the SAM model, the LCOE is calculated based on expected cash flows for OM and capital expenditures. Although cash flow is important for determining the actual money spent and costs involved in a wind farm project, SAM does not recognize the implementation of penalties or tax credits in its wind LCOE model[7]. The SAM model does calculate a PPA price within its financial model that includes tax credits, but the PPA price is only a discounted value from the calculated LCOE and does not consider penalties. Similar to SAM, the most commonly used LCOE models do not include tax credits, production losses, or penalties. Some LCOE models, such as Equation (7)[8], (7) explicitly include the following costs: fuel cost (F), production tax credit (PTC), depreciation (D), tax levy (T), and royalties (R).[4] Equation (7) recognizes that the tax credits reduce costs, but it does not recognize PPA penalties as a cost. Other models, such as Equation (8)[6], (8) where CRF is the capital recovery factor, consider the LCOE as a direct project cost and not the sum of TLCC of wind farms, which should include tax credits and PPA penalty costs in the TLCC. PPAs typically consider tax credits as a part of LCOE as seen in the Delmarva-Bluewater PPA[13] and explicitly in Equation (7). However, within PPAs, the LCOE calculation does not consider the cost of penalties in the life-cycle cost. Current LCOE models do not consider all the cost parameters in a wind farm managed via a PPA. PPAs may define a maximum annual energy delivery quantity, a minimum annual energy delivery quantity, both of these limits, or neither. The energy delivery limits are cost parameters that are typically not considered in a conventional LCOE model. The terms generally follow the rule that after the maximum delivery is reached, energy will no longer is purchased by the Buyer, the energy will be sold at a reduced price, or it will be sold on the spot-market[14]. This is generally considered a cost/penalty for the Seller since they lose some value of the energy that is produced after the maximum delivery quantity is reached. Similarly, there is a direct cost/penalty in the minimum energy delivery defined in the PPA, as every unit of under-produced energy must be paid back at the agreed upon COE. We model the minimum delivery penalty based on the PacifiCorp draft PPA, which included the liquidated damages from output shortfall[15]. In Fig. 1, the Maximum and Minimum energy limits demonstrate how the penalties are applied. Each year that the energy production is above or below the limits as shown in Fig. 1, the penalty is applied. The new model reflects the costs of energy production that is above the maximum or below the minimum energy delivery limits. The model begins with an existing LCOE model (Equation (7)) and alters it to include the delivery penalties and tax credits.The cost for under-delivering energy (PN), is the difference between the energy that was generated and delivered (E) and the threshold for the minimum penalty (Minlim)based on expected energy production (Pexp). E is calculated by, (9) where Eiis the sum of all the energy produced in the wind farm from N turbines in year i, CFi,j is the average capacity factor in year i for turbine j, and RPj is the rated power of turbine j. Using this calculation for energy, the production loss and the penalty from the minimum energy delivery limit can be calculated. PN is then calculated by, (10) In Equation (10), Minlim is smallest fraction of expected energy production (Pexp) that the Buyer requires. The purpose of the minimum limit is for the benefit of the Buyer. The Buyer expects a minimum amount of energy to meet the demands of the consumers. If the energy does not meet the requirement, then the Buyer has to go to an outside source (e.g., the spot-market) and will may have to purchase energy at a higher cost, which the Buyer will require the Seller to compensate them for. Similarly, the production loss (PL) is the difference between the energy that was generated (E) in that year and the threshold for the maximum penalty (Maxlim) based on the Pexp. (1-PPAterm) (11) In Equation (11), Maxlimis the largest fraction of expected energy production that the Buyer is willing to purchase. PN is only applied during the years that actual energy production is less than the quantity of energy determined by MinlimPexp,when EilimPexp. PL is only applied when the energy produced exceeds the amount of energy determined by MaxlimPexp,when Ei>MaxlimPexp. PPA ­Ã‚ ­Ã‚ ­Ã‚ ­term is a fraction that represents the type of penalty placed on the Seller after the maximum energy limit has been reached. In a PPA with no outside sell option the PPAterm has a value of0. When all the energy is purchased by the Buyer regardless of the limit the PPAtermis 1 and therefore PL is never applied.[5] The LCOE model including all the unaccounted for cost variables that exist in PPAs is given by, (12) where PL and PN are only included in the total penalty cost (Pen) when the calculated cost in either of those variables in a year is more than $0. In Equation (12) the sums in the numerator and denominator start at i = 0 under the assumption that the investment cost (Ii) comes from a depreciation schedule. In the case where the PPA allows for the Buyer to sell into the spot-market, the PL be a negative value. The Peni in year i is the sum of the production loss and the penalty cost, (13) and the tax credit in year i (TCi) is given by, (14) where all types of tax credits that can be applied to a wind farm are included (see nomenclature for specific tax credit contributions). Both of the Pen and the TC depend on the conditions imposed by the PPA. A controlled study of wind farms was conducted to explore the effects of CF variation and energy delivery requirements on the LCOE. LCOEs were calculated based on four types of PPAs for farms with an annual CF that ranged in decreasing and increasing in fractions of 0 to 0.4 of the average CF around the average CF of 0.4. The four types of PPAs are: a PPA with just a minimum penalty, a PPA with just a maximum penalty where no energy can be bought above the limit, a PPA with just a maximum penalty where the energy is purchased at a fraction of 0.1 (PPAterm= 0.1) of the COE value for each unit of energy above the limit (the value of PPAterm= 0.1 was based on the Pakistan PPA[17]), and a PPA with just a maximum penalty where the energy above the maximum energy delivery limit has to be sold into the spot-market. Although the average CF = 0.4 is the same in all the cases considered, the COE for each wind farm is different since the LCOE differs for each wind farm due to the variations in CF. The costs and energy produced in each year varies, thus creating differences in the discounted total costs for each farm in the years that the CF varies. Each LCOE was calculated for a duration of 5 years. The following data was used to calculate the LCOE, I = $1500 per installed kW[18] OM = $0.01 per kWh produced[18] F = $0[8] TC = $0.05 per kWh sold[19] r = 0.089 per year[20] COE = Calculated LCOE from a PPA without penalties[21] I, although shown as a single value, is a value that is depreciated over the lifetime of the wind farm and changes for every year i. The COE in a PPA is generally calculated from an LCOE that does not consider delivery penalties as a cost. For this reason, the cost calculated from penalties in the new model uses the calculated LCOE (for an individual wind farm) under a PPA without penalties as the COE. Pexpis calculated as the average annual expected energy production from a specific farm. In these cases the expected energy production is calculated using a CF of 0.4 for every year as Danish wind farms averaged 0.41 in 2012 and NREL has predicted that between 2005 and 2030, wind farms will be operating at capacity factors between 0.36 and 0.43[22]. Ei is calculated using a CF that is based on the variability around the average CF. The values of Minlim, Maxlim,and Ei, are then used to calculated penalties. CF variation is the fraction of energy that is produced in year i that falls around the average CF of a project. Fig. 2 demonstrates this effect with two farms that have an average CF of 0.4 and a rated power of 2000 kW over 5 years. Wind farm 1 in this case has a CF variation of 0.05, this means that 0.05 more energy is produced in one year and 0.05 less is produced in another. Wind farm 2 in Fig. 2is similar as it portrays a CF variation of 0.15. The algorithm used in this study valued year 2 as the unexpected higher CF year and year 4 as the lower than expected CF year. It is possible to change the algorithm for other schedules of uncertainty that would yield different results and to make the schedule more complicated with random variations in random years. In all of the LCOE verification tests, the LCOE follows a similar trend. Fig. 3 shows the results from a PPA with only a minimum energy delivery limit. In this case, as the fraction of expected energy production increases, more energy is likely to fall below the annual requirement, thus increasing the LCOE. The variation in CF determines the quantity below the minimum that the energy can fall to and how much the penalty cost will be to the Seller. The greater the variation, the more likely the LCOE will be effected by the minimum energy delivery limits. Fig. 4shows a PPA where once the energy goes above the maximum annual energy delivery requirement that energy can be sold into the spot-market. The spot market is difficult to predict, therefore this study used spot-market prices from 2014 given by the EIA and used a Monte-Carlo simulation to randomly develop a normal distribution with a mean of $52.32 and a standard deviation of 38.75. Those values were then used to determine an expected value for the PPAtermfraction used in the produce the production loss calculation. In Fig. 4 the PPAterm = 1.1, which means that it was cheaper to sell into the spot-market then to sell to the Buyer under the PPA contract (i.e., cheaper to sell means more money for the Seller).[6] The results from Fig. 4 show that the LCOE drops when more energy is sold into the spot-market under these conditions. As the required energy fraction increased, only high variation farms have a lower LCOE because they are still producing above the maximum energy delivery limit and selling into the more profitable spot-market. Fig. 5 and 6 show very similar trends for two different PPAs. Fig. 5contains results from a PPA with a PPA ­term= 0.1 and Fig. 6contains results from a PPA with no outside sell option. Fig. 5allows for energy to be purchased after the maximum energy delivery limit has been reached, but only at PPAterm = 0.1 the value of the COE. This means that production loss is 0.9 of the COE for each unit of energy produced above the maximum energy delivery limit. Fig. 6 is similar because the production loss is the whole COE value for each unit of energy sold above the maximum energy delivery requirement because all the energy produced above the maximum limit cannot be sold, but is still being produced. Both figures show that as the Maxlimis increased, meaning that the maximum energy delivery requirement is increasing, less energy is being produced outside of the limit. Higher variations in the CF are more effected by the Maxlim than those with less variation. The only difference between Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 is that in Fig. 5 the LCOE values are slightly lower than those in Fig. 6 This is due to the low value for the PPAterm. A simulation was run to determine the resulting LCOEs from the four different PPA options. The first is a PPA with no energy delivery limits, where the energy is bought and sold as it is produced. The first type of PPA reflects a conventional LCOE where the PPA energy delivery limits are not applied. The second PPA has just a minimum delivery limit, the third has just a maximum delivery limits, and the fourth PPA has both delivery limits. Real data was collected from 7 different wind farms (Table 1[23]) that varied in the number of turbines, manufacturer, year built, rated power and country (Germany or Denmark). To simplify the differences in costs across the wind farms, the same cost variable values used in the model verification tests were used. The only difference in costs used from the model verification tests and the wind farm case study is that the wind farm case study uses a fixed COE for each farm at $0.25 per kWh, based on NRELs highest expected COE[24]. These wind farms com pared the four different PPA types with a fixed Maxlim = 0.75 and a Minlim = 0.52.[7] The LCOE of each turbine was calculated from the sum of LCOE costs at the end of 5 years. Fig. 7 shows the differences in the LCOEs based on the different annual energy delivery requirements and the selection of penalties that were applied. Each wind farm was given a number because the given data did not contain the name of the farms and only serial numbers for the turbines to identify that the turbines were a part of the same farm. The results show that in most data sets, while using the same Maxlimand/or Minlim parameters, just having a maximum penalty produced LCOEs closest to the LCOEs with no penalties. The results also showed that LCOEs with both penalties or those with just minimum penalties produced higher LCOEs. Based on the results from the model verification tests, for wind farms with the same turbine types and year manufactured, it can be assumed that the different clusters of LCOEs are caused by the differences in CF. Lower CFs cause larger differences between a PPA with just a maximum penalty and a PPA with just a minimum penalty as produced by wind farm datasets 1 and 2. While datasets 4 and 7 show closer clusters of LCOE due to higher CFs that less frequently fall below the threshold for the minimum annual energy delivery limit, but more frequently have production loss by producing energy above the maximum annual energy delivery limit. Wind Farm Dataset/ Manufacturer/ Rated Power<

Does Original Voice Exist? :: Ernest Hemingway Literature Essays

Does Original Voice Exist? From Ernest Hemingway's _The Sun Also Rises_: "Mike was a bad drunk. Brett was a good drunk. Bill was a good drunk. Cohn was never drunk. Mike was unpleasant after he past a certain point. I liked to see him hurt Cohn. I wished he would not do it, though, because afterward it made me feel disgusted at myself. That was morality; things that made you disgusted afterward. No, that must be immorality. That was a large statement." Does this sound like a man mumbling? Or is this a complete thought? Hemingway's voice is simple. His voice also allows interpretation from the reader. Does that mean it is also open and vague? Maybe, but you get to make the decisions. Hemingway allows it. The character sounds simple. He thinks on simple terms. He also calls the series of simple comments a " large statement". If the reader delves into the literature, it is a large statement. If the reader takes it for face value, it's a simple statement. The character speaking makes a revelation to himself. That is why I think it is a "large statement". He finds something out about himself. He is honest with himself. Dialogue and exact spelling of pronunciations can show ya what the writer's all about. It's not clear all the time, but it'll be more personal than a bunch of scientific hogwash. Not that that writing doesn't serve a purpose.... Anyway if your gonna be personal, your readers better be able ta understand your tongue, otherwise the communication stops flowing for'em and they hafta look at your words more than your ideas. Does this flow for ya? "Well, I warn't long making him understand I warn't dead. I was ever so glad to see Jim. I warn't so lonesome now. I told him I warn't afraid of him telling the people where I was. I talked along, but he only set there and looked at me; never said nothing. Then I says: 'It's good daylight. Le's get breakfast. Make up your campfire good.' 'What's de use er makin' up de camp fire to cook strawbries en such truck? But you got a gun, hain't you? Den we kin get sumfin better den strawbries.' (Mark Twain from _Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_) It may or may not flow, but ya get a good feel for the characters. You can make assumptions and fit them inta stereotypes so they're recognizable.

The Relationship Between War and Man Essay -- Psychology

War dates back to the earliest of ages. Leaders have come out triumphant and countries have come out ravaged. Entire generations have been extinguished and humanity’s morale destroyed; all at the cost of a victory. Everyone is familiar with war, however we are not so quick to understand the lasting toll it takes on those who experience it for themselves. War has been fought through out many countries for various reasons since the beginning of times, the tactics and warfare themselves may have changed, but the meaning of war remains the same. In turn the soldiers, whom give it all in the name of their countries, never come back the same. It is glittered with words like glory, honor and devotion, however war, in my eyes, is anything but. It brings about many more problems, one of which is the substantial psychological effects it has on those who experience war first hand. World War I was said to have been the war to end all wars. We now know that not to be true as there have been countless wars since that proposition. The attitudes surrounding the initiation of World War I were very distinct from that of proceeding wars to come. Citizens were excited, families were proud to know that their sons were enlisted and patriotism and brotherhood were alive and well. Young men were very much encouraged to join the war effort and advertisements soliciting the call to arms were seen in a positive light. Enlistment was something expected of these young men, they wouldn’t dare be the ones to be â€Å"ostracized† or called â€Å"coward† . With no way around the Great War many did indeed join the armed forces; little did they know what they were in for. â€Å"A word of command† , and a powerful one at that, put these young men on the path to destruction. ... ...rd we take, as a war to end all wars was virtually never in sight. We must become human again; as it seems to be the only way to make existence worthy once again. Works Cited Cohen, Harold, PH. D. "Two Stories of PTSD." PsychCentral. PsychCentral, May 2012. Web. 9 May 2012. . Remarque, Erich Maria. All Quiet on the Western Front. New York: Ballantine Books, 1982. Print. US National Library of Medicine. "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder." PubMed Health. National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2012. Web. 9 May 2012. . WebMD. "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder." WebMD. WebMD, 2012. Web. 9 May 2012. . Sassoon, Siegfried. â€Å"Dreamers.† 1968.

Teachers of Today †Who They Are and What They Need to Know

Assignment 2 – Paper – Teachers of Today – who they are and what they need to know Word count (2,382): Final Word count (2,264): INTRODUCTION Exciting, and rewarding are just some characteristics that explain teaching. Overcoming anxiety and nerves in the first year is our greatest challenge. Moving into the classroom for the first time can be a daunting and challenging experience for everyone. You are required to immediately equip four years of knowledge into your teaching and classroom management. While this may seem to be a difficult time, it will only get easier. There are many rewards with being a teacher, however it is important to note that it is not a role to be taken lightly – it is a difficult role to fill. As teachers, we need to understand that every child will learn differently. No matter their culture, gender or socioeconomic status, so as teachers you have to encourage and have a level field in your classrooms. You have to know how to reach each student. As teachers you need to let the students know that they don’t have to follow the stereotyped roles of society. The teachers of 2010 and beyond will face many challenges that we are currently unaware of. What we can do to prepare for those challenges is look at where things may be headed in terms of technology and population and cultural diversity. PROFESSIONALISM & TECHNOLOGY â€Å"A professional doesn’t view his or her profession as a just a job, but rather sees it as a calling that is all about caring for children† – Kramer, 2003, p. 23 As an independent Australian Comics publisher (and short film producer), professionalism is what helps us stand out from the crowd. Look and presentation is vital,  we have to stick to various guidelines depending on your audience and where we are showcasing,  all this requires some serious  decision making and – when dealing with multiple artists – juggling some serious egos! Developing and maintaining relationships with other artists is imperative for us to continue to grow, and is just  as important to the relationship of student and teacher. We need to keep up to date with market, media  and consumer trends  just as both students and teachers must with  syllabus and curriculum†¦ nd indeed those same market, media and consumer trends. Change and adaption is incredibly  important as well, because without  it  you can't  move forward or stay fresh. To be a professional teacher you can't be a dictator,  but  more of great  artist  whose success is  drawn from the love of the craft,  nurturing the medium and understanding what the final masterpiece is meant to c onvey. In 2010 and beyond, our classrooms will transform into more of a technological teaching and learning environment. There are many new ways students can research information they need through resources such as the Internet. Teaching has also been altered, with the use of interactive whiteboards. To fulfil a professional role as a teacher, there are many different aspects to consider and behaviours to demonstrate. As role-models, these will pave the way for the students to become more professional themselves. It is important for a teacher to relate to each student in a professional manner. There are many ways to tutor students through advancements in technology such as the Internet, thus expanding the opportunities to be passed on to a new generation. Teachers should always teach with passion and a burning desire to touch hearts and change lives. Remember: it’s not just a job – it’s an honour. MOTIVATION and TEACHING STRATEGIES The description of motivation and the descriptions of the many various differing theoretical explanations for them are as follows†¦ The process of motivation itself is – simply put – starting towards a goal and keeping on the path until you achieve the goal. (Eggen and Kauchak 2010). An individual may well have different ideas in mind when achieving heir goals – whether they are moved by an extrinsic motivation (ie: the need to get there simply as a means to an end) or intrinsic motivation (doing it for the love of the subject) – the results are the same and both methods are valid. Admittedly, if you enjoy a subject it will give you more value as it will your teacher/s, but striving for that end result regardless will be an achievement. There are various theories of motivation, which shall be dealt with below. Through various cognitive theories, we know people really need to understand the world and their experiences to make sense of them and their place in that world. They can be as follows: Need for Self-Determination: this is where an individual feels the need to act on and control their environment to understand it – to have choices and to decide what they want to do. Praise, offers of help and other emotional factors can also be a part of self-determination. Need for Autonomy: here the individual feels the need to not only act on their environment, but to alter it to their way of thinking so that they can relate to it and learn more effectively. Need for Relatedness: this is where an individual feels the need for social connection and approval to facilitate their learning. Indeed, this factor is quite important as it fulfils the desire for approval and positive judging. Need to Preserve Self-Worth: simply put – this is the need to feel important – whether this is in a family group, friends, employment or any other social aspect – if we feel intelligent and important then our ability to learn likewise grows. Belief about future outcomes: This is a very personal part of learning and unique to each individual. The ability to guesstimate what the outcome of a project will be based upon your own knowledge of your capabilities will greatly influence your learning skills – the more you think you can, you will (Little Engine That Could – Watty Piper – 1930) Beliefs about Intelligence: the belief that you can or can NOT do a task will have a huge psychological impact upon your learning abilities. This can also be influenced by outside positive and negative feedback from others. Unless you are rock-solid positive you can do something despite negative criticism, that very criticism can undermine your belief in your own intelligence. The challenge is to find motivators for each and every student and use these to engage them in their education and learning. In terms of teaching and learning, motivation is the engagement that students have in their studies, and the efforts that they make to achieve their goals. Motivation can be split into two types, refer to Table 1. 1. Understanding student motivation is vital to the development of effective teaching strategies and necessary to discover different approaches to motivation and how these impact classroom decisions. pic] (Eggen and Kauchak, 2010) Table 1. 1 – Types of Motivation The behaviourist approach suggests that a student will gain a reward, either extrinsic or intrinsic, then the individual will be motivated to complete the task so as to receive it. From this we can determine that reward systems within the classroom can be used to increase student motivation, however Eggen and Kauchak (2010) stress that extrinsic rewards should be used to increase intri nsic motivation so as to promote learner independence. As teaching moves forward into 2010 and beyond, behaviourism is amongst the many learning theories in practice that is essential to good teaching. With diverse backgrounds and environmental factors, watching for the appropriate and inappropriate key behaviours in students is a complicated process in assuring desired behaviour is maintained. The cognitive approach suggests teachers should model how to claim responsibility for their success and failures, and should acknowledge that with additional effort past failures can be used as a learning tool. The Individuals’ Memory Stores play an important role, which contains the sensory memory to capture stimuli, working memory, phonological loop for words and sounds, and our visual-spatial sketch pad for our visual and spatial surroundings. All these various processes are active when we learn, and are fascinating examples of how the human mind operates. The humanist approach to motivation is dominated by the belief that all individuals have a number of needs that must be fulfilled (Eggen and Kauchak, 2010). These needs are categorised in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs outlined in figure 2. . The hierarchy suggests that if any of the lower level needs are not met then it is not possible for higher order ones to be fulfilled. Teachers must understand that these needs will not always be fulfilled within the home environment and various programs can be established to aid students when the home environment fails. [pic] (Eggen and Kauchak, 2010) Figure 2. 