Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options

The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

145791021

Comments

  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    These new plants are investor owned that are going up. The government is NOT building plants for people. Obviously things like new corn traits do not come overnight. If you knew much about plant genetics, it takes a fairly good amount of time to perfect these things. Go back 5 years and the ethanol talk was pretty much nothing because oil was 25-30 a barrel. As long as oil stays high there is going to be continued bio fuel talk. The new ethanol plants being built can be converted to switchgrass once that technology is here, but that is more than 10 yrs off. Also if you do not know much about things, ADM IS the biggest investor in ethanol in this country. They alone are putting up more plants than farmer coops or investors. That is a fact. We arent going to change each others opinion its a different line of thinking out in California than it is here in the midwest. Just never going to line up.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The government is NOT building plants for people.

    I consider a loan guarantee the same as me paying for it. The plant will be obsolete in 10 years and the loans will be paid by OUR tax dollars. The same as it was in the 1970s. Same boondoggle different year. This was just finalized in July. Posted in a pro ethanol publication... No way that ADM can lose. They spent their lobby money well.

    Rules for the long-awaited U.S. DOE loan guarantee program have been published. The DOE announced the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the loan guarantee program May 10. Once published in the Federal Register, the proposed rules were open for public comment for 45 days. Application deadlines will be announced once the rules are published in final form.

    The loan guarantee program was authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and finally funded for up to $4 billion in loan guarantees in the budget for fiscal year 2007. Congress is considering the DOE's request for up to $9 billion in loan guarantee authority in the 2008 budget.


    http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3074
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    So by doing things your way gagrice, we do nothing as oil prices stay hovering above $70/barrel. We keep gas at super high levels forever and we keep our commodities at low prices. What happens now??? US farmers go out of business, our energy reliance is still on the fools over in the middle east and our dollars are going to worthless regimes such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Sounds like such a wonderful scenario.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I don't know, you tell me. ADM or Verasun comes blowing into your town USA. They promise the moon and great jobs. Build an ethanol plant. Hire lots of people. Price of housing goes up as these people buy their dream home. ADM is making millions and the locals are doing well. Bottom falls out of the corn ethanol business. ADM says adios to your little town. Jobs gone bills are due and you end up with a ghost town. The whole ethanol business is a get rich quick scheme by a few mega corporations and you are just a pawn.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I have no problem with making ethanol and selling it to those that WANT it. I have no problem with ADM coming in and building an ethanol plant with 100% investor money. If the ethanol producers want to sell it in CA put it in a truck and come on out. You may find a sucker or two that will pay the real price for that stuff. Hey I got a Flex Fuel Ford Ranger. If E85 was available and comparable to unleaded taking into account the 25% loss in energy, I would give it a try.

    The way it is being pushed down our Nations throat can only end up in a mess. Sorry you cannot see past the dollar signs in your eyes. It has not cut our imports by ONE Penny from those countries you like to bash. In fact we are using more this year than last.
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    HAHAHA, Man this cracks me up, as long as the DEMAND is there, the price will stay up. Its simple supply and demand. There needs to be a mandate to get this industry off the ground. In all respects it is still very young, if you want to see companies making millions on the backs of us Americans just look at Shell, Chevron and the other oil companies. Now thats something that puts a hurtin on ALL our wallets.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    How is Exxon or Chevron ripping us off any more than ADM? You have to be involved enough in the ethanol business to realize the money in ethanol production has shifted from the farmer owned small plants to the mega plants owned by ADM. Where the farmers used to get a cut of the ethanol profit now they only get whatever the corn brings. When that price is low the only ones making a profit are ADM. Who I consider just as greedy as Exxon if not more so. The hurtin' on our wallets is higher prices for bread, beef and eggs. Higher prices for ethanol laced gasoline. Depletion of the soil planted year after year in corn. Destruction of the seafood industry in the Gulf caused by fertilizer run-off. I could go on but you know the truth. A few people in the Midwest are cutting a fat hog at the expense of the rest of US.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    I had an very interesting conversation yesterday about ethanol. The gentlemen was telling me the emissions from ethanol are not as clean as we are being told. I was hoping someone could shed some light on this.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,107
    Let's be clear - there are 'classical' pollution emissions (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, unburned hydrocarbons) and there's the 'new' pollutant, CO2. As for 'classical' pollutants, the studies I've read have it as about a wash, even EPA says ethanol does not reduce these emissions. As for CO2, there's a fair amount of controversy, with some coming out with moderate reductions in CO2, others showing it to be a wash.

    edit- here's an oft-quoted article stating greater deaths from air pollution with E85. Can't attest to it's accuracy.
    E85 pollution analysis
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Glad you asked. Here are two pages with good data on that issue:

    Ethanol emissions versus Gas #1

    Ethanol emissions versus Gas #2

    Dueling results - Put up yer E85 Dukes, Dude !!

    It appears as if the jury may still be out on this issue.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Here is a link to the latest studies on ethanol emissions.

    In his paper, Jacobson concluded in the abstract that “Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline. However, because of the uncertainty in future emission regulations, it can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles. Unburned ethanol emissions from E85 may result in a global-scale source of acetaldehyde larger than that of direct emissions.”

    In remarks outside the paper, Jacobson was somewhat more aggressive in characterizing the results of the study.

    Today, there is a lot of investment in ethanol, but we found that using E85 will cause at least as much health damage as gasoline, which already causes about 10,000 U.S. premature deaths annually from ozone and particulate matter. The question is, if we’re not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote ethanol and other biofuels?


    This link presents both sides of the debate.

    E85 Good or Bad?
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    Thanks this confirms what the gentleman was telling me. There is a much better alternative out there.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    A news blurb the other day said we might be looking at $9 to $12 six packs for beer and that some small breweries may have to shut down due to the high price and short supply of hops and barley.
    I’ll bet the prohibitionist (dry law) are giddy, our nation forced into economic abstinence of drink.
    The reason was stated as: a poor hops crop and that farmers had planted less hops and barley than in the past.
    Less hops and barley? My goodness, for what reason why?

    Also, another unrelated news item mentions that wheat products could cost more due to the increased price farmers are getting for wheat.

    I want be very clear in the fact that I believe farmers more than anyone should make a very good wage, they feed me and I don’t like to be hungry. That is the reason I work, food, shelter, clothing.

    Thanks ethanol, you have made my life that much more expensive. :mad:
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 265,514
    Except... the expensive hops they were referring to are imported from Bavaria..

    All the same, a very, very sad situation.. :cry:

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    First clown that proposes hops as an ethanol crop needs to get out of town fast!
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    I second the motion.
  • humblecoderhumblecoder Member Posts: 125
    I am from NJ so I freely admit that I am not an agri-scholar. All this talk about farmer subsidies, energy yields, fertilizer runoff, etc makes my eyes glaze over. However, one thing we DO know about in NJ is government run amok, so I consider well versed in that subject. From everything that I have read about ethanol from the political side, it seems like ethanol is an example of the government once again taking something that COULD be a good thing and screwing it up royally.

    My main complaint is that the government gives automakers a "break" on meeting CAFE standards for flex fuel vehicles, regardless of whether the vehicle drinks a single drop of E85. Here in NJ, I have seen flex fuel vehicles rumbling down the highway, but I seriously doubt that any of them is running of E85. This is because there ARE NO E85 stations in NJ!! I did a search to see if there were any stations within 100 miles of my location in neighboring states, and I found one in Philadelphia and one "coming soon" in upstate NY. The fact is that there are very few E85 stations in this part of the country.

    The problem I have is that since auto makers get "subsidized" for selling flex fuel vehicles, in the sense that it helps them meet their mpg quota, they don't have an incentive to increase sales of vehicles that are going to an actual impact on petroleum consumption. While the Big 3 are investing some money in alternative fuel autos, my opinion is that they would be investing in these technologies even more if they weren't getting this flex fuel credit, even for vehicles which don't use E85.

    My opinion is that ethanol represents a "perfect storm" of political goodness. Support for ethanol means that you can go on record as helping the farmers, helping the environment, and helping curb foreign oil dependence. What politician can argue with that? Opposing ethanol is like saying that you oppose mom and apple pie! Of course, as with all political issues, the truth isn't quite that simple.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    You, my friend, have hit the nail right on the head.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Was it an "ethanol bubble"?

    Rush To Judgment
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,107
    Good, bad, or indifferent, until they change the law, ethanol's here to stay. Election year? Iowa caucasus? Don't count on any changes, market turmoil or not.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Here is the whole article in the Des Moines Register of all places. Seems those in the Midwest are seeing Ethanol for what it is. CORPORATE WELFARE for a few mega corporations.

    What's happened?

    How is it that the ethanol industry went from joke to hero to goat in less than three years?


    http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071118/BUSINESS/711180- 325/1017/SPORTS06
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Give them points for imagination, but when something sounds too good to be true...

    The ethanol lobby is claiming that mixing a higher percentage blend of ethanol actually increases mileage. Read the article and Alternate Route's take at:

    You're geting Sleepy
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    I was always told that “God would get me for lying” and the few times I did get caught in a lie I wish it had been God that got me because I’m sure he/she would have been far more merciful.
    So why do these people keep spewing this stuff?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I wish the gas stations were forced to post the ethanol content in their gas. I would buy the gas with the lowest amount. I get much worse mileage with CA gas than from surrounding states. I think it is the Ethanol content. Sweet spot, they wish. What a bunch of gangsters in the ethanol business. It can be considered organized crime. Where is Elliot Ness when you need him?
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    why do these people keep spewing this stuff?

    The cynical and obvious answer would be money.
    I'm gonna have to become an honorary citizen of Missouri on this one and they'll have to show me that this claim is true because on the face of it, it makes no sense at all.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    The energy bill passed the house and has been sent on to be signed. As always, the Devil In The Details factor remains.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That's all well and good, but perhaps we should have come up with a profitable way of producing ethanol before deciding that we're going to ramp things up.

    Not to belabor the point. This is typical of the 110th Congress. Not much logic or good economics in what they are doing. Last I read cellulosic ethanol is still the holy grail of ethanol production. What a joke this bill is. I can live without the 100 watt bulbs as we have switched most to those curly Panasonic jobs.
  • blkbr0thablkbr0tha Member Posts: 25
    Well guys- think about the real reason for all of this... yea we all know about GHG emissions but look deeper- Automotive industry is weak- oil prices are high- and the US economy could use a kick start. All in all- the Ethanol rise will definitely bridge the gap for a lot of BIG industries- automotive- chemical- and overall economics. However, I hate to say if things will get better for the regular JOE (tax payers). Cellulosic process is just as expensive as reg gas- new gas means more expensive cars that require light weight materials- efficienct engines- and streamlined engineering to meet the new laws. Cellulosic ethanol while helping the atmosphere and GHG emissions- may cause EWS (empty wallet synodrome) as we try and pay for the new benefits of new technology! Brace yourself- CHANGE is coming! :)
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,107
    Good article on how the Europeans are now recognizing the serious problems biofuels can create.

    Biofuels Snafu
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Too bad our Congress & President are so blind to the truth of corn ethanol. What a giant disaster we are heading into.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Some more biofuel news and commentary on the Alternate Route!

    (What) Were They Thinking?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It amazes me how our governments, the EU and others included are into knee jerk reaction to every little claim that comes along. Whether it is peak oil or global warming. These Gurus of doom like to paint a gloomy picture and have US like sheep follow them over the cliff.

    I was an early believer in biodiesel. I still think it can have an impact if made from some source like algae or waste oil. I would not advocate cutting down tropical rain forests and planting palm oil trees as a mega crop for biodiesel production, like they are doing in many parts of the World.
  • vibsrvibsr Member Posts: 47
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    When and IF biomass ethanol can be made without a negative energy consumption, ethanol will become a viable source of energy. The propaganda put out by ACE is of little value, as no one sells E20, E30, E45 or E65 that I know of. Of course it is all a waste of time in CA where only one station in the whole state sells E85. The ACE sheet did not specify what model vehicle they were able to get 15% increase with E20. The 1% with E30 is insignificant when you look at the REAL cost to the taxpayers for Ethanol from Corn. WE are getting the royal SHAFT from ADM and VeraSun with the help of our lame brain Congress.

    And my experience is the more ethanol added the lower the mileage on my 3 vehicles.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,107
    I'm also suspicious when no DOE contact info in given. Two new studies published in "Science" (so at least they've been peer-reviewed) state ALL current biofuels increase GHGs. So much for that selling point :sick: :sick: :sick:

    Biofuels increase GHGs
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That is a good article. I wondered when scientists would start looking at the BIG picture. They did not mention that 97% of the hardwood forest that was once Iowa is now in cropland. Another big carbon sink lost. It is another case of those believing they are environmental conservationists making things worse.

    “When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”

    These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example.

    The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1315643820080113?pageNumber=- 1&virtualBrandChannel=0

    Specifically this (if it works):

    Coskata said its process uses less than one gallon of water for every gallon of ethanol produced and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 84 percent compared with gasoline.

    Tests carried out by Argonne National Laboratory showed the ethanol generates 7.7 times the energy used to produce it, compared with 1.3 times for corn-based ethanol, Coskata said.

    Coskata vice president Richard Tovery said by the end of 2008 the company will have a location for its first production plant, which will cost between $300 million and $400 million and produce 100 million gallons of ethanol a year by 2011.

    Any thoughts??
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 84 percent compared with gasoline.

    Chemistry teaches us that molecules can be changed, but in order for an element - such as Carbon, to be changed requires a nuclear reaction, then if the carbon is not being emitted as CO2, then it is emitted as some other molecule. So what is it coming out as CO - carbon monoxide? CH - an unburned hydrocarbon? what?

    What goes in must come out. It all must balance.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Coskata vice president Richard Tovery said by the end of 2008 the company will have a location for its first production plant, which will cost between $300 million and $400 million and produce 100 million gallons of ethanol a year by 2011.

    Let me see here what this means:

    The new U.S. energy bill signed into law by President George W. Bush in December mandates a huge jump in biofuels production for America's automobiles - 36 billion gallons by 2022, with 16 billion gallons from cellulosic ethanol.

    If my calculations are correct. And it costs $300,000,000 to $400,000,000 per production plant for each 100,000,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol. We will have to spend $48 to $64 billion from 2011 to 2022 to reach this goal of 16 billion gallons of ethanol. That does not even take into account where they will get that kind of cellulosic materials. From my recollections most of the wood chips and pulp are used by the lumber and paper companies. It is already been determined that the CO2 produced by clearing land for crops will take 93 years to balance out with ethanol production. We have caused major grain shortages with the small ethanol production currently with corn. We have raised the price of bread and tortillas for the poor. What will this do? Knowing that every action causes a direct reaction. My thoughts are it is another government handout to big business. If they can build the plant with investor money and make ethanol at a profit without the subsidies, I say go for it.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That does not even take into account where they will get that kind of cellulosic materials

    You can bet these materials will have a big price when people realize that field of weeds will support their family. How many gallons of ethanol can be made from an acre of switchgrass? Does anyone think the landowner will want less than he can get growing a cash crop on that acre of land?
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    If my calculations are correct. And it costs $300,000,000 to $400,000,000 per production plant for each 100,000,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol. We will have to spend $48 to $64 billion from 2011 to 2022 to reach this goal of 16 billion gallons of ethanol.

    No, your calculations are correct, IF this is the best they can do. This may just be a test facility. If it works out as planned, I don't see why a larger plant couldn't be built.

    I also recall reading, though not in this article, that they could make the ethanol out of any biomass. I believe they were saying any waste material (our garbage??). IF this is true, would that not cut down on costs??? Anyhow, we are a long ways away from this being full bore.
  • sirlenasirlena Member Posts: 30
    Actually, they are not a long way out. It takes 2 1/2 years to get the Plant built and running. They will be making 100 million gallons/year of Commercial Grade Ethanol. Most Plants make about 50 mil gallons/year. Also, Michigan is getting one of the those Plants up north. It will also make 100 Million Gallons/year.

    Per Coskata, it will cost $1/gallon to make. And anything thing supports a flame can be turned into ethanol. They will be using ground up tires, for one.

    It's ethanol from garbage and it's reality, right now. Here's some more info about the biomass technology http://bluefireethanol.com/


    BurninE85.com
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,107
    I'm all for non-food-based biofuels, but this is yet to be a proven (not just a claimed), economically-viable process. Here's hoping!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Sounds a bit like it is coming from snake oil salesmen. Check out the actual facility in Japan. It looks like an old 3 story apartment building. I do agree that making ethanol from waste biomass is a good idea. This company is making some mighty big promises. Sounds more like a sales pitch to hook investors. Wood chips are not a viable source just as CORN is NOT. We already use all the wood chips for particle board and paper. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul is not a good solution to the energy problem. Show me a gallon of ethanol from our trash for a buck and you got something.

    http://bluefireethanol.com/images/IZUMI_Status_2004_for_BlueFire_051606.pdf
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You are correct that it would have to be proven that E85 caused the problem. I do think it would be very easy to prove. As far as I know GM only offers their cast iron engines as FFV. Toyota has not as yet offered any because they use mostly aluminum engine parts. If you think the risk is worth it. That is your decision.

    I don't see any small fuel efficient cars being offered as FFV. All 6 & 8 cylinder engines.

    They say that Methanol corodes metal and damages plastic & rubber and that damage is not covered by warranty (note, there is now word VOID in there).

    What is the difference between not being covered by warranty and voiding the warranty? Your article states for just about every brand NOT to use any gas with more than 10% ethanol. I don't think they can make it any clearer than that. Anyone telling you to run E85 in a NON FFV should give you a statement saying they will cover any damage the automaker refuses to cover. Aside from the fact that you are not saving US from buying one drop of foreign oil by using ethanol.
  • sirlenasirlena Member Posts: 30
    OK then, back to Coskata.
    Again, this Plant will be up and running in 2 1/2 years.
    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/coskata-owes-launch-to-swamp-bacteria-512- .html

    And in Michigan, the Masocma company will have a joint venture with Mich Tech.
    http://www.grainnet.com/articles/Mascoma_s_New_Ethanol_Plant_to_Put_MI_First_in_- Race_to_Turn__Wood_to_Wheels__-46329.html

    Conventional gasoline is nasty. Just because we have been using it for the last 100 years, does not mean it's the best fuel. It causes more driveability problem than people realize. It clogs injectors, causes varnish build up in your engine, contributes to engine wear and it's the most carcinogenic chemical producing industy in the world. What do you think they add to fuel to take it from 87 octane to 94 octane? Cancer causing/toxic chemicals.

    At least with E85, 85% is biodegradable and it's 105 octane without all those nasty additives. Indy is using it and so is the Le Mans.

    Keep burning your nasty gas. I choose ethanol.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    Keep burning your nasty gas. I choose ethanol.

    Well,I wish I could choose ethanol. I think there is another thing that may be more important than the green aspect: Self sustainablity when it comes to fuels. One major factor in us defeating the Germans in WWII was cutting off their fuel supply. Ethanol may just be a major component in keeping whack jobs like Chavez and the freak in Iran in check.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Keep burning your nasty gas. I choose ethanol.

    I would personally rather be using biodiesel. It just does not present the opportunity to fleece the populace as ethanol is doing. There is still only one station in the whole state of CA selling E85 to the public. And last I checked it was about 50 cents higher than regular unleaded. So my FlexFuel Ford and all the others in the state are just a big joke.
  • sirlenasirlena Member Posts: 30
    "There is still only one station in the whole state of CA selling E85 to the public. And last I checked it was about 50 cents higher than regular unleaded. "

    That's too bad that you don't have access to it in CA. We have 51 stations within a 100 mile radius of Detroit. I have no problem fueling up.

    And the national average is 15% CHEAPER than reg unleaded with a prediction that it will be 17%-20% cheaper in the near future. Some states, it's already $1 cheaper.

    http://www.e85prices.com

    For people that have to burn premium or they will damage their engine, it's a cost save to use E85 (even with the possible mpg loss). It's an excellent premium substitute. High compression engines run better on it (above 10:1) and that's a fact.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    For people that have to burn premium or they will damage their engine, it's a cost save to use E85 (even with the possible mpg loss). It's an excellent premium substitute. High compression engines run better on it (above 10:1) and that's a fact.

    Only if the car is designed to use E85. You will void your warranty if you use it in a non flexfuel vehicle. Ethanol and aluminum do not get along. Ethanol is far from a universal replacement for gasoline.

    Most of the concerns with ethanol are due to it's solvent abilities (disintegrates plastic, rubber, fiberglass and aluminum engine parts) and it's unique ability to absorb large amounts of water into fuel tanks.

    Marine engines have had the most problems with ethanol, since they exist in a water environment, which increases the possibility of water contamination. Also marine engines tend to keep gas in the tank longer than automobiles which increases the possibility of water absorption.


    http://www.fuel-testers.com/ethanol_fuel_articles.html
Sign In or Register to comment.