Renewable Energy Powers Jobs For Almost 10 Million People (bloomberg.com) 132
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency's (IRENA) annual report, the renewable energy industry employed 9.8 million people last year, which is up 1.1 percent from 2015. The strongest growth was seen in the solar photovoltaic category with 3.09 million jobs. Bloomberg reports: Here are some of the highlights from the report: Global renewables employment has climbed every year since 2012, with solar photovoltaic becoming the largest segment by total jobs in 2016. Solar photovoltaic employed 3.09 million people, followed by liquid biofuels at 1.7 million. The wind industry had 1.2 million employees, a 7 percent increase from 2015. Employment in renewables, excluding large hydro power, increased 2.8 percent last year to 8.3 million people, with China, Brazil, the U.S., India, Japan and Germany the leading job markets. Asian countries accounted for 62 percent of total jobs in 2016 compared with 50 percent in 2013. Renewables jobs could total 24 million in 2030, as more countries take steps to combat climate change, IRENA said.
Which comes at the cost of environmentalism. (Score:1, Troll)
While coal and other environmentalist-hostile industries are assaulted by regulatory burdens. In addition, the alleged jobs in suitably-blessed energy forms do not translate well to places favored by coal - which can amount to an indirect assault on the Appalachian regions.
Re:Which comes at the cost of environmentalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Throwing education at them will not fix it. (Score:1)
On the other hand, perhaps working with the people that do exist would be a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
That is greater reason to fix the infrastructure and provide greater US federal budget supplement to improve education both in schools and by establishing libraries and community education programs.
This is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. There are very good reasons that Appalachia has never been successful at anything other than resource extraction. By far the best thing we can do is help the people there move somewhere else.
I grew up in Appalachia. My grandfather died of black lung disease. I left on my 18th birthday on a bus to Parris Island. I have relatives that left, and like me, are doing well. I have relatives that stayed, and are mostly living in trailer parks.
The people s
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the contour of the land, those reasons would be....
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the contour of the land, those reasons would be....
That is reason enough. No one is going to open a software dev shop 60 miles up a winding mountain road.
Another reason is the people. They are widely dispersed, uneducated, and proudly close minded. When I took my kids to Kentucky to visit their cousins, they were shocked at the cultural divide. These are the people that thought that building a replica of Noah's Ark was a good use of their tax dollars. And now they want other people to pay for their roads.
Throwing education at it will not work (Score:2)
On the other hand, perhaps working with the people that do exist would be a very good idea.
Throwing education at it will not fix it. (Score:2)
On the other hand, working with the people that do exist would be a good idea.
Re:Which comes at the cost of environmentalism. (Score:4, Informative)
Agree. That's why sustainable development goals aim to factor in externalities in the cost of goods.
In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Economists often urge governments to adopt policies that "internalize" an externality, so that costs and benefits will affect mainly parties who choose to incur them. . .Voluntary exchange is considered mutually beneficial to both parties involved, because buyers or sellers would not trade if either thought it detrimental to themselves. However, a transaction can cause additional effects on third parties. From the perspective of those affected, these effects may be negative (pollution from a factory), or positive (honey bees kept for honey that also pollinate neighboring crops). Neoclassical welfare economics asserts that, under plausible conditions, the existence of externalities will result in outcomes that are not socially optimal. Those who suffer from external costs do so involuntarily, whereas those who enjoy external benefits do so at no cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Which comes at the cost of environmentalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm calling BS on this one. Even Cape Wind, the most expensive wind power in the US (really more of a research project), is only 18.7 cents per kWh. And the first power it's displacing some crazy-expensive oil-fired power. Wind currently averages 2.5 cents per kWh [renewableenergyworld.com] to produce in the US. Now, that's the cost to the grid operator, not the consumer, and you have to pair it with peaking, which will add a penny or so to the cost per kWh. But it's gotten absurdly cheap. US solar contracts are now starting to come in at under 4 cents per kWh [finanznachrichten.de]. And at low penetration, they actually reduce peaking requirements rather than raising it.
Furthermore, your claim "overall bill used to be 6 c/kw but now 9 c/kw and climbing, all due to wasteful subsidies" makes me even question whether you know what a subsidy is. If you were being hurt by a subsidy, it'd show up on your taxes, not your bill. If anything, your bill would get lower. And the $7B per year in subsidies for renewable electricity (which includes, by the way, research) equals $1.70 per month per person in the US. How does that compare to your electricity bill?
Where are you, by the way?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If I hadn't already commented, you'd be getting +1 Informative...
Re:Which comes at the cost of environmentalism. (Score:5, Informative)
Not really... coal is just more expensive than natural gas.
In at least a half dozen places, coal seam fires have rendered hundreds of square miles uninhabitable. We freak out when nuclear power renders hundreds of square miles uninhabitable.
The trump administration is directly assaulting the Appalachian regions. Cutting jobs programs and their safety net. The proposed republican budget cuts the benefits, food subsidies, and state to state tax transfers which have previously benefited Appalachian regions even further AND gives the money to wealthy people (almost all to the top 0.1%- not even to the top 1%) .
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where the uninhabitable ones are...I haven't searched through the list here, but people have moved back into the town of Centralia, after it had originally been condemned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You're false on that one. (Score:2)
Many failed candidates, especially Democrats, have openly showed their contempt for Appalachian regions while Trump embraced them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he said he was going to embrace them, but the fact is those jobs are gone, and gone forever. Coal mining is a fading industry, largely killed by natural gas, but in the end renewables will deal the death blow. What needs to be done is job retraining and economic diversification, not selling people fantasies of coal's return. A leader should seek to better peoples' lots, not simply tell them what they want to hear, and then pursue policies that will in fact do them great harm.
Allegation, not fact. (Score:2)
Well, he said he was going to embrace them, but your allegation is those jobs are gone, and gone forever.
Natural gas hasn't really killed it, environmental regulation did. Remove it, tell the Sierra Club to pound the Sahara Desert into glass, and note the resurgence of coal.
Job retraining won't do worth shit, since you make the faulty assumption that the people are defective and must be made to conform to business desires - versus businesses making do with the people we have. Second, it assumes that meaningful jobs will exist for those nearing or well north of 40 or with non-standard skillsets - as employers
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations definitely made it more expensive, but without regulations, coal is bloody awful; both in the mining and burning. Would you want to live anywhere near an unregulated coal-powered plant? Seriously? You understand that coal is pretty close to the worst polluting way to generate electricity there is, and it's only through regulation that the coal industry ever cleaned up. I don't know how anyone can defend deregulating coal, it would be insane, polluting the air and waterways.
But natural gas, parti
Re:Which comes at the cost of environmentalism. (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the jobs created by mostly solar are very low paying. The skillsets required to install solar panels is not exactly hard to find. Wind is a tad better with some reasonably well paying maintenance jobs and a little more expertise required for siting and construction. Nothing comes close to the number of high paying jobs in nuclear. Gas pays fairly well and has a decent employment base.
Better than nothing. Having lived in poverty once, I know that any job is better than none. Jobs might be low-paying, but if they are durable, that's one step in the right direction. It gets you one step, however short that it, towards climbing yourself out. It doesn't guarantee it (but what does?). But it gives you a fighting chance. Much better than flipping burgers where you barely learn anything (a type of I also did once, and which I'm grateful) or being stuck behind the counter at a mom-n-pop shop where you will never get a chance to climb up.
Re: (Score:2)
The installation jobs are just the tip of the spear. There's all the other jobs that any other energy company would have as well: IT, billing software development, accounting, customer service, marketing, logistics, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is making fists full of money these days in the oil industry. The glut of oil is keeping the price down, so that even jurisdictions that are collecting royalties are seeing overall revenues fall. The efficiencies being gained in shale oil and other non-traditional extraction techniques aren't exactly labor intensive, and it seems likely going forward that the economics of the glut means finding ways to continue to reduce labor costs will be a primary pressure. In other words, the notion
Re: (Score:1)
Marketing, Mighty Martian, Marketing. Companies making solar panels, wind turbines, and the like have exactly the same motivation as the oil industry. They are all paying the same bribes to the same politicians and all looking for the same favors, and they are
Re: (Score:2)
Only during the construction phase.
This is the reason that the Democratic Party is losing the working class. Millions of welders, pipefitters, and carpenters spend their entire careers on one "temporary" job after another. That is how infrastructure is built. Then politicians in fancy three piece suits tell them they aren't doing "real" work.
Re:Which comes at the cost of environmentalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait. Regulatory burdens put in place why exactly? Because without those nasty old regulatory burdens the industry destroyed the environment, shifting the real cost of that source of energy to the future , as costs to clean up the messes they made.
Costs that in many cases were born by everyone, not just the people who mined that coal, or burned it.
And then everyone said no, not any more you don't. And on top of that we place a dollar value preserving the environment.
Basically pure, unfettered capitalism all the way around is what has destroyed coal in the Appalachians.
But you want a Communist solution. You want everyone – everyone – to pitch in and make sure you have a good paying job.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee you a job. There's no Amendment for that. You want Capitalism. You live by Capitalism. You die by Capitalism. Go join the buggy whip and candle makers.
Or learn something new to make a living with.
In times of profound change the learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists. – Al Rogers
In times of drastic change, it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists. – Eric Hoffer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arby's employs more people than all the coal companies combined.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Counterpoint to your post: The Kentucky Coal Museum is going solar to save money. [arstechnica.com]
That's some weapons-grade irony right there.
That's environmentalism gone amok. (Score:2)
Only if you forget that coal use is less toxic than production of solar panels.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh fuck off. Natural gas killed the coal industry. It had nothing to do with the New York Times or the DNC. Jesus Christ, the Alt-right really are some of the dumbest fucking idiots the world has ever known. "Da Libewals did it!" is just a mindless mantra.
Jesus fucking christ, you halfwit, coal country is hardly the first time a major industrial region has faded, and it almost inevitably is simply a factor of some new competing technology or jurisdiction doing it better. The last thing any government should
Re:Only w/ fetters on environmentalist-unblessed j (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your approach to the issue is that the miners are human. Specifically, they are humans that are already hurt and losing their jobs. And you are suggesting that we sue them (any attack on the industry will be taken personally), destroying whatever jobs are left.
It's called kicking a man when he's down. It hurts worse to the man, engenders sympathy from all the other humans, makes you look like the enemy, and loses your team the election.
Really, coal plants where going out. In a few years
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that the coal companies have much to answer for - specifically, exploiting the land and their workers - I myself cannot renege on my own responsibility in this matter. I am a consumer of electricity, and products containing steel, and the myriad other things that coal contributes to. Therefore, I (and all of society, including those who think their solar pane
No, the denialists are the environmentalists. (Score:2)
They cannot accept coal as a power source, so they do everything to hobble it - including pushing the lie of natural gas.
Re:Only w/ fetters on environmentalist-unblessed j (Score:5, Interesting)
Coal is being killed because natural gas is cheaper (thank fracking).
Solar power is already cheaper than natural gas in very sunny locations. By 2020, it will be cheaper than natural gas in most locations.
The real issue is battery technology and durability. Both are improving. An electric car fleet will improve on that further. Rooftop solar will improve on that even further.
The only way coal will get cheaper is to automate coal mining. Which they are already working on. That won't bring back jobs. But it may save a lot of ex coal miners from cancer and various other coal related deaths.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Only w/ fetters on environmentalist-unblessed j (Score:4, Informative)
Fetters? Coal + Oil get massive tax subsidies, as well coal not having to pay market rates for water (coal power uses a ton of water, they're giant steam engines basically).
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... condensing the water and reusing it seems like a trivial solution to that specific problem of coal plants. GE says 99% efficiency for whatever it is worth:
http://www.powerengineeringint... [powerengineeringint.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not whether the technology exists to reuse water. There are even technologies for power plants to use no water - totally closed loop and air cooled. It's about cost. And at a time where coal is already struggling, adding more costs onto plants is not a winning strategy for saving it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Reality is precisely the opposite. Transmission losses are very low (under 10% on average), but small batch installation costs on rooftop arrays kill the economics relative to large installations, which are installed in bulk with dramatically lower labour per unit nameplate capacity. Associated hardware (such as inverters) and grid links are also much cheaper per unit power at large scales. Even panels can be purchased and imported significantly cheaper when bought in bulk and all delivered to the same loc
Re:World in reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
With this new renewables thing we seem to be reversing the normal order of things. Where we normally try to be as efficient as possible and use as few people as possible, with renewables it seems to be a good thing to employ as many people as we can.
It's a wonderful new world.
I think you are overstate the case. Everyone sees it as good if an efficient profitable business provides employment for a large number of people, it's not about employing people for the sake of it
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are overstate the case. Everyone sees it as good if an efficient profitable business provides employment for a large number of people, it's not about employing people for the sake of it
Let's think about this a bit. As the employer and as a customer, employing fewer people is better than employing lots of people, all other things being equal. Of course, all things are almost never equal: it's difficult to maintain the same run rate with fewer people. But as the employer or the customer, jobs are a cost to be reduced.
As a society, we want to use our most limited resource, people's time and energy, on things which make them happy, healthy, and fulfilled. If installing solar panels makes peop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Right, it's called investment. A solar panel lasts for 30+ years. A lump of coal lasts about 5 minutes.
Speaking of investment, automation solutions can last 30+ years, and run 24 hours a day.
A human employee needs sleep, wants benefits, gets sick, demands days off, or could last about 5 minutes after injuring themselves the first day on the job, and be disabled for life.
This surge in human employment may not last long.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Right, it's called investment. A solar panel lasts for 30+ years. A lump of coal lasts about 5 minutes.
A new nuclear plant lasts 80 to 100 years. Windmills last about 25 years, but by that time even the generator has typically been replaced at least once, the blades replaced multiple times. Solar lasts longer in lower insolation/irradiance areas, degrades faster where it is higher. Claims made for long solar panel life are typically based on panels that are in less sunny areas.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of running and maintaining a nuclear plant are a lot higher than a windfarm. Nuclear is not the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
No nuclear plant can just run without maintenance, and it would be insane to want to. The economics have never been favorable to nuclear fusion, and has always required a pretty significant subsidy.
Re: (Score:1)
With this new renewables thing we seem to be reversing the normal order of things. Where we normally try to be as efficient as possible and use as few people as possible, with renewables it seems to be a good thing to employ as many people as we can.
It's a wonderful new world.
I wouldn't count on this to last. Right now we're seeing a surge in employment as we build infrastructure and establish renewable markets. Once that's in place, Greed will step in and ensure that automation is maximized to require as few humans as possible to manage it all.
Sure, renewable R&D will continue to maintain jobs, but that sure as hell won't amount to millions of people.
I'm also expecting Greed to drive the Oil/Gas/Coal Industrial Complex to put a dog in this fight for profits, and start put
Re:World in reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil is only rarely used for power in western nations. In the US, oil really only competes for electricity market share in Hawaii (and to a much lesser extent in Alaska). And while gas is a competitor to solar and wind for baseload, it's also boosted by them for peaking. Solar and wind don't drive out coal and nuclear alone; they do so in combination with NG peakers. The amount of gas being needed depending on the strength of their grid links and the diversity of the resources (solar + wind > solar | wind; solar + wind in different geographic locations > solar + wind in the same place).
Hydro works even better in combination with solar and wind than gas. But hydro capacity is geographically limited, largely tapped out (although you can uprate existing plants, which is being done), and concerning places with new generation possibilities, most people don't want them. Batteries will eventually win, and they're starting to make inroads into the grid in specialized applications, but they don't yet compete with gas for bulk peaking needs.
** Note: this is a bit of an oversimplification. At small penetrations, solar actually reduces peaking needs, as it tends to offset daytime peak usage. But this only applies up to certain levels of market penetration.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Where we normally try to be as efficient as possible and use as few people as possible, with renewables it seems to be a good thing to employ as many people as we can.
I thinik you got it a little bit backwards. With renewables - at least some of them - we're trying to employ as many people as we can because those people are mostly a function of growth and not a function of production. Solar PV, e.g., shifts most labor expenditure into manufacturing and installation. So it's not "let's employ as many people as possible for a fixed amount of energy generated", but rather "let's employ as many people as possible to increase the amount of energy generated as quickly as possi
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
If you disagree, fine, but reply, don't mod down...
Now there's lots of replies but the original comment is invisible...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The U.S. travel and tourism industry generated nearly $1.6 trillion in economic output in 2015, supporting 7.6 million U.S. jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$1.6T and 7.6M employees say you're wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
And just to pile onto my own comment, who the fuck do you think stays in Trump's hotels and casinos? The current administration makes a shit ton of cash from tourism, so you're an idiot if you think they don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stubborn, really? I'd argue that you're the one being stubborn, arguing against facts put in that refute your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
US is not interested in tourism so it doesn't need to build pyramids.
That could explain why tourism is suffering from the "Trump Slump" and Brand USA is being cut from the budget.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/334828-trump-budget-kills-marketing-program-for-us-tourism [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:1)
...or the high dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
...or the high dollar.
A high dollar wouldn't cost a $10B drop in tourism.
http://time.com/money/4687114/trump-slump-foreign-tourism-us-immigration-travel/ [time.com]
Coal is the future! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could get a billion dollar valuation for that idea, if you pitch it as a combination renewable energy and weight loss plan, and write an app that gives everyone little reward incentives for each mile.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked that better as a Black Mirror episode than reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wind power regularly provides overnight sport prices that are negative. Even people on bicycles require regular food. Once fixed costs are paid, wind requires no such costly external inputs
For comparison, rate payers in two jurisdictions are current paying about $100 a month for nuclear power they are not even getting, and may never get given that toshiba has written off $9 billions dollars and the unit has gone bankrupt.
We Need More And Fast (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Trump has had no effect on coal production. Coal production dropped due to increase in natural gas usage for power production, which has been going on for 20 years when the big push to build out combined cycle plants started. The costs to improve stack emissions have also helped to close some coal plants. Also, you aren't just going to shut down coal plants or make it illegal without getting sued for all those stranded assets. They have perfectly legal environmental and operating permits. The court settl
Re: (Score:2)
You can, however, price fossil fuels for the long-term costs they will produce. You know, how you assure that future generations don't subsidize today's energy usage. Natural gas is better than coal, but is in no way a non-greenhouse gas producing energy source.
This is a terrible metric to watch (Score:2)
The purpose of power generation is to generate power, not employ people. AEI claims 79x as many people are required in the solar industry to generate the same power from a coal plant. I have not dug into the numbers and am not citing the stat to bash solar, only make the point that this is not a good thing to be celebrated. We want solar power to generate tons of energy while employing very few people.
Re: (Score:2)
AEI is full of shit. If solar took 79x as many people as coal, it would cost much more than coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Your implied claim that solar is cheaper than coal requires evidence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Not to mention solar generates for ~4.5 hours per day and comparing it to baseline power is silly in itself.
But my point is about the headcount metric being a poor proxy.
even better! (Score:3)
We could employ even more people in the renewable energy industry if we generated energy (renewably!) by paying people to run in human hamster wheels coupled to generators! Lots of jobs and green energy! What's not to like?
Re: even better! (Score:2)
What can I say, I get paid what I'm worth.
Breakdown on the numbers? (Score:2)
Are they full time? Part time? Contract? Temp? Hellooo.... Odds are the majority are contractors and temp laborers, "disposable" labor. Just wait a couple of years then you'll see the truth behind the numbers as the millions hired suddenly get the axe.
Re: (Score:1)
Which comes at the cost of environmentalism (Score:1)
While coal and other environmentalist-hostile industries are assaulted by regulatory burdens. In addition, the alleged jobs in suitably-blessed energy forms do not translate well to places favored by coal - which amount to an indirect assault on the Appalachian regions.
Re: (Score:2)
And once again, renewables had little to do with coal's decline. That was natural gas. The only "assault" on the Appalachians is the march of time. Coal is dying, and no amount of grand promises from the guy currently sitting in the White House will reverse that.
Re: (Score:2)
And once again, renewables had little to do with coal's decline
Aside from being pushed along with overzealous environmentalism. What may seem nice in Aspen or Davos definitely does not fly in Appalachia.
But if you want to insist that environmentalists are pure as the driven snow, persist in your strong delusion. They are the ones that are trying to kill coal for being too unfriendly to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal wasn't killed by environmentalists, it was killed by natural gas. Coal mining regions around the Western world have seen labor declines for years, and while I'm sure environmental regulations play a part (as they should, coal is just plain fucking to mine and burn, it's a dirty fuel from beginning to end). Even where coal is still being mined, it's increasingly automated, so any kind of recovery in coal isn't going to deliver the jobs from that region which you seem to care so very much about.
Sometimes
Why does this keep being reported as a good thing? (Score:2)
When India was building a dam, the chief designer toured the construction site and noticed men digging with shovels while the heavy earthmoving equipment sat unused. He asked his guide from the I
Which comes at the cost of environmentalism. (Score:2)
While coal and other environmentalist-hostile industries are assaulted by regulatory burdens. In addition, the alleged jobs in suitably-blessed energy forms do not translate well to places favored by coal, which can amount to an indirect assault on the Appalachian regions.
Re: (Score:3)
I see what you mean. Hydro-Quebec hires 0.2% of that workforce while having 2% of the world capacity which would make them ~10 times more efficient than average.
Granted, it is hydro power but nothing comes really "free" or at no environmental costs. Heck, you may very need oil to produce solar panels.
http://news.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]
https://www.quora.com/How-much... [quora.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.ren21.net/wp-conten... [ren21.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the CPUs? Now, there is talks about new kind of computing because anything has its limits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We didn't subsidize the purchase of CPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, so we don't need government subsidies, tax breaks, or other market interference then: renewables will succeed on their own when prices have come down enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, alternatives have become too costly ;-)))
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the alternatives become more costly? Technology makes the discovery and extraction of fossil fuels cheaper and easier, just like it does for alternative energy sources.
Re: (Score:3)
The "it pollutes to make solar panels" argument is ridiculous. Of course it pollutes to make anything. But the amount of embodied pollution utterly pales in comparison to the amount of power that gets generated at no extra emissions while sitting out in the sun for decades on end.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, there's a huge difference in terms of workforce employed to run generating infrastructure, versus workforce employed to build generating infrastructure. Solar and wind are undergoing huge scaleups at present. Hydro, not so much.