Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on July 29, 2017

Bookmark and Share

What Is the ROI (and EROEI) on Subsidized Renewable Energy?

Alternative Energy

Subsidized renewable energy has a low Energy Return on Energy Invested, which makes it completely irrational as a matter of economics and public policy. 

Anyone who has any business acumen will understand the law of ROI (Return on Investment). You need to know if money is well spent and if that opportunity to invest is going to yield any positive results. This is really a basic concept when the figures and facts are correct; allowing for a true evaluation of risk vs. opportunity loss. When it comes to renewables, the ROI is murky and supposedly favorable on the surface, but in reality, it is a scheme.

Baltimore Sun photo from story on grants (taxpayer funds) going into this a Maryland wind farm boondoggle. Read it by clicking photo and then consider the ROI and EROEI.

Recently, I discussed the effects of ripping off the fossil fuel Band-Aid and how it was hardly a possibility due to our nation’s power grid. It is not agile enough to adapt to fluctuations in renewable energy output without a very expensive overhaul.  This leaves many places with heavy reliance on renewable energy sources needing to either sell (or pay to get rid of) excess power or pay for backup systems.

What we are also learning is that renewable energy (e.g. wind and solar) is being overvalued from the standpoint of benefits, while costs are underestimated. The Energy Collective now has a new article that further dives into how researchers have improperly evaluated the intermittent renewable resources.

The author, Gail Tverberg, looks at how evaluations such as Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI), Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), and Energy Payback Period (EPP) are not typically being used when analyzing renewable benefits and costs. Renewable energy is often propped by hidden subsidies necessary to get it to market.

Energy ROI Evaluation

When we subsidize energy sources, it distorts the market, effecting pricing for all types of electricity. Tverberg states:

“A big part of our problem is that we are dealing with variables that are “not independent.” If we add subsidized wind and solar, that act, by itself, changes the needed pricing for all of the other types of electricity. The price per kWh of supporting types of electricity needs to rise, because their EROIs fall as they are used in a less efficient manner. This same problem affects all of the other pricing approaches as well, including LCOE. Thus, our current pricing approaches make intermittent wind and solar look much more beneficial than they really are.”

She goes on to say:

“As greater amounts of intermittent electricity are added, the availability of inexpensive balancing capacity (for example, from hydroelectric from Norway and Sweden) quickly gets exhausted, and neighbors become more and more unhappy with the amounts of unwanted excess generation being dumped on their grids. Denmark has found that the dollar amount of subsidies needs to rise, year after year, if it is to continue its intermittent renewables program.”

 

Renewables are rarely controlledIn order for solar and wind to be viable, then the EROI needs to be within an acceptable range: a high of 10:1 and low of 3:1. The closer an energy resource gets to 1:1 the less useful it is. As Tverberg claims in the article, the 3:1 EROI is only achievable with wind at high generation, although the benefits are marginal. Solar, though, is below this making it about as good as the Tesla batteries it’s charging.

This is interesting as Maryland is gearing up for the offshore wind farm off the coast of Ocean City. It is a ridiculous project aimed more at virtue signaling than anything else and is entirely based on subsidies. Costing nearly $2 billion, the costs are going to be charged to the consumers over 20 years, making them effectively pay extra for electricity over than time, not to mention their taxes going into the scam. This is before even getting to how it may affect tourism in the area or the potential impacts of the marine life.

The Renewable IOU

When the project is artificially propped up to produce a 750 megawatt (at capacity) for $2 billion, what direction does the EROI then turn? It’s not hard to figure out but no one wants to do so, of course. By default, we are going to have to raise overall energy prices, pay more taxes and also maintain existing power plants for backup. There is no hope for anything even marginally economically rational and very little emission savings (if not increases) to be had. So, what’s the point? The real question is who is benefiting from this project the most? It sure isn’t Marylanders.

renewablesnaps.com



16 Comments on "What Is the ROI (and EROEI) on Subsidized Renewable Energy?"

  1. Sissyfuss on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 8:44 am 

    Wait, are you telling me Clog the Magnificent has been prevaricating all along? Oh hell, we already knew that. He thinks Trump is a rational being.

  2. Cloggie on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 9:09 am 

    The article was brought to you by [drumroll]…

    http://naturalgasnow.org/roi-eroei-subsidized-renewable-energy/

  3. jan on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 9:13 am 

    There are some wind proponents who say we can use pumped hydro to store variable, wind power when we do not need it. They are obviously to dim to realise that pumped hydro does not produce electricity it is a net sink. It takes far more electricity to pump the water up the hill than what it produces as it descends.
    Pumped hydro can only produce electricity for a few hours if a lull in wind last 2 or 3 days which is often the case, they cannot be recharged without coal and gas backup.

    this article sums up the massive gap problem

    https://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_191.shtml

  4. Cloggie on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 9:28 am 

    There are some wind proponents who say we can use pumped hydro to store variable, wind power when we do not need it.

    Talking to me, sunny?

    They are obviously to dim to realise that pumped hydro does not produce electricity it is a net sink. It takes far more electricity to pump the water up the hill than what it produces as it descends.

    Your talent to read somebody else his mind approaches zero. Nobody thinks that you get net energy from pumping water up hill. It is intended as STORAGE. You have excess energy, you pump up water in a giant lake in Norway and you release it when there is not enough energy from fossil and/or renewable. 15 yea old kids at school learn that. I learned that 45 years ago when nobody talked about renewable energy, but pumped hydro-basins for storage purposes already existed.

    Pumped hydro can only produce electricity for a few hours if a lull in wind last 2 or 3 days which is often the case

    That may be true for the CURRENT setup, but we are talking about setting up a new infrastructure for a new renewable energy base and large first steps have long been undertaken, by people who are far smarter than you are.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/norway-wants-to-offer-hydroelectric-resources-to-europe-a-835037.html

    This was the first sub sea cable to Norway as a preparation for a renewable energy future:

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/norned/

    Other countries followed:

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/green-light-for-british-norwegian-interconnector/

    Nobody claims that Norway can solve all energy storage problems, but a considerable part.

    Here is a German professor who explains (with English subs) how it all works:

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/norway-europes-green-battery/

  5. Cloggie on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 10:02 am 

    From my links a talk of prof Hohmeyer (in English):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vlRnyzeYco

    I watched it again (20 minutes), time well spent.

    – A single large lake in Norway has a storage potential of 10 times more than all hydro-storage in Germany combined.

    – A 100% renewable energy base in 2050 is doable at a low price for countries with a lot of wind resources like UK, Holland, Germany, etc. for merely 4 cent/kWh.

    – A 100% renewable energy base for Europe is even possible for 2030.

    – Norway has storage capacity to the tune of half of Germany’s yearly consumption.

    – What is needed is 40 GW worth of cables from the EU into Norway or 55 of those for ca. 30 billion in total:

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/norned/

    30 billion until 2030-2050 is peanuts on an EU GDP of 20 trillion.

  6. rockman on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 10:44 am 

    “What we are also learning is that renewable energy (e.g. wind and solar) is being overvalued from the standpoint of benefits, while costs are underestimated.”. Both true and a flat ass lie at the same time. Just like the asinine statement that shales aren’t economic to drill below $X/bbl. I doubt there are many viable shale wells to drill in Oregon even at $200/bbl. Not only are specific shale economics variable from county to county in Texas but even from well site to well site. Across the proven Eagle Ford Shale trend there is not a set price of oil that makes drilling economic.

    Same thing for wind and solar. Even if an area has sufficient wind or solar potential if the local grid can’t handle the transmission the economic won’t be acceptable.

    IOW no matter how much these folks massage their numbers they will never develop an economic model that means anything: applying GENERAL concepts can’t be used to predict site specific economics. And the reason folks build those relatively useless general models is because the don’t want to go thru the much more laborious effort of analyzing each separate area. For instance solar may be a money loser in an area even with big govt subsidies. But as I just posted elsewhere COMMERCIAL SCALE solar in Texas (built by profit driven investors) are generating some of the lowest electric rates in the country.

    And not just lower rates but better long term price security. As described here many times Georgetown, Texas, will become the first major city to be powered 100% by alt energy. And will do so because it agreed to a contract with a long term rate structure of 20+ years…higher initially but providing below market rates in the long term. Remember very low NG prices are keeping rates low in Texas right now…but the won’t stay low forever. Those purchase contracts allowed the FOR PROFIT private investors to secure financing for a new wind farm and a new solar field.

    But such an arrangement cannot be put into place in every region for various reasons. So applying the Georgetown economic model for every US city would be pointless. Just as pointless as applying the GENERAL MODEL describe here to Texas and other areas.

    Generalities are the crutches of the lazy. LOL.

  7. rockman on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 10:53 am 

    Cloggie – Just saw your Norway story after I posted. Another good example of the weakness of general models. How well would a general hydro model for the EU fit Norway? And how well would a general model built on Norway’s topography apply to England? Obviously most would think it foolish to do either. Yet many of them might accept the general models for wind and solar presented here as a determinant for their region?

  8. Cloggie on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 11:46 am 

    How well would a general hydro model for the EU fit Norway?

    The Norwegian finance minister would love it as it would constitute a major source of income for Norway. The Norwegians themselves see it as a business-opportunity:

    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Norway-Could-Provide-20000-MW-of-Energy-Storage-to-Europe

    But then there are the so-called “environmentalists”, who will no doubt protest that some frog would become extinct or hobby fishermen, complaining about the level of salmon stock.

    And how well would a general model built on Norway’s topography apply to England?

    Not. Norway is already included in British storage plans:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/26/uk-and-norway-to-build-worlds-longest-undersea-energy-interconnector

    Norway is unique in that it has a large plateau and opportunities for large secondary basins, below the highest level, necessary to transport large volumes between the two levels (after all, you can’t pump seawater into mountain lakes).

  9. Cloggie on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 12:01 pm 

    Here some skepticism about Norway becoming “Europe’s battery pack”:

    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-norway-cant-become-europes-battery-pack

    I too think it would be a bad idea to put all European eggs in one Norwegian basket. In case of armed conflict Europe would make itself very vulnerable.

    We have seen this vulnerability in 1940 when the British and French mined and invaded neutral Norway to halt Swedish iron ore shipping to Germany via Narvik. Since it was the only source of iron it prompted the Germans to invade Norway and kick the British and French out.

    Later the same vulnerability, this time on oil from Romania, was used by the British to invade Greece (on the false pretext to come to the aide of the Greeks after Italian fools invaded Albania) so they could bomb the oil fields of Ploesti, which forced the Germans to invade Greece. And since Yugoslavia was in between, they had to invade Yugoslavia as well, spreading their forces thin, which was exactly the purpose of the British, so they could give their secret Soviet Allies more time to prepare for the invasion of Europe, an attack-preparation that was detected and subsequently preempted by the Germans by three weeks.

    It would be enough if Norway would constitute 25% of the storage solution (10 GW), not more. The rest could be stored in batteries, ammonia, hydrogen and a plethora of other possibilities.

  10. boat on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 4:56 pm 

    rock,

    “IOW no matter how much these folks massage their numbers they will never develop an economic model that means anything: applying GENERAL concepts can’t be used to predict site specific economics”.

    The church choir hits a high note.

  11. twocats on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 5:29 pm 

    that the author cites Gail as his primary source I knew something was up. I’m glad to see most of us didn’t take the bait. to be honest I have yet to see a definitively convincing argument either way between the camps.

    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-07-11/controversy-explodes-renewable-energy/

    I hate to say I agree with Cloggie, but it seems utterly cynical to not attempt a transition to renewable energy as soon as possible. Will there be issues engineering, environmental or otherwise? yes, but at least then that failure could make us reconsider wasteful energy practices.

  12. Go Speed Racer on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 6:02 pm 

    This is the good article. It proves windmills are a scam. Something I knew all along.

    The storage problem doesn’t solve with uphill water, due to much inefficiencies. Betcha the efficiency can be raised— but only in small flow systems that wouldn’t process large volumes of water quickly.

    Solar seems a good deal more legitimate. It follows a daily pattern that conventional power could compensate for.
    But windmills are a scam.