2 – Maslowsâ€⠄¢s Hierarch of Needs We must also remember that an integral aspect of motivation lies in aiming towards a particular achievement, or goal. A goal is an outcome that an individual is striving to achieve. Goals can be divided into four different types, see table 3. 3. [pic] (Eggen and Kauchak, 2010) Table 3. 3 – Types of Goals Classical conditioning is yet another form of learning that occurs when an individual produces an involuntary emotional or physiological response, similar to instinct or reflex (Pavlov, 1927). Figure 4. 4 (below) outlines the concepts in greater detail. [pic] (Eggen and Kauchak, 2010) Figure 4. 4 – Classical Conditioning Operant conditioning is where a response changes in frequency or duration as a result of a consequence (Skinner, 1953). This can be presented through either positive or negative reinforcement or through the presentation or removal of a punishment and shaping (Premack, 1965). Operant Conditioning can have a negative impact if used incorrectly, which can result in students not feeling safe, stressed and anxious about their environment. Constructivist Learning Theory is a theory that seems like common sense when you think about it, stating that learners create their own knowledge of topics they study as opposed to simply recording that information. Piaget 1952/ Vygotsky 1978). There are two primary perspectives for Constructivism: Cognitive Constructivism – focuses on internal construction of knowledge. Social Constructivism – focuses on constructing knowledge socially before internalising. Cognitive Apprenticeships is a process designed to places less able learners with more able ones to assist in developing their abilities. Peer-to-peer assistance provides many characteristics that assist learners through a new teaching experience. Some of these are modelling (watching demonstrations), scaffolding (being asked questions to prompt their learning), verbalisation (expressing their beliefs), increasing complexity (which does what the name implies) and exploration (finding new ways to use knowledge). This tool allows teachers to monitor other less able students, knowing that appropriate peer-to-peer learning is being undertaken with other less able students. The learning process of students will be influenced by many factors as you can see above. As they do, we need to keep a watchful eye on how they unfold. The challenge of teachers in 2010 and beyond is to find these motivators for each and every student and use them to engage them in education and learning. In the end, when teachers effectively motivate students their interest will increase along with their ability to learn. COMMITMENT and CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT When committing to creating a productive learning environment, the developmental stage of students should be considered. High-school students have different capabilities of primary-school students, so their classroom activities need to be more challenging (Eggen and Kauchak, 2010). Younger students are more responsive to concrete examples, while older students are capable of understanding theories and complex situations. If computer software is to be used in the classroom, it should be tailored to those stages of development. Younger students would require simple interfaces, less challenging problems, frequent feedback and recognition of achievement. Classroom management will also determine how effective the teaching is. Part of effective management is setting rules and procedures, and following them throughout the entire study period. The selection of topics attracts several issues. For the most part, teachers will be following a curriculum, but will prefer to place emphasis on particular sections of this framework. Their own personal knowledge and commitment, as well as the information that they deem important and useful, contributes to the various topics. There is also a need to plan how these topics will be delivered. Traditional instruction using lectures provides little interaction and feedback, so other strategies need to be looked at and implemented. The author Tony Newton intends to try and maintain a level of control using humour in much the same way his own third grade teachers did when he was young. Keeping in mind all the various technologies and ground rules that have to be in place, as well as students’ abilities and social interaction, (Maximizing the Time and Opportunity for Learning – Eggen and Kauchak, 2010 – pg 355) a classroom MUST be organised, arranged appropriately and personal. For Mr. Newton’s own class, he also firmly believe if kids have fun, they will learn more. Then we have Ability Grouping, being the practice of sorting students into groups of similar intelligence/ learning capabilities. We need to remember that if we begin segregating students early on, then those who are quicker cannot scaffold or mentor the slower ones up to speed. Social ramifications here are also dangerous where those smarter think they may be â€Å"better† than their less able peers†¦ and friendships can then also suffer. Tolerance and assistance must be cultivated to prevent these prejudices from booming out of proportion in later life. CONCLUSION The theories of learning and teaching covered above provide useful background information for new teachers entering the workforce. Situations that we encounter will be unique, though it is always beneficial to be prepared and plan for the journey ahead. Reviewing literature and applying some of these techniques can assist with understanding how people learn, different teaching methods, and the factors to consider when building a classroom. Moving forward into 2010, teachers are advised to consider these theories and incorporate many different levels of educational tools, through appropriate modes, that assist in developing the students’ learning construction. Although we do not know what classrooms will be like in the future, this is something that we actually determine ourselves. When we are first starting out, we will need to create our own style and approach, making up our own rules. Although teachers are expected to give instruction, it is still a learning experience. Thankfully there are a lot of resources at our disposal. Remember to keep improving our teaching craft, and we will be able to adapt to the demands of classrooms in 2010 and beyond. Reference List Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations on Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Borko, H. , and Putnam R. (1996). Handbook of educational psychology. Macmillan; United States of America. Eggen, P. , and Kauchak, D. (2010). Educational Psychology: Windows On Classrooms (8th ed. ). In H. Gardner, and S. Moran, The Science of Multiple Intelligences Theory. United States of America: Pearson International. Mayer, R. , (2002). Teaching of subject matter. Annual review of psychology,55, 715-744. Pavlov,  I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes translated by G V Anrep. Oxford University Press, London, England. Piaget, J. (1977). Problems in quilibration. In M. Appel, and L. Goldberg, Topics in cognitive development: Vol. 1. Equilibration: Theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum Press. Premack, D. 1965). Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed. ), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 3-41). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York. Macmillan. Woolfolk, A. , and Margetts,K. (2007). Educational psychology. Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education Australia. Vinesh Chandra and Darrell L. Fisher (2009). Students' Perceptions of a Blended Web-Ba sed Learning. Environment. Learning Environ Res. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. The Little Engine That Could – Watty Piper – 1930

Business Plan for a Clothing Company

The product I will be supplying to society will be a fashion store called FrSh. Popular culture is no longer regional. The tradition of cable television and the Internet has created a world where a fashion statement can make you or break you .FrSh will offer young customers the youth-oriented products and clothing that are popular in large urban areas but not available locally. The target customer is in their late teens to their mid 20s, who enjoys the urban scene and the city look, participates in youth sports like skateboarding and basketball, and looks toward new urban clothing trends in large city areas for inspiration. FrSh will provide the distinctive clothing, shoes and products that are just ahead of the fashion curve. I will create a cost-effective operation that will quickly bring new fashionable clothing and products to the customer. I originally cam up with this idea because I was fed up of people wearing the same clothes to fit in and wanted to find an alternative to what everyone was wearing so that I would stand out whilst fitting in. I have always enjoyed going to parties and with that comes the responsibility of looking good. I also made shirts whilst in high school and sold them to people. My goals for FrSh will be†¦.. * Accessible store where you always find something new that you want. * Excellent vendor relationship that will facilitate quick shipment of orders. * Establish an effective strategy for advertising to our target customers. * Create a store image that our target customers see as both attractive and trendy. FrSh competitive advantage is offering product lines that make a statement but won't leave you broke. The major brands are expensive and not distinctive enough to satisfy the ever changing taste of our target customers. FrSh offers products that are just ahead of the curve and so affordable that our customers will return to the store often to check out what's new. Another competitive factor is that products for this age group are part of a lifestyle statement. FrSh is focused on serving the Urban youth. We want to represent their style and life choices. We believe that we will create a loyal customer base that will see FrSh as part of their lives. We will pride ourselves by setting the most affordable prices for our consumers. We will cover all of our liabilities and make sure we will have contracts will all of our partners which we will be considering into bringing into the company. W will be running a close cooperation. FrSh will advertise in the Universities and daily student newspapers and free Weekly papers, which is focused on FrSh target customer groups. FrSh will also plan three events to raise its visibility with target customers. We will assemble a group of boy and girl Dancers and sponsor them with the FrSh logo. The Dance competition will be followed by a street basketball game. Smokejumpers will book a local popular alternative college group to play at the event. We will find co-sponsors for the events that are also focused on the same target customers. At these events, FrSh will distribute stickers, hats, t-shirts, and promotional material offering 50% discount on purchases this will draw us customers.