from the you-can-almost-hear-the-juice-being-sucked-down-the-wires dept.
Gizmodo has a story showing just how much energy the US is consuming:
In 2012, American homes consumed 3.65 billion kilowatthours (kWh) worth of electricity up from 720 million kWh in 1950 - more than double per household than our British counterparts, and second only to China. How did the American home become such an energy hog, despite so many advances in efficient appliances and construction? Blame the American Dream. That 3.65 billion kWh is just part of America's total annual energy consumption, but it is overwhelmingly employed by the residential and commercial sectors. According the the US Department of Energy, the residential sector alone consumes 37 percent of the total electricity production that's an average annual consumption of 10,837 kWh, or 903 kWh monthly. Louisiana residents consumed the most electricity in 2012 with 15,046 kWh, while Maine consumed the least, just 6,367 kWh, though this is due partly to LA's ubiquitous electrically-driven A/C units and Maine's opposing reliance on heating oil.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by geek on Monday April 21 2014, @01:13AM
"720 million kWh in 1950 - more than double per household than our British counterparts, and second only to China."
So in 65 years our usage has gone up? Say it ain't so. And the USA uses more than the UK which is a fraction of our population? Get outta town. You mean China with it's double plus our population uses more than us? No way.
What a stupid story. Was this cross posted on Slashdot?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @01:16AM
It seems you missed the "per household" part...
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 21 2014, @01:40AM
I'm not so sure those numbers are using consistent denominators or time periods.
The US being double the UK can be explained by average residence size, where the US average residence is more than twice the size as the average UK home./ 2013/04/Percapita.gif [shrinkthatfootprint.com]
See: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads
But why then is the US per household usage less than China? Their average residence size is just over a quarter as big as the US average, and yet they use more electricity than the US? This seems unlikely. China doesn't have the transmission grid to support that. I suspect total production crept into the summary in place of per-household usage.
Somewhere the reference base shifted.
Further, when you count the number of residences in the US, and compare that to the amount of commercial space and manufacturing space, you will see that the residential space is vastly larger than the other two combined. Yet it only uses 37% of the electrical production? Sounds good to me!
And, while focusing on the doom and gloom, TFA fails to notice that the average usage of US homes is dropping every year [eia.gov], even as homes get bigger.
In short, it seems rather easy to make the case, that home use of Electricity isn't the problem, and significant improvement in energy efficiency over the years is first seen in the home.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khchung on Monday April 21 2014, @01:52AM
Because it was NOT, the sentence was either deliberately misleading, or the editor was not doing his job editing, or they were pulling numbers out of their asses.
The US per household usage is 8 times that of China, even with the fact that China being 5x more populous, you still won't get a total with China using more!
Only if you compare the TOTAL consumption (i.e. including industrial use), would you get China using more than American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by _electricity_consumption).
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Clev on Monday April 21 2014, @02:46AM
The punitive electricity pricing doesn't help, at least in California. Businesses pay about 10 cents per kWh regardless of how much they use. Residences, on the other hand, get a fixed allotment without regard to family size or house size. That allotment starts at "only" 13 cents/kWh and quickly escalates to 31 cents/kWh.
Meanwhile, ag pays 3 cents/kWh for irrigation pumping stations and cities pay less than 2 cents/kWh for street lighting.
(Score: 1) by GmanTerry on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:19AM
I'm retired from the U.S. Dept of Energy and also from the largest Electric Utility in the State. I live in Arizona. In 1950 there was no A/C here. People had swamp coolers (evaporative coolers). Houses were smaller and we frequently slept outside at night because it was cooler. Now, houses are larger and have A/C. People want to escape the heat during the summer so they spend more time indoors. For example today April 22, it reached 98 degrees. With the thermal lag of the house, the interior temperature will exceed 85 degrees at 8PM. The outside temperature didn't drop below 80 degrees until 10 PM. Working people are usually in bed before that. Therefore in the middle of April people have their A/C units cranked up. That's about 3.5 KWH until for about two hours to bring a 1500 square foot house down to 77 degrees. I know because that's what I did tonight. That's a lot more electricity than the zero we were using in 1950. This isn't rocket science it modern reality and technology.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday April 21 2014, @09:20AM
US houses being twice the size of UK houses doesn't account for using twice as much energy. Average occupancy is similar and just because a house is bigger doesn't mean it needs 2x as many TVs or refrigerators. A reasonably well insulated house doesn't need heating and cooling to scale linearly with size either.
It's good that domestic consumption is dropping in the US, and also unsurprising as appliances get more efficient. It's still like saying "well, I pissed in the pool a bit less this year, so good for me" though.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 21 2014, @04:53PM
A larger house, even a well insulated one, DOES indeed use much more heating and cooling. Talk to an HVAC engineer, he will set you straight in about two seconds flat. Volume is the very FIRST term in their equations.
Further, larger houses mean more TVs, computers, one for every room, instead of one for the entire family in the living room. Each room needs lighting. Light is very volume dependent.
As the graphic I posted indicates, US residences are MORE than twice as big. US has 2.6 persons per household, the UK 2.3.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Monday April 21 2014, @06:22PM
The amount of cooling needed is determined by the surfaces leaking heat to the outside. That is basic physics.
Having all that equipment in every room while there are no more residents is indicative of the real problem: americans just waste to much.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 21 2014, @07:05PM
There are more residents. (The difference between 2.3 and 2.6 per household is quite significant, especially when you take into account the number of people living alone and empty nesters.)
And you leap to conclusions about waste, and are quick to blame Americans for waste, (which I suggest was your intent all along) while totally ignoring the facts of latitude.
Do look at a map sometime and notice that all of the UK is further north than all of the US, except Alaska. Air conditioning systems almost always use electricity.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Monday April 21 2014, @09:28PM
And you are ignoring the facts of climate.
Although the UK may be a bit higher on the globe it actually has quite a nice climate thanks to the gulf stream.
Besides you can subsitute pretty much any country in Europe (some of them quite hot) for the UK and the comparison is still an embarassment.
0.3 persons and latitude is the best you can do?
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday April 21 2014, @08:19PM
Of course larger houses need more heating and cooling, but my point was that it doesn't scale linearly with interior volume. Maybe it's normal in the US to turn the lights on in every room, turn on all your TVs so you don't miss a second of the adverts as you walk to the bathroom, power up a load of computers for no reason... No matter how you try to spin it, the US uses far more energy per person.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 21 2014, @08:34PM
First, the gif I posted ( http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/04/Percapita.gif [shrinkthatfootprint.com] ) was square meters of floor space. It wasn't volume.
In warm climates you tend to have higher ceilings. Greater volume. All of that air has to be cooled by air conditioning.
And again you prefer to cast aspersions rather than look at a map.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Monday April 21 2014, @04:01PM
Another reason will be that in the UK, domestic AC is very rare.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 21 2014, @04:57PM
Yup, and a glance at the globe of the world will tell you why.
The whole article made nonsense comparisons.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @01:40AM
wow, are you really that stupid? do you possess even an iota, a modicum, of any reading comprehension ability?
you should stay on slashdot: dice deserves you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @01:17AM
People from the US tend to work more hours. Getting home later means needing to use more artificial lighting for domestic tasks. Additionally, North America is much colder than Europe at the same latitude, again leading to more energy usage.
Practical, simple explanations don't get pageviews though. Commence with the America bashing!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 21 2014, @03:26AM
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - Henry Louis Mencken
If you think the artificial lighting can explain 903 kilowatthours (kWh) per month per household [eia.gov], American or not, you deserve to have your head bashed with your geek card: hand it over to avoid this risk.
By the same source and following your line of rationing, Louisiana (most northern point on 33deg North) would be much so colder than anywhere in Europe [shrinkthatfootprint.com], because they suck a whooping 15,046 kWh per household per year (1250kWh per month)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday April 21 2014, @06:00AM
It certainly explains the spike for Louisiana...you need to run the artificial lights 24/7/365 [well, with the odd month off for drying the leaves] for your grow-op.
(Score: 1) by hb253 on Monday April 21 2014, @11:45PM
I've been paying attention to my elecrical bill the last few years. Lately, we've been averaging about 450 kWh per month for a 2500 sq ft home in New Jersey. I wonder how that compares to others here?
The firings and offshore outsourcing will not stop until morale improves.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:53PM
A little under 300 kWh/mo in Melbourne/Aus, about 100 of them during daytime, on a house with the inside living area of approx 160sqm/1700 sqf (not including veranda, alfresco and garage), during the most power intensive season (summer).
I guess the insulation and the vines I planted for shade do a proper job at day time (keep the home cooler), as do the timers I set to kick the energy intensive jobs (e.g. dish/cloths washing) during the night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Interesting) by el_oscuro on Monday April 21 2014, @01:31AM
You would be surprised at the big energy users in your house. Several years ago, I was reading in Make magazine that your average Mr. Coffee coffee maker uses about 800 watts when turned on. Given that normally, a coffee maker like that is on for about 2 hours a day, that is 1.6 kilowatt hours a day. I accidentally broke the carafe that day and went to a K-Mart to get another one. Instead, I picked up a Thermos style Hamilton Beach model, which only runs for about 5 minutes while brewing then shuts off. Saves me about 1.5KW a day, or .5MW a year.M Just from changing my coffee maker.
If you get a power monitor like the Kill A Watt [amazon.com], you might be surprised at how much juice something seemingly small like that coffee maker can draw.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by emg on Monday April 21 2014, @04:12AM
Hint: it only maintains that power level when it's actually brewing.
http://www.wired.com/2011/12/coffee-pot-physics/ [wired.com]
Anyone who understood physics would rapidly realize that a coffee pot that uses as much power when it's not brewing as it does when it is... would rapidly boil off all the coffee.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @02:11PM
Most of the coffee makers I have seen have a hotplate under them and will eventually boil off the coffee. We moved to thermos style here at our office because people kept forgetting to turn it off every night. Giving the fire marshal fits.
Learn the leaches in your house.
TV sets are good one. Many of the LCD non LED or plasma TVs use as much or more than the old style CRT they replaced. Even when off they consume a good amount (I have seen as high as 30w). I sought out a LED style to reduce the cost of the bill (less than 2mw in standby, 80w on). It paid for itself in a couple of years. When I tell people the power usage they are usually floored as it looks amazing.
DVR's are a good suck of power. Look for a better one. Look at your cable box. See if you can buy one instead of renting. You probably can shave a good amount off there and get a better box too.
Power leaches are everywhere. Just because it is 'off' does not mean it really is. Unplugged is about the only sure way to really know these days. For example how many people still have a land line with an answering machine hooked up that they bought in the 90s... Drop the line (you probably have cell) and unplug the 90s era equipment.
The three power consumers in my house I wish I could do more about are the '3 big ones'. Air con, washer/dryer, refrigerator. I am considering solar to offset the cost on those.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday April 21 2014, @02:09PM
"Just from changing my coffee maker"
There is a problem in that you didn't change your coffee maker, you replaced a broken one, which is a whole different concept.
Changing would imply throwing a perfectly good working coffee maker into a landfill, causing pollution, and burning gas to drive out and buy an newly manufactured maker, causing massive pollution.
For the sake of argument, lets say the lifetime cycle of coffeemaker ownership is $300 of environmental damage, even if its never plugged in. This seems reasonable. Also per the other post your power use estimate is about 10x too high, to make the math easy. So if you assume the environmental cost of electrical power is the wall socket retail cost then you save about $5 to $6 per year of electricity related environmental damage, at a cost of $300 one time capital environmental damage, means the earth as a whole will come out ahead in only 300/5 = 60 years of continuous use.
Of course its not that simple, as the total environmental cost of electricity is probably higher than the wall socket cost I pay around ten cents per KWH. Yet the environmental cost of manufacturing and shipping and retailing a coffee maker is also probably higher than $300. So its not unreasonable to stick with an environmental payoff period of half a century or so. Also of course you were replacing a broken one with a zero'd value not just greenwashing so its not so simple.
The whole set of costs is probably dwarfed anyway by the lifetime environmental costs of the international coffee trade, so it doesn't really matter. Personally, I'm destroying the planet by encouraging 3rd world deforestation to grow tea and then burn lots of oil to ship it across the planet to me, the environmental cost of brewing the tea after all that destruction is a mere rounding error, brew it or compost it, its not going to alter the total amount of environmental ruin by more than a percent or so.
(Score: 5, Informative) by khchung on Monday April 21 2014, @01:42AM
What an ingenuous way of comparison!
The average Joe might think that the American "per household" consumption, while double that of Britain, is still "second to China", when in fact, American is only second to China when comparing the TOTAL country consumption. Don't forget that China has almost 5 times the population of the US.
Actually, a little Googling will tell you that the average American per household consumption is over 8 times that of China (11,698 KWh vs 1,349 KWh in 2010, UK was 4,648 KWh).
In 2010, only Canadians used more electricity than Americans, at 11,879 KWh.
Source: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-e lectricity-consumption [shrinkthatfootprint.com]
(Score: 1) by EQ on Monday April 21 2014, @01:49AM
How about context? The US south is notably hot in the summers, with lots of air conditioning use, and the north with its cold is pretty much self-explanatory. Also consider industrial and commercial power use, which are rolled into that. Server farms for Google?
(Score: 2) by khchung on Monday April 21 2014, @02:02AM
Context? China spans a latitude range (~20N to ~50N) comparable to the US (is Googling it that difficult?).
Also, the sentence is about American homes consumption, and TFA only focused on household use.
If we consider industrial uses, it put Americans in an even worse light, as China, being the world's factory, consumed large amount of electricity in industry. With a little Googling you can find that Chinese industry consumed 4x the electricity compared to US industry in 2013, ~4000 TWh vs ~1000 TWh (source: http://theenergycollective.com/michael-davidson/33 5271/china-s-electricity-sector-glance-2013 [theenergycollective.com])
(Score: 2) by SleazyRidr on Monday April 21 2014, @03:26PM
The way they jump between per-household and total use, while also being unclear about if they're talking about residential or industrial power consumption leads me to believe that this article should be read in conjunction with the other article about how to lie with data visualization.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by evilviper on Monday April 21 2014, @01:53AM
Comparing locations just on "electricity" usage is silly. Up north, where air conditioning and refrigeration really isn't needed, one house could be using tons of natural gas with very little electricity, while their neighbors could be using tons of electricity, and no natural gas. Restricting the comparison to just one or the other just gives up ridiculously silly numbers, and no particular insight. Propane, wood, and home heating oil need to be figured in there, too.
That said, England probably beats us, primarily because of milder weather than the US. They've got those Atlantic currents to keep the weather rather mild. Meanwhile, the massive and latitude-distributed US ranges from the tropics to the arctic circle. England does not, so a comparison is pretty silly there, too. Comparison against all of Europe would be saner.
I see TFA mentions this a ways into it: "For one, the British climate is much more mild than the United States—the UK doesn't have intolerably muggy weather of Florida or the bitterly cold winters of the Northeast—and, as such, UK homes typically do not employ home A/C units (which account for 19 percent of American home consumption)."
Prices probably factor into it, too. I don't know about England's electrical prices, but Germany's are astronomical. If you had to pay 10X as much for electricity, you'd be sure to invest in more energy-efficient appliances, home insulation, set the thermostat closer to outside temperatures, etc. TFA only touches on this one, saying: "British appliances are also quickly outpacing their US counterparts in terms of efficiency."
But more to the point, "saving electricity" is not an end unto itself. Those valence electrons will be around whether we put them to work or not. Saving money is an actual end, so comparing that might make more sense, again. In conclusion, TFA is simply stupid.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday April 21 2014, @02:53AM
Ok, we'll look at that then, on a per-capita basis:
- Iceland consumes about 2.2 times as much energy per capita. On the flip side, 85% of their energy consumption is from clean sources, particularly geothermal heating systems.
- All other EU nations, as well as nations surrounded by EU nations like Switzerland and Luxembourg, consume less energy per capita than the US.
- EU member and candidate nations with per capita energy consumption of less than half of the US are, in order from highest to lowest, Slovenia, Denmark, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Serbia, Lithuania, Malta, Latvia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzogovina, Romania, Turkey, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Montenegro.
My impression is that at least part of the story is that US movement conservatism has, since at least 1980, been actively hostile to anything that smacks of environmentalism and energy conservation. Between 1970 and 1980, the Republican Party went from having a president who created the EPA to a president who took down solar panels from the White House and mocked his predecessor for suggesting that people keep their homes a bit cooler and wear a sweater. Even cheap and effective means of reducing environmental impact are ridiculed: About 6 years ago then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu pointed out that repainting black rooftops white would make a non-neglible dent in global warming, and his proposal was either ignored or laughed at.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday April 21 2014, @03:34AM
This story doesn't discuss the sources of energy at all, so that's not relevant.
Probably due largely to prices. If it was more expensive here, I'd use less of it, too.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday April 21 2014, @02:15PM
"Probably due largely to prices."
Also poverty. You'll see the PIIGS in the list... if 50% of the population is unemployed and half the houses are abandoned due to real estate speculation etc etc, it really doesn't matter how efficient or inefficient the remaining occupied houses are, if the numbers are contaminated enough.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 21 2014, @03:51AM
There you have it [shrinkthatfootprint.com]: according to the charts, France is the only country in Europe to consume more than UK per household, and even a France household is consuming <75% of a US one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Monday April 21 2014, @04:13AM
> Comparing locations just on "electricity" usage is silly.
This comment is spot on.
It is an interesting study to convert all your energy usage to common units. I was surprised (and a bit disheartened) to find that my electrical usage makes up just 4% of my total energy consumption.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by hankwang on Monday April 21 2014, @09:52AM
Do you compare joules of electricity against joules of combustion energy? If so, then you should multiply your electric joules by a factor 2.5 or so to account for the losses in the power plant.
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Monday April 21 2014, @03:15PM
My analysis was not that sophisticated. I use wind power for all my electric, but arguably should make your adjustment anyhow, since it substitutes (largely) for coal fired. On the other hand, I don't adjust for losses in the production and transportation of any of the other types of energy I use either.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @12:06PM
Those dollar bills will be around whether we put them to work or not. Saving the fucking environment is an actual end, so that's what we should be looking at!
(Score: 1) by bram on Monday April 21 2014, @04:41AM
Americans take airconditioning for granted, in cars, in homes and in public spaces.
When visiting my first trade conferences in the US, I was absolutely stunned to find mega large conference halls, with immense volumes and high ceilings, to be chilled to an uncomfortably cold temperature.
Outside was a scorching heat of > 100 degrees fahrenheit. But inside you needed a warm sweater?
Seriously? Is energy that cheap in the US?
I don't get it.
In Europe it would either be un-conditioned, or at most cooled a few degrees below the outside temperature.
Also, air conditioned cars are considered a luxury item, not a standard item.
(Score: 2) by hankwang on Monday April 21 2014, @10:10AM
Huh, in theory, car A/C is optional, but nowadays you have to go out of your way to order a car without air conditioning, even for low-end cars (11,000 euro list price, including taxes). You would have to pick a model that doesn't include a radio, electric window openers, or central locking either.
Of course, I (like you) cannot claim to have ultimate knowledge over the car market in all of Europe, but this is based on a quick check for a few brands in Netherlands and Sweden.
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Monday April 21 2014, @12:53PM
This bothers me, too. The conventional wisdom in the US is that people work harder (excuse me, "are more productive") when they feel too cool than when they feel too hot. So workplaces err on the side of making it cold.
Experimental science shows that the optimum temperature for productivity [productivity-science.com] is a bit higher than where most US companies set their thermostats. "Productivity" is a hard thing to measure and I'm skeptical how widely applicable a single study can be. That said, I'd speculate that the companies who set their thermostats too low are basing their decision on older data and/or a misguided belief that it's better to have workers too cold than too warm, especially in summer.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by geek on Monday April 21 2014, @01:15PM
So because Europeans live like barbarians everyone else should?
(Score: 1) by scruffybeard on Monday April 21 2014, @02:14PM
I have experienced this many times. The A/C system is designed for the maximum capacity of the building, but many conferences don't come close to this number. Since you don't have as many humans adding to the heat load, the system over cools the room. Turning the system down is not always an answer since you still need to circulate air, and large commercial A/C systems cannot be cycled on/off for short amounts of time. As an example, the maintenance guy at our local elementary school says once the compressor is started, it should run for a minimum of 2 hours before it can be cycled off again, and then should remain off for 2 hours. Unfortunately for most facilities like this, the system is either running, or it is not.
(Score: 2) by SuddenOutbreak on Monday April 21 2014, @04:47PM
I can remember visiting locations like New Orleans on business and finding that many businesses were chilled down to about 68 in the summer; my glasses would fog over whenever I would come in from the 90 degree heat.
It doesn't get much coverage, but there are a host of articles every summer which make the case that most businesses are over-cooled for formal business attire (suit, tie, shirt, slacks) and that if more places went casual they could relax the thermostat a little bit.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Bill, Shooter Of Bul on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:38AM
While I agree that we do waste electricity on unnecessary ac, your example has to be an exaggeration. No one would want to be in a convention hall that is only a few degrees colder than 100 f.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @05:36PM
fridge uses alot if you open and close it often and it's big. ... ... just like you can just buy a approved ... but of course there
like getting a cold can of beer when it's hot and humid and then again 10 min later
also if you don't home cook then you don't open it often.
just a thought.
anyways it should be legally simple to connect a DC/AV inverter unit for solar
in any house if the model is approved
fridge or air-con and "plug it in". same for solar inverter
are legal hurdles : ))
buy electricity? SURE! HERE! HAVE! A! METER!
sell electricity? what's that? where are you getting electricity from? solar?
inverter? is it certified? you want to install it yourself?
is your roof strong enough? proof it.etc.etc. and cabal.