  13. rockman on Sat, 29th Jul 2017 11:41 pm 

    Wind power a scam? Not in Texas. From Serpt 2015:

    The Night They Drove the Price of Electricity Down – Wind power was so plentiful in Texas that producers sold it at a negative price. What?

    “And then a very strange thing happened: The so-called spot price of electricity in Texas fell toward zero, hit zero, and then went negative for several hours. As the Lone Star State slumbered, power producers were paying the state’s electricity system to take electricity off their hands. At one point, the negative price was $8.52 per megawatt hour.”

    “Consider these three unique factors about Texas:

    First, Texas is an electricity island. The state often behaves as if it is its own sovereign nation. Alone among the 48 continental states, Texas runs an electricity grid that does not connect with those that serve other states.

    Second, Texas has way more wind power than any other state. In 2014, wind accounted for 4.4 percent of electricity produced in the United States. Texas, which has more installed wind capacity (15,635 megawatts) than any other state and is home to nearly 10,000 turbines, got 9 percent of its electricity from wind in 2014.

    Also on March 29 in the early morning hours wind accounted for about 40 percent of the state’s electricity production. There’s another nice feature about wind. Unlike natural gas or coal, there is no fuel cost. Once a turbine is up and running, the wind is free.

    Third, Texas has a unique market structure. It’s complicated, but ERCOT has set up the grid in such a way that it acquires a large amount of power through continuous auctions. Every five minutes, power generators in the state electronically bid into ERCOT’s real-time market, offering to provide chunks of energy at particular prices. ERCOT fills the open needs by selecting the bids that are cheapest and that make the most sense from a grid-management perspective.”

    So back to negative rates:

    “After midnight on Sunday, the combination of these three factors pushed the real-time price of electricity lower. Demand fell—at 4 a.m., the amount of electricity needed in the state was about 45 percent lower than the evening peak.” And remember: “…all the power produced by the state’s wind farms could only be sold to ERCOT, not grids elsewhere in the country.”

    “THE JUICE
    A CLOSER LOOK AT THE NEW ENERGY ECONOMYSEPT. 18 2015 3:30 PM
    The Night They Drove the Price of Electricity Down
    18.2k
    259
    Wind power was so plentiful in Texas that producers sold it at a negative price. What?

    By Daniel Gross
    WInd turbines in Texas
    Wind turbines at a wind farm on March 27, 2015, in Taft, Texas.
    Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

    In the wee hours of the morning on Sunday, the mighty state of Texas was asleep. The honky-tonks in Austin were shuttered, the air-conditioned office towers of Houston were powered down, and the wind whistled through the dogwood trees and live oaks on the gracious lawns of Preston Hollow. Out in the desolate flats of West Texas, the same wind was turning hundreds of wind turbines, producing tons of electricity at a time when comparatively little supply was needed.

    And then a very strange thing happened: The so-called spot price of electricity in Texas fell toward zero, hit zero, and then went negative for several hours. As the Lone Star State slumbered, power producers were paying the state’s electricity system to take electricity off their hands. At one point, the negative price was $8.52 per megawatt hour.

    Impossible, most economists would say. In any market—and especially in states devoted to the free market, such as Texas—makers won’t provide a product or service at a negative cost. Yet the circumstances that led to this drop could only have happened in Texas, which (not surprisingly) has carved out its own unique approach to electricity. Consider these three unique factors about Texas.*

    It should be noted that free or negative wholesale power prices can and do occur elsewhere in the U.S. electricity system, when there is a significant mismatch between supply and demand. The Energy Information Administration identified 84 instances of negative prices in the Northwest U.S. in 2011 thanks to abundant hydropower at periods of low demand. However, the unique structure of Texas’ power market makes such events far more likely in the state—and far more likely to persist for longer periods of time.

