NEW YORK — The last of the crystal triangles that make up this year's Times Square New Year's Eve ball were installed Friday morning. It's the first time in 10 years that all 2,688 were replaced at once. Singer Pitbull attends the Times Square New Year's Eve Ball Crystal Installation on Friday at One Times Square in New York. and were among those on hand to help the organizers of the celebration put the final pieces in place atop One Times Square, the skyscraper from which the 11,875-pound geodesic sphere drops to mark the new year. Singer Pitbull, left, and Joy Mangano, right, founder of CleanBoss, install a crystal Friday during the Times Square New Year's Eve Ball Crystal Installation at One Times Square in New York. A New Year's Eve ball was first dropped in Times Square in 1907. Built by a young immigrant metalworker named Jacob Starr, the 700-pound, 5-foot diameter ball was made of iron and wood and featured 100 25-watt lightbulbs. Six newer versions of the ball were featured in the century-plus since that first celebration. Times Square New Year's Eve Ball is displayed Friday at One Times Square in New York. The only years no ball drop occurred were 1942 and 1943, when the city instituted a nightly "dimout" during World War II to protect itself from attacks. Crowds instead celebrated the new year with a moment of silence followed by chimes rung from the base of One Times Square. As the new year approaches, many people begin thinking about their resolutions—typically focusing on physical health, saving money, or spending more time with family. One area that often gets overlooked is mental health. The pressure to "get fit" or "eat better" is well-known, but taking care of mental well-being is just as important as improving physical health, especially since mental health impacts every aspect of life. At first glance, mental health goals can seem intangible and subjective, but there are scientifically-proven ways to set achievable, measurable, and personalized mental wellness goals that will help anyone thrive in 2025. Vivian Chung Easton, a mental health therapist at , a company focused on building AI-powered tools to help therapists, shares recommendations for setting mental health resolutions. One of the most important mental wellness goals for 2025 is to prioritize self-compassion and resilience. In a culture that often celebrates hustle and perfection, it's easy to push yourself too hard, setting unrealistic expectations that only add to stress and anxiety. But research shows that self-compassion and resilience are critical factors in coping with stress and maintaining long-term mental well-being. A 2021 study by Kristin Neff and Christopher Germer highlights that self-compassion—treating yourself with kindness when things don't go as planned—can reduce emotional distress and improve resilience. Instead of criticism for not meeting a goal or making a mistake, practice affirmations or positive self-talk. A simple goal, like being kinder to yourself during setbacks, can help reduce stress and boost mental wellness. A goal can look something like this: Making room for self-compassion this year can be a transformative step toward building resilience and enhancing overall mental health. Social connection is one of the most important factors in mental wellness, yet it's often overlooked in favor of individual self-improvement goals. Physical isolation can lead to loneliness, but social isolation is also strongly linked to mental health challenges like depression and anxiety, according to a study by Juliannee Holt-Lundstad. Meaningful relationships and community support can improve how satisfied you feel in your life on a day-to-day basis. This year, make it a goal to strengthen and nurture social connections, whether that means reconnecting with old friends, regularly scheduling family time, or joining social groups and clubs—like a book club, gym, or church group. For example, a social wellness goal can look like: Building mental wellness isn't just about managing thoughts and feelings; it's also about fostering a strong support network. Social connections are integral to building emotional resilience. Just as physical fitness is associated with physical health, mindfulness is often associated with mental fitness. However, practicing mindfulness is just as important as going for a run or lifting weights when it comes to mental wellness. Mindfulness-based practices—such as meditation, yoga, or breathing exercises—have been shown to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression, improve focus, and boost emotional well-being according to research by Stefan Hofman in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Incorporating mindfulness into a routine doesn't have to be time-consuming or difficult. Start small by committing to . Focus on breath, practice guided meditation, or even engage in mindful walking or eating. A simple goal might be: These exercises are called a practice for a reason: doing them consistently and often can strengthen your ability over time. These practices not only reduce stress in the moment but also help to build resilience over time, making it easier to handle future challenges. Whatever New Year's resolution you might have, a large obstacle is setting goals that are too ambitious or unrealistic. Whether it's aiming to exercise every day or cutting out all sugar, overambitious goals can lead to burnout and disappointment when progress isn't immediate. This is especially true for mental health goals, which often require patience and consistency. Using these suggestions for mental health goals, focus on how to personalize them to make them realistic and achievable for your life. Research from the American Psychological Association shows that people are more likely to succeed in their resolutions when they set realistic and incremental goals. Instead of vague, broad goals like "be happier" or "stress less," focus on that can lead to big changes over time. One effective approach is to use SMART goals—goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. For example: These specific, measurable actions make it easier to track progress and feel a sense of accomplishment along the way. Plus, they're more realistic and achievable, which increases your chances of success. It happens every year—gyms always seem to empty out before spring starts. One of the challenges of New Year's resolutions is that many people abandon their goals as early as January. However, mental health goals require ongoing attention and flexibility. Unlike weight loss or fitness goals, mental wellness is a journey, not an endpoint. Regularly tracking progress is essential. By setting aside time to evaluate personal progress, it's easier to adjust your goals and make necessary changes to keep things on track. Research shows that regular goal check-ins increase the likelihood of long-term success. Consider setting to assess your mental health goals: If you're not meeting your targets, adjust them to make them more realistic. Mental health progress doesn't always follow a straight line, so it's important to be flexible and forgiving with yourself. The new year is inherently a time of change, and that can be a helpful mindset in seeing new potential for growth and taking action. As you set your resolutions for 2025, don't forget to prioritize mental wellness. By focusing on achievable, realistic goals—you're setting yourself up for a healthier, more fulfilling year. Mental health is just as important as physical health, and nurturing it can help to reach other goals more effectively. Even if, in a month or two, you feel like you're falling behind—mental health goals can and should be flexible and adaptable. You can always adjust your approach if things aren't serving you, and check in with yourself regularly to stay on track. Goals are personal, and you're always in control. Here's to a year of growth, balance, and emotional well-being in 2025. Photo Credit: Alberto Menendez Cervero / Shutterstock As anyone who’s ever started a business knows, getting one off the ground is not for the faint of heart. Entrepreneurs face numerous challenges in the early years, from solidifying business plans to navigating the complexities of hiring employees and acquiring licenses and insurance. These hurdles often determine the fate of a startup, making the journey from an idea to a successful enterprise both difficult and uncertain. Each year, millions of Americans file , but only a fraction of these ventures transition to hiring employees. Among those that do, surviving the critical first few years can still be an uphill battle. However, survival rates differ significantly by location, influenced by a variety of factors such as economic conditions, state policies, and industry-specific demand. The good news is that businesses that weather the initial hurdles see a much greater likelihood of long-term success. This analysis explores the states where new businesses are most likely to survive their earliest years based on the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The findings reveal important insights into how location and time impact the chances of business success. Source: Simply Business analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data | Image Credit: Simply Business One of the most significant challenges for new business owners is simply staying in operation. The risk of failure is highest during the first year, but it diminishes considerably over time. For those businesses that survive the initial hurdles, the likelihood of long-term success grows each year. According to recent BLS data, only about 79% of businesses survive their first year, making it the most difficult period for startups. However, for businesses that survive their first year, roughly 85% make it to the next. By the fifth year, 91% of businesses manage to continue operations, and for those that reach the 10-year mark, an impressive 93% make it through to another year. These figures underscore the importance of persistence and adaptability, especially during the critical early years when the risk of failure is highest. They also highlight that while starting a business is undeniably challenging, those who endure the startup years enjoy far better odds moving forward. Source: Simply Business analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data | Image Credit: Simply Business New business success varies widely across the United States, with some states providing a more favorable environment for startups to thrive. Based on survival rates for the first three years of operation, Washington and California stand out as the nation’s leading states. claims the top spot, with businesses in the state enjoying an 86.4% chance of surviving their first year, 89.3% in their second year, and an impressive 91.8% in their third year. These figures highlight Washington's robust support for young businesses, likely fueled by its thriving tech ecosystem and a generally favorable economic climate. ranks second, with survival rates of 86.0% in the first year, 89.8% in the second, and 91.4% in the third. Despite challenges such as high costs of living and regulatory complexities, California’s strong economy, innovation hubs, and access to venture capital contribute to its high ranking. Outside of the West Coast, —whose economy is deeply rooted in energy production, natural resources, and manufacturing—ranks third, boasting the highest third-year survival rates at 91.9%. —a major banking center and home of the Research Triangle—follows closely with similar numbers. At the opposite end of the spectrum, businesses face the toughest challenges in their early years, with only 72.3% surviving their first year and 80.2% their second. These regional differences highlight the importance of local economic conditions in shaping a startup's odds of success. For entrepreneurs planning their next move, this analysis offers insight into where businesses are thriving and where challenges are more pronounced. Factors like industry presence, regulatory environments, and access to resources can create opportunities—or hurdles—that significantly affect survival rates in the critical early years. Choosing the right location isn’t just about personal preference; it can mean the difference between failure and success. This analysis was conducted by —an online insurance marketplace for small businesses—using 2024 data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For complete results, see the original post: . Photo Credit: Alberto Menendez Cervero / Shutterstock The data in this report comes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ . To determine the states where new businesses are most likely to succeed, researchers at Simply Business developed a business survival index. This index is based on a weighted average of the most recent survival rates for private-sector establishments during their first, second, and third years of operation, as of March 2024. The survival rates were calculated using sequential benchmarks. The first-year survival rate is the percentage of businesses still active one year after opening. The second-year rate is the percentage of those first-year survivors that remained operational for another year. Similarly, the third-year rate is the percentage of second-year survivors that continued into the following year. The data focuses exclusively on private-sector businesses with at least one employee. For complete results, see on Simply Business. Receive the latest in local entertainment news in your inbox weekly!IPG Photonics Completes Acquisition of CleanLASERAustralia’s economic future will be at risk if we stop the wind and solar construction to build nuclear. Big energy-intensive manufacturing industries such as aluminium smelters would likely be forced to close, and the risk of blackouts from forcing coal generators to stay on line would be huge. Wind, solar and firming can clearly do the job. Every hurdle from reliability to inertia has been overcome. There is no need and no reason to change course. Certainly economics is not a reason. To summaries, building a nuclear industry in Australia: • Makes blackouts more likely by forcing coal stations, already expensive to maintain, that require government support and are increasingly unreliable to go for much longer. The idea of replacing the coal plants with gas while we wait is likely not very realistic, largely because gas plants themselves are expensive and hard to permit and because if asked to run in shoulder mode they are not very efficient and require lots of gas. And right now we are already looking at importing LNG. If the nuclear plants are 5, 10 or 15 years late, as is entirely possible, it would require heroic assumptions to see the coal fleet managing the gap. More to the point it’s a completely avoidable and unnecessary risk. Australia is well set on its transition path. There are some inevitable cost up and downs but no show stoppers have been identified. Every hurdle from reliability to inertia has been overcome. There is no need and no reason to change course. Certainly economics is not a reason. • Increases emission costs by between even in the very unlikely event the plants are built on time as compared to the present ISP. • The nuclear plants stand a good chance of being well over budget and late. That’s because: ° Globally that is often but not always the case. By and large the nuclear industry is one of the most likely global industries to be late and over budget. There is no real nuclear expertise in Australia; ° It will have to be more or less forced on an industry set on a different course; ° It will likely be government owned and developed and the record on that in Australia is poor; ° In general for most capital intensive industries there is an Australia cost premium relative to global