Electric cars?

[Smurf1976]

In SA today there's been renewable energy going to waste since about midday

Labouring the point a bit here I know, but to back up what I'm saying and put some detail around it.....

I don't have an EV but I do have something far simpler to charge, that being a storage hot water system. Smurf being Smurf, I've set it up to be as grid (and environmentally) friendly as practical. No elaborate control systems, that would be even better, but simply by means of a simple timer and basing it on average conditions over 12 months.

Looking at how that actually performed over the past week, in terms of what natural resource was being used to generate the power at the margin, that is what was turned up slightly higher than it otherwise would have been because my water heater was drawing power, it makes the point pretty well.

Location = SA.

Friday 19 February - marginal source was gas-fired generation in the Adelaide metropolitan area.

Saturday 20 February - marginal source was hydro generation in the Snowy Mountains and in Tasmania.

Sunday 21 February, Monday 22 February and Tuesday 23 February - marginal source was wind / solar generation in SA that would otherwise have gone to waste.

Wednesday 24 February - marginal source was coal-fired generation in Victoria and NSW.

Thursday 25 February - wind / solar in SA.

In contrast, running it just a few hours earlier or later would result in 100% of the marginal electricity production being from fossil fuels since the time window when there's renewables going to waste is a few hours. Those results are from my "dumb" approach based on averages over 12 months and the use of a simple timer, a dynamic "smart" approach taking into account live conditions ought to be able to achieve considerably better.

Now that's for a water heater but same principle applies to anything which can "download" energy at basically any time and store it. The detail of that, when it's done, is important in determining both the real financial cost (as distinct from what a consumer pays on a flat rate) and the environmental impact.

So that's what I'm on about basically. For EV's a clever approach to charging them can deliver real benefits over a "dumb" approach even just using the existing electricity supply infrastructure that's already built. It's just a matter of being clever about it and to that end I draw the attention of those in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT to this:

Electric Vehicle Trial | EV Grid | Australia

EV Grid is a trial being conducted by a group of Electricity Distributors in Victoria, ACT, and Tasmania

www.evgrid.com.au

This is an "official" trial backed by Evoenergy, TasNetworks, AusNet Services, Jemena and United Energy who between them own and operate the electricity network in the ACT, Tasmania and Victoria.

Cost to participants = zero and you get to keep the provided smart charger (value $2200 including installation which is also included).

Further to all that, given the volatile nature of electricity pricing at the wholesale level, there are definite opportunities for companies to operate in this space via a "smart" approach to EV charging.

 

[over9k]

So far as grid electricity is concerned, some observations:

With the exception of Tasmania where pretty much everything concerning energy is different, for every other state electricity has a 15% to 23% market share of secondary energy. For Australia as a whole it's 19%. In Tasmania the figure is 39%.

Secondary energy - that's energy supplied to end users. So it's electricity as distinct from the fuel used to generate it, it's petrol sold as distinct from the crude oil used to make it, etc. It's energy as supplied to end users (all end users except oil refineries, power stations etc).

In every mainland state the use of petroleum greatly exceeds that of electricity on an energy supplied basis, nationally it's about double, and even in Tasmania oil consumption almost matches electricity.

In some states, notably Victoria, WA and the NT, the direct use of natural gas is also greater than the use of electricity. In Queensland, NSW and SA it's less significant than electricity but still major as such. Even in Tasmania it's significant albeit only a few % of the total.

Now where all that goes is that a move away from fossil fuels, in practice primarily refined petroleum and natural gas, at the secondary energy level means more electricity. While there are certainly efficiency gains to be had by switching, since electricity tends to be more efficient at the point of use, ultimately it's still a very substantial increase in electricity consumption. No matter how efficient it is, an EV or an electric hot water system certainly uses more electricity than a petrol car or gas water heater.

Taking Victoria as an example, during mid-winter total electricity consumption averaged over 7 days reaches about 1000 GWh or the equivalent of 6000 MW constantly. That's all electricity used for all purposes industrial, commercial, residential and transport. For reference the absolute peak electricity demand in Victoria on an instantaneous basis is about 10,400 MW.

Meanwhile gas space heaters, not any other use of gas just space heating alone, sits at an average 10,000 MW for weeks on end during winter in Victoria. That's just heating and just gas heating at that. Then there's industrial use of gas, gas used for water heating and cooking.

Chance that we're going to see the average Victorian house going fully electric and off the grid using their own rooftop solar? Essentially zero in practice and it's winter that's the killer. Could be done in summer but to get sufficient space heating and hot water for an average existing home, under winter conditions of poor solar yield, it's not outright impossible but it's impractical for most.

Now add EV charging on top of that. Again it's doable if you live somewhere with lots of sun and you don't need much heating or cooling. For an average house with average occupants though it's no-go, you won't get sufficient solar yield during the cold months to run the house and charge an EV on top of that and even in summer you'll struggle during a heatwave due to cooling load.

Long story short = the grid is here to stay, of that I'm extremely confident. The details of how it's configured and how electricity is generated are undergoing massive change but the basic concept of power stations of whatever form (eg counting a wind or solar farm as a power station since that's effectively what it is) generating electricity as a business and with a network distributing that to consumers isn't going away. Rooftop solar isn't going to put the industry out of business just as home veggie gardens haven't put supermarkets or even fruit and vegetable shops out of business.

Only real exception is places in the middle of nowhere where installing a great big solar array, on a scale that simply isn't practical in the suburbs, is the cheapest means of supplying electricity. Even there though, odds are you'll find some "cheating" in the form of a wood fire for heating etc.

I see no problem with any of that, just pointing it out really. So far as EV's are concerned, the vast majority will be charged on the grid. That the owner happens to also have some solar panels on the grid doesn't change that - both are on the grid not off it.

To that I'll add that charging EV's is one of those things that can be done the right way or it can be done the wrong way and cause mayhem with the grid. The key there isn't so much about working out how to do it, but in making sure that what needs to be done actually is done. Get it right from the start, don't wait until there's enough of them to cause an actual problem then try and fix it.

Simply strongly discouraging charging during the peaks will be adequate in the medium term - it doesn't need to be a barrier to EV adoption, just need some education and perhaps $ persuasion to ensure consumers do the right thing.

In SA today there's been renewable energy going to waste since about midday and there's been a bit in Victoria too. But then some diesel and a lot of gas-fired plant was running this morning - if done well the timing of when EV's are charged has the potential to get better use out of renewable generation facilities already built, we can get more energy out of them without spending a cent on new investment. Or, if done poorly, it has the potential to put the lights out and often the gap between the two is just a few hours.

So in summary, charge way more for peak consumption hours and less for overnight etc.

 

[Smurf1976]

So in summary, charge way more for peak consumption hours and less for overnight etc.

Yep - with a complicating factor that the presence of wind and solar changes when the system is most or least stressed since not only is consumption changing throughout the day but so is available supply.

The basic logic behind a "smart" approach to charging is that instead of taking wind and solar energy when they generate, storing that via big batteries or hydro, then charging EV's at a set time which isn't necessarily when the sun's shining or the wind's blowing it would be easier and cheaper to instead just put the energy straight into the EV when the wind blows and the sun shines thus cutting out the rather costly middle step.

For a large portion of users who are traveling relatively short distances each day and with cars parked most of the time that ought to work and is a cheap way of doing it. They're not going to care when it charges so long as it does.

For those who do need a full charge by a set time, or right now in the case of public fast chargers, that's not a problem it just means they're requiring more infrastructure so would in practice be charged at a higher price.

Essentially the same concept as any business situation where there's an "express" service at a high price and a much cheaper "join the queue" option. Most will pick the cheap one to save costs but the premium "get it done ASAP" option is there for those who actually need it.

 

[over9k]

So have the price move along with how much the wind/sun is contributing to the grid at the time?

Just have something on the power company's website like "current power costs" so people can check in and decide to plug their car in or not.

 

[Value Collector]

Yep - with a complicating factor that the presence of wind and solar changes when the system is most or least stressed since not only is consumption changing throughout the day but so is available supply.

The basic logic behind a "smart" approach to charging is that instead of taking wind and solar energy when they generate, storing that via big batteries or hydro, then charging EV's at a set time which isn't necessarily when the sun's shining or the wind's blowing it would be easier and cheaper to instead just put the energy straight into the EV when the wind blows and the sun shines thus cutting out the rather costly middle step.

For a large portion of users who are traveling relatively short distances each day and with cars parked most of the time that ought to work and is a cheap way of doing it. They're not going to care when it charges so long as it does.

For those who do need a full charge by a set time, or right now in the case of public fast chargers, that's not a problem it just means they're requiring more infrastructure so would in practice be charged at a higher price.

Essentially the same concept as any business situation where there's an "express" service at a high price and a much cheaper "join the queue" option. Most will pick the cheap one to save costs but the premium "get it done ASAP" option is there for those who actually need it.

An Ev can recover the average daily drive in about 1 or 2 hours with a good home charger, but it may be plugged in for up to 16 hours a day.

With smart internet connected chargers it would be easy time that 1 - 2 hours to when it makes sense for the grid, even if it just came on every few days.

AGL and other folk could just offer super cheap rates for people that put their smart charger it “super saver” mode etc, and penalty rates for people that don’t.

there is already a charger on the market called the “Zappi” that connects to your home solar and only charges when you produce excess solar.

—————-

there is already an electricity retailer that offers free electricity on weekends between 12pm - 2pm, I am sure they would rather be directing there surplus during these times to smart chargers.

 

[Smurf1976]

So have the price move along with how much the wind/sun is contributing to the grid at the time?

Just have something on the power company's website like "current power costs" so people can check in and decide to plug their car in or not.

It's one of those areas where a lot of different companies are all coming up with slightly different detail.

The basic ideas center around remote control of the charger versus giving the consumer a price incentive and leaving them to set it themselves. Plus the question of how to structure pricing in the first place - fixed "peak" and "off-peak" rates versus variable pricing versus a flat "all you can eat" monthly fee.

The one thing that everyone agrees on is that there's a need to avoid what would otherwise become the default. That is, lots of people come home late afternoon or early evening then plug the car in and it charges straight away. That's a problem because the maximum consumption of electricity for other purposes generally occurs around 6 - 7pm and that's also a time when wind and solar output is typically modest. Hence the desire of those looking at the technical side to avoid EV's being charged at this time.

It's one of those things that can definitely be done but there's different ideas around as to how best to do it, noting that non-technical factors such as marketing play a factor in that.

Eg some of the marketing people seem convinced that a flat daily fee for unlimited EV charging outside peak periods would be a winner with the public. Pay $ x per month "all you can eat" but supply won't be continuous, the charger will be turned off remotely when supply is tight.

Others have thoughts of that approach backfiring financially on the supplier and would prefer that pricing be based on actual consumption volume.

From a technical perspective, so long as the end result is that the majority of EV charging occurs when supply is abundant then how that's achieved, remote control versus price incentives etc, makes no difference.

 

[qldfrog]

It's one of those areas where a lot of different companies are all coming up with slightly different detail.

The basic ideas center around remote control of the charger versus giving the consumer a price incentive and leaving them to set it themselves. Plus the question of how to structure pricing in the first place - fixed "peak" and "off-peak" rates versus variable pricing versus a flat "all you can eat" monthly fee.

The one thing that everyone agrees on is that there's a need to avoid what would otherwise become the default. That is, lots of people come home late afternoon or early evening then plug the car in and it charges straight away. That's a problem because the maximum consumption of electricity for other purposes generally occurs around 6 - 7pm and that's also a time when wind and solar output is typically modest. Hence the desire of those looking at the technical side to avoid EV's being charged at this time.

It's one of those things that can definitely be done but there's different ideas around as to how best to do it, noting that non-technical factors such as marketing play a factor in that.

Eg some of the marketing people seem convinced that a flat daily fee for unlimited EV charging outside peak periods would be a winner with the public. Pay $ x per month "all you can eat" but supply won't be continuous, the charger will be turned off remotely when supply is tight.

Others have thoughts of that approach backfiring financially on the supplier and would prefer that pricing be based on actual consumption volume.

From a technical perspective, so long as the end result is that the majority of EV charging occurs when supply is abundant then how that's achieved, remote control versus price incentives etc, makes no difference.

Agree we need intelligent pricing and matching technology.being paid fit at 11c, i have no incentive to feed back into the grid so my own electric heater timer will switch on with the sun by 7am, i will burn my own PV to warm my water making so sure that at 12, i am feeding max with all washing, dishwashing and dryer finished. No incentive to do otherwise, convenient to do so and if I were to charge an EV, 7am start for me

 

[over9k]

I have no doubt that some kind of "smart" controller that only charges it off peak or only when the solar is pumping into the grid or whatever you decide to set it to could be implemented. No doubt whatsoever.

This seems so simple as to be a non-issue to be honest.

 

[sptrawler]

I have no doubt that some kind of "smart" controller that only charges it off peak or only when the solar is pumping into the grid or whatever you decide to set it to could be implemented. No doubt whatsoever.

This seems so simple as to be a non-issue to be honest.

For it to be a universal V2G charger and an asset to the grid, it is the most complex part, it has to deal with the complexities of supplying the load relative to its ability.
That is the really hard part.
Read up on generator droop, reactive current droop compensation and system stability, for BEV's to be advantageous as storage they have to provide storage.
If they are all connected together, they have to share the load proportional to their ability, that includes reactive load.
Charging the BEV's is easy, using them as storage is difficult, but is an essential part of the BEV's role in a renewable future.
If we get it right it will be a winner, if we get it wrong, BEV's will be an albatross around the grid's neck.
Just my opinion.

 

[over9k]

Oh I was just talking from a factoring electric car charging into a grid that you're already trying to add renewables to. I feel like the using the EV as storage etc would be a secondary thing.

Surely the first thing would be to just ensure that people only charge their EV's off-peak or when the sun is shining/wind blowing, and then work out how to use them as storage after?

 

[Value Collector]

This video is a must see for anyone that thinks that electric cars pollute as much as petrol cars, or that petrol cars don’t also use huge amounts of electricity.

 

[Smurf1976]

This video is a must see for anyone that thinks that electric cars pollute as much as petrol cars, or that petrol cars don’t also use huge amounts of electricity.

Agreed with the basic point but there's a couple of bits in the video which don't stand scrutiny.....

The claim is that ships are not regulated for emissions. In practice regulations were greatly tightened as of 1 January 2020 however and that's a global agreement not just a local one.

The other claim is that Australians are talking a lot about pollution from oil refining. In practice I think it's fair to say that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone talking about it at all. Of all political or even just all environmental issues in Australia, pollution from the refining of oil would be an extremely long way down the list of those anyone's talking about.

I do agree with the basic point being made, EV's beat petrol and that's true even if 100% of the electricity used comes from fossil fuels, but at the same time I won't hesitate to call it out if "my" side gets a bit over-enthusiastic with the claims.

 

[Value Collector]

Agreed with the basic point but there's a couple of bits in the video which don't stand scrutiny.....

The claim is that ships are not regulated for emissions. In practice regulations were greatly tightened as of 1 January 2020 however and that's a global agreement not just a local one.

The other claim is that Australians are talking a lot about pollution from oil refining. In practice I think it's fair to say that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone talking about it at all. Of all political or even just all environmental issues in Australia, pollution from the refining of oil would be an extremely long way down the list of those anyone's talking about.

I do agree with the basic point being made, EV's beat petrol and that's true even if 100% of the electricity used comes from fossil fuels, but at the same time I won't hesitate to call it out if "my" side gets a bit over-enthusiastic with the claims.

I kinda of agree with the two points you mentioned, but they aren’t really the point of the video, I mean ships having a bit of regulation now doesn’t actually take away from the point that he is making he is pointing out that those ships burn oil that needs to be counted if you are going to compare apples to apples, same with his point about oil refinery pollution vs lithium mining pollution.

Check out page 5 of this link, the biggest polluters in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth are all oil refineries (Well Sydneys is a plastics company, but similar story), So I agree not many Australians talk about pollution, but those talking about it are talking about oil refineries, and not lithium mines, and the point is that if lithium mining was a bigger problem than oil refining (as the EV haters claim), then the country that mines 50% of the lithium and refines 1% of the oil should be talking about lithium and not oil, so I think he has a solid point here because the dirtiest postcodes in our big cities are the ones with oil refineries.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...F_Pollution_Report_Nov2018_WEB.pdf?1542155046

 

[sptrawler]

Oh I was just talking from a factoring electric car charging into a grid that you're already trying to add renewables to. I feel like the using the EV as storage etc would be a secondary thing.

Surely the first thing would be to just ensure that people only charge their EV's off-peak or when the sun is shining/wind blowing, and then work out how to use them as storage after?

I see where you are coming from, I'm just of the opinion the two way charging/ discharging ability is being trialed as we speak and to me it makes much more sense to adopt that technology earlier rather than later, than retro fitting it.
If you have it as a charger only, then during the day, the solar is charging the cars rather than the storage batteries required overnight.

So therefore it will require much more solar generation, or it will take longer to remove the fossil fueled generation if you use off peak charging.

It isn't an issue ATM, because there isn't a lot of battery storage installed and or EV's on the road, so there is an abundance of excess generation in the middle of the day, but that will change rather rapidly going on reported projects in the pipeline.
Just my opinion.

 

[Smurf1976]

I kinda of agree with the two points you mentioned, but they aren’t really the point of the video, I mean ships having a bit of regulation now doesn’t actually take away from the point that he is making he is pointing out that those ships burn oil that needs to be counted if you are going to compare apples to apples, same with his point about oil refinery pollution vs lithium mining pollution.

What it rationally comes down to is pollution per car over its lifetime assuming the same distance traveled. Plus of course things not related to pollution at all.

In all of this though I'm just wary that there's more politics and less science than there really ought to be. Never would I have expected that we'd come to a point where basically all subjects relating to energy are treated in a religious-like manner by the public but that's how it seems to have ended up.
EV's versus ICE, how to generate electricity, how to heat water, even what octane petrol to use in an ICE - they've all become very "religious" and lacking in facts so far as public discussion is concerned. Don't even dare suggest putting ethanol in the petrol, that idea really fires some people up.

My thinking is very much that everyone ought know the facts on such matters and that the argument for an electric future is convincing enough without needing to be in any way biased.

 

[Value Collector]

What it rationally comes down to is pollution per car over its lifetime assuming the same distance traveled. Plus of course things not related to pollution at all.

In all of this though I'm just wary that there's more politics and less science than there really ought to be. Never would I have expected that we'd come to a point where basically all subjects relating to energy are treated in a religious-like manner by the public but that's how it seems to have ended up.
EV's versus ICE, how to generate electricity, how to heat water, even what octane petrol to use in an ICE - they've all become very "religious" and lacking in facts so far as public discussion is concerned. Don't even dare suggest putting ethanol in the petrol, that idea really fires some people up.

My thinking is very much that everyone ought know the facts on such matters and that the argument for an electric future is convincing enough without needing to be in any way biased.

I agree it comes down to pollution per car, but what the video is addressing is that the anti EV crowd such as Frog, want to count all the pollution generated by power stations in the process of charging cars.

Counting this pollution is ofcourse entirely fair and rational (even though they normally only want to count coal fired power).

However as the video points out, where they fall off the rails is they “forget” to count all the emissions of getting their tank of fuel to their car.

So they want to only count the pollution caused by the petrol car itself as it burns the fuel, and ignore the entire system behind it, but they want to count the entire electrical system involved in charging.

this is the crux of the video, eg. If you want to talk about power stations, we need to talk about refiners too, if you want to talk about transmission losses we need to talk about oil trucks, ships and pipelines etc.

the petrol doesn’t magically appear at the petrol bowser, there is a long energy intensive process to get it there.

 

[sptrawler]

My thinking is very much that everyone ought know the facts on such matters and that the argument for an electric future is convincing enough without needing to be in any way biased.

I'm with you 100%, on the one hand you have those who are fanatical about the 'green' component and on the other hand you have the manufacturers and media winding them up to get taxpayer subsidies.

Meanwhile those in the background, are trying to scientifically work out the most holistic way, to integrate it into an existing grid system while causing the least disruption and being the most advantageous.
While also trying to keep the cost to the taxpayer at a minimum, all in all a very fine balancing act.

When you consider what the taxpayer is subsidising already, with regard to the transition to renewables, it is pretty mind boggling.
All the existing roof solar panel installations have been subsidised, Snowy 2.0 will be taxpayer funded, the HV transmission upgrades are being subsidised, the Tassie battery will be subsidised, just about any renewables based project is being taxpayer subsidised.

I personally think until we know exactly what we want from the BEV's, in regard charging architecture, standard voltages etc, we would be mad to just subsidise any BEV that any company wants to bring in.
They are in their infancy, as has been shown last week where Hyundia is recalling all their BEV's for their LG battery packs catching on fire.
Currently the argument is between Hyundia and LG, as to who is at fault, wouldn't it be great if the Government was in their as well for helping people buy them.
Great headline, Government helps family buy BEV that catches on fire..., shouldn't the Government have checked they were safe before not only encouraging but also subsidising their purchase.

It is just the crazy way the world works these days, it is amazing how quickly those who stand at the front to make the most demands, are first to step back and point the finger when it goes pear shaped.
ALA the outcry at the first set of corona virus returners being isolated on Christmas island, "why should they be treated as second class citizens", now the cry is what a great idea.
Like you say @Smurf, let the technical people work out a plan, before the Government gets out a napkin to design one.

 

[sptrawler]

The Hyundia recall i was referring to in the last post, just for clarity, I mistakenly said all, when I'm not sure it is all but it is a lot.
https://www.caradvice.com.au/928558/the-1-13-billion-recall-hyundai-to-replace-batteries-in-82000-electric-cars-due-to-fire-risk/#:~:text=Australia will be part of,a fire risk when recharging.&text=Hyundai Australia is about to,a fire risk when recharging.
From the article:
“The recall is one of the first mass battery pack replacements conducted by a major automaker,” Automotive News USA reported
“It's very significant for both Hyundai and (battery supplier) LG as we are in the early stages of the electric vehicle era,” Lee Hang-koo, senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Industrial Economics & Trade, told Automotive News USA. “How Hyundai handles this will set a precedent not just in South Korea but also for other countries.”

The vehicles at the centre of the latest safety scare had been recalled for electrical problems last year.

However, one of the repaired vehicles evidently caught fire again, prompting South Korean authorities to launch a new probe “into whether the first recall had been adequate”, Automotive News USA reported.

Battery supplier LG has so far attempted to deflect criticism

In a statement to Automotive News USA, the battery company claimed Hyundai “misapplied LG’s suggestions for fast-charging logic in the battery management system” and said the battery cell “should not be seen as the direct cause of the fire risks”.

However, South Korea's transport ministry claimed some defects had been found in certain battery cells produced by LG’s factory in China.

While Hyundai and LG appear to be in dispute over the cause of the fault, it is likely both brands will need to foot the enormous recall repair bill.

 

[Smurf1976]

If you want to talk about power stations, we need to talk about refiners too, if you want to talk about transmission losses we need to talk about oil trucks, ships and pipelines etc.

We're on the same page - I've just taken issue with some of the detail that's all.

If we're going to count beans though well then as you say, we need to count all of them on both sides of the equation.

The big problem I see in all of this is that it has become an ideological war. That goes for EV's versus ICE, it goes for the means of generating electricity, it goes for how to heat water, it even goes for the detail of petrol specifications.

In any prior time that would all be an extremely dry subject of no interest to most. Go back 20 years and the average person knew that power stations existed but that was it, so long as the lights worked they had zero interest in the subject and fair enough.

Now we've come to a point where even those in the industry, from technical through to management, are shaking their heads wondering what to do next. Saying nothing doesn't seem to be an option but trying to get facts across in an environment so politically charged and with the minds of many firmly closed is pretty much impossible.

The sad thing is, I've never come across anyone who wanted to understand the basic concepts of all this who couldn't get their mind around it. The detail's extremely complex but the basic concepts are straightforward.

It just shouldn't be so contentious in society given it's ultimately just a fairly dry technical subject.

Nobody's starting ideological wars over the structural design of bridges or the colour coding of plastic pipes, right?

 

[sptrawler]

In any prior time that would all be an extremely dry subject of no interest to most. Go back 20 years and the average person knew that power stations existed but that was it, so long as the lights worked they had zero interest in the subject and fair enough.

In the early days of climate hysteria, every picture of a power station that the media published highlighting emissions, seemed to indicate the condensation from cooling towers was the smoke from the boiler fires because it was a more dramatic picture. ?

I laughed, but it worked, it certainly whipped the readers into a frenzy.

As I said in an earlier post, I bet the major recall of the Hyundia's battery fires get very little media coverage, but remember the media coverage when a Jeep caught fire on a beach.
There has been very little in the Aussie press about the Hyundia's battery issue, I wonder why.

Just depends what the media want to push to the plebs IMO.