Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?

[Davy_Crockett]

So I think the upshot is that Nuclear Power generation is unreasonably feared by the public. It is largely safe. It was a beneficial move at the time and we can support the good people who manage it. The nuclear waste is not such a great volume compared with all the power it has made and; it is something manageable that can be contained and it should be dealt with and not feared. Experts should decide whether it is better to drill down into stable mantle, bury it and then collapse the tunnel, or tunnel into remote ancient stable mountain tops and collapse the entrance; whatever the right decision, it can be contained and a little run-off is not a concern with careful placement. The public should not be worried. It is one of the peaks of human ingenuity and technology and should be viewed with pride.

Ultimately, I say these are the last decades of this type of technology. The Gen-III reactors tax our construction limits and knowledge base, and the builders need billions in tax payer subsidies for the startup costs. The last ones will be built by young energetic populations in the Middle East and Asia, while North Americans and Europeans move on to less complex technology that better suits the obstacles of the 22nd Century and beyond.

If a person wants to learn details of the industry, I can recommend the blog by Will Davis, a former US Navy Reactor Operator:

http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.ca/

I think he writes about the facts with careful accuracy.

 

[bhobba]

Ultimately, I say these are the last decades of this type of technology.

True - fusion power is on the way
https://futurism.com/mini-reactors-could-make-affordable-fusion-power-a-reality-by-2030/

But we can still produce reactors as in the link I gave previously that uses reactor waste as fuel to get rid of it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[mfb]

True - fusion power is on the way
https://futurism.com/mini-reactors-could-make-affordable-fusion-power-a-reality-by-2030/

There are multiple companies making wild promises, but none of them has ever demonstrated a relevant fusion power, and not even a relevant triple product. futurism.com happily presents ever tiny step as "fusion tomorrow", of course.

 

[bhobba]

There are multiple companies making wild promises, but none of them has ever demonstrated a relevant fusion power, and not even a relevant triple product. futurism.com happily presents ever tiny step as "fusion tomorrow", of course.

Very true.

Fingers crossed it eventuates sooner than later - but its history is not confidence building.

However it will happen - eventually

Thanks
Bill

 

[Buzz Bloom]

You could have the train crash into a solid wall, fall from a bridge, keep the containers in a fire, or explode a container full of fuel next to them, and the containers would still contain the waste without any leaks. You can even simulate a plane flying into it - a massive one ton projectile directly hitting the container at the speed of sound. And it still survives without leaks.

Hi mfb:

The description you present for the nuclear waste containers seems quite amazing. Do you know of any official specifications for such containers? Do you know how large such a container would be, and how much they would cost, and how many would be needed? If such containers were constructed, I would guess the weakest part would be the seal used to close the container after the waste had been put into it. It would be interesting to read the seal specifications to see how they could be made so strong to withstand the scenarios you describe.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[SredniVashtar]

That's complete nonsense. It's made of atoms, hence it's chemical. So it's dangerous.

Of course it was nonsense.

I guess my joke just flew over you. :-)
I've met my share of "if it's natural it has to be good" (that also translate into "if it's chemical it must be bad"). My first instinct is to reply "Nature is a b1tch, so don't be so sure about that". But that won't cut it. Philosopy to the rescue: I usually ask them to drink a glass of hemlock to prove their point.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

We have a power source that is, to the first order, literally millions of times better than coal, natural gas, or even anything else.

Hi Matt:

I would much appreciate your posting a reference to the source of the various charts in your post.

I noticed that your last chart was from economist.com. Do you know if that chart included (estimated?) costs for the removal of nuclear wastes?

ADDED
I read the Economist article you gave a link to. The text there seems to me to be inconsistent with the cost chart. If the actual costs were so low, why do nuclear plants shut down due to their inability to compete?

Regards,
Buzz

 

[mfb]

The description you present for the nuclear waste containers seems quite amazing. Do you know of any official specifications for such containers? Do you know how large such a container would be, and how much they would cost, and how many would be needed? If such containers were constructed, I would guess the weakest part would be the seal used to close the container after the waste had been put into it. It would be interesting to read the seal specifications to see how they could be made so strong to withstand the scenarios you describe.

I think you misunderstood me. These containers are in service. They are used to carry around nuclear material in Europe.
They cost € 1.5 million per piece, but as they can be used frequently (if necessary) that is not a large cost factor.

I don't know what is used in the US, but probably something similar.

 

[jim hardy]

I don't know what is used in the US, but probably something similar.

1978 tests of a spent fuel cask

 

[MattRob]

Hi Matt:

I would much appreciate your posting a reference to the source of the various charts in your post.

I noticed that your last chart was from economist.com. Do you know if that chart included (estimated?) costs for the removal of nuclear wastes?

ADDED
I read the Economist article you gave a link to. The text there seems to me to be inconsistent with the cost chart. If the actual costs were so low, why do nuclear plants shut down due to their inability to compete?

Regards,
Buzz

Well it looks like I accidentally placed the wrong link on the source link, darn. But googling around a bit, I was able to find this, though I've admittedly only skimmed through it, it seems rather comprehensive and thorough. This makes a contrary claim, though it seems orders of magnitude less-researched and largely anecdotal.

Reverse-Google searching the chart shows a myriad of uses of it, hard to find the original, but here's one article that uses it.

And after searching around a lot more, it looks like it might originally be from here.

In short, I think the answer to your question is that they usually shut down due to a mandate of "it's old so it needs to be shut down" rather than inability to compete with costs. Or, similarly, perhaps, I would guess a lot of it is also imposing very expensive requirements on updating facilities.

It's interesting to note that nuclear power is something where upfront costs are enormous, but relatively low operating costs per kW more than make up for it.

Which, as expensive as running a safe, high-tech plant is, shouldn't be all too surprising considering that you burn fuel at something like two-millionth the rate of fossil fuels per kW.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Hi MattRob:

Thanks you much for the links.

But googling around a bit, I was able to find this,

The organization that produced this article, World Nuclear Association, is an industry association created to support nuclear energy. I have no expertise to judge the accuracy of what this organization publishes, but in general I find industrial organizations have a bias.

This makes a contrary claim

I understand that the source of this article, Union of Concerned Scientists, consists of well informed scientists who have no financial associations with any industries that might have financial interests in the subjects they publish about. I am inclined to accept what they publish as being reliable and true.

hard to find the original, but here's one article that uses it.

The source of this article, PBT Consulting, describes themselves as a

Strategic Marketing, Business Planning, Venture Capital and Value-Added Technology Blogger.​

I confess that I am inclined to consider them as a biased source.

it looks like it might originally be from here.

The source of this article, Galvin P Smith, describes in the article his business goals in terms which I also consider suggest possible bias.

I find it difficult to find sources supporting the safety and economic benefits of nuclear power in the United States which do not have a financial connection with the industry. I confess I have not looked for sources from other places, for example Europe.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[MattRob]

[snip]

3 sources that all support it are biased, some of which pull a tremendous amount of data and do some rigorous analysis, but the single source that opposes it with anecdote and virtually no data, is the one you consider true? Also the same one that is a strong proponent of newer "green" energy technologies like solar and wind?

The last two are capitalists, business oriented people not attached to the nuclear industry - capitalists and venture capitalists want to be right to have a good reputation and invest in things that will pay off, and there's no reason they should be biased for nuclear any more than to believe they should be biased for solar, gas, oil, or wind, since they are all, also, you guessed it - business-based.

So, just because they have some interest in investing and business, you automatically assume they have a pro-nuclear bias and are completely untrustable as sources? Yet a large organization that's a big advocate of "renewable" technologies and gets 83% of its funding from "membership and 'contributions'" is unbiased?

Every source there has possible biases. Everyone in the world has possible biases. What every source doesn't have is good data. The data is there, and it speaks volumes, and just because it's pro-nuclear doesn't mean it's biased and wrong.

I'm sorry, but rejecting 3/4 sources - 2 of which have at most as much or even less suspicion to be biased than the fourth - comes off as cherry picking. You can't call individuals work untrustable because they might be biased for the overwhelming number of sources that say one thing, then ignore the possible biases from the source that says another thing. That is inconsistent. If you're going to throw those two independent bloggers out for bias then at least consider the bias of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) when their website has a very strong, focused, pro-wind and "renewable" slant. The header for the site under "our work" immediately has "Renewables First" with a big, gleaming picture of a wind turbine.

I'll bet wind power companies (that more or less exist off of government subsidies) love groups like the UCS that convince the government to give them funding.

Some of the UCS articles are downright laughable. They talk about the "safety concerns" and "demand Congress enforce nuclear regulations" and such for a source of power that is proven to have less deaths/kWh than the wind they so flagrantly support, and say nothing of the concerns with wind.

To say nothing of how this is an annoying game of moving goalposts. Yesterday the topic was safety. Nobody asked about costs then, just safety. Once it was proven beyond question that nuclear is the safest, now we're looking elsewhere.

But if we were to be completely rational, then the same people who were arguing against nuclear over safety concerns, who were formerly uncaring about cost, should remain uncaring about cost and now argue for nuclear since it is the safest. At least you weren't one of them, though, so while the topic as a whole has shifted goalposts, at least you personally haven't.

But honestly, if you're going to claim every source that's pro-nuclear is biased and must be somehow financially tied to nuclear, then at least consider that the site that's focused around support for renewables might have its own biases, especially when the site consistently writes articles against nuclear, or at least for stronger nuclear regulations over safety, when they never say a thing about safety for the power sources they advocate, when those power sources are, undeniably, more dangerous, and especially when they draw on anecdote for their arguments instead of solid data.

Poor data handling lies, drawing causation where you've only shown correlation lies, drawing the wrong conclusions from data lies, data that is ill-defined, defined in misleading ways, or poorly determined, lies.

But good, solid data, by itself, does not lie. But anecdote and unsupported claims do.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

I'm sorry, but rejecting 3/4 sources - 2 of which have at most as much or even less suspicion to be biased than the fourth - comes off as cherry picking.

Hi Matt:

Well I confess that I have a bias about almost everything. The OP question, as I interpret it, is: "Why do people like me have the particular biases that we do, and in particular concerning nuclear energy?"

Now when I look at the charts that seem to me to have a bias, I notice certain elements that are consistent with my bias. For example, in the absence of content to counter my bias, it seems to me that the cost per KWH for nuclear might well be understated. For example, suppose the numbers in the chart only include production cost, and exclude the amortization of investment cost. Do you know what accounting assumptions are made in preparing the data?

Quite a long while ago my wife came up with an original aphorism.

The purpose of accounting is to make you happy.​

(Here "you" means "the accountant or the person hiring the accountant".)
She discovered this "truth" while doing household accounting and found she did not like some of the conclusions. So, she changed the assumptions about how certain household expenses should be accounted for, and that made her much happier.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[mheslep]

...put a serious effort in like France it would probably take 20-30 years

I hope the actual build out would not take that long, with a head start of 100 reactors already in the US and vigorous domestic fuel production. France built it's nuclear fleet in 12 years, sufficient to push fossil fuel power below 10%. Allowing for the existing combustion fleet to gracefully retire could take decades.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ectricity_production_by_sources_in_France.png

 

[mheslep]

There is no debate. Not unless you're refusing to be reasonable, or are intentionally making stupid decisions that benefit yourself and hurt the rest of mankind. Nuclear is the best source of power, and it is wrong that anyone would think otherwise.

Something to keep in mind when buying concert tickets to see these safety experts perform:

...including rock musician David Crosby, who told the agency that the [Diablo Canyon nuclear] plant was unsafe and urged that it be shut down.

“The plant is dangerous,” he said. “When there are millions of people downwind of the plant it is an unacceptable risk.”

Letters from other musicians were also read into the record — all were opposed to the continued operation of the plant. They included Graham Nash, Jackson Browne, Linda Ronstadt and Bonnie Raitt.

Mr Crosby has also protested nuclear power in an earlier era:

first of the decade’s many run-ins happened on March 28, 1982. It was a Sunday and Crosby, Stephen Stills and Graham Nash had planned to perform at an anti-nuclear demonstration near the San Onofre nuclear plant in San Diego County, Calif. Under the influence of cocaine, Crosby was driving himself to the rally when he crashed into a highway divider on a stretch of the San Diego Freeway in Costa Mesa.

According to reports, the 40-year-old Crosby had experienced a “cocaine seizure” before losing control of the vehicle. When emergency teams reported to the scene to extract the rock star from the wreck, police discovered Crosby was in possession of cocaine, as well as a loaded .45-caliber pistol. When authorities asked the singer why he felt the need to travel with a weapon, the former Byrds member allegedly answered, “John Lennon

 

[MattRob]

Something to keep in mind when buying concert tickets to see these safety experts perform:

Mr Crosby has also protested nuclear power in an earlier era:

I feel like this pretty well sums up the anti-nuclear movement. Talk about how unsafe the plant is then get in a car wreck by being stupid and unsafe.

Of course musicians are the real experts in the world. Who needs engineers and scientists?

 

[HAYAO]

HAYAO's comment (re-quoted below) I think is incorrect.
In the United States, I understand that a great deal of nuclear waste is awaiting disposal in containers stored on the surface near the nuclear plant facility. This is because there is no current national policy for it's permanent disposal. If I am mistaken about this I hope some one with well informed knowledge about this will post a reference. There is also the issue of getting the waste to an agreed upon disposal site. Will it be by trucks on highways or by trains traveling on not very well maintained tracks, and in either case, passing nearby highly populated areas. Perhaps a knowledgeable person can calculate and post the numerical risks.

Okay, I did not mention wastes yet to be disposed underground but that does not mean I am incorrect; it just means that I didn't mention it simply because it was not the topic I was getting into. Either way, they are stored in a way that it absolutely does not affect us. People and media talking about the dangers of how much waste is stored on surface awaiting disposal is a myth. It ain't going to do anything to us. In fact, the amount of people actually dying from normal operation is extremely low compared to most of the other power options, much less by radiation.

The important point I am making is that radioactive waste is a controlled waste while CO2 is not.

 

[russ_watters]

You are missing the point.
The diesel generators that contributed to the Fuku-up at Daichi were part of plant build by people who allegedely should have understood risk assessment. They clearly did not understand it too well, did they? I wonder if money played a part in that kind of overlooking.

Probably. But every accident makes the next one less likely. Like with planes. I can't even remember the last time an airliner crashed in the USA.

As for the wastes, that 3% that decays between 1000 and 10000 years, provided they will be stored in the safest place designated by scientists (and not a not so ideal choice resulting from politicians' compromise) can you be sure they will be taken care of after all that time? Will you write instruction in English, Latin, Sumerian, Hieroglyphs or Linear A? Ten thousand years is a long time. I bet they won't be using Unicode anymore.

So what/who cares? If civilization has fallen so far that whomever is left can't understand any current language or a giant sign with a skull and crossbones on it, they will certainly have bigger problems to be concerned about than what is in that barrel.

 

[russ_watters]

EDIT: And it doesn't have to be stored in the perfect place scientists say. It just has to be stored in drums that people check up on every once in a while. That's literally all it would take. Again, the lower cost of power production from nuclear would easily offset this cost.

But it doesn't even need that. Why not go ahead and store it at powerplants where you're already storing the active material and have all the security and monitoring in place, anyways? To say nothing of how bhobba pointed out that we can still use it (the waste) to produce power.

Which is what is being done now. It's fine -- the main problem is storage capacity, since the US government promised to take all of it and has reneged on that promise. But even where we have old reactors that eventually will need to be decommissioned, we might as well just build new ones and new storage facilities on the same sites. We'll generate power and store the waste a hundred years at a time.

 

[russ_watters]

True - fusion power is on the way
https://futurism.com/mini-reactors-could-make-affordable-fusion-power-a-reality-by-2030/

Fusion power has been "on the way", 30 years from commercialization, since 30 years ago when I was in elementary school. While we wait, we should build a thousand fission plants.

 

[russ_watters]

1978 tests of a spent fuel cask

If you're going to do a crash test, why not use rockets to accelerate the vehicles?!

 

[jim hardy]

If you're going to do a crash test, why not use rockets to accelerate the vehicles?!

 

[mfb]

Fusion power has been "on the way", 30 years from commercialization, since 30 years ago when I was in elementary school. While we wait, we should build a thousand fission plants.

Research is not magic, it needs money. You can't cut funding and still expect the same results.

"Fusion in 30 years" would have been the orange "moderate" plan:

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Either way, they are stored in a way that it absolutely does not affect us. People and media talking about the dangers of how much waste is stored on surface awaiting disposal is a myth. It ain't going to do anything to us.

I get it that you are confident that the presence of these above ground containers of nuclear waste in the US represent no danger to you. The OP question, as I interpret it, is why are people like me concerned about such things? One reason might be that your confidence is not particularly reassuring. I do not find calling the dangers "a myth" a convincing argument.

Do you believe these US surface containers are like the ones described for transport in posts #148 and #149? If you do, can you post a link to a reference that makes this clear? If that were the case, I would be somewhat reassured about their safety. Since I do not believe that is the case, I have, for example, some anxiety about a possible "terrorist" attack on that waste.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Buzz Bloom]

US government promised to take all of it and has reneged on that promise.

Hi Russ:

An interesting point. It is a natural phenomenon that corporations will, if they can, get someone other than themselves to pay for some of their costs. It is natural because corporations are chartered to do their best to make the largest possible profits for the benefit of the share holders. The charts quoted in post# 151 show how cheaply nuclear plants produce electricity. Getting the US government to pay the expense of waste disposal (which I believe includes the liability costs for any bad things happening with the stuff) is still a cost even if the nuclear plant does not have to pay it.

It is also true that fossil fuel plants also do not pay the costs of waste CO2. It becomes a political issue who should pay for waste costs. A carbon tax is one possible answer. The currently most popular answer seems to be: NOT THE PRODUCERS.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[gmax137]

Getting the US government to pay the expense of waste disposal (which I believe includes the liability costs for any bad things happening with the stuff) is still a cost even if the nuclear plant does not have to pay it.

In the US, the licensees (ie, the power companies) have been paying 0.1 cents per kW-hr to the federal government to pay for the long term storage -- the storage that the government has not been providing. This has been going on for many years.

 

[russ_watters]

An interesting point. It is a natural phenomenon that corporations will, if they can, get someone other than themselves to pay for some of their costs. It is natural because corporations are chartered to do their best to make the largest possible profits for the benefit of the share holders. The charts quoted in post# 151 show how cheaply nuclear plants produce electricity. Getting the US government to pay the expense of waste disposal (which I believe includes the liability costs for any bad things happening with the stuff) is still a cost even if the nuclear plant does not have to pay it.

It is also true that fossil fuel plants also do not pay the costs of waste CO2. It becomes a political issue who should pay for waste costs. A carbon tax is one possible answer. The currently most popular answer seems to be: NOT THE PRODUCERS.

I do understand all of that and I guess I'm not sure what your point is, unless you weren't aware of the $30 billion drained from the nuclear power industry for something we/they have not received (per gmax's post).

In some ways it is the opposite of what has happened with coal; coal has recently seen regulations tighten in order to deal with the waste and perhaps even make it pay for the wast (carbon tax - not enacted yet). In nuclear power though, the cost of dealing with the waste was built-in to the cost of doing business up front and then the government failed to fulfill its promise to do something with it.

So on the one hand, not having to deal with its waste initially made coal cheaper whereas it made nuclear more expensive, with a back-end additional hit of not getting what was promised, causing nuclear plant owners to still have to figure out for themselves what to do with the waste! Essentially, they are paying for it twice!

 

[Buzz Bloom]

In the US, the licensees (ie, the power companies) have been paying 0.1 cents per kW-hr to the federal government to pay for the long term storage -- the storage that the government has not been providing.

In some ways it is the opposite of what has happened with coal; coal has recently seen regulations tighten in order to deal with the waste and perhaps even make it pay for the wast (carbon tax - not enacted yet). In nuclear power though, the cost of dealing with the waste was built-in to the cost of doing business up front and then the government failed to fulfill its promise to do something with it.

Hi gmax and russ:

I confess I have never seen before that information about the nuclear industry paying a tax to the US for each kWH produced, and I would very much like to become better informed about it. Can you post some links that might help me? Also, can you post any links to information about estimated costs for disposing of the waste?

Regards,
Buzz

 

[russ_watters]

Hi gmax and russ:

I confess I have never seen before that information about the nuclear industry paying a tax to the US for each kWH produced, and I would very much like to become better informed about it. Can you post some links that might help me? Also, can you post any links to information about estimated costs for disposing of the waste?

Regards,
Buzz

Sure, no prob:

The [Nuclear Waste Policy] Act [of 1983] established a Nuclear Waste Fund composed of fees levied against electric utilities to pay for the costs of constructing and operating a permanent repository, and set the fee at one mill per kilowatt-hour of nuclear electricity generated. Utilities were charged a one-time fee for storage of spent fuel created before enactment of the law.
...
The Nuclear Waste Fund receives almost $750 million in fee revenues each year and has an unspent balance of $25 billion. However (according to the Draft Report by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future), actions by both Congress and the Executive Branch have made the money in the fund effectively inaccessible to serving its original purpose. The commission made several recommendations on how this situation may be corrected.[8]

In late 2013, a federal court ruled that the Department of Energy must stop collecting fees for nuclear waste disposal until provisions are made to collect nuclear waste.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act#Payment_of_costs

My understanding is that any money "in a fund" has been "borrowed" or rather just been spent by the US government for whatever it feels like. Either way, the lawsuit referenced above was the result of the Obama Administration's decision to stop development of the Yucca Mountain repository and attempt to permanently prevent its use. But with Obama and Senator Reid out of office it may yet be opened. But in the meantime, the nuclear plants were built assuming they wouldn't be permanently storing the waste and are now wondering if they will have to and how they will accomplish that.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Sure, no prob:

Hi russ:

Thanks much for the post. I found it very informative and interesting.

Since the quote about the 1983 act and the Wikipedia article both failed to mention estimated costs for permanent nuclear waste disposal, I am still trying to find this information If you come across it anywhere, I hope you will post it in this thread.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[russ_watters]

Hi russ:

Thanks much for the post. I found it very informative and interesting.

Since the quote about the 1983 act and the Wikipedia article both failed to mention estimated costs for permanent nuclear waste disposal, I am still trying to find this information If you come across it anywhere, I hope you will post it in this thread.

Regards,
Buzz

What I found is $96 billion over the next 115 years:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/W...mate_rises_to_96_billion_dollars-0608085.html

However, please note that that assumes the project will be executed in the way the law demands, which is anything but a sure thing. At this point I believe it is more likely than not that the poject will be abandoned in favor of much cheaper mid-term storage. That could mean the storage fee is never reinstated at its previous level.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

What I found is $96 billion over the next 115 years:

Hi Russ:

Thanks much for the link. The $96 billion seems to be (1) the revised estimated cost for completing the Yucca Mountain project, plus (2) it's estimated operating cost for 150 years. A particularly interesting item was that the 1 mil per kWH was orginally in 1996, and still was when revised in 2008, to be expected to cover 80% of the total waste management costs (assuming the Yucca Mountain facility was going to be completed and used, which it isn't), with the taxpayer paying the other 20%. Do you know what the planned capacity of this Yucca Mountain facility is/was?

I would guess that the storage facility part of the waste management costs is the greatest, but I would also guess that the cost of the permanent storage tanks, and the very sturdy transportation storage tanks described in posts #148 and #149 would add a good bit, and there are also transportation costs.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[gmax137]

Hi Buzz Bloom, you seem like the perfect audience for the book I recommended back in post#3:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307385876/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The author is a skeptical journalist. Well written and fun to read.

 

[mheslep]

If you're going to do a crash test, why not use rockets to accelerate the vehicles?!

Given the widespread yet unfounded concern about nuclear power accidents, perhaps some more catastrophic testing of reactor parts themselves would improve both safety and public opinion. Remote piloted jumbo aircraft are crashed intentionally; their wings are tested to failure in the shop. I suspect some underground nuclear test facility, even in excess of $1B, where reactors are tested to failure would be worthwhile. Such a test facility would have likely exposed the Chernobyl design before the fact.

 

[OCR]

...assuming the Yucca Mountain facility was going to be completed and used, which it isn't...

Unless I have it wrong, this might be an update concerning the article Russ posted... here ?