 So, good? Okay. So, thank you so much for, well, I guess staying with us. My name is Jane Nakano. I'm a senior fellow with CSI's Energy and National Security Studies. I'm sorry, security program here. And it's my true pleasure to, to moderate the second panel, which will examine the role of technology in addressing coal-related carbon emissions challenge. I think that, you know, the panel, the first panel, very much so some key sort of consensus type of messages in that coal will be, will stay as part of the power generation mix, certainly for developing economies. But then, but then also for the U.S., it has important role in economic development, but then also for energy security as well, supply security and diversification. But then at the same time, you know, carbon challenge is something that, you know, everyone has in mind. And I think for some of the countries that really is the overarching message as policymakers formulate. I think for some other economies, perhaps the supply security is the overriding concern as opposed to climate. But, you know, generally, I think the public awareness on the climate challenges is rising around the, around the world. Excuse me. And so certainly, you know, this makes the technology as one of the areas for solution and make our discussion particularly timely. And during this panel, you know, I'd like to invite our panelists to sort of, you know, discuss with us some of the opportunities and challenges that are associated with the development and deployment of clean coal technologies around the world. And also some key issues that we, there are also other key issues that we may explore in this technology area such as, you know, what are the relative advantages and disadvantages of CCS, say, versus, you know, supercritical or ultra-supercritical clean coal technologies, both from the climate, but then also economic perspectives. And also, you know, you know, I would be interested in hearing panel perspectives on, you know, commercial viability for CCS, especially, you know, without the EOR option. And it's not to say it's not important. It's that, you know, it varies from a market to market, economy to economy. So, you know, it'd be good to have some sort of a timeline that we can, you know, start thinking as we look to technology being one of the solutions. And then also, you know, maybe we can spend a little more time on the R&D side of it. Certainly, Dr. Friedman talked a little bit about it. But, you know, what's the framework, right, framework, and what are some of the key ingredients in successful roadmap for CCS R&D for the U.S. mainly, but perhaps in some of the other leading economies that are experimenting with CCS deployment. So, and it's my true pleasure to introduce the excellent panel here. To my immediate left is Mr. Hiroyuki Hatada. He's the chief representative of the Washington office of NEDO, which stands for the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization of Japan. It's a very catchy name. NEDO is Japan's largest technology projects management organization and is an affiliate of their Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry. His current responsibilities include enhancing technology cooperation between the U.S. and Japan, and managing existing bilateral technology demonstration projects, among others. His previous roles included drafting and implementing policies at the Ministry in such areas as waste computer recycling and biofuel quality regulations. So, he's certainly not a stranger to the energy-related technology opportunities and challenges here. To his left is Mr. Bob Perciasepi. He's the president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, also known as C2ES, which is a widely recognized organization in the U.S. and around the world as a leading independent voice for practical policy and action to address the twin challenges of energy and climate change. So, it's perfect to have him. And as, you know, it probably doesn't need a, I don't really need to mention this, but he was most recently the deputy administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 2009 to 2014. And during his time as a deputy administrator, EPA set stricter auto emissions and mileage standards, increased protections for the nation's streams and rivers, and developed carbon emission standards for power plants. His previous public service included the Secretary of the Environment for the state of Maryland in the early 90s and also senior planning official for the city of Baltimore. To his left is Mr. Ben Yamagata. He's a partner at the law firm of Van Ness Feldman. Mr. Yamagata's practice encompasses federal, federal legislative and administrative issues in the area of energy, environment, and natural resources related matters. Mr. Yamagata represents clients before the U.S. Congress as well as various federal agencies, including but not limited to DOE, EPA, and Interior, on both project-specific and programmatic issues that relate particularly to technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment relating to the use of both fossil and renewable energy resources. In addition to his work with Van Ness, Mr. Yamagata serves as the Executive Director of the Coal Utilization Research Council, which is a coalition of industry and educational institutions with an interesting promoting clean coal technology. So we could not have had a perfect, more perfect panel than these three leading practitioners and thinkers on the, as we try to take a closer look at what clean coal technology can do in our efforts to address the carbon emissions challenge. So, and I'm going to invite each speaker to speak for 20 to 25 minutes, and then we'll hopefully have enough time to take a lot of great questions and then certainly open up for discussion. So Mr. Hatata, please. Okay. Thank you very much, Jane, and we have some ladies and gentlemen. It's a great honor for me to be joining this important panel, even though I had to postpone my Florida vacation one week. Today, I'm happy to brief you on what coal technologies can do in order to reduce global CO2 emission. As introduced, my name is Hiro Hatata from the Washington DC Office of NATO. So before getting started, let me just briefly introduce NATO to you. NATO is the Technology Development Agency under the jurisdiction of the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and we are the Japan's largest public technology project management agency. And so we formulate our technology development projects, and we manage those projects. And we have consortium of our project performers who work on our project for us, and we do not have a laboratory for our own. And the scope of our activities is pretty diverse and that ranges from energy-related technologies to non-energy related technologies. To give you some examples, renewables, renewable energies and robotics, electronics and materials, and of course, green core technologies. Now, finally, getting started. Speaking about coal, we have seen this kind of chart a couple of times today, but this is the focus of IEA for the growing consumption of coal. And then the one point I want to draw your attention to is this chart is called a New Policies Scenario, which means this chart has already taken into account some new policies of different countries, even those policies that are not yet implemented. So this means the coal consumption will grow even though we have some proposed policies or plans or administrative measures. And then another point is the report says the major portion of the increase will come within 10 years from now. So we have to be, you know, thinking about what we can do, you know, in years, not in decades. Well, today I want to talk more about the coal-fired power plans as opposed to coal itself. So this is a chart, I mean, the same kind of chart from the perspective of coal plants. Well, like the coal itself, coal-fired power plants will increase as well. And capacity addition projected in the world up until 2040 will be 1,360 gigawatt. To give you, you know, basic idea, my impression is that when a coal-fired power plant is above 0.5 gigawatt, it is called a large-scale power plant. So that will, you know, you can just, you know, simple calculation will tell you how many power plants this will transfer it into. So this is the capacity addition. And in 2040, we are going to have 2,630 gigawatt capacity. So now the forecast say that the coal consumption and coal power plants will increase. We have to think how we could decrease CO2 emission from coal-fired power plants. So these are the three points that I'm going to talk about today. So this is pretty much my agenda for today. So number one, carbon capture and sequestration and enhanced oil recovery. And two, the higher efficiency on coal-fired generation technologies. And lastly, I want to talk about making sure the best technologies available today are actually used today. So first item, the carbon capture and sequestration. This technology is one of the most important technologies that we should be working on as a technology development agency. However, the point is that we are still working on this. The small-scale project, what we call a pilot project, is complete, which is the left-hand picture. Small one, that is the eight-megawatt scale. We are complete with this, but we are still working on middle-scale project on the right-hand picture. This is a 250-megawatt scale. We are still working on it, and this won't be operational until 2019. So we are working hard on this. And, you know, that's pretty much about capturing technologies. But even after being successful with capturing technologies, there will be some other issues, I mean, some things that we have to work out, like transport and sequestration. Well, transport might not be technologically that hard, but sequestration has some issues technologically. And so those take a lot of technology development effort. And, you know, there are other concerns and challenges that we have to make an effort to overcome. Well, namely, you know, limited locations, like somebody said in the previous panel, but not everywhere is suitable for sequestration. So depending on where you are, depending on where you have to carry your CO2 to the sequestration place, the transportation length might be long. And then even after sequestration, even after you put your CO2 into deep underground, there still is a concern about a long-term storage. What will happen when we try to store CO2 into deep underground for over a long period of time? And then on top of that, some are still concerned about the environmental effect, what might be caused because of the CO2. We have sequestered underground. And I think these are the reasons, you know, there's somebody in the previous panel talked about the regulation issues in some countries. I think this comes from these issues. And lastly, what we want to think about also is, well, it says economic incentives, but we have to think about how this system could work economically or, you know, profitably, financially. So speaking about economic aspects of CCS, we are working very hard to reduce the cost of CCS. There are some, you know, technologies that might contribute, but still, you know, CCS will add a significant amount of cost to the operation cost of the coal-fired generation problems. Our estimate, there might be different kinds of estimates, but our estimate says that only capturing, you know, capturing as $30 per megawatt hour on top of the coal-fired generation problems operation, plus there will be transport and sequestration, which is unknown. You know, that will be different depending on what environment you are doing CCS. So, well, I'm not saying that CCS will not work, but we have to think and work to come up with a good way to make CCS economically viable or workable. When speaking about this, there is one way that could make CCS work economically, which is EOR. This has been already touched upon today. EOR is, you know, like putting your CO2 into the old or, you know, old oil fields or maybe dead or dying oil fields so that you get more oil than originally expected from the oil fields, right? So, by producing more oil, that makes economical sense. However, so in that sense, it's a very good technology. That makes it economically viable. But the issue is it only works where it works. The left picture is, you know, the locations of the oil fields that are suitable for EOR, CO2 EOR. And then the right picture is the, you know, distribution of stationary CO2 sources with blue dots representing the electricity CO2 emission sources. So as you see this, they do not really match with each other. So where it works, EOR works very well. But there are so many places where EOR does not work. So that's why we have to continue to work to come up with other ways to utilize CO2 from carbon capture or maybe some other ways to make sure CCS makes economical sense. By the way, the US, this was touched upon as well. But the US is one of the few countries where EOR works well. So even in the US, the situation is like this. So that's about my first item. And I'm moving on to the second point. Before getting into detail, you know, about the higher efficiency of coal-fired propellants, let me do this. This is pretty much a coal-fired progenation technology, 101. By the way, this is very simple and too simple and maybe inaccurate. When I talked to one of my experts, he said he didn't like this. But that is OK. That's OK. As you go down, the top is the subcritical. If you go down from the top, the subcritical, supercritical, ultra-supercritical, the only difference is, if I say only, he would be mad, but the difference is that you get the higher pressure of steam from boiler so that your steam turbine gives you more electricity. That's why the lower the efficient. So the ultra-supercritical is the most efficient technology that is commercially available at this point in time. Then speaking about the upcoming technologies, the two in the bottom, the second from the bottom, the IGCC is you somehow turn coal into gas, which goes into gas turbine, which is a generator, the first generator before the steam going into steam turbine, which is your second generator. The last one on the bottom, the IGFC is the gas, after you turn coal into gas, that gas goes through fuel cell before getting into gas turbine. So you get three generations here. That's why this is the most efficient and promising technology. Having in mind this inaccurate understanding, the technology roadmap is here. This is our technology roadmap that we're working hard to go with this plan. You see the arrow here. We are around 40 something percent depending on the situation. The commercially speaking, the best efficiency that is achieved today is 43 percent. Our plan is to achieve up to 65 percent by 2050. We are working very hard to achieve this goal by 2050. However, the point is that while we are working very hard on technologies for the future, people, the many plants are being built. Many plants are standing up today. That is why we have to make sure, that is why I have to talk about using what is available today at that point. So now moving on to the third point, the use of what is available today. So first of all, how does the best plant today look like? This is a picture from the best coal plant in Japan and also in the world. This is another picture from the same plant that was shown by Ito-san in the previous panel. But the reason I prefer this picture is, it's not about the plant. The plant was beautiful in the Ito-san's picture, but the difference is you see the residential houses on the bottom. This means, I don't know the exact distance, but you see the residential houses so close to coal power plants. So this means that not only beautiful, that power plant is clean and also silent. Not sure how much being beautiful matters here, but if the picture is not enough, I will illustrate how efficient the current best technology is by number. The notional calculation tells you that if we use ultra-supercritical technologies for all the replacements and all the newly built plants in non-OECD Asia, the reduction will be 1,100 million tons per year compared to another scenario, which is subcritical technology. And now, how big is 1,100 million tons per year? To give you an idea, Japan's total CO2 emission. By total, I mean, not all the coal power plants, including automobiles, manufacturing plants, households, offices, everything. Japan's total CO2 emission is 1,200 million tons per year. So by choosing ultra-supercritical as opposed to subcritical, this is like Japan... I don't want Japan to disappear, but Japan totally stopping its CO2 emission. So this is how efficient the current best technology is. And in addition to CO2, well, before CO2 started to be called a pollution, traditionally, when we speak about pollution, it was about SOX and NOX. In looking at that aspect, this is about the same plant. The plant from the picture, the Isogo power plant, I had to circle the Isogo power plant. It was invisible. The number is so small compared to other bars. And then another point is... Well, here I am comparing this to the numbers from the US, Canada, UK, France, and all those countries, but numbers from those countries are not from CO2 power plants. The numbers here are the average of fossil fuel power plants, which means this includes gas. Even after including gas, the Isogo power plant, which is the USC technology, is clean this much. So that's about USC. However, what is happening is the people are not choosing this technology. The IEA says around half of the world are subcritical, using subcritical. Then around one-third of China is subcritical. Then in India, almost all the new plants