FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享ReNews.biz:Iberdrola has launched a new business unit focusing on green hydrogen projects.Iberdrola will commit to using 100% renewable electricity in the electrolysis process to meet electrification and decarbonisation needs of sectors such as industry and heavy transport, the company stated.Iberdrola has already initiated projects in Spain and the UK, with an investment of €150m.In Spain, in Puertollano in Ciudad Real, the company is developing the largest green hydrogen plant for industrial use in Europe, which will be commissioned in 2021. The green hydrogen produced will be used in the Fertiberia ammonia factory in Puertollano.The project will comprise a 100MW solar photovoltaic plant, a lithium-ion battery system with a storage capacity of 20 megawatt hours and a 20MW electrolyser.In the UK, through its subsidiary ScottishPower, Iberdrola is participating in the Green Hydrogen for Scotland project, which will implement a network of green hydrogen production plants to supply fleets and heavy transport. The first of these will be located on the outskirts of Glasgow and will use solar and wind energy to supply a 10MW electrolysis unit.More: Iberdrola launches green hydrogen business Iberdrola forms new business unit to focus on green hydrogen development
Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (24) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. +22 Vote up Vote down GMM · 257 weeks ago Roy Eckert does now know how to tell the truth. Eckert denies being a defendant in this specific law suit even in todays article by Mr Mccue. If you google Stephanie Barnett vs Roy Eckert you see that Roy Eckert was specifically named as a defendant in US District Court of Colorado on June 24,2014 in Civil Action 14-1765. If you read all Nine Pages, you will find Eckert’s name specifically mentioned in the Civil Law suit at least 50 times. Report Reply 0 replies · active 257 weeks ago +14 Vote up Vote down Florence was smart · 257 weeks ago Eckert also applied and was offered the job at Florence, Ore. a coastal town of 8,466 people in the west-central part of the state at the beginning of October. He was offered the job for $120,000 a year and a compensation package according to the Siuslaw News. According to a statement issued by Florence City Hall on Oct. 11 it stated: “The council had offered Mr. Eckert what they believed to have been a very fair compensation package, but could not meet his requirement for a severance clause,” in case he was fired without cause. Report Reply 0 replies · active 257 weeks ago +16 Vote up Vote down Jiminy Cricket · 257 weeks ago Mr. Eckert’s nose just keeps growing, doesn’t it Geppetto! Report Reply 0 replies · active 257 weeks ago +2 Vote up Vote down Citizen · 257 weeks ago Sounds pretty shady. glad he’s in Wellington Report Reply 0 replies · active 257 weeks ago +11 Vote up Vote down dusty · 257 weeks ago Not sure what all is going to come out of the woods about him? Report Reply 0 replies · active 257 weeks ago +24 Vote up Vote down He was correct · 257 weeks ago I Am more impressed with Jim Valentine than ever as you read his comments again from the cow article on October 23,2014. The community needs Mr Valentine to do now what he promised. Valentine has concerns For Valentine he has some concerns about the hire. “I think there are way too many red lights here,” Valentine said. “This guy appears to be a job hopper and I feel I am a good judge of character.” Valentine said Wednesday morning that he was disappointed with him being the lone dissenting vote. He had thought maybe one other council member would have voted his way and that didn’t materialize. “I think there was not enough transparency with this whole process,” Valentine said. “As far as executive sessions are concerned they can throw it out the window. Why should we have anything to hide?” Valentine said he will be keeping his eye on Eckert and making sure he is doing the right thing. Report Reply 0 replies · active 257 weeks ago +1 Vote up Vote down resident2014 85p · 257 weeks ago http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%20201408… Report Reply 0 replies · active 257 weeks ago +8 Vote up Vote down Valentine4President · 257 weeks ago If Jim Valentine is for the people as he claims, then get rid of Eckert now, before he destroys what hope Wellington has. Report Reply 1 reply · active 257 weeks ago +2 Vote up Vote down GMM · 257 weeks ago http://www.gjsentinel.com/images/documents/Barnet… Report Reply 0 replies · active 257 weeks ago +1 Vote up Vote down credence · 257 weeks ago Here is another instance where everyone is quick to judge based solely on the information provided by the plaintiff in the case, which is generally very favorable to themselves. She obviously asked for a jury trial to seek sympathy from the jurors and benefited from that arrangement. I am not defending Mr. Eckert, but I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt he deserves until the case has run its course. Once the case gets before a judicial panel, the outcome may be totally different. Report Reply 1 reply · active 257 weeks ago 12Next » Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments by Tracy McCue, Sumner Newscow â€” A jury recently awarded a woman $306,400 mostly in backpay damages after the Montrose (Colo.) County government was found to have violated two Equal Employment Opportunity acts. Roy Eckert, the current Wellington City Manager, was the acting county manager in Montrose at the time of the alleged incident.Roy EckertAccording to an article written in the July 25, 2015 Grand Junction Sentinel, Stephanie Barnett, the former director of the Montrose Countyâ€™s Internal Services division, won the six-figure award which accounts mostly in backpay damages after jurors determined the county violated the 1965 Civil Rights Act and the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act.Eckert, who has been the Wellington City Manager since November 2014, said the case is now under appeal.â€œI cannot specifically address anything about this case at this time because it is still under litigation,â€ Eckert said on Thursday.Eckert said he was not specifically named as a defendant in the case and was never called to testify in front of the jury.â€œThe defendant was Montrose County as a whole,â€ Eckert said.In the suit, Barnett filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in May 2013 after being fired in March of that year.According to the complaint, Barnett met with former county manager Eckert on March 6, 2013 to discuss a transition to working part-time starting April 1 of that year. But nine days after the meeting, Barnett was fired.The complaint said Eckert told Barnett she was fired and her division would be dissolved because of budgetary restraints at the county. However, Barnett was the only employee to lose her job and her duties were taken over by another person, according to the complaint.â€œThe decision to terminate Barnettâ€™s position was made without prior consultation with the County Commissioners or the countyâ€™s finance staff, as would be typical in reorganization decisions in which budget constraints are cited as the cause for eliminating positions,â€ the complaint said.Bamett, who had worked for the county since November 2007, had an “exemplary employment record and continuously received positive employment evaluations. In fact, just a few months before her termination, Barnett was given an award by her peers for her work excellence,” the complaint states. Hours after she was fired, Barnett started to experience abdominal pain and she miscarried her baby less than a week later, the complaint said.Eckert said the Wellington City Council knew of the suit when he was interviewing for the City Manager job.Â After being hired by the council by a 5-1 vote in October, Eckert told Sumner Newscow on Oct. 23: â€œHonestly, I have never seen a copy of (the suit). And if I did I wouldnâ€™t be able to talk to you about it. Sometimes you get named in a suit, because you are a managerâ€¦ I donâ€™t anticipate it will affect me or the job in Wellington in anyway.â€Â Montrose County officials said in a statement to the Grand Junction Sentinel after the verdictÂ they “consider this case to be completely without merit.” “The County is disappointed with the outcome,” according to the Montrose CountyÂ release. “Although we respect the jury’s verdict, we disagree with it and continue to maintain that Ms. Barnett’s gender and/or pregnancy had nothing to do with her separation from county employment.” Barnettâ€™s attorneys Nick Mayle and Joe Azbell with the law firm Killian, Davis, Richter & Mayle in Grand Junction said they were pleased with the jury’s decision. “I think it’s always more vindicating when you have a jury making this decision,” Mayle said. “This was 12 ordinary folks from the community making fair judgements. I think this story has a powerfirl message for all on the Western Slope.” Mayle and Azbell said they believe the final judgement for the entire case could be in the ballpark of $500,000 to $600,000. Follow us on Twitter.