8 ms·

This is a very stupid proposition made by looking at energy-capacity figures without taking real-world application hurdles into account. Aluminum fuel cells ha

This is a very stupid proposition made by looking at energy-capacity figures without taking real-world application hurdles into account. Aluminum fuel cells have a slow energy discharge rate, largely due to the Oxigen-Reduction Rate (ORR) limit, even when the air Cathode is doped in exotic catalysts such as Platinum. Furthermore, fuel-cell Electrodes, be it an Aluminum-air or Hydrogen-air fuel-cell, suffer from "CO2 Poisoning", which makes their efficiency drop in open air. Not commercialy viable.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
The unfortunate reality is energy/battery tech headlines like these are one of the reasons we haven’t been able to garner widespread support for nuclear. Everyone thinks we’re on the cusp of having a big enough or strong enough battery to power industrialized cities but in reality we’re impossibly far from that.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  No. The reason nuclear has a hard time isn’t because of technology. It’s because of paranoia and poor scicomm. And because no one really cares about climate change enough to make it a priority. People won’t say out loud “climate change is less of a priority than phasing out nuclear (or removing hydro dams or saving a few bucks on upfront cost of postal trucks, etc),” but that’s what they’re implying. In that sense, Greta Thunberg is right that leaders just don’t care that much about climate change. Storage technology is capable of powering cities. Heck, the largest grid storage sites in the US are for backing up nuclear power plants on the East Coast (matching day/night loads with baseload supply). This silly infighting between different clean energy technologies (storage, nuclear, renewables) needs to stop.
  - whizzter 6y ago
    Imo it's a rather cruel irony that the green parties (in Europe at least) were in big part getting their growth from and membership dedication from the Harrisburg and Chernobyl accidents. So when we really need a "green" party they're filled with zealots who're unable see the harm reduction tradeoffs that needs to be done.
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      You know, the Obama administration approved construction and loan guarantees for two nuclear plants in GA, which were the first expansion of the US nuclear fleet in many years, and I believe the plants come online this year. But I have never heard any nuclear advocate give them any credit for this. It required a fair bit of political capital, given then (then) recent meltdown at Fukushima. Maybe a little less complaining about 'green zealots' and a little more humility about nuclear's negative externalities would improve cooperation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...
      - whizzter 6y ago
        Where did Obama (or Dems) come into this? I'm talking about parties like the US, German and Swedish "Green" parties (and probably others within Europe but I'm not too well versed into the details of those). The US 2 party system makes the US one mostly irrelevant. But in countries like Germany and Sweden where more parties are in parliament, they have over time had the chance to apply influence over time to the extent where nuclear power is really on it's last straws despite the only reasonable replacement during winters is fossil fuels. https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal (US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens#Energy_and_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens#Energy_... (Germany) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(Sweden)
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        You wrote '(in Europe at least)' suggesting that you were also contemplating green movements outside Europe, and mentioned Harrisburg, a US radiation accident. Also, the language of 'green zealotry' is a popular political trope in the US. Since you cast a broad net, I assumed the US could be included in discussion. I disagree that it is irrelevant because the 'green new deal' proposed by some Democrats is a subject of hot debate but originates within the 2 party system.
  - pydry 6y ago
    >The reason nuclear has a hard time isn’t because of technology. It’s because of paranoia and poor scicomm. Nuclear PR is top notch. It's because it's 2-3x the cost of other renewables. In most other fields that would put it out of the running entirely. Better storage would be nice but for now at least, every MWh generated by solar and wind is a MWh not generated by a gas fired power plant. The reason it doesn't get an even harder time than it already does is because nuclear powers like the US and UK like to keep reactors and know how close at hand for military purposes. People won't say this out loud, however. It's all about fixing global warming any way we can all the way. "Why not use a mix of sources?" The messaging only does a 180 when it's a designated enemy trying to build a nuclear power station. Then the default assumption is that it's a cover for building out military capabilities. This is mainly why the UK agreed to pay an inflation adjusted £93 per MwH for non dispatchable nuclear power in 5 years and £33-40 for solar/wind now. The ability to threaten nuclear annihilation matters to many governments, and nuclear reactors are useful to have around for that purpose.
    - VBprogrammer 6y ago
      > The reason it doesn't get an even harder time than it already does is because nuclear powers like the US and UK like to keep reactors and know how close at hand for military purposes. Civilian power reactors themselves are of limited value for military purposes, particularly light water moderated ones. It's certainly true that maintaining a nuclear industry and the technical and operational knowledge is cross subsidised from civilian power generation. > non dispatchable nuclear power What definition are you using for dispatchable here? Because in my understanding nuclear power is generally considered dispatchable power generation.
      - pydry 6y ago
        >Civilian power reactors themselves are of limited value for military purposes, particularly light water moderated ones. The kind used in nuclear submarines? >It's certainly true that maintaining a nuclear industry and the technical and operational knowledge is cross subsidised It's the main reason nuclear reactors exist at all, and why theyre predominantly built by countries with nuclear arsenals or aspirations. They've never been particularly cheap, and while they haven't gone up in cost, they're relatively more expensive than theyve ever been. This is why public support is even more critical for their survival, which is why there's about 1 pro nuclear propaganda article per week popping to the top of hacker news each week. The military industrial complex is spooked. >What definition are you using for dispatchable here? It takes hours to scale up production of a nuclear plant and seconds for a gas fired plant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation
  - freeflight 6y ago
    > And because no one really cares about climate change enough to make it a priority. Or maybe they care enough about climate change to not make another long-term mistake out as the solution, only to then have to repeat a very similar situation a few decades from now. Increase the use of fission reactors and you will also increase the frequency of catastrophic events, it will increase the production of waste we still have no real way to reliably deal with, very comparable to the emissions we pumped in the atmosphere because "whatever could go wrong with that". We've been handling nuclear in a similar irresponsible short-sighted way for way too long [0]. So while fission might be a tempting solution to the climate change problem, it also has very real potential to become the very next problem we burden future generations with. Is exchanging one long-term debt for another really that useful of a solution, or shouldn't we rather look for actually innovative and sustainable solutions? [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/
    - effie 6y ago
      The article does not show any reason to doubt safety of nuclear plants. Increased leukemia incidence in proximity to NPPs is interesting and should be further studied, but there are different possible reasons for it. It can be a societal effect/problem, i.e. poor and less healthy-living societal classes can't or won't move out from uncool nuclear power plant towns, but more wealthy or healthy-living-conscious people are more inclined to move away.
    - effie 6y ago
      >waste we still have no real way to reliably deal with What is your idea of a "real way to reliably deal with waste"? Waste in general is stored or burned all over the world. Nuclear waste is best stored, at NPPs or at dedicated sites. Which is already done since the beginning. It is a non problem.
- audunw 6y ago
  No, the main reason nuclear has a hard time these days is that it's expensive. Governments simply don't have the willpower for a decade long trillion dollar push for nuclear when the pay-off is far longer than 1-2 election cycles. Now that nuclear weapons isn't a motivator for pushing general nuclear R&D it's even harder. I'm pretty sure if there was enough desire for nuclear from politicians and commercial interests, the public could be convinced. I think we should support nuclear. But my biggest reasons for being negative towards a big push for nuclear, is that nuclear doesn't really solve our problems. It only solves part of the grid electricity problem, and probably only for major industrial countries. We still need massive improvements in energy storage solutions and renewable hydrogen/ammonia/synfuel production for transportation, industry and farming. If you solve those problems, you've also solved energy balancing of renewables. Since renewables seems to be scaling faster, the logical answer is to focus 95% of efforts on renewables and energy storage/conversion. Keep nuclear R&D at a low but sustainable level. Then we can start to convert some of the wind/solar farms to nuclear down the line. Hopefully with small modular reactors that'd be easier to mass-produce. That is, if you assume we'll need nuclear power, you're basically assuming we're not going to solve the climate crisis. But seriously, don't shut down existing nuclear reactors unless it's absolutely necessary. That's just dumb.
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. The fact that a nuclear grid doesn't require storage is precisely why it's so much better. In order to make renewables viable we'd need to redirect a huge portion of our storage capacity away from electric vehicles and towards grid storage instead. > That is, if you assume we'll need nuclear power, you're basically assuming we're not going to solve the climate crisis. How on earth does this make sense? The country that has come closest to solving the climate crisis (France) is heavily nuclear. Their carbon intensity of electricity is 1/7th that of Germany.
    - tstrimple 6y ago
      It's always funny to me how proponents of nuclear power use France as their example while ignoring that France is trying to dramatically reduce the amount of nuclear power they have because it's too expensive. If you're going to use them as an example, let's use them as a full example instead of just trying to paint a rosy picture on a nuanced subject.
snissn 6y ago
from the paper "solutions are needed to store and transfer renewable energy from summer to winter" So the timescale to discharge would be months
DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
> This is a very stupid proposition Surely there's a more respectful way to criticize the idea.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  "Somewhat stupid"? I don't know, he didn't call the person who had the idea stupid, he called the idea itself stupid. Sure, it's harsh, but so what? The idea isn't going to get offended.
  - minitoar 6y ago
    This a stupidly phrased comment. I just called your comment stupid, not you. See how that was rude?
    - Arnavion 6y ago
      >I just called your comment stupid, not you. To add fuel to the off-topic grammar pedantry fire: "Stupidly phrased" applies "stupid" to the phraser, not the phrasee. So no, you did in fact call them stupid, not their comment.
      - minitoar 6y ago
        Setting aside that I was making an absurd argument to prove a point: Hey I’m just saying the phrasing is stupid! It’s an abstract thing completely separate from the person who did the phrasing /s
      - munificent 6y ago
        > So no, you did in fact call them stupid, not their comment. I mean, fine, if we're going to be grammar nerds, let's do it. "Stupidly" is an adverb. It applies to the act of phrasing not the subject doing that verb. At the moment that the person was doing the phrasing, they were doing something in a stupid manner, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they are themselves generally stupid. For example, I can "randomly choose a card from a deck." That doesn't imply that I'm a particularly random person.
pdabbadabba 6y ago
This may be worthwhile comment but it could easily be improved by removing the phrase "very stupid." The meaning would remain essentially unchanged and your readers will be far more inclined to internalize the point you're making.
- tryonenow 6y ago
  I don't know, the emphasis implied by such strong language can help in internalization, but I suppose it can be polarizing.
- giarc 6y ago
  I see these type of comments all the time "Oh this totally won't work". And I wonder, why is this random person on the internet right, and the authors of this paper wrong (or vice versa)? I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but are people on the internet just proper bullshitters, or is there something fundamentally wrong with academia that people publish papers that have no merit.
  - belval 6y ago
    It's more of a cultural difference between HN users (engineers/practitioners) and academia which can work in the abstract. The top comment is probably not wrong yet the base paper is not necessarily devoid of merits. Think of it this way, this has no practical implementation and does not solve the engineering problems we have right now but it might lead to a different yet related discovery down the line which we will solve a different problem in 10-20 years. Yes for us engineer this seems like a pointless (very stupid!) endeavour, but in practice that's just how research works. Scientist will explore ideas that are not necessarily feasible or useful and create building blocks for future research. Not everyone in energy storage has to work on designing new alloys for anodes and cathodes otherwise we'd stagnate. We need the fringe and very stupid ideas as well.
  - oivey 6y ago
    Most people on the internet are full of shit, and sometimes people in academia push unrealistic ideas. GP’s comment might be true (not my area of expertise), but HN definitely has a problem where software developers portray themselves as an expert in every engineering domain.
dominojab 6y ago
>Not commercialy viable. Ambri is developing a battery based on the same principles.
esperen 6y ago
How does your second statement have bearing on the article? A quick search reveals no mention of CO2 Poisoning for hydrogen fuel-cells, but a majority mention of carbon monoxide poisoning. An additional search reveals catalysts that rectify this issue as early as 2005.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

The unfortunate reality is energy/battery tech headlines like these are one of the reasons we haven’t been able to garner widespread support for nuclear. Everyone thinks we’re on the cusp of having a big enough or strong enough battery to power industrialized cities but in reality we’re impossibly far from that.

Robotbeat 6y ago
No. The reason nuclear has a hard time isn’t because of technology. It’s because of paranoia and poor scicomm. And because no one really cares about climate change enough to make it a priority. People won’t say out loud “climate change is less of a priority than phasing out nuclear (or removing hydro dams or saving a few bucks on upfront cost of postal trucks, etc),” but that’s what they’re implying. In that sense, Greta Thunberg is right that leaders just don’t care that much about climate change. Storage technology is capable of powering cities. Heck, the largest grid storage sites in the US are for backing up nuclear power plants on the East Coast (matching day/night loads with baseload supply). This silly infighting between different clean energy technologies (storage, nuclear, renewables) needs to stop.
- whizzter 6y ago
  Imo it's a rather cruel irony that the green parties (in Europe at least) were in big part getting their growth from and membership dedication from the Harrisburg and Chernobyl accidents. So when we really need a "green" party they're filled with zealots who're unable see the harm reduction tradeoffs that needs to be done.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    You know, the Obama administration approved construction and loan guarantees for two nuclear plants in GA, which were the first expansion of the US nuclear fleet in many years, and I believe the plants come online this year. But I have never heard any nuclear advocate give them any credit for this. It required a fair bit of political capital, given then (then) recent meltdown at Fukushima. Maybe a little less complaining about 'green zealots' and a little more humility about nuclear's negative externalities would improve cooperation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...
    - whizzter 6y ago
      Where did Obama (or Dems) come into this? I'm talking about parties like the US, German and Swedish "Green" parties (and probably others within Europe but I'm not too well versed into the details of those). The US 2 party system makes the US one mostly irrelevant. But in countries like Germany and Sweden where more parties are in parliament, they have over time had the chance to apply influence over time to the extent where nuclear power is really on it's last straws despite the only reasonable replacement during winters is fossil fuels. https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal (US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens#Energy_and_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens#Energy_... (Germany) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(Sweden)
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        You wrote '(in Europe at least)' suggesting that you were also contemplating green movements outside Europe, and mentioned Harrisburg, a US radiation accident. Also, the language of 'green zealotry' is a popular political trope in the US. Since you cast a broad net, I assumed the US could be included in discussion. I disagree that it is irrelevant because the 'green new deal' proposed by some Democrats is a subject of hot debate but originates within the 2 party system.
- pydry 6y ago
  >The reason nuclear has a hard time isn’t because of technology. It’s because of paranoia and poor scicomm. Nuclear PR is top notch. It's because it's 2-3x the cost of other renewables. In most other fields that would put it out of the running entirely. Better storage would be nice but for now at least, every MWh generated by solar and wind is a MWh not generated by a gas fired power plant. The reason it doesn't get an even harder time than it already does is because nuclear powers like the US and UK like to keep reactors and know how close at hand for military purposes. People won't say this out loud, however. It's all about fixing global warming any way we can all the way. "Why not use a mix of sources?" The messaging only does a 180 when it's a designated enemy trying to build a nuclear power station. Then the default assumption is that it's a cover for building out military capabilities. This is mainly why the UK agreed to pay an inflation adjusted £93 per MwH for non dispatchable nuclear power in 5 years and £33-40 for solar/wind now. The ability to threaten nuclear annihilation matters to many governments, and nuclear reactors are useful to have around for that purpose.
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
    > The reason it doesn't get an even harder time than it already does is because nuclear powers like the US and UK like to keep reactors and know how close at hand for military purposes. Civilian power reactors themselves are of limited value for military purposes, particularly light water moderated ones. It's certainly true that maintaining a nuclear industry and the technical and operational knowledge is cross subsidised from civilian power generation. > non dispatchable nuclear power What definition are you using for dispatchable here? Because in my understanding nuclear power is generally considered dispatchable power generation.
    - pydry 6y ago
      >Civilian power reactors themselves are of limited value for military purposes, particularly light water moderated ones. The kind used in nuclear submarines? >It's certainly true that maintaining a nuclear industry and the technical and operational knowledge is cross subsidised It's the main reason nuclear reactors exist at all, and why theyre predominantly built by countries with nuclear arsenals or aspirations. They've never been particularly cheap, and while they haven't gone up in cost, they're relatively more expensive than theyve ever been. This is why public support is even more critical for their survival, which is why there's about 1 pro nuclear propaganda article per week popping to the top of hacker news each week. The military industrial complex is spooked. >What definition are you using for dispatchable here? It takes hours to scale up production of a nuclear plant and seconds for a gas fired plant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation
- freeflight 6y ago
  > And because no one really cares about climate change enough to make it a priority. Or maybe they care enough about climate change to not make another long-term mistake out as the solution, only to then have to repeat a very similar situation a few decades from now. Increase the use of fission reactors and you will also increase the frequency of catastrophic events, it will increase the production of waste we still have no real way to reliably deal with, very comparable to the emissions we pumped in the atmosphere because "whatever could go wrong with that". We've been handling nuclear in a similar irresponsible short-sighted way for way too long [0]. So while fission might be a tempting solution to the climate change problem, it also has very real potential to become the very next problem we burden future generations with. Is exchanging one long-term debt for another really that useful of a solution, or shouldn't we rather look for actually innovative and sustainable solutions? [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/
  - effie 6y ago
    The article does not show any reason to doubt safety of nuclear plants. Increased leukemia incidence in proximity to NPPs is interesting and should be further studied, but there are different possible reasons for it. It can be a societal effect/problem, i.e. poor and less healthy-living societal classes can't or won't move out from uncool nuclear power plant towns, but more wealthy or healthy-living-conscious people are more inclined to move away.
  - effie 6y ago
    >waste we still have no real way to reliably deal with What is your idea of a "real way to reliably deal with waste"? Waste in general is stored or burned all over the world. Nuclear waste is best stored, at NPPs or at dedicated sites. Which is already done since the beginning. It is a non problem.
audunw 6y ago
No, the main reason nuclear has a hard time these days is that it's expensive. Governments simply don't have the willpower for a decade long trillion dollar push for nuclear when the pay-off is far longer than 1-2 election cycles. Now that nuclear weapons isn't a motivator for pushing general nuclear R&D it's even harder. I'm pretty sure if there was enough desire for nuclear from politicians and commercial interests, the public could be convinced. I think we should support nuclear. But my biggest reasons for being negative towards a big push for nuclear, is that nuclear doesn't really solve our problems. It only solves part of the grid electricity problem, and probably only for major industrial countries. We still need massive improvements in energy storage solutions and renewable hydrogen/ammonia/synfuel production for transportation, industry and farming. If you solve those problems, you've also solved energy balancing of renewables. Since renewables seems to be scaling faster, the logical answer is to focus 95% of efforts on renewables and energy storage/conversion. Keep nuclear R&D at a low but sustainable level. Then we can start to convert some of the wind/solar farms to nuclear down the line. Hopefully with small modular reactors that'd be easier to mass-produce. That is, if you assume we'll need nuclear power, you're basically assuming we're not going to solve the climate crisis. But seriously, don't shut down existing nuclear reactors unless it's absolutely necessary. That's just dumb.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. The fact that a nuclear grid doesn't require storage is precisely why it's so much better. In order to make renewables viable we'd need to redirect a huge portion of our storage capacity away from electric vehicles and towards grid storage instead. > That is, if you assume we'll need nuclear power, you're basically assuming we're not going to solve the climate crisis. How on earth does this make sense? The country that has come closest to solving the climate crisis (France) is heavily nuclear. Their carbon intensity of electricity is 1/7th that of Germany.
  - tstrimple 6y ago
    It's always funny to me how proponents of nuclear power use France as their example while ignoring that France is trying to dramatically reduce the amount of nuclear power they have because it's too expensive. If you're going to use them as an example, let's use them as a full example instead of just trying to paint a rosy picture on a nuanced subject.

snissn 6y ago

from the paper "solutions are needed to store and transfer renewable energy from summer to winter" So the timescale to discharge would be months

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago

> This is a very stupid proposition Surely there's a more respectful way to criticize the idea.

StavrosK 6y ago
"Somewhat stupid"? I don't know, he didn't call the person who had the idea stupid, he called the idea itself stupid. Sure, it's harsh, but so what? The idea isn't going to get offended.
- minitoar 6y ago
  This a stupidly phrased comment. I just called your comment stupid, not you. See how that was rude?
  - Arnavion 6y ago
    >I just called your comment stupid, not you. To add fuel to the off-topic grammar pedantry fire: "Stupidly phrased" applies "stupid" to the phraser, not the phrasee. So no, you did in fact call them stupid, not their comment.
    - minitoar 6y ago
      Setting aside that I was making an absurd argument to prove a point: Hey I’m just saying the phrasing is stupid! It’s an abstract thing completely separate from the person who did the phrasing /s
    - munificent 6y ago
      > So no, you did in fact call them stupid, not their comment. I mean, fine, if we're going to be grammar nerds, let's do it. "Stupidly" is an adverb. It applies to the act of phrasing not the subject doing that verb. At the moment that the person was doing the phrasing, they were doing something in a stupid manner, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they are themselves generally stupid. For example, I can "randomly choose a card from a deck." That doesn't imply that I'm a particularly random person.

pdabbadabba 6y ago

This may be worthwhile comment but it could easily be improved by removing the phrase "very stupid." The meaning would remain essentially unchanged and your readers will be far more inclined to internalize the point you're making.

tryonenow 6y ago
I don't know, the emphasis implied by such strong language can help in internalization, but I suppose it can be polarizing.
giarc 6y ago
I see these type of comments all the time "Oh this totally won't work". And I wonder, why is this random person on the internet right, and the authors of this paper wrong (or vice versa)? I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but are people on the internet just proper bullshitters, or is there something fundamentally wrong with academia that people publish papers that have no merit.
- belval 6y ago
  It's more of a cultural difference between HN users (engineers/practitioners) and academia which can work in the abstract. The top comment is probably not wrong yet the base paper is not necessarily devoid of merits. Think of it this way, this has no practical implementation and does not solve the engineering problems we have right now but it might lead to a different yet related discovery down the line which we will solve a different problem in 10-20 years. Yes for us engineer this seems like a pointless (very stupid!) endeavour, but in practice that's just how research works. Scientist will explore ideas that are not necessarily feasible or useful and create building blocks for future research. Not everyone in energy storage has to work on designing new alloys for anodes and cathodes otherwise we'd stagnate. We need the fringe and very stupid ideas as well.
- oivey 6y ago
  Most people on the internet are full of shit, and sometimes people in academia push unrealistic ideas. GP’s comment might be true (not my area of expertise), but HN definitely has a problem where software developers portray themselves as an expert in every engineering domain.

dominojab 6y ago

>Not commercialy viable. Ambri is developing a battery based on the same principles.

esperen 6y ago

How does your second statement have bearing on the article? A quick search reveals no mention of CO2 Poisoning for hydrogen fuel-cells, but a majority mention of carbon monoxide poisoning. An additional search reveals catalysts that rectify this issue as early as 2005.