averages. This in the end will disadvantage us compared to other countries in terms of the cost of energy. • Likely will destroy the value of CER (consumer energy resources – rooftop solar, home batteries and EVs) in Australia. • Will result in the temporary halt in the transition to a firmed VRE system which is already 20 years down the track with a penetration rate of say 50% within 18 months. • Equally the LNP and by comparison Frontier don’t appear to have done the work or to understand the demand forecasts. The LNP bleat on about EVs, but the real differences are hydrogen, large industrial loads and business demand. One suspects that the aluminium industry in Australia will die if it has to wait for nuclear. • Finally the old concept of baseload is changing, but in my opinion firming costs are cheaper the bigger the portfolio. This implies firming should sit at least with a large gentailer or possibly with a State or even Federal Govt. The biggest, by far, reason for the electricity industry to push back against the ideological LNP Nuclear plan is its far, far too risky. Australia has a plan to decarbonise. It’s not a perfect plan, no plan survives first contact, but it’s capable of and is in fact being achieved. We are roughly already at 40% VRE. We have at least 20 years experience at developing and integrating wind, solar, behind the meter assets and batteries. We know the issues around transmission and social license and cost and reliability. There are well developed plans for each issue and a wealth of industry finance and expertise. The assets to take us from 40% VRE to 50% are already under construction, some are just starting to enter service. The insurance finance to add another 12 GW of VRE and 4 GW of firming assets (essentially batteries) is already either awarded or in tender through the CIS. The LNP wants to bring this to a crashing halt, keep our few, increasingly ageing and unreliable coal stations going for another 20 years while it starts up an industry in which Australia has zero comparative advantage and zero experience. Only in politics could conmen say things with such a straight face. The risk of the coal stations failing is very high. Other stations like Eraring have full ash dams. Yallourn is already on Government support, Vales Point and particularly Mt Piper have coal supply issues. Gladstone Power Station in Queensland is ready to close. And so on. It simply isn’t prudent for Australia to depend on these stations as a group to do another 20 years. It’s a completely unacceptable risk that politicians want to expose Australians to, purely for the sake of politics. I could, but won’t. go into the politics. It is quite sufficient to point out the risk, and really I could close this note at this point completely confident that the argument is made. The LNP might argue that they would build more gas stations. To start with they take time and planning and secondly: Where is the gas? Wherever it comes from it will be expensive. By all means build a peaker or two but it’s a sideshow to the main game, which is bulk energy and shifting it through time and space. For what it’s worth. the following figure shows the closing of the Crocodile jaws. The top jaw is coal and gas generation and the bottom jaw is wind, solar and hydro. The jaws didn’t close much this year, due to wind drought and some utility solar price constrained off but they surely will next year as about 2.5 GW of wind currently in commissioning gets to full production and some more solar farms as well. In addition there is 6 GW, count them, 6 GW of batteries under construction. Using a 180 day moving average allows the informed view to see the Winter v Spring Summer impact. Like many another analyst I’m prepared to look at any technology on its merits. If Frontier Economics had any interest at all in bringing the industry to their point of view then the report is an abysmal failure. Its failings are so obvious that it hardly needs me to do a me to, but I have. As I’ve stated before, a presumption of bias can be attached to the report for three reasons. There are lots of estimates of the cost of carbon. These range from the Gillard Government’s cost which the LNP revoked adjusted to $ of today which Frontier states would be about $40/t, through to the European price presently around Euro 68 = $A113/t, through to a major, multi author estimate published in Nature with a mean of $US185/t = $A 296/t (but the range is US$ 44 to $US 413/t) to the USA official estimate of $US 51 =81.54 AUD $A 81/t through to the AER estimate of $A 75/t in 2025 rising to $221 by 2040. And finally there is the set of numbers adopted by the AER which rise strongly over time and which I have used Frontier could have used any of these numbers, but they don’t. The extra carbon emissions are not regarded as a cost worth considering in Frontier’s numbers! On my numbers the NPV of the increased emissions is between $57 bn and $72bn. The method for calculating this was: I might add that the social cost of carbon is normally calculated with discount rates of 2%-4% given that the damage is long lasting but I haven’t considered the methodological issues around that here. The overall point remains that there can be no excuse whatsoever for Frontier ignoring the cost difference. Frontier could have used some other carbon price estimate, but there is no doubt that carbon emissions have a cost, that is why we decarbonising and not considering that cost renders the Frontier exercise fairly useless. In an AFR article, Frontier’s Danny Price states that the AER carbon cost does not represent the “economic cost”, and produces not a shred of evidence to support this view. The comment seems to me to be revealing of the underlying philosophy of Frontier that global warming is overstated as an issue. Some of the justified criticism of Frontier is in the way it adds up “real costs”. For instance: However, since the use of “real costs” for investment analysis is in any event fatally flawed from the outset and contrary to the laws of Finance, and because I think Price knows that perfectly well, I tend not to worry about methodological flaws of “real costs”. Equally, Steve Hamilton in his excellent noted that AEMO incurs its capital costs from today onwards but the the nuclear costs are only start to be incurred from 2035. In NPV terms costs that are incurred later have a lower NPV than costs that incurred earlier, and Steve noted that if we just compared costs in 2050 there is only a 12% difference between the nuclear and AEMO difference. However, in NPV terms, if we allow for the difference in carbon costs, these differences matter less. In effect Frontier defers capital spending improving NPV but incurs carbon costs which reduce NPV. It’s just that Frontier doesn’t count the carbon cost. Also, once the capital spending on VRE has been made the annual operating costs fall sharply compared to existing coal. Wind opex, for instance, is around A$10/MWh compared to say A$50/MWh for existing black coal, maybe less for brown coal. However, in my opinion it’s unlikely that AEMO captures all the maintenance capital expenditure required on end of life coal assets that are not just end of life but also have to be ever more flexible, ever more capable of ramping. I won’t take the time to illustrate this issue, but just look at the costs being incurred by AGL, and the Government support offered to Yallourn and Eraring. Frontier estimates a nuclear cost today in Australia of A$10,000/Kw, which then falls by 1% per year from today. So the A$10,000 is effectively a misleading number. In that Frontier’s estimate of cost is actually in real terms as Hamilton calculates about A$8,500/KW in 2040 and continues to fall. I don’t have any problem with learning rates in an industry: Solar, wind, batteries and many, many other technologies have a learning rate, representing the reduction in unit costs for a doubling of installed capacity. But I think any reasonable person would question whether it’s appropriate to apply a learning rate to an industry that hasn’t even started in Australia and where the year 0 number is still very much in question. And, to the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t been much of a global learning rate in nuclear, although there may be one in China. In fact academic articles suggest that the experience curve for nuclear depends on the time and country. One oft cited reference is “How Big Things Get Done” by Betty Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner, 2023. A key figure from that book is: The horizontal axis represents on time, expectations, further to the right is more on time, the vertical axis shows on budget. industries in the bottom left quadrant tend to have “fat tails” which means that the outcomes vary. Perhaps in China nuclear goes well, but in the UK or the USA it goes badly. On average it goes badly. Solar and wind go well. The figure is based, I believe on data summarised in the following table. The fact that olympics and nuclear have cost over runs most of the time surely cannot be a surprise to anyone. To me this is so intuitively obvious as to not need stating. Wind and solar projects take a couple of years to build, the technologies are modular, capable of being repeated and relatively small scale. Even a 1 GW wind farm represents 150 concrete pouring, each more or less the same, 150 turbines erected each the same way and so on. And Australia has done 1000s of turbines already. By contrast, Lucas Heights notwithstanding, Australia has absolutely zero nuclear experience or expertise, nuclear plants require much more planning, contracts that inevitably will need to be renegotiated and so on. The mind truly boggles. And in the end we would have zero comparative advantage. Whatever Australia’s nuclear cost it wont be lower than anyone else’s. How could it be? Modern nuclear plants with higher levels of automation might employ 500-800 people. According to a rough industry source about 50% -70% of those jobs will be in operations, maintenance and technical support. Roughly 25%-50% of the people will be engineers of one kind of another. Uranium mining and processing is not going to be taking place where nuclear plants are located. The idea that coal miners will down tools and suddenly start working in a nuclear plant is something only an LNP ideologue could truly believe. Of course, like any business, there will be second order GDP multiplier effects. However, I think it’s reasonable to assume that both the primary and secondary GDP impacts of building out regional REZs will be higher per $ of capital expenditure because by and large they come off a lower base. Building out the Central West Orana renewable energy zone in NSW will have major impacts, not all good, and not all sustainable on the regional economy. But for ever after the regional economy will have a more diversified industry base that, in my opinion, will enable it to better withstand the vicissitudes of the Australian climate and its ever more extreme drought and flood cycles. As far as I know the electricity industry in Australia has expressed zero interest in nuclear and obviously some parts of the industry that are busy building wind and solar will be actively opposed. Clearly this in itself is likely to raise costs. That is, the nuclear plants will have to be forced on the industry to a greater or lesser extent. Again although the plans are very vague the understanding is that they will Goverment funded and owned. Leaving aside all questions of ideology, in my opinion having the Goverment manage the program rather than industry means that there will be less expertise at almost every stage. I could rant on about this, the mind truly does boggle a bit at the possible negative outcomes, but perhaps it is sufficient to say that having the Goverment step into this area where it has no expertise raises the odds of cost and delay outcome substantially. Frontier provided no shapes to their demand or supply forecasts, just the annual totals. This has led to questions on how 13 GW of flat supply will impact the output of other fuels. Price stated that once the 13 GW was forced in the system, it was “re optimised” and the capacity factors, 90% in the case of nuclear, are a model output. And to be fair there is presently must run coal generation in the system which effectively provides a level of flat supply. That level continues to decline, and at least in Spring, the must run nature of coal already forces prices below zero and results in utility solar spillage. As to what fuel gets spilled that is a matter so far of policy and economics. Utility solar, and wind contracts can be written so that negative prices are not covered, the CIS has such a contract. Each contract for differences may have its own wording and since I don’t see any of them I’m cautious about generalising. AEMO provides via the ISP, as Frontier does not, half hourly demand traces by region and POE (10% and 50%). ITK has spent more time than I care to admit looking at these demand traces over the past four years and puzzling over what and what not is included in say “OPSO modelling”. A good starting document is: and for the half hourly data we want Section 6 starting at p57. AEMO is thorough with its demand forecasting, but that does not make the outcomes reliable, that’s the point really, some things are just hard to forecast no matter how thorough. Still, I find its well worth reading that Section 6 several times, because as Dylan sang way back in the early 1960s “dont criticise what you cant understand”. And this stuff ain’t that easy to understand. The following figure shows the shape of average daily demand in 2050 for both the Progressive and Stepchange scenarios with the horizontal red line showing average nuclear output at 90% capacity factor. It’s fair to say that rooftop supply is always a bit out of place on a demand figure but that is the way its done. Operational demand is gross demand less rooftop supply. Time of day averages are just averages. Particularly in the step change case in the ISP view of the world much of the lunch time surplus goes to charging storage to meet some elements of demand in non solar hours. The way I’ve constructed this figure in the Progressive case nuclear replaces virtually all the exiting rooftop and a significant portion of utility supply. In the Step Change scenario it’s still cutting out quite a bit. And that’s out in 2050 when in either Progressive or Step demand is a lot higher than in 2025. It seems intuitive that if nuclear is supplying say 50% of operational demand (more in the Progressive case) that some other sources of supply are going to be running at fairly low capacity factors. However, Frontier’s modelling apparently doesn’t show that.. This remains an unresolved issue. The numbers appear to show that with nuclear meeting 50% of Progressive Scenario demand in 2050 that capacity factors of other fuels will be impacted even with storage demand included. Frontier says this is not really the case and they have the gold standard PLEXOS modelling to prove it. One potential path to reconciliation would be for Frontier to show more results including those with behind the meter PV and storage and some average daily shapes, but I’m not holding my breath. Frontier did such a poor job the first time round the wise course for them would be to retire from the field and not give their many critics more oxygen. I spent time this year working with AEMO’s demand forecasts. In my view not enough attention is paid to demand as virtually all the mainstream focus is on supply and or price. But price represents the intersection between supply and demand, and the primary way to decarbonise an economy is to decarbonise electricity and then electrify other energy sources. AEMO makes the job hard because their demand portal would, I suspect, confuse even Edward Teller. At the risk of a minor digression, the Progressive demand case assumes that most large industrial loads (LIL) close around 2030. That would be the Tomago and Boyne Island and Portland aluminium smelters. Is that really what the LNP wants to happen? Here are the LIL forecasts for the two scenarios and then the state by state forecast for the Progressive scenario. Assuming, rarely a good decision, that I’ve successfully navigated AEMO’s demand portal and the recut and supposedly easier to follow analysis I show at then I get the following main item comparison between he various demand scenarios in 2050. Note that sum EV load is cotained in the res_sum row below. Nevertheless the point remains that talking about EVs maybe good politics for the LNP, even in Ted O’Brien’s Sunshine coast electorate where there are many EVs but it doest go to the major differences in the scenarios. Ignoring Green Energy Exports (everyone does) you can see that in fact the main differences between Progressive Change and Central are: Traditionally energy intensive businesses in Australia, primarily aluminium smelters, negotiate heavily discounted electricity prices with State Govt’s in return for investment in smelters. Traditionally, there has been a role for base load in the large industrial loads sector. However, in my opinion, the way to provide the firmed power has changed and the same result can be achieved, arguably at a lower cost, especially when carbon emissions are accounted for. As of today the State Govt contracts have often been transferred to private entities eg to AGL and other generators in Victoria in respect of the Portland smelter. However, there is no way the private sector is going to incur losses to support an aluminium smelter. The smelters remain a big industry collectively consuming around 9%-10% of electricity (the share relative to operational supply is higher). The relevance of the term “baseload” is best understood in the context of say an aluminium smelter which in Australia typically wants a flat supply, that is a supply every half hour of about 0.9 GW. Traditionally in Australia a coal generator backed up by contracts in the market and a retailers general supply portfolio was the the way it was done. For instance in QLD the Gladstone Power Station is 42% owned by Rio, in Victoria Portland smelter traditionally contracted with Loy Yang A, although that has now changed. In Tasmania the Bell Bay smelter, surely one of the older smelters in the world, contracted with Hydropower of Tasmania. In each case though there is a State Government providing a subsidy one way or another in the background. As the coal stations go away, several questions arise, but the one of relevance here is how to provide the smelter with its flat load without a coal station. So far the emerging answer seems to be that the smelter will provide the VRE itself, but will depend on the State Govt to provide the firming. For instance in February 2024 Rio announced a deal to buy 80% of the 1.4 GW Bungaban wind project and 100% of the 1.1 GW Calliope solar farm, but so far Rio has not announced any firming of this energy. The output of the two projects should be around 6 TWh per year – enough to power most of the smelter when generating. Clearly there will be too much generation at some points and too little at others, and the missing link is the management of the difference. What it shows to my way of thinking is a requirement for all the parties to think beyond a simple contract for difference whereby Rio buys power from the market and the QLD Govt subsidies the purchases. Now there is a more complex situation seemingly requiring the State and Rio to work more closely together. Ultimately, in a renewables based system, the rule is that the bigger the portfolio the lower the firming cost. That is the cost of firming total QLD supply is lower than the cost of firming just the smelter. According to the oldest rule of finance that risk should go to the party best placed to manage it, it’s therefore entirely reasonable for QLD to carry the firming cost. My point here is that Rio and the State Govt don’t need to think about “Baseload coal” or “Baseload nuclear” – the need is to understand the best way to firm QLD’s excellent solar and wind resource and to allow Rio to access that firmed cost.
Belize intensifies efforts to prevent New World Screwworm outbreakFrustrating search for gunman who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO enters fifth day
Kendall Jenner Shows Off Her 'Home at Christmas'NEW YORK (AP) — Police don't know who he is, where he is, or why he did it. As the frustrating search for UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s killer got underway for a fifth day Sunday, investigators reckoned with a tantalizing contradiction: They have troves of evidence, but the shooter remains an enigma. One conclusion they are confident of, however: It was a targeted attack , not a random one. They know he ambushed Thompson at 6:44 a.m. Wednesday as the executive arrived at the Hilton for his company’s annual investor conference, using a 9 mm pistol that resembled the guns farmers use to put down animals without causing a loud noise. They know ammunition found near Thompson’s body bore the words “delay,” “deny” and “depose,” mimicking a phrase used by insurance industry critics . The fact that the shooter knew UnitedHealthcare group was holding a conference at the hotel and what route Thompson might take to get there suggested that he could possibly be a disgruntled employee or client, NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny said. Over the weekend, police divers were seen searching a pond in Central Park, where the killer fled after the shooting. Officers have been scouring the park for days for any possible clues and found his backpack there Friday. They didn’t immediately reveal what, if anything, it contained but said it would be tested and analyzed. Early Sunday afternoon, police declined to comment on the contents of the backpack, or on the results of the search in the pond, saying no updates were planned. The bag’s apparent manufacturer did not immediately respond to questions from The Associated Press. Investigators have urged patience, saying the process of logging evidence that stands up in court isn’t as quick as it looks like on TV . Hundreds of detectives are combing through video recordings and social media, vetting tips from the public and interviewing people who might have information, including Thompson’s family and coworkers and the shooter’s randomly assigned roommates at the Manhattan hostel where he stayed. Investigators caught a break when they came across security camera images of an unguarded moment at the hostel in which he briefly showed his face. Retracing the gunman’s steps using surveillance video, police say, it appears he left the city by bus soon after the shooting outside the New York Hilton Midtown. He was seen on video at an uptown bus station about 45 minutes later, Kenny said. With the high-profile search expanding across state lines, the FBI announced late Friday that it was offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction, adding to a reward of up to $10,000 that the NYPD has offered. Police say they believe the suspect acted alone. Police distributed the images to news outlets and on social media but so far haven’t been able to ID him using facial recognition — possibly because of the angle of the images or limitations on how the NYPD is allowed to use that technology, Kenny said. Late Saturday, police released two additional photos of the suspected shooter that appeared to be from a camera mounted inside a taxi. The first shows him outside the vehicle and the second shows him looking through the partition between the back seat and the front of the cab. In both, his face is partially obscured by a blue, medical-style mask.
Ghana's ex-president Mahama returns with election winThe J.M. Smucker Co. Completes the Divestiture of Voortman® Brand to Second Nature Brands and Updates Fiscal Year 2025 Net Sales OutlookRelief, defiance, anger: Families and advocates react to Biden's death row commutations
10 Exhibitions to See in Upstate New York This December
CALGARY, Alberta, Dec. 02, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- News Release – TC Energy Corporation TRP TRP (TC Energy) today announced that it does not intend to exercise its right to redeem its Cumulative Redeemable First Preferred Shares, Series 1 (Series 1 Shares) and Cumulative Redeemable First Preferred Shares, Series 2 (Series 2 Shares) on Dec. 31, 2024. As a result, subject to certain conditions: (a) the holders of Series 1 Shares have the right to choose one of the following options with regard to their shares: 1. to retain any or all of their Series 1 Shares and continue to receive a fixed rate quarterly dividend; or 2. to convert, on a one-for-one basis, any or all of their Series 1 Shares into Series 2 Shares and receive a floating rate quarterly dividend, and (b) the holders of Series 2 Shares have the right to choose one of the following options with regard to their shares: 1. to retain any or all of their Series 2 Shares and continue to receive a floating rate quarterly dividend; or 2. to convert, on a one-for-one basis, any or all of their Series 2 Shares into Series 1 Shares and receive a fixed rate quarterly dividend. Should a holder of Series 1 Shares choose to retain their shares, such shareholders will receive the new annual fixed dividend rate applicable to Series 1 Shares of 4.939 per cent for the five-year period commencing Dec. 31, 2024 to, but excluding, Dec. 31, 2029. Should a holder of Series 1 Shares choose to convert their shares to Series 2 Shares, holders of Series 2 Shares will receive the floating quarterly dividend rate applicable to the Series 2 Shares of 5.401 per cent for the three-month period commencing Dec. 31, 2024 to, but excluding, Mar. 31, 2025. The floating dividend rate will be reset every quarter. Should a holder of Series 2 Shares choose to retain their shares, such shareholders will receive the floating quarterly dividend rate applicable to Series 2 Shares of 5.401 per cent for the three-month period commencing Dec. 31, 2024 to, but excluding, Mar. 31, 2025. The floating dividend rate will be reset every quarter. Should a holder of Series 2 Shares choose to convert their shares to Series 1 Shares, holders of Series 1 Shares will receive the new fixed quarterly dividend rate applicable to the Series 1 Shares of 4.939 per cent for the five-year period commencing Dec. 31, 2024 to, but excluding, Dec. 31, 2029. Beneficial owners of Series 1 Shares and Series 2 Shares who want to exercise their right of conversion should communicate as soon as possible with their broker or other nominee and ensure that they follow their instructions in order to meet the deadline to exercise such right, which is 5 p.m. (EST) on Dec. 16, 2024. Any notices received after this deadline will not be valid. As such, it is recommended that this be done well in advance of the deadline in order to provide the broker or other nominee with time to complete the necessary steps. Beneficial owners of Series 1 or Series 2 Shares who do not provide notice or communicate with their broker or other nominee by the deadline will retain their respective Series 1 Shares or Series 2 Shares, as applicable, and receive the new dividend rate applicable to such shares, subject to the conditions stated below. The foregoing conversions are subject to the conditions that: (i) if TC Energy determines that there would be less than one million Series 1 Shares outstanding after Dec. 31, 2024, then all remaining Series 1 Shares will automatically be converted into Series 2 Shares on a one-for-one basis on Dec. 31, 2024, and (ii) if TC Energy determines that there would be less than one million Series 2 Shares outstanding after Dec. 31, 2024, then all of the remaining outstanding Series 2 Shares will automatically be converted into Series 1 Shares on a one-for-one basis on Dec. 31, 2024. In either case, TC Energy will issue a news release to that effect no later than Dec. 23, 2024. Holders of Series 1 Shares and Series 2 Shares will have the opportunity to convert their shares again on Dec. 31, 2029 and in every fifth year thereafter as long as the shares remain outstanding. For more information on the terms of, and risks associated with an investment in the Series 1 Shares and the Series 2 Shares, please see the prospectus supplement dated Sept. 22, 2009 which is available on sedarplus.ca or on our website . About TC Energy We're a team of 6,500+ energy problem solvers connecting the world to the energy it needs. Our extensive network of natural gas infrastructure assets is one-of-a-kind. We seamlessly move, generate and store energy and deliver it to where it is needed most, to homes and businesses in North America and across the globe through LNG exports. Our natural gas assets are complemented by our strategic ownership and low-risk investments in power generation. TC Energy's common shares trade on the Toronto (TSX) and New York (NYSE) stock exchanges under the symbol TRP. To learn more, visit us at TCEnergy.com . FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION This release contains certain information that is forward-looking and is subject to important risks and uncertainties (such statements are usually accompanied by words such as "anticipate", "expect", "believe", "may", "will", "should", "estimate", "intend" or other similar words). Forward-looking statements in this document are intended to provide TC Energy security holders and potential investors with information regarding TC Energy and its subsidiaries, including management's assessment of TC Energy's and its subsidiaries' future plans and financial outlook. All forward-looking statements reflect TC Energy's beliefs and assumptions based on information available at the time the statements were made and as such are not guarantees of future performance. As actual results could vary significantly from the forward-looking information, you should not put undue reliance on forward-looking information and should not use future-oriented information or financial outlooks for anything other than