Search

China aims for net-zero carbon emissions by 2060 and an emission peak before 2030. This will reduce its consumption of coal for power generation and steelmaking. Simultaneously, China aims for improved energy security, primarily with expanded domestic coal production and transport infrastructure. We analyze effects of both these pressures on Chinese coal imports, with a purpose-built model of China’s coal sector with installation-level detail, representing roughly a 300-fold increase in granularity versus earlier models. We find that reduced Chinese coal consumption affects seaborne imports much more strongly than domestic supply. Recent expansions of rail and port capacities, which reduce the costs of getting domestic coal to southern coastal provinces, will further reduce the demand for seaborne thermal coal and amplify the effect of decarbonization on coal imports. Seaborne coking coal imports are also likely to fall because of the expanded supply of cheap and high-quality coking coal from neighboring Mongolia.

This protocol provides instructions on how to run a linear optimization model that determines the cost-optimal supply of coal, from Chinese and foreign mines, to satisfy a given demand for coal in Chinese power and steel plants. We describe how to download the code and required software and detail steps to insert third-party data. We further provide instructions to adjust and define the scenario settings, build and solve the optimization problem file, and visualize the model outcomes.

With services overstretched and a dire recruitment crisis on the horizon, will the Chancellor listen to the NHS?

The author discusses the protection of mobile or smart phone applications using patent process in Europe and Great Britain. The patent practitioners can seek about the actions performed by the application programs and the structure of memory. The decisions by the Court of Appeal in the trial of Aerotel and Macrossan are also considered.

The authors reflect regarding the patent protection in Australia related to computer implemented inventions and business models. According to them, these inventions of Intellectual Property should fall within the framework of Statue of Monopoly in order to be patentable in accordance with the Patents Act 1990. Several view points on associated with the decision making of Australian IP office (Ip Australia) have been offered in the article.

The authors discuss several cases ruled by the Intellectual Property Office's Hearing Office in Great Britain. They mention several cases filed by several companies such as Forensic Science Service Ltd., Really Virtual Co. Ltd., and Waters Investment Ltd. and detail the respective background of each complaint pertaining to trademark application. Furthermore, the authors also note the Hearing Office's analysis and decisions of the filed cases.

The author discusses the developments and exclusions to patentability in Great Britain and European Union (EU). He notes several lawsuits associated to patentability such as the case suggesting the sufficiency of patentee in providing credible suggestion for the use of claimed product/sequence to pass the industrial applicability test. He also mentions the capability of gene sequence patents for industrial application.

In this article the author discusses several cases of intellectual property in which the subject matter is on the terminal of patentability, which includes patenting of algorithms, and treatment methods such as surgery or therapy, for the human or animal body. He also mentions that according to a ruling of European Patent Office (EPO) Enlarged Board of Appeal, the presence of a single therapeutic or surgical step is enough to remove patentability from the method of treatment of disease.

The article presents information on the strategies which could help the companies for dealing the competitor issues over intellectual property (IP). It presents both the proactive and reactive approaches for competitor management. It suggests the use of outsource services for IP matters is helpful if there is no IP department in the company and also a patentee must work hard to defend its patents in case opposed by its competitors.