Slashdot Mirror

... you cherry-picked a quote out of it:

Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a).

While completely ignoring the very next sentence:

"If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2."

If, Jane. If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future. But that didn't happen after ~1975 in the U.S.A. or in Europe.

... In the context of the recent GLOBAL COOLING, it states:

While the natural variations of climate have been larger than those that may have been induced by human activities during the past century, the rapidity with which human impacts threaten to grow in the future, and increasingly to disturb the natural course of events, is a matter of concern....

Now, I know you are completely inept when it comes to context, but that statement is the overarching context of their later comments (given above) about CO2 and aerosols. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Even if I'm completely inept when it comes to context, it seems to me like those statements apply to both carbon dioxide and aerosols. And they were right about both. Globally, we just stopped emitting so much SO2 after ~1975 but kept emitting CO2 even faster.

... They clearly express concern that man's influence is increasing, and suggest that aerosols could very well overwhelm CO2 if the current trends continued. So don't try to give me crap about what I understand and what I don't. I'm not cherry-picking, YOU did. I just gave the LARGER context of the statement that you cherry-picked out of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

If the current emissions trends in 1975 had continued, the global dimming caused by aerosols could have overwhelmed warming by CO2. That's a perfectly reasonable if statement. But since global aerosol emissions declined after ~1975 (see fig 1), that if statement doesn't apply to our universe.

As I have stated so many times in the past, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from you, and why I do not engage you in debate. I may make mistakes, but at least I am honest. I have pointed out many times where you were clearly were not. And that was one of them. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Good grief, Jane. It's bizarre to be accused of not being honest because I didn't quote an if statement from a report that doesn't apply to our universe where aerosol emissions declined after ~1975.

I quoted the 1975 NAS statement that CO2 warming could be "about 0.5C between now and the end of the century" because it applies to our universe. The 2007 IPCC estimate of radiative forcing up to 2005 shows that aerosol emissions roughly cancelled al

Please provide a link that supports your claim: "because it wants to react with everything."

Uranium is a highly reactive metal and reacts with almost of all the nonmetallic elements and many of their compounds. It dissolves in acids, but it is insoluble in alkalis.
http://www.chemicool.com/eleme...
http://www.pnl.gov/main/public...
http://www.bris.ac.uk/cabot/me...

You're getting caught up trying to dig your way out of being 100% wrong. It's really OK. I'll put the guns away. The part you're missing is that Uranium readily oxidizes in even "cold" water, and from there, the chemical possibilities expand dramatically.

But thanx for the links about alpha decay etc. :D pffft.

I felt the links describing alpha decay and alpha particles were pertinent since your initial claim, 6 goal posts ago, was that a 1kg sample of Uranium would kill you if you slept on it.

No.

a) by law, the nuclear plant owners pay into a fund for the storage of waste.

b) nuclear waste becomes contact-safe after about 200 years (half life of Cs-137, the longest lived gamma emitter, is 30 years). Pu-239 is not waste, it is fuel. The only dangerous long-lived fission by-product is Tc-99, which can be separated and vitrified easily (although not done in the US currently, the technology has been proven for decades).

Who do you work for, Exxon Mobil or Shell?

To quote, "A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of these 198 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics. ... Researchers found, in the Midwest and East, there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for ALL [emphasis mine] of today's vehicles if they ran on batteries."
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

"Side note: the Prius is supposedly worse for the environment than a normal gas-powered car because of the costs of building the batteries and motors)..."

Emphasis on "supposedly", since the Prius "report" was done by an shell organization hiding behind a POBox, and was totally debunked.
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius_redux.pdf

In fact, since the report was done, we now know the Prius numbers are even better than those determined in 2008. Further, old Prius batteries are not simply thrown away or even recycled. Many go on to supplement power plants and other systems during peak power loads, supplanting other batteries that would have had to have been purpose built for that use.

Rare earth issues do exist, which is why a team at Boston's Northeastern University, among others, have been working on substitutes and replacements.

And on. Your anti-green energy talking points are out of date, misleading, and, in some cases, appear to be total fabrications.

Here's an aerial photo of the lab at the top of this flier. The blue in the upper right of the picture is the Columbia River. If you can drain all the groundwater from this particular site then I think you would have better things to do than shutting down a supercomputer. Where would you put several thousand cubic meters of water per second?

Here you go: Link.

California's gas prices are above average in the US, but their electricity prices are way over average, so it;s a bad comparison. The average residential power price in the US is 10-11 cents per kWh. Commercial rates are more like 9 cents, and industrial, more like 6 cents.

Don't guess on the energy comparison between EVs and gasoline: Use studies.

Although you can't get to the paywalled article, there is a barely legible chart, which shows the specific capacity, in mAh/g, to be ~2200. Current Li-Ion batteries, which use a graphite based anode, have a specific capacity of ~350 mAh/g. So 2200/350= ~6 times the capacity.

"I read an article that said if 10% of the cars in the USA switched to electric, it would collapse the capacity of the grid. "

Read something else...

"Since utilities have built enough power plants to provide electricity when people are operating their air conditioners at full blast, they have excess generating capacity during off-peak hours. As a result, according to an upcoming report from the Pacific Northwestern National Laboratory (PNNL), a Department of Energy lab, there is enough excess generating capacity during the night and morning to allow more than 80 percent of today's vehicles to make the average daily commute solely using this electricity. If plug-in-hybrid or all-electric-car owners charge their vehicles at these times, the power needed for about 180 million cars could be provided simply by running these plants at full capacity."
http://www.evpowersystems.com/PHEVs%20Save%20Grid.htm [evpowersystems.com]

"A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of these 198 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics. ... Researchers found, in the Midwest and East, there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for ALL of today's vehicles if they ran on batteries."
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204 [pnl.gov]

That's great...so why can't they provide raw, unprocessed data that shows it to be so?

Please tell me what data you find yourself unable to get.

Whenever I look at any raw temperature dataset, I just can't see the 'warming trend' they're claiming.

Please tell me what data you're looking at.

Especially since all of the the projected side effects are things that have happened and hurt us often in the past, and will happen in the future

[[citation needed]]

I still think we, as a people, can be ever so much more effective by focusing on mitigation of potential side-effects

Okay. Mitigate ocean acidification. Mitigate the polar shift and increasing kinks to the jet stream (read: severe weather, especially during winter). Mitigate the loss of 1-2m vertical from *all* our coastline this century. Mitigate an additional 1-2m added to all storm surges. Mitigate the loss of 30% of Florida within a couple centuries. Mitigate overseas places with worse problems and a fraction as much GDP to deal with them. Mitigate seasonal loss of water in desert southwest areas that are already using more water than they can sustain.

Mitigation is a far more difficult, if not impossible task, when you actually get down to it.

Nobody is asking that mitigation capacity be removed, anyway. Seriously, how much money do you think is being talked about here? We're talking about things like a couple cents per kWh for feed-in tarrifs on a temporary basis until cost reductions -- which have been ongoing, and will likely continue for quite some time -- no longer call for them. We're calling for things like making coal plants actually pay for the health costs of their pollution. We're calling for tens of billions per year -- a tenth of a percent of our economy -- to be put into research. We're talking about a long term energy strategy. Things of that nature, all of which will have huge secondary benefits down the line ("status quo" does not create technology revolutions). But we're asking that they start *now* and *definitively*, because delay and uncertainty are killers in the market.

Ever calculate the carbon offsets for creating, transporting and using the electricity to power that lawnmower?

Why should I do it when the DOE already has (for cars; lawnmowers makes for an even more stark comparison, due to their lower gasoline efficiency)? Plus, our grid gets cleaner every year, while oil gets dirtier every year.

(which, by the way, will need more carbon offset credits to recycle come end of life),

1) I prefer corded lawnmowers (they make both). My view is, you wouldn't use a battery powered vacuum cleaner, would you? But to each their own.

2) The whole battery issue is pure, unadulterated garbage. *Every* part of *every* device, whether gasoline or electric, has a cost associated with it. Anyone who just chooses the battery to obsess over is deliberately distorting the issue. Batteries are not magical devices which for some mystical reason have exponentially more carbon costs associated with their creation and usage.

Let's look at different types of batteries. The three main types you'll see these days are lead-acid (they suck, but they're cheap) and li-ion. Lead-acid is a very simple ore to produce. It doesn't need to be smelted (smelting being the high-carbon process used to produce steel); it's simply sintered (heated in conjunction with various fluxing agents). Beyond that, lead acid batteries are *the* most widely recycled item on the planet. Almost every single lead-acid battery in this country is recycled, which further saves on energy costs. So the comparison of a lead-acid battery to an internal combustion engine, as far as *car

Um.... huh?

Okay, first off, to look at the impact of a Volt, we need to first break down a driving profile. For most people, and in particular most volt customers (i.e., not a random sampling of Americans, but of people who bought it because they felt it fit their lifestyle), almost all of their trips will be on electric, and a solid majority of their miles will be on electric (note that the % of miles on gasoline will be much larger than the % of trips on gasoline, since gasoline trips are long distance). Let's say that 75% of miles are electric. In practice, this number will vary widely depending on the consumer, from ~25% or so at the low end to 100% at the upper end. The gasoline miles will likely be almost entirely highway, since you'll only burn out the electricity on long trips. So let's go with the EPA 40mpg highway number for that figure.

The impact of electricity consumption varies significantly depending on where you are in the country. This study found that, for equivalent vehicles, on our current grid, an electric drivetrain averages 27% less GHGs than gasoline, an 18% increase in PM10, a 125% increase in SOx, a 31% decrease in NOx, a 93% decrease in VOCs, and a 98% decrease in CO nationwide. Now, let's look at each of the caveats here.

1) "For equivalent vehicles". Remember that the "equivalent vehicle" to a Volt is not your average US car; your average US car doesn't get 40mpg on the highway. Compared to the average US car, the numbers are much lower.
2) "On our current grid". Our grid gets cleaner every year. Most of the new capacity being added is natural gas, followed by wind. Oil, on the other hand, gets dirtier every year as we increasingly shift to syncrude, ultra-heavy, ultra-sour, deepwater, etc.
3) "Than gasoline". A gallon of gasoline burns much cleaner than a gallon of diesel in a modern engine. Yes, a gallon of diesel in a modern diesel engine burns cleaner than a gallon of gasoline in an *old* gasoline engine, but both gasoline and diesel engines have gotten cleaner, and gasoline still significantly outpaces diesel in terms of the worst emissions. A gallon of diesel burned also releases about 15% more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline, as it is denser and contains more oil.
4) "Nationwide". By shifting from tailpipes to smokestacks, emissions are largely removed from surface level in densely populated areas to high altitude in more sparsely populated areas, where it can dilute and break down far more readily. This can have a profoundly positive impact on human health. The numbers for emissions in urban areas for, again, equivalent vehicles, current grids, becomes a 31% reduction of PM10, a 81% reduction in SOx, a 90% reduction in NOx, a ~99% reduction in VOCs, and a ~100% reduction in CO.

Factoring all of these factors together yields an exceedingly positive picture for the 75% of miles that are driven on electric. In terms of air pollution effects on human health, the Volt will be the equivalent of a ~130mpg gasoline car, and of a couple hundred mpg diesel. In terms of CO2, it'll be the equivalent of a ~65mpg gasoline car and a ~75mpg diesel. As time goes on and generation/oil sources shift, these numbers will increase on their own.

What about the simple figure of "energy" consumption? Well, that's not so easy to figure. :P Power plants vary widely in terms of efficiency. Power plants operating on kinetic energy, such as hydroelectric and wind, tend to be very efficient -- wind can exceed 50% and hydro 90%. Power plants operating on thermal energy have dramatically different efficiency variations depending on how hot their working fluid is -- as low as 10% for low-termperature geothermal and nearly 60% for top-of-the-line combined cycle NG plants. Coal averages 32% in the US; nuclear is similar. Thermal plants which make use of waste heat to offset industrial, commercial, or residental heating can achieve over 90% net

Do you know what peer-reviewed studies are? I've got a dozen more where that came from. Basically, on our current grid, certain pollutants (such as PM) increase by using EVs, while others are nearly eliminated (such as CO and VOCs); however, all pollutants are shifted to higher altitude and to less populated areas (instead of being emitted at street level in populated areas), leading to huge health benefits. CO2 is reduced by a quarter.

That's on our *current grid*. Our grid gets cleaner every year; most new capacity being added to it is wind and natural gas. Oil production, however, gets dirtier every year, as we keep having to shift more and more to deepwater, bitumen, ultra-heavy, sour, arctic, coal liquefaction, and so forth.

Lastly, your emissions control line is an urban legend, albeit one greatly encouraged by automakers.

The Green Car Reports article linked in the original post mentions a baseline of 300 million cars in the US. The study summary referenced examines several scenarios of plug-in hybrid market penetration of 20% to 80% of new vehicles by 2050. That's 60 to 240 million vehicles with today's numbers, and presumably a lot more with population growth by 2050.

A 2006 DOE study (summary) found that there is enough off-peak excess capacity in our grid today to switch 70% (about 217 million) of all light-duty vehicles to plug-in hybrids with a 33-mile range (which is enough to cover most people's daily driving) without any need to add power plants. The study makes a number of assumptions, like everyone charges off-peak, but the upshot is clear: our grid already has plenty of capacity for overnight charging.

With the most optimistic view of EV and PHEV production rates for the next five years, there aren't going to be enough to cause any problems with the grid. As market share grows, financial incentives (time-of-use metering) and smart grid infrastructure can be put in place to make sure the majority of EV charging is done off-peak.

Electric vehicles will become widely available starting in 2011. The current Administration supports a goal of one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. A previous PNNL study showed that America’s existing power grid could meet the needs of about 70 percent of all U.S. light-duty vehicles if battery charging was managed to avoid new peaks in electricity demand.

http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=365

I'm not that worried. There is plenty of nighttime generating capacity.

ALSO, you people are forgetting to mention the carbon footprint the electric one has: is it's power source a petro power station? Or a coal power station? Those cases would make the electric one worse.

No. According to a DOE study, switching vehicles over to electric would only increase particulate matter. SOx would remain about the same, NOx would decline somewhat, and CO and VOCs would be virtually eliminated. Furthermore, all pollutants would be emitted much further from people on average. CO2 would decline by... if I remember right, 27%.

And Vancouver primarily runs on hydro anyway.

(if not worse in the case of CFL bulbs)

What's wrong with CFLs? You could use a CFL over its lifespan, then vaporize all of the mercury from it straight into the jet stream, and you'd still have emitted less mercury into the atmosphere than a coal power plant would have emitted running incandescents during that time. And furthermore:

  * Mercury is just one pollutant of many that coal power plants emit. Not even near their worst.
  * Coal plants emit "organic" mercury (methylmercury, dimethylmercury, etc), which is much more toxic than the elemental mercury found in CFLs.
  * CFLs don't release all of their mercury when disposed of. If incinerated, about 1/4th of their mercury ends up in the environment. If recycled or landfilled, about 3% ends up in the environment. And if treated as hazardous waste, a negligible percent of the mercury ends up in the environment.

One thing to point out is that there are now plenty of open source codes available for doing similar things as gaussian so it can be avoided now with relative ease. Two that come to mind are the the Department of Energy funded codes: nwchem for ab initio work and lammps for molecular dynamics. I use the NIH funded code vmd for visualization. The best part about those codes is that they're designed to be compiled using gcc and run on linux so you can get off the non-open source software train all together if you wish.

The annual energy usage of automobiles is more than the current electricity usage in the US.

True but grossly misleading. :) The average car has a tank-to-wheel average efficiency in normal combined city/highway driving of about 20%. Your average li-ion electric vehicle has a plug-to-wheel average efficiency under the same conditions of about 85%.

The reality is that almost no new generating capacity is needed.

Awwww, not this shit again. The DOE has stated that almost 80% of a US fleet of electric vehicles could be charged from off-peak (night) power generation, without building any additional plants.

Perhaps you should read that study past the first few lines. http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Economic_Analysis_Part2_Final.pdf. Basically all the paper says is that power plants have enough surplus off-peak capacity to accommodate a significant number of PHEVs.

There's a few other good gems in there like "When compared with an HEV such as the Prius, the economics of the PHEV are not favorable at high
electricity prices and marginally favorable at lower electricity prices". The paper also makes a point of avoiding the topic of residential infrastructure, assuming that "charging a PHEV would be a relatively simple affair with each vehicle plugged into a home circuit" which is certainly not the case.

Close, but you got all of the reasons wrong.

FirstEnergy still had a requirement to remove vegetation under its wires (while "dangerously deregulated") under state deregulation just as it did as a vertically integrated company. The fact that their maintenence crews failed to do so was FirstEnergy's flaw, not deregulation. They were cutting costs, and since there was no oversight from NERC/FERC, they got away with it, just as they did in the years before they were deregulated. Since 2003, NERC has developed an extensive system of regulatory controls and FERC has been given the ability to levy fines to keep compliance.

And besides, the root cause of the blackout was a deadlock in the mainframe at FirstEnergy, where their staff failed to properly recognize that the system was reporting old data as if it were fresh. FirstEnergy had over an hour and a half to take action to correct for the loss of the transmission lines, but instead failed to observe the overloads which eventually resulting in the separation of the load around Lake Erie and the eventual blackout along the PA/NJ border between GPU, PS, and NYISO. The government's report was very watered down on this area.

This might help you understand the root causes, instead of blaming some phantom "deregulation" as the root of all evil.

Oh, and Quebec was isolated from the rest of the Eastern Interconnection (connected only via HVDC ties) in 1990 because of its demonstrated repeated inability to stop cascading blackouts, long long before deregulation hit the scene. Quebec physically could not be affected by the 2003 blackout on the HVAC system.

Ah, the "long tail" argument -- that old zombie of electric vehicles. No matter how many times you knock it down, it comes coming at you.

Power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines. While the engine itself can *peak* at a fairly high effiency number (percentage-wise, as much as the upper 30s for gasoline and mid 40s for diesel), that's not what you get in practice, as that's only for a narrow torque/rpm range. In practice, you also have parasitic and braking losses. Total well-to-wheel consumption is about 14% for gasoline and 17% for diesel. Engines are slowly getting more efficient, but at the same time fuel production is getting *less* efficient as we have to move more to syncrude and deepwater (think tar sands and outer continental shelf). Power plants, however, are only getting more efficient, and fairly rapidly. Well-to-AC power for an average coal plant in the US is 32%, and natural gas is 42%. Those numbers are higher in Europe. Next gen coal plants are over 40% and next-gen natural gas 60%-ish. Coal, the dirty fuel, is only half our generation. After that is natural gas (a very low carbon fuel per unit energy) and nuclear (a near zero carbon fuel). After that is hydro and then wind (both near zero carbon). There's also a smattering of other generation methods such as diesel, solar, geothermal, and biomass that combined make up a couple percent of our grid.

AC power transmission in the US averages 92.8% efficiency. Your typical EV charger is 92-93% efficient (rapid chargers, closer to 90%). Li-ion batteries are generally 96% (rapid charge) to 99% (trickle charge) efficient. Electric drivetrains average 85-90% efficient (they can peak at over 95% on a really good one). And regen braking is pretty much standard. So your net well-to-wheels efficiency is very high, and your carbon is low. And while petroleum gets dirtier, the grid gets cleaner. Last year, for example, over 2/5ths of our new power that went online was wind, and most of the rest was natural gas.

But wait, it gets better. Most EV charging is done at night, on a timer to take advantage of low off-peak rates. Coal power plants take a while to ramp down. In the process, you can sometimes get what's called "spinning standby" -- power generation capacity that's literally wasted because there's nothing to consume it. This mainly occurs in the evenings. Charging off of it is literally free of environmental consequences. Furthermore, most power plants run more efficiently at higher capacity. Evening out the day/night peaks makes the grid as a whole more efficient.

Perhaps having a DOE study conducted at PNL explain it to you will help. Here's a graph comparing the efficiencies of different drivetrain options, and here's one for emissions.

Can this zombie of a notion please accept its headshot and stay down?

The /. summary of TFA is almost exquisitely bad. It's not Window or Linux that's not ready for multicore (as both have supported multi-processor machines for on the order of a decade or more), but rather the userspace applications that aren't ready. The reason is simple: Parallel programming is rather hard, and historically most ISVs have haven't wanted to invest in it because they could rely on the processors getting faster every year or two... but no longer.

One area where I disagree with TFA is the claimed paucity of programming models and tools. Virtually every OS out there supports some kind of concurrent programming model, and often more than one depending on what language is used -- pthreads, Win32 threads, Java threads, OpenMP, MPI or Global Arrays on the high end, etc. Most debuggers (even gdb) also support debugging threaded programs, and if those don't have enough heft, there's always Totalview. The problem is that most ISVs have studiously avoided using any of these except when given no other choice.

--t

According to a DOE study conducted at PNL, switching to EVs is a net win even on our current grid. The main reason is that power plants are a lot more efficient than gasoline-powered cars at turning fuel into energy, while transmission and charging are very efficient. Also, EVs, which mainly charge at night, reduce the need for spinning standby, allow plants to operate more efficiently at night, and so on. The net result is that you could switch 84% of our cars over on our existing grid and you'd cut CO2 emissions by a third, increase PM somewhat, NOx would drop slightly, SOx would stay the same, and CO and VOCs would be nearly eliminated. The pollutants that would be emitted would be emitted on average much further from people's lungs and so affect them less.

depending upon the problem domain, a very useful (albeit expensive) set of tools is StarLight, written for the US Government: http://starlight.pnl.gov/

highly recommended if you've got tough visualization problems. this tends to get used for the *really* interesting visualization challenges.

Opinion. Citation.

The problem isn't the bulk quantity of electrical energy needed*, it's the timing of the power. As long as electric car chargers can be timed to match times of excess generation capacity, then it's golden.

* except for hydroelectricity

I believe the DOE took your concerns into account when they put together their report.

The report I referred to:

http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf

If you read the section on load regions, they mention that moving power to the load centers with concentrations of vehicles isn't a problem.

It's expected by whom -- anonymous Slashdot posters? Listen to the DOE. Centralized power plants are more efficient and have better pollution controls than cars. Also, it's far easier to clean up a couple hundred power plants than 250 million tailpipes.

With our *current* grid, here are various calculated pollutant changes:

CO2: -27%
PM10: +18%
SOx: No change
NOx: -31%
VOCs: -93%
CO: -98%

Furthermore, these pollutants will be more displaced away from where people are breathing and end up higher in the atmosphere, unlike car emissions which tend to be at ground-level in crowded areas. Now, picture our grid after carbon cap & trade is in place for a decade or so, and what that'll do to these numbers.

Oh, and I should add that this assumes no change in vehicles for increasing efficiency when switching to EVs. Quite to the contrary, EVs tend to be very streamlined so that they don't need as big of a battery pack to go as far.

As for ICE efficiency, Toyota says their Prius gasoline engine achieves 40% and Volkswagen determined their 3-cylinder Lupo diesel engines are at 50%.

You're confusing engine efficiency and well-to-wheels efficiency. Heck, even pump to wheels efficiency is a lot lower than engine to wheels due to all of the parasitic losses in a car.

Here's an interesting study comparing the well-to-wheels efficiency of various vehicle types in Norway. Check out the graphs.

As for the "long tailpipe" argument, it's busted here.

"A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 70% percent of the U.S. light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet, if they were plug-in hybrid electrics. (Note: an earlier version of this release referenced 84% capacity based on LDV fleet classification that excluded vans)."

Looks like they went and changed one of the numbers on me. Oh well, 70% is still a respectable number.

http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

Unless you live in an area where the electricity is made from hydro/nuke/solar only. That electricity is made from oil/coal. So not so much savings since oil is still in the equation. Coal is still used in the US at least not sure world wide. I think that are natural gas electricity plants and geo-thermal ones too but I don't have those numbers. Not everywhere can have geo-thermal electric plants.

Oy -- lots to cover with this one.

1) Coal power plants average just under 35% efficiency from fuel to AC. On top of that, add 92.8% transmission efficiency (the average for the US), ~93% charger efficiency, ~95-99.9% battery efficiency, and a 85-90% electric drivetrain efficiency Gasoline engines, after all of the parasitic losses, average about 20% efficiency from gasoline to wheel torque. Let's assume the energy required to produce gasoline is the same as to produce coal (it's not; coal takes far less energy to produce than oil, but I don't want to have to dig up the numbers). .35*.928*.93*.98*.87=25%. Even coal electricity wins; yet it only makes up half of our power generation. The net change of everyone going electric with our grid's spare capacity would be a ~40% reduction in CO2 emissions, little change in NOx or SOx emissions, an increase in particulate matter, and the near elimination of VOCs and CO emissions. Don't take my word for it; take the DOE's.

2) Oil generates only a trivial percentage of our nation's electricity. Oil is way too expensive to waste that way in most circumstances. By contrast, coal is literally dirt cheap; some of the coal out west only costs $10-$15 per *ton*. The only state that gets a significant percentage of its power from oil is Hawaii.

3) Natural gas, nuclear, and hydro make up most of the rest of our power generation mix after coal. Natural gas is lower carbon, cleaner burning, and more efficient burning than coal. Nuclear is nearly CO2-free across its entire (not completely because of mining, processing, plant construction, plant decomission, etc but the contributions from those stages are dwarfed by the energy produced by the plant over its lifespan). Hydro varies. You have the contribution of greenhouse gasses from its construction, but the bigger issue is often anoxic decomposition in the reservoir creating methane instead of CO2. In a few cases, it can actually be worse than coal (although methane has a shorter atmospheric residency than CO2). Solar and wind are currently a small part of our grid, but their costs (especially solar's) are falling incredibly fast. The biggest issues with them are their intermittent nature. High altitude wind helps address this. Other renewables techs include wave, tidal, ocean thermal, ocean current, vortex generation (a solar thermal variant), and dozens of others.

4) Actually, you can do geothermal almost anywhere. All that changes is how deep you have to drill, and thus the cost. EGS is an interesting new technology that enables this. Normally for geothermal power you need an existing reservoir -- water, fractured rock, etc. EGS uses techniques developed by the oil industry to fracture the rock, and then they inject (and circulate) either water or a gas as the working fluid.

As is usual whenever electric cars comes up, it's time for some mythbusting.

No, they don't increase pollution and overload the grid; precisely the opposite (more specifically, the only pollutant that goes up is particulate matter, and it's displaced away from population centers. NOx and SOx remain the same, CO2 drops, and CO and VOCs are nearly eliminated; the grid gets to make use of its surplus off-peak capacity and, with smart charging, can eliminate the supply/demand fluctuations that are currently so troublesome).

Yes, they are far more energy efficient than their alternatives.

No, modern batteries don't take forever to charge. The phosphates, titanates, modern spinels, and others can all charge in 5-20 minutes, given sufficient power.

Yes, fast chargers exist. The SAE J1772 standard covers Level 3 charging at hundreds of kilowatts. Yes, chargers as strong as 250kW exist. Yes, there's already a network of 60kW Level 3 chargers in place around Oahu. Install one yourself.

No, the batteries are not toxic. Current li-ions are only mildly toxic, and this only because of their cobalt-based cathode. The phosphates and spinels eliminate this cathode in favor of nontoxic elements.

No, lithium is not running out.

Yes, the batteries last a long time. The phosphates last 7000+ gentle cycles, having only 20% capacity loss after 1000 abusive cycles. The titanates? 20,000 cycles. Accelerated aging tests suggest LG Chem's packs will last 40+ years in typical use.

Yes, both rapid charging stations and EVs make financial sense.

Hmm, did I miss any?

I'd like you to defend your "minimal environmental damage" statement at the very beginning. If you had a magic wand, and we were all driving electric cars tomorrow, what would the additional load be on the electric grid, and how much more pollution would that load cause when fed (mostly) by coal-fired power plants?

How about a DOE study conducted by PNL? We could convert 84% of our existing vehicles over to PHEVs running mostly on electricity without building a single new power plant. Even though the extra power would be mostly coal, the only pollutant to rise would be particulate matter. CO2 would drop by a third, NOx would stay roughly the same, SOx woudl stay roughly the same, and CO and VOC pollution would be virtually eliminated. To top it all off, the pollution would be displaced from "ground-level in densely populated areas" to "out of the cities and emitted at altitude".

Here's another study for you. Check out the graph.

I contend that energy consumption is energy consumption, and moving everyone from hydrocarbon burning to burning coal isn't really fixing anything in the long-run.

I contend that not only is it far easier to clean up the grid than to clean up individual tailpipes, but that the very basic fact that power plants are far more efficient than individual ICEs makes even coal cleaner. And I'm backed up by peer review. And you?

100 amps X 12V = 1.2Kw

1.2Kw X 1 hour = 1.2KwH

From this PDF,

http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf,

they state that a compact sedan requires 0.26KwH/mile. So, you can get 4 miles if you charge your EV with a gas car's alternator. Not very far, but perhaps far enough to get you home or to a service station if you're in an urban area.

This is *meaningless* because when everyone plugs in their car into any plug, the power will go out.

Not according to a DOE study conducted by PNL. In fact, EVs can actually help the grid if they use a smart charger by adjusting their draw relative to demand, giving peaking plants a chance to come online. And the fact that they'll more often charge on offpeak power means lower rates for everyone, since power companies can get more utilization out of their existing infrastructure.

http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf

Oh, hey, missed this part:

Batteries -- especially Li-Ion ones -- begin to degrade as soon as they're manufactured, usually losing 40% or more of their charge capacity in 18-24 months. How is a station going to deal with customers dropping off old battery packs and picking up new ones?

I wasn't going to comment on your post, since I prefer fast chargers like the Aerovironment PosiCharge chargers and the various chemistries that can take 5-10 minute charges over battery swapping. However, this is a big misconception that needs to be remedied.

First off, you're thinking of conventional lithium ion. That is, lithium cobalt oxide cathode, graphite anode. There are many variants of this chemistry out there (in particular, the phosphates, titanates, and spinels) that change either the anode or cathode, usually the more expensive cathode, for a more stable version. This allows for fast charging, crazy power density, safety, and extreme longevity, for the cost of some of its energy density (going from ~160Wh/kg to ~100Wh/kg -- still way better than NiMH, mind you). Most upcoming highway-speed EVs are using these sorts of variants, not traditional li-ion. These techs weren't as mature when Tesla started, so they used more conventional cells. This is not the standard in the industry.

Now, focusing on Tesla... this means that their packs will degrade in a couple years, right? Well, no again. Tesla coddles their cells like crazy. They don't charge them to full. They cool them during operation. They cool them if they get too hot when the car is out in the sun. They practically refrigerate them during charging, and don't allow them to charge or discharge too quickly. They do extensive load balancing. All in all, this allows them to only be down to ~80% capacity in 5 years if it's minimally driven, and 50% if it's very heavily driven.

But anyways, I must reiterate: Tesla is the exception, not the rule.

Should I end right here? Meh, let's take care of another misconception: the "Long Tailpipe" argument:

There are many more reasons why this is a silly idea that will do little or nothing to help the environment. It may, in fact, actually harm the environment if we (meaning the U.S.) turn to our most abundant power-producing resource (coal) to provide the needed power.

Nope.

Error in your logic: Electricity has already undergone Carnot losses. Gasoline hasn't. The average ICE is only about 20% efficient. The average li-ion EV is about 80% efficient when fed already-generated electricity.

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of a peer-reviewed study from PNL conducted for the DOE. We already have enough electric infrastructure for 84% of our existing vehicle fleet to switch. Of course, not as though it's somehow *harder* to build electric infrastructure than develop new oil fields and pipelines. Just the opposite, actually -- that's largely why electricity is so much cheaper per joule.

No really, this is small market TV. They would kill to get notice like this. I just hope that this may lead to more coverage of science by the station. They are sitting with the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in their backyard. But most anyone with a clue that grew-up there, left. I did.

Euhm, you are almost totally wrong. Sorry to say it so, but it's the case. Nuclear is great indeed for a base load: but that's it, base load. It can not easily be switched on or off like a coal or gas fired plant, which can change load in a matter of minutes.

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

Base load (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical supply system over 24-hours: the load that exists 24 hours a day.

A base load power plant (or base load power station) is one that is best suited to serving this load because it takes a long time to start up and is relatively inefficient at less than full output. These plants run at all times through the year except in the case of repairs or scheduled maintenance.

A base load power plant is not supposed to be "on-demand" power. Of course, to supplement base load, you're going to use Peaking Power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant#Peaking_power_plant_usage

Natural gas and oil power plants are much faster to start, but have much higher fuel costs. These plants are typically scheduled to handle peak power demands since they can be ready to supply power in 30 minutes or less. They are more expensive to operate than coal power plants, primarily due to higher fuel costs.

Hydroelectric power is the fastest to respond to increasing power demands, reaching full power in about two to three minutes. These plants can provide both base load and peak load demands for power at a relatively low cost, but are limited by the amount of water available and other considerations, such as water demand for municipal or irrigation sources, or the need to limit water discharge for flood control reasons.

Your idea of using some power dump is nice, but electrical vehicles are not the place. How are you ever going to switch on and off their charging for a start? When the wind falls, these chargers should be switched off. That requires some sophisticated communications, and is quite error prone. And how are you going to get to work after a windless night, or a gusty night where your charger is switched on and off but mostly off?

You don't switch their charging on and off. They charge at night. No communications are necessary.

http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf

Major utilities like Pacific Gas & Electric and Austin Energy have studied this and found since Plug-In Hybrids are generally plugged in at night, the grid already has the nighttime capacity to charge these vehicles. A January 2007 Pacific National Laboratory study showed that if we woke up tomorrow and all our vehicles could plug in, today's grid could already support 84% of them charging at night without building a single power plant.

Power dumps could be cold storage warehouses, as discussed on Slashdot a few years ago (sorry, no link). Other power dumps, used already in e.g. France which is over-reliant on nuclear, could be pumping up water to the top of a hill during the night, and let it run down during the day when necessary. Wind power is unstable, and we have to live with that. As nuclear is only a base load, wind may be used during the night to power the cold storage warehouses, which don't mind having no power for an hour or so. But during the day you will need back-up from conventional sources, just to maintain reliability. So far we haven't found a sufficiently reliable renewable energy source do do it otherwise. On top of that power dumps are nice but also have limited capacity, both in absorption and release of energy on

B) This is about oil reserves INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Actually, the Bakken formation extends into Canada, too.

The Bakken has a rather interesting history. Estimates on how much oil it produced have varied a lot. Back in the '70s, they thought it only had about 10B barrels -- which is a lot, but not when it's spread out over such a huge formation. To make matters worse, the formation is a dozen meters or so thick in most places. All together, recovery rates were expected to be 1-3%, and expensive at that. Not many takers.

Things have changed. After Price's paper that predicted over 400 billion barrels, computer simulations have been developed; the latest runs expect 200-300 billion barrels. Furthermore, horizontal drilling means that you can enter the thin formation and then run along it; this is what is used in the very successful Elm Coulee field.

The Bakken is just one minimally tapped deposit. There's absolutely no shortage of recoverable oil in the world. The problem is the consequences of recovering and burning it all.

C) The US is moving to 'alternative fuels'. The debate is not over whether or not to, but how big a priority it is.

Are you kidding? There's a huge debate over whether or not to, especially after the most recent papers suggesting that even sugarcane ethanol leads to more greenhouse gasses than gasoline. Let alone the fact that there's a widely growing acceptance that, despite the momentum, corn ethanol is a huge blunder. There's the food-for-fuel competition (food prices are up 40%, mostly from fuel prices and alternative fuel pressure). Now, I think it's good that corn prices aren't as artificially low as they used to be, but now they're artificially high, and everything is getting pushed up by the increased demand for biofuel land -- even other staples like wheat.

And what about cellulosic ethanol, this supposed panacea? This is one thing that drives me crazy. Look at how most big cellulosic ethanol companies are making the stuff. They turn the biomass into syngas (CO+H2) by burning it in a poorly oxygenated environment, and then use a complex, inefficient biological or catalytic process to convert it into ethanol. Well, here's the thing: we've been making syngas into *gasoline* for most of a century. That's how Nazi Germany and Apartheid-era South Africa kept their engines running (excepting, in the case of Germany, after we bombed most of their facilities). And it's a relatively efficient -- 70% or so. So, instead of making a fuel that we're *already set up for*, we're instead making a *less dense* fuel that we can only use in *limited quantities* in most cars and *can't ship in our pipelines*. Why? Because "cellulosic gasoline" isn't a buzzword. Nobody likes the word "gasoline", but lots of people like the word "ethanol". You get more investment, you get more tax breaks, and on and on. So the inferior solution gets chosen.

Anyways, if you want to *actually* clean up your act, either increase your MPG or switch your miles over to electricity (the significantly higher thermodynamic efficiencies of power plants mean that even dirty power plants run a car cleaner than a gasoline engine -- plus, electricity is a lot easier to clean up). Biofuels are an "easy" solution that isn't really a solution at all.

So yes, electrical costs will remain close to the same.

If anything, they'd drop. You're increasing the profit margin on power companies, as they get to sell more electricity without having to build new infrastructure.

Here's that link you were looking for.

As for what I'll be paying when I get my Aptera next year, with my electricity rates, it'll cost me half a penny per mile (at 55 mph). Compare that to what you pay for gas! And that other big car cost, maintenance? With an EV, I'll have one belt, no radiator, no exhaust system, no muffler, no spark plugs, no cylinders, no transmission, no valves, no catalytic converter, no pumps, not even any motor oil. Oh, and lithium phosphate batteries, like it uses, are typically rated for 10+ years and 7000+ charge cycles (and even then, all that means is that you lose some range). The only moving parts in the drivetrain are the motor driveshaft, one belt, and three wheels. In short, the energy cost per mile is a tiny fraction of what it is for gasoline vehicles, and the the maintenance costs are likely to be as well.

Completely inaccurate. The error in your thinking is that power plants are far more efficient than ICEs, and the other steps don't lose much at all.

Your pretty graphic shows 80% efficiency because it's based on a flawed assumption: that the energy cost of loading up your car with its energy source is the same.

The "pretty graph" wasn't created by me; its source is linked. It is from the peer-reviewed "Well to wheel study of passenger vehicles in the Norwegian energy system". It covers electricity generated by non-renewable sources, and just like the DOE study conducted at PNL, determines that it's much better for the environment than an ICE.

Finally: every single point on your precious "fourth IPCC WG1 report" has been thoroughly debunked.

So now it's *my* fourth IPCC WG1 report? Apparently I run the IPCC now. Amazing, that! Hey, where's that "point by point" debunking? Given that the IPCC WG1 merely *summarizes the existing papers*, it really needs to be a point-by-point debunking of each of the several thousand papers. Even if it was a debunking of the summarizing of the papers, it'd still have to be several thousand pages long. How did this amazing piece of debunking manage to sneak through the cracks? :)

1) Most of the issues with range on EVs are more due to the cost of automotive batteries, not energy density. The Tesla has no trouble fitting over 50kWh of automotive batteries into a sports car and retaining excellent performance, but the "budget" EVs like the Aptera and the MiEV generally have only 10-20 kWh. That's all about cost, and that's all about needing mass production.

2) To go over 200 miles or so, yes, energy density improvements would be highly recommended. And here's seven for you, each offering 2-4x the energy density: EESU ultracapacitors, lithium vanadium oxide anodes, silicon nanowire anodes, "superlattice" cathodes, "composite" cathodes, lithium-sulphur batteries, and sodium ion batteries. Think every last one of those is going to fail to be commercialized?

3) No, pollution most definitely would not.

4) Very little oil goes to generating electricity. In the US, only Hawaii uses a relevant amount of oil in power plants.

Phoenix is widely accepted by the EV community as being significantly overpriced, thanks to their use of AltairNano batteries. If you want a 5 seater, the similar-stat MiEV is a much more economical option, at $24k.

The main range limiter at this point isn't the batteries themselves; it's the relatively high cost of automotive li-ion batteries due to small-scale production. Five years from now, the same price vehicle will buy you double the range without any battery improvements. Yet the battery improvements do keep lining up in the lab, and we're talking about 2-3 times the energy density from at least five different battery chemistries (just the ones I've tallied up so far, and I've hardly read all of the research coming out). The odds that *none* of them will make it to commercialization seems implausible to say the least. Give it ten years for that, and you're looking at EVs that cost around the same ($25k or so) and have gasoline-equivalent range and are fast charge capable, release far less CO2 and other pollutants, cost around a penny per mile in energy costs (more or less depending on the vehicle and your rates), and cost a small fraction as much in maintenance. Automotive li-ions are rated for 10+ years, and it's not like they suddenly "die" then; in practice, they last the lifespan of the car. Apart from the batteries, the only other moving parts are the drive shaft from the electric motor, the wheels, and occasionally a belt or small cooling fan. 90% of the complexity of the engine and all pollution controls on the vehicle itself disappear. There's generally not even a transmission because electric motors perform well over a wide torque range.

Oh, and yes, we already have the power infrastructure (study commissioned by the DOE) -- everywhere except the pacific northwest.

For a lot more info, read this.

Phoenix is widely accepted by the EV community as being significantly overpriced, thanks to their use of AltairNano batteries. If you want a 5 seater, the similar-stat MiEV is a much more economical option, at $24k.

The main range limiter at this point isn't the batteries themselves; it's the relatively high cost of automotive li-ion batteries due to small-scale production. Five years from now, the same price vehicle will buy you double the range without any battery improvements. Yet the battery improvements do keep lining up in the lab, and we're talking about 2-3 times the energy density from at least five different battery chemistries (just the ones I've tallied up so far, and I've hardly read all of the research coming out). The odds that *none* of them will make it to commercialization seems implausible to say the least. Give it ten years for that, and you're looking at EVs that cost around the same ($25k or so) and have gasoline-equivalent range and are fast charge capable, release far less CO2 and other pollutants, cost around a penny per mile in energy costs (more or less depending on the vehicle and your rates), and cost a small fraction as much in maintenance. Automotive li-ions are rated for 10+ years, and it's not like they suddenly "die" then; in practice, they last the lifespan of the car. Apart from the batteries, the only other moving parts are the drive shaft from the electric motor, the wheels, and occasionally a belt or small cooling fan. 90% of the complexity of the engine and all pollution controls on the vehicle itself disappear. There's generally not even a transmission because electric motors perform well over a wide torque range.

Oh, and yes, we already have the power infrastructure (study commissioned by the DOE) -- everywhere except the pacific northwest.

For a lot more info, read this.

Its easy to be an environmentalist, you don't have to think of the requirements to achieve whatever goals you might have. It just has to sound good.

And it's easy to insult environmentalists when you don't know what you're talking about. We already have tons of spare generating capacity for EVs and PHEVs -- everywhere except the pacific northwest. And even if we had to build more, as if electricity infrastructure was somehow more expensive to build and operate than oil infrastructure (it's far cheaper -- that's part of why a joule of electricity costs so much less than a joule of gasoline).

Why electric cars? Here's a primer.

"Since utilities have built enough power plants to provide electricity when people are operating their air conditioners at full blast, they have excess generating capacity during off-peak hours. As a result, according to an upcoming report from the Pacific Northwestern National Laboratory (PNNL), a Department of Energy lab, there is enough excess generating capacity during the night and morning to allow more than 80 percent of today's vehicles to make the average daily commute solely using this electricity. If plug-in-hybrid or all-electric-car owners charge their vehicles at these times, the power needed for about 180 million cars could be provided simply by running these plants at full capacity."
http://www.evpowersystems.com/PHEVs%20Save%20Grid.htm

Or, "PG&E's experimental EV tariff would likely deter PHEV owners from charging during summer afternoon hours..."
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/10/phevs-cost-more-to-operate-than-gas-cars/

Or, the following PHEV fact sheet from Wisconson Public Power...
http://www.wppi.org/media/PHEV_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Or, "The next step would be to add smart meters that would track electricity use in real time and allow utilities to charge more for power used during times of peak demand, and less at off-peak hours."
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17930/

Or, " A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of these 198 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics. ... Researchers found, in the Midwest and EAST [emphasis mine], there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for ALL [emphasis mine] of today's vehicles if they ran on batteries."
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

BTW, the phrase "quoted" for emphasis of "SUBSTANTIAL GRID EXPANSION WOULD BE NEEDED" occurs NOWHERE in the linked article.

If I were you I wouldn't post anything more on this topic either...

• "off-peak" guess when folks will plug their hybrids in? when they get Home From Work, did you say? When everyone is running ovens, lights, heat... not off-peak. There's a reason there's "off-peak generating capacity" laying around, and a reason it's called "off-peak".
  
• "plug-in hybrid", as opposed to plug-in fuel cell, or all-electric. That's a different discussion, so I'll just nod and pass on.
  
• "electricity production" - Sorry, just covered that.

• "off-peak" guess when folks will plug their hybrids in? when they get Home From Work, did you say? When everyone is running ovens, lights, heat... not off-peak. There's a reason there's "off-peak generating capacity" laying around, and a reason it's called "off-peak".
  
• "plug-in hybrid", as opposed to plug-in fuel cell, or all-electric. That's a different discussion, so I'll just nod and pass on.
  
• "electricity production" - Sorry, just covered that.

If you want full calcs, I've got those too.

We don't have gobs of spare generating capacity just laying around.

Yes, we do.

Or, rather than jump through all of these hoops and lower the range of conventional cars, we could simply transition to electrics. Let's look at the facts: the charge time issue is already solved (there are no fewer than a dozen li-ion battery chemistries that can charge in minutes). There are at least three techs out there that would 2-3x the range and have the potential to be extended a lot further (lithium vanadium oxide or silicon nanowires for li-ion, barium titanate for ultracaps). Modern automotive li-ions have no lifespan or fire problems. If all of our vehicles were suddenly transformed into EVs overnight, 84% of them could be powered by our existing grid thanks to the fact that most would be charging at off-peak via timers (and get a discount for it to boot). Even if that weren't the case, it's not like power infrastructure is somehow harder to build than, say, developing new oilfields and refining infrastructure.

Even Wal-Mart wants to get in on the charging business. Fast charges can be provided via battery banks (certainly no more expensive than a gas pump/tank), and since most people would off-peak charge at home except on long trips, there wouldn't be a huge amount of people charging at once at a given charging station. Delivering the charge that fast isn't a problem if you use active cooling on the wires. Safety can be easily guaranteed by having no current delivered until a connection is verified by the plug, and have an outer sheath that if damaged cuts all current delivery.

Electric cars typically cost a penny or two per mile in energy costs (my Aptera will end up costing me about half a penny per mile where I live), and have very little maintenance (my Aptera's drivetrain's total moving parts are: three wheels, one motor driveshaft, and one belt; plus the batteries are designed to outlive the vehicle). EVs are quiet, convenient, emit half the greenhouse gasses of a conventional car even when charging from "dirty" power, emit none when charging from "clean" power, any emissions from "dirty" power charging being displaced to out of the city, and so on.

Really, once mass production kicks in and drops prices -- five to ten years from now -- what reason will there be to be concerned about things like onboard carbon sequestration? Why not just go straight to an EV? Even with current prices, I can easily defend the purchase of a $27k Aptera Typ-1e over a gasoline car with similar features. Slash the battery prices in half and mass produce the cars, and you're looking at widespread adoption.