[HN Gopher] California grid set record of 97% renewable power on... ___________________________________________________________________ California grid set record of 97% renewable power on April 3 Author : lizparody23 Score : 160 points Date : 2022-04-20 21:30 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.solarpowerworldonline.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.solarpowerworldonline.com) | aatharuv wrote: | What I wonder is the breakdown of sources. | | Solar? Hydro electric? (I wonder if roof top solar is included | here). | | Also, note this was over a very short period of time. And there's | still night time, when solar doesn't operate, except for whatever | got stored into batteries. | outside1234 wrote: | Consumed roof top solar would not be included (but the portion | put into the grid would) - which makes this number even more | impressive | no-dr-onboard wrote: | Disclaimer: this comment is not about environmentalism or even | the environmental impact. I'm not wading in those waters with HN. | | It's difficult to see this as a net positive given the financial | hardship brought about to even make this headline a reality (note | that even the headline is misleading and requires context). | | It's a bit like the person who goes out and purchases a vehicle, | spends countless hours away from his family working on it, takes | out additional loans to modify it, crashes it, repairs it and | then wins 2nd place at the local meetup. You have to ask | yourself, at what point was this worth it? | jhgb wrote: | What financial hardship? Pretty much all the other pathways are | even more expensive, either in externalities or in internalized | costs. There really are not that many realistic options that | remain open (at least in the US). | gibolt wrote: | Yes, it is. Solar pays for itself in raw kWh over ~8 years, | probably even better at utility scale which negotiates huge | panel purchases. Batteries cost more, but can apply stored | power when they can earn the most (during peak), reducing | viability of polluting alternatives. | | The cherry on top is that all future energy uses no more | material and creates no more pollution, with materials mostly | all recyclable at end of life. Over a 30 year horizon, fossil | fuel infra cannot compete. | Cyclical wrote: | I'm having trouble understanding how you can separate the | cost/benefit analysis of renewable energy from | environmentalism. The entire point is that the reasons for | hitting these goals are not purely economic (in the short term | - long term, running out of fossil fuels in a fossil fuel | economy does not tend to be good for the economy.) The | sentiment that aiming for full renewable supply is too | expensive to be worth it feels like it misses the mark on why | we're doing it. | lauv0x wrote: | tppiotrowski wrote: | > More than 15,000 MW of grid-connected solar power capacity and | almost 8,000 MW of wind are now online. | | > The system currently has more than 2,700 MW of storage, most of | it in lithium-ion batteries, and that number is projected to grow | to about 4,000 MW by June 1. | | Storage should be in MWh I assume? Anyways, those batteries can | hold 11 minutes of peak solar power production. | | But by June 1st, battery capacity is set to go up by 50% while | new solar production will only go up about by 5%. | renewiltord wrote: | It's battery storage as a power source so it's about its | delivery capacity. 2.7 GW of storage means when the time comes | it can deliver at 2.7 GW. | tedsanders wrote: | No, it's common to measure storage with MW when you're talking | about dispatchable power. | | For example, a 10 MW battery can replace a 10 MW gas generator | (assuming it has enough capacity to cover the relevant peak, | which is usually a fair assumption because that's what they're | designed for). If you only know a battery has 20 MWh, that's | not enough information to know what equivalent amount of | generation or ramp it can replace. | polote wrote: | > In another sign of progress toward a carbon-free power grid. | | This is clearly not the case, this is a sign of progress of | carbon free production capacity but not the grid. It doesn't mean | we should not be happy about it. But we need to stop mixing | everything | pmalynin wrote: | Then why is it so damn expensive. Honestly one of the reasons I | can't wait to own a house is to purchase enough solar panels and | batteries to give a huge middle finger to PG&E and go off-grid | GloriousKoji wrote: | As a Californian I think the electricity itself is pretty cheap | at ~9cents/kwh but the total delivery costs are 3x that. | [deleted] | ejb999 wrote: | Every time I do the math, any money I would spend on a solar | system, would be better invested in an energy utility and just | collect the dividend to pay my electric bill. | | If you want to do solar for the environment, fine - I won't | fault you - but if you are doing it to save/make money, there | are better places to invest. | ceeplusplus wrote: | It's honestly insane how PG&E is going bankrupt despite | charging 35 cents/kWh. Where is all the money going?? | not2b wrote: | Paying damages from all the wildfires they have caused. | Trias11 wrote: | bryan0 wrote: | one place: | | > PG&E Corp. put a cost estimate of more than $25 billion | Thursday on its effort to plant thousands of miles of power | lines underground in an effort to tamp down wildfire risks. | | https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article25824965. | .. | jimbob45 wrote: | Shame that they're not getting better publicity as a result | of this. Our main complaint about the internet companies is | that they pocket the money meant to speed up networks for | their subscribers. This is exactly what utility companies | ought to do to prepare for the future. | ceejayoz wrote: | They're doing it because they went bankrupt over $30B in | liability from not preparing in this fashion. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/business/energy- | environme... | | > PG&E sought bankruptcy protection in January 2019 after | accumulating an estimated $30 billion in liability for | fires started by its poorly maintained equipment. One of | the blazes, the 2018 Camp Fire, killed scores of people | and destroyed the town of Paradise. | | It wasn't voluntary, really. | bcrosby95 wrote: | A large part of why they're doing it because they're | guaranteed a certain percentage return on investments. | There's ways to fix this problem without a $25bil | investment, but you won't make nearly as much profit on | that. | haliskerbas wrote: | I've been trying to do the math for my own home, are solar | panels actually cash flow positive, once you account for | efficiency decrease overtime etc.? It always seemed like one | barely breaks even in 2 decades | swid wrote: | Sounds about right for the power only, but you also probably | get a battery with it to deal with power outages... I don't | know how to price the utility of that, but it's why I bought | solar. | BolexNOLA wrote: | How long have you been able to stretch that battery out | when your power is out? Don't have a point to make or | anything, I'm just curious. I hadn't really considered | that. | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | 35k for a 8kwh, 24kwh battery storage system. ~15k in | credits? | | Solar loan ends up at 175 a month. I got in before the | recent ridiculousness around fuel prices. I'm sure I'm net | positive at this point but haven't done the precise math. | | One addition I'm considering, is some bitcoin/ crypto rigs | to take care of excess power during the peaks. Even with my | batteries, I produce a lot of extra power and don't get | paid spit from the power company, and what I do get I can | only use as credit. | | https://www.nicehash.com/profitability- | calculator/-bitmain-a... | | Thing costs ~1.25k, but at ~$10/ day it will pay its self | off in a quarter. | malchow wrote: | Solar in California is often breakeven after 4 to 7 years. | Enphase enables microgrid systems, and the IQ8 can keep your | house powered even when the grid is down, and even without | batteries -- something never before possible. | | https://enphase.com/sites/default/files/2021-10/IQ8SP- | DS-000... | | Worth nothing that PG&E is working with CA Democrats to try | to kill rooftop solar. They want renewables, but only if | distributed using their (badly operated and overpriced) grid. | [1] | | [1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/02/11/coalition- | received-1-... | bombcar wrote: | It can be cash flow positive if you do a bunch of the work | yourself and plan accordingly. | | https://www.sevarg.net/tag/solar/ | | From my point of view the nice thing about it is reducing or | eliminating recurring expenses. | | Once your recurring expenses drop below passive income you | are pretty well set. | danans wrote: | It depends on a whole lot of factors. In a sunny place like | CA with good solar incentive programs, assuming good southern | to southwestern exposure, they are cash positive after about | 6 years [1]. In Wisconsin, 11 years [2]. In Washington State, | 15 years [3] | | 1. https://www.energysage.com/solar- | panels/ca/#:~:text=For%20Ca.... | | 2. https://www.energysage.com/solar- | panels/wi/#:~:text=In%20Wis.... | | 3. https://www.energysage.com/solar- | panels/wa/#:~:text=In%20Was.... | sib wrote: | Yeah, so far, with the rooftop system we put in about 1.5 | years ago (Los Angeles), we are tracking to ~5.5 year | payback period, so this feels right. | gxt wrote: | Even if only just break even after 20years, it is an | acceptable cost for freedom of mind and autonomy. | jweir wrote: | You do not pay market rate for electricity. | | Texas does allow consumers to pay market rate for electricity, | you may have heard about last winter people getting bills in | the several thousands of dollars when prices spiked. | | CAISO was 97% renewable for only a moment, not the entire day. | | The 3rd was a Sunday, not a peak day. | | And the average price for energy for the day was $30.77 (day | head) $27.1 (real time) for TH_SP15_GEN-APND (per MWh) | samkater wrote: | My understanding, to put it in AWS EC2 pricing terms, is that | we do not pay the market "spot" rate for electricity | (variable, often less than what you might pay elsewhere, but | could spike up) - which is what Texas allowed. Typically we | pay the "on demand" rate which is fixed. Large energy users | probably negotiate "reserved" pricing. | | My point being, we pay the market rate, those massive hikes | are just built-in over a long period of time. | ajross wrote: | That only works if the demand curve (the price the market | will bear at given levels of shortage) and the cost curve | (the actual price to produce the energy) match up. | | In fact they never do, especially in this market. Texas | producers weren't spending 100x (or whatever) more to | produce that electricity, that spike just reflected the | amount that customers who "had to keep the lights on" were | willing to bear. In fact total utility costs are basically | flat. They didn't hire 100x more employees or work 100x | more hours to get things running again. They didn't have to | build 100x more substations, etc... | | And that's why spot pricing is a disaster for consumers. It | creates a perverse incentive for producers to _reduce_ | supply. | JamesBarney wrote: | The economic reason people should be paying 100x the cost | to supply is to incentivize people to build spare | capacity. | notch656a wrote: | Generally agree although there is something a bit | sinister about a market where you don't really know the | price until after you've bought the product. IMO giving a | utility provider blank check is like raw-dogging cheap | hookers every night and then being surprised when your | luck runs out. | | If people WANT this kind of contract I hope that their | consent is an informed one. I'm not one to stop people | from engaging in their own reckless behavior. | notch656a wrote: | When you have an outage, it's possible the instantaneous | cost of electricity is in fact 10x/100x/infinitely more | than baseline cost. Looking at it as 100x more employees | is the wrong direction. If you're producing 1/100th the | electricity for 5 minutes due to power outtages but you | still have to pay all your employees during that time, | your instantaneous cost (per unit energy) actually are | proportionally higher. | shiftpgdn wrote: | There are currently no residential consumers in Texas on | spot rate plans since the only provider had their license | revoked. https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/ercot-shuts- | down-wholesale-... | [deleted] | shiftpgdn wrote: | You should keep in mind that only one provider allowed end | users to pay spot rate and ERCOT revoked their license to | operate after the freeze where power rates went to $4000/MWh. | The average Texan (excluding people in East Texas who are on | the Eastern power grid, and people in Austin) buy their | energy on a 12 month contract from an intermediary who THEN | negotiates a flat rate or gambles on beating the sold | contracts on spot. | outside1234 wrote: | In addition to what others have said -- renewable does not mean | necessarily cheap. | kelnos wrote: | The grid operator cited is the California Independent System | Operator. How much of CA's electricity consumption is fed by that | operator? | | In the article they mention 23GW from wind and solar. A quick | search says in 2018 CA's electrical generation capacity was 80GW | (which I assume has only gone up). So this 97% is a bit | misleading, no? It doesn't represent 97% of total CA electricity | usage... it's less than 30%? | mschaef wrote: | > A quick search says in 2018 CA's electrical generation | capacity was 80GW (which I assume has only gone up). So this | 97% is a bit misleading, no? It doesn't represent 97% of total | CA electricity usage... it's less than 30%? | | Their full installed generation capacity is 80GW, but there's | huge variability in actual load. As I write this, current load | is around 21GW, on a range of between 18.7GW and 27GW over the | day. It gets into the 40's in the summer. | | https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx | | There's a significant need for reserve capacity to deal with | this load variability, as well as plant failures, etc. | tppiotrowski wrote: | From the article: | | > Rooftop solar advocacy group Save California Solar said | although this milestone should be celebrated, California's | renewable energy progress is better measured by conditions on a | hot August summer day than a cool April spring day. Renewable | peaks typically occur in the spring, due to mild temperatures | and the sun angle allowing for an extended window of strong | solar production. | jweir wrote: | Capacity is the ability to produce energy and with renewables | that number is very different than with fossil fuels or nukes. | | Renewables never reach capacity, well your solar might for a | peak moment, but then it will drop as the sun drops. | | For example - you have a 200 MW wind farm, you might only be | able to produce 10MW at that moment. The capacity is 200MW, the | generation is 10. | | Also the 3rd was a Sunday in spring - no office workers, less | demand, not a heating or cooling day in a lot of California, ie | a lower energy day than say a week day in summer where the temp | is 105 in the Central Valley. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | April 3rd was a sunday, and probably a very sunny one, with | temperatures in ranges where a lot of people don't really need | AC nor electrical heating. | | What do you do when it's not sunny, very cold/hot, no wind, and | businesses and factories are open? | | Somehow we talk a lot about solar, and not enough about | nuclear. | labster wrote: | We talk about nuclear more than we talk about solar on HN. | Probably because it's controversial we get more atomic | writes, while solar is presumed to exist. | cinntaile wrote: | It's the title of the article after all. We could talk about | Intel as well, but it's not relevant. | strainer wrote: | You need forms of storage for that. The conundrum can be | turned on its head - "What do you do when you have nuclear | and the businesses and factories are closed ?" You either | simply waste nuclear capacity that you've paid and waited | years for to be built - or you need forms of storage to make | use of it. Both Nuclear and Renewables really want storage, | they will compete for it. If you can only make use of 60% of | a nuclear plants capacity, you're price per unit is 100/60 | more than the 'base-load' ideal that it was sold for. And | another thing future nuclear plants will have to run | alongside - is more and more renewable supply since | renewables are cheaper and faster to build. We will have a | situation where almost all demand is met by renewable supply | eventually, and before that situation the demand left nuclear | will decrease from 70,60,50,40,30...% - that's even without | storage. How many decades do you expect it will take before | those plants built with contracts to run for half a century | or more, become pointlessly uneconomic ? | ajsnigrutin wrote: | If there's too much power, it will be dirt cheap, and | you'll charge your electric car then, which will maybe | become affordable by then. Also with smart grid you'll | regulate water heaters, ACs etc. | | Still better to have too much power than not enough... | Especially if eg. Russia decides to close the gas pipe, or | if americans decide to "bring democracy" to another middle | eastern state and that disrupta oil delivery. | | We've sidetracked nuclear for decades now... The best time | was decades ago, and the second vest time to build some new | ones is now. | gameswithgo wrote: | Mvandenbergh wrote: | That is all the capacity added together before de-rating. | Capacity is de-rated based on how likely it is to produce | during a system load peak. So a nuclear plant might be counted | as 75% of nameplate to account for outage risk. Renewables are | de-rated a lot and by how much changes over time as they make | up a larger share of the connected capacity. | | California de-rates solar by less than, say, the UK since Cali | has a lot of air conditioning load which is coincident with | insolation whereas summer days are the low-load periods in the | UK. | | The capacity before de-rating > capacity after de-rating > | highest anticipated load > actual load on a normal day. | IvyMike wrote: | "The CAISO is one of the largest ISOs in the world, delivering | 300 million megawatt-hours of electricity each year and | managing about 80% of California's electric flow." | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Independent_System_... | | Right now, 3PM in California, the CAISO demand shows around | 21GW of demand. | http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/index.html | | Note that CAISO's peak, ever, was 50GW. (PDF) | http://www.caiso.com/Documents/CaliforniaISOPeakLoadHistory.... | | The "installed capacity" of 80GW I believe is the number if you | add the theoretical max of all hydro, solar, wind, gas peaker | plants, etc. But each source will never simultaneously be at | max, so we never get close to this 80GW number. | https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- | almanac/califo.... | kmonsen wrote: | That's assuming everything else is 0. | vmception wrote: | > "If California is to have any hope of getting to 100% | renewable energy on an August day in the future ... it will | take 100 GW more energy produced by solar. Halting the progress | of rooftop solar makes that goal impossible" | | I'm also confused by the scales here. How are they praising the | use of 15,000 MW (15GW) and 8,000 MW (8 GW) in one sentence, in | an article about 97% of California's energy being used, and | saying they need 100 GW in the next sentence and being sad they | can't put it on rooftops. In an article showing a photo of a | solar cell field in a vast, desolate, arid region of central | valley. | imachine1980_ wrote: | not all california energy is produce in california california | fo example pays to nevada if don't remember wrong to, shut | down their panels to make their output higher than it is for | example, or like this articule say pay other state to buy | their electric excess output meaning the technically could be | true | | article: California invested heavily in solar power. Now | there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take | it https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/ | Retric wrote: | In California August requires a lot more electricity due to | AC than April. Seasonal demand differences can be huge, and | why a lot of maintenance for nuclear reactors etc take place | in the spring and fall. | vmception wrote: | I'm catching on. Is there not enough space in central | valley for this? is there too much loss transporting that | electricity to population centers? | Retric wrote: | In theory moving electricity 1,000 miles can have minimal | transmission losses. Unfortunately California's grid | lacks the infrastructure to support significant long | distance transmission. | incomethax wrote: | Sort-of. Transmission for HTHV lines (745kV single | circuit cost $2.5-4M/mile with ~1% line loss; 345kV | single circuit will cost ~$1.5-2M/mile with 5% line | loss). For 1MW solar capacity you typically need about 4 | acres. 100GW of solar would require 400k acres of land - | and come at a cost of about $3 billion for the panels, | not to mention the price of land or entitlements. Add in | cost of substations and transmission you're realistically | looking at a $10+ Billion project. Which while doable | would not profitability compete with other grid | solutions. If panels drop by another 30% and power | densities improve the grid will naturally tend towards | that direction. | danans wrote: | > How much of CA's electricity consumption is fed by that | operator? | | 80% of California and part of Nevada also. Don't confuse the | grid operator with the utility. Those are separate entities. | | The ISO is the market maker for electricity - ultimately | responsible for keeping supply and demand on the grid in | balance. They contract with numerous entities to achieve that. | | The utility is responsible for some combination of generation, | transmission, distribution, and billing, depending on where you | are located. | | There are many other players in the markets, including spinning | reserves, independent generators, demand aggregators, | community-choice-aggregators, and some that play multiple | roles. | selectodude wrote: | CAISO doesn't cover the city of Los Angeles, but that's about | it. | jjtheblunt wrote: | > but that's about it | | isn't that the major consumer? | selectodude wrote: | Covers the Bay Area and the entirety of Southern California | except for the city limits of Los Angeles. So all but about | 4 million people. | joebob42 wrote: | My interpretation is that this was a low demand moment where | that 27gw was more or less equal to the demand (e.g. a demand | trough not a renewable output spike). | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | So the title should be - CA generated 97% of electricity from | renewable energy for a brief moment on April 3? | CrimsonCape wrote: | No, because joebob's interpretation is wrong. | simpsond wrote: | Yes, the article says that in the first paragraph. | | Also, solar generation is highest during march/April. | Cooler temps and good angles. Demand is lower too, as temps | are good for people. | tomohawk wrote: | What a meaningless stat. What is the minimum capacity that | renewables are guaranteed to provide? That's the number that | matters. | mschaef wrote: | > What is the minimum capacity that renewables are guaranteed | to provide? | | Zero... same as any other technology. ie: Texas lost around | 25GW of needed NatGas capacity in Feb 2021, not to mention the | failed coal, wind, and nuclear that also occurred during that | event. (Texas had similar shortages in 2011 and 1989.) | | > That's the number that matters. | | You need to take a portfolio view when thinking about energy | supply issues... reality is both your number and their number | matter. | | What 97% does mean, is less consumption of two finite | resources, namely the ability of the atmosphere to absorb | carbon and the amount of carbon we have available to us to | burn. | | Of course, it also means there's a need to either scale the | rest of the generation in the ISO down to 3% or export the | excess to a neighboring market. Larger base load plants, | particularly nuclear, are very bad at lowering their output | (Which is why sometimes wholesale electricity prices are | negative. These are generators willing to pay people to take | their power so they don't have to shut down or otherwise reduce | output.) | outside1234 wrote: | And this doesn't measure the 100% renewable power being consumed | when the house is being powered by a solar panel... | | ... in any case, great progress, let's get to 100% California! | Aachen wrote: | What percentage of industries and cars are electric currently? | Is 100% also continuous during winter? There's a long way to go | after "100%" unfortunately :/ | Arubis wrote: | Article doesn't get into this level of detail, but I'd be | interested in how they define "renewable". Does it include | hydropower, which is renewable but has strong non-carbon-related | undesirable environmental consequences? Is burned trash | "renewable"? | CaliforniaKarl wrote: | Cal ISO's web site is at | https://www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx | | On there you can dig in and find what sources are counted as | renewable. | Arubis wrote: | That's clarifying; thanks! | jhgb wrote: | Hydropower actually has strong carbon-related undesirable | environmental consequences, but probably not to such an extent | in California as it does in Africa and South America. You'd | have to find dam-specific data to verify that for Californian | dams, though. It's not like with coal where burning 1 kg | releases 3.6 kg of CO2 no matter where you burn it. Emissions | of a dam depend at the very least on its surface area, depth, | water temperature, biomass inflow etc., all of which are dam- | specific. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | > Does it include hydropower, which is renewable but has strong | non-carbon-related undesirable environmental consequences? | | IIUC, the vast majority of ecological impact caused by hydro is | already done. It is not making things exponentially worse. | | Am I missing something? | emteycz wrote: | No hydro - no obstacle in the waterway, migration paths are | affected but still functional. Hydro - it's a meatgrinder. | jhgb wrote: | Depending on location, hydroelectric power can have (mostly | because of decomposing vegetation) carbon-equivalent | emissions ranging from several grams of CO2 per kWh, all the | way up to around two thousand grams (!) per kWh. This greatly | depends on location, with shallow, large-area tropical dams | being the worst offenders, and cold, high altitude Nordic | dams being the most environmentally friendly. | tomas789 wrote: | CAISO Materials on the event | http://www.caiso.com/Documents/California-ISO-Hits-All-Time-... | pydry wrote: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengning_Pumped_Storage_Powe... | | Looks like California should start building one of these 3.6GW | 40GWh batteries since at this rate routine 120-150% renewable | power days dont look so far off and it'll take about 6 years to | build. | CaliforniaKarl wrote: | Here's a start: https://www.sdcwa.org/projects/san-vicente- | pumping-facilitie... | jeffbee wrote: | Sounds big but California built over 2GW/8GW-h of battery | capacity last year, so I think we're on pace. Nothing fancy, | just a lot of batteries in cabinets. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Tesla at Moss Landing went live 2 days ago. 256 Megapacks, | 182.5 MW / 730 MWh. The facility will eventually host | 1,500MW/6,000MWh of battery storage. | | Tesla has also broken ground on a Megapack manufacturing | facility (Lathrop, CA) employing 1000 people to build roughly | 50GWh of storage per year. | | https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/pg-es-n... | rubyist5eva wrote: | Is this why Calfornia energy is so expensive and constantly | having blackouts? | jeffbee wrote: | No, because California isn't constantly having blackouts. There | was one really infamous (among habitual Fox News viewers) | capacity-related blackout in late 2020, in which fewer than 1% | of customers were disconnected for less than 1 hour. That was | precipitated by the sudden shutdown of Diablo Canyon, a nuclear | power station. California hasn't had a capacity-related | intentional disconnect since then. | cge wrote: | There have also been the _intentional_ blackouts of a sort, | if I recall correctly, but those were to mitigate fire risk, | not because of capacity, and aren 't particularly related to | electricity _generation_. | svachalek wrote: | Yup, thanks to poor power line maintenance burning down big | swathes of the state, we established the totally modern, | first world solution of shutting off the power when it's | hot and windy. | | But massive unintentional blackouts like say, Texas, nope | not here. | rubyist5eva wrote: | Thanks for the extra context - went back and refreshed my | memory and you are both correct. These are the articles I | remember reading about CA blackouts from: | | https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/california-wildfires-power- | out... | | https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/california-heat- | wave-1.5687895 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-20 23:00 UTC)