Slashdot Mirror
California Has So Much Solar Power That Other States Are Paid To Take It (mic.com)
"On 14 days during March, Arizona utilities got a gift from California: free solar power," reported the Los Angeles Times. Mic reports:
California is generating so much solar energy that it is resorting to paying other states to take the excess electricity in order to prevent overloading power lines. According to the Los Angeles Times, Arizona residents have already saved millions in 2017 thanks to California's contribution. The state, which produced little to no solar energy just 15 years ago, has made strides -- it single-handedly has nearly half of the country's solar electricity generating capacity...
When there's too much solar energy, there is a risk of the electricity grid overloading. This can result in blackouts. In times like this, California offers other states a financial incentive to take their power. But it's not as environmentally friendly as one would think. Take Arizona, for example. The state opts to put a pin in its own solar energy sources instead of fossil fuel power, which means greenhouse gas emissions aren't getting any better due to California's overproduction.
The Los Angeles Times suggests over-construction of natural gas plants created part of the problem -- Californians now pay roughly 50% more than the rest of the country for power -- but they report that power supplies could become more predictable when battery storage technologies improve.
When there's too much solar energy, there is a risk of the electricity grid overloading. This can result in blackouts. In times like this, California offers other states a financial incentive to take their power. But it's not as environmentally friendly as one would think. Take Arizona, for example. The state opts to put a pin in its own solar energy sources instead of fossil fuel power, which means greenhouse gas emissions aren't getting any better due to California's overproduction.
The Los Angeles Times suggests over-construction of natural gas plants created part of the problem -- Californians now pay roughly 50% more than the rest of the country for power -- but they report that power supplies could become more predictable when battery storage technologies improve.
I might contact the state in sililicon valley to see if possible generate more revenue streams with electeicity stream or electricity link sharing.
-cremier
Preserving this energy for later would be the best thing to do. Now, how can we do that?
So why not take that excess electricity and make hydrogen out of it?
The journalist is (a) clueless about energy production and (b) a careless writer.
Just one example of the latter: "free" is not "paying other states to take it". Which is it? I'm not going to bother to look, but what crappy writing and editing.
Meanwhile: What happens when the sun doesn't shine? A big cloud rolls across that 2 square mile patch of solar cells? Something has to kick in, and fast. That something are the natural gas plants that the journalist is criticizing. The more solar power you install, the more fast-reaction generating capacity you need. So you pretty much build a watt of natural-gas generation for every watt of solar you install.
Of course, a nice, green alternative would be a pile of hydroelectric storage plants up in the mountains: Two lakes, one up and one down. When there's too much power, you pump the lower lake into the upper. When you need fast power, you drain the upper lake through turbines into the lower. It works really well, but I'm sure the eco-types would have a total fit at all the flooded valleys. So they get natural gas plants.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Solar isn't environmentally friendly. The truth comes out. This also doesn't take into account all of the toxic and nasty chemicals involved in producing solar panels. Coal isn't so bad after all, despite the lies of the climevangelists and AGW acolytes.
Seriously, they should instead focus on subsidies for energy storage.
As to solar, they should simply require that all new buildings of 5 stories and less, have enough on-site AE to equal or exceed the average monthly energy used of the HVAC.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
STFU FAKE CREIMER
So many unpronounceable chemicals and compounds go into the manufacture of these panels, who knows what the true impact would be if we keep pushing this liberal feel-good fantasy
Clean American coal will power the America of the future
Can some Slashdotter in the know advise on how Californian's are storing energy for use in the night? I am meant to understand that there are a number of options; Molten Salt, pumping water up a mountain and later utilizing gravity, compressed air in rocks or under the sea and of course batteries.
California companies are locating their data centers in neighboring states to take advantage of those state's cheaper power.
...on those 14 days in March, electricity customers paid exactly the same price for electricity as they did the other 17 days in March, so how did that help the consumers in California?
Likewise, customers in the state that got 'free' electricity from California also paid exactly the same rate for electricity every day in March.
So I ask, who benefitted from all that 'free' excess solar electricity? I can tell you who suffered because of all that 'free' excess solar electricity, every consumer of electricity in California, because the utility company is required, by law, to pay a premium price for every solar generated KWh fed into their grid, whether they need it or not, whether or not they can resell it.
Ken
Negative prices happen everywhere, and it has little to do with solar.
For example, today at 5:00AM in Chicago, electricity prices were negative.
https://hourlypricing.comed.com/live-prices/
Another failed liberal state. SAD! Remember that I won the election and only I can... ... Make America Great Again! #MAGA crazy slashdotters and dumb as a rock alternative energy... ... loons covfefe!
Fuel Cells are just not cost effective at this time. According to NREL, they will be, around 2025. Until then, they are a joke.
OTOH, excess electricity can and should be stored in batteries, EVs, even weights that slide down the side of a mountain, or simply thermal. The later would be IDEAL at any manufacturing site that is dealing with high temps.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Mine bitcoins of course!
Use the excess to make good clean water, even on a part time basis. I seem to recall years of drought related headlines from California. Every little helps!
Surely it is trivial to have some solar farms able to angle the panels to get less sun during these sorts of periods or shade some panels rather than have power surges?
Why are the reporters always writing such a nonsense?
You feed power into the grid: it needs to be consumed. Or you can not feed it in.
And: I guess the solar power was teleported to Arizona, to prevent "overloading a wire"?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The Los Angeles Times suggests over-construction of natural gas plants created part of the problem -- Californians now pay roughly 50% more than the rest of the country for power
If there was over construction of plants then prices would drop. But California is so heavily regulated on pricing and environmentalism that is why you pay more than the rest of the country. The fucking LA Times doesn't know a goddamn thing about power markets and lies repeatedly about the situation.
Fact: when I worked for an electric wholesale generator, it cost twice as much to build a 500 MW combined cycle plant in CA than in any other state. That's how badly regulated you are, and why you pay more. So CA decided to go green and shoved construction of new plants to Nevada and Arizona, who can competitively beat solar plants in CA and elsewhere. Markets rule, governments fail every time. Top down regulation and market manipulation by sad sack bureaucrats like Brown and Harris caused this problem. You own it Cali, you pay for it.
"Why are the reporters always writing such a nonsense?"
If anyone here is an expert in writing "a nonsense", it's you, you fucking mouth-breathing retard.
You don't feed "power" into the grid you mongoloid. The load consumes power. If you can't supply it, it doesn't disappear.
That is your storage. The gas you didn't burn. Why are they running the gas plants when they're having to give away energy, and even pay people to take it? If you're overproducing that much, turn off the fucking other plants, morons.
Something is fishy.
Why don't they just use the excess power to pump water up a mountain? California has mountains... Then, at night or whenever, when they need power, bring the water back down through a turbine... Folks in Europe have been doing just this for years...
Seriously, we pay something like 15 c/kwh How is that 'half other states'
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
They should use that electricity to desalinate some sea water!!!
Of all states, California can't afford to be doing this.
-Captain Obvious
If they're paying people to take energy, as long as it is a net positive energy production, it will work.
Or they could shut off the other plants and save using the fuel and not have to pay people to take the excess. Something is fucking fishy here.
Electricity is stored in wires. If the wires get full, the solar panels no longer work correctly. The excess energy has to be drained so feedback from the solar panels doesn't damage the sun.
If you went to journalism school, you would know these things.
Sorry, I need a car analogy.
Possible to south America via the Mexico grif
But it's not as environmentally friendly as one would think. Take Arizona, for example. The state opts to put a pin in its own solar energy sources instead of fossil fuel power, which means greenhouse gas emissions aren't getting any better due to California's overproduction.
Just because someone left the fossil fuel generators running does not mean that solar generated greenhouse gasses. Perhaps the fossil fuel generators are old and are hard to restart. Perhaps the Arizona operators reduced their output, thus reducing emissions. We don't know because neither linked article that made this claim followed up with specifics.
That is an asinine conclusion on par with Study Claims Discarded Solar Panels Create More Toxic Waste Than Nuclear Plants. These conclusions, both aimed at solar energy, make me wonder who is paying you.
I am wondering why they have to ship the power to a neighboring state instead of letting me run my AC and pool for free until the crisis is over. My utility bill routinely breaks over $600/month (both gas and electric) from PG&E in the summer.
Oh, wait. I'm in Northern California. That means they can use my water all they want but something like sharing their excess energy must be illegal. Rather than do that they would prefer to break California in two so they don't have to pay taxes to redwood trees or something. What was I thinking.
What this reporter is saying is correct. If you send too much power being sent through a set of powerlines they will overload.
The way electricy networks work is that the generator will always see a 'load'. Its a switching network you can make the 'load' come from anywhere on the network.
It is wether the generator and the wires can supply that 'load' ?
My guess is by switching the power through to Arizona they use a different set of wires and these wires have the excess capacity to take the power.
It's harder than you think, any sort of 'storage' will be either potentially highly toxic (as in batteries), require lots of investment (like hydro) and take up lots and lots of space
"Toxic"? As opposed to fossil fuels or uranium which are just so amazingly safe? Most batteries are recyclable (including lithium batteries) - the only issue is whether it is economical to recycle them. We're looking for the least worst option and everything indicates batteries + solar/wind are likely a major part of the least worst options. Any toxicity from batteries is easily justified in the face of the alternatives.
Hydro simply isn't an option in most locations. It's fine where it's available but the capacity for it is limited and regional.
Because sensationalist headlines get more reads, and because journalists are usually under tight time constraints that do not allow them to do in-depth study.
J school grads don't drive, but here goes:
I think it's like a parking lot. If you keep driving cars in after the lot is full, you have to double and triple park them. Eventually they get so heavy that the ground collapses and causes an earthquake. Just like too much electricity causes a blackout.
Now do you understand?
So why not take that excess electricity and make hydrogen out of it?
And do what with the hydrogen? There isn't enough demand or storage capacity and certainly no relationship between the production of the excess energy and need for hydrogen.
What about a baseball metaphor?
Basically, if the sun is the pitcher, the ball is electricity and the batter is the solar panel... if you're on your third strike then it's imperative to loosen your grip on the bat and relax your shoulders. Sure you could aim for a bunt but if you walk it then how's that gonna help Alabama?
If you went to engineering school, you would know these things
FTFY
Ken
...then how's that gonna help Alabama?
Subsidies. That's what we learned in J-school. The only hope for places like Alabama is subsidies. And education so Alabama's children can learn enough to move to a place with running water. Not Manhattan though. Maybe Queens.
You can't engineer a new sun. We need to raise awareness so we don't destroy the one we have.
The solar industry is propped up by regulations that deny utility companies the ability to refuse electricity they don't need from either distributed or utility-scale sources. The guarantee that every KWh generated by a solar source will be bought - at a premium - is what convinces investors to back them, but that same regulation increases consumer costs since at times of over-production the utility is running non-solar power plants that can't be spun down as needed, and simultaneously buying unneeded solar power at a premium.
The moment power companies can refuse to buy unneeded solar power is the moment the solar industry stops growing, and electricity prices will start coming down.
Factor in subsidies for manufacturing plants, subsidies for construction/installation of panels, etc. and solar energy in America lives in a special, politically-built protected market.
Before anyone goes off on 'oil industry subsidies' - I've never heard of the gov't cutting a check to cover half the cost of an oil refinery or offering loan guarantees on oil rigs, and the gov't certainly doesn't guarantee oil companies that every gallon of fuel they bring to market will find a buyer at a guaranteed price.
Ken
California is making so much solar energy they don;t know what to do with it. That sounds good.
But with all that cheap energy Californian's are still paying 50% more than the rest of the country for electricity, That sounds bad.
California has to occasionally dump the excess to Arizona because they control the solar generation and it costs money to turn off their gas plants. But "On days that Arizona is paid to take California’s excess solar power, Arizona Public Service says it has cut its own solar generation rather than fossil fuel power."
This.
I was getting angry just reading the brain dead summary.
Why the fuck would transporting it to arizona load the grid less than dumping it into a heating element like we do in hydroplants.
Power in Calif costs 50% more than other states because, obviously, the price of solar has come down so much.
The simple solution is to build a few large bore (2m diameter), high pressure pipes up into lakes in the rocky mountains. Drop them down to pumping stations with holding ponds. During the day when you have excessive solar, you pump water from your holding pond up into the lake at something like 3000 feet differential elevation. At night, when you need power, you let the water discharge down into your holding pond. Designed right this system will recover about 85% of the energy stored. If you are worried about evaporation, you can cover your ponds with ping pong balls (reduces evaporation by 90% plus.)
If you pump that water at 1m/sec up for 6 peak sunny hours per day, from the Bernoulli equation we know that the stored energy would be Volume rate * density * acceleration due to gravity * height of lift * time or:
3.14 m^3/sec * 1000 kg/m^3 * 9.81 m/s^2 * 1000 m * 6h * 3600 sec/h = 665 GigaJoules of stored energy or (*.85 efficiency) ~157MWh of recoverable electricity per day. You would need around 68,000 cubic meters of water to work with (about 6.8 Hectares) in a lake (or you could build 5 holding ponds at elevation that were 20m deep x 30m wide.)
Most natural gas power plants in California generate around this number. The main reason that 10 of these hydro lift systems aren't built post haste is all the environmental nuts that would lose their shit over human beings building pipelines in California and/or using a lake for anything other than squatting next to while meditating...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Well that thread was funny :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
They have too much power yet have planned rolling blackouts because off a lack of power? This is either fake news or an example of gross mismanagement of resources. Instinct has me leaning towards the latter but I'm not sure which is worse...
Charge controllers are supposed to adjust the output of the PV array to the load. In my home system, when the grid goes down the output of the arrays reduced from grid + house Load + battery charging to house load + battery.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
Desalination would be an ideal 'peak absorber' use to shave off the high points in a fluctuating power supply in a state with a long-term shortage of water. But good luck getting California to issue permits for something this obvious before the end of this century.
First, as recently as a week ago, CALISO (the folks who run the grid in CA) was issuing a "Flex Alert" to urge people in SoCal to conserve electricity because there was not enough to go around. If, in response to a "Flex Alert" people do not conserve enough, our energy rationing masters begin switching off power to businesses who have traded lower rates for the inconvienence or remort control over their usage. If the managed rationing fails to save enough, rolling blackouts happen (as happened a few years back).
Second, California becomes huge sucking hole into which energy must be pulled when the sun goes down. Solar power is only a solution for total grid power like a unicorn is a transortation solution - no matter how much solar you generate, you must still have and maintain full coal/oil/nuke/natgas capacity and have it ready at a moment-by-moment basis to fill-in for the unreliable solar panels (and wind farms) whose genrating capacity is completely out of human control.
"Green" propagandists are continually playing on the ignorance of dim-witted college kids and distracted would-be do-gooders with these sorts of misleading and incomplete headlines and articles. Sadly for the greenines, there are still too many of us who know who things actually work in the REAL WORLD, and do not thinks everything can be fixed with fairy dust and positive mental energy.
Of course, you have to get that water from somewhere, so what your really mean is steal it. Of course, you also missed by 2 orders of magnitude the excess capacity and the physical plant cost, ignored the inefficiency of pumping, but did correctly identify the stupidity of trying to get an EIS approved in California.
Why am I still paying 24+ cents per kilowatt hour in CA then?
You didn't explain about the blue smoke!
Sorry, I need a car analogy.
When you're full on the throttle, but don't want to accelerate, your breaks will wear out pretty quickly, or you need to steer uphill.
You feed power into the grid: it needs to be consumed. Or you can not feed it in.
And what part of that is inconsistent with what was written? You see the thing about a grid is, it's a grid. The transmission of electricity in certain directions puts strain on those transmission lines. So you could feed in solar power, or not feed it in. If you feed it in you could trip and cause a blackout. OR you could pay someone behind you in the other direction to consume more power instead so you still feed it in but it doesn't go over the same part of the grid.
Being specific will cause people to tune out. Writing stories is hard.
Fuel Cells are just not cost effective at this time. According to NREL, they will be, around 2025. Until then, they are a joke.
In regard to portable fuels cells, specifically cars, there is a problem that there are only 36 places in all of the continental US where you can tank up -
(https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html)
Which makes it hard to sell a hydrogen car, because there is no demand and there is no demand because there are no stations, which both feed into slowing development of better cells, because there's no market.
One way to punch out of this mess is for California to start making hydrogen, and give small hydrogen fueling pumps to any gas station that will take one, and now it becomes possible to sell cars, leading to a possible way forwards.
I myself looked into buying the Honda Civic GX, a from-the-factory natural gas vehicle. The problem was that I could never go farther than half a tank from my house (where I would put in my own pump) because there was no place to reliably buy fuel.
I realize that the technology is still limited, but CA. is spending money to give away power, why not do something useful at home with it? According to the comments above, there would be some use for a few combined desalination/electrolysis plants which would be able to make Hydrogen, Oxygen, potable water, and delicious algae rich salt as needed.
an integrated control system to control the generation and distribution of electric power. If there is an excess of solar power then shutdown hydro and ramp down fossil power production. And do the opposite when there is a shortfall of solar.
Soon electricity will no longer be captailistically viable and will become a taken for granted commodity like air. There are many oil companies who would rather that not happen. They are licensed by the Ferengi Commerce Authority and they'd rather jump off the spire of the Tower of the Sacred Marketplace than allow this to happen.
With more solar and wind power, this problem will become worse, and I don't expect batteries to help that much.
One solution would be grid friendly appliances. There are plenty of things that don't need power at a precise moment. Water stays hot for a few hours in boilers, you don't necessarily need your laundry right now, and if you have an electric car and have 12h to charge it and it takes only 6, it can be any 6 hours. Appliances can be made so that they run perferably when supply is high and demand is low. This information can be sent via power line communication and trigger relays.
Of course, it should go with price incentives. Make the price vary for the consumer depending on the time.
Was holding the California state in ramson, shutting down their power grid to strong arm their governor into some bad deal. This action was helped by the activities of soon-to-be-governor Arnold Shwarzenegger in a well documented hotel meeting. Now California has too much solar power. Fuck you Texas!
California is generating so much solar energy that it is resorting to paying other states to take the excess electricity in order to prevent overloading power lines. According to the Los Angeles Times, Arizona residents have already saved millions in 2017 thanks to California's contribution. The state, which produced little to no solar energy just 15 years ago, has made strides -- it single-handedly has nearly half of the country's solar electricity generating capacity...
> California Has So Much Solar Power That Other States Are Paid To Take It
This happens all the time with any power source. Here in Ontario the spot price for the nuclear plants goes negative through the spring and fall all the time and has for decades. This is a basic concept in grid management - it's a GOOD thing this happens, as it provides a financial incentive to equalize the grid.
> Take Arizona, for example.
Take Arizona, please.
> The state opts to put a pin in its own solar energy sources instead of fossil fuel power, which means greenhouse
> gas emissions aren't getting any better due to California's overproduction.
Uhhh... If they're buying solar from Cali, that means they are lowering their greenhouse gas emissions. Duh.
> The Los Angeles Times suggests over-construction of natural gas plants created part of the problem
Meh. NG is a super-good source when mixed with solar, because it's spin-up time is short enough to track clouds on a large basis. Only hydro is better.
From TFA: "Californians now pay roughly 50% more than the rest of the country for power."
And from the TFA: "California is generating so much solar energy that it is resorting to paying other states to take the excess electricity in order to prevent overloading power lines."
Are we too brain dead to put these two statements together and realize that this is not a technological problem, it is a political problem? Why are Californian's PAYING EXTRA for electricity that is not being delivered to them, but instead being sent to Arizona FOR FREE along with a check to add insult to injury?!?!
Lower the damn price being gouged out of local Californians on that electricity and let local people find good uses for it for goodness sake! The corruption and retardation of California just blows my mind... You people in California should be demanding someone be held criminally accountable. Instead, you're shrugging and saying someone needs to invent better storage technology. WTF?
Time to build a major pumped hydro battery then.
I regularly monitor the California ISO website:
http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx
We have a sinusoidal weekday demand curve that hits a 35-45 GW peak at 4-5pm, with the trough being around 20-25 GW at ~4am (summer; I haven't looked at winter much because we don't get "flex alert" emails and AC failures at work in winter). Right on that page, if you scroll down, they show the renewables output, mostly wind and solar, and the "net demand" curve which is total - renewables. Solar peaks at just under 10 GW, every day, wind at ~3 GW. I don't understand how total demand could be 28-35 GW at 11-4pm and Solar output max at 9.8 GW, and yet they're... giving away solar electricity to Arizona?!
I double-dereferenced TFA and read the source LA times article, it looks like this happened in January when demand is 50% lower, and they do these "curtailments" because they can't spin down some types of generators fast enough. Okay... well, welcome to the complicated world of random variable source energy production. Looks like the LA times has an ax to grind about too many generators, there's a series of articles attacking the energy industry and state regulators... whatever. I don't want to go back to blackouts, or replace them with planned micro-blackouts via "flex alerts", either.
If the grid coutl movr that much power to Virginia, Dominion would be happy to put it into the Bath Pumped Storage plant and then sell it back at a higher price later. Bath County Pumped Storage Station.
The biggest grid bottleneck preventing this transfer of power is that all of the power needs to pass through the asynchronous tie points between the eastern and western grids of which there are only a few ties, but more are being built.
The problem is that nat gas plants are guaranteed a certain payback based on the cost of the plant whether they produce power or not. Therefore there is far too much natural gas produced.
And here I am paying up to 45c per KWh for the same energy, thanks to the same power grid. It is more then triple the national average, and I could use some extra power for my A/C during the hot days (we had several scorching heat waves in the recent weeks).
California seems to have very bad incentives in terms of public utility development, and we seem to be paying (literally) for it.
They have such a surplus that they have to pay other States to take it, but somehow Californians pay 50% more than everyone else? How does that make sense? If supply is that much higher than demand, Californians should be paying next to nothing! How did they break a market so badly?
so, if having to pay to be able to send solar generated electricity into the grid, then
we should all start a petition to tax the sun.
the up side is that whatever we tax the sun, it will probably default on the payments but still be around long
after we are gone.
there might also be a problem collecting the taxes, considering that the tax-men might get burned
to a crisp whilst traveling to the sun and ringing the suns doorbell?
One of the great things about CALISO is that they show real-time graphs of projected energy demand, measured energy demand, energy available, etc for the intire day. If you look at the correct graph and you are able to comprehend a basic graph, then you can see just how sharply solar and wind rise and fall and see that these slopes are not mirrors of eachother and SOMETHING needs to deal with all the gaps and mismatches or the lights go out and the emergency generators kick-in at the hospitals.
Wind and solar are nice expensive boutique energy sources to easy the guilty consciences of big city liberals, and they are good alternatives to nothing for people where the grid does not reach, but they are no better than unicorn farts for the general public if they are not backed-up by a massive source of coal/natgas/nuke generating capacity that is fuelled, maintained, staffed, and ready to be switched-in and ramped-up on a moment's notice.
California has an electricity profit ? ...other States are paid to take it? ... ...before "paying others to take their surplus"...
So much so... in fact
Wow...
Just a small suggestion then...
perhaps California should pay off their outstanding Electricity Debt that they owe to Canada first
"One way to punch out of this mess is for California to start making hydrogen, and give small hydrogen fueling pumps to any gas station that will take one, and now it becomes possible to sell cars, leading to a possible way forwards."
Hydrogen is an absolute _bitch_ to store. It doesn't just permeate the pipework and escape, it embrittles that pipework (and the cylinders) on the way out - and that's without the added issue of stress cracking caused by constant pressure cycling of the tank and system.
The posters saying that the best thing to do with hydrogen is to use it as soon as it's made weren't doing so for spurious reasons. Even methane (CH4) is difficult to work with in pressurised systems.
Hydrogen cars aren't popular because they're halo projects. They're halo projects because carmakers and fuel vendors don't want the liabilities that come with exploding tanks and associated shrapnel shredding anything that happens to be nearby. They will never be a mass commercial option - if you have the energy to make hydrogen from water (it's usually made by reducing methane) then you have more than enough energy to tack on a few carbon atoms and make propane or octane, which are easier and safer to handle.
You can't engineer a new earth. We need to raise awareness so we don't destroy the one we have.
FTFY also...
Ken