    First, Texas is an electricity island. The state often behaves as if it is its own sovereign nation, and indeed it was an independent republic for nearly 10 years. Alone among the 48 continental states, Texas runs an electricity grid that does not connect with those that serve other states. The grid is run by Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT. By contrast, most states are part of larger regional bodies like PJM (which covers 13 states in the Midwest and Middle Atlantic) or MISO, which oversees the grid in a big chunk of the middle of the country. Being an island has given Texas greater control over its electricity market: Texas won’t suffer blackouts if there are problems in Oklahoma or Louisiana. But it also means that electricity produced in the state has to be consumed in the state at the moment it is produced—it can’t be shipped elsewhere, where others might need it.

    Second, Texas has way more wind power than any other state. In 2014, wind accounted for 4.4 percent of electricity produced in the United States. Texas, which has more installed wind capacity (15,635 megawatts) than any other state and is home to nearly 10,000 turbines, got 9 percent of its electricity from wind in 2014. But that understates the influence of wind. Demand for electricity varies a great deal over the course of the day—it rises as people wake up, turn on the lights, and go to work; peaks in the late afternoon; and then falls off sharply at night. The supply of wind can change a lot, too, depending on how much the wind is blowing. So, in the middle of the night, if the wind is strong, wind power can dominate. On March 29 at 2:12 a.m., for example, wind accounted for about 40 percent of the state’s electricity production. There’s another nice feature about wind. Unlike natural gas or coal, there is no fuel cost. Once a turbine is up and running, the wind is free.
    Third, Texas has a unique market structure. It’s complicated, but ERCOT has set up the grid in such a way that it acquires a large amount of power through continuous auctions. Every five minutes, power generators in the state electronically bid into ERCOT’s real-time market, offering to provide chunks of energy at particular prices. ERCOT fills the open needs by selecting the bids that are cheapest and that make the most sense from a grid-management perspective—i.e., the power is being fed into the grid at points where the distribution and transmission systems can handle it. Every 15 minutes, the bids settle—at the highest price paid for electricity accepted in the round. So if 100 MW of electricity are needed, and some producers offer 60 MW at $50 per megawatt-hour, some offer 30 MW at $80 per megawatt-hour, and others offer 40 MW at $100 per megawatt-hour, all the bidders will receive the highest price of $100. (Note: The price ERCOT pays is the wholesale generation charge.)

    After midnight on Sunday, the combination of these three factors pushed the real-time price of electricity lower. Demand fell—at 4 a.m., the amount of electricity needed in the state was about 45 percent lower than the evening peak. The wind was blowing consistently—much later in the day Texas would establish a new instantaneous wind generation record. At 3 a.m., wind was supplying about 30 percent of the state’s electricity, as this daily wind integration report shows. And because the state is an electricity island, all the power produced by the state’s wind farms could only be sold to ERCOT, not grids elsewhere in the country.

    “That gave wind-farm owners a great incentive to lower their prices. The data show that the clearing price in the real-time market went from $17.40 per megawatt-hour for the interval ending 12:15 a.m., to zero for the interval ending 1:45 a.m. Then it went into negative territory and stayed at zero or less until about 8:15 a.m. For the interval ending 5:45 a.m., the real-time price of electricity in Texas was minus $8.52 per megawatt-hour.

    How could this be?…even the most efficient producer couldn’t afford to provide electricity for free or pay someone to take it.”

    And this is where the feds start monkeying with the free market system: “Wind operators have another advantage over generators that use coal or natural gas: a federal production tax credit of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour that applies to every kilowatt of power produced. And that means that even if wind operators give the power away or offer the system money to take it, they still receive a tax credit equal to $23 per megawatt-hour. Those tax credits have a monetary value—either to the wind-farm owner or to a third party that might want to buy them.”

    “As a result, in periods of slack overall demand and high wind production, it makes all the economic sense in the world for wind-farm owners to offer to sell lots of power into the system at negative prices. Only in Texas, folks. Only in Texas.”

    And this is the govt some folks want picking winners and losers in alt energy development. LOL. Texas wind was already economic but if the feds want to give us free money for producing already profitable electricity we’ll take it. LOL.

    Wind and solar may not be practical in many states. But it certainly has proven itself in Texas.

    More at

    http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/09/texas_electricity_goes_negative_wind_power_was_so_plentiful_one_night_that.html

  14. Antius on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 11:04 am 

    I will repost this here, as the other thread has gone out of view. But it sums up why I am opposed to mass development of renewable energy.

    “Antius gave the physical side of the theoretical story of 100% energy transition. I am showing an example of the financial side in the bellow reference. Europe is sick financially just like China and the US. Is Europe strong enough economically to do something so large and expensive? I am not saying no or yes. I am saying sobriety is in order both physically and economically. As you can see Antius and I agree on this.
    “Europe’s Banking Dysfunction Worsens”
    http://tinyurl.com/ycuvp9os
    “While some Wall Street analysts are encouraging investors to jump into EU bank stocks, the fact is that there remains nearly €1 trillion in bad loans within the European banking system. This represents 6.7% of the EU economy, according to a report and action plan considered by EU finance ministers earlier this month. That compares with non-performing loans (NPL) ratios in the US and Japan of 1.7 per cent and 1.6 per cent of gross domestic product, respectively.”

    Thanks Davy. I would never describe myself as an energy expert. I am a safety engineer by trade and although I have received training in nuclear and energy systems engineering, for most of my career to date I have worked in the naval defence sector. Contrary to Cloggie’s assumption that I patronise the nuclear industry because I have financial interests in it, the reality is that I do not at present work in it and my qualifications could get me work in most industries, including his beloved renewable energy industries.

    I think energy economics always aligns with financial economics, because finance measures the amount of work done within an economy, which is a function of work-energy expended. There are complications that mean that EROI alone does not necessarily account for financial effects of long construction delays in capital intensive projects and EROI calculations do not always include energy cost of labour, which is basically a function of GDP per capita and energy expenditure per capita in that country. This means that EROI calculations sometimes fail to include inputs that they should, not that the methodology itself is faulty.

    The fundamental reason why I do not believe a 100% renewable energy economy is workable for the world today is poor EROI in a balanced system. The problem that we face is that modern society and all of its systems and infrastructure were built on a base of high EROI fossil energy. High EROI energy makes it easy for an economy to grow, because for each new increment of energy production only a tiny proportion needs to be reinvested in the energy supply to maintain production. That means a huge surplus is available for investment in new growth, scientific research, sedentary populations and plenty remains for generating wealth that people can consume. What is more, at high EROI, any energy invested in new energy leads to high returns and therefore high growth, at relatively little cost.

    If EROI declines, this bountiful arrangement is turned on its head. Up to a certain point, average living standards may decline as the resources needed to maintain the energy supply are withdrawn from other uses. Growth becomes difficult, because the energy resources needed to invest in expanding the economy must compete with maintenance of infrastructure needed to maintain the status quo. To make matters worse, any energy invested in new energy produces poor returns. Eventually the point is reached where the energy returns from a system with declining EROI are no longer sufficient to allow society to continue. At that point, collapse occurs. For most people, the breaking point will be when they can no longer afford food, which is a substantial part of a family budget even in the developed world.

    I am opposed to large scale development of intermittent renewable energy because it cannot achieve high EROI and therefore cannot save billions from poverty and starvation. From our point of view, pouring money into these technologies as a replacement for fossil fuels is a fatal mistake; a diversion into a dead end. Nuclear power is the only alternative high EROI energy source to fossil fuels that we know of at present. We need to prioritise its development and expand it as an energy supply as quickly as possible, before we get too close to the Seneca cliff.

  15. Davy on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 11:29 am 

    Antius, I just wish a reasonable NUK waste storage strategy would happen. Any ideas there?

  16. Antius on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 12:33 pm 

    In the UK there is a low level waste store and plans for a high-level geological repository in Cumbria. In the US, Yucca Mountain has been shelved for the time being for political reasons.

    There is no economic driver at present to address long-term waste disposal because above ground waste storage is relatively cheap. One year of spent fuel from a large reactor has a volume of about 3 cubic metres and it costs very little to keep it in a pond or dry storage flask. This is part of the reason behind the lack of motivation to develop closed fuel cycles. If fuel is cheap and waste is easy to store above ground, there is no urgent need to develop a more expensive long-term solution. Eventually we will have to and there aren’t really any technical obstacles, but we can afford to take our time on this issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *