 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Hydrogen Economy By Antonio C. Abaya Written Dec. 26, 2004 For the Philippines Free Press January 08, 2005 issue An inside-page news story from the New York Times, published in the Nov. 29 issue of Today, titled �Hydrogen breakthrough could bolster fuel supplies,� may not have caused shock waves in most people�s consciousness, but to environmentalists and other observers concerned about global warming and the dwindling supply of petroleum, it is a major event. Potentially, it could be the beginning of the hydrogen economy that many strategic thinkers have seen as inevitable, in much the same way that the invention of the external combustion engine in the 18th century and of the internal combustion engine in the 19h century marked the beginning of the carbon economy that has been the basis of practically all industrial and transport activities ever since. In both types of engines, the burning of carbon-based fuel (wood, coal, gas, alcohol, gasoline or diesel) has not only depleted finite resources, it has also contributed to the phenomenon of global warming. In global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from millions of factories and hundreds of millions of motor vehicles worldwide trap solar heat in the atmosphere, warm the air and the seas and cause polar ice caps and mountaintop snow to melt prematurely, which in turn raise ocean levels and make coastal areas more vulnerable to flooding. At the same time, the amount of new oil deposits being discovered has significantly declined in relation to the rate at which current supplies are being consumed, so that it is inevitable that demand will outstrip supply in the not so distant future. Especially with the fast economic growth of China and, to a lesser but still significant extent, India. Right now, only 20 million Chinese own cars. What will happen to oil (and steel) supplies when 400 million do? The Chinese are frantically buying scrap metal all over the world, as well as coal and oil, driving up world prices. And they are extracting their coal deposits with literally reckless abandon: this year alone, some 4,500 coal miners have died in mine accidents in China. So what is going to happen when oil supplies run low? War and political instability, no less. It is the reason the American neocons launched the invasion of Iraq (and, soon, Iran?). It is the reason they want to overthrow President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the fifth biggest oil producer in the world. And it is the reason they, through the Heritage Foundation, are angry at President Gloria Arroyo for signing an agreement with China for joint oil exploration in the Spratlys, to the point of searching for her possible early replacement. It is all about oil, and the US� need to be guaranteed of supplies well into the future. But in anticipation of the inevitable, the search for alternatives to oil is in earnest. Wind, solar and biomass energy may sound environmentally correct, but they can never supply power in the volume and scale needed in the industrial future when 400 million Chinese and 400 million Indians own cars. Only nuclear fusion and fuel cells may hold promise for such a future. Nuclear fusion reactors, in which light atoms (like deuterium or heavy hydrogen) are fused to release nuclear energy, with little or no radioactivity, are still decades away from actual use. (In current nuclear fission reactors, heavy atoms [like uranium] are split to release nuclear energy, with much resultant radioactivity.) Fuel cells, on the other hand, are already in the here and now. There are already several hundred experimental cars, buses and vans operating on fuel cells in the US, Canada, Europe and Japan. And there are also dozens of stationary fuel cell generators already operating in these same countries. In 1995, I was given a briefing on fuel cells by two executives of the Onsi Corp., which manufactures fuel cells for NASA�s space ships. I was shown an operating unit that generates a max of 250 kilowatts for the Hyatt Jamboree Hotel in Irvine, California. The unit occupies only about a fourth of the area of a tennis court, has practically no moving parts, makes absolutely no noise and emits only warm water vapor, which the hotel condenses and recycles for its laundry room. After I wrote about it in my Philippine Star column, the Department of Energy sent me a letter advising that they were going to send an eight-man team to visit fuel cell fabricators in North America. But I do not know whatever became of that mission. Fuel cells generate electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen in an acidic electrolyte solution, with water as its end product. It is electrolysis in reverse. Theoretically, fuel cells can extract the hydrogen and the oxygen from ordinary tap water, recombine them to produce water and electricity, then split the water again into hydrogen and oxygen, in an endless cycle. But in an actual application, the hydrogen is supplied as hydrogen gas and the oxygen as oxygen gas. Hydrogen can also be extracted from natural gas. The technology has not yet reached a level of self-sufficiency. But the Onsi executives see a future when an operating fuel cell generator for a building or a community or a factory complex will have its own electrolysis adjunct for extracting all the hydrogen and oxygen that it needs from ordinary tap water or from its own exhaust. The hydrogen breakthrough mentioned in the article consists of producing hydrogen by high-temperature electrolysis. But it requires the building of a new kind of nuclear fission reactor. The Onsi executives were talking of electrolysis by solar energy. Is that coming? I do not know. But a recent international conference held in, of all places, Manila last Dec. 7-9 on �Towards a Secure and Renewable Hydrogen Economy for Asia�, sponsored by US AID and attended by scientists and policy makers from all over the world, showed the interest worldwide in developing a hydrogen economy to liberate us from the shackles of the carbon economy that has held mankind hostage for far too long. There is at least one country on Planet Earth � Iceland � which has officially adopted a deliberate plan to shift from a carbon to a hydrogen economy. It is relatively easy for tiny Iceland (pop. 300,000) to take this step: it does not have much manufacturing industries, and its power requirements are fully met by hydro and geothermal assets. Nevertheless, its adoption of fuel cell-powered buses and taxis for its public transportation system, even though these are still in the experimental stage and are therefore expensive to use, is innovative and pioneering. As one of the richest countries in the world (per capita GDP: $30,900), Icelanders can afford it.. The present high cost of extracting hydrogen from water or natural gas is partially offset by the efficiency of fuel cells: 65% versus about 20% for internal combustion engines. ***** . Reactions to [email protected] or Fax 824-7642. Other articles in www.tapatt.org. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Hydrogen Economy� Hi, My reaction to your article. For once you seem to me to be following the wrong tack. Here is some extracts from an article that I read a little while ago (sorry I have lost my record of who wrote it). It appeals to me in the same way as your articles usually do. "The Kyoto protocol was finally ratified a few weeks ago. It seeks to promote energy efficiency and alternatives to fossil fuels, and insists on reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases by the industrialized world in the hope that the climate may stabilize. While these international talkfests have become louder in issuing warnings about the impending environmental crisis caused by fossil fuel consumption, the issues they espouse have become ever more irrelevant for developing countries. The problem for the citizens of the poor countries, about two-thirds of humanity, is that they cannot afford to consume modern and clean energy. Consequently, even if all the rich countries were to meet their Kyoto targets, the impact on global climate might be marginal because the poor countries will consume much more energy and that will undercut any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the rich countries. To persuade poor countries to sign up for the climate-change deal, schemes are being offered as carrots to help finance the transition, and provide access to modern technologies. But if the record of foreign aid and development finance is any guide, the climate-linked funds are unlikely to help, as most will just prop up corrupt regimes while perpetuating poverty. The Kyoto protocol does little to bring the energy sector under the discipline of competitive market forces, and fails to usher in much needed reforms that might reduce power cuts in developing countries, where problems, are linked to unreliable energy supplies that stop the using of greener technologies rather than to excessive energy consumption. It is a paradox that the poor who have the most to gain from fuel efficiency are least able to afford the technologies that make conservation possible. Supporters of climate change theory rightly warn that the poor are most vulnerable to natural calamities such as typhoons, floods and droughts. Yet Kyoto protocol policies seek to retard the economic growth that would enable the poor to leave poverty behind and adapt better. In the past two decades the world had been slowly moving towards a more market-oriented approach and ensuring greater freedom for people to make their own decisions. But the emergence of the new environmentalism has put the environment, rather than people, at the centre of decision-making. Consequently, every effort is aimed at reining in man�s creative talents, and curtailing demands for higher consumption. Not surprisingly, the climate-change debate has renewed the faith of old socialists who have found a new chain to enslave man through global regulations. It may be counterintuitive but there is only one economic lesson from history � increased consumption stimulates efforts at improving efficiency, which in turn contributes to conservation, economic and environmental. The Kyoto protocol seeks to reverse this relationship by focusing on reducing consumption through punitive taxes and so on, which will not ultimately help conservation goals. If we can develop, the poor will be able to afford energy-conserving measures. Without development they cannot and the present cycle can only continue. " John Adams, [email protected] United Kingdom, January 17, 2005 MY REPLY. But if the technology is perfected and there is a shift to the hydrogen economy, there would be no need for the Kyoto Protocol at all, since enlightened self-interest would favor hydrogen sources of energy as the price of oil goes up to $100 or $200 a barrel. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The general comment that could be made about the article below would be "decades away". The problem with a hydrogen economy which means large scale usage of the fuel to the extent of 50% of total energy use, is hydrogen is not A PRIMARY SOURCE of energy. It is an intermediate form of energy storage that has to be produced from primary energy at great cost and investment. (Of course, it is �decades away�. Nobody said it was going to happen tomorrow or next year. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the cosmos and the nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms is the source of the energy of the sun and other stars. What can be more �primary� than that? ACA) All known and feasible processes of producing hydrogen require any or a combination of the following: oil, natural gas and electricity from primary sources. The world is expected to be short of these resources as expected energy demand from China and India, for example, may not be met by adequate supply. What we need would be an enormous supply of inexpensive electricity that does not come from coal, oil and natural gas, which are finite and could be used for higher value applications. (So what do you suggest? ACA) A possible answer is a nuclear FUSION reactor that somehow produces cheap electricity. However, we are nowhere near a workable process. All the other ways of producing hydrogen at the current scale of oil consumption, are merely demonstration or expensive small scale showcases. (I also mentioned nuclear fusion reactors in the above article, in case you missed it. But fusion reactors are even more �decades away� and much more expensive than fuel cells. There is not a single experimental fusion reactor in the world. In the laboratory, scientists have been able to produce electricity from fusion reaction, but only for several thousandths of a second at a time. On the other hand, as I mentioned in the above article, there are already hundreds of experimental cars, buses and vans running on fuels cells in the US, Europe, Japan and Canada, as there are several dozen experimental stationary fuel cell generators in the same countries, each generating as much as, the last time I checked, one megawatt over months (by now, years) of continuous operation. Not to mention the fuel cells that NASA uses to generate power on board its space ships. ACA) I have added some more comments that are embedded in the original article. Tony Anciano, [email protected] January 17, 2005 An inside-page news story from the New York Times, published in the Nov. 29 issue of Today, titled �Hydrogen breakthrough could bolster fuel supplies,� YOUR REACTION: This is still electrolysis and the primary energy source proposed is a new kind of fission reactor. Uranium prices have been rising because of supply tightness. We would be short of uranium just to supply existing and on-the-pipeline projects. Where would they get the massive amounts of uranium to replace oil and coal use? This is just a laboratory story that has little practical value in the marketplace. And it's going to be expensive. (MY REPLY: So is there a cheap alternative? When the price of oil reaches $100 or $200 a barrel, will you still knock fuel cells and hydrogen because they are expensive? The ONSI Corp. executives who showed me their operating fuel cell unit in Irvine CA were talking about electrolysis by solar power to extract hydrogen from water. To me, this is the most promising technology because, when perfected, it will allow individual buildings, factory complexes, university campuses, small communities, even individual homes to have their own fuel cell generators with built-in solar-powered sources of hydrogen. No need for regional or nationwide power grids, an additional substantial savings in costs in favor of fuel cells. ACA) The Chinese are frantically buying scrap metal all over the world, as well as coal and oil, driving up world prices. And they are extracting their coal deposits with literally reckless abandon: this year alone, some 4,500 coal miners have died in mine accidents in China. YOUR COMMENT: This means China won't have 400 million cars within the next 30 years. (MY REPLY: Do you think the energy crisis will end in 30 years? ACA) So what is going to happen when oil supplies run low? War and political instability, no less. It is the reason the American neocons launched the invasion of Iraq (and, soon, Iran?). It is the reason they want to overthrow President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the fifth biggest oil producer in the world. And it is the reason they, through the Heritage Foundation, are angry at President Gloria Arroyo for signing an agreement with China for joint oil exploration in the Spratlys, to the point of searching for her possible early replacement. It is all about oil, and the US� need to be guaranteed of supplies well into the future.YOUR COMMENT: The analysis above is basically agreeable to me. However, the paramount driver of US military adventurism in the Middle East is less of "guaranteed US oil supplies" but more of "control of oil supplies destined for rival powers like the EU, China , Japan an d India." The US procures its oil supplies from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and a small amount (8%-11%) from the Middle East. The US does not need substantial amounts from the Middle East; but its upcoming rivals do. The power leverage that would be available to the US when it would have its hands on the oil spigots would be immense when supplies run tight. (MY REPLY: According to the 2005 World Almanac and Book of Facts [page 173], in 2004 the US imported an average of 9.927 million barrels a day of crude oil, of which 1.387m came from Saudi Arabia, 651,000 from Iraq, and 266,000 from Kuwait. That�s 2.304 million barrels a day from the Middle East, or 23% of the US� total daily imports, which is substantially bigger than the �small amount [8%-11%]� that you claimed. ACA.) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, Tony. I can't remember where I read it, but I read somewhere in the internet that the Philippines has one of the richest reserves of hydrogen fuel in the world. I don't believe in manghuhula, but a noted manghuhula said the Philippines will be one of the richest country in Asia in 2006 or close to that due to hydrogen fuel. now, that's a strange coincidence Oh well, it is nice to dream once in awhile. Have a nice day! Bobby Tordesillas, [email protected] January 17, 2005 MY REPLY. You�re referring to deuterium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen, which the Philippines is said to have in abundance. This is a hoax. Please re-read the last seven paragraphs in my article Spiritual Revolution? (Nov. 18, 2004). wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, This will be the future and is probably making the Saudis nervous. I would like to point out your comment on the war for oil statement , that it is the US leading this new science and in a few years would greatly improve these systems. Therefore no need for war as insinuated in your piece. Also , one reason this science is slow in R&D could be because of Bush policy which is tied up in oil. Ray Eced, January 18, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Your hydrogen economy could be the salvation of the country. I believe the government should invest in it. Or alternatively, let us convince corrupt political and military leaders and businessmen who continue to hold the country by the neck, to put a fund that will finance practical research to be conducted by selected, bright Filipino scientists. I believe contributions to the research fund will be more effective than the confessional box if any of them would want their sins to the people expiated. Yours truly, Virgilio C Leynes, [email protected] January 18, 2005 MY REPLY. The Hydrogen Economy will be the salvation of the world, not just this country. But we do not have to reinvent the wheel or rediscover fire. The more sensible thing to do would be to send a mission to Iceland, which is the only country with an explicit policy to embrace the hydrogen economy, and to the developers of fuel cells in Canada, US, Japan and the EU, and determine where we can carve a niche for ourselves in the global search for hydrogen alternatives. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
Dear Mr. Abaya: It is noted that you did not provide for a second round of commentaries and I noted also that I did not observe the understood format in composing my reply. The purpose of this commentary is to cite miscommunication which gives the wrong impression as well as inaccurate information. Kindly see bolded comments below: _________________________________________ The general comment that could be made about the article below would be "decades away". The problem with a hydrogen economy which means large scale usage of the fuel to the extent of 50% of total energy use, is hydrogen is not A PRIMARY SOURCE of energy. It is an intermediate form of energy storage that has to be produced from primary energy at great cost and investment. (Of course, it is �decades away�. Nobody said it was going to happen tomorrow or next year. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the cosmos and the nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms is the source of the energy of the sun and other stars. What can be more �primary� than that? ACA) "Primary Energy Source" is a technical term used in the trade to describe original primemovers as contrasted with "secondary" energy sources. Electricity (from whatever primary source) is a secondary source. So is hydrogen, gasoline or battery power. The key distinction lies in the need of a primary source to generate the secondary form. This distinction makes all the difference in whether a hydrogen economy is at all feasible. Certainly its proponents would want us to believe that, especially those with a commercial or ideological interest i.e. clean environment. Based on the technology we are capable of, hydrogen can only be produced in large quantities through electricity from nuclear, oil, hydro, coal, geothermal, solar and wind--regardless of the cost. All known and feasible processes of producing hydrogen require any or a combination of the following: oil, natural gas and electricity from primary sources. The world is expected to be short of these resources as expected energy demand from China and India, for example, may not be met by adequate supply. What we need would be an enormous supply of inexpensive electricity that does not come from coal, oil and natural gas, which are finite and could be used for higher value applications. (So what do you suggest? ACA) The intermediate to long-term future that I imagine would be the following: (as conventional oil hits Peak Oil phenomenon) 1) Land transport would increasingly use electricity from trains to buses and family motor cars. This is a more efficient use of electricity as compared to an expensive extra step of hydrogen conversion which would need costly new logistics infrastructure. 2) Petroleum or oil, which would be diminishing in quantity produced, would be increasingly dedicated to marine and air transport. We won't run out of oil for another 100--200 years; just getting less and less of it. Air transport would require the light distillate ends of the crude barrel while marine would use the heavier bottoms--a perfect combination. We should be able to manage, with some difficulty, until a better solution arrives. It could be a hydrogen economy or something else. BTW. I spent 18 years in the petroleum industry starting with Exxon, then the PNOC and lastly the Dept. of Energy (seconded from PNOC) where my last position was Planning and Policy Director. A possible answer is a nuclear FUSION reactor that somehow produces cheap electricity. However, we are nowhere near a workable process. All the other ways of producing hydrogen at the current scale of oil consumption, are merely demonstration or expensive small scale showcases. (I also mentioned nuclear fusion reactors in the above article, in case you missed it. But fusion reactors are even more �decades away� and much more expensive than fuel cells. There is not a single experimental fusion reactor in the world. In the laboratory, scientists have been able to produce electricity from fusion reaction, but only for several thousandths of a second at a time. On the other hand, as I mentioned in the above article, there are already hundreds of experimental cars, buses and vans running on fuels cells in the US, Europe, Japan and Canada, as there are several dozen experimental stationary fuel cell generators in the same countries, each generating as much as, the last time I checked, one megawatt over months (by now, years) of continuous operation. Not to mention the fuel cells that NASA uses to generate power on board its space ships. ACA) I have added some more comments that are embedded in the original article. Tony Anciano, [email protected] An inside-page news story from the New York Times, published in the Nov. 29 issue of Today, titled �Hydrogen breakthrough could bolster fuel supplies,� YOUR REACTION: This is still electrolysis and the primary energy source proposed is a new kind of fission reactor. Uranium prices have been rising because of supply tightness. We would be short of uranium just to supply existing and on-the-pipeline projects. Where would they get the massive amounts of uranium to replace oil and coal use? This is just a laboratory story that has little practical value in the marketplace. And it's going to be expensive. (MY REPLY: So is there a cheap alternative? When the price of oil reaches $100 or $200 a barrel, will you still knock fuel cells and hydrogen because they are expensive? The ONSI Corp. executives who showed me their operating fuel cell unit in Irvine CA were talking about electrolysis by solar power to extract hydrogen from water. To me, this is t he most promising technology because, when perfected, it will allow individual buildings, factory complexes, university campuses, small communities, even individual homes to have their own fuel cell generators with built-in solar-powered sources of hydrogen. No need for regional or nationwide power grids, an additional substantial savings in costs in favor of fuel cells. ACA) Already replied to. The Chinese are frantically buying scrap metal all over the world, as well as coal and oil, driving up world prices. And they are extracting their coal deposits with literally reckless abandon: this year alone, some 4,500 coal miners have died in mine accidents in China. YOUR COMMENT: This means China won't have 400 million cars within the next 30 years. (MY REPLY: Do you think the energy crisis will end in 30 years? ACA) We have no way of knowing. I know , however, that the world under current technology cannot support the Chinese and Indian populations living like the average Singaporean. Hydrogen economy is NOT yet a choice open to us because of the enormous investments required; there are other more affordable choices. Some corporations want to push the idea further but they keep quiet on the development cost. they expect the gov't to pay. So what is going to happen when oil supplies run low? War and political instability, no less. It is the reason the American neocons launched the invasion of Iraq (and, soon, Iran?). It is the reason they