their intended purpose. We do not update our forward-looking information due to new information or future events, unless we are required to by law. For additional information on the assumptions made, and the risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ from the anticipated results, refer to the most recent Quarterly Report to Shareholders and Annual Report filed under TC Energy's profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca and with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission at www.sec.gov . -30- Media Inquiries: Media Relations media@tcenergy.com 403-920-7859 or 800-608-7859 Investor & Analyst Inquiries: Gavin Wylie / Hunter Mau investor_relations@tcenergy.com 403-920-7911 or 800-361-6522 PDF available: http://ml.globenewswire.com/Resource/Download/fea6dd55-b1d1-43c3-8961-355750b2e549 © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.Independent TDs could be the kingmakers of the next Dáil as many put their hands up for inclusion in government talks. One newly-minted independent TD told the Irish Mirror on Monday that he was not elected just to “sit on the pot”. As the final counts concluded across several constituencies, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin said it was time to “get on with the work”. However, his deputy leader Jack Chambers cast doubt upon a new government being in place before Christmas. Fianna Fáil will be the largest party in the Dáil having won 48 seats after the election of Niamh Smyth and Brendan Smith in Cavan-Monaghan. Sinn Féin will have 39 seats in the next Dáil, while Fine Gael will have 38. The Green Party has just one seat, while the Social Democrats and Labour both have 11. People Before Profit will have 3 TDs, while Aontú will have two. There will be 17 independent and other TDs and four members of Independent Ireland. READ MORE: General Election 2024: What are the options for a new government? READ MORE: Election 2024: Mary Lou McDonald contacts Labour and Social Democrat leaders to discuss government formation Attention has already turned to the formation of the next government. It now appears increasingly likely that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will have nearly enough seats between them to make up the 88-seat majority required in the Dáil. However, questions remain about whether independents or a smaller party will join them to form a government. Several independents told the Irish Mirror on Monday that they would be willing to talk to Mr Martin and Taoiseach Simon Harris with a view to forming a government. Some said they would also talk to Sinn Féin, but admitted that Mary Lou McDonald’s party will not have the numbers. Sean Canney, an independent TD in Galway East, said he would be willing to support the government, noting he had done so before, during the Fine Gael-Independent regime from 2016 to 2020. He said: “I have no problem going into government if the programme for government is palatable and we can work out an agreement. We’ll have to wait until we are asked to come into talks. There are a few right-minded independents who actually could form a group that would actually help form a government.” Mr Canney said this could include people like Michael Lowry, Noel Grealish, Michael and Danny Healy-Rae, Verona Murphy and Marian Harkin. Asked if he would go into government with Sinn Féin, Mr Canney said that the party might have to “pull together people I wouldn’t support” in order to form a government. Ms Harkin, who was re-elected to Sligo-Leitrim on Sunday evening after looking like she was going to lose her seat, told the Irish Mirror that she was “interested in being able to influence the next government, whoever that might be”. Michael Healy-Rae, meanwhile, said he would go into government if it would benefit Kerry. “Our job is to represent people, and if we can do that better some way than another way, isn’t that the thing to do?” he said. “We’ll answer the call if we’re wanted. The redline would be issues that affect us in Kerry." He said this included housing, dental care, health care and infrastructural projects like a bypass in Killarney. Barry Heneghan, a new independent for Dublin Bay North, said he would be willing to enter government, and he made this clear to voters when he canvassed. “I want the best for the people. If I can make a deal which gets us another Gaelscoil or something for people with disabilities or a school for children with autism or something really good for Dublin Bay North, I don’t think people would be too upset with me doing it,” he said. “If it is not me, it is going to be somebody else.” Asked if he would support Sinn Féin, Mr Heneghan said that people who elected him “didn’t want me to sit on the pot on the backbenches for five years”. Smaller parties, such as Labour and the Social Democrats, were playing coy when questioned about the prospect of going into Government, stating they want to speak to parties of the left first. However, Michael Collins, leader of Independent Ireland, told the Irish Mirror that his party would be willing to replace the Greens in a three-party government. He said: “Independent Ireland will be sitting down with whoever wants to talk or whoever can crack up the figures. We have our policies there. [Other parties] will know whether they can marry with us or not.” Elsewhere, the Tánaiste said it is time to “get on with the work” following Fianna Fáil’s success. “We’ll let the dust settle and savour the moment. We’ll then be in a position over the next couple of days to assess the landscape, devise our strategies,” he said. Later, in a speech after counting in his Cork constituency had finished, Mr Martin said: “The people have spoken, let us now get on with the work.” While the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party will meet in Leinster House on Wednesday, deputy leader Jack Chambers said no government will be formed before Christmas. Fine Gael will also meet on Wednesday. Sinn Féin is also expected to gather in Leinster House on Wednesday. Its party leader Mary Lou McDonald has contacted the leadership of the Social Democrats and Labour to speak about government formation. Follow updates, breaking news and top stories as they happen below. Join our Election 2024 WhatsApp group here to get live election results and updates. You can leave the group at any time if you don't like it.
For travelers, Puerto Rico is a floating island of desirabilityGeoffrey Hinton to donate some of Nobel winnings to create new annual award
Silicon Valley is unleashing artificial intelligence agents that can surf online stores, swipe digital credit cards and buy goods without a human lifting a finger — forcing eCommerce players to grapple with a future where the shoppers aren’t people. Tech heavyweights and startups are racing to crack the code of automated buying, a development that could reshape how retail platforms handle everything from price competition to checkout flows. For example, Perplexity recently launched an AI agent shopping tool last month that lets U.S. subscribers buy through its platform. It offers one-click checkout for select merchants and visual product search capabilities. The company also opened a merchant program providing retailers with product indexing and checkout integration. “For commodity products, AI shopping agents will intensify price competition, potentially driving a ‘race to the bottom,’” Nigel Daley , chief operating officer and co-founder of AI search company Vantage Discovery , told PYMNTS. “With the ability to identify the lowest price in seconds, these agents will make opaque pricing strategies obsolete. To stay competitive, retailers must adopt transparent pricing, implement dynamic pricing to adjust based on market conditions, or introduce value-driven offerings, such as personalized discounts/bundles, to stand out without solely competing on price.” Interest is growing in AI shopping agents. Amazon rolled out its AI-powered shopping assistant, Rufus , to all U.S. customers, making personalized shopping easier. Google unveiled Gemini 2.0 , an advanced AI model designed to act like a virtual personal assistant capable of handling tasks and interacting naturally with users. Meanwhile, HotelPlanner introduced AI travel agents capable of handling end-to-end hotel bookings in multiple languages. The AI system processes approximately 10,000 customer calls per day. Bots Go Bargain Hunting AI shopping agents can be everything from simple chatbots that give personalized suggestions based on browsing data to all-out platforms, where these tools aggregate data from across the web to help users find the best prices on the products they want, Buysmart.AI founder Lifei Chen told PYMNTS. “Often, they’ll have extra value-added features, like pricing history and current prices across eCommerce sites with discounts factored into the price,” he said. “Rather than having to price compare, AI can do all the leg work for you.” Early versions of AI agents are already changing shopping, offering tailored recommendations and streamlining tasks. Amazon’s AI assistant, Rufus, provides personalized product suggestions and answers customer questions. Microsoft ’s Copilot Vision integrates with the Edge browser, suggesting products and reading handwritten notes like recipes. Encore, an AI search tool, helps users find vintage and secondhand items across resale websites. “AI shopping agents have the potential to find products or deals that you might not otherwise have found on your own, across more retailers/brands than a person would normally be able to find on their own,” ReverseLogix founder and CEO Gaurav Saran told PYMNTS. “In theory, these tools could save consumers hours while also helping you easily locate products or brands you didn’t even know existed. This could level the playing field in some product categories or, at the very least, allow smaller merchants to be found in the same search results as Amazon.” Digital Cart? Easy. Digital Wallet? Not So Fast. While AI promises to handle the heavy lifting of comparison shopping, there’s one weight these digital assistants aren’t ready to shoulder: your wallet. Security remains the elephant in the virtual shopping aisle, according to Saran, who pointed to payment automation as the critical challenge ahead. “If you only innovate the product search but do not optimize the purchase process, you are leaving money on the table or money that can be spent elsewhere with another merchant we can fulfill on the entire journey,” he said. Creating complex dynamic pricing algorithms will be essential to make AI shopping assistants as quick and reliable as real people, Michelle Nguyen , product owner and marketing manager at UpPromote , an affiliate marketing company, told PYMNTS. “With these algorithms, the agents could change prices right away based on things like competition in the market, customer demand and the amount of stock on hand,” she said. “In this way, the agents would be able to choose purchases that get the best deals, making sure that customers get the best prices.” For all PYMNTS AI coverage, subscribe to the daily AI Newsletter .z1b STAG Industrial ( NYSE: STAG ) is a unique pick operating within the industrial properties sector as a triple net lease player. As of September 30, 2024, the Company had 578 properties featuring 114.5 sq. ft. across 40 states. Its properties serve mostly Air Freight & Logistics, Containers & Packaging, and Automobile Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of PLD, STAG, FR either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. The information, opinions, and thoughts included in this article do not constitute an investment recommendation or any form of investment advice. Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.Desertification talks open in Saudi Arabia as experts fire warning
Canada Post strike update: Union 'frustrated' with proposals, but postal service says it has yet to see formal response
Shocking moment Saints coach Darren Rizzi screams in the face of his own player... before being pulled away READ MORE: NFL star suffers heartbreaking non-contact injury as he's carted off By OLIVER SALT Published: 20:01, 8 December 2024 | Updated: 20:18, 8 December 2024 e-mail 1 View comments Interim New Orleans Saints head coach Darren Rizzi could be seen screaming in the face of one of his players in a furious outburst during their game against the New York Giants . After the Giants scored a punt return touchdown, rookie Saints punter Matthew Hayball felt the wrath of his seething coach on the sideline at MetLife Stadium. In shocking footage which has gone viral online, Rizzi slammed his baseball cap to the ground and then got in Hayball's face to make his anger known. As he gestured animatedly towards the Australian, New Orleans running back Alvin Kamara quickly intervened to pull him away. Fortunately for both parties, the Saints avoided a near-disaster when the Giants' punt return touchdown was ruled out due to a holding penalty. Yet fans on social media are still taking aim at Rizzi for losing his cool with a rookie player in such humiliating fashion. Interim Saints coach Darren Rizzi was seen screaming in the face of his own player on Sunday Darren Rizzi was laying into Matthew Hayball after that punt return pic.twitter.com/ubpNd1eidC — Sharief Ishaq (@ShariefWDSU) December 8, 2024 Read More Fans of struggling NFL team fly banner over stadium urging owner to 'please fix this dumpster fire' One user wrote on X: 'That might work in High School or college but you’re yelling at grown men. This isn’t what a head coach looks like'. Another put: 'Fake tough guy. Attack a punter. Dude’s accomplished nothing in this league. Not head-coaching material.' 'What could a punter do to deserve this level of coach tantrum,' posted a third. '“Interim” is as high as Coach Glizzy should get.' 'I feel bad for Hayball not on national TV coach,' said a fourth. While one simply concluded: 'Not head coach material'. Rizzi, who first joined the Saints in 2019 as a special teams coordinator before moving up to assistant head coach three years later, took on the interim job at the start of November after the firing of Dennis Allen. New Orleans were 2-7 at the time of Allen's dismissal, with the team going 2-1 in Rizzi's three games at the helm so far. Hayball, meanwhile, was signed as an undrafted free agent in the offseason on a deal worth $35,000 guaranteed that also included a $10,000 signing bonus. Share or comment on this article: Shocking moment Saints coach Darren Rizzi screams in the face of his own player... before being pulled away e-mail Add comment
Assessing FG’s Strategies To Improve Crude Oil Production