are using subcritical. The reason is easy. If you look at the table on the bottom, the reason is the subcritical is the cheapest. The cheapest is a good thing, but the downside is that it's least efficient, 34% efficiency. Well, least efficient means they need more fuel. How much more fuel? That's 20% more fuel compared to USC. By choosing the cheapest, they are losing money. You might not care if they lose money, but what's important is they are producing more CO2 than necessary by choosing this. That is why we have to help them make a right decision for the sake of them and us. For this purpose, providing financial assistance can be an option, but being from NATO, I want to talk about something else today. That is feasibility and study assistance that we are providing to different countries. So far, there has been 19 projects in 11 countries. Analyzing how the new technology would work in the country, we are helping those countries make a right decision in terms of what technologies to use. I think everyone is looking at the triangle in the US, but this is the feasibility study project in California. I'll talk about this later. Another aspect of core power plant technology is maintenance. After building a new plant, you have to use this for over 40 years. So keeping up the plant's performance over time is important. This example, the Isogo power plant that I love is too new to do this. The Isogo power plant has been operating around 40% originally designed efficiency over 40 years compared to another plant that has dropped off quickly. I can't say what country this is from. This is the difference. That's why the maintenance technology is important as well. This is going to be the last slide. Then the US-Japan cooperation is going on. Then some examples are here. Number one, the HECA project is located in California. This began with our feasibility study project. Then because of which Japanese companies are participating in construction, they are still in construction and hoping to see its completion. The second one is discussion is going on on retrofitting modification project on the US existing plant for the sake of pollution reduction. Also, we are happy to reach out for potential partners. The picture is from the recent tour we had with the West Virginia University and National Energy Technology Laboratory of DOE. Hopefully, there will be more opportunities to incorporate. If you have something, please let me know. With that, I will conclude my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions you might have later. Thank you very much. Actually, if I may, I'd like to ask just a quick qualifying question so that let's save the definitely sort of a substantive questions later. Your slide on slide number 13, just wanted to make sure I understood this correctly. The one before? Yeah, that one. The US, Canada, UK, those European ones. Did you see that's the average from the coal, oil, and gas power plants? It's the sum. The average from coal, oil, and gas. Just wanted to make sure. Right, compared to the average. So go coal, fire power plant. Coal plant is much cleaner than the average. Average, okay. Thank you very much. And then just the other. The quickly, the oops, the, this, oops, sorry, this one. The blue line just to make sure is when you say a certain coal fire plan for comparison, you mean a non-Japanese. Is that what you mean? It's not from Japan. Okay, okay. I don't think it's good to say what. No, no, no, no. Just wanted to make sure that a certain sounded very sort of mysterious. Sounds good. Okay, thank you very much. Next, Bob, please. Yes. Yes, please. Well, again, thank you, Jane, and for the introductions earlier. And it's a pleasure to be here with everyone. Thanks here for that presentation. I'll try not to duplicate all the information you had on the efficiencies of the different technologies and try to lay out a little bit of history as well as where I think we need to go. If you think of all the, now I'm going to say the word power plant. I'm going to mean a site where there's a power plant. Sometimes there's more than one generator or boiler at that site. But let me just use the word plant for sake of use here. So in the United States a couple of years ago, there was 557 coal fire power plant sites. In China, there's 620. And in the world there's 2300. So China and the U.S. have 51% of the power plants. Now I'm not counting units again, but just probably close. So U.S. and China have 51% of the coal fire power plant sites in the world. And we know that from some of the reports that we received from IDEA and others that we currently, or in the last couple of years, and you had similar data here of that, we got about 1,600 gigawatts of coal fire electricity capacity. And that's expected, and I think this matches your chart pretty well, to grow by 2035, 2040 to about 2,600. You had 2,630. So this is the current growth. So that's a 60% growth between today and let's say 2040 or mid 2030s. And a lot of that growth is going to be in Asia and in India and in other parts of the developing world, less so in the U.S. but there will be some growth in the U.S. as heat rate is improved on plants and some additional technologies are built in. And the global coal demand is expected to rise just over the next five years from 7.8 billion tons in 2013 to a little over 9 billion tons in 2019. So there's going to be continued growth in the demand for the fuel as well. And I put these numbers out there because I think you might have heard some of these already today. They're very similar to some of the numbers you had. What it shows is that the world is making a huge commitment in this fixed infrastructure. We're talking about 40 to something like that percent of the world's electricity being generated from this type of fuel. And I'm not counting in natural gas, which is another big hunk, but when you look at these fossil fuels we're probably in that 50%, 50% zone of the world's electricity being generated from it for at least another several decades, which is getting us into the middle part of this century where we're supposed to be making some substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But at the same time, we're trying to, as a world, you may wonder sometime whether we're able to think about this stuff or not from all the world events you hear but as a world, we're trying to raise everybody's standard of living and quality of life. And in order to do that, there's over a billion people on earth that do not have electricity. And so you have to think through that we have that other conflicting characteristic of our modern thinking in the world is that we want people to have a better quality of life. I think most of us would agree that, although sometimes I think a tent in the woods would be good, a quality of life in modern society includes having some electricity. And so these conflicting, or at least let's say, challenging, mutually challenging goals that we have as a planet to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions but at the same time try to grow the quality of life of all of our citizens on the planet is a very difficult contextual thing that we have to think about. So if the reality is, and this is where, you know, I think maybe why you asked me to be here, if the reality is we're going to have this kind of power generation on earth for quite a while in this century, we need to figure out how we're going to deal with the emissions. So I actually often say it's not the fuel, it's the emissions that we have to deal with. And the history piece that I want to lay in here, Jane, is that in the U.S., just as pulling back into the U.S. and you saw the performance of the U.S. plants aggregately compared to some of the high-performing plants in Japan, well, we have some of those high-performing plants in the U.S. also. Those are averages. We have plants that are getting very, very low. I want to say, very close to zero, almost, in sulfur dioxide emissions and nitrogen oxide emissions. That's a phenomenal achievement. When I first started in air pollution control 30 years ago, you know, we had things like low-nox burners where we hoped to, you know, get, you know, a 20 or 30 or maybe if we were really lucky, a 40% reduction. And I remember having conversations with engineers saying, what's wrong with you, Bob? The air is 80% nitrogen. I can't burn something and not have it be exposed to that nitrogen, creating oxidized nitrogen. Well, today we have selective catalytic reduction. You know, we've developed catalysts. We've perfected the way to deal with this and change it into a different kind of gas and a different kind of product. So we've made some fantastic, and I have to say fantastic, we've made a lot of progress in pollution from coal-fire power plants. And, and this is the thing I always like to look at, our current average cost per kilowatt hour in the United States is 10.5 cents. In 1985, our average cost per kilowatt hour was 6.5 cents. In today's dollars, that would be 14 cents. The 6.5 cents would be 14 cents today. Our average today is 10.5 cents. So, you know, you could say we're starving our infrastructure here by not charging the same amount of money in buying power than we did in 1985. But what we've done over the last 20 years is invested in pollution control that has had a fantastic reduction in pollution and an amazing impact on public health. And so when I talk to my colleagues in the industry, in the power industry and even in the mining industry, I say, well, this is an amazing technological and innovative achievement we've had over the last 30 years. What makes you think we can't do that with carbon dioxide over the next 30 years? And of course, what we were just seeing is some of the emerging technologies that are out there to make the plants more efficient to begin with, who's opposed to that. And second, you know, trying to capture it. When you look at what we've been able to do, and I'm just using the U.S. example in that case and how it's affected the actual consumers, both commercial and residential and industrial, we've been able to hold the cost pretty constant when compared to, in fact, lower when compared to inflation. Now, there's anomalies, there's regional differences, it's higher in New England than it is in Alabama, but the average. I'm looking at the average. So how do we take that next step and what are these emerging technologies? I'm not gonna go through them in detail as I think Hero did a very good job of laying out some of them, but let's talk about what's actually happening on the ground. We now have, on North America, a carbon capture and storage plant operating at SaskPower at their boundary dam location. It's been operational, I believe, since October of this year, and it's coupled up with enhanced oil recovery. And one will say, you know, all my colleagues on the environmental side will say, well, we don't want to have this enhanced oil recovery. You're pushing more hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning them in cars or trucks or airplanes. And so, yes, indeed, there is a penalty there, you know, in terms of hydrocarbons, but there's still about a 30%, 35% benefit of doing it. But the key is what Hero said, and I want to reiterate it. We don't have an economic model right now to help us finance carbon capture and storage. And the economic transition, I'll call it model, of being paid for that carbon to do the enhanced oil recovery is a very good transition concept because what it'll do is it'll enable us to build more carbon capture and storage plants. And the more we build, the cheaper they will become. And that's what's happened with the air pollution I just mentioned earlier, with all those, you know, we went from big wacko wet scrubbers down to, you know, injection. And, you know, so we've reduced the cost there. And so, and I'm going to quote from Bob Watson from SAS Power CEO in an article a couple of weeks ago. He said, we fully expect to build another unit at the same location, but we expect it to be 30% cheaper to build because what they learned, just building the first one. And so I think that this is a pretty important component of it, finding that bridge period and how we do it. And I agree with what Hiro said in terms of the use of EOR as that potential economic model in the near term. And of course, you know what the economic model is in the long term. There has to be a price on carbon so that you'll get paid and you'll have to do it in the places that are not, I'm pointing out, not at the camera, but at the map that was on the wall there before. You'll have to do it in the places that were white on that camera that don't have, on that map that don't have enhanced oil recovery opportunities. Otherwise we'll be building pipelines all over the place. So now, the other good thing besides the fact that we now have one operating, we have one under construction in Mississippi the map showed some of the pipelines and opportunities in Mississippi and the U.S. by the Southern Power Company at Kemper. And that isn't operational yet, but it is under construction. And in China, while there are 12 commercial scale projects being discussed, and none of them are yet under construction, but GreenGen will likely be the first project and that's an agreement between Wenang and Peabody to, and it'll be a while maybe toward the end of this decade before that is actually running, but that's also going to be EOR. And then there's also between Wenang and Summit Power, who are actually part of a dialogue that I've been involved with called the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative where we're having these multi-stakeholder conversations in the U.S. about using Enhanced Oil Recovery not only to improve the efficacy of oil wells that are not producing anymore, but also to build more carbon capture and storage technology to learn how to do a better job of it. And so this MOU is in terms of sharing data as we are trying to do these projects so that we can share it. Now I told you how many power plants we're going to have in the world that are based on coal and then how many we're going to have in the world that are based on natural gas. The end of this century, all of them we're going to have to be trying to if we want to get an 80% reduction by the end of the century or sooner in greenhouse gas emissions we're going to have to be doing something with that carbon, whether it's capturing it and sequestering it or whether it's capturing and using it in some kind of other economic activity we're going to need to do that. So I'm going to stop there in that kind of high level discussion but you see the challenge of the amount of investment we're making in that kind of power and the balancing goals of improving the quality of life on earth and at the same time trying to deal with greenhouse gases and the fact that we've had success in the past of reducing the unit cost of substantial treatment on power plants and we are at the beginning of the process now I see somebody hopefully put the map up there and you can see Mississippi over there I can't do it anyway I'll stop there Thank you so much Next Ben please Thank you so much and let me start by apologizing to you because a number of my slides I noticed when I was sitting here earlier today I used a font that was so small that it's going to be difficult for you to see but I want you to take heart because I have about 50 slides and I'm going to move them through them so quickly you won't be able to read the slide anyway now in truth the slides will be available Jane tells me that that's the case and so if we don't see some things they will be available first of all thank Jane and also the center for having me here I appreciate that and I appreciate the discussion and I want you to know Bob that because I'm a big coal guy on the technology side we are absolutely parallel and I thank you for that and you have a long reputation of being fair and realistic and it's a pleasure for me to be here with you let me also say that well Jane noted that I'm the executive director of the so-called coal utilization research counselor Kirk as we like to call it and I'll actually be making some reference to some of our studies and conclusions and what not the views that I'm about to express with you are entirely my own like an antitrust statement I think but in any case I did want you to know that let me begin by making two points and first of all as I think both of my fellow panelists pointed out CO2 cannot be effectively addressed without carbon capture and sequestration just a point second point that I want to talk a bit about our country needs energy options we need all energy options this is one of those slides I was talking about but if you can't see it in 2019 in China and India coal plants planned or under construction will emit annually as much or more CO2 than the entire US coal fleet currently emits annually emphasize this is only the CO2 emissions from plants to be built in those two countries over the next half dozen years I think I'm just augmenting a point that our panelists have already made but both the EIA and the IEA are also expecting Africa to increase coal use by 50 to 70 percent between now and about 2040 at the African summit that was held in Washington DC several months ago I thought that African leaders made it abundantly clear that they will use coal for the 600 million people on that continent that have little or no electricity India at the UN climate conference in historic cities several in late summer made similar points this past summer the leaders of Brazil Russia India China and South America launched the new development bank with 50 billion dollars in subscribed capital and authorized capital of approximately 100 billion dollars as an operating bid to finance infrastructure and sustainable projects coal being one of those projects so let's be clear if you eliminate coal use in the United States eliminate all the coal using power plants in the United States we will achieve a 3 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions globally the EIA of the IEA representative who was on the previous panel noted this new medium term outlook that the IEA has just released this past week and indicating that the world's coal consumption will continue to climb for the next five years despite the agreement between China and the United States that two leaders of those two countries and I think it's important to note and I quote from the executive director of the IEA Maria Banderhoven who said quote coal use in the current form is simply unsustainable we need to radically accelerate deployment of carbon capture and in sequestration and I think that's the point that I would want to make to you as it relates to CO2 in the world arena let me also talk a bit about the importance of energy options I'm not going to spend any time on this all of you I am certain have gone through this litany of the benefits and the costs of all of these energy options that exist and what I want to emphasize is each one of them has their benefits and their drawbacks let me simply say that the Japanese know all too well the price being paid for great reliance on one fuel source this next slide is simply to depict that and the degree of reliance that exists both in Japan and the consequences of Fukushima but also what has happened in Germany with respect to renewables we haven't talked very much about that day and I don't intend to use it as a whipping boy let me just say that in 2013 install capacity of wind and solar in Germany nearly equal the install capacity of fossil fuels that's good but wind and solar energy producers got a guaranteed price usually well above market price and this electricity is dispatched to the grid before other conventional resources as a result in Germany electricity prices have more than doubled in our 40 cents per kilowatt hour compared to the U.S. average as Bob pointed out of about 10 cents per kilowatt hour and what does that really mean that means we have a competitive advantage because of the price of electricity and frankly the price of the existing fleet that delivers that electricity the important metric I want to point out with respect to the costs of electricity the American consumer at least some economists say that a 10% increase in electricity costs leads to a 1% decrease in gross domestic product and a loss of as many as 1.5 million jobs now whether you believe or not that of course is part and central of the debate that's taking place even right now as we look at the proposed EPA regulations called 111B and 111D so options matter CCS is critical to effectively addressing global CO2 emissions my point here with this chart from the Department of Energy is do we have a demand pool that will allow this country to be a leader in both the development and then the use of CO2 in new newly constructed units and for that matter the same question applies to the existing system and the existing fleet how are we going to address new projected demand all of us and the previous panel have come to the same conclusions not hard certainly not rocket science it is really more rock science and that is we're going to at least primarily use natural gas EIA and it's AEO 2014 early release report projected that in order to use all that natural gas which is that orange line I don't know what it looks like up here if you look at the monitors over here you can better see it the orange hash marks are natural gas you don't see any coal up there of course between now and 2040 but to use that natural gas it will be about 130 gigawatts of new natural gas combined cycle it will be about 84 gigawatts of combustion turbines gas fired and that equates to about 2.1 of incremental natural gas used for electricity from a 2012 baseload let me just say that a primary reason again as other speakers have said for this increased gas capacity is both price and availability you just can't avoid that it's worth keeping in mind that in 2004 natural gas used for power production however nearly doubled in price in two years to reach $550 per NCF then it doubled again in 2008 if you'll recall to reach $12.41 and then in 2012 it dropped to $2.81 and right now it's around $5 or $6 I think the point is pretty obvious well adding to the fact that we don't have any new projected demand for coal the point to show here is that the existing fleet is getting old in 2020 the average time of existence of the existing fleet will be about 42 years old it's important to understand that this existing fleet according to the EIA is still expected to provide about 38% of all of the electricity requirements through 2040 in the U.S. here's my point I guess we have an existing fleet that provides low cost electricity it's reliable and after full implementation of mats of the mercury rule generally I would say this fleet will be compliant with most of our existing environmental requirements for criteria pollutants save CO2 but the point here is it's a clean fleet it's going to be a clean fleet those who have performed economic impacts to the economy and to families with higher electricity prices and these increases are going to happen particularly with the retirements that are projected both as a consequence of mats which is wherever you can say it's between 50 and 60 gigawatts there's one scenario that EPA has provided under the 111D rule if it's promulgated as it's been proposed there might be as much as 49 additional gigawatts if you add that up that's about 100 to 110 gigawatts of capacity in the U.S. out of 310 gigawatt fleet currently so I think the importance here again getting back to the issue of the existing units in 2040 in 2040 that fleet keep in mind we're not going to build any new ones that fleet is going to be about 62 years old so I want to come back to the importance of the existing fleet and talk about this really in the context of how complicated all of this is and I really do think that Bob did an excellent job of indicating that it is very complex and that we need to find some kind of symbiotic relationship between these seemingly divergent requirements in our society for more and more abundant and lower cost electricity but also with attention to the need for environmental stewardship we don't need to talk about these but I want to remind you about some of the exigencies that have happened over the last 12 months that remind us not just about the value of the existing fleet but frankly the need to keep in mind that as we retire elements of that fleet and others have talked I think a lot about the potential reliability of the grid as we continue to retire much of this fleet we've talked a bit about particularly in Germany about renewable energy and what I guess I would have to call the market distortions that are a consequence of too much in my mind subsidy in some places in the world limiting options is just a matter of what it is whether it's nuclear or natural gas price volatility and as I said earlier it's our duty in my view at least that we be a good environmental stewards and I at least personally consider CO2 a major challenge but generally if you look at the American consumer the only thing he or she expects is power when they put something in to the ubiquitous outlet and I think that's one of the challenges that we have as we think about the complexity of the system that we're trying to deal with and the regulatory regime that we're trying to create what I now want to talk about is what I think is is timely issue here it's time, it's been time for a long time to really focus upon technology or as the IEA executive director said radically accelerate deployment of CCS technology and let me just say again at the outset that you've seen some of the the estimates I thought of some made comment about the costs and cost comparisons others as well including Dr. Friedman the Kirk and this is where I will wander back into the Kirk and my rolling Kirk and that is that the simple conclusion here current status of carbon capture technology it costs too much we at least would argue that we haven't integrated all of this we're getting there with Kemper and with Boundary Dam we haven't integrated all of this technology we know about it but we haven't integrated it into functioning commercial size power systems we'll get there but we're not there yet but the biggest impediment that I think all of us again agree on this is that the driver the market driver here isn't there with low cost very abundant very affordable natural gas and it's not there because our economy isn't bubbling at 90% it also so when you put all those factors together it's not hard to conclude that the drivers here for technology development don't really exist for a variety of reasons particularly with respect to something that at least the users of that technology at least in this country view it as pretty risky stuff and I won't try to go into to the costs and the values of all of that but I would like to spend just a minute echoing what Bob said before we have been very successful in using technology as the fulcrum to ensure that we have a more environmentally pure world or environmentally sustainable world you just have to look at these are EPA charts by the way the metrics are the same everything it takes a picture of 1990 SO2 concentrations the white vein down through the US in that one slide is because there were no monitoring stations there but a picture in 1990 and a picture in 2009 and I don't think I need to say any more than technology in part was responsible for that reductions those rather dramatic reductions I mentioned before that I am involved with the co-utilization research council and Kirk as we call it and the electric power research institute for more than a decade been developing and updating a coal technology road map the last iteration of that was in August of 2012 we're actually updating it again because things are constantly changing and improving I wanted to show you these two charts hopefully you can see them the left hand chart first of all is focused on efficiency and what we can do with technology in the context of efficiency gains and as Hattata Sun and others have innovated or actually said if you get greater efficiency you're going to lower the amount of CO2 emissions maybe 1% efficiency again 2% to 2.5% reductions in CO2 emissions but that left hand side says that we can move from about the best that we know how to do 40% to 41% efficiency in the US to 48% or more the right hand chart which we also represent as the need for pursuing research and development to do so at least in the context of how we think that technology ought to be developed could result in the prevention or control of conventional emissions of socks, knocks particular matter so we can clean up emissions to even greater levels than we had today than we have today and those bars represent even greater emission decreases as a consequence of more technology development note we also are looking at water if you were here earlier today assistant secretary or deputy assistant secretary Dr. Friedman had a chart similar to this his was I think more updated but I want to make one comment about this we all are very supportive very hopeful that every one of those projects will be developed and finally built we all focus on boundary dam and Kemper and the Petronova project a little bit I think on the Archer Daniel Midland project but there are several other projects up there where at least in my judgment it's a challenge and it's mostly a financial challenge not necessarily a technology challenge because those projects are living in a world where the market doesn't yet exist those projects are living in a world where there's a lot of cheap natural gas and there is no driver for at least again in my judgment where the technology is going to be able to survive and we talked a lot about the importance of I think political and government support and let me just underscore this by saying that very significant public support we're not going to get there and I'm talking about the support that exists or doesn't exist unfortunately within the current administration and I don't mean and I do not talk about the really superb efforts that are being done at the department of energy in particular in an effort to sustain a program to develop a program around advanced coal based technologies but let me just walk you through this for a second the president's request in FY 2015 is current fiscal year was 302 million dollars last year congress provided 392 million dollars and if you just draw a straight line down to the blue line you can see what the administration requested then so in terms of trying to increase augment the amount of funding for technology research and development I'm not talking about demonstrations research and development it's really been the congress I'm not saying that the administration hasn't been helpful but I'm saying it's the congress that has moved the money up to a level where at least Kirk believes we need to be in order to achieve the kind of goals that I had and the ways that you probably couldn't see well for those of you who follow this kind of wonky stuff earlier this week you probably know that the house and the senate agreed upon the omnibus bill omnibus continuing resolution what not after some amount of acrimony I might point out but the agreement in the congress in its request in 2015 is around the $400 million mark let me conclude by saying that as an organization that is Kirk we've tried to look at what's required in the technology development world specifically focused upon coal in order to ensure that coal has a place in the future as part of one of our important energy options and what we've looked at is what needs to be done with the existing fleet from an R&D or research development technology perspective and it's simply stated that is we've got to improve the efficiency of those units that's going to require some technology we have to improve the flexibility of those units we have to improve the reliability of the units when we are asking them now to cycle rather than operate as base load units we also believe that we need to put steel in the ground again Bob mentioned an initiative that Niori and C2EE C2EE has underway with respect to using the revenue that can be generated from selling CO2, anthropogenic CO2 to enhanced oil recovery and it is significantly important because it is a revenue stream in the context of technologies that can't make it without additional revenues or sources of revenues because the financial models don't work and then thirdly we are very supportive of technology R&D programs that look not just at trying to improve existing technology low-cost electricity coming from that but also transformational technologies that is new power cycles and new ways to use co-cleanly and cost effectively a part of our discussion is that technology not only addresses future environmental concerns just as it has successfully done for decades in the past but importantly technology in our view is a means to low cost electricity improving people's lives and making possible modernization through electro technologies that's the 1.3 billion people in the world who have inadequate supplies of electricity or no electricity all and is the promise that as a modern society we have to make available to everyone at least to the extent we can let me finally say that with respect to this if we call it a three-part technology program Senator Heidi Heitkamp Democrat from North Dakota in March of this year has actually introduced legislation with a number of our colleagues that includes that three-part program and other elements of coal and technology that she has come up with with respect to her own analysis of this and I believe her intention is to introduce that legislation again in the new congress that's certainly our hope and expectation I thank you for your attention again I apologize for the small fonts and the only thing I can tell you right now is I only had 19 slides not 50 thank you thank you so much wow so we have a lot of information data and ideas that we can discuss but while you think about coming up with great questions to pose to the panel I do have at least one or two questions that I'd like to start with so I guess the CCS is certainly not just for coal it could be used for natural gas as well are there between the public and private sector stakeholders is there a common understanding that the CCS could be something viable even for the natural gas industry or is there a concerted effort to support measures whether it's the increased budget for R&D is there a lot of discussions between coal folks and natural gas folks on the viability of CCS well you have a little bit of a greater dilemma of the distribution because there's 1,700 I think natural gas plants in the United States even today so they're distributed more widespread but I think the general feeling is later in the century they're going to have to capture some of that carbon as well and perhaps use it as a product or have more localized injection but I think there's also a sense that if you can solve the problem for the high volume and with some of the impurities that you have in the coal gases that you're trying to extract the carbon out of that whatever approaches taken there will be adaptable to a natural gas situation but there will be a distribution a set of issues later in the century in terms of how to deal with the carbon once you capture it but the technology advancements that are happening and will continue to happen as Ben pointed out should be adaptable also to other industrial processes they're not power generators that are also generating carbon I think you had some ethanol plant data up there as well underscore that by saying and Bob made the point exactly that it's sources of CO2 it's not just coal it's certainly not just natural gas it's steel plants it's ethanol plants it's cement plants the other question I have at least one of the several other questions is that I guess you know this earlier today I mean I guess we did spend quite a bit of time on countries that do have economic profiles and also probably natural resource endowment profiles where the CCS with the EOR is not really an option and since this is in the panel we'll talk about the economic competitive aspect of coal but I sort of wanted to get your sort of thoughts on what are some of the lessons that our experiences with CCS I mean how do we sort of make our experiences and experiments going forward relevant to some of these countries that do not have EOR I mean certainly you know by building more we can start driving down the cost and then the pie the CCS technology actually the equipment pie bigger and then that to become a lot more just commercially viable industry or sector per se but I don't know what are some of the ways that you think that we should be thinking about I think it's important to point out and I'm not an expert here but those in our organization who are emphasize that storing CO2 can be done we know how to do it so let's start there the real issue is solving in some states are trying to address this in fact what are the liability issues surrounding large large volumes of compressed CO2 for a very long period of time who's responsible for that how do you work through those kinds of really really important issues we have an issue with respect to at least some in the EOR community have an issue with how EPA has determined to classify wells as class 2 or class 6 wells certainly no expert in that area I'm just mimicking what I hear but that seems to be a difficulty as well so I think the important thing Jane is that on the one hand from the technology perspective we can inject CO2 we have great confidence that we can keep it there for a very long period of time it's these other issues which are equally as important that have to be dealt with and they have to be dealt with early on particularly not just in the U.S. but in other places in the world where we're trying to do this Vattenfall for those of you who are familiar is a very good example of assuming that it'll be okay to inject CO2 and it didn't quite work out that way we talked about the cost reduction for CCS just through the path of you know coming from the higher volume of experience doing more will lower the cost but this is one way to go down the cost but there is another way not only accumulating more experience but the other way is to be successful with new technologies with CCS that will significantly lower the cost for CCS but this will take time but this will take time but we are also working on new technologies that will make CCS possible with significant lower cost the cost when you talk about not the the initial investment but about the running cost basis if you speak on a running cost basis the reason that CCS is so costly is because you need energy to do CCS so we are trying to come up with ways to realize carbon capture with using significant less amount of energy that will make CCS more viable for other countries so I want to help folks who are not aficionados of the underground injection and control program that Ben mentioned class 2 and class 6 class 2 is for enhanced oil recovery and it has a number of requirements for monitoring the process but obviously you are sticking the carbon into an existing reservoir of hydrocarbons class 6 was created in the last 5 years as a class of underground to protect groundwater for purely carbon capture in stores and I think the two provisions in there that cause people the most agita are the monitoring and reporting requirements you know is it really down there is it staying down there and the second one is the financial assurance component which is undefined subject to permitting nuances or arbitrary thinking or whatever you want to call it and until we understand better about what all the broader liabilities are it was not resolved in this rulemaking so this is like open-ended question in almost every permit what is the financial assurance I need to provide here and I think that EPA knows that has to be fixed and there is a whole group of people that have been working on it and hopefully will continue to have a dialogue on that and the last thing I'll mention EOR is a good transition and it's geographically limited as Hero pointed out but there has to either be or both a price on carbon as they say so that you can actually make money by putting it into the ground and sequestering it or alternately we learn how to use that carbon for other kinds of industrial processes that then doesn't allow it to get back up in the atmosphere but it gets put into something we make and permanently sequestered that way that I think all those things are going to happen but they're not there right now just quickly sort of a building up on Hero's last comment that it does take energy to run CCS I find fascinating how the full CO2 capture at CCS actually does reduce efficiency and requires small coal burning right I mean that's just something that I was going through one of the IA reports on the coal and I just thought it was kind of fascinating and so I think they're both the relative these things tend to be relative but relative advantages and disadvantages to different types of I guess clean coal technologies depending on the sort of time horizon you're looking at depending on the market and investment frameworks and structures but anyways let me open up the floor for discussions sorry if you could please identify who you are and then ask the question to form a question thank you energy economics thank you Ben for excellent presentations well today in addressing clean coal technologies I think we are tackling two different pieces of questions although they are interrelated one is availability of more efficient combustion technologies including ESC et cetera and the other is availability of CCS well I think we should be more careful about towards which direction we are talking about I mean achieving both objectives of climate change issues and sustainable growth of global economy I think that the best way most feasible way to do is to maximize diffusion of higher efficient combustion technologies essentially regardless of the commercialization stage of CCS because we can eat three times a day we can see people in developing countries they should pay less on food and education they should pay more for electricity we can see that before reaching out to hit the tip of iceberg on commercialization of CCS we should hurry up diffusion of more efficient combustion technologies and this is a question whether we should have the deployment of CCS as an obligation to finance export of more efficient higher plant technologies or not I think they have a comment from any of you thank you okay the idea that the best solution would be different depending on whether we are what time frame we are talking about or what portion of the world we are talking about then when it when the solution takes time sometimes it's from technological situation the technologies are sometimes not complete yet or not not complete at all or sometimes we need to have some economic system that makes CCS workable that might be a reason that some solution takes time and then we are speaking about the higher efficiency generation technology that is something you know we can do today we are working on technologies for you know next decade the India China they are all standing up new plants today and tomorrow we can't do anything on that those plants that were built yesterday but we can there is you know a lot of things we can do for the plants that are going to build tomorrow that was one of the my point the ultra super critical power plant but this will emit some amount of CO2 but compared to another option that they might take which is subcritical or even lower efficiency technology making sure that they choose the best efficiency is something that we can do today I agree with you I liken this to the crawl walk approach we need to do some crawling before we decide we can get into the blocks and do the 100 yard dash and the way I think about that then is we have already seen that a lot of the world is still constructing subcritical plants why are they doing that it doesn't cost as much so that is one metric that we have to keep in mind right it doesn't mean we have all said that the world is not going to stop using coal and so we know how to build supercritical units and depending on how you want to define an ultra supercritical unit we can do that too but that is a walking stage and while it doesn't require technology and I certainly agree with that point it does on the ultra supercritical because of high temperature materials etc but it does seem to me that that is a stage that probably the rest of the world needs to take before we decide we are going to run with all of this now one could argue I wouldn't be one of them that says we don't need to do that in the United States anymore my view of it is let's build the efficient systems let's phase out the inefficient less efficient rather systems that we have even in the US but we've chosen at least to have a policy debate in another arena so be it but then we need the long term transition to the clean coal the highly efficient the carbon capture enabled systems and at least it's my view we don't have that yet and what we really need is frankly we need a commitment from a lot of people including our government and we need a lot of resources and I talk about resources I talk about capital and I talk about huge amounts of money and that's not right now going to come at least in my view from the private sector I mean the obvious answer is we need to do both and in the near term it's easier to be efficient than it is to build technology that's still evolving but I would just add to what Ben said is that the efficiency of the system is more than just the plant it's also how we use electricity so there's very low cost technologies that can be used around the world in terms of increasing people's quality of life by using electricity but using it more efficiently than we thought about using it like 40 years ago and so whether it's light bulbs or air conditioners or anything they're much more efficient today than they were even 20 years ago and so we should look at the world and certainly as a country as trying to demonstrate to the world that you can do this make everything as efficient as possible that should be under all circumstances no matter what it makes no sense to not do that so but it's all challenging we have an old I think Ben you had the best age data over there some of those plants are even older than me they've all been upgraded they're not the original boiler probably and the boiling chambers have been refitted to be more efficient and so we have just to give an example on the boiler side because the nuclear power plants and the coal power plants once you get past the fuel they have very similar attributes you know there's a boiler boiling water you have to deal with the heat of vaporization and then you push the steam turbine so nuclear power plants have been covered about 20% somewhere on 19-20% of the electricity in the United States for the last 20 years but the amount of electricity we have keeps going up so how do they keep staying at 20% because they're making all the there's about 100 nuclear power plants in the United States every one of them is producing more electricity than it did when they were built because they've upgraded them they've improved the thermodynamics inside the boiler systems the heat transfers they're not having more uranium in there they're just making them much more efficient from a thermodynamic perspective and I think there's a lot to be done there across the board and it's just one of the things that's happening with the automobiles now when I was a kid a four cylinder engine if you had a four cylinder engine when I was a kid you couldn't have air conditioning you couldn't have power well now half the cars are four cylinder engines they've got air conditioned power windows power brakes things that require mechanical energy from the engine the radio I guess is pretty much the same but the key is that we're getting more power out of the same displacement of the piston at the auto show last year I saw a one liter those of you who are gear heads in the room a one liter engine with a hundred horsepower it's just like it boggles my mind so we can do the same thing in power generation it's really getting back to the basics of what is actually happening there the boring of the water the creating of the pressure the turning of the wheel the efficient transfer of all that heat that was excellent it was a real useful analogy I think we might have time left for one more question Judy Blanchard with Hill Stafford you know when I was hearing about these facilities that have the CCS now hearing about the facilities that have CCS now sometimes they're characterized as demonstration projects which implies that they're not really ready for prime time and they the technology needs more work and that these are test facilities other times when you hear DOE and others talk about these facilities that are doing CCS now they're commercially viable and that they can be duplicated and that the expectation is that this can be done many other places and so it's interesting to hear how these facilities are being characterized and I was wondering what are the issues behind this I mean is it viewed that some of the demonstration facilities that maybe the technology needs to be developed further but maybe from DOE's perspective we're there already and we can do it at large scale so I was just wondering if you could perhaps put some texture around the differences and how the facilities are characterized and this is for Ben but others as well there's a difference between having the ability to build a carbon capture and storage system and there's nothing that needs to be invented to do it I mean what needs to be done is to figure out how to do it more efficiently find different ways to different parts of it the first couple of them to get built at a commercial scale I'll verify that I'll differentiate this in a minute are going to be built with a lot of conservative assumptions in it because you want it to work and when I mentioned that SaskPower thinks they could build the next unit for 20 to 30% cheaper is because they're learning from what they did with the first one and that's not an atypical technology thing but there's no new thing that we don't know how to do this it's just how do we do this the most efficient way since Thomas Edison started making electricity although he picked the direct current and Westinghouse won with the alternating current but he was boiling water to create electricity so we've known how to do that for a long time we're just getting a hell of a lot better at it and so I think that's what's going to happen with that and commercial scale is like a one that's running on let's say a full power plant commercially viable means that there's an economic model associated with that that we can actually do it and that's commercial scale is what I think people are now doing at SaskPower, Kemper and some of the other ones that Ben had up on his chart there but commercially viable is still not there because there's not enough revenue options for that I'll stop there, you can go in the blanks I would just say and I do agree with the differentiation there I think the acronyms if you will that we use here are not descriptive of what we're trying to accomplish so I do like the idea of commercial scale technology development technology demonstration versus commercially viable and my point was then and is now that these systems are not yet commercially viable we don't have a template here that would allow us to confidently say that we can build the next one and it's going to be totally commercially viable it might work it will work that's the point that I made earlier too but it may still not be commercially viable and we'll need to do the math at some point because I'm not saying this is right or wrong but if we take 30% off the cost of boundary dam I suspect it's still not commercially viable that may be true of other projects that are being demonstrated at the commercial level as well but that doesn't mean that we can't and shouldn't continue to do it it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be investing frankly heavily in better technology that is a skip jump over what we know how to do today we need to do all of that and there is an urgency in my view to do all of that all of your comments are extremely thoughtful as well as informative and I very much appreciate all of you sharing your insights and also the knowledge of where this technology is and where it may be headed and some of the ways that we can try to get there please join me in thanking the three excellent panelists and then of course if you haven't forgotten what Dr. Hamry mentioned at the beginning we do have reception outside so as you walk out there will be glasses and hopefully your choice of beverage please do continue to please feel free to come up to any of us