want to overthrow President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the fifth biggest oil producer in the world. And it is the reason they, through the Heritage Foundation, are angry at President Gloria Arroyo for signing an agreement with China for joint oil exploration in the Spratlys, to the point of searching for her possible early replacement. It is all about oil, and the US� need to be guaranteed of supplies well into the future.YOUR COMMENT: The analysis above is basically agreeable to me. However, the paramount driver of US military adventurism in the Middle East is less of "guaranteed US oil supplies" but more of "control of oil supplies destined for rival powers like the EU, China , Japan an d India." The US procures its oil supplies from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and a small amount (8%-11%) from the Middle East. The US does not need substantial amounts from the Middle East; but its upcoming rivals do. The power leverage that would be available to the US when it would have its hands on the oil spigots would be immense when supplies run tight. (MY REPLY: According to the 2005 World Almanac and Book of Facts [page 173], in 2004 the US imported an average of 9.927 million barrels a day of crude oil, of which 1.387m came from Saudi Arabia, 651,000 from Iraq, and 266,000 from Kuwait. That�s 2.304 million barrels a day from the Middle East, or 23% of the US� total daily imports, which is substantially bigger than the �small amount [8%-11%]� that you claimed. ACA.) It was 8-11% before 2004. But as you can see, it is not very material to what I said i.e. The US aim is more to control the oil producing regions THAT SUPPLY AND WOULD SUPPLY THE OIL NEEDS OF ITS RIVALS. Best Regards Tony Anciano MY REPLY. I do not know if anyone is interested in following this debate this far, but in case anyone is, I would like to summarize the salient points. 1. I wrote in the above article, Hydrogen Economy, that the dwindling supply of oil, and the corresponding continuous increase in its price, would force the global community to look for non-oil alternative sources of energy. The most promising, in my opinion, is fuel cells, which produce energy from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen, and which would be the precursor of the Hydrogen Economy of the future. 2. In an email to �everyone concerned�, you pooh-poohed this as �decades away� , even though, as I pointed out, there are hundreds of experimental cars, vans and buses in the US, Canada, Europe and Japan running on fuels cells; as well as several dozen experimental stationary fuel cell generators in the same countries that have been operating continuously for months, even years; not to mention the fuel cells that have been used for decades on board NASA�s space ships. 3. When asked what you suggest instead, you picked nuclear fusion, which I had also mentioned in my article. But, I pointed out, there is not a single experimental nuclear fusion reactor in the whole world. And that although scientists have generated energy from nuclear fusion in their laboratories, this has been for only a few thousandths of a second at a time in duration. Which makes nuclear fusion even more �decades away� than fuel cells. 4. So now you say that what you see in the future is land transport will use electricity, while air and marine transport will use derivatives of oil, the lighter distillates for airplanes, the heavier ones for ships. I have no problem with that, but the question still remains: electricity generated by what? And what about the energy needs of industries, offices, residences, schools, hospitals, etc? As the price of oil keeps going up, as it inevitably will, the present relatively high cost of energy generated by fuel cells will likely be compensated for by their higher efficiency, about three times that of internal combustion engines burning oil-based fuels, as the government of Iceland has calculated in its deliberate official policy of shifting to a hydrogen economy. As for nuclear fusion, for that to happen requires raising the temperature of the fuel to one million degrees Celcius, a gargantuan technological problem that is at present met with huge magnets that keep the super-hot plasma from touching the reactor walls. A slip-up would vaporize the reactor and everything and everyone in or near it for miles around. The innate complexity of nuclear fusion, even when perfected, requires massive infrastructure located safe distances away from inhabited areas. The simplicity of fuel cells allows even individual buildings or even individual houses to have their own fuel cell generators, as in fact experimental units already do. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
| By the way, the 2005 World Almanac and Book of Facts, page 173, which contained the country-by-country statistics for US oil imports in 2004 (showing that imports from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq made up 23% of total, not 8-11% as you claimed) also contained the statistics for previous years. They are 26% for 1988, 30% for 1990, 20% for 1995, 19% for 1996, 19% for 1997, 23% for 1998, 27% for 1999, 26% for 2000, 28% for 2001, 24% for 2002, and 25% for 2003. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |