Some truth to people who think we can be 100% renewable

[DAYDREAMER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound And speaking of electricity usage, I used to feel bad about being an "energy hog" living in the Southwest, where the AC runs nearly all day in the summer, even through the night. And for 2 years in a row, my highest 24-hour consumption hit 100 kWh. That happened when the high hit 120+F. But that 100 kWh/day consumption happens only for a few days in a year. Other times of the year, it can be as low as 20 kWh/day. My consumption over the last 12 months is 16,159 kWh, for a home of 2,800 sq.ft. with a large swimming pool, using electricity for everything including cooking and heating. How does the above compare to people living in other states? Just looked it up, and found that the average Midwest household uses 766.4 gal of heating oil each year. That's equivalent to 31,200 kWh. That's double my electricity usage. And that is just for heating oil, as they also use electricity, and perhaps gas too. Yikes! And the average Midwest home is probably smaller than 2,800 sq.ft. Now, living in the desert does not sound so bad anymore.

I have a 2600sqft home in the Seattle,Washington area. My yearly usage of an electric powered house is 18000 KWH for the year. Currently running ductless heat pumps for house and garage, and thinking of ways to convert the evaperator unit to be a ground source heated fluid to r410 heat transfer instead of air to r410, which should increase the efficiency from 3/1 to 4/1 (units of heat output/electrical units input), regardless of how cold it is.

The leap in efficiency going from incadesent to LED lighting, Microwave technology for cooking food, Hvac, etc gives me hope that we humans can do amazing things when driven to do so. Education of our young is the solution.

[Totoro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Sure. But if you want to be taken seriously, do some work, don't just throw me some links, exclaim "win!", and expect me to do all the analysis.

Well, I'm just highly surprised you claim to be very much into this topic and don't even read an extensive Stanford study & update tackling the very problem you can claim to want to be solved but simultaneously believe can't be solved.

Especially since your main point is that the devil is in the details. The summary is still:

• Batteries are today cost effective for many on-grid use cases, starting with stability, and now moving in peaker territory
• The cost curve is dropping double digits a year for renewable generation and batteries
• Only gas plants can keep up with non-renewables in generation costs
• The path to 85% renewable is quite clear

Closing that last 15% gap in some geographies, especially in seasonally affected areas, is not as clear yet but many possibilities exist. We have 25 years roughly to figure those out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Even a bit of "duck curve" shifting - just storing a portion of the day's solar to extend into the evening peak for a few hours so they can more effectively ramp their coal plants up/down requires massive storage.

Like these three PG&E battery installations replacing peaker plants?

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/sto...r-worl/541870/

Quote:

"Storage at this scale is likely now cheaper than the total cost to run the gas plants," Alex Eller, senior energy research analyst at Navigant, told Utility Dive when the solicitation was announced.

[Maenad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 ...what is your (reality-based) proposal?

Actually, I have the same question for you. What should we do, just keep using up coal and natural gas until they run out, then....? You talk about us going down the wrong path and having no time to correct, so what's the right path?

[Free To Canoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Burn, coal, burn... Even Germany, despite all the talks about solar and wind energy, still burns lignite dug out of a 33-square-mile open pit. Lignite, a brown low-grade coal, is the dirtiest coal found on earth. Compared to that, the US is lucky to have black coal. The state of North Rhine-Westphalia's environment minister, Johannes Remmel, a member of the Green party, was quoted to say "We happen to have these power plants and they will remain a major part of the energy mix through 2050". Last year, 37 percent of Germany's electricity was powered by coal, and 23 percent of it by brown coal, according to the Economy Ministry. Burn, baby, burn... The energy problem is not as easy to solve as some people think.

Photos are impressive. Love this stuff.

The main reason that Germany will continue with a coal infrastructure is that their Russian NG supplier is "unreliable". They have options if the Russians turn the gas off.

The Green Party is not green.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maenad Quote: Originally Posted by ERD50 ...what is your (reality-based) proposal? Actually, I have the same question for you. What should we do, just keep using up coal and natural gas until they run out, then....? You talk about us going down the wrong path and having no time to correct, so what's the right path?

Be glad to answer your (well, I guess my) question - but first I will point out that logically, I really do not need to have a better idea/alternative, to be able to point out that proposal xyz is not practical. I'm sure you can find examples that begin "Here, hold my beer and watch this!".

Answer A) One word: France. There you go, they are basically there, they get ~ 75% of their electric power from nukes. And, they export 38 TWh of electricity to neighbors, and rarely import energy. France! You know, that technology, innovation giant that has brought us all this other great technology, like..... umm, I can't think of any either. France! That could have, and probably should have been us!

They went from a statement of the goal in 1974, to 80 nuclear plants a decade later, and 170 plants by 2000. France!

Answer B) Immediately STOP every sale based credit, like the ones for solar and EVs, and apply it to something productive (probably research). These subsidies are a near total waste, probably actually negative. For example, the solar tax credit ends up encouraging people to put solar panels in areas that are not optimum for solar. People's rooftops are often not at the best angle, maintenance can be difficult, trees will grow and shade them over the years, installation cost is higher than an industrial level installation (I've talked about this before). So we spend more money to get less electricity from those panels. That is flat out stupid. Same with EVs, $7,5000 x 200,000 cars per mfg, then half that for the next 6 months (no limit on the number of vehicles?), and half again for the next 6 months.

So that's (per mfg!), $1.5 BILLION DOLLARS for EVs (I had to 3x check my math! That;s a LOT of zeros)! And I'd bet most of those people would have bought a Tesla regardless of the subsidy ( these are ~ $50K ~ 120K cars?), and if Tesla sells 100,000 per Q in 2019, that gets us to ~ $2.62 BILLION. And other mfgs will get some of that too. What did a few incremental sales do for us? There is plenty of motivation for better batteries (the main limiting factor for EVs), a few extra sales of EVs won't move the needle far. It might even push it backwards (counterproductive!), because people will accept a little less range if the car costs them $7,500 less. See, these sales subsidies can actually be counterproductive - it's better to motivate the mfgs to attract customers with a better product. What a concept!

Yes, I'd rather see the many BILLIONS of dollars go to research for better batteries, or better RE, or other storage, not subsidizing my friend's purchase of a Model S, or lowering the electric bill of some rich guy (you need to have some means to afford solar in the first place).

Answer B) I especially do not like coal. It is dirty/dangerous to mine, it is dirty/unhealthy to burn. But we can't wish it away, unless we are prepared for brown/black outs. And I was semi-serious about putting a "smart switch" on the homes/cars/businesses of people who push for shut downs of coal/NG plants w/o planning for the consequences. Let them suffer the black out and uncharged EV - I think that's the only thing that will make them 'see the (candle?) light'.

Maybe research can get one of the newer nuke technologies, which are potentially smaller, cheaper, passively safe, and more efficient, and might even 'eat' some of the existing 'waste'.

To some extent, maybe we should be following the old saying "Don't just do something - stand there!". I feel we should maybe be doing more thinking/planning, and less doing, for now. Let some of this tech take the 'natural' process of becoming better and better (aided by research funding), and start using it when it makes sense to use it, not trying to force a square peg in a round hole.

We can research better energy conservation, load shifting, better RE, better storage, future nukes - but the numbers I see are way out there to get to near 100% RE, without some form of base load power.

Right now I don't see a way to get to 100% non-fossil by 2050 w/o nukes. We can do better over time, but I don't see 100%. Other countries (w/o access to hydro, which has its own issues) have maxed out at ~ 20% RE. That's where the intermittency creates cost/stability issues, and you need storage. And we don;t have it, and we don't have a path for practical mass storage.

Don't forget, there just isn't a lot of 'there' in much of this tech. Yes, batteries can get smaller, lighter, cheaper, but they are already ~ 90% efficient in energy conversion. There just isn't a lot of improvement to be had. No "Manhattan Project" will change that. Same with pumped storage, compressed air, etc. Solar is ~ 15% efficient now? Theoretical is ~ 34%, higher if you go multi-layer, but that adds costs, and again - you can't get to 100%, so there is only so much further to go.

None of this stuff is like atomic energy in the 30's. Back then physicists realized there was massive amount of energy, previously unimaginable, in the atom. We just don't have anything like that on the horizon.

What do you have?

-ERD50

[Spock]

Subsidized solar: SolarCity made a huge push in my neighborhood (Southern AZ)... we now have houses with roof solar panels facing NORTH. If they were paying with their own money you can bet they'd be more concerned with orientating them efficiently.
(and they might take better care of them... most are now completely covered in corrosive pigeon poop).

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro (ERD50: - I will answer this first part later, but for now....) Like these three PG&E battery installations replacing peaker plants? https://www.utilitydive.com/news/sto...r-worl/541870/

Interesting, but again, I'm getting tired of doing all the analysis. Why don't you do some research and math and put that in perspective for us? What does this mean in terms of getting to 100% RE?

If I were to do it, I'd be looking for:

Perspective - how does this largest in the world battery farm compare in output to a typical coal plant?

How does this relate to overnight storage needed for solar? How about for days/weeks of low RE output?

How many hours a year did the three NG plants run? Some peaker plants run only a few hours a year. Could this battery farm provide that full energy every day (as it would need for overnight solar) for 10~20 years? If not, how long before it needs to be replaced?

I'd imagine they are putting the batteries on peakers that see fairly limited duty cycles. That would make the fixed cost of the NG plant replacement high relative to MWhrs produced.

Sure, batteries are getting better and will find more niche applications, and become wider and wider as they improve. But days/weeks storage on a 100% RE grid is a long, long way from 4 hours of a small % of peaking.

-ERD50

[Midpack]

Probably too late on this thread, but for the optimists here, another real factor to consider. I didn’t realize it to be honest, stumbled on this 5 year old Ted talk this morning.

Known storage issues aside, how many countries even have the land area to use wind or solar to supply 100% of their current demand?

Basically the video shows present energy consumption per capita vs population density for most countries. And then the area needed for various renewable sources. I could just post the chart, but watching the short video will make it far easier to grasp. For example, the UK is already beyond enough area to rely on biomass, would have to devote about 50% of the land area of country to wind farms, or about 25% of the land area for PV solar. Concentrated solar is a more “land efficient” source, but that’s not an option in some countries, like the UK. The situation for many European and (developed) Asian countries are similar.

For the US, biomass would require almost 100% of land area, wind would require 30-40% of land area, and PV solar about 15-20%. Imagine that, really. The picture is similar for China and India already.

Russia, Canada, Australia and Brazil have more “excess space” from a renewable land area POV.

Just for comparison, a nuclear power plant generates 200 times the energy for its land area use as PV solar and 400 times that of wind farms.

Technology will undoubtedly improve, but just the physical space required for 100% renewables will be a serious challenge as well.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mack..._on_renewables

[Totoro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Perspective - how does this largest in the world battery farm compare in output to a typical coal plant?

Largest battery is 300MW power for four hours, 1.200 MWH. Total power 567.5 MW & 2.270 MWH. A typical coal plant is about 600MW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Could this battery farm provide that full energy every day (as it would need for overnight solar) for 10~20 years? If not, how long before it needs to be replaced?

Yes. Doesn't mention it in the article, but a comparable one in Australia is rated for 5.000 cycles, 8 to 15 years. Pretty typical for li-ion as you probably know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'd imagine they are putting the batteries on peakers that see fairly limited duty cycles. That would make the fixed cost of the NG plant replacement high relative to MWhrs produced.

More duty cycles are actually favorable for the battery - as their cost is almost exclusively capital. Limited duty cycles don't make sense for batteries right now, that'll come later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Sure, batteries are getting better and will find more niche applications, and become wider and wider as they improve. But days/weeks storage on a 100% RE grid is a long, long way from 4 hours of a small % of peaking.

That's today, and 567.5MW isn't peanuts. Even 5 years ago you would be laughed at for even suggesting such a thing, and here they are coming, profitable too. The shift from niche to utility scale deployment is happening.

Yes, we have a long while to go. But a) there's more than solar b) we have 30 years left and c) don't underestimate the cost declines we're seeing.

[Mr. Tightwad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Be glad to answer your (well, I guess my) question - but first I will point out that logically, I really do not need to have a better idea/alternative, to be able to point out that proposal xyz is not practical. I'm sure you can find examples that begin "Here, hold my beer and watch this!". Answer A) One word: France. There you go, they are basically there, they get ~ 75% of their electric power from nukes. And, they export 38 TWh of electricity to neighbors, and rarely import energy. France! You know, that technology, innovation giant that has brought us all this other great technology, like..... umm, I can't think of any either. France! That could have, and probably should have been us! They went from a statement of the goal in 1974, to 80 nuclear plants a decade later, and 170 plants by 2000. France! Answer B) Immediately STOP every sale based credit, like the ones for solar and EVs, and apply it to something productive (probably research). These subsidies are a near total waste, probably actually negative. For example, the solar tax credit ends up encouraging people to put solar panels in areas that are not optimum for solar. People's rooftops are often not at the best angle, maintenance can be difficult, trees will grow and shade them over the years, installation cost is higher than an industrial level installation (I've talked about this before). So we spend more money to get less electricity from those panels. That is flat out stupid. Same with EVs, $7,5000 x 200,000 cars per mfg, then half that for the next 6 months (no limit on the number of vehicles?), and half again for the next 6 months. So that's (per mfg!), $1.5 BILLION DOLLARS for EVs (I had to 3x check my math! That;s a LOT of zeros)! And I'd bet most of those people would have bought a Tesla regardless of the subsidy ( these are ~ $50K ~ 120K cars?), and if Tesla sells 100,000 per Q in 2019, that gets us to ~ $2.62 BILLION. And other mfgs will get some of that too. What did a few incremental sales do for us? There is plenty of motivation for better batteries (the main limiting factor for EVs), a few extra sales of EVs won't move the needle far. It might even push it backwards (counterproductive!), because people will accept a little less range if the car costs them $7,500 less. See, these sales subsidies can actually be counterproductive - it's better to motivate the mfgs to attract customers with a better product. What a concept! Yes, I'd rather see the many BILLIONS of dollars go to research for better batteries, or better RE, or other storage, not subsidizing my friend's purchase of a Model S, or lowering the electric bill of some rich guy (you need to have some means to afford solar in the first place). Answer B) I especially do not like coal. It is dirty/dangerous to mine, it is dirty/unhealthy to burn. But we can't wish it away, unless we are prepared for brown/black outs. And I was semi-serious about putting a "smart switch" on the homes/cars/businesses of people who push for shut downs of coal/NG plants w/o planning for the consequences. Let them suffer the black out and uncharged EV - I think that's the only thing that will make them 'see the (candle?) light'. Maybe research can get one of the newer nuke technologies, which are potentially smaller, cheaper, passively safe, and more efficient, and might even 'eat' some of the existing 'waste'. To some extent, maybe we should be following the old saying "Don't just do something - stand there!". I feel we should maybe be doing more thinking/planning, and less doing, for now. Let some of this tech take the 'natural' process of becoming better and better (aided by research funding), and start using it when it makes sense to use it, not trying to force a square peg in a round hole. We can research better energy conservation, load shifting, better RE, better storage, future nukes - but the numbers I see are way out there to get to near 100% RE, without some form of base load power. Right now I don't see a way to get to 100% non-fossil by 2050 w/o nukes. We can do better over time, but I don't see 100%. Other countries (w/o access to hydro, which has its own issues) have maxed out at ~ 20% RE. That's where the intermittency creates cost/stability issues, and you need storage. And we don;t have it, and we don't have a path for practical mass storage. Don't forget, there just isn't a lot of 'there' in much of this tech. Yes, batteries can get smaller, lighter, cheaper, but they are already ~ 90% efficient in energy conversion. There just isn't a lot of improvement to be had. No "Manhattan Project" will change that. Same with pumped storage, compressed air, etc. Solar is ~ 15% efficient now? Theoretical is ~ 34%, higher if you go multi-layer, but that adds costs, and again - you can't get to 100%, so there is only so much further to go. None of this stuff is like atomic energy in the 30's. Back then physicists realized there was massive amount of energy, previously unimaginable, in the atom. We just don't have anything like that on the horizon. What do you have? -ERD50

I'm getting 2 federal tax credits in 2018 for $7500 each, I think its a nifty idea.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Tightwad I'm getting 2 federal tax credits in 2018 for $7500 each, I think its a nifty idea.

I'm sure you do!

C'mon, don't we at least get a "thank you for paying for some of my car"? Is there a Hallmark card for that?

-ERD50

[Mr. Tightwad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm sure you do! C'mon, don't we at least get a "thank you for paying for some of my car"? Is there a Hallmark card for that? -ERD50

I don't give Hallmark any of my money.

If you were asking a question when you said "no limit on the # of vehicles?", the answer is no there isn't.

BTW, there is no limit to the # of Federal credits either. I'm thinking of how to pick up more next year.

[Totoro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Technology will undoubtedly improve, but just the physical space required for 100% renewables will be a serious challenge as well.

I've seen the video and was puzzled (worried) by it. Still am a bit. What puzzles me even more is that I can find so little about the whole issue.

Just tried some Google-fu again, and the best I could do was find an MIT study (https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/up...lar-Energy.pdf) from 2015.

Quote:

Using current PV technology, solar plants covering only about 0.4% of the land area of the continental United States and experiencing average U.S. insolation over the course of a year could produce all the electricity the nation currently consumes.

In the same article it mentions that to satisfy 100% of all energy production with PV alone we'd need about less area needed now as devoted to coal mining. I'd think there would be more worry and debate to it if it was such a big issue? Even if it is solvable, all these things have to go somewhere and I don't see much debate.


Then again, here in The Netherlands lots of permit issues for wind farms ..

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Probably too late on this thread, but for the optimists here, another real factor to consider. I didn’t realize it to be honest, stumbled on this 5 year old Ted talk this morning. Known storage issues aside, how many countries even have the land area to use wind or solar to supply 100% of their current demand? Basically the video shows present energy consumption per capita vs population density for most countries. And then the area needed for various renewable sources. I could just post the chart, but watching the short video will make it far easier to grasp. For example, the UK is already beyond enough area to rely on biomass, would have to devote about 50% of the land area of country to wind farms, or about 25% of the land area for PV solar. Concentrated solar is a more “land efficient” source, but that’s not an option in some countries, like the UK. The situation for many European and (developed) Asian countries are similar. For the US, biomass would require almost 100% of land area, wind would require 30-40% of land area, and PV solar about 15-20%. Imagine that, really. The picture is similar for China and India already. Russia, Canada, Australia and Brazil have more “excess space” from a renewable land area POV. Just for comparison, a nuclear power plant generates 200 times the energy for its land area use as PV solar and 400 times that of wind farms. Technology will undoubtedly improve, but just the physical space required for 100% renewables will be a serious challenge as well. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mack..._on_renewables

I do think the TED talk tends to put things into perspective. Wonderful as renewables are, even if we could somehow get to an average 50% average conversion-to-electricity-in-the-wire with them, it's unlikely we would ever get to 100% (or 85%) conversion to renewables WITHOUT first (or simultaneously) emphasizing reduction of demand.

As the speaker pointed out, reduction in demand (at least within the things you control such as home, car, appliances, etc.) is quite simple in concept. Actually controlling them takes a lot of thought, evaluation, commitment and effort. I KNOW I have lots of vampires in my apartment AND I know that my $.30/KWH cost for electricity means I could save $10 to $30 per month by dealing with them as the speaker has. But for that kind of saving, I'm just too lazy. Back on the mainland where I had HVAC to deal with, I actually DID do much of what the speaker spoke about, because it was fairly straight-forward to save as much as $100/month. Just monitor the thermostat in winter, use the windows as AC at night and then close up the house in the summer to save AC. Viola!

So, if I'm making a point, perhaps it is this: Even though I want to leave a nice place for my kids to live (the greenhouse-effect/climate change argument) I base most of my decisions on personal economics. I submit that most of us - even those of us who are fascinated by this entire subject - base most of our energy decisions on the economics. Perhaps, at the margins, we are swayed by climate predictions, but are not willing to pay 10X or even 2X for our energy to (maybe) "save the planet." I know that's really reducing an incredibly complex subject to some very basic (base?) principles. YMMV

[USGrant1962]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncbill Sorry, nuclear & coal are both dying. Nuclear has proven too expensive to build/operate...nearly all the projects that were in process have been shut down. ...

Just to be clear - this is just regarding the U.S. Per the International Energy Agency, there are currently about 50 reactors under construction around the world (2 in the U.S.), about 100 more are planned/ordered, and 300 more are proposed.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack /snip/ Russia, Canada, Australia and Brazil have more “excess space” from a renewable land area POV.

One of the problems with this number is that for Russia, Canada and Brazil you would have to cut down huge amounts of forests to clear the land for our RE use...



That would lead to much higher global warming...

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro I've seen the video and was puzzled (worried) by it. Still am a bit. What puzzles me even more is that I can find so little about the whole issue. Just tried some Google-fu again, and the best I could do was find an MIT study (https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/up...lar-Energy.pdf) from 2015. In the same article it mentions that to satisfy 100% of all energy production with PV alone we'd need about less area needed now as devoted to coal mining. I'd think there would be more worry and debate to it if it was such a big issue? Even if it is solvable, all these things have to go somewhere and I don't see much debate. Then again, here in The Netherlands lots of permit issues for wind farms ..

Well that’s bizarre, I don’t know what to think now. I also found an academic paper that concluded the US would have to devote 0.6% of all land to PV solar to supply current demand. A lot of land, but not 25%.

OTOH, David MacKay was knighted in 2016, could he be that wrong?

Guess I may have to dig further...

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAYDREAMER I have a 2600sqft home in the Seattle,Washington area. My yearly usage of an electric powered house is 18000 KWH for the year. Currently running ductless heat pumps for house and garage, and thinking of ways to convert the evaperator unit to be a ground source heated fluid to r410 heat transfer instead of air to r410, which should increase the efficiency from 3/1 to 4/1 (units of heat output/electrical units input), regardless of how cold it is. The leap in efficiency going from incadesent to LED lighting, Microwave technology for cooking food, Hvac, etc gives me hope that we humans can do amazing things when driven to do so. Education of our young is the solution.

Thanks for sharing the info. We can see that a home in Seattle already uses more energy than one in Phoenix. In Buffalo, NY, or Toronto, one can imagine how much worse it is.

Much of the residential use of energy is for temperature control. The use of LED for lighting, better refrigerators, and cooking appliances helps but the use of energy for heating is a much bigger part.

I don't know if there's any solution, other than demolishing existing homes, and building new ones with 2-foot-thick walls for better insulation.

[Red Badger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound And speaking of electricity usage, I used to feel bad about being an "energy hog" living in the Southwest, where the AC runs nearly all day in the summer, even through the night. And for 2 years in a row, my highest 24-hour consumption hit 100 kWh. That happened when the high hit 120+F. But that 100 kWh/day consumption happens only for a few days in a year. Other times of the year, it can be as low as 20 kWh/day. My consumption over the last 12 months is 16,159 kWh, for a home of 2,800 sq.ft. with a large swimming pool, using electricity for everything including cooking and heating. How does the above compare to people living in other states? Just looked it up, and found that the average Midwest household uses 766.4 gal of heating oil each year. That's equivalent to 31,200 kWh. That's double my electricity usage. And that is just for heating oil, as they also use electricity, and perhaps gas too. Yikes! And the average Midwest home is probably smaller than 2,800 sq.ft. Now, living in the desert does not sound so bad anymore.

Yup, and very logical. In the south (SE in our case), we are usually seeking to reduce the temp 20-40 degrees. In the middle of winter (MN, ND, SD, MT, etc), residents are needing to raise the temp 70-100 degrees. That takes a hell of a lot more sacrificial dinosaurs!

[Lakewood90712]

Just thinking about the Elephant in the room....Asia. The west wants the developing world to be like us. China and India . Growth in energy use and CO2 production. Our wish to have them be like us in consumption is slowly being granted.