A new sandpit for long side discussions, idees fixes and so on.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
A new sandpit for long side discussions, idees fixes and so on.
John Quiggin 
Sorry – that should have been addressed to Troy Prideaux.
@chrispydog
So, just to be clear, based on your expert knowledge, you agree with Iain that it’s impossible for renewables to ever account for more than 25 per cent of electricity generation in a large grid like that of Australia or Europe?
@Tim Macknay
yep we are officially a country led by fools
On another, sad, topic, the slaughter of children continues in Gaza. The Israeli government truly appears to have all all sense of perspective.
@chrispydog Given that current Oz renewable energy target for 2020 (45,000 GWh) is around 25 percent of likely demand, this is obviously a big call on your part.
With carbon tax gone, and “direct action” hopeless Renewable Energy Target is our only serious policy initiative.
@Tim Macknay
Thanks for the the link Tim.
I certainly think that pumped storage is something that should be done where it meets the criteria outlined at the link. Using it to store the output of wind and/or solar is an excellent idea. I suppose one of the challenges I hadn’t considered in great detail when I last spoke at length on the matter was how to get such an expensive piece of capital — and a large pumped storage unit is a very expensive piece of capital — to pay for itself.
If for example, it is recovering revenue only by storing surplus wind and solar then the availability of surplus wind and solar is the key revenue constraint. We’d need a lot of surplus wind and solar to be stored and presumably discharged to make the plant viable. One of the problems with off-peak power of course is that it isn’t all that valuable and just as building plants to meet off-peak demand is probably not going to be something most will do because there’s no money in it, saving surplus wind and solar so you can compete with heavily discounted off peak energy probably isn’t going to cut it. Pumped storage of this kind is probably best suited to more or less fully dispatchable facilities (like coal and gas and nuclear plants) that have slow ramp up rates. Assuming such facilities continue to exist and underwrite the pumped storage, then it makes sense for them to also integrate surplus renewable capacity, but of course that does presume the survival of those plants rather than their replacement with renewables — at least until such time as we had built the renewables needed to force the other plants out.
A cheaper way for renewables to be stored is probably through the development of V2G systems. If 50% or 60% of light road vehicles were dependent on the grid for charging and were equipped with the capacity to discharge their loads into the grid, then the hours of the day when renewable output could be used would be greatly extended. The sun might well return little after 4PM but those vehicles, and the fast swap batteries awaiting them in service centres, could carry enough energy to power the grid well into the early morning. Any new wind could then be stored as well. Since decarbonising transport is also a key goal, the batteries’ capital cost would be split with regular usage displacing FHC fuel.
One last thing on pumped storage: I remain far more interested in seaboard pumped storage than that advocated by Blakey. Use of the seaboard avoids the need for a lower reservoir — which is the ocean. Also the seaboard tends to get more rain, so evaporation losses in the upper reservoir are offset. Marine turbines could be used to pump water directly to the reservoir at the top and of course wind turbines placed at the top reservoir would be able to harvest onshore breezes much like off-shore wind. Presumably, they would be highly elevated.
Regrettably, there aren’t many places in Australia near the sea and near major load centres where natural landforms could allow engineers to build reservoirs with significant head pressure, so presumably we’d need to move a lot of granite and concrete to contrive facilities like that. Considerations of this kind soured me somewhat on the feasibility of pumped storage at the scale needed. I still believe though that there are places in the major cities where natural landforms could permit far smaller scale pumped storage — enough to capture locally produced power — and perhaps other surpluses in the system.
@John Quiggin
I thought it was 41,000 hours?
GWh … sorry
Unfortunately policy and politics aren’t governed by reason and rational argument. The government has just taken a big gamble that people will not hold it responsible for not having a serious climate policy when the next climate event swings public opinion from disinterest to concern which it will as surely as night follows day. This truly is a reckless and impulsive leadership focused on the short-term at the expense of both the long-term and reality. I stand by my prediction that Abbott will not hold onto the leadership for the full term.
Oops – thanks Tim
@Fran Barlow
I’m going from memory. IIRC 41 000 is the large-scale scheme, and 45 000 is the estimated total including rooftop solar fed back into grid.
I think the future energy mix will be very “ecletic” if that is the best term for what I mean. I also think we can solve the issues of storage, substitution, peaks and so on.
For example, at a household level, there are no insuperable barriers which will prevent suburban and acreage houses from having solar hot water, solar panels, a mains grid connection and battery backup. Added to this will be a smart-system inverter which at any time of the day or night will decide automatically, based on costs and other parameters, to draw from the panels, the grid or the batteriers or to feed the grid or the batteries. A fully smart system will have sunrise time, sunset time, climate data, weather forecasts and family useage patterns all recorded/input thus aiding its calculations and decision making. In addition to stationary batteries, the family electric car will also serve at times as a storage and backup device for household electricity.
The grid will have houses, shopping centres etc, as smart micro to mid-range producer/users. The grid will also have some major central power plants (macro solar and wind in the future) and some macro energy storage as well as all the summed micro-storage of houses and electric cars. Macro energy storage will be a mix weighted to what is regionally more feasible and cost-effective. In addition, we will be shunting power as needed around the regions over semi-continental wide areas.
All of this is feasible even with current technology. Soon (in a decade or less) it will be cost effective. Will the entire build-out be feasible in terms of all the required resource materials? I don’t know. Maybe availability of certain metals like copper, lithium, and key rare earths will be a limiting factor. On the other hand, I don’t expect iron, aluminium, silicon or calcium silicate shortages. Calcium silicates are a major ingredient for Portland cement. Nor do I expect shortages of materials for making carbon fibre and epoxies.
But on the other hand, I do expect all sorts for problems to arise from climate change already in train, shortages of other key resources especially fresh water and food and the conflicts all that will generate. So the problem is much wider than just “can we transition into renewable energy”.
This is where you get into fiddly institutional issues. In the ALP, the caucus elects the cabinet and the PM allocates portfolios. If they piss off the leader they might lose status [treasury to veteran’s affairs], but their wages and the bulk of their perks and accesses depends on the party room, not the leader’s grace and favour.
In the coalition it’s all up to the leader: piss him off and you’re back to the backbenches. Which means noone in the coalition is going to vote to change the leader in government unless they know they can succeed.
@Collin Street
Interesting. Just supposing the liberals fail to get a big bounce in the polls and Abbotts approval ratings flounder do you think they will be happy to all go down together? I think his leadership has backed them into a corner which was a strange and unnecessary tactic.
Ah fair enough PrQ.
@Michael: I don’t know, one of the key things that I think need to be allowed for is that significant fractions of the coalition party room — and almost all their strategists — are affected by severe cognitive/neurological/emotional problems [as I’ve mentioned] and I don’t have the qualifications.
Ask a psych nurse.
John, now that the new 270 megawatt wind farm, Snowtown II, is up and running several months ahead of schedule, South Australia new gets close to 40% of its electricity from renewables. Over a third from wind and over 5% from rooftop solar. Early this morning wind may have met all demand in the state with wholesale electricity prices going negative. Something that rarely occured last winter as the coal fired Northern Power Station wasn’t operating any units at the time, unlike this winter where higher gas prices have resulted in one of two units being run more or less continuously.
@Ronald Brak
Ronald when I was over in SA recently I heard something about one of the energy companies proposing to build a solar molten sand (sand tower?) generator in Whyalla or something – do you know anything about that?
Just tried googling it myself – looks like “Wizard power” is commercialising something developed by ANU. Sounds interesting. The Gemasol solar molten salt (sorry not sand) plant in Spain has produced 24/7 power for 36 days apparently in 2013 (summer).
And I’ll point out to Chrispydog or Hermit or anyone else who is almost certainly not interested, that if the transmission lines between South Australia and Victoria were destroyed by meteorites or giant mutant wombats or what have you, there would be no interruption to electricity supply in South Australia. The state would operate quite comfortably with an independant grid and would continue to get about 40% of its electricity from renewables. While electricity imports are around 10% or more of South Australia’s grid electricity consumption, if one looks at generating capacity in the state and winter and summer demand it is clear that demand can be met without the use of interconnectors. It was only a few years ago that South Australia was incapable of meeting demand during summer heatwaves, but rooftop solar has solved that problem and the state will be in an even better position this summer as rooftop solar capacity continues to rapidly expand.
The drawback of no interconnectors would be that more gas would be burned to make up for the shortfall in electricity imports which would increase electricity prices, but by a fairly trivial amount compared to the increases in retail electricity prices experienced over the past few years. And Victoria would have a quite small increase in its electricity prices. More solar and wind capacity would of course be built in response to higher electricity prices.
So if anyone says that the fact that the South Australian grid is connected to Victoria means that 40% or so of electricity can’t be obtained from renewables it means they obviously hasn’t thought things through, as South Australia can quite clearly operate as an independant grid, separate from the rest of Australia, without any interuption to supply and with an inconvenient but only small increase in electricity prices.
And just to make things easy for Hermit, I’ll point out that if you want to say that my above points are not correct, a non-sequitor will not suffice to do that. You would instead need to do one or both of the following:
1. Show that South Australia can not meet demand without electricity imports.
2. Show that the increase in retail electricity prices that would result from no electricity import or export would be more than minor in relation to the price increases that have occurred over the past several years.
Val, molten salt storage is not likely to go ahead any time soon in Australia. Low cost rooftop solar makes solar thermal uncompetitive for supplying electricity during the day, and increasing rooftop solar capacity means more hydropower is saved for the evening, helping to keep a lid on prices then. And a real barrier is that at current retail prices Australian homes and businesses now have an incentive to start investing in their own energy storage which will kill high wholesale electricity prices in the evening. And depending on what kind of wholesale prices are seen, less efficient but lower capital cost storage may outcompete it for utility scale storage. So while the murder of the carbon price combined with the increase in gas prices has almost certainly increased the opportunity for arbitage, molten salt storage in Australia still has major obstacles in its path.
Conservative energy use can be of assistance in reducing the high current level of demand for energy in Australia.
Re: percentages of renewable energy, I mentioned Kenya earlier, which has a high proportion of renewable energy in its mix, hopefully growing with increased solar in the future.
Data is patchy -ie. individual solar lights are probably not counted in the figures and I imagine that estimations are used for bio-fuel due to the size of the informal economy in Kenya.
“The current electricity demand is 1,191 MW while the effective installed capacity under normal hydrology is 1,429 MW. Generation shares from hydro, geothermal, baggase (cogeneration) and wind are 52.1%, 13.2%, 1.8% and 0.4% respectively while fossil based thermal contributes at 32.5%. The peak load is projected to grow to about 2,500MW by 2015 and 15,000 MW by 2030. To meet this demand, the projected installed capacity should increase gradually to 19,200 MW by 2030.”
http://www.renewableenergy.go.ke/index.php/content/46
“Biomass contribution to Kenya’s final energy demand is 70 per cent and provides for more than 90 per cent of rural household energy needs. The main sources of biomass for Kenya include charcoal, wood-fuel and agricultural waste. The Government has identified the existence of a substantial potential for power generation using forestry and agro-industry residues including bagasse. The total potential for cogeneration using sugarcane bagasse is 193MW. Mumias Sugar Company (Independent Power Producer) generates 35MW out of which 26MW is dispatched to the grid. However, opportunities within other sugar factories estimated to be up to 300 MW have not been exploited.”
http://renewableenergy.go.ke/index.php/content/29
We do have lots protection here in oz, not for industry or retail or consumers or investors or carers… no, but lots of protection for the big 4 banks and the superannuation industry.
@Troy Prideaux
Oh thanks so much for replying. There I was thinking that Dr Aymana Namus was a little too course for this civilized discussion. Yes surely protectionism is alright for some and not others.
Some things that are reasonably well established:
1. The CIA organised the Ukrainian coup and puppet regime.
2. NATO has been expanding ever-eastward right up to Russia’s border.
3. The US/Nazi puppet regime in Ukraine moved the types of weapons capable of shooting down an airliner flying at 10,000 metres into eastern Ukraine a few days ago.
4. The ‘pro-russia’ rebels ddo not have such weapons.
5. The Neo-Cons are crazy enough to kill innocent people to justify their goals.
6. The Putin government has nothing to gain from killing innocent people on an international flight over Ukraine.
7. The Neo-Cons are capable of doing such a thing, they have form and history (they have killed several million people in the last ten years), they are desperate enough and they also have the propaganda machine in place that they believe will enable it in their own countries.
On the balance of probabilities – who would be behind this?
@Megan
Those are interesting contentions you make. There is plenty of evidence in the public domain for 1. and 2. Only those blinded by their own Western propaganda cannot see it.
Do you have links to public domain evidence for 3 and 4?
I agree with point 5 in general but it does not consitute specific evidence in this case.
Point 6 might well be true but Russian forces or Russian separatists might have shot down MH17 by mistake.
Point 7 is an expansion of point 5.
My take on it is this.
1. No commercial airline should have been flying over a war zone. It’s another example of the egregious and near-criminal incompetence of Malaysian airlines. Anyone who flies with Malaysia Airlines is clearly taking a very big gamble with their life.
2. The Western hysteria about these deaths contrasts with Western complicity and indifference when it comes to numerous deaths in places like any of a dozen countries in the M.E. It reeks of hypocrisy.
3. About 2,800 people die in the world every day due to road traffic accidents. It is irrational to ignore that and focus on air deaths in the manner that politicians and media are currently doing Their shock and sympathy is contrived and manipulative in the extreme. However, it satisfies a certain false narrative and agenda being run by our elites.
@Gilbert Holmes
I didn’t realise you needed feedback 🙂 but yes I enjoyed your interview very much.
Have you heard of ‘Intrinisic Motivation’ and how too much praise inhibits your ability to,essentially, performing an activity for its own sake rather than the desire for some external reward.
Chrispydog seems to have scarpered, but the point of my rhetorical question is that Europe as a whole already generates more than 25 per cent of its electricity from renewables.
That’s much less than 25 per cent of total energy, of course. But it’s worth observing that adding electric cars to the equation actually makes things easier, since that automatically creates a lot of storage to soak up the peaks in supply (it’s also technically possible to feed back into the grid, but that’s a bit harder to implement).
@Megan
Haven’t you already reasonably well established that the ALP is responsible for everything?
@Ikonoclast
It is obviously impossible to have a rational discussion with anybody who imputes all disagreement to the blinding effects of propaganda.
Megan, Ikonoclast, FYI (make of it what you will i haven’t read it through yet or viewed all the videos), :- http://www.vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/ -a.v.
Did I impute “all disagreement” to the blinding effects of propaganda? Or did I support the first two of Megan’s points and say the evidence for these was clear if you were not blinded by Western propaganda?
Let’s look at these points again (in reverse order).
2. NATO has been expanding ever-eastward right up to Russia’s border.
“In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined the organization (NATO), amid much debate within the organization and Russian opposition.[1][2] Another expansion came with the accession of seven Central and Eastern European countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. These nations were first invited to start talks of membership during the 2002 Prague summit, and joined NATO on 29 March 2004, shortly before the 2004 Istanbul summit. Most recently, Albania and Croatia joined on 1 April 2009, shortly before the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit.” – Wikipedia.
So, it is a matter of fact and public record that NATO “has been expanding ever-eastward right up to Russia’s border.” Depending on your ideological, geostrategic and realpolitik views you might view that as a good, bad or ambiguous development. But you could not deny it unless blinded to basic evidence and logic in some way, perhaps by Western propaganda.
1. The CIA organised the Ukrainian coup and puppet regime.
Victoria Nuland’s telephone conversation is a clear smoking gun. The US was involved in regime change; interferring in Ukraine’s internal politics. In case you missed all the history, the US has a long record of overt and covert regime change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
It’s a matter of public record that the US operates in this way. There is now enough “smoking gun” evidence that Ukraine is no different.
I count 87 countries that get over 25% of their electricity from renewables. Twenty-four that get 80% or more of their electricity from renewables. And 13 that get 95% or more of their electricity from renewables. And I have a dream that one day everyone on the internet will have access to search engines.
@Ronald Brak
Was it you who said on another thread you were paying 48.5c per kwh for electricity? That’s bloody expensive. That’s why the Holden factory will one day be used for community basket weaving and the Navy will buy Japanese subs.
We all agree PV is now cheap but batteries aren’t. They last for 2,000 deep cycles then they’re rooted, say after 7-8 years. Occasionally heatwaves will linger with after dark humidity (say 35C at 9pm) when compressive air conditioning will be needed. Then it’s the despised mainly gas fired grid or using up your limited life battery to run the air con. SA will be paying top dollar for their own Moomba gas to keep it from going to export LNG. That’s why they’ll get Vic brown coal power instead.
PrQ
This is the first time I have heard this claimed. I can imagine some problems devising user-friendly systems allowing people to determine how much they’d be willing to allow their charges to be depleted, but is that all you’re saying?
@Hermit
Air-con is not the absolute necessity you make it out to be. There are plenty of ways to design a house or modify a house to be cool in summer (and warm in winter) without using grid power, or even battery power, for heating or cooling.
@Fran Barlow
I was mainly thinking of pricing, metering and billing problems, yes. There are also some technical issues, I think, as with rooftop solar, but presumably fixable.
Still, compared to the ease of just plugging the car in at the wall, going the other way is clearly more difficult.
@Fran Barlow
I agree. For starters, on any one standard night there would be a proportion of people wanting the grid to charge their car overnight and another proportion thinking “I dont want the car tomorrow and the forecast is sunny. I’ll let the car feed the grid (or house) tonite and charge it tomorrow.
Smart inverters will actually be able to make all those decisions with automated data and a few human data inputs.
Hermit, I’m not paying 48.5 cents a kilowatt-hour for grid electricity. That would be ridiculous. I’m only paying 45.4 cents a kilowatt-hour all up. That’s including the daily supply charge specifically designed to hurt the poor – sorry, I mean to maximise profits. (Funny how easy it is to get those two things confused.)
Note that only normal people pay 45.4 cents a kilowatt-hour for grid electricity. Industry doesn’t. Also note that like many Australians industry has the option of generating its own electricity and is increasingly doing so. First it did so through co-generation and now through solar.
As for energy storage I pay 45.4 cents a kilowatt-hour for grid electricity. Now that the carbon price has been murdered the feed-in tariff is 6 cents a kilowatt-hour for new rooftop solar in South Australia. That’s a difference of 39.4 cents. Or if one wants to stay on the grid to get that sweet sweet 6 cents a kilowatt-hour feed-in moolah it’s a difference of about 27 cents. Nissan Leaf now has a guaranteed replacement price for their 24 kilowatt-hour battery pack of $5,500 US dollars. Now don’t get too confused over this point, but over its eight year 160,000 kilometer warranty period that comes to about 17 cents a kilowatt-hour. I’m not saying that 17 cents a kilowatt-hour is the cost of stationary energy storage from lithium-ion batteries. The actual cost for stationary storage should end up considerably lower than that. But, if it was 17 cents, then that would be lower than 27 cents. It would be 10 lower.
The problem with thinking of cars as the chief energy storage vehicle is that personal motor cars and the high level of mobility required of people to go to work , school etc are not the best options if we want a sustainable society. More mass/public/social transport is better for the cases where we cannot redevelop our communities to be of the sort that would let people get around by active transport ie walking, cycling
Road ways purely devoted to cars etc also take up a lot of land and are covered with tarry rock so nothing can grow and animals don’t like to go there. – so it becomes a biodiversity sustainability issue too
As regards MH17, the post-crash conduct of the Russian side makes it pretty clear they are guilty, even if there weren’t ample reason to believe it anyway (starting with their own, hastily retracted, triumphant announcements of having shot down what they thought was a military plane). They are obviously very keen to obstruct any investigation as much as possible. If they had been framed, they would be eager to prove it. At this point, any other hypothesis is in the realm of trutherism (and, to be clear, trutherism remains banned here, and anyone who posts of links to trutherists will be permanently banned).
That doesn’t excuse comparable actions by others (eg the US in the Vincennes/Iran Air 655 case). But it’s silly to see the US as the source of all evil in the world. There are many other bad actors. We had plenty of evidence before this that Putin is an evil thug, and his proxies in Ukraine are worse.
Enthusiasts for batteries either stationary or in vehicles need to think of their cash cycle. I suspect many first up purchases have been financed by lump sum payouts or cheap finance while securely employed. Somehow battery replacement is a problem for another day. I know not one but two bush blockies who didn’t have the cash to replace a battery bank. One paid to be grid connected. The other uses a diesel generator at night and presumably reads books by candle light when the noise is overbearing.
Note that Toyota the pace setter for hybrid electric cars (Prii etc) now doubts that battery electric vehicles are what the mass market wants. Google it. They’re working on a $30k hydrogen fuel cell car with 500 km range. Not sure if they plan to power homes at night with them. My hunch is that when the price doubles for hydrocarbon liquid fuels we’ll drive half as much. We’ll stay at home more as it’s too expensive to go out.
Hermit: You are the only sensible voice on this blog . Someone with real-life practical experience.
Most people star with Renewables…..then something magic happens….we live happily ever after.
Does any one ever stop to think how power a plug in electric vehicle takes…and where the power comes from?
Hoo-boy. Okay, Hermit, let me explain how this works. Toyota spent a lot of money developing its hybrid Prius and for a period of time enjoyed a position of dominance in the green car market. If you look back just a few years you can see Americans mocking the Prius and Prius drivers with all the vitoral and stupidity they now save for electric cars and Leaf and Tesla drivers. Interestingly Tesla is an American company but they still have no problems trashing it. It may actually make things worse. Anyway, Toyota’s green crown has been taken away by Nissan and Tesla which were the first companies to start mass producing all electric cars. A hybrid, especially the dual power train design of the Prius, is a very different beast from an all electric car. Toyota wanted people to respond to high oil prices by buying its hybrids and by other car manufacturers licensing its technology. From its point of view the increasing popularity of all electric cars truly sucks as they directly reduce the sales of hybrids and the value of its technology. And having regarded its hybrid technology as being a winner Toyota is currently behind on all electric car development. So what did Toyota decide to do in this situation? The answer is they have decided to lie and try to slow the uptake of all electric cars by claiming that battery packs are not the future but hydrodgen fuel cells are. They have the Prime Minister of Japan spreading lies about this for them in much the same way Tony Abbott spreads lies for coal companies. The main difference is that Abe cares more about what is best for his nation as a whole, rather than just one small segment. Meanwhile Toyota is supposedly working on a hydrodgen fuel cell car which apparently doesn’t have a realistic fuel cell to put in it, which means they are making an all electric car that has a space where something that supplies electricity could be installed. The odds of a hydrogen fuel cell being shoved in that space in the future seem quite small.
@John Quiggin
It’s the hyprocrisy of the West that makes me cringe with shame (as a Westerner). I think it is most likely that Russian regular forces or ethnic Russian irregulars in East Ukraine shot down MH17 by accident. If this is true, the situation is morally exactly the same as the Vincennes/Iran Air 655 case.
Would Abbott or Shorten make the same statements they are currently making if the US had such an accident again? No, it would be all about a “tragic accident unintended by the US” and all sorts of excuses would be made for the US. And if the dead people were not Westerners they would scarcely be mentioned.
@Hermit
If one is on an acreage block or a bush block then a private pole or poles and/or a long service trench for power are necessary and have their own costs. If your house is more than about 100 m from the road or footpath alignment then it might be cheaper to go off grid. As grid power and connection costs up in future this distance might well reduce. I have to bring power about 90 m in a service trench from a property pole on my property. If that property pole needs replacing in the next decade or two, it might be cost effective for me to go off-grid with batteries and solar power. I already have solar power but am grid connected too.
So, it’s not a matter of being an “enthusiast for batteries”, it’s a matter of simply doing the cost analysis. If someone on a bush block (further from power than me I should think) can’t afford batteries then I am surprised they can afford grid connection. The costs would already be comparable for even quite short distances.
of course the separatists are not going to hand over the site to the very people they say are framing them. they would probably hand it over to a suitable third party though.
david cameron at least has not rushed to conclusion-before-investigation, and instead has done something useful and called for an international investigation and has offered his country’s resources to an international investigation. in the circumstances, and in world ruined by the effects by routine dishonesty, there’s an honest broker in my opinion.
if ukraine did not frame anyone why doesn’t kiev join cameron to call for an international investigation to prove it didn’t frame anyone and to establish what really happened beyond a shadow of partisan doubt? -a.v
@alfred venison
Also, given the US surveillance capability of, and intense interest in, the area – it is inconceivable that they don’t have just about every piece of pertinent information regarding any missiles including origin to within a few centimetres. They should also have satellite photographs etc.. of the event. I haven’t heard Shorten or Abbott calling for full disclosure of that vital evidence.