ner400.com Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the ner400.com

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host ner400.com. Currently, hosted in Bulgaria and its service provider is GetClouder EOOD .

the related websites

iop.org whc.unesco.org guinnessworldrecords.com bath.ac.uk soundcloud.com tate.org.uk roar.eprints.org telegraph.co.uk le.ac.uk ni.com 

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called nginx containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

eu finance for innovative renewables, industry and ccs home contact categories broad features events flaws in the impact assessment int(er/ra-)institutional debate member states' actions necessity, nature and niche public debate about the european commission has proposed a funding programme worth billions for the period 2021-2030 (with some amount possibly made available before 2021). called , it will build on the ner300 programme which saw 2.1 bn eur awarded to 38 innovative renewable energy and one ccs project. will additionally include measures to decarbonise industrial production. the debate on ’s function and form is underway now. in 2017 the european parliament and council of ministers will likely adopt the primary legislation that will set it up. this website is unofficial and independent, providing news ...to keep you up to date with the latest developments, key dates and deadlines analysis ...understand the ner400 innovation fund as it takes shape a point of contact ...to help you explore any specific plans you may have oct 09 2017 response to the climate strategy & partners summary report under contract to dg clima, a team of consultants wrote up four “sectoral roundtables” held between january and april in 13 reports. these have not been published. instead, a 24-page summary of the summaries prepared by climate & strategy partners (cs&p) was published and presented on 12 june 2017. it contains many familiar ideas, several contradictory ones and a curious lack of awareness of the constraints that the european commission, european parliament and council of ministers had been placing on . disbursement based on milestones is capped at 40% of the support stakeholders want, cs&p reports, “i.f. funding [to] be provided when the project has a funding gap, leading to a form of contracted ‘funding against milestones’ approach.” but a cap of 40% on the proportion of support that “may not be dependent on verified avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions” has been hard-coded into ’s legislative text. this is equivalent to saying that maximum 40% of support can be provided when milestones on the path to operation are met. the rest can only be released as the project operates. the european parliament would like to push 40% up to 60%, but even if the council agrees, the fact remains that a large chunk of will be governed by the same constraint that ner300 faced. the discussions with stakeholders about whether and how to set up a revolving fund, who should manage it and the return it should generate will, at most, apply to 60% of the budget. this was not explained to the participants in dg clima’s meetings. “transparent and clear criteria for project selection” that’s what the stakeholders want, says cs&p. and again: “participants were clear that any criteria […] should apply fairly to all proposals in order to compare them on an objective common basis.” but many of the criteria they want taken into consideration are ill-defined and unclear, like “potential for developing profitable and volume business” or “duration: whether it is a short/long-term project (faster projects should be prioritised);” ner300, the ec reminds us in its impact assessment , came with some fluffy criteria, too. for example, projects had to have “a cost-effective co 2 reduction potential,” “be ready to be demonstrated at a scale which is easily conducive to further scaling up” and be “innovative in relation to the state-of-the-art”. it reconciled these with the need to be “objective and transparent” by, in the case of the “innovation” requirement, defining what “innovative” meant for different technologies in consultation with stakeholders, and in the case of the others, bundling them all together in a pass/fail “eligibility check” performed as part of the proposal evaluation process. this cleared the way for the selection of projects to then be done by a genuinely objective metric (“cost per unit performance”). , similarly constrained, may be given the same treatment. to get the most out of the roundtables and of the invitation-only written consultation that ran in parallel, the ec or the consultants should have asked where to draw the line between eligibility and selection criteria. the impact assessment had even identified this as an area to explore (“it should be noted that innovation should be used either as an eligibility criterion or as a ranking one, to avoid confusion in the selection process.”). furthermore, the ec / consultants could have briefed the participants to focus on the eligibility criteria that the european parliament adopted on 15 feb (box below), since a list drawn up within the legislative process would in any case trump a stakeholder-drafted one. this list was known before the first roundtable, on 17 feb. by doing these things, the stakeholders’ input could have built on rather than duplicated the work being done elsewhere. projects shall focus on the design and development of breakthrough solutions and implementation of demonstration programmes; the activities shall run close-to-market in production plants to demonstrate the viability of breakthrough technologies in overcoming technological as well as non-technological barriers; projects shall address technological solutions that have the potential to be of widespread application, and may combine different technologies; solutions and technologies shall ideally have the potential to be transferred within the sector and possibly to other sectors; projects where the anticipated emissions reductions are significantly below the relevant benchmark value shall be prioritised. eligible projects shall either contribute to emissions reductions below the benchmark values referred to in paragraph 2 or shall have future prospects to significantly lower the cost of transitioning towards low-emissions energy production; and ccu projects shall deliver a net reduction in emissions and a permanent storage of co2 across their lifetime. — european parliament’s proposed guidelines for “criteria to be used for the selection of projects that are eligible” side note speaking at eusew dg clima staff member filippo gagliardi said the consultation on had yielded “a number of interesting proposals on how to rank projects.” member states involved in project progress this is another area where stakeholders may have wasted their time. if the ec had wanted to work differently to ner300, it would not have proposed to leave the current text of the ets directive unchanged: “support for these projects shall be given via member states”. ep and council have not touched it, either. so while cs&p has found that “experts [want] ‘control of the process [to] be at the eu level and [to] allow for direct if feedback with applicants (not via member state institutions)'”, a change compared to ner300 seems unlikely. elsewhere cs&p reports, “the innovation fund should include ‘mechanisms to ensure proper coordination between eu and national funding'”, so maybe strong oversight by member states is in fact desirable. time travel “avoid confusion and overlap with other funding instruments,” recommends the report four times in its 24 pages. but what are these other instruments? the bulk of ’s budget will be available only after 2020. no eu instruments for that period have yet been defined. it will be for those future instruments to fit around , not vice versa. this has not stopped cs&p and dg clima speculating that there will be a “successor to horizon 2020” (see cs&p’s presentation and dg clima’s — fig 1). they show horizon 2020’s successor to fully overlap with , suggesting neither believes this particular recommendation will be taken on board. fig 1: they said ‘no overlap’. to differentiate from horizon 2020, the form in which projects are selected, funding is provided, and the conditionality attached to funding could be different. with the enlargements to ’s scope , however, the similarities are growing between and resea

URL analysis for ner400.com

http://ner400.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/amdt77_4col_sept2017.docx
http://ner400.com/category/flaws-ia/
http://ner400.com/2017/01/13/factual-mistakes/
http://ner400.com/2017/06/
http://ner400.com/category/interinst/
http://ner400.com/2016/09/16/european-commission-gently-promoting-an-increase-in-the-innovation-fund-pot-beyond-its-proposal/
http://ner400.com/
http://ner400.com/2017/01/15/wrap-up-of-2016-state-of-play-in-european-parliament-and-council/
http://ner400.com/2015/10/
http://ner400.com/feed/
http://ner400.com/2017/01/15/2017-predictions-for-ets-innovation-fund/
http://ner400.com/2015/12/
http://ner400.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/if-design-extract-ecofys_et_al.docx
http://ner400.com/2017/05/
http://ner400.com/2017/05/07/job-opening-at-dg-clima/

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain Name: NER400.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1881239323_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.meshdigital.com
Registrar URL: http://www.meshdigital.com
Updated Date: 2017-10-15T04:26:21Z
Creation Date: 2014-10-20T08:24:49Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2019-10-20T08:24:49Z
Registrar: Mesh Digital Limited
Registrar IANA ID: 1390
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Name Server: NS1.UK12.SITEGROUND.EU
Name Server: NS2.UK12.SITEGROUND.EU
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/
>>> Last update of whois database: 2018-06-15T04:39:34Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp

NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.

TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois
database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and
automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry
Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for
information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record. VeriSign does not
guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to
use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or
query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations. VeriSign reserves the right
to restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensure
operational stability. VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to the
Whois database for failure to abide by these terms of use. VeriSign
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

  REGISTRAR Mesh Digital Limited

SERVERS

  SERVER com.whois-servers.net

  ARGS domain =ner400.com

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DOMAIN

  NAME ner400.com

  CHANGED 2017-10-15

  CREATED 2014-10-20

STATUS
clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited

NSERVER

  NS1.UK12.SITEGROUND.EU 185.123.97.176

  NS2.UK12.SITEGROUND.EU 77.104.128.187

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .