Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

[Robert763]

I give up, you just change the "facts" to suit your restricted point of view. 

No, you're just angry because I actually read the document and had answers for your made-up argument. Enjoy life in that little universe; the rest of us live out here.

mnem
 

1/ I'm not angry at all
2/ You fully read a 23 page report and made two ther posts in less than 31 minutes?
3/ It's not the only case. This single vehicle accident re-ignted twice post crash.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAB1908.pdf

[mnementh]

No, thank you.

mnem
 

[Robert763]

Electrical power distribution losses in the USA are about 5%.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

[mnementh]

I believe that document deals with what is lost overall in the transmission lines of the interstate grid itself, not transformer losses at every stage and losses from demand-loading. A few percent at every stage adds up, our infrastructure is still woefully inadequate. We still have enough Al-wound transformers in place from decades ago that it really makes a difference. Every step from fuel to motion adds up; converting fuel to steam to grid voltages, with a dozen stages in between, all adds up. Then you have inherent losses in charging a battery vs discharge, and finally the conversion of that electricity to motion.

When we talk aboot the efficiency of EV, we only ever talk aboot how much more efficient the last stage... the electric motor itself is. We conveniently ignore everything that goes into providing the electricity it run from as if it were magically not oodles of fossil fuel, which it is, to such an extent that the portion which is not is statistically an outlier.

Big Oil & Big Energy is all the same people... they are getting their money at the front-end and at the back end of the deal on every EV that sells.

The way EV as a commodity works now, where we allow them to kick the production carbon-cost down the road yet again, we are not thwarting them; we are propping them up and ensuring they keep our gonads in a vise for another generation.

mnem
 

[Cerebus]

I vote we settle these arguments as follows https://youtu.be/Ggt9qKpbzxI

(Probably NSFW)

Not Safe For Weaponry?

[Zucca]

Only after
1) have my own PV farm (roof included but not only that)
2) my home off grid ( fuuu the electric bills)
3) energy produced >> energy needed
4) Have my defence system approved by Saskia

I will invest some money in a EV.

To me is more important to start to renovate homes with some brain than to stop to drive combustion cars.
And new construction homes should be all passive! Starting from tomorrow.

Vote for me!!!

[Cerebus]

It does kind of make you wonder if the government decision to ban the sale of fossil fuelled cars after 2030 is the best move they could have made. There still seem to be massive strides to be made to make electric cars a serious rival. Sure they are clean in use (but about the manufacture as a whole + the shipping of parts around the world), fast, quiet, but what about the range and recharge times plus of course the sheer cost differences?

E-vehicles as they are now are a boon to the petroleum industry, not competition. They get approx 10x the carbon footprint of a conventional vehicle in their pockets up front due to the much more complex manufacturing process and the energy required to make them, plus as long as they keep a stranglehold on energy production across the grid, they get paid for the fuel to make the electricity they run on, which is approx 1/10 as efficient as burning the fossil fuel directly due to shite delivery of the eternally under-provisioned and prehistoric-technology power grid.

Our electrical power delivery grid will literally need to be 5x as efficient and half comprised of solar, plus incorporate mid-term and long-term storage we haven't even devised yet, before this ceases to be true.

Meanwhile, we can't even get our leaders to agree on a 30% reduction in greenhouses gases in the next decade... literally the smallest possible change that could in any way impact the impending ecological disaster.

mnem
and Henson's Dinosaurs TV show predicted all this nearly 3 decades ago...

Where do you get "which is approx 1/10 as efficient as burning the fossil fuel directly due to shite delivery of the eternally under-provisioned and prehistoric-technology power grid." from?
A petrol engine is about 20% thermal efficiency, a Biomass power plant is about 45% (combined cycle natural gas is over 50%) so even allowing for 90% power transmission and 60% battery/motor efficiency that is still about 24% NOT 2% 
And that is not even considering regenerative braking, or non fossil fuel power generation.
You are just making stuff up . It's getting close to trolling.

NG is still a melting snowbank. It still is huge carbon footprint. It is still all the same greedy motherfuckers as the oil industry. Our electricity is still primarily produced by fossil fuels, and the efficiencies you claim are a tiny percentage of the grid overall. My 10X and 5X guess is just a guess... but once you actually do ALL the math, I bet it's pretty fucking close.

If you feel trolled, that's on you.

Thanks for playing,

mnem
No, thank you.

Mnem, grow up! You can't just make figures up off the top of your head without even saying "I'm guessing" and then call someone out for supposedly trolling you, making childish taunts on top of it, when they call you out on your figures. Saying "approx" as you did is not an adequate qualification for numbers that you clearly pulled out of your arse.

[Specmaster]

@Robert763 & @mnementh
Right, let's look at this sensibly shall we this whole thing has got way out of hand here and as more of a bystander looking in I can see that there does seem to be some sort of tension between the pair of you and it is that which has fanned the flames on this spat.

Fact is that mnementh never said that cylindrical cells were immune to fire and explosion, you Robert, actually misread what he wrote, because mnementh actually wrote "Musk may not be right aboot much, but sticking with cylindrical cells will prove to be the only viable method to make such super-packs marginally safe for use by hairless apes."


Whether the cylindrical cell will prove to be the answer to make batteries safer or not at this stage makes no difference to what is going on between the pair of you, the fact is he never said what you claimed.

With regard to the other claims about which is greener, electric or fossil fuel, I really can't say. I do know that there are many ways of looking at it, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that to produce a running car and get it into the showroom, the electric car at that point is by all accounts that read and heard about is not the greenest at all. It might well end up being greener at a certain point in its life, but there are so many factors at play here that I refuse to be drawn one way or the other.

EDIT: Before anyone responds to this, may I suggest they re-read the 2 posts that started this feud in the first place and examine the actual words written and the context? From my position both Robert and Mnementh have made some good points since, but nothing that changes the starting position.

[Robert763]

@Specmaster
You are correct, I did not take enough notice the "marginally safe" qualifier. That said mnementh has given no justification for his assertion that a cylindrical cell is safe(r) and a prismatic is unsafe.  My question about that is still valid with or without the qualifier.

[Cerebus]

I do know that there are many ways of looking at it, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that to produce a running car and get it into the showroom, the electric car at that point is by all accounts that read and heard about is not the greenest at all. It might well end up being greener at a certain point in its life, but there are so many factors at play here that I refuse to be drawn one way or the other.

That's a moot point. The only basis for comparison that makes any sense is to do full life end-to-end evaluations. That means for fossil fuel vehicles starting with the crude oil in the ground, and all the processes involved in making and transporting the fuel and the vehicle, operating it over a realistic normal lifetime and disposing of it at the end of that life. For a electric vehicle doing the same process, making the vehicle, making and transporting the electricity for it, operating it and the final disposal.

Talking about just one bit or the other of the full life cycle of the vehicle and its fuel allows too many opportunities for people to cherry-pick their arguments.

[Specmaster]

@Specmaster
You are correct, I did not take enough notice the "marginally safe" qualifier. That said mnementh has given no justification for his assertion that a cylindrical cell is safe(r) and a prismatic is unsafe.  My question about that is still valid with or without the qualifier.

That may be true, I'm not siding with either of you, both of you are valued members of this forum and contribute a lot to the group as a whole, but the point that started this whole sad affair was the misinterpretation of what mnementh said, which you admit to. Had that never happened, then the rest would not have happened either so in respect your both as bad as each other. At the end of the day, I really suspect that as time rolls on we might discover more about which viewpoint is correct but at this stage, the water is very muddy.

I remember when it is was argued that Diesel was the fuel of the future, being greener and more efficient, but now look and see how that claim has turned out, it is now considered the reverse with hindsight. I personally think that Diesel could well end yet to be that fuel as I'm sure that there are other things that can be done to reduce the emissions even lower still, but I'm not an expert in that field, just a hunch I have
I think it is always good to have these debates on the forum, and we can all take something from them, but we all want is the heat to be taken out of them, we are all entitled to our opinions but let's not fall out over them.

[Specmaster]

I do know that there are many ways of looking at it, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that to produce a running car and get it into the showroom, the electric car at that point is by all accounts that read and heard about is not the greenest at all. It might well end up being greener at a certain point in its life, but there are so many factors at play here that I refuse to be drawn one way or the other.

That's a moot point. The only basis for comparison that makes any sense is to do full life end-to-end evaluations. That means for fossil fuel vehicles starting with the crude oil in the ground, and all the processes involved in making and transporting the fuel and the vehicle, operating it over a realistic normal lifetime and disposing of it at the end of that life. For a electric vehicle doing the same process, making the vehicle, making and transporting the electricity for it, operating it and the final disposal.

Talking about just one bit or the other of the full life cycle of the vehicle and its fuel allows too many opportunities for people to cherry-pick their arguments.

Isn't that more or less what I have said, but with one important differance, you're bringing into the equation the oil production and the continued operating costs throughout the cars life. I was only looking at the energy used to produce the total car, and transport it to the car showroom. From that point on I said that it could well be greener once it leaves the showroom, but that has yet to be proven either way.

[mnementh]

That is precisely what I'm talking aboot. The entire package, from earth to final delivery of the vehicle and moving my fat ass down the road to get groceries for my fat ass. the only way for EV right now to actually be greener is if you charge it only from your own solar source, and then only if you keep any single vehicle for 6-10 years. That is how far out of whack the actual carbon footprint of EV as they're made now is.

Yes, I only have estimates to go by, because every article I have been able to find for years, and I am interested in this shit, so I look for it, that reviews of the state of these things now is only a piece of the puzzle... but everything I've been able to uncover says the only reason we're finally talking aboot mass-production of EV is because it now is more profitable to Big Oil & Big Energy, not because it was ever not viable.

People... individuals... have been making EVs literally since the days of the Model T; but getting them mass-produced to such a point they replace the ICE has always been a matter of breaking the ass-dick connection between Big Oil and Big Vehicle, which is not going to happen.

This change will not happen until they agree that it is more profitable, and they have more to lose by not going that route.

When the oil finally does run out, the Big Oil bastards will continue to ensure they own the prevailing form of energy, as they've already done. We no longer really have oil... we are extracting oil from coal and almost-coal deposits and leaving the toxic waste in the ground, and the entire world has been running on that for decades.

Because the bottom line is the bottom line, and the only thing that really matters is what Big Oil says, because they're the single biggest puddle of money with a single voice.
 
mnem
 

[Specmaster]

Right, I'm going to ask a question about electric cars, has anyone here either got one, or has driven one? I have no experience of them personally, but I have been told that they are extremely difficult to control the speed of when you are driving them. A friend of a friend claimed that they had been told by someone who has a Tesla that it was hard to control the speed of it, claiming that felt like the motor was either full power or no power with almost nothing in between. My question is, is this sort of correct? Logic tells me that it can't be, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to be on the road?

[mnementh]

I've driven 3 of them; all lease/rental electric-powered hybrids as opposed to straight battery power.

In electric mode, throttle response is very hard to judge; you don't have the seat of your pants to judge engine speed vs the passing surroundings. Yes, it can be disconcerting, and yes you have to learn to look at the speedo.

Teslas, being more performance-oriented, I can see that perception being even more exaggerated than with the economy models I've driven.


Biodiesel is renewable... but huge carbon-footprint. The problem here is not just the energy itself, but the cycle of greenhouse gases, global warming, more energy required for AC, more greenhouse gases, etc.

The only way to break that is with electricity that does not generate emissions... wind, gravity and solar power... but then we have the carbon-footprint of those materials needed to build and convert, which we refuse to recycle because it's unprofitable. Well, not unprofitable... just not mega-corporation-sustaining profitable. 

My research suggests that our best short-term solution would be in the form of converting all fossil fuel power plants to bio-diesel fueled turbine generators with very expensive catalytic scrubbers, used only long enough to manufacture the solar panels, and wind/hydro power plants which would supplant them. That would put a lot of farmers back to work and stimulate the economy in many ways, and the resultant manufacturing boom would also drive some very promising energy storage research.

The problem with solar and hydro is the amount of prime real estate we need for them... which is of course far more profitable when used for high-rise office buildings, shopping malls and parking lots and the like...   

mnem
The great wheel keeps turning...

[Robert763]

Diesel cars were considered cleaner when the main concerns were CO2 and lead emissions. They were cleaner in that respect. A diesel engined car 15 to 30 years ago produced a LOT less CO2 than the same petrol model.
When you consider NOx and particulates it's not such a clear picture. A direct injection turbocharged petrol engine will now produce less CO2 than a modern diesel with adblue and DPF but may actually produce more particulates ans NOx depening how the cars are driven.

The push for electric and hybrid vehicles is from governments who have signed up to global reductions on CO2 emissions. Electric cars and "zero carbon" electricity are big part of the effort. However converting Drax to wood pellets is not really zero carbon, it just meets the agreed political definitions. That is a whole other can of worms.
Full disclosure: I'm pro nuclear power and drive a plug-in hybrid (bought second hand and gets me to and from work on a charge that I can do for free at work)

[mansaxel]

In Sweden, as in Norway, we're doing our electricity from water, wind, sun and boiling water by neutron bowling.  An EV charged from our grid is significantly better than an EV charged from Megawatt Valley (the likes of Drax, Ferrybridge and Eggborough), which in itself (one place to transform pressed dino) is a much better idea than having thousands of internal combustion engines distributed in places where they can't be used efficiently and, to boot, are mismanaged -- directly -- by a moron with a lead foot and a temper.

The ICE is a fascinating device, but it is hampered by horrible inefficiency and causes such collateral damage that it can only be relevant in a fragile world such as ours with layers and layers of compensation technology bolted and grafted on.

I have what is today a somewhat old ICE car, even though it has most of those compensators, and in the spirit of total environmental cost of ownership I'm intending to drive it to at least 400000 km. Last week it passed 380000 so it looks like I could succeed. I'd really, really, like my next car to be an EV, but I'll probably end up with another used Volvo when the present one bites the dust. Of course the current medical emergency has driven the demand for used cars through the ceiling (I haven't used public transportation since last March) so I'll probably have to stick to driving this one for a while.

What do I want to say here? I don't know, but I think the disagreements are pretty small and the things we agree on constitute a larger portion of the issue stack. Or something. Focus thataway, I think.

[med6753]

Nope. Going back to watch TV. 

[srb1954]

Right, I'm going to ask a question about electric cars, has anyone here either got one, or has driven one? I have no experience of them personally, but I have been told that they are extremely difficult to control the speed of when you are driving them. A friend of a friend claimed that they had been told by someone who has a Tesla that it was hard to control the speed of it, claiming that felt like the motor was either full power or no power with almost nothing in between. My question is, is this sort of correct? Logic tells me that it can't be, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to be on the road?

I can't make any comment on Teslas but I recently bought a Mercedes EQC400 electric car and I am still trying to adapt to the different driving style required.

The speed control does seem more twitchy than an ICE but it is certainly not a case of full power or no power. The apparent twitchiness may be due to the throttle response of the electric motor being more rapid than an ICE so it is possible to overshoot your desired power setting by being a little bit too heavy on the accelerator pedal. More delicate control of the pedal pressure is required.

Also, the regenerative braking from the electric motor on releasing the accelerator pedal is more aggressive than what you get from the engine braking of an ICE.

Another aspect that is quite difficult is keeping within the speed limit. Since there is no audible feedback from the motor on acceleration it is very easy to creep up over the speed limit without realising it.

[Cerebus]

I do know that there are many ways of looking at it, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that to produce a running car and get it into the showroom, the electric car at that point is by all accounts that read and heard about is not the greenest at all. It might well end up being greener at a certain point in its life, but there are so many factors at play here that I refuse to be drawn one way or the other.

That's a moot point. The only basis for comparison that makes any sense is to do full life end-to-end evaluations. That means for fossil fuel vehicles starting with the crude oil in the ground, and all the processes involved in making and transporting the fuel and the vehicle, operating it over a realistic normal lifetime and disposing of it at the end of that life. For a electric vehicle doing the same process, making the vehicle, making and transporting the electricity for it, operating it and the final disposal.

Talking about just one bit or the other of the full life cycle of the vehicle and its fuel allows too many opportunities for people to cherry-pick their arguments.

Isn't that more or less what I have said, but with one important differance, you're bringing into the equation the oil production and the continued operating costs throughout the cars life. I was only looking at the energy used to produce the total car, and transport it to the car showroom. From that point on I said that it could well be greener once it leaves the showroom, but that has yet to be proven either way.

There's no point in just talking about what it costs environmentally just to get the car to the showroom. It's a vehicle, not an ornament that's going to sit on the mantelpiece and do nothing. Looking at the manufacturing aspect in isolation makes no sense. If it doesn't have to be a practical vehicle that does practical work then obviously a nicely painted model of a car with no working engine or running gear would be the greenest of all. (This is obviously reductio-ad-absurdem, but that's a fitting comparison for any argument that treats a car's environment costs only up until just before the point it is put into use.)

As to the unsupported assertion that the jury's still out on the whole issue of which is greener:

EV whole lifecycle impact
Vehicle ‘lifecycle analyses’ - which take account of all the emissions right the way from the mining of ores, the manufacture of vehicles and batteries, and in-use energy consumption of petrol, diesel or electricity - show large overall CO2 savings for EVs compared to conventional vehicles.

The British Government’s key 2018 publication The Road to Zero stated that EVs “have substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions than conventional vehicles, even when taking into account the electricity source and the electricity used for battery production. Assuming the current UK energy mix, battery electric vehicles produce the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of all the energy sources and fuels assessed, irrespective of vehicle type and operation.”11

The Road to Zero estimated that in 2018 an EV car in the UK currently has total [i.e. whole life cycle] associated greenhouse gas emissions 66% lower than a petrol car and 60% lower than a diesel car.

It also estimated that by 2050 emissions from UK electricity generation would fall by 90% because renewables will dominate generation, and that the emissions associated with EV use will fall in parallel.

[Robert763]

Right, I'm going to ask a question about electric cars, has anyone here either got one, or has driven one? I have no experience of them personally, but I have been told that they are extremely difficult to control the speed of when you are driving them. A friend of a friend claimed that they had been told by someone who has a Tesla that it was hard to control the speed of it, claiming that felt like the motor was either full power or no power with almost nothing in between. My question is, is this sort of correct? Logic tells me that it can't be, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to be on the road?

I have a plug in hybrid that can be set for automatic selection of engine / motor / Engine & motor or just electric. I have no difficulty in controlling the speed in any mode. The one thing that is different to a manual I/C car is you don't get the direct engine note / speed relationship (the engine gearbox is a CVT automatic) My particular car also has low aerodynamic noise so you don't get that clue either. This is similar to an automatic car. It's harder than a base model fiesta diesel, but no worse than a high end automatic with little engine and wind noise.
There is certainly no issue with the controllabilty of power and throttle response. You can select "eco" mode which limits the acceleration and also makes for  smoother ride. You can also select the level of regenerative braking applied. I'm actually more likely to be at the wrong speed in SWMBO's 2L petrol automatic Focus.

Robert G8RPI.

[Cerebus]

In Sweden, as in Norway, we're doing our electricity from water, wind, sun and boiling water by neutron bowling.  An EV charged from our ...from Megawatt Valley (the likes of Drax, Ferrybridge and Eggborough)...

You're a bit behind the times. Drax now runs almost exclusively on biomass. As I write only 1% of UK demand is coming from coal. Basically we hardly burn any coal now, and only then at times of very high demand during winter or darkness. Ferrybridge and Eggborough are both decommissioned.

[Specmaster]

Diesel cars were considered cleaner when the main concerns were CO2 and lead emissions. They were cleaner in that respect. A diesel engined car 15 to 30 years ago produced a LOT less CO2 than the same petrol model.
When you consider NOx and particulates it's not such a clear picture. A direct injection turbocharged petrol engine will now produce less CO2 than a modern diesel with adblue and DPF but may actually produce more particulates ans NOx depening how the cars are driven.

The push for electric and hybrid vehicles is from governments who have signed up to global reductions on CO2 emissions. Electric cars and "zero carbon" electricity are big part of the effort. However converting Drax to wood pellets is not really zero carbon, it just meets the agreed political definitions. That is a whole other can of worms.
Full disclosure: I'm pro nuclear power and drive a plug-in hybrid (bought second hand and gets me to and from work on a charge that I can do for free at work)

Yes, I think the CO2 being the only goal is wrong, it needs to be more encompassing to take in NOx as well. But given the deadly environment that the workers harvesting the raw Lithium are exposed to and the limited known resources of it, and its location along with the huge distances between the various locations of the processing plants required to convert it into batteries, needs to be weighed against the extra costs of researching various ways of scrubbing the CO2, Nox and particulates from vehicle exhausts, which I'm sure there are ways of doing just that.

The real problem I think is that once the technology has been developed to "wash" the harmful emissions, it is not going to be a revenue generator for the mega corporations unlike the oil industry and battery industry, both offering a source of immense power in a suitable and convenient fashion and therefore a huge cash generator for their owners, which I cannot see how an industry developing emission cleansing solutions ever becoming a cash cow. That I think will require a government lead directive to make it happen, but governments as we all know are more focused on the businesses that generate huge profits so their tax revenue increases.

The thing needs a radicle rethink to decide the way forwards and as long as greed for wealth as opposed to health and sustainability is the main objective then the outlook for mankind long term is bleak.

[Specmaster]

I do know that there are many ways of looking at it, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that to produce a running car and get it into the showroom, the electric car at that point is by all accounts that read and heard about is not the greenest at all. It might well end up being greener at a certain point in its life, but there are so many factors at play here that I refuse to be drawn one way or the other.

That's a moot point. The only basis for comparison that makes any sense is to do full life end-to-end evaluations. That means for fossil fuel vehicles starting with the crude oil in the ground, and all the processes involved in making and transporting the fuel and the vehicle, operating it over a realistic normal lifetime and disposing of it at the end of that life. For a electric vehicle doing the same process, making the vehicle, making and transporting the electricity for it, operating it and the final disposal.

Talking about just one bit or the other of the full life cycle of the vehicle and its fuel allows too many opportunities for people to cherry-pick their arguments.

Isn't that more or less what I have said, but with one important differance, you're bringing into the equation the oil production and the continued operating costs throughout the cars life. I was only looking at the energy used to produce the total car, and transport it to the car showroom. From that point on I said that it could well be greener once it leaves the showroom, but that has yet to be proven either way.

There's no point in just talking about what it costs environmentally just to get the car to the showroom. It's a vehicle, not an ornament that's going to sit on the mantelpiece and do nothing. Looking at the manufacturing aspect in isolation makes no sense. If it doesn't have to be a practical vehicle that does practical work then obviously a nicely painted model of a car with no working engine or running gear would be the greenest of all. (This is obviously reductio-ad-absurdem, but that's a fitting comparison for any argument that treats a car's environment costs only up until just before the point it is put into use.)

As to the unsupported assertion that the jury's still out on the whole issue of which is greener:

EV whole lifecycle impact
Vehicle ‘lifecycle analyses’ - which take account of all the emissions right the way from the mining of ores, the manufacture of vehicles and batteries, and in-use energy consumption of petrol, diesel or electricity - show large overall CO2 savings for EVs compared to conventional vehicles.

The British Government’s key 2018 publication The Road to Zero stated that EVs “have substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions than conventional vehicles, even when taking into account the electricity source and the electricity used for battery production. Assuming the current UK energy mix, battery electric vehicles produce the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of all the energy sources and fuels assessed, irrespective of vehicle type and operation.”11

The Road to Zero estimated that in 2018 an EV car in the UK currently has total [i.e. whole life cycle] associated greenhouse gas emissions 66% lower than a petrol car and 60% lower than a diesel car.

It also estimated that by 2050 emissions from UK electricity generation would fall by 90% because renewables will dominate generation, and that the emissions associated with EV use will fall in parallel.

Thats the whole point they are purely estimates, and they are so often wrong. For instance Car A might only do 10,000 miles it is life before it is either written off in a accident or EOL and Car B could do 250,000 miles, who knows, the manner in which they are driven will also as you say, will also impact on the cars carbon footprint, to many variables to give reasonable accurate figures, unlike the carbon footprint it takes to produce the car in the first instance and get it to the showrooms in theory is a far better bet to measure the footprint of.

What happens once the vehicle is sold is anyone's guess, and it needs to take into account not just if the driver has a heavy right foot, but also the terrain, hilly, flat, tarmac, mud tracks, sand, snow etc all will greatly affect the results.

[Saskia]

Every car not produced will have a positive effect on our natural resources.
As will home office by cutting the amount of commutes.