TVA: Another Nuke Plant = Employee Layoffs

At a time when Japan has finally woken up to the long term dangers of nuclear power and has, in the wake of Fukushima disaster, shut down its last operating nuclear reactor, this mass layoff announcement by the Tennessee Valley Authority is even more maddening. Here is ClarionLedger.com with the details:

The Tennessee Valley Authority announced Friday that it lost $94 million in the last quarter as electricity sales slumped during an unusually warm winter and it faces an over-budget project to finish building a nuclear reactor in Tennessee.

TVA officials said they would seek to cut fewer than 1,000 positions in an effort to trim spending.

The electric supplier brought in nearly $2.6 billion in revenue during the three-month period ending in March, a drop of more than 12 percent compared to the same period last year, according to federal filings. Power sales were down about 7 percent for the quarter.

The electric supplier said an unusually warm winter cut the demand for electricity and the prices TVA can charge for it. TVA officials stood by the board's recent decision to approve adding $1.5 billion to $2 billion to the estimated cost of building a second nuclear reactor at its Watts Bar power plant in Spring City, Tenn. That brings the final cost of the project to as much as $4.5 billion.

But wait, it gets even better:

The TVA plans to save an estimated $100 million by cutting 1,000 positions among employees and contractors, Janet Herrin, TVA's executive vice president and chief administrative officer, told workers in a memo. Some of those positions are now vacant. Of the full-time TVA workers targeted in the job cuts so far, about half have been moved to other positions within the authority, she said.

CEO Tom Kilgore said the TVA would do a better job managing the nuclear construction project at Watts Bar and measuring progress.

I don't know about you, but if I lived anywhere near Watts Bar that statement wouldn't give me a whole lot of confidence.


Bonus: "Turn me on tonight...I'm radioactive"

Toxic Wasteland

Welcome to modern day America, where our politics is as toxic as the air we breathe, and the water we drink and the soil in which we plant our crops. It is the playground of unaccountable billionaires, who throw their wads of cash around as they please, buying the political process to ensure they make even more money--long term damage to the environment and the body politic be damned. Here is Common Dreams with the story:

A toxic waste disposal site owned by Texas billionaire Harold Simmons -- one of the GOP's largest donors in the 2012 primary season, and the largest single donor to Karl Rove's super PAC, American Crossroads -- has environmentalists, and at least one Texas state representative, very concerned over the risk of transporting huge quantities of hazardous material across the state and what impact the waste itself could have on groundwater supplies once it arrives.

If Simmons gets his way, toxic materials -- including medical waste, low-level radiated materials, and even depleted uranium -- from up to thirty-six states could end up at the Texas Compact Disposal Facility in remote west Texas.

"Texas is going to become a nuclear waste dump if everything happens under their plans," state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "We will be the major route for nuclear waste."

"We continue to have concerns about the site itself and whether or not there is enough protection ... and whether there will be contamination of the water," said Karen Hadden, executive director of the statewide SEED Coalition environmental group, according to the Star-Telegram report. "Once radioactivity gets into groundwater, it's a difficult thing to clean up and it can get into the millions and billions of dollars."

Simmons has invested huge sums into the political process in hopes that he can ease regulations on the dumping of nuclear and other toxic wastes. “Whatever federal switch has to be thrown to get uranium into the hole, believe me, it will be thrown; that’s how Harold Simmons works,” Glenn Lewis, a former Texas environmental employee who retired in protest over Simmons’s influence-peddling, told Bloomberg news recently.

Simmons has been outspoken about his disdain for the President Obama, and he has spread his large political contributions relatively evenly among the GOP contenders. “Any of these Republicans would make a better president than that socialist, Obama,” Simmons told the Wall Street Journal recently. “Obama is the most dangerous American alive.”

I would be inclined to argue that it is billionaire asshole Harold Simmons who is actually "the most dangerous American alive," except that he is in fierce competition with most of the other members of his class. I've often said that the truly regrettable thing about Obama is that he is NOT in any way, shape or form the "socialist," so many of his political enemies claim that he is. For if he were, those of Harold Simmons's ilk would have a LEGITIMATE reason to hate him as they do.

The sad part is that liberals and progressives will read his vitriol against Obama, and it will make them more apt to rally behind a President who has sold them out every step of the way. America is governed by two elite factions who compete against one another, and their battles for supremacy are very real to them. But for the rest of us they are a largely meaningless spectacle designed to distract the masses every four years and perpetuate the lie that we still live in a representative democracy.

Does anyone really doubt that Simmons will ultimately get his way regardless of who wins the White House this November? That is the real fallacy of the illusion of choice when people go to the polls. Liberals and progressives may think that if they dutifully line up behind President Hopey-Changey despite their previous disappointments, they are helping to thwart the ambitions of odious cretins like Harold Simmons. Then, two years after his next inauguration when Simmons's radioactive waste disposal operation is going full throttle anyway, they will all stand around scratching their heads wondering what the hell happened.

Welcome, my friends, to the toxic wasteland.


Bonus: The Great Atomic Power

How the Disaster May Help Japan's Brand

The March 11 earthquake, tsunami, and resulting nuclear accident have led some to question the health of Japan's "brand." Japanese products, services, and business partnerships in recent years have enjoyed a halo effect emanating from Japan's reputation as a land of safety, efficiency, and trustworthiness. As renowned Japanese columnist Yoichi Funabashi put it this week, "Instead of viewing Japan as a haven of immunity from danger and inconvenience, many around the world now perceive the country as fraught with peril and discomfort." The impact of the recent disasters on Japan's reputation or brand has been one of the focal points of experts who worry that the disaster would damage the prospects of Japan's strategic growth industries such as cuisine, tourism, and services. But this is not the whole story.

Rather it is the perseverance and calm that Japanese society demonstrated during the crisis that remains the enduring image of Japan in the minds of many people. This positive story was featured widely in the U.S. media immediately after the earthquake and remains relevant today. A case in point today is in Vietnam, a country I visited last month to conduct research on attitudes toward Japan and the United States. Every Vietnamese expert I spoke with told me that their impression of Japan had been further enhanced since the March 11 earthquake. In Vietnam, Japan's reputation was already positive in part due to Japan's vital role in Vietnamese economic development, for example as the largest contributor of foreign aid after the World Bank.

But more interestingly, many Vietnamese admired Japanese discipline, order, and perseverance during the recent crisis. Some Vietnamese want their society to resemble that of Japan as a leading Asian Confucian society, described in T.R. Reid's classic book Confucius Lives Next Door.

Vietnam is no outlier on this view. According to a survey conducted May 9-18 by the AIP-Hakuhodo Earthquake Recovery Project on the "Image of Japanese Products Internationally," positive attitudes of those surveyed toward Japan and Japanese products outnumbered negative ones. A total of 2,700 people were surveyed in China, Korea, Thailand, India, Indonesia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Brazil. Most people were aware of the earthquake and nuclear accident but wanted to see Japan recover quickly (62.8 percent) and felt sympathy for Japanese people (56.8 percent). As for products, more people responded that their desire to purchase Japanese goods had increased compared with one year ago than those who said it had decreased.

These positive attitudes stand in stark contrast to those in Vietnam toward China. Vietnam's relationship with China reached a "critical mass" in 2008 and has deteriorated since then, reverting to the previous unfriendly relationship that prevailed for the past millennium. Vietnam's brief friendship with China in the 1990s was seen as naive by many of the experts I spoke with. I was in Hanoi during which China's maritime aggression was on display in the South China Sea, when one of its ships cut the underwater cables of a Vietnamese gas survey ship. These episodes have pushed Vietnam closer to the United States and Japan.

China's approach in other areas also has resulted in bringing Vietnam closer to Japan and the United States. Delays in the construction of power plants by Chinese contractors and Vietnam's reliance in its territorially-sensitive northern provinces on China for hydroelectric power have also had this effect. Meanwhile, the appetite for nuclear power and cooperation with Japan in this area remains strong in Vietnam despite the Fukushima crisis. The immediate need in Vietnam is for reliable, affordable electricity, and nuclear power will be a major source in providing that electricity.

Another area is the export of rare earth supplies, which China has restricted, sending prices skyrocketing recently. These strategic metals are used in the production of batteries and high-tech electronics. Demand for rare earths in Japan will increase as its economy recovers in the short-term and as it explores alternatives to nuclear power in the longer-term. China began restricting exports of rare earths to Japan in September 2010 in response to the detainment of a Chinese fishing boat captain by the Japanese coast guard.

Chinese manipulation of the rare earths market again has pushed Japan closer to its neighbors. It has led the Japanese government and companies to promote exploration of rare earths projects in Vietnam and other countries. But one Vietnamese expert told me that he believes that China will begin dumping rare earths on the global market once other countries attain the capacity to produce the metals. This perception that China plays a zero-sum game is common in Southeast Asia and has convinced many that Japan represents a more trustworthy partner that values a positive-sum business ethic.

Many Japan watchers have called the March 11 earthquake a pivot point for Japan's future trajectory. Japan could very well seize this moment to promote innovation, for example in the areas of clean energy and efficiency, and build stronger relationships with its neighbors. But it is a step too far to say that if Japan fails to take advantage of this situation fully, the other path is ruin. It is rather more likely that Japan will face more of the same, with its long-term problems persisting. As one of the most coherent nation-states on Earth, Japan isn't going anywhere. Even if its government fails to come up with a winning strategy, Japan will remain one of the world's most influential economies for years to come.

It is certain, though, that the disaster and the country's response have humanized Japan and shattered stereotypes, making it a country that is more accessible and closer to the rest of the world.


Also published in the Huffington Post.

Photo by Marc Veraart.

Climate Challenge, or How I Learned to Start Pandering and Love the Pork

I played the Climate Challenge game recently after discovering it on the Games for Change website and found it to be a provocative look at the politics and policy solutions related to global warming. While the gameplay has a few blind spots (mainly the lack of good feedback on economic performance) and gets a bit repetitive, Climate Challenge communicates and encourages reflection on some important and perennial political lessons.

The gist is that you "play as the President of Europe from 2000 to 2100 [!?], and attempt to reduce your carbon emissions while maintaining vital national services and remaining popular with the electorate." This is tougher than it seems. There are five variables you must monitor—finances, energy, food, water, and emissions—and five policy areas with which to affect these variables—national, trade, agriculture & industry, local, and household. You are evaluated at the end of your public service on indicators of environment, wealth, and popularity.

For my first attempt I figured why not go for broke with an aggressive Green platform: I ended up getting booted out of office after four rounds. My approval rating fell through the floor when I neglected the food supply and the water infrastructure in favor of fuel taxes and rapid expansion of renewable energy, and my administration was punished by climate-induced floods and heat waves that further compounded my popularity problems. Game Over. Chalk it up to the game's learning curve.

Periodically during Climate Challenge, Europe must engage in environmental diplomacy with the other blocs: North America, South America, Africa, South Asia, Pacifica, and North Asia. The negotiation stage is minimal and it's not clear what's at stake, but you have the option to subsidize green development in each region. Presumably these gestures rally the negotiators to your side. But what is your side? While emissions targets give you something to aim for, they also make your job harder.

On my second pass I tried to be a more sensitive leader while still negotiating in good faith for emissions reductions on the international stage. Fortunately the game is loaded with great policy choices with which to meet these goals—energy innovation and efficiency, transportation and green building regulations, and investments in basic research.

I found that one way to keep my rating high was to focus on subsidizing things people wanted, like home solar, and to steer clear of things they didn't, such as carbon taxes—promote, don't restrict—which seems to adhere to what Roger Pielke calls his "iron law" of climate politics.

Climate Challenge also offers some tempting public programs of uncertain value (within the game environment): launch a space program, host the Olympics, send foreign aid. These tend to hemorrhage money, energy, and emissions, but the voters like them.

I played a final round with an exaggerated pro-business approach, funding things like nuclear projects and carbon capture, yet even then I somehow managed to throw the economy into hyperinflation by 2100 and allow criminals to stalk the streets. Clearly the game needs better feedback on the socioeconomic front, as my approval rating ran high throughout.

While the gameplay is just a bunch of clicking, the real action happens on the conceptual level, and there are some nice contextual touches that teach the reality of nimbyism, resource limitations, and political trade-offs. For example, after each election you get a newspaper report on how your policies have been received. My favorite one said: "The most popular policy was 'Spin your policies.'" A few dollars spent on savvy PR can go a long way.

Fukushima and the Fragility of Modern Civilization

As a companion piece to an on-the-ground account of the Japanese earthquake we published last week, I am posting here some thoughts from our colleague Peter David Pedersen of the Tokyo sustainability consultancy E-Square Inc. He reflects on the longer-term consequences of how Japan (and the rest of the world) will change behaviors related to potentially dangerous energy sources such as nuclear power. Peter has had personal experience with censorship in the Japanese media when it comes to criticizing TEPCO specifically and nuclear power in general.

---

Ogoto-onsen, near Kyoto, March 18, 2011

I am writing to you from a hotel along the shore of Biwa-ko, Japan's largest lake, some 528 km west (and slightly south) of the Fukushima nuclear power station. Fresh snow is covering the landscape in what would normally be a very idyllic setting.

Right now it feels absolutely surreal, as if all the earthquake destruction in eastern Japan combined with the man-made specter of nuclear destruction were scenes out a Hollywood movie entitled "Twin Disasters." But this is no movie, and whether there will be any form of "happy" ending to the nuclear malaise remains entirely unpredictable.

The Japanese government "cannot" talk openly and honestly to the Japanese public about the potential dangers in a worst-case scenario at Fukushima, primarily because of fears of panic among the 30 million people in the world's largest metropolitan area, Tokyo and Yokohama.

Over the last 10 years or so, I have repeatedly experienced the attempts of TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co.) to control information on nuclear power in this country. For eighteen months, from 2000–2001, I anchored the main news program at MX TV, Tokyo's local TV station, and was told by the producer that "since TEPCO is a sponsor of our program, I would prefer if you do not openly criticize nuclear power."

On another occasion, I was writing a piece for a well-known publication for 5th and 6th grade school kids on the environment. That time the chief editor told me, "TEPCO is one of the sponsors of our magazine. While I would like you to write on the environment, please don't be critical of nuclear power."

On a third occasion, not directly related to TEPCO, I was interviewed by the Yomiuri newspaper, one of Japan's top two newspapers in terms of circulation, about the 1978 demonstrations throughout Denmark against the possible introduction of nuclear power, in which I participated as a child. When the interview appeared in the newspaper, my phrase "demonstrations against nuclear power" had been altered to "demonstrations for renewable energy." This was not what I had said, and when I called the journalist in charge, he sheepishly apologized, saying, "I did not dare to write anything negative about nuclear power lest I should invite the wrath of my editor (boss)."

I feel so very sorry for the people who are, right now, sacrificing their future health, and some of them their immediate lives, working to stop the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. They may be described as "heroes"—and surely their efforts as such are heroic—but in a wider perspective they are victims of an industry in which the brainwashing of contractors and workers to believe that what they work with is safe has been pervasive.

In its entirety, the present situation in eastern Japan and the Tokyo metropolitan area has revealed the amazing fragility of modern civilization. All lifelines—water, transport, electricity, food supplies—have been severed or disrupted in eastern Japan, and Tokyo, one of the world's largest cities, was in danger of a large-scale, sudden blackout yesterday afternoon (March 17) as a cold spell of weather drove up electricity consumption close to the limit of maximum supply.

A good friend of mine, working at Tohoku University not far from the epicenter of the earthquake, called to tell how he finally, after six days, managed to leave Sendai (a city of more than 1 million on Honshu's east coast), driving to Tokyo in a 16-hour ordeal. No gasoline being available anywhere on the route, he barely managed to reach Tokyo, his gas tank drying up. More frightening than the drive, though, was how food and water were virtually impossible to obtain in the city center of Sendai.

"Emergency supplies have been distributed to the schools where tens of thousands of people take refuge, but nothing seemed to reach the city of Sendai and shelves in supermarkets were almost completely empty. For the first time, I had the feeling of a threat to my life because of an inability to buy food," he told me.

My friend made it, but older and weaker people are dying—or will die—as the crucial lifelines of a hypermodern society have been devastated.

The question, obviously, is what we can learn from this experience, not only in Japan but also in modern society as a whole. It remains to be seen whether we will truly learn anything at all. To me, there seem to be at least three major lessons. The first is the question of how or if lifestyles and values will change. The thing that the Japanese have been praised for throughout the first week of this terrible disaster has not been "technology" or "financial strength"—it has been the strong spirit, the patience, and the human qualities of the people here that have touched many around the world.

Money and shiny goods in temples of consumption have carried absolutely no value for the people here in the last week. Is there a chance that we may, now, see and act on the emptiness of useless consumerism? I hope there is a chance, although I do at the same time fear that once things settle down, Japan and the world will go on as if nothing had happened.

The second lesson is the danger of concentration of population into huge metropolises. Although the epicenter of the M9.0 earthquake was hundreds of kilometers northeast of Tokyo, the city was paralyzed, streets were clogged, subways inoperative, and phone lines dead. The staff at my office could not get home or get in touch with their family.

What if—and this could happen any day—the earthquake had hit Tokyo straight on? I have not the courage to think of the scale of disaster or the number of human lives that would have been lost. As urbanization continues at great speed in the world's population centers, the utter fragility of the 21st century megacity poses serious questions. Is there a way to answer this question in a more humane and sustainable manner than we are experiencing today? There must be.

The third lesson is the folly of making ourselves dependent on energy production from large-scale and extremely dangerous power stations, where no workable plans exist to control worst-case scenarios. Huge costs will be incurred in Japan over the next several decades to clean up Fukushima. Huge costs were incurred to build the plant in the first place. Surely this money could have been used more wisely. Hopefully, the lesson taken from Fukushima will, finally, make the idea of nonviolent, nontoxic, decentralized energy sources the mainstream policy and business choice around the world.

If we can learn the lessons, there is hope for the future.

Peter David Pedersen
Chief Executive
E-Square Inc.
Tokyo, JAPAN

[PHOTO CREDIT: Globovisión. Damaged reactor at Fukushima (CC).]

US West Coast: on frontline from nuclear cloud?

© AFP/HO/DIGITAL GLOBE

AFP

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - California is closely watching the crisis at a Japanese nuclear plant, but officials downplayed the threat that a radioactive cloud blown across the Pacific could pose for the US West Coast.

While radioactivity could reach the United States from the quake-hit Fukushima plant, the levels would not be high enough to cause major health problems, said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Some experts disagreed, notably pointing to the west-east jet stream, but NRC -- which was asked by Japan on Monday to send nuclear experts to deal with the crisis -- said even the Pacific island state of Hawaii faced little risk.

"Right now it's quite possible that there could be some radiation floating over the United States. But we don't think that it would be particularly harmful... even in a worst case scenario," spokesman David McIntyre told AFP.


"We see a very low likelihood, a very low probability that there is any possibility of harmful radiation levels in the United States or in Hawaii or in any other US territories," added an NRC statement.


The comments came as Japanese authorities grappled with multiple crises at the Fukushima No. 1 plant, located 250 kilometers (155 miles) north of Tokyo, rocked by Saturday's 8.9 quake and tsunami in northeastern Japan.

The plant has been rocked by two explosions, and early Tuesday officials said that fuel rods in the number two reactor were again "fully exposed", boosting fears of an eventual partial meltdown.

California's Department of Public Health says it is "monitoring the situation closely," and highlights its Nuclear Emergency Response Program, which sets out measures to be taken in case of a nuclear incident.

But the document is clearly designed for a possible radioactive leak from one of California's two nuclear plants -- including due to a long-feared major earthquake here -- rather than a threat from afar.

"Emergency preparedness is built around the concept of protecting populations around the plants because that's where the danger is. The danger isn't thousands of miles away," said the NRC's spokesman.

Japan is some 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers) from the US West Coast, and nearer to Alaska in the north. Some experts suggest that, blown along by the fast-moving jet stream, radioactivity could reach north America in 36 hours.

"The worst case scenario is .. the fuel rods fuse together, the temperatures get so hot that they melt together in a radioactive molten mass that bursts through the containment mechanisms, said nuclear expert Joe Cirincione.

"Some of the radioactivity could carry in the atmosphere to the West Coast of the US," added Cirincione, head of anti-nuclear group Ploughshares Fund.

He cited the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster to underline how far radioactivity can travel.

"The radioactivity spread around the entire northern hemisphere," from the devastated Ukrainian plant, he said.

Harvey Wasserman, a senior adviser to environmental group Greenpeace in the US added that after Chernobyl "fallout did hit the jet stream and then the coast of California, thousands of miles away, within ten days.

"It then carried all the way across the northern tier of the United States," he said.

The NCR spokesman declined to comment in depth on possible scenarios for how quickly or at what levels radioactivity could reach the US mainland.

"Right now the government as a whole has people looking at the situation and asking these questions. We don't have the answers yet. We don't have anything that we can say publicly right now."

"This is an unfolding situation and really we can't comment on it very much," he added, while stressing the NRC's basic view that the threat to the US is minimal.

"If that changes, believe me, we would say so," he added.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

IEA's Nobuo Tanaka on Japanese Energy Policy

For a book chapter I am writing, I was able to get an interview with my former boss and the current head of the International Energy Agency Nobuo Tanaka. I was reading over the interview today and decided it was so insightful that it should appear in full on FG. Mr. Tanaka responded by email from the climate change talks in Bali last week.

How might Japan serve as a model for developing and developed countries in terms of energy policy and efficiency?

I want to suggest two points. The first point is consistency. Japan has been making efforts to improve its energy efficiency and use oil alternatives consistently after the 1970s oil shocks. This effort has created Japan's leading energy efficiency.

The second point is innovation. Japan has created and incorporated a mechanism to encourage innovation within its energy efficiency policy or regulation (top runner regulation, for example). This mechanism has helped Japan to achieve two goals at the same time: improve energy efficiency and industrial competency. Consistency in the application of the policy has also helped create a stable business environment to accelerate energy related innovation on the consumer side.

What is the role of Japanese public opinion in Japan's formulation of energy policy, especially nuclear energy policy?

Japanese people tend to be keen for energy security because Japan is an isolated island country with very few domestic energy resources.

This basic recognition among the people helps Japan to improve energy efficiency and increase oil alternative use (including nuclear energy use) constantly, regardless the level of oil prices.

Currently, the environment--or sustainable growth--is also on the top of the agenda for Japanese people. This is also helping Japan to make nuclear energy play a very important role.

How can Japanese energy policy help with regional cooperation?

Having realized rapid economic growth and energy demand growth as a result, Asian countries have understood their vulnerability to energy related crises, including high oil prices. And they are now very keen to learn how to improve their energy efficiency, increase the use of oil alternatives, and develop emergency preparedness measures.

Because of deep interdependence of Asian countries' economies, improving regional energy security is now a common target for all Asian countries and Asia as a whole.

Japan can support regional cooperation to solve this problem with its experience and technologies.

Furthermore, I personally expect Japanese energy industries to play a more important role in the more integrated Asian energy market if Japan adopts appropriate policies. However, there may not be much time for Japanese industries. Chinese industries, which are now fully occupied with their domestic energy demand, also will become interested in this integrated Asian energy market.

How has Japanese energy policy been affected by the international environment, such as oil prices, wars, and climate change?

First, I believe that the experience of World War II clearly has had substantial effects on Japanese energy policies, especially the focus on energy security.

Having said that, concerning consumer side energy policies such as energy efficiency and diversification of energy resources, Japan has been making efforts very constantly to ensure both, regardless of oil prices.

On the other hand, supply side energy policies (such as supporting domestic companies’ development and maintenance of oil and gas fields) have sometimes been influenced by oil prices. The restructuring of JNOC [Japan National Oil Corporation] is one example.

Finally, since the 1990s, climate change issues have been affecting energy policies. In particular, the Kyoto Protocol has had a big impact.

What is the best way for Japan to achieve energy security?

I want to suggest two points. First, Japan should reconstruct its energy policies or energy strategies by widening its range from the domestic market to the Asian region. Like the European energy market, the Asian market will be integrated as Asian economies experience deepening interdependence. Japan should reconsider how it can enhance its energy security and energy sustainability with other countries and further develop an integrated energy market in Asia.

Second, 30 years after the oil shocks, it might be a good time to review Japan’s energy policy, especially its mechanisms to accelerate innovation. There are good examples emerging in Europe and other Asian-Pacific countries, which have been developing more market-oriented measures. Japan can improve or refine its innovation mechanism by studying the experiences of others.　

But it is sometimes difficult to adopt new policies if previous ones have proved successful.

(Photo from IEA.)