Slashdot Mirror

The DOE http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/electricity/e lectricity.html has several charts here indicating an average $/kwh of $.08 in 2003 and the national average since 1960 has never dipped below that price (in 2000 dollars). It also has a map showing prices in every state. 20 states, 2/5ths of the nation have prices above $.083/kwh. It seems this post and subsequent discussion are somewhat skewed. With that in mind this unit seems like a deal.

Amazingly enough, the US are less energy efficient than the RoW.
If you're looking for an exceptionally efficient economy, try the EU.

WORLD GDP = 61,078,260 => 100.0%
US GDP = 12,277,583 => 20.1%
EU GDP = 12,427,413 => 20.0%
China GDP = 9,412,361 => 15.0%

World Energy = 353 Quads => 100.0%
US Energy = 87.6 Quads => 24.8%
China Energy = 60 Quads => 17.0%
EU Energy = 75.45 Quads => 21.2%

World Population ~ 6,500,000,000 => 100.0%
US Population = 295,734,134 => 4.6%
EU population = 457,030,418 => 7.0%
China population = 1,306,313,812 => 20.0%

what price range the windmills would have to fall to (or the energy rates have to rise to) before I could consider this?

It depends strongly on where you live. Check with your electic company to see what your rates are. According to the DOE, 9 cents/kWh would be competitive in many places.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table 5_6_a.html

You don't mention the kind of area in which you live. The suburban Homeowner's Assocation might have something to say about giant windmill towers in the back yard. The urban condo flat dweller is going to have an awkward time installing one. There's more to it than price.

You don't mention maintenance costs. Or was that included in your lifetime calculation?

The most common use I've seen in the US for wind power is by farmers. Many of them have retention ponds for irrigation water (or for animals), and use a windmill to sporadically drive a pump to keep the pond full. The value here isn't in the price of main electricity. It's that such installations tend to be isolated, and connecting the pump to the main power grid costs more than it's worth.

Also, the application isn't "mission critical" and the pond naturally buffers the random and sporadic nature of wind power in most places. As long as it averages out over the month, you're okay. The pond doesn't need power _now_, or even _sometime today_. Your house is a different story.

Did you slip a decimal point? The average cost per kilowatt hour in the US based on 2006 YTD data ia 10.15 cents/KWH up sharply from 9.08 cents in 2005.

Where I live, we are paying about 6.5 cents and get our electricity from a non-profit municipal utility. I consider us very lucky to have this low cost electricity.

If you really have those electricity rates, then the pay back for you is pretty far down the road, but for most people, if they can afford the initial investment and have a suitable location, it's looking pretty good. You condo and apartment dwellers are probably SOL as are you lucky folks who live in neighborhoods with restrictive covenants that don't even allow an outside antenna.

Are you sure you are reading your bill correctly? Are you in canada or something? I think i pay about 13 c / kwh

here is a list of average prices around the US

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table 5_6_a.html ,,

1/2 is the distribution cost and 1/2 is the generation cost..(this is only matters if you choose a different energy provider as all you can save is the generation cost .. the distribution cost is fixed) .. if you are making energy on site you save on both since they aren't distributing that power to you...

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of taxing (if for no other reason than roads might clear up for ME as people start carpooling and cutting back on travel), but I think it's foolish to believe that the money will come out of the oil companies' pockets. I mean let's be honest here -- ~20% of the cost of gas is already taxes, and California already has an extra 7.25% gas tax on top of their $.18/gal tax*. The oil companies are not going to accept a smaller profit margin, and the money has to come from somewhere.

* http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analy sis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/pe tbro.html

Why not instead create a regulatory body that sets the maximum price at which gasoline can be sold? We know the exact cost of a barrel of crude oil and how much it costs to refine it, why can't a price be set that gives the oil companies a modest profit, but protects Californians from paying the inflated prices we currently pay? Our market is large enough that companies would still sell here because even a modest profit per gallon is still a lot of money.

Well, I heard somewhere recently that the experts speculate we have already passed the worldwide peak oil production. Of course, its all speculation, even The Hubbert peak theory is elastic. Although I've never heard as high as 140+ years... It's not just about getting off the middle east's oil, Saudia Arabia is only our #3 source, after Canada and Mexico, its also about self sufficiency.

Then there's the question of when oil will no longer be economical. Simply by nature of economics we'll search out the more economic options as oil becomes uneconomical. Problem is, it takes time to switch like that, we'd need to be in transition when it becomes uneconomic or we'll suffer huge setbacks in economics terms.

Of course, no arguement for getting off oil would be complete without mentioning the environment and some shrill cries to "Think of the children, won't someone please think of the children." Its sad to hear someone say "It won't happen in my life time, so why should I care if their's change?" I prefer to think that an economical, self sufficient, clean(er) life style for my (or atleast other's) children is a goal worth working for. After all, isn't that, a better life for myself and my children, the American Dream?

The price per gallon of gasoline in the US is mostly tax.

The last time I paid attention to taxes on gasoline, they were on the order of $0.40 per gallon. Of course, this is back when gas was $1.00 to $1.50 per gallon. People claimed the "half tax" all the time then. When there were some spikes, people still blamed it on the "half tax" number, even though the taxes were fixed per gallon, not percent of sales price as most sales taxes are. So, we'd have a spike to $2.00 with $0.40 tax and people complaining about the "half tax" numbers. So, I'd like to see the current tax rates on fuel. I would be very surprised if the last time I filled up at $3 per gallon I was paying $1.50 in taxes. I'd be surprised if the taxes are above $1 per gallon, and I haven't seen prices under $2 in a while now.

I just did the Google myself. Still about $0.40 per gallon tax. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analy sis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/pe tbro.html
But don't let facts stand in the way of your rant. "Mostly tax" is easily confused with "less than 20% tax."

The price per gallon of gasoline in the US is mostly tax.

This claim is not true. According to the EIA, 2005 US gas prices break down as such:

Crude - 53%
Refining/Processing - 19%
State/Federal Taxes - 19%
Distribution - 9%

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analy sis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/pe tbro.html

BTW, I googled to compare my energy costs to the rest of the country. Here is a useful page. Why am I paying three times as much for a kilowatt-hour as a resident of Idaho? Shouldn't costs per resident be lower when the population has a lower density? Or is it that we're being punished for not voting republican?

Bucks?! C'mon, it's more like cents.

Don't be so sure. Let's assume that the PS3 at peak load draws roughly as much power as an Xbox 360 - 160 watts. Assuming that the folding program completely loads the box, and assuming a 24/7 runtime for 30 days, that's about 115 kilowatt hours. According to the Department of Energy, the average retail price of electicity in the US for June of 2006 was 10.84 cents per kilowatt hour. 10.84 cents times 115 kilowatt hours is $12.46 per month, or over $150 a year!

The war instantly took Iraq's oil off the market and kept it off. That's about 15-20% of total world production.

The war instantly took Iraq's oil off the market and kept it off. That's about 15-20% of total world production.

The site also has a wealth of historical data that will allow people to test out their favorite economic conspiracy theory. Of course, no one actually ever wants to test their economic conspiracy theories. Their faith-based nature is what makes them so fun in the first place.

The site also has a wealth of historical data that will allow people to test out their favorite economic conspiracy theory. Of course, no one actually ever wants to test their economic conspiracy theories. Their faith-based nature is what makes them so fun in the first place.

If you care.

It's election season, dumbasses, they're lowering prices to help out their buddies in Washington.

Nice theory, but what happened in 2004? Remember all those rumors that Bush had a secret arrangement with the Saudis and they were going to lower gas prices around the election to make Bush look good. Well, it never happened. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publ ications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html In fact, gas prices peaked in November of 2004, having risen over 20% from March to November of that year.

Yes, all that oil...
Guess Canada must be next then.

Most of the oil money does not flow to the middle east.
Check out the sources for imported oil to the US.
It's not the middle east.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ publications/company_level_imports/current/import. html

The last time I checked, the US generates very little electricity from oil. It's coal and nuclear these days.

I made the same observation. However, the point being made is that we generate electricity in ways that put carbon in the air, keep in mind that more than 50% comes from coal

I live in Washington State, well within 1000 miles of California. We have more electrictiy then we know what to do with. All that extra electricty gets sold to California, lowering our costs. (Our electricity is generated by the BPA, which is a nonprofit.) In fact, Washington and most other areas around California Have the Lowest Prices for Electricity in the United States!

The rotational kinetic energy of the earth = 1/2 I * w^2
    I = inerial moment = 2/5 m r^2 = 2/5 * 6E24 kg * (6,378 km)^2
    w = angular speed = 2 pi / day
so, the rotational kinetic energy of the earth = 2.6E29 Joules = 2.44E26 BTUs.

We're estimated to use 400-700E15 BTUs per year over the next 25 years.

Assuming 600E15 BTUs/year, it'll be 407 million years before we bring the earth to a rotational standstill. Then, when that's done, there's all that kinetic energy to tap. We've got to use it up while we can, because in 5 billion years the sun will become a red giant.

Thank god that hippies have not made any inroads. Here they were busy pushing such weird ideas as Organic Food, Alternative energy, cleaner environment (they blew up so much crap). And best of all, the military never listens to such weird ideas.

You are making a big logical mistake here by assuming that the same people who pay for the war are going to profit for it.

Truth. But you are making a mistake in assuming that they are profiting from it. A 6% net profit doesn't lend much to the theory of:

1. An an elaborate scheme of price gouging through international conspiracy and genocide to "get" oil fields that remain under Iraqi control.
2. ???
3. Windfall profits! (6%)

Maybe instead, the industry functions more like this.

I wonder what people think of the windfall profits from the 1500% markup on soft drinks. or the 16% profits aided by $8,000 per gallon ink.

The problem is in the details of safe DC power distribution. Circuit protection and switching is much harder for DC than for AC. AC voltages goes to zero every half cycle, quenching the arc between open contacts. DC voltage is continuous, so DC breakers, fuses, and switches employ large contact gaps, sand fill, arc streching devices, larger parts, etc. to break the arc and allow the device to survive doing so. 500V DC rated fuses are much more expensive than the small 250Vac 3AG or 5x20 mm fuses in your system's PSU; DC rated circuit breaker are more expensive yet. Getting a 380Vdc powered server room to pass code inspection requires extra care and expense, which increases the time before the power savings pay for the upgrade.

IMO there's a better return on investment for buying more energy efficient AC powered equipment. Start with an efficient product base before committing to a DC power redesign. For a 24/7 data center at $0.0901/kWhr US average commercial power rates, every extra watt in the server costs $0.79 annually for electricity alone, not including the extra cooling to remove that watt from the building.

Right now power plants are responsible for 21% of the greenhouse gasses. Nuclear plants provides 20.6 percent of our electricity. Coal is just over 50%. Hydro amounts to 8%. We'll just say that greenhouse-gas producing sources amount to 70% of our electricity generation.

Lets say we double our nuclear usage from 20% to 40%. That cuts the CO2 producing methods to 70% of their current levels ((70-20)/70). We've just cut our total CO2 production by 6% (20.6 - 20.6*.70).

The question I pose is: Which would be cheaper? To cut all CO2 producing activities by 6% through efficiency improvements or using different methods, or to double our reliance on nuclear power?

I'm not trying to be anti-nuclear. I believe we should increase our usage of it. However, fixing one thing won't solve the problem, and forcing one industry (or group of customers) to bear the costs wouldn't be fair either.

the US isn't 'relying' on the middle east for oil. us oil imports have never been more than 20%. however the US is interested in the mideast's CHEAP oil.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ publications/company_level_imports/current/import. html/ http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=19165 3&cid=15748549

In order to get the radiation down to safe levels, you have to out-radiate everything up to that level. Same radiation, doesn't matter if it takes the normal amount of time or less.

Actually it matters quite a bit. There are plenty of places where all that radiation would be hardly noticed, and if the timescale is lessened to something managable by today's governments, we will be able to avoid the monumental task of warning future generations.

I'd say that's quite a big win, if this pans out.

Once all of these new Ethanol refineries are built the cost should drop substancially. Also as technology increases over the next 5 years or so the efficiency of Ethanol will grow dramatically. This will make it cheaper for the consumer and better for the enviroment. The only loser here is OPEC. The state of California, not known for supporting corn growers for the hell of it, may be voting this November to require all new vehicles sold there to be able to run E85.

Once all of these new Ethanol refineries are built the cost should drop substancially. Also as technology increases over the next 5 years or so the efficiency of Ethanol will grow dramatically. This will make it cheaper for the consumer and better for the enviroment. The only loser here is OPEC. The state of California, not known for supporting corn growers for the hell of it, may be voting this November to require all new vehicles sold there to be able to run E85.

The Early Days of Coal Research

Wartime Needs Spur Interest in Coal-to-Oil Processes

In 1944 General George S. Patton's Third Army was racing across southern France. In his haste to be the first U.S. commander to cross into Germany, however, Patton overextended his supply lines. His armored columns ground to a dead stop. Faced the choice of waiting until he could be resupplied or draining the fuel of captured German vehicles, Patton chose the latter. His tanks and armored personnel carriers continued to steamroll toward Germany, powered by the German's own ersatz gasoline synthetic fuel manufactured from coal.

The leaders of World War II, on both sides, knew that an army's lifeblood was petroleum. Ironically, before the War, experts had scoffed at Adolph Hitler's idea that he could conquer the world largely because Germany had almost no indigenous supplies of petroleum. Hitler, however, had begun assembling a large industrial complex to manufacture synthetic petroleum from Germany's abundant coal supplies.

When Allied bombing of the German synfuels plants began taking its toll in late 1944 and early 1945, the entire Nazi war machine began grinding to a halt. More than 92 percent of Germany's aviation gasoline and half its total petroleum during World War II had come from synthetic fuel plants. At its peak in early 1944, the German synfuels effort produced more than 124,000 barrels per day from 25 plants. In February 1945, one month after Allied forces turned back the Hitler's troops at the Battle of the Bulge, German production of synthetic aviation gasoline amounted to just a thousand tons one half of one percent of the level of the first four months of 1944. None was to be produced afterwards. Lack of petrol meant the end of the war and the end of the Third Reich.

http://www.fe.doe.gov/aboutus/history/syntheticfue ls_history.html

These figures come from the DOE. They publish a real wealth of energy-related statistics.

That makes the 2004 US carbon emissions from petroleum 782.5e9 kg, and 576.7e9 kg from coal.

So Tesla asserts that their car is the "best" option for CO2 emissions - 12.6 g/km...

But that is based on their assumption that the electricity was generated from Natural Gas.

But that's not the reality. Less than 20% of US electric power is generated from Natural Gas:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table es1a.html

If they built in the assumption that the electricity was generated by nuclear power (or pixie dust)... they could claim that they caused no CO2 effect.

Has this White Paper been published in any journals and subjected to peer review?

...would you rather keep sending billions of dollars to Bin Landenland...

Do you know who the top oil suppliers to the US are? America's Hat has quite a few gazillion beaverloads of the stuff and it's getting cheaper and cheaper to extract with better technology. Look up SAGD to start.

We can't. Well, I mean, "we" can, but "we" as in the Royal Large Oil Producing Corporations We cannot. If you commute more than a mile to work, you can't either. Until we revamp the inner city (which has been happening), most of America will grind to a halt if a lot of oil stops flowing. Plus, if we're totally not involved, there's nothing stopping China or Russia or even the EU from stepping in and taking over.

The best thing we can do is pump all the oil out as fast as possible so when it's gone, no one cares about the middle east anymore. Other than the Suez canal. No one really cares about the regional bickering between two totally idiotic religions. No one fucking cares about the Jews and their holy land! No one fucking cares about the Islamics and their holy land.

Ok. Maybe Jews and Islamics do.

I do find some facts interesting: There are almost as many islamic people as christians (over 1.5 billion) whereas there are only about 15 MILLION Jews. Additionally, New York City is approximately 11.9% Jewish (the largest ethnic group there) and almost 7% of the GLOBAL Jewish population lives in New York City. I always try to remember that when I'm watching the news and asking myself "Why do we care about Israel again?" Now, before people start thinking of things the wrong way, I'm just clarifying. I personally, for the longest time, thought that Jewish people made up a large portion of the world population. I never was really much interested in religion, so I never looked at the statistics for the world population. I always assumed that there were a lot more Jewish people because they are always in movies, books, etc., and always in the news because of Israel, etc.

I feel sorry for them, because they lost so many of their own in the Holocaust. They do deserve a chance as a culture. Of course, most people try to do that in America, not over in some other country in an extremely hostile environment. It's just their teachings say that that's their land, so they have to go there or something. I'm glad I'm not a member of any religion that makes me go to the middle east! And the Arabs have plenty of other land to move to. Except of course that Israel/Palestine is like the California of the middle East, with beautiful beaches, palm and orange trees, etc. So everyone wants to live there....

If you look at the history of the region, you'll see that they were from around where Israel is today. Arabs and Jews and Christians lived together peacefully. Then they were driven out of the middle east by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and (briefly) Sassanian rules. Then they wandered around Europe looking for someone to help them take it back. Then they found England (after WWI) and the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was signed stating that Palestine was a "jewish natural home" and Britain was placed in charge of the area (the Palestine Mandate). In 1948 after the war, Britain moved out and Israel was born. According to the UN partition plan, it was pretty much equally divided between the Arabs and the Jews. The Arabs didn't want the state formed of course. But the plan was never implemented by the British government so it became a sort of king of the hill battle for the land. Which is still going on today. Maybe one day the UN will go back and reimplement the plan.

It's funny how history sets itself up for prophecy.

Most of the oil US imports is not from Saudi. It is from Canada. Then you have Mexico (Gulf of Mexico), but Canada is the only country in the top 5 that can double, tripple, etc... its production.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ publications/company_level_imports/current/import. html

The US has vast reserves of coal. We wouldn't have to rely on the Middle East.

the US isn't 'relying' on the middle east for oil. us oil imports have never been more than 20%.
however the US is interested in the mideast's CHEAP oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ publications/company_level_imports/current/import. html/

You're right, if this bill passes I don't need to play $1 buy in tournaments online, since I can just drive to the local indian casino and play $100 buy in tournaments instead. I'm glad the nice people in Congress are trying to stop me from losing money.

• Coal 50%
• Nuclear 20%
• Natural Gas 18%
• Hydro 7%
• Oil 3%
• Non-hydro Renewable 2%

Way. Your DOE citation is just electricity. The actual DOE reports for just 2001 total residential energy consumption (5 years ago, but their most recent) show that our 107M households consumed over 21QBTU, which is actually almost 7KW. Which doesn't include per-household transit consumption etc.

And I never said $0.04:KWh isn't expensive. I just pointed out that the post was criticizing someone as a cheapass while explicitly whining about $6:mo. I'm a cheapass myself, but I don't deny it.

  Canada provides the majority of America's imported oil.

Canada is the largest source of imported oil for the US, but nowhere near the majority. More like 17%, according to the DOE, with Mexico and Saudi Arabia providing nearly as much.

  The average American household uses 5 KW across the year.

No way. That would amount to over 43 MWh per year per household. According to the DOE, it's more like 11 MWh, or about 900 KWh per month.

Meanwhile, at 4 cents per kWh for the surcharge, that's 36 dollars a month, not 6. Still not a huge amount, but enough to be significant for some folks.

Perhaps my power's cheap, relative to the rest of the state, although the additional fees make my real rate something like 9 or 10 cents per KWH anyways. Point was that the CVPS cow power surcharge isn't likely 100%, as some claimed.

Canada supplies a fair amount (for a single country), but by no means the "majority". According to 2002 figures, Canada supplies approximately 15% of the oil imported into the U.S (3rd largest importer behind Saudi Arabi at 16.9% and Mexico at 15.1%).

Recent figures (April 2006) show Canada as the largest supplier for that month at a whopping 17.4%, followed by Mexico at 16.3%, and Saudi Arabia at 16.1%. Nearly half (49.4%) of our oil comes from OPEC countries. And even a non-OPEC country is not guaranteed to be stable or even friendly to the US. Also, when you buy oil from Canada there is no guarantee that it's actually Canadian oil. Some of it might have originated in Iran, Qatar, Venezuela, etc. A funny thing that "trade".

For the April 2006 figures, see here (PDF warning):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/pdf/ table37.pdf

seems to me that whining about $6 a month to run on local energy is cheapass.

Cool.
I'm sure IBM is not showing us everything, (wink, wink) what they do for the DoD, NSA and the rest of the alphabet, I'm sure would give us nightmares.

(Laboratory for Telecommunications Sciences (LTS) -programs continue to emphasize transmission of quantum communications through optical elements.
Quantum communications, quality of service, and high- speed network interfaces)

http://www.er.doe.gov/ascr/NITRD05supplement.pdf

August 19, 2002
IBM, RIM Drafted By Defense Department

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/1 448711

"Big Blue Monday said its AIX 5L was the first UNIX operating system certified by the DoD to run COE Version 4 (Common Operating Environment), a user interface which utilizes the same commands regardless of what operating system is running on the server."

Fun huh?

VMware: US military staff and do not recommend VMware for secure environment:

http://www.cs.nps.navy.mil/people/faculty/irvine/p ublications/2000/VMM-usenix00-0611.pdf

Apple's foray in DOS add-on cards

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112 244

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadra_610

http://www.ralentz.com/old/mac/faqs/source/houdini .html

http://homepage.mac.com/olivers/DOScard/DOScard.ht ml

http://lowendmac.com/archive/06/0407.html

The space shuttles have flown a combined total of 420 million miles (see here: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/sts9 2_longhaul_sidebar2.html, and I'm adding in a rough guesstimate of flights up until the most recent fatal disaster) and have suffered a total of 14 fatalities, for one fatality every 30 million miles. In 1994 alone, US cars travelled a combined total of 1.793 billion miles (somebody actually tracks this: your tax dollars at work http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html ). If cars were as "safe" as the shuttle were, you would assume about 60 traffic accidents would happen per year.

However, this is really stacking the deck in the shuttle's favor. If you want to be technical about it, my bicycle hurtled hundreds of thousands of miles through space on my morning commute this morning... relative to the position of the sun. Granted, relative to the position of my house the displacement was only about two miles. Almost all of the mileage wracked up by the shuttle was it coasting around orbiting, when the only thing it had to accomplish was "don't spontaneously explode or have every life support system fail at once". If you want to compare times when the shuttle was actually under directed movement (and a realistic likelihood of danger), which would be essentially limited to lift-off and flying back to earth with some very minor positional adjustments once you're in orbit, the shuttle is many millions of times more dangerous than a car. Some back of the envelope math: the trip to orbit is about 200 miles, the trip down the same, and we'll be VERY generous and say the shuttle travels another 100 miles once its up there in positioning changes and whatnot. Thats a total of 500 miles per trip. There have also been 114 shuttle missions over the course of the space program. Thats one death per 4,000 miles. If cars were that much of a deathtrap we'd expect about 450,000 traffic fatalities in 1994. There were about 43,000 last year.

Bonus points: if you charge the deaths to alcohol instead of cars (hey, the cars would have been perfectly safe if the guy hadn't been driving drunk -- thats like charging a passenger airplane for fatalities if it gets hit with a missile), roughly half of the car fatalities vanish. Presumably the shuttle program does not have an alcohol problem.

> Now, driving your CAR supports mideast oil barons. Easy solution...drill
> off the East and West Coast as well as in Alaska.

Funny, the US gets more of its oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia, and the trend is only increasing:

        http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/tra de_and_investment/energyrel050328-en.asp
        http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html