Statement Of Facts Texas 2014-2021: Fill & Download for Free

New ideas products and services are adopted by a population following a logistic function. This gives adoption a characteristic shape. It starts when conditions are favourable for the adoption of the new product. It ends when everyone uses it. So, prior to 1975 the cellphone didn’t exist as a practical matter. After 1975 it did and its price kept coming down and the services offered kept improving and by 2015 AD 95% of the US population had one.This curve results from varying rates of adoption among different people.This is the result of how ideas and experience diffuses in a population the ability of that population to take changes on board.Now, successful settlements on Mars require that we get to Mars and back safely, and that living on Mars is as safe and easy, if not safer and easier, than living on Earth.None of these conditions apply today. So, that’s the challenge.For example. No commercial space operator other than SpaceX reuses any part of their space launch vehicle. They are used once and thrown away. Commercial space operators suffer one catastrophic loss out of sixteen flight attempts! This is what makes space travel so expensive and difficult.SpaceX has achieved their goal of recovering the first stage booster of their rocket reducing costs by 85%. SpaceX has also attained their goal of one loss in 200 flights. This is superior even to the Space Shuttle which lost one rocket every 65 times they flew.Despite these great achievement, which have given SpaceX dominance in space launch business, they fall far short of the requirement for space settlement and the general use of rockets by the public.For example, airlines report that they suffer one catastrophic loss every 2.5 million flight cycle. Also, airliners last 35,000 flight cycles before they are retired.That’s why SpaceX has used its leadership position in the space launch business, along with the money it makes and the spare capacity it has using recovered rockets, to launch a large network of commuications satellites to build a global wireless hotspot. Here SpaceX delivers 50 million channels and charges $85 per month to earn $50 billion per year in free cash flow. More than double what NASA spends!With this money SpaceX is building a Big Freaking Rocket! Originally billed at 200 tons it has since been scaled back to 100 tons capacity. To take a lot of payload to orbit.However their goal is to make a rocket that;reused 35,000 timesflown 6.5 million times between catastrophic failscosts less than acquisition cost over its useful life to keep flyingAttaining these goals allows SpaceX to compete head to head with airplanes.Today there are 31,000 airliners that fly 38.8 million flights a year to carry 4.3 billion people to 106,000 locations. Each flight averages 3.4 hours and covers 3,000 km. Average time between flights is 7.1 hours. The longest flights are 15 hours and cover 14,500 km. Shorter flights are 1 hour or so.Tomorrow there will be 6,600 rockets that fly the same 38.8 million flights a year to carry 8.6 billion people to 106,000 locations. Each flight averages 11 minutes and covers 3,000 km. Average time between flights is 60 minutes. The longest flights are 37 minutes and cover 14,500 km. Shorter flights are 3 minutes or so.This will familiarise people with rocket travel and make it an everyday experience. It will also support the large scale production of rockets at a rate of up to 6 per day.Rockets last 35,000 flight cycles before they are retired. This stems from pressurisation/depressurisation cycle along with cyclic thermal shock leading to degradation of flight structures.Typical Earth to Earth service is 11 minutes and typical time between flights 1 hour, though long distance flights take 47 minutes and cycle times of 90 minutes are possible. After 4 years 35,000 flights are flown and the rocket is retired for safety sake. Yet after 3.75 years of service 32,000 flight cycles are completed and 3,000 flight cycles remain. At that point ships in good service are retired to orbit and offered for use in space. Since it takes 84 minutes to orbit the Earth, or 4.5 days to fly to the moon, or 268 days to fly to Mars, those last 2,000 flights will take decades to fly off. Thus as deep space operators the vehicles are worth vastly more than as older Earth to Earth units.Airplanes are manufactured at a rate o 6 per day and at the end of their useful life, retired at that rate too. Rockets will have the same experience.In the late 1950s the USAF build 350 Atlas missiles and deployed them in automated missile silos all over the world. Four of these were modified for use on Project Mercury. The same techniques that permit hundreds of missiles to be built and deployed in a short period of time to be launched with zero crew at a moment’s notice, are adapted for use in the early 2020s to make commercial Earth to Earth travel a reality.At the end of their operating life rockets are retired, just as airplanes are retired. Instead of retiring to a bone yard in the desert, these rockets retire to a storage orbit in space. They are offered for sale at a steep discount to enthusiasts for deep space tourism giving access to millions.Rockets will cut environmental cost of long distance air travel in half whilst doubling the number of people who travel long distance on Earth from 4.3 billion a year (55%) to 8.6 billion a year (110%). Retired rockets modified for deep space operations will permit 1.2 bilion per year (15%) to leave Earth. Of these 0.5 billion per year will leave permanently (6.5%) and 0.7 billion (8.5%) will return. This reflects the nature of human psychology in adopting new ideas as described.How long will all this take?We will have 6 rockets a day being built by 2024 AD, and by 2027 there will be 6 rockets a day entering deep space service.SpaceX History of BFRDuring 2012, SpaceX took a new direction, announcing plans to switch Raptor to full flow staged combustion LOX/Methane.Plans called for the engine to produce 360 tonnes of sea level thrust.By 2014, concepts called for a Falcon XX size rocket to be powered by nine such Raptors at liftoff, with one or two vacuum optimized Raptors powering the second stage, to lift 100 tonnes or more to LEO.As Falcon 9 began to attempt first stage recoveries during 2015, the "BFR" concepts began to shift toward reuse, not only of the first stage but of both stages. As a result, the rocket grew much larger.On September 27, 2016, at the International Astronautical Congress, Musk presented a design for a truly enormous 12 meter diameter, 122 meter tall, 10,478 tonne two-stage rocket named "Interplanetary Transport System" (ITS).Its first stage used 42 Raptor engines producing 13,154 tonnes of liftoff thrust.Nine Raptors powered its second "spaceship" stage.ITS lifted 300 tonnes to LEO.With multiple launches to refuel the second stage it boosted nearly 500 tonnes toward Mars.Development costs for ITS were projected to be $10 billion.One year later, at the same meeting, Musk presented a scaled down design named "BFR", capable of lifting 100 tonnes to LEO with full reuse.BFR was 9 meters diameter and 118 meters tall, weigh 4,400 tonnes at liftoff, and used carbon composite propellant tanks and structures.The 3,065 tonne first stage used 31 Raptors making 6,305 tonnes of thrust while the 1,335 tonne second stage had 9 Raptors, three in "vacuum" configuration, producing 1,406 tonnes of thrust.The concept retained multiple-launch orbital refueling plans designed to send 220 tonnes toward Mars.This 2017 BFR was small compared to the 2016 plans, but both outweighed Saturn 5, the heaviest rocket ever launched, by nearly 1,400 tonnes. The 2017 BFR produced 1.8 times more thrust than Saturn 5, a rocket that created its own 4.6 Richter scale earthquakes when launched.During March, 2018, SpaceX announced plans to build a BFR factory at the Port of Los Angeles. Clearing of an 18 acre site began, while giant tooling for BFR composite tank fabrication was being set up in a temporary structure nearby.By September 2018, plans called for seven identical sea-level Raptor engines on the BFR second stage. SpaceX announced at the same time plans for a privately funded 2023 lunar circumnavigation mission using BFR.Starship Hopper Mockup Phase Assembly, January 2019Then, on October 10, 2018, the U.S. Air Force rejected SpaceX's proposal to fund some BFR development as part of a precursor National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Launch Services Agreement bid.Whether the loss contributed to a 10% SpaceX employment cutback at the end of 2018 and to cancellation of plans to build a factory at the Port of Los Angeles is unknown.Also unknown is whether the NSSL LSA bid was related to significant BFR design changes revealed in December, 2018.By then, plans for composite tanks and structures had been replaced by plans to use stainless steel.During November, 2018, Elon Musk announced that the BFR launch vehicle first stage would be named "Super Heavy" while the second stage would be "Starship". Musk hinted that more design changes were planned, including a reduction in the number of Raptor engines.During the final weeks of December, 2018, SpaceX began building a stainless steel "Starship Hopper" test article at Boca Chica, Texas.This was initally a cosmetic build, performed outdoors, shorter than the planned Starship, with no internal tank bulkheads and with three dummy Raptor engines, that was set up for a "photo op". After the flimsier "top hat" portion of the Hopper was destroyed during a late January 2019 windstorm, crews completed the installation of bulkheads and other hardware on the undamaged lower portion of the Hopper. This section, standing on three heavy landing legs, was built out of thicker steel plates, sheethed in a stainless steel layer, in the classic "battleship" style long-used for early propulsion tests of in-development rocket stages.First Raptor Test Firing, February 3, 2019On February 3, 2019, SpaceX briefly test fired its first full-scale Starship Raptor flight engine in a McGregor, Texas test stand. The engine reached 172 tonnes of thrust during a subsequent firing, before it was damaged in an even higher-thrust run a few days later.Elon Musk reiterated that 200 tonnes thrust was the ultimate goal for initial Starship use, a number achievable using colder propellant temperatures then those used during the initial McGregor test firings.The second Raptor (SN2) was then installed on Starship Hopper at Boca Chica, which had by this time been moved to a new testing pad being built near the beach.On April 3rd, 2019 the engine was test fired briefly during a "tethered hop".On April 5, during the evening local time, the engine fired again to lift the Hopper to its full tether limit. The engine was then removed as SpaceX began to prepare for another round of testing.On April 27, 2019, Raptor SN3 was test fired for 40 seconds at McGregor, the longest duration up to that date. By mid-May, Raptor SN4 had been delivered while SN5 was being assembled at Hawthorne, California.During the first week of June, SN4 was installed on the Hopper for fit checks, but plans called for SN5 to be used for the first untether hop tests.Starhopper Final FlightMeanwhile, SpaceX began to build new, all-stainless tank structures at both Boca Chica and near Cocoa, Floria. These "Mk1 and Mk 2" ships would be used for longer-range suborbital test flights using at least 3, and maybe up to 6, Raptor engines. During this period - the Spring of 2019 - Elon Musk said that construction of the first Super Heavy prototype might begin during the summer of 2019.Starhopper ended up fitted with Raptor S/N 6 for its untethered hops at Boca Chica. A five second static test on July 16, 2019 preceeded an 18 meter altitude untethered hop on July 25, which lasted 22 seconds.A final, 150 meter altitude flight took place on August 17, 2019.During the 57 second long flight, Starhopper rose, translated sideways, and landed on a separate landing pad. The stumpy test vehicle was then retired from flight service, though plans called for it to serve as an engine test stand in the future.September 2019 Starship UpdateOn September 27, 2019, SpaceX crews completed basic structural assembly of the Starship Mk 1 test article in Boca Chica. One day later, Elon Musk arrived to provide a program update while standing in front of the 50 meter tall, 200 metric tonne vehicle.Three non-flight Raptor engines had been fit-tested to the prototype by that time, testing the propulsion set up planned for Mk 1 suborbital test flights.Elon announced that Mk 1 would fly to 20 km within two months to test reentry and landing flight control and propulsion.Starship Mk 2 would perform similar tests from LC 39A in Florida. Suborbital testing would culminate in flights up to 100 km altitude.Musk provided new details about the Starships.Mk 1 sported a pair of movable aft delta-fins and a pair of movable forward canards. These were designed to control the vehicle during reentry, when the vehicle would maintain a 60 degree angle from horizontal.After scrubbing velocity, the vehicle would flip to a nose-up attitude and start its engines for landing. While Mk 1 used 3/16 inch thick stainless steel, later vehicles would use steel as thin as 1/16 inch, attempting to reduce dry mass to 120 tonnes or less.Orbital Starships would carry hexagonal ceramic heat shield tiles on their leeward side.Musk said that Mk 3 and 4 Starships would also be built, at Boca and Cocoa, respectively.These would use six Raptor engines and hot gas thruster systems. Ultimately, Starship would have three central, movable "sea level" Raptors surrounded by three fixed "vacuum" Raptors.Non-Flight Raptors on Starship Mk1, September, 2019After completing four prototype Starships, SpaceX would begin work on its first "Super Heavy" booster at Boca - clearly many months after Musk's earlier "summer 2019" statements.The booster carries 24 to 31 Raptor engines, with a variable number possible. New launch mounts are built at both Boca Chica and LC 39A to handle the massive rocket. The stage flies much like current Falcon 9 stages, using grid fins for reentry flight control and engine restarts for vertical landings.Super Heavy stands 68 meters tall. The 118 meter tall two-stage vehicle ultimately weighs 5,000 tonnes at liftoff and rises on 7,500 tonnes of thrust, growing heavier from 2017 plans. It boosts 100 tonnes to LEO initially, with 150 tonnes as a future goal.After the September 28 presentation, Starship Mk1 was disassembled, its non-flight engines and nose section disconnected and removed. The disassembly was done to allow further detailed manufacturing to continue.Multiple Starships DestroyedThe Mark 1 prototype SpaceX Starship was destroyed during a cryogenic loading test at Boca Chica on November 20, 2019, dealing a setback to the SpaceX Super Heavy/Starship development effort. The top bulkhead of the propellant section was blown off after an apparent weld failure near or at the bulkhead/tank interface. The bulkhead flew hundreds of feet into the air and laterally, landing in a field. The tank section was visibly damaged. Cryogenic vapors were seen leaking both from the top tank and from the bottom, propulsion section area indicating that substantial internal damage was also likely. The top, nose section of Starship was not attached during the loading test, and Raptor engines were not believed to have been installed.After the failure, SpaceX announced that neither the Mark 1 or Mark 2 prototypes would fly. The Mark 3 vehicle would now be the first to be flight-capable. Production near Cocoa, Florida of Mark 2 and Mark 4 was to be halted, with resources to be consolidated at Boca Chica. Thus ended the first year of work on the stainless steel Starship, which produced the successful Starhopper flights and substantial Raptor development results, but ended with a full-scale Starship setback and with no visible work on the even bigger Super Heavy stage.After moving production to Boca Chica, SpaceX built a new series of Starships, identifying them starting with Serial Number 1 (SN1). These were sequentially lost in a series of increasingly violent testing failures during the first half of 2020. The first, SN1, was destroyed during a cryogenic proof test on February 28, 2020 due to a likely weld failure on a lower bulkhead of the bottom LOX tank. SN2 was then stripped and scrapped after being used for some structural tests of the problem area.Starship SN3 was destroyed during its April 3, 2020 cryogenic proof test. Elon Musk said that this failure was caused by a ground setup problem. The vehicle's tanks had been filled with liquid nitrogen for the test. The vehicle crumpled beginning about halfway up and the top tank crumpled.Vehicle SN4 was the first full-scale Starship prototype to pass its cryo proof test, accomplished on April 26, 2020 when pressurized to 4.9 bar. A single Raptor engine was then mounted and on May 5 SN4 completed a 3-second static fire test. The Raptor was removed after the test. On May 9, the stage was successfully pressurized to 7.5 bar under mechanical loading at the engine mount area.A new Raptor, SN20, was installed and on May 19 another static test was performed that lasted several seconds. After cutoff, however, a fire began burning at the base of the vehicle when a ground line failed. Crews were unable to approach the still-pressurized vehicle for a day.After repairs, SN4 performed another static test on May 28, 2020 that lasted about 6 seconds. A dummy load had been attached to the top of the vehicle for this testing, an effort leading toward a planned 150 meter "hop" test flight.One more static test was performed on May 29. About a minute or so after Raptor SN20 shut down, a large white gaseous leak began at the base of the vehicle. This was methane, leaking in large volume and dangerously pooling in a gas cloud around the Starship at ground level. After another minute or so, a massive detonation occurred after the methane ignited at the base of the vehicle. SN4 and its Raptor were destroyed, along with the launch mount and some ground support equipment. At the time, SpaceX had been planning for hop attempts on June 1 or 2.Four Starship prototypes lost in six months of testing raised serious questions about the safety and viability of the program, but construction of subsequent Starships continued.Proceed to HopSN5 HopThe SN4 explosion appeared to have been caused by a failed propellant quick disconnect that was tested after the static fire was complete. The disconnect failed open, flooding the pad with methane.SpaceX proceeded to build a small test tank, named SN7, to test new 304L stainless steel and welds. The tank was pressure-tested on June 14, 2020 and went through a full cryo pressure test the next day, when it sprung a leak at 7.6 bar. Elon Musk reported that the test was a success because it found an expected weak point. The tank was repaired and purposely tested to failure on June 23.Meanwhile, the company completed the SN5 Starship prototype, which moved to the rebuilt pad on June 24, 2020. SN5 completed a full cryo proof test on the night of June 30-July 1. Raptor SN27 was mounted to the vehicle and, on July 30, was static test fired for several seconds. On August 4, after previous aborted attempts, SN5 performed the long-planned 150 meter "hop", rising from the pad, translating sideways, and landing on the nearby landing pad, basically repeating the Starship Hopper flight of one year earlier. Raptor appeared to catch fire during the brief flight, and ground equipment beneath the launch pad suffered a small explosion after liftoff, but the test flight itself accomplished its objectivesThe "hop" was only a precursor to high-altitude test flights that would use more Raptors and propellant to explore reentry profile techniques. The ultimate flight Starship would have to be coated with protective insulation tiles for reentry, another step in the long development process. Super Heavy, a much larger stage, would still have to be developed to boost Starship to orbit.At the time of the SN5 hop, SpaceX had Starship prototypes SN6 and SN8, at least, under construction. SN8 would be the first full-scale prototype built with 304L stainless steel. SN6 was stored in the recently completed Mid-Bay building. The company was building a new High Bay structure that would be used for long-promised Super Heavy.On September 3, 2020, prototype Starship SN6 performed a repeat 150 meter hop test flight, using single Raptor serial number 29. The stage had performed a cryo load test on August 16 and a brief static test firing on August 23.Super Heavy/Starship UpdateOn September 1, 2020, Elon Musk provided an update on Super Heavy/Starship design progress. He said that Super Heavy would now have 28 Raptor engines, a reduction from the prevously-announced 31. The design now used an outer ring of 20 fixed Raptors, each producing 250 tonnes thrust. An inner set of eight lower-thrust, throttleable Raptors would be used control acceleration during ascent and to descend and land the stage at the end of its missions.Together, the 28 Raptors would produce about 6,680 tonnes of liftoff thrust. Musk stated that plans called for the outer Raptors to see thrust increased up to 300 tonnes eventually, allowing total liftoff thrust to increase to about 7,500 tonnes for a 1.5 thrust to weight ratio. The overall picture presented by Musk was that the company intended to substantially increase the thrust of its still-in-development CH4/LOX Raptor engine as a means of reducing engine count on the giant Super Heavy booster. SpaceX had found that fixed throttle Raptors can operate at higher thrust than variable-throttle engines. This had forced it toward development of two sea-level Raptor variants.Musk also stated that prototype Super Heavy vehicles would use fewer Raptors - only two at first - during early tests from Boca Chica. Eventually, the fully-engined Super Heavy would produce so much thrust, noise, and ground vibration that it would have to launch from, and land on, floating platforms off shore.Finally, Musk said that prototype Starship flights would progress to use of three Raptors for higher altitude flights. These 9 x 50 meter versions would include nose cones and airfoils for the first time. Orbital versions to be launched atop Super Heavy would ultimately use six Raptors and would be equipped with a reentry heat shield. Super Heavy and Starship together would stand about 120 meters tall.SN8SN8 LiftoffTesting continued. Small test tank SN 7.1 was cryogenically load tested on September 21, 2020 and pressurized to failure on September 23.Starship prototype SN8, the first with movable wings/flaps, was moved to the pad where it was given cryogenic load tests on October 7 through 9. Three Raptor engines, SN39, 32, and 30, were installed and on October 20 were static test fired, the first triple Raptor ignition.The big nose cone with its built in header tank and twin canards was installed next. On November 10 a single Raptor was fired using the nosecone LOX header tank. A spray of bright objects was noted during the test. One day later an attempt to ignite two Raptors failed, ending in another spray of bright debris. The engine failure caused loss of pneumatics, which led to a burst disk being required to relieve pressure in the header tank.The cause, according to Elon Musk, was debris kicked up by the Raptor thrust ripping away a ceramic coating on the launch pad during the static test. The debris severed an avionics cable, causing an improper Raptor shutdown. Raptor SN32 was as a result removed and replaced by SN42.SN8's Remarkable Belly Flop DescentOn November 24, Starship prototype SN8 completed a static firing test. An attempt to perform the long-planned 12.5 km hop was aborted at T-1 second on December 8. The subsonic hop test flight finally took place on December 9, ending in SN8's destruction during a hard landing.During the test flight, SN8 ascended slowly on the thrust of three Raptor engines. Two Raptors were shut down in sequence as the vehicle climbed, to keep velocity below the speed of sound. The vehicle nearly hovered at its peak as it slid sideways for some distance. Then the third Raptor shut down and SN8 nosed over to begin its aerodynamicly controled descent.The vehicle descended "sideways", under control of its four moving fins. This was a successful test of the "belly flop" maneuver that full scale Starships will use during reentry.SN8's engines switched to the header tanks for the final landing burn startup, which included two engines at first as the prototype rapidly flipped back to a vertical orientation. The fuel header tank pressure was low during the landing burn, causing low thrust and high touchdown velocity, which ended the flight in a big explosion on the landing pad.SN8 landing/explosion.SpaceX webcast the entire test, including the destructive ending. Elon Musk quickly tweeted an explanation for the ending, along with congratulations to his team for what was a highly successful development test. The next prototype Starhip, SN9, was already ready to move to the pad for the next series of tests.SN9Starship prototype SN9 had a rough start to its test campaign when it fell over against the side of its high bay near the end of its construction after its base appeared to collapse. After being set upright, damage was visible on its top and bottom fins. The vehicle was subsequently righted, repaired, and on December 22, 2020 moved to launch pad. Its nose and tail flaps had been replaced on one side.The SN9 tanks were pressure tested by year's end. On January 6, 2021, SN9 performed a static fire test that apparently cut off prematurely. Three Raptors were to have fired during the test. A second static fire try was aborted on January 12. The Raptors did fire up on January 13, when three separate static firings took place.After the testing, two Raptor engines had to be replaced and other repairs were needed in the engine section. On January 22, 2021, SN9 finally completed a successful static firing.Meanwhile, SpaceX crews rolled Starship prototype SN10 out to the launch site on January 29, where it stood with SN9.On February 2, 2021, the SN9 10 km test flight ended in a failed, explosive landing. One of two Raptors meant to start for the landing failed upon restart as the vehicle was flipping from horizontal to vertical. SN9 flipped and landed on its back and exploded.Starship prototypes Mk1, SN1, and SN3 were all destroyed during tanking tests. Starship prototypes SN4, SN8, and now SN9 were destroyed in explosions, the latter two during landing attempts at the end of test flights.SN10SN10 Post-Landing, Before ExplodingStarship prototype SN10, like SN8 and SN9, exploded at the end of its subsonic 10-12 km test flight, which took place on March 3, 2021 from Boca Chica. SN10 did manage a first mostly-successful landing following a flip from horizontal to vertical and restart of all three Raptor engines, with two quickly shut down to allow landing on one engine. A fire appeared to have ignited at the base of the vehicle shortly after the two Raptors shut down. The vehicle appeared to land without all of its landing legs properly deployed, and leaned after landing. After standing upright for about eight minutes with a fire and possible propellant leak underway in its engine section, it exploded.SN10 had performed static firings on February 23 and February 25, with one Raptor being replaced between the firings.SN10. SN9. SN8. SN4. All exploded. SN3. SN1. MK1. All failed during cryo or tanking tests.The BFR was announced in 2012 and testflights began in 2020. Accelerated stress testing is routine with automobile development using crash tests. A similar approach with the Falcon booster recovery resulted in the first reusable spaceship. The same approach is being used by SpaceX in the development of the Starship.In the end, a successful program should begin producing reliable ships in 2021–2022 time frame. SpaceX has already found ready buyers to fly Earth to Moon missions aboard the ship in 2023.The return of the ship along with the crew is revolutionary. The same sort of excitement that greeted the Apollo crew after they returned from the moon will accompany this crew.The fact that they will fly their rocket to the festivities and offer people a tour of the ship, will create the sort of excitement shown for Lindbergh’s landing in Paris.At that point Earth to Earth rocket deals will be signed with major airlines. Those orders are then monetised to construct the 6 rocket a day manuacturing plant.

Unreliability from intermittency and cost - they go together. When the wind does not blow and sun does not shine this intermittency makes renewables very unreliable energy. The uncertainty of power comes from severe weather including winter snowfall and wind that is too strong for the turbines. Of course these problem could be alleviated if there was effective battery storage for these failing renewables, but there is not.Texas is the new ground zero of rolling black outs as their large investment in wind turbines loses 50% power output because of the unusual colder winter. But Jim Robb of the Reliability Corp in Texas knows as does Bill Gates renewable storage technology is just a joke."For batteries to play the ultimate backup system, we're so far away from that it's not funny," Jim Robb, CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., a regulatory body, said in an interview. "To really make the vision that we like to get to, a highly decarbonized electric system, you're going to have to have batteries deployed in many orders of magnitude beyond what we have now."This chart exposes have useless wind power was in Texas in the winter storm.On the grid to prevent black outs fossil fuel energy [often cheaper natural gas} is a mandatory back up. The result is doubling of the end price of electricity making those countries most flocking to the virtue of renewables the worst offenders for energy poverty.“Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energyCharles Rotter / January 10, 2019From The SpectatorWe urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclearMatt RidleyThe Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.Matt Ridley and climate change campaigner Leo Murray debate the future of wind power:Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.”Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy“Fareed's Take: Bernie Sanders' magical thinking on climate ...CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos › videos › 2020/02/15 › exp-gps-0216-fareeds-take5 days ago - CNN's Fareed Zakaria gives his take on why Bernie Sanders has an unrealistic approach to achieving deep cuts in carbon emissions.”Fareed's Take: Bernie Sanders' magical thinking on climate - CNN VideoThe result is countries most engaged with wind and solar like South Australia, Denmark and Germany have the highest electricity prices and are guilty of increasing energy poverty for the disadvantaged. Even Great Britain subsidies for renewables have create more energy poverty and fatalities than road accidents.Green New Deal = Pointless Posturing: Joe Biden’s Trillion Dollar Wind & Solar BoondoggleApril 9, 2021 by stopthesethings 2 CommentsThe only obvious point to Biden’s ‘Green’ New Deal is lining the pockets of crony capitalists and keeping lobbying rent seekers happy.Hundreds of $billions more are set to be squandered on utterly pointless wind and solar. A point which ought to be pretty obvious to Americans, after millions experienced the mass blackouts suffered across Texas and the American Midwest back in February. Blackouts that occurred when millions of solar panels were plastered in snow and ice, thousands of wind turbines were left frozen solid and breathless, frigid weather meant that those that weren’t frozen stiff, produced no power at all.With the climate industrial complex’s crony capitalists once again driving America’s energy agenda, we’ll take a timely look at what’s in store for Americans.Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, where he co-directs an Institute on Manufacturing Science and Innovation. Mark recently spoke with City Journal associate editor Daniel Kennelly about the Biden agenda on energy and the environment.Green DreamsCity JournalMark Mills and Daniel Kennelly20 March 2021Mark Mills: What impact will Biden’s energy policies have on global climate?Daniel Kennelly: The short answer: none. The key issue is unrelated to anyone’s opinion about global warming. What matters is whether the kinds of efforts proposed can arithmetically make any meaningful difference in world energy use. I emphasize “world.” Cancelling the Keystone Pipeline, for example, didn’t eliminate oil use. It just shifted where it’s shipped to, and how it’s shipped—somewhere else, and more expensively. And even if efforts to strangle Keystone’s output were successful, eliminating that much oil use wouldn’t change anything in the global context. For example, China plans to build more coal power plants that will, in carbon terms, equal about 20 Keystone Pipelines. And about one-third of those new coal plants are already under construction. That’s just China. Similar plans for more coal, and more oil, and more natural gas use are afoot in South Asia and the rest of the world.Mark Mills: The administration has proposed spending $2 trillion on its climate programs. Does this represent the true cost of “decarbonizing” energy production in the U.S.?Daniel Kennelly: That’s not even close to the true cost, either directly or indirectly in terms of overall economic consequences. Looking just at the electric grid, which accounts for about one-third of America’s energy use, it would cost at least $5 trillion to build enough wind, solar, and battery systems to replace all the power plants that currently burn natural gas and coal. And, in broad economic terms, all that money will have been spent to produce the same quantity of the same product—kilowatt-hours. That kind of spending is the polar opposite of improving society’s productivity. This matters because increasing productivity is, as all economists know, the key to increasing society’s overall wealth. Even if such programs create jobs, and they would, we’d be putting more labor into producing the same output which, ultimately, is negative for economic growth.Mark Mills: How will these policies affect cities?Daniel Kennelly: If they’re implemented as envisioned, it will mean both more expensive and less reliable electricity. A realiable grid is more important in our increasingly everything-digital age, and also as more electricity is used for transportation. Roughly speaking, we’ll nearly have to double the grid to replace all the oil used on the roads.Mark Mills: What lessons should we take away from last month’s cold snap and rolling blackouts in Texas?Daniel Kennelly: Eventually, after all the finger-pointing and green-spinning, we’ll find out that there were multiple relevant factors in the domino of events that happened. That’s always the case with big disasters. But all disasters start with a trigger. In Texas, it began with a near total loss of output from the state’s huge wind farms. Put differently, there wouldn’t have been an outage if just a fraction of the Texas wind capacity had instead been the kind of power plants that grid operators can call on when they’re needed. And those would be things like winterized natural gas turbines. At the center of the debate about how to prevent a next time—and there’s always a next time with weather events—there’s a simple truism: the hallmark of all critical infrastructure is reserve capabilities that are available when needed. I know that some people are seriously proposing that batteries can do that job for wind. Texas is planning to build the world’s second biggest battery-storage system for a “next time.” For perspective, that planned, huge storage system will be able to store just three minutes of the electricity produced by Texas wind farms.Mark Mills: What recent books would you recommend on energy and the environment?Daniel Kennelly: For confirmation that there are no global-scale solutions to changing world energy supply or demand, there’s Bill Gates’s new book, How to Avoid A Climate Disaster. Gates, of course, starts from the premise that we need to do something. For sobering perspective on the consequences of green-energy technologies, I just started reading The World For Sale: Money, Power, and the Traders Who Barter the Earth’s Resources. The title is self-explanatory. As I’ve written often, the shift from oil and gas to wind, solar, and batteries is a shift from liquids and gases to using solids and mining for energy minerals. That shift entails an enormous—about ten-fold—increase in the total quantities of materials used for each unit of energy delivered. And it means a shift in the places where we get critical energy materials; from domestic production to imports. Those shifts will be consequential.City JournalNot cool: never reliable & hopeless in icy winter weather.Green New Deal = Pointless Posturing: Joe Biden’s Trillion Dollar Wind & Solar Boondoggle

Do you think the “Hoefeller Files,” now available online, exposing North Carolina’s Republican gerrymandering, will result in equitable nationwide American redistricting?The back story is that Thomas Hofeller's daughter found the files on her father's computer and USB drives.While looking for an attorney to represent her mother in 2018, Stephanie says she connected with the North Carolina chapter of Common Cause, an advocacy group that had brought a lawsuit against Republican state officials to overturn political maps Thomas Hofeller helped draw. After mentioning the hard drives to Common Cause, Stephanie received a court order to turn them over as potential evidence for the lawsuit. She did so in March after making a copy of some of the files for herself.Since then, the Hofeller files have led to bombshell developments in two major legal battles in the political world.Her decision to put the files online herself is just the latest twist in a series of one astonishing event after another.Deceased GOP Strategist's Daughter Makes Files Public That Republicans Wanted SealedThe Hofeller FilesEvidence obtained by Common Cause confirms how political operatives spent years plotting to rig our democracy with a Census citizenship question. GOP’s chief gerrymandering mastermind Thomas Hofeller laid out a plan to add the citizenship question to the Census. The purpose? Manipulating our Census and redistricting process to be, in Hofeller’s words, “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites."Common Cause has obtained evidence confirming how political operatives have spent years plotting to rig our democracy with a Census citizenship question.First, the New York Times publicized this shocking study, written by the GOP’s chief gerrymandering mastermind Thomas Hofeller, that laid out a plan to add the citizenship question to the Census. The purpose? Manipulating our Census and redistricting process to be, in Hofeller’s words, “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.”Then we found evidence that Hofeller communicated with a top Census official about citizenship when the department was preparing to re-engineer the 2020 census.Together, the documents undermined the Trump Administration’s explanation for why it wanted to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census. In July, the administration abandoned its attempt to add the question, after being blocked by the Supreme Court.Now the Hofeller files could reveal the extent of the gerrymandering schemes that Hofeller was involved in across the country.In early September, a Wake County Superior Court ruling in Common Cause v. Lewis stated the Hofeller files provided direct evidence of his interest in maximizing Republicans’ advantage in the 2017 legislative maps in North Carolina. The three-judge panel gave the state legislature two weeks to redraw new maps and mandated a fully transparent process.On November 4, the court lifted a confidentiality designation on more than 100,000 of the Hofeller files pertaining to Arizona, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Nassau County in New York, and Nueces County and Galveston in Texas. The court gave Hofeller’s former company, Geographic Strategies, more time to substantiate a claim on other files that it has said are proprietary.We know from our national redistricting advocacy that Hofeller orchestrated gerrymandering in multiple states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. We believe that there is additional evidence that needs to come forward about the partisan motives and vote-stealing conducted in other states. A decision on whether to lift confidentiality on additional Hofeller documents to the public is expected this winter.The Hofeller Files - Common CauseDeceased G.O.P. Strategist’s Hard Drives Reveal New Details on the Census Citizenship QuestionMay 30, 2019WASHINGTON — Thomas B. Hofeller achieved near-mythic status in the Republican Party as the Michelangelo of gerrymandering, the architect of partisan political maps that cemented the party’s dominance across the country.But after he died last summer, his estranged daughter discovered hard drives in her father’s home that revealed something else: Mr. Hofeller had played a crucial role in the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.Files on those drives showed that he wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. And months after urging President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act — the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision.Those documents, cited in a federal court filing Thursday [1] by opponents seeking to block the citizenship question, have emerged only weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of the citizenship question. Critics say adding the question would deter many immigrants from being counted and shift political power to Republican areas.The disclosures represent the most explicit evidence to date that the Trump administration added the question to the 2020 census to advance Republican Party interests.[Inside the Trump administration’s fight to add a citizenship question to the census]In a statement issued on Thursday evening, the Justice Department said the accusations in the filing were baseless and amounted to “a last-ditch effort to derail the Supreme Court’s consideration of this case.” It said Mr. Hofeller’s 2015 study had “played no role in the department’s December 2017 request to reinstate a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census.”In Supreme Court arguments in April over the legality of the decision, the Trump administration argued that the benefits of obtaining more accurate citizenship data offset any damage stemming from the likely depressed response to the census by minority groups and noncitizens. And it dismissed charges that the Commerce Department had simply invented a justification for adding the question to the census as unsupported by the evidence.Opponents said that the Justice Department’s rationale for seeking to add a citizenship question to the census was baldly contrived, a conclusion shared by federal judges in all three lawsuits opposing the administration’s action.But a majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to accept the department’s explanation the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act, and appeared ready to uphold the administration’s authority to alter census questions as it sees fit. The justices are expected to issue a final ruling before the court’s term ends in late June.The filing on Thursday sought sanctions against the defendants in the lawsuit, led by Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr., who were accused of misrepresentations “on the central issues of this case.” Judge Jesse M. Furman of United States District Court in Manhattan set a hearing on the issue for Wednesday.In nearly 230 years, the census has never asked all respondents whether they are American citizens. But while adding such a question might appear uncontroversial on its face, opponents have argued that it is actually central to a Republican strategy to skew political boundaries to their advantage when redistricting begins in 2021.[How the Supreme Court’s decision on the census could alter American politics.]Until now, Mr. Hofeller seemed a bystander in the citizenship-question debate, mentioned but once in thousands of pages of lawsuit depositions and evidence. Proof of his deeper involvement surfaced only recently, and only after a remarkable string of events beginning after his death in August at age 75.Mr. Hofeller was survived by a daughter, Stephanie Hofeller, from whom he had been estranged since 2014. In an interview, Ms. Hofeller said she learned of her father’s death by accident after searching for his name on the internet, and returned to her parents’ retirement home in Raleigh, N.C., to see her mother, Kathleen Hofeller.Sorting through Mr. Hofeller’s personal effects, looking for items she had asked her father to save for her, Stephanie Hofeller came across a clear plastic bag holding four external hard drives and 18 thumb drives, backups of data on Mr. Hofeller’s Toshiba laptop. Her mother gave Ms. Hofeller the backups, which turned out to hold some 75,000 files — family photographs and other personal data, but also a huge trove of documents related to Mr. Hofeller’s work as a Republican consultant.Late last year, Ms. Hofeller said, she contacted the Raleigh office of the advocacy group Common Cause, seeking its help in finding a lawyer unconnected to her father to help settle his estate. Only after several conversations with a staff member there did she mention the hard drives in passing, she said, remarking almost jokingly that an expert on gerrymanders might find a lot in them that was of interest.“My understanding was that anything that would be on these hard drives was duplicative of things that had already been hashed out” in court challenges to Mr. Hofeller’s maps, she said.In fact, Common Cause had recently filed a new lawsuit in state court, challenging gerrymandered maps of North Carolina’s legislative districts drawn by Mr. Hofeller himself. When the staff member told her of the lawsuit, Ms. Hofeller said, she thought, “Wow — this might be of use.”Lawyers for Arnold & Porter, the law firm representing Common Cause in the North Carolina suit, subpoenaed the drives in February. By happenstance, the same firm was representing private plaintiffs pro bono in the principal lawsuit opposing the citizenship question, in Federal District Court in Manhattan.The documents cited in the Thursday court filing include an unpublished August 2015 analysis by Mr. Hofeller, who was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet financially backed by Paul Singer, a billionaire New York hedge fund manager and major Republican donor. Mr. Hofeller’s charge was to assess the impact of drawing political maps that were not based on a state’s total population — the current practice virtually everywhere in the nation — but on a slice of that population: American citizens of voting age.At the time, the study’s sponsor was considering whether to finance a lawsuit by conservative legal advocates [2] that argued that counting voting-age citizens was not merely acceptable, but required by the Constitution.Mr. Hofeller’s exhaustive analysis of Texas state legislative districts concluded that such maps “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,” and would dilute the political power of the state’s Hispanics.The reason, he wrote, was that the maps would exclude traditionally Democratic Hispanics and their children from the population count. That would force Democratic districts to expand to meet the Constitution’s one person, one vote requirement. In turn, that would translate into fewer districts in traditionally Democratic areas, and a new opportunity for Republican mapmakers to create even stronger gerrymanders.The strategy carried a fatal flaw, however: The detailed citizenship data that was needed to draw the maps did not exist. The only existing tally of voting-age citizens, Mr. Hofeller's study stated, came from a statistical sample of the population largely used by the Justice Department to verify that the 1965 Voting Rights Act was ensuring the voting rights of minority groups.“Without a question on citizenship being included on the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire,” Mr. Hofeller wrote, “the use of citizen voting age population is functionally unworkable.”Roughly 16 months later, as President-elect Trump prepared to take office, Mr. Hofeller urged Mr. Trump’s transition team to consider adding a citizenship question to the census, the transition official responsible for census issues, Mark Neuman, said last year in a deposition in the Manhattan census lawsuit.Activists rallied outside the Supreme Court in April. The justices are expected to issue a final ruling on the census citizenship question before the court’s term ends in late June.Credit...J. Scott Applewhite/Associated PressMr. Neuman testified that Mr. Hofeller told him that using citizenship data from the census to enforce the Voting Rights Act would increase Latino political representation — the opposite of what Mr. Hofeller’s study had concluded months earlier.Court records show that Mr. Neuman, a decades-long friend of Mr. Hofeller’s, later became an informal adviser on census issues to Mr. Ross, the commerce secretary. By that summer, a top aide to Mr. Ross was pressing the Justice Department to say that it required detailed data from a census citizenship question to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.The court filing on Thursday describes two instances in which Mr. Hofeller’s digital fingerprints are clearly visible on Justice Department actions.The first involves a document from the Hofeller hard drives created on Aug. 30, 2017, as Mr. Ross’s wooing of the Justice Department was nearing a crescendo. The document’s single paragraph cited two court decisions supporting the premise that more detailed citizenship data would assist enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.That paragraph later appeared word for word in a draft letter from the Justice Department to the Census Bureau that sought a citizenship question on the 2020 census. In closed congressional testimony in March, John M. Gore, the assistant attorney general for civil rights and the Justice Department’s chief overseer of voting rights issues, said Mr. Neuman gave him the draft in an October 2017 meeting.The second instance involves the official version of the Justice Department’s request for a citizenship question, a longer and more detailed letter sent to the Census Bureau in December 2017. That letter presents nuanced and technical arguments that current citizenship data falls short of Voting Rights Act requirements — arguments that the plaintiffs say are presented in exactly the same order, and sometimes with identical descriptions like “building blocks” — as in Mr. Hofeller’s 2015 study.In their court filing on Thursday, lawyers for the plaintiffs said that “many striking similarities” between Mr. Hofeller’s study and the department’s request for a citizenship question indicated that the study was an important source document for the Justice Department’s request.The filing also says flatly that Mr. Gore and Mr. Neuman “falsely testified” under oath about the Justice Department’s actions on the citizenship question.In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Neuman denied the charge, and said he had worked for years to increase Hispanic representation in public office. “I gave complete and truthful testimony in my deposition,” he said. “My mother immigrated to this country from Central America. Any reference that I would advocate actions that harm the interests of the Latino community is wrong and deeply offensive.”The Departments of Justice and Commerce had no immediate comment on the filings. Common Cause, which first obtained the hard drives, said the revelations on them were a wake-up call to supporters of the American system. “Now that the plan has been revealed, it’s important for all of us — the courts, leaders and the people — to stand up for a democracy that includes every voice,” said Kathay Feng, the group’s national redistricting director.Ms. Hofeller said her decision to open her father’s files to his opponents was a bid for transparency, devoid of personal or political animus. Although she believed he was undermining American democracy, she said, their estrangement stemmed not from partisan differences, but a family dispute that ended up in court. Ms. Hofeller described herself as a political progressive who despises Republican partisanship, but also has scant respect for Democrats.Her father, she said, was a brilliant cartographer who was deeply committed to traditional conservative principles like free will and limited government. As a child, she said, she was schooled in those same principles, but every successive gerrymandered map he created only solidified her conviction that he had abandoned them in a quest to entrench his party in permanent control.“He had me with the idea that we are made to be free,” she said. “And then he lost me.”Deceased G.O.P. Strategist’s Hard Drives Reveal New Details on the Census Citizenship QuestionI think that both parties are guilty of gerrymandering, although The Republican party has gotten cheating down to perfection and are even more guilty than the Democrats, not that it excuses the Democrats of doing the same thing. Cheating is cheating no matter which party does it.I would love to see a panel of the least biased, able to compromise, people to redraw districts for each state and have it federally mandated as a federal law that cannot be changed unless a request by a state, to have their districts redrawn due to radical population change. Anything that involves federal elections, there needs to be a law that effects all states.I would also like to see, and I know some would agree, that we need a way to either notify voters that they are in danger of being purged from voter rolls. I imagine it would take a nationwide database but it could be done since the need to get a driver’s license after a move. Purging should be made long before an election. After all, the Constitution says that every person at the legal age has the right to vote and purging has taken place denying some people, usually minorities or opposite parties, their right to vote.Some states do not allow online registration, some allow same day registration, etc. By making it uniform across all 50 states it eliminates cheating by either party.I don’t know about any one else, but in my years of being of voting age and I am 80 now (21 back in my day, so voted for the first time in 1964), I am really tired of all the cheating that goes on in our federal and states government.Now we have some states denying their registered party voters to choose between two candidates of the same party by only allowing the parties choice on the ballot. This is taking away a voters choice and doesn’t seem legal to me.The constitution gives every legal voter the right to make their choice. That is another reason for a law that encompasses all states and take the ability to cheat out of the states hands. Enough is enough as it is only getting worse, especially when there are solutions to each cheating problem.Thank you Edward to let me post my rant in answer to your question.PatriciaA2AFootnotes[1] New Evidence Exposes GOP Census Rigging - Common Cause[2] {{meta.pageTitle}}