Putting my eggs in the CSP basket

For some reason, I'm very selective in the level of attention span I give to lecturers. If I don't find it interesting or helpful, I simply nod off in class. It's not very good manners I know...but this bitter cold UK winter makes me wanna sleep, all the time!

Today's class on innovation was one of those....I turned on my laptop to surf the net to stop myself nodding off. I read some articles related to my research dissertation, which I want to write on the potential of concentrating solar power under the CDM. The more I read, the more I realised that I need more contacts from industry and more knowledge and skills on economic and financial modelling, which the course has not given me at all. It began to dawn on me how naive I am, and how much is out there I don't know.

Came across this brilliant article called "A roadmap for selecting host countries of wind energy projects in the framework of the clean development mechanism" by P. Georgiou in the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. It was so good that I simply wanted to replicate and apply the same methodology for CSP technology. Basically, Mr. Georgiou set out with the same aim as me (but for wind technology), only that he finished earlier than me and has had it published. And thankfully so because if I had gone ahead with my ideas, it would have been child's play compared to Mr. Georgiou.

I had imagined tackling my dissertation by doing a case study of the Abu Dhabi Shams 1 100 megawatt CSP project, and applying it to China. I envisioned assessing potential suitable geographic locations for CSP in China, estimating costs and infrastructure requirements, calculate the potential revenues from selling CERs in the carbon market, comparing cost competitiveness with wind and hydropower of similar scale under the CDM, and assessing other non-economic barriers and investment risks perceived by the market.

That sounded pretty good until I read Mr. Georgiou's paper, which went many steps further. Mr. Georgiou did not limit his analysis on one country (I plan to only assess CSP potential in China) but used various stage tests to assess many countries, filtering out countries that could not meet minimum standards. The stages he used were:

Stage 1: geographic suitability test
Stage 2: preliminary financial analysis (IRR modelling)
stage 3: CDM eligibility condition
stage 4: final financial analysis
Stage 5: multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA)

This approach seemed so logical, professional and innovative compared to my fragmented methodology. What really had me worried was that I had no idea how to calculate IRR (discount rate) or baseline emission factors for CDM projects, nor had I even heard of MCDA, which apparently has plenty of literature behind it and is a common tool for considering non-economic factors in investment decisions-making.

Further, after reading Mr. Georgiou's article and also "PV v Solar Thermal" by Dr. Jonathan A. Lesser of the economic consulting firm Bates White, LLC, I am more or less convinced that CSP is not commercially viable in China even if 'supported' by the CDM. It appears that I have been overly bullish on the prospects of CSP when it faces some critical problems in implementation and cost efficiency:

1. CSP (assume parabolic troughs) requires extensive amount of land, estimated to be around 1,900-acres for a 280 MW plant. This have may detrimental environmental impacts on local biodiversity and wildlife.
2. CSP also requires copious amounts of water for wet cooling towers, estimated to be around 600-700 million gallones per year for a 280 MW plant. Dry cooling is an option but it decreases efficiency of the plant by up to 25%, increasing the cost of producing electricity.
3. Some elements of CSP such as molten salt storage are yet to be tested on large commercial scale and more learning is required.
4. It appears that more than 4GW of installed capacity needs to be built before CSP can reach scale economies to produce at cost of 10¢/kWh, which would make it competitive with CCGT gas (but not yet dirty coal).

However, I think I will still press ahead with my dissertation proposal, simply because analysis needs to be done for this technology, which people like Vinod Khosla are touting as the long-term answer to displacement of fossil fuels. To be frank, only nuclear, large scale wind and CSP stand any chance of ever competing with coal or gas fired power plants for baseload electricity generation, which at least industry still needs. Whatever the outcome, it is close to the best we have in a carbon-constrained world.

Forestry Carbon Projects and Lord Adair Turner

Today we had Dr. Nicholas Berry from the Edinburgh based carbon management firm Ecometrica come in to give us a talk about forestry carbon projects. Was quite a tedious lecture since Dr. Berry had no idea our level of knowledge in this area and was very tentative in imparting information, afraid that we couldn't understand. So, again, we wasted almost 30 mins going through the bare basics of what is a carbon market, the compliance and voluntary market, the Kyoto Protocol and its flexible mechanisms and even about the science of climate change.

What was new (or interesting) was three things. The strategies attempted so far to overcome the issue of permanence in forestry carbon projects, the main standards used for forestry projects and a case-study of a "Plan-Vivo" forestry carbon project.

One of the main obstables confronting forestry carbon projects in permanence, i.e. to what extent is the carbon sequestered permanently locked up by the trees, and what happens if traded credits of carbon are subsequently re-released into the atmosphere intentionally (deliberate degradation or deforestation) or unintentionally (e.g. forest fires). The CDM solution was apparently to arbitrary issue forestry credits as 'temporary' cerdits since it could not guarantee its permanence. This effectived stifled demand since buyers could purchase 'permanent' CERs at the same price. The other strategy is that of 'risk buffering', used in the voluntary market. This is where only a portion of forestry credits is traded/sold, with the rest acting as insurance if and when the permanence of credits is called into question. This to me appears to be more reasonable as it facilitiates larger scaling up of projects and provides more certainty when credits are lost.

On standards, there are currently 3 main standards used by project developers of forestry projects. The Voluntary Carbon Standard, the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard and Plan Vivo, which was developed by the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management (from which Econometrica was sporne). These are standards by which an independent 3rd party have to verify before valid VERs (Voluntary Emission Reductions) are issued. Each standard emphasizes different aspects that may be desired in a carbon project. For example, Plan Vivo places particular emphasis on the local community, with proceeds of credits guaranteed to go to the local inhabitants and invested into local sustainable economic activities such as agroforestry.

Overall I would have loved a more focused discussion going through each of the standards in detail as well as in depth analysis of the technical work that went into Plan Vivo projects i.e. how was the carbon measured, how was the project monitored, and how and what obstacles did the project developers face when trying to sell carbon credits in the voluntary market. I guess this MSc is really the MSc of overviews and summaries, rather than equiping us with specific technical skills that industry needs. This has been the most disappointing aspect of this course. But, a certificate is a certificate and my future is what I make of it, I guess.

In the evening, my classmates and I attended the event "Building a Low Carbon Economy - A UK and International Perspective" hosted by Edinburgh University, Scottish Power, Friends of the Earth and the British Council. It featured keynote addresses by the head of the UK Climate Change Committee Lord Adair Turner and Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the European Environment Agency. Just as background, the UK Climate Change Committee is an advisory body set up by the UK government to assist it meet its legally binding 80% GHG reduction target by 2050, and the mid-term 20% reduction target by 2020. The committee advises government on policy, acts as a watchdog on government progress in meeting reduction targets and basically acts as intermediary between lastest science and policy making.

Their talks were nothing we didn't know already, and their presentation slides can soon be downloaded on the FOE website. Basically, in order to stabilise at 450ppm at 2 degrees celcius warming, the UK should contribute to the global effort by reducing its GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. It should get there by decarbonising the electricity sector using renewables, CCS and nuclear. The transport and residential sectors should also move towards electrification, with energy from zero carbon sources of course. The other sectors are more difficult to reduce emissions, and we should promote R&D to figure out what to do there. As for how to decarbonise the electricity sector, speakers said that there is enough wind potential to realise all of UK's energy demand, etc etc....all very hypothetical stuff, with broad cost estimates that it will cost 1% of GDP annually.

Just a couple of interesting observations. Both talks were extremely Euro-centric, with the focus on what UK needs to do, how urgent and difficult the problem is for the UK, how UK's plans fit in with Europe's. Passing mention was made of Obama's new administration and China and India. The only comment was that "China is working hard on Climate Change issues, India less". To me, they've missed out on the fundamental issue. Even if the UK, or Europe for that matter, reduces 80% by 2050, the world will still reach tipping point and above 4 degrees warming because of emissions from China and India. These emissions are in fact mostly to serve the demand for cheap goods from consumers in western countries. Now you can't blame China and India for burning fossil fuels because that's the cheapest way to produce the goods that the West wants! The UK and the West needs to get serious about whether they are prepared the "real" prices of imported goods (i.e. including the embedded carbon and cost to the climate and environment). Or, they need to think seriously about helping reduce emissions from factories in countries like China, since those emissions are emitted because of the West's demand. To be self-obsessed about how UK was going to reach a 80% reduction target in a mostly services economy is missing the point. If anything, the UK should find it relatively easier than most economies to decarbonise since they have higher GDP, consumers have more disposable income to compensate higher electricity prices and they do not have a carbon intensive manufacturing sector.

Another interesting observation was a comment from Scottish Power, which reflects the political game being played. While the Climate Change Committee is advocating the potential of wind and saying everything is theoretically possible, they make no mention of the actual CASH that need to be splashed and where. Nothing will be done if no cash is actually on the table.

The head of renewables of Scottish Power said that whilst he recognizes the importance of climate change and the huge potential of wind, his company simply will not invest in large scale off-shore wind projects unless the transmission infrastructure is provided by the government to ensure the electricity generated offshore can be provided to consumers. Therefore, far from just creating a carbon price or making keynote speeches at universities, the govt needs to get serious and put cash on the table to create a new, renewables friendly infrastructure. With the UK's political ball-passing tendencies, I don't think the UK will reach any of its targets. You heard it here first.

Book Review - Sputnik Sweetheart

Murakami is a weirdo. He's illogical, irrational, incongruous, discortant, sometimes perverted. Simply said, have no preconceptions when reading Murakami. And don't ask why, because there usually is no answer. Murakami spends his time talking of the ordinary. Mundane, everyday activities such as eating, listening to music, reading a book. However, he's such a virtuoso at conveying those everyday feelings that readers feel connected and intrigued.

I read Murakami because I like the ordinary. And I like to be transported to another world which makes absolutely no sense. I've even stopped asking why. It's an escape from the real world where every statement needs to be backed up by evidence, every behaviour explained, every trip planned, every decision justified.

Sumire is an ordinary girl who dreams of being a novelist. She has chosen to leave the tracks that life had pre-planned, spending days writing and writing while depending on part-time jobs and her parents to keep afloat.

K is an uninspired school teacher who spends his days lulling about, reading books at home and occasionally having affairs with parents of his pupils. Miu is a Korean-Japanese who's married, a successful business-women with cultured tastes for fine wine.

Between them, a series of events begin to unfold. K realises he's in love with Sumire, Sumire falls deeply in love with Miu, and Miu hires Sumire as her personal assistant. Sumire and Miu abruptly set off on a trip to Europe and when K finally receives a call, he finds out that Sumire has vanished. When K heads to Greece to find Sumire, he finds that Miu has a similar story 14 years ago where she was split into two and part of her vanished, the only evidence was it left her with pure white hair.

At first, it was hard to accept that Sumire could simply vanish without a trace for no reason. Perhaps what Murakami was trying to convey is that people vanish at various stages of their lives, either physically and/or spiritually. Is there a difference between the two at all? For some people as they change, they are always throwing away the past and re-making themseves. I guess to some of my high-school friends, I've already vanished and even if they meet me again, the spirit that they knew is no longer there. To them, does it make a difference whether I physically existed or not? In any event my spirit has changed.

But maybe what Murakami shows is that while vanishing can lead to the creation of a "new" you, you lose part of yourself and those close relationships that you held dear to your heart. In the end, does Sumire come back to see K? You'll have to read it and make up your own mind.

Carbon Capture and Storage - reality or hoax?

Today's much anticipated lecture will be on CCS (carbon capture and storage) from Stuart Haszeldine, one of the world's foremost experts on CCS technology and implementation, right here from the University of Edinburgh. Stuart's been in the newspaper quite a few times, most recently for his comments regarding the 30 megawatt pilot CCS powerplant in Germany.

I'm not an engineer or scientist, so I'll do my best to explain the technology. My main interest is the economics and policy-making side of CCS, especially how feasible it is to make a real dent in the climate problem. CCS is a relatively unknown quantity AT SCALE, and requires billions of dollars for further pilot programs. The real question is whether CCS is cost effective at scale over other low carbon solutions i.e. renewables, some of which are already mature technologies and can be implemented immediately today.

So in a sentence, CCS is the capturing of CO2 from coal-fired powerplants through various methods, and then storing the CO2 underground for example in depleted oil fields so that the CO2 is not emitted into the atmosphere causing global warming. It is being heralded as a potential silver-bullet in the fight against climate change and politicians are pinning their hopes on it because it could kill 2 birds with one stone - keep the lucrative and powerful coal industry going and also tackle climate change at the same time. Are these hopes false?

First let's understand the technology. There are 3 main competing technologies for separating the CO2. Firstly there is oxyfuel, which "burns the lignite in air from which nitrogen has been removed. Combustion in the resulting oxygen-rich atmosphere produces a waste stream of carbon dioxide and water vapor, three-quarters of which is recycled back into the boiler. By repeating this process it is possible to greatly concentrate the carbon dioxide. After particles and sulfur have been removed, and water vapor has been condensed out, the waste gas can be 98 percent carbon dioxide". The CO2 is then cooled down to -28 degrees celcius and liquified and stored in suitable geogrpahic formations at least 3km underground.

The other two technologies. Another "uses a scrubbing process to try to capture carbon dioxide in the flue gases emitted after coal has been burned in a conventional power plant". Finally there is a third method which "involves gasifying the coal, creating hydrogen for generating electricity and carbon monoxide, from which carbon dioxide can be formed and separated".

There are up to a dozen pilot programs all around the world e.g. in the UK, Norway and the US testing these technologies, at varying degrees or progress. I'm sure Stuart will give an update on the status of these.

So contrary to many people's views that CCS technology is "unproven", this is simply false. The technology has been shown to work. The main stumbling blocks of CCS are NOT the science, but the logistics and the high costs of implementation. To summarize:

1) the extra cost of capturing and storing carbon has been estimated at USD50-90 per tonne according to various reports;
2) legal issues regarding ownership of the CO2 after it has been separated. Companies will not want to be liable for leakage of CO2 back into the atmosphere. Liquified CO2 may pass through countries or be stored in international waters and under the territory of another country;
3) extensive infrastucture of deep underground pipelines will need to be built to transport potentially billions of tonnes of liquidified CO2.
4) Who will pay if the CO2 accidently or eventually seeps back up and is released back into the atmosphere?

The retro-fitting of commercial power plants with CCS and the building of new gigawatt CCS power plants along with required complementary infrastructure will run into hundred of billions of dollars. Who is going to pay for all that? What's in it for them to pay for it? If economic incentives cannot be found for the market then government programs need to fit the bill. Are western governments likely to fund all of this, especially in developing countries such as China and India where it's most needed? Only the most extreme optimist would say yes. What is clear is that CCS is going nowhere without active and smart government support, as concluded by Stanford University in its comparion of CCS with the development of the US nuclear-power industry, the US SO2- scrubber industry, and the global LNG industry.

But, enough about the costs. Let's think about the potential benefits of CCS and how much it could contribute to tackling climate change ASSUMING CCS is performing at commercial scale. Will that makes us feel better? Not necessarily so.

The most illuminating work on the potential and economics of CCS I have seen is by David Victor, again of Stanford University. Based on this research, it is estimated that if the US is to stabilise emissions and to eventually decrease emissions from 1990 levels, commercial scale CCS plants will need to inject 350 million tonnes of CO2 per year underground by 2030. This is for the US only. Now, if ALL of the current CCS pilot projects, and future possible projects under plan and speculative future projects around the WORLD are all run and assumed to be capturing CO2 today at full capacity, by the year 2025 they will combine to capture 100 million tonnes of CO2 per year. This world effort will not even be enough to stablise US emissions. The point is that at current pace we are deluded if we think CCS is any silver-bullet, even if it works at commercial scale. Not only does CCS need to work at commercial scale, it needs to be widespread and become a "norm" of the coal industry around the world to have any chance of making serious inroads on climate change. You can decide whether CCS is worth it.

For those interested, Dr. Victor's informative presentation on coal, CCS and renewable energy can be seen below:

冬期休暇 － 日本語版 (1)

今日は、授業がないから家で愚図つくしている。　気候変化について記事を読んだけど、科目の読むべき本やレポートがどんどん重なってどこから始まるか分からなくて困っている状態。もう起きたから４時間経ったけど何もしてない・・・・感じが。罪悪感ですね。

何で日本語で書いているのかというと、今日は日本人の言語交換パートナーに会うんです。だから少しでも何か準備しようと思っててこの文章を始めました。　きっと彼女と冬の休暇について話し合うので、この前行った国や感想を揃って見ようかな・・・・

まあ、休暇が始まったから最初行った所はローンドンでしたよね。正直言うとそんなに気に入りませんでした。道が狭くて物が高くて駅が汚くて交通が悪くて、とても一流の都市に見えなかった。それにしても、ローンドンの歴史と建築は凄く魅力的だった。友達の家に泊まってて、自転車を借りてThames川沿いして都心まで約三時間かかりました。着くとローンドンの名所を一々訪れました。Big Ben、Buckingham Palace、St. Paul's Cathedral、Trafalgar Square、London Bridgeなど。まあー綺麗でしたよ。

多分空気が悪かったか温度が下がったため、すぐ風を引いた。だんだん寒くなっててやぱっりエディンバラに戻ることにした。その日こそバス切符を買って夜行バスで帰った。結局は二泊の短い旅行でした。エディンバラに着いた時、本当にエディンバラに住めて運がいいなと思いました。　ローンドンに比べるとエディンバラは本当に天国だな・・・と多としました。

続き・・・・・

Picking the Right Horses from the Stimulus Package

Woke up to my good friend Dr. Tan's Facebook status that he's considering alternative investment strategies. Hey, when a professor of finance expresses interest in the alternative energy sector, it's usually silly not to at least listen.

I must say I've never been a stock market player, 1) because I don't have the money 2) I didn't spend enough time researching companies and how they fared 3) didn't know enough about what strategies leading companies have that set them apart from the peers 4) pure laziness. I mean, back in 1998 I KNEW about Google. I knew it was gonna be huge too because it combined all the search results of all the other search engines available then and was just superior. But I didn't act....

Situation now is that I know Obama's stimulus package is gonna lead to winners. I know large-scale wind and solar will take off. I know the companies that win the contracts to implement a distributed grid will take off - especially the software companies (someone say Microsoft?). This time I will act, and not make the Google mistake.

This morning's article that the US Climate Change bill is coming sooner than expected, is therefore good news for me.

This is not to say that any investment in the alternatives sector is any less risky than other sectors. As the potential gains are unimaginable, the potential losses are huge too. Only the best survives and if you back the wrong horse, bad luck. For example, it's still not looking particularly rosy in the solar sector with projects being postponed or canceled due to the credit crunch. Even projects that appear to make perfect sense such as large scale concentrating solar power in the Californian deserts. Basically, banks are unwilling to lend to any high capital investment projects in these tight times, unless it's a sure bet and the project manager is warren buffet (you get my point). Wind is facing a similar problem but such is the growth of the market in the US, it recently took over from Germany as the world largest installer. As the stimulus package is passed and the market slowly recovers (dangerous assumption I know), it's a good bet that US wind capacity will increase at least 50% per year for the next 5 years.

A source of good information regarding cleantech stocks can be found here. Though my knowledge is still shallow, I do fancy the likes of Accione and Vestas....now it's about the timing ; p

Family time at Mussel Inn

Since moving to Australia, I've never had the chance to know my cousins well, let alone develop any sort of close friendships or bonds. Even when I went back to Taiwan, it was a pity to always feel a disconnection between the lives of my cousins and myself.

So when I found out that I had a cousin living in Scotland, I was a bit confused at first. I wasn't used to contacting relatives of my own initative and helping each other, but my past experiences gave me extra impetus to try to get to know her well.

Cousin Josie is the daughter of one of my mum's old sisters, and has been well settled in Scotland for more than 5 years with her French partner. Dr. Josie is also a computer engineer who obtained her PHD in Glasgow university and this year started work in Edinburgh University as a computer systems manager. We've already met 3 times, and she's been so wonderful and caring. Simple things like the weather, where to buy certain foods, and what medicines to get for the flu. On each occasion I waved goodbye carrying some food or gifts home. It's really great to know you have family in a faraway land.

Tonight, cousin Josie treated me to a dinner at Mussel Inn, one of most well known and popular restaurants in Edinburgh. It's famous for its "kilo-pot" mussels, steamed in range of appetizing sauces including Dijon mustard cream, Moroccan and Red Pepper, and coupled with unlimited bread. The food was simply amazing!

When I ate, I wondered if these delicious mussels were wild or farmed. After checking I was quite relieved to know that the mussels appear to be captured through sustainable farming.


Felt really guilty as the bill racked up to something like GBP38, though it included half bottle of white wine as well as starters. Reminded me of the time when mum and dad visited me during my working stint in Japan, and I treated them to lunches and dinners. I was never concerned about the money, just happy that I had the capacity and opportunity to treat my parents. Thanks again cousin Josie, next time will be my shout!

What is a "smart grid"?

Smard grids....it's one of those things that sound great....wanna have! It's supposed to allow the integration of renewable and intermitent energy sources into the grid, have "smart" features that incentivise efficiency in energy consumption, support decentralised and distibuted energy like solar PV and CHP, and lead to less blackouts and energy failures. Obama's been talking about it, Al Gore flagging it up as the primary "gateway" to a renewables based low carbon economy....so what exactly is it!!!!????

Did some readings on it for energy policy and here is a brief summary.

Well, first we need to understand the traditional, "dumb", centralised power grid. It's characterised by remote centralized generation e.g. coal fired power plants far from the city, hierarchical transmission and distribution networks, and little or no interactions with demand patterns. The inflexibilty of the grid makes it difficult to support intermittent renewable energy and decentralised local electricity generation.

Calls for a "smart" grid has come about due to both internal and external drivers including aging assets, increasing customer demands, technological advances, deregulated markets and increased awareness of climate change and the CO2 problem.

What can smart grids offer? Potentially, it can provide:

1. a distributed, efficient and reliable network for energy delivery
2. distributed generation sources through microturbines and energy storing devices located close to energy sources (e.g. wind and solar)
3. advanced, digitized, internet based automation systems for intelligent network monitoring and control

Another benefit of a smart grid is the "smart meter" for consumers, which will track energy consumption for customers and reveal different pricing at different times to incentivise efficient usage of energy at optimal times.

However, this does require an entire upgrade of infrastructure and capital, and is likely to cost 10s of billions on $$. New high tech upgrades required include sensors, IEDs, PMUs, and smart meters, fiber‐optics, microwave, power line carrier (PLC), wireless networks, information Banks, middle‐ware technologies, integration hubsm, the list goes on. Some technologies are unproven yet and companies will battle to provide the "standard" for supporting the grid.

Is it worth the $$? Apparently yes. The University of San Diego has already conducted an extensive Smart Grid study which included a cost benefit analysis on implementing a smart grid in San Diego. The study estimated the total installation cost to be in the region of USD490 million. However, this is more than compensated by an estimated $1.4 billion in utility system benefits and nearly $1.4 billion in societal benefits over 20 years. Sounds like a no brainer, for long-term policy making anyway.

The smart grid has the potential to take off, just like the Internet boom. With Obama, I'm definitely hopeful to see the beginning of the .energy revolution!

Biochar

Interesting expose on biochar today from 2 professors from the school of geoscience. Biochar is a process whereby energy crops, agricultural residue and other organic waste is converted into charcoal through a process called pyrolysis. The carbon contained in the biomass is stored in the biochar and if it's not combusted, can store carbon for 100's of years. The added bonus of biochar is that it can be returned to the soil and has properties that improve the productivity of crops, thus having the potential to replace fertilisers which cause nitrous oxide to be emitted (300 times global warming potential of CO2). Biochar therefore looks promising because it can store carbon, improve productivity of crops and substitute fossil fuels.

This potential is starting to be recognized, with the Australian Liberals making biochar somewhat of a centrepiece of its climate change policy response to Rudd's unambitious carbon reduction scheme.

More research needs to be done on biochar to assess its economic feasibility at commercial scale. Currently the biggest exponent of biochar is an Australian company called Best Energies. However, some incentive schemes are needed to promote biochar, since the economic gains of biochar is prima facie the same, or less than carbon intensive alternatives. For example, fossil fuel fertilisers can still be bought relatively cheaply and locking up carbon in soil does not of itself create value economically unless some sort of carbon credit is given for every tonne you lock up. In fact, more value can be created by burning the biomass to generate electricity.

It is also of paramount importance that biochar doesn't affect existing land-use the way biofuels did, and still does. I am much more in favour of biochar from agricultural waste and organic waste than biomass...

But this does look to have potential under the CDM or the voluntary market, where credits can be generated for every tonne that is avoided from release into the atmosphere from a BAU scenario. Again, some economic analysis is required to find out how lucrative it is to generate CERs or VERs using pyrolysis and selling it in the open market. The professors were definitely looking for dissertation students.