The last TWIP in February

Wednesdays are the day that the EIA releases its figures for petroleum product production and demand, and as we move into the pre-driving season in the United States it is interesting to see how this is evolving relative to previous years, given the current recession. In terms of gasoline demand (the most interesting curve) you can see that demand is now above last year, (where we had already seen the start of a drop in consumption because of price) and is rising earlier and, perhaps a little faster (though we’ll have to wait a week or two to be sure) than last year.
Source EIA

Supplies remain in about the middle of the range, and so the situation is relatively normal. However, as I noted last week, with the change starting towards summer driving it is possible that we are now starting to take up again the surplus created when demand dropped a year ago. That surplus of available supply has been taken up by reduced production from OPEC, and yet they had not taken up to total volume of the drop, and so there was more available than needed and price dropped.
Source EIA

The next interesting question is going to be how fast demand is going to build. We can get some sense that the market is tightening by the EIA comments that they have provided on the relative price of gasoline this week. Refinery inputs remain lower than last year, but domestic production of crude continues to rise, and stock volumes are stabilizing.
Source EIA

The point that EIA is making this week is in response to the question that if crude prices are down, why are gasoline prices starting back up. They answer that the reason is that gasoline is made in a number of refineries around the country, and is a blend of different crude oils. While the price of one of these, the one that is used as the benchmark price (West Texas Intermediate or WTI) has fallen the others have not, and so crude price of the mix has not changed that much.
Source EIA

The other cause of gasoline price rise has been the increase in the margin between gas price and crude oil price. Until recently gas did not have to carry the increase in price of the crude, since the margins on the other products produced from the oil were doing very well, while demand for gasoline was lower, and the margin for it thus dropped. Now that demand is rising it can carry more of the cost of production, and thus the margin is also rising. The relative costs of a gallon of gasoline and one of diesel are also provided by the EIA. (Though this one is currently a little dated).
Source EIA

Well, for now, all we can do is wait and see how demand develops over the next month, but if it continues to go up, and the lower prices will encourage this, then I suspect that crude will start to rise, and our little price break will be over.

The President's Speech before Congress

Tonight was the equivalent of the State of the Union Message from President Obama, giving us a preview of what we can expect in his major programs over the next year. Energy forms one of the three major thrusts of this initiative, but this is very much a technology oriented Administration,

The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.

And the most critical problems?

We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before.

Survival is a rather strong word, and yet it is realistically true. And his focus for the application of the money included

More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector - jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

Much of this will have an energy impact, and has been addressed in the Stimulus package, and now we will have to wait and see how this will play out. (Judging from one or two phone calls I have had recently I am not the only one trying to work this out).

The segment of the speech that addressed energy in the budget was first of the three priorities (as he ranked it during the debates).

Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years. We have also made the largest investment in basic research funding in American history - an investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, but breakthroughs in medicine, science, and technology.

We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country. And we will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills.

But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.

Towards the end of his speech he drew attention to the presence of the mayor of Greensburg, Kansas

I think about Greensburg, Kansas, a town that was completely destroyed by a tornado, but is being rebuilt by its residents as a global example of how clean energy can power an entire community - how it can bring jobs and businesses to a place where piles of bricks and rubble once lay. "The tragedy was terrible," said one of the men who helped them rebuild. "But the folks here know that it also provided an incredible opportunity."

The website for the town is a blog that shows some of the creative things that they are doing, such as recycling some of the 87,000 truckloads of broken concrete that had to be hauled away after the tornado. It is going for such things as foundation and walls, lowering the carbon footprint since it has already been made. (Cement requires a lot of heat in the manufacture). Though they also have a post on building houses with natural materials that includes straw bales.

In response the Republican Governor Bobby Jindal spoke of lowering taxes as being a better way of stimulating the economy and mentioned some of the waste in the stimulus package including

It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a ‘magnetic levitation’ line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called ‘volcano monitoring.’ Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, DC.

Well as I seem to remember reading that the Maglev train is not a done deal. President Obama wanted that piece in the legislation, and may have other targets for it other than the link (which is favored by Senate Majority Leader Reid).

Also in the running are proposed high-speed corridors in the Northeast, the Northwest, Florida and the South.

In regard to the volcano monitoring, those who remember Mount St Helens, which erupted in May, 1980 may not be aware that the lava dome has rebuilt, and in 2005 threw a plume seven miles into the air. The whole ring of fire that forms the West Coast of the United States is vulnerable, including places such as Yellowstone, and the damage can be much worse than that from an Earthquake. It should also be remembered that President Obama is likely familiar with some of the damage from an erupting volcano, albeit on another island.

Turning to the energy debate Governor Jindal had this to say

To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump - and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation … increase energy efficiency … increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels … increase our use of nuclear power - and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home. We believe that Americans can do anything - and if we unleash the innovative spirit of our citizens, we can achieve energy independence.

I still remain unconvinced that either of them understand either the scale or the imminence of the problem. In this they are probably totally reliant on their advisors for knowledge, and with all the other financial issues, the energy program may not move forward as fast as it otherwise might. But as one of the commentators said on ABC News after the speech words to the effect: “It will be interesting to see, a year from now, how much has changed.”

On a small personal note, after watching the two speeches, the Actress and I sat and watched the promotional DVD we got from our local Ford dealer on the new Fusion Hybrid. I have been very happy with my Camry Hybrid over the last year, and since it is now the Actress that is seeking a new vehicle, on the advice of Robert Rapier’s blog we are checking this one out. I will keep you updated as the decision approaches, and after we get whatever we do. Somehow I doubt it will be an Aptera but the Fusion Hybrid is quite a possibility.

P43. Pick Points

I mentioned in Monday’s post that I have an interest in algae, and so I will put up a couple of items that caught my attention this weekend. The first deals with the possibility of using wind power to provide some of the energy that algae need to foster growth Some of the European wind farms have been up for a while, and one in Denmark, that was installed in 1990, is looking at using some of the extra power to encourage algae growth. The algae, through the generation of biofuel, would thus act as a form of “battery” for the wind. One problem, however, is to ensure biological security, since the escape of algae species into a favorable place, such as in Hawaii, can have negative results, and require costly capture and remediation. The use of algae for flue gas cleanup has inspired a number of efforts, from Israel to MIT (who use it to make hydrogen), to Missouri . There is also the blog Oilgae, which carries the MIT report on the topic.


Developers of the Shtokman project are talking about using CCS as part of the strategy for development at the site. There is anticipation that the cost of the project will decline with the poor economy. More details of the loan from China to encourage a pipeline and oil supply to that nation are now emerging. The change in investment strategy has the advantage of getting a good price now for the oil, and securing it into the future. Russia is also trying to find a way to improve the efficient use of energy, with planning for a new law on the way, and an example of how it might be done, comes from a dairy. In the United States homeowners can look at the Home Energy Rating System which compares the energy use of a house with a standard. Based on the result that you get different approaches may be needed to lower the number (a 200 means you use twice the standard). Oregon is moving to have the state provide loans to encourage upgrading of homes in a way that would make them more energy efficient. As I noted in Monday’s post, this is something that we are seeing in an increasing number of states.

St Mary Land and Exploration is drilling horizontal wells into the Woodford, and Haynesville shale and while cutting the number of rigs back to 7, from 16 at the peak of last year, one or two of the rigs will shuttle between the Haynesville, the Eagle Ford and the Marcellus shale sites. The lateral section of the well is around 3,300 ft, and with 10 slick-water fracs will use some 3,000,000 lb of resin coated sand proppant. There is some move in Pennsylvania to require that drilling records for the Marcellus be made public (including production data) every six months. Other states such as Louisiana and Wyoming post such production on Web sites. Chesapeake, who is drilling both Marcellus and Hanesville is currently getting a favorable press. With natural gas prices projected as perhaps falling as low as $2 per MMBtu due to lack of demand and overproduction, this years prospects don’t look good for the industry.

Scotland is looking for new ways to develop marine energy, the target being some 60,000 MW. The current projects are based in Orkney, and the European Marine Energy Centre. The current targets are sites around Britain and Ireland that are capable of producing more than 1,000 MW each, largely from wave and tidal energy.

The State Governors are asking Presidential help in promoting biofuels hoping to see approval, for example, of ethanol blends above 10% and as high as 30%. (This was something Dr Chu was asked about last week).

Because of the global financial problems Russia and Kazakhstan are considering slowing the development of the Karachanganak project (which is reputed to have 47 trilion cubic ft of gas).

A Local Town Energy Meeting

Last Friday night I was a part of a panel at a local meeting on energy, put together by the local Democratic party. There were a number of us that had been asked to speak, and ahead of time, I had predicted that, with the meeting starting at 7 pm I would be home by 8:30 pm. The first surprise was that before the meeting started they had to bring in extra chairs. (I take no credit for this, I was a minor speaker). According to the local paper there were more than a hundred folk in the room, and one of the utility speakers noted that on this topic he usually sees about fifteen. The meeting was based on an initiative that passed in the last election that required utility companies to get 15% of their electricity from clean energy resources by 2021. It passed with 66% of the vote.

Missouri is one of the states that currently requires that a utility have a power plant in place and producing electricity before it can make any charge to the rate-payers. The practice of allowing a surcharge, while the plant is being built is called Construction Work in Progress (CWIP). It is controversial.


The benefits of this to those paying these bills is only there until the higher, later bills show up. Nevertheless with a construction time at around a decade, the first speaker, Erin Noble from the Missouri Coalition for the Environment spoke strongly about the need to keep the rule in place, while the nuclear power station at Fulton is doubled in capacity. She was answered later in the evening by the Ameren representative, who pointed out that money does not come free, and if the company has to carry that debt (and interest) until the charges can begin, then obviously they would be higher.

The second speaker, John Hensley, was from Wind Capital Group the company that had installed the wind turbines in Northwest Missouri. One of these, at Rockport was in an earlier Pick Points, because it is the first community that they feel can meet all its needs from the turbines. (Their web site has a wind speed indicator that shows the wind is currently blowing at 10 mph as I write). He gave a little of the history of the company and some of the benefits of the installations to the local community. He also showed slides of the rather impressive foundation that has to be installed to hold one of the turbines. To date it has been a success, but, for this state, all the potential sites with enough wind to be useful are up in the Rockport area. The company was able to tie into existing distribution lines to use the power it generated, but getting much power further into the state will require that new power lines be run, and there are a number of different forms of cost and delay in getting that accomplished. He did note the potential of the stimulus package to help.

Our group, from the University tried to cover a number of the different programs that we are currently working on, with Angie Rolufs, Director of the Institute for Environmental Excellence, giving the campus overview of projects. These range from the more mundane (but effective) step of having the campus do an energy audit (which it has) through a number of current programs that include improving grid connections to intermittent sources of power (wind and solar) to vehicles powered by various unconventional means. The next topic, covered by Curt Elmore, related to our ongoing study of wind and solar power, and the way to integrate it into the grid. He it was who had to explain to folk that, even though we have a small turbine installed, the low and intermittent quality of the wind in this part of the state would not make wind an economic viability - it will take about 40-years for the one installed to pay for itself. Then I talked a bit on our current algae program, and John Sheffield finished out to group talk with some words on the Hydrogen project and the current work on the EcoCar Challenge.

There were two representatives from AmerenUE, the generator of electricity for this part of the state, who began by discussing the funding of Callaway, during which they acknowledged that the increasing prices of natural gas generators would limit their future potential as a power source. They moved on to discuss their current initiative to improve household efficiency in the use of electricity and the willingness to do energy audits of homes, and what typical results might be. They referred to the latest National Geographic, which features an Energy Audit article. (I described one that I was familiar with in an earlier post. The need for improving energy use was also stressed by the local utility that provides power to the surrounding area, Intercounty Electric and the opportunity for a free home energy audit was explained.

There were a number of questions throughout the evening, and at the end (somewhere around 10 pm) most of the folk were still in the room, asking questions and debating. Energy is obviously an issue that has us rural folk’s attention.

.

P42. Pick Points

Half-a-dozen or so stories of interest:

Back in March Switzerland signed a deal with Iran for a 25-year supply of natural gas it appears that this will bring a fourth gas corridor though Turkey, that will provide an additional connection to Europe, and it remains under criticism. Iran sees it as the start of a new relationship with Europe, and a possible model for others. The gas will come from Assalouyeh and require a new pipeline that will be built by the Turks. Germany has taken the hint, and Gerhard Schroeder is now in Tehran to see what sort of a deal they can cut. The pipeline will also provide a pathway for Turkmenistan gas to get into Europe without going through Russia. Iran, meanwhile still considers the discussions ongoing with Bahrein, even though the latter cut them off when some Iranians claimed the kingdom belonged to them. Iran is discounting those statements.

Russia, meanwhile has apparently not been sending the agreed amount of natural gas to Poland. So far it has only got 75% of the agreed amount, and now Gazprom wants a new deal. The Council on Foreign Relations has just released a special report on Eurasian Energy Security that calls, among other things for a better network of interconnections and integrating Russia more into the energy picture in Western Europe. It also calls for a common regulatory framework. Rune’s work on whether the UK will get through the winter without problems, suggests it will be close.

Iceland is looking to exploit its Geothermal power in the face of major financial problems. Of the three natural resources the country has, fish, hydro and geothermal, the first two are in some trouble, and with an increasing amount of geothermal due to come on line in the next few years all they need are investors. For those in the US looking at using geothermal, the more likely domestic source will be ground-source heat pumps, and the cap of $2,000 for a tax credit which would otherwise be 30% of the cost, has been removed. In an earlier post at TOD I heard that the going price was in the $20,000 to $30,000 range, and so this is a significant change (but not enough to justify my doing it yet).

The numbers for oil production from Mexico, of which I have written in an earlier post, are growing worse quite quickly. Country production fell 9.2% in January , with Cantarell now down to 772,000 bd. Pemex claim they can keep it to an average of 700,000 bd this year, but this may be doubtful, and will hurt exports. That did not help oil and gas futures (the latter at $4 per million btu). There is a new documentary on the oil situation now out called Blind Spot which has got a favorable review at TOD but since they were out of copies when I tried to order one, it will be a wee while before I can do a review.

Last week China was tying up loans with Russia to ensure long-term delivery, and then with Brazil. This week it is Australia’s turn with Exxon Mobil signing a long term agreement for LNG from the Gorgon project that will send 2 million tons a year of gas north for 20-25 years. Projections for the LNG plants being put into Gladstone in Australia have slipped from 2011 to 2012 for the first LNG plant, which will liquefy coalbed methane, and the customer has not been defined. (Though as I noted last week I wouldn’t be surprised if they had a South Asian accent).

The current low prices for energy, taken with flooding from the fire-fighting last year, means that the historic Barentsburg coal mine in Norway may not reopen.

More stories can be found at The Energy Bulletin and Drumbeat at The Oil Drum.

T5. Historic coal mining

In trying to lay a foundation for later posts I am using these Sunday Tech Talks to cover points that folk may not be aware of. As the debate over coal continues, and likely intensifies over the next couple of years then I will revisit topics such as: where it is; how it can be mined; how we should burn it; and what we do with the products. Along the way I will also talk a bit more about the energy and other societal costs of coal, but for today I am going to go back to where mining started.

When coal was first used, the legends have it that it was collected along the sea coast near Tynemouth, and taken to the local priory and the rights to the coal were given to the monks. Coal was used to provide the fire for the local lighthouse until about 150 years ago. The monks did well by their ownership of the coal rights, by 1281 they were shipping the coal down to London where it brought nineteen shillings a chauldron. (There were 20 shillings to a pound, which is currently worth $1.44, though the value has historically been higher). A chauldron was a wagon that would hold around 80,000 cubic inches of coal or just over 45 cu. Ft. of coal, or about 1.7 tons of coal. So we know that coal was heading down to London, where King Edward (because the fumes apparently sickened his mother) banned it, with the threat of torture and death to those that used it. (This is the king that had Wllliam Wallace, as played by Mel Gibson in Braveheart, chopped into bits, while alive, so he generally wasn't someone you wanted to mess with). But is was sufficiently cheaper than the wood alternative that the ban had little effect, and coal has been a major fuel in the United Kingdom ever since.

The king, incidentally, was compensated in other ways, since a royal duty was imposed on the mining and shipping of coal, that brought in a large income over the years. In 1818 the mines were estimated to produce 15 million tons a year, for domestic use, with additional amounts used by industry. The duty was 9 shillings and four pence to London, and 6 shillings to other ports in the UK. And this brought in a revenue of 570,066 pounds in 1816. Some 2.25 million chauldrons of coal were shipped, roughly half of which originated in Newcastle.

Mining had progressed by that time from the initial collection of loose coal washed up on the beach (sea coal) to mining it where it outcropped, and then mining back into the seam outcrop from the surface, and this often meant that the tunnel that was mined sloped down into the ground. The dirt that was mined out was dumped at the entrance to the tunnel, and often created a small narrow feature on the ground, a tip, some of which can still be seen today. Our family, for example, used to be coal miners at Eglingham. This is a small village found in the North East of England, not that far from the Scottish border.
Aerial view of North of England (Google Earth)

I have marked an overview of the village with a couple of arrows to show where the two tips were that I have walked around (and where my ancestors no doubt worked) on an overall view of the village (using Google Earth) which is at the bottom of the picture.
Eglingham (Google Earth)
Right in the center of the picture however, of one zooms in until GE tilts a bit, you can see a third tip quite clearly.
Pit tip at Eglingham (Google Earth)
My aunt (the Teacher) had done some research on where we lived, and this was not down in the current village but up where the top left arrow points, and where all that is left of the houses are circles where the gorse grows, but where rabbit warrens have brought up small pieces of china, and other remnants of the time that folk lived there, only a couple of hundred years ago.
Ruins at Tarry, near Eglingham
In those days it was pre-mechanization, and the miners used only a pick and a shovel to break the coal from the solid. It was then put into woven baskets called corves, that were dragged to the surface on a wooden board, either by younger boys, or by women. The board would slide up the tip, and could be dumped before being dragged back underground. The tunnels were driven to the height of the coal, which in the area may have been somewhere around 4 ft 10 inches (with an interbedded layer of stone that ranged from 3 inches to 2 ft thick) or 5 ft 8 inches, (with 3 ft of interbedded stone) not the richest of workings.

In these small operations, with all the excavation from the initial tunnel into the side of the hill, the coal was mined by individual workers, or families. The miner would work with a candle as a light, and that would be mounted to a wooden post that he would use to hold the roof up.
Miner position (when I relearn Poser I will put in a better illustration)

Laying on his side, he would then take his pick and cut out a slot at the bottom of the coal. This undercut would be cut along the total face of the coal, before the miner would start to work up. Depending on the size of the tunnel he may also make a vertical cut to create a second free face. (You can see some of these markings in the walls of old stone quarries, and in the mines under Bath in the UK, and the salt mine at Wieliczka in Poland). He would then break out the coal in individual lumps that were several inches in size. (4-6 would be ideal). If he used the joints (called cleat) and the bedding planes of the coal, then this was not too difficult to do, and so he could mine out several chauldron’s worth of coal in a shift. In the measurement of the work he did using a modern measure it would take as little as 4 joules/cc of energy to break out that coal.

A typical shift would be around 8 hours, but it shrank, so that when I went into the mines it lasted only 7.25 hours. As well as mining the coal, the miner had to hold up the roof, and, if there was a roof fall repair it. But of all his concerns the most prevalent was that of gas. Remember both that he had to breathe, and that coal emits methane, or natural gas, from most seams. The methane will burn, or in the right concentrations in the mine can explode. And when that happens it consumes all the oxygen, so that even if the miners aren’t in an area where the explosion happened then they may still die as the de-oxgenated air circulates underground.

Sadly, just today I heard that there had been such an explosion in a mine in China. While I don’t know much about this particular incident, it is something that can be quite difficult to fully protect against, since there are many ways that the gas can get into the working area, and so much of the safety precautions are aimed more at making sure that it is not ignited if it does become present. Our sympathies and prayers are with them and their families tonight.

I will return to talk more about coal mining and the next step up in the size of operations, in a later post, For the North of England, after these smaller surface workings were exhausted, larger mines such as the Scremerston Colliery grew nearby to produce coal on a larger scale, My ancestors moved on to Ashington, and the coal mines there, of that also more anon.

Saturday Pick Points

On Saturday evenings I like to take a stroll around some of the Climate sites to see what is new and interesting in the discussion over the past week. Climate Audit is unfortunately down at the moment, so we'll have to give it a pass. At Real Climate there have only been a couple of posts this week.

The first was on the fires in Australia and the premise that global warming is intensifying tragedies of this type. After initially taking a stance that AGW didn’t cause the fires, the article then quotes an article from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology issued this month, that points to the number of record temperatures recorded in the continent. It also indicates that the low humidity is expected due to AGW, and droughts are likely to be a result of AGW. The more recent post deals with tree growths and deaths in the Pacific Northwest and California and ties, through global climate models (GCMs) which not unsurprisingly find that the models, as built, cannot account for the change in conditions wholly from natural change, and that therefore it has to be due to human forcings. The item that they key on is the Snow Water Equivalent number which relates to water year precipitation and they find that April snow is a key variable. Given that California already has a big water problem this year, I suspect this may be only the first of many articles.

And so on to Anthony Watt’s pages where equipment failure reports continue, with there currently being a problem with the estimates for the Ice Melt in the Arctic. One of the satellite sensors has apparently failed. This problem first cropped up last week, and which has led to a discussion on the reliability of the data at The Cryosphere Today site (CT), someone even picking up on the George Will debate

In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts. ”
Thing is, the article was written January 1st, not Feb 15th, and Mr Will was comparing the END OF 2008 with the END OF 1979. Not Feb 15th of each year (which was still a month and a half away from happening when he wrote it).
Why did Cryophere Today blatantly misrepresent what the author was writing about?

In other posts from the past week, there is another weather station improperly located (I need to send our data in), a little more controversy over an elementary school text and the one that caught me for an hour this afternoon is a link to the debate between William Schlesinger and John Christy on Climate Change. If you have an hour its worth a listen. (Lots of scare from Schlesinger, lots of facts from Christy).

Over on Gristmill they are still upset with the Will column and obviously did not see, or agree with the quote I inserted above. There apparently has been a miniature firestorm about it on the internet and I missed it all. There is another post on mountaintop coal mining at Coal River and, just for the record, if the writer’s home is shaking as much as he implies, he should get records that will stand up in court. Because the rules on how much blasting is allowed, and the impact it can have on local residences are very well and pretty restrictively defined. (My colleague who is currently doing "The Detonators" can give you bible and verse on it). Similarly there are other regulations that, if properly enforced, should quiet a lot of the arguments in the piece – but when folk get emotional about their property it is difficult to make those arguments. I do wonder though what is to stop Coal River from putting in the wind farm after the mine is finished, Access will be a lot easier, and with a large flat area then the winds should work a lot better.

Oh, and this week they didn’t like hydrogen either, and one gets the idea that if you live where there is neither the option for wind or solar, then you had better move!