It is a proposal to end all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and nuclear power. It proposes to electrify all vehicles, houses, and processes with an end goal to ban any combustion. It would cost around $90 trillion dollars and take until 2070-2100, or 50-80 years to complete. All combustion engines would be banned and no oil, gas, coal or nuclear energy could be used, as well as bio fuels of Ethanol, Methanol. Electro-fuels (future of energy) would also be banned due to the combustion ban even though it is the only real solution to get to near zero CO2 for energy...
The GND basically says all combustion technology is outlawed and toxic electric junk must be used. It is totally illegal, unlawful and a serious crime. At the core is socialism with AI control via electric cars where nobody owns a car or can travel without permission from the slave masters.
New Engine Type tech aims to unplug this cabal of ignorant ideas and allow people freedom via fuels and energy storage, that can allow a person complete energy independence from grid and oil companies, as well as big tech cults like Tesla that receive massive government credits to promote failed ideas that can't and won't work.
Again, 3-10 times MORE CO2 from an EV compared to New Engine Type. And with CO2 capture and recycle with fuel making, New Engine tech would be 100% zero CO2, something EVs can't do until 2070 or later, according to Gates.
Green New Deal is not about CO2. It is about control. Wake up. Below is why you need to educate yourself, listen and LEARN how to get the CO2 out, not because CO2 harms anything, which it does not, but to unplug the thugs who want control. Just that simple.
Take the CO2 off the table (95% possible while still using gasoline) by having technology that is LESS CO2 than what the controllers own, thus allowing EVs to be banned by the very reason (CO2) for EVs. Use the sword they swing at us to cut the heads off this globalist hydra beast...and with this recent innovation of CO2 capture and recycling, the mantra of zero CO2 is taken away from the CO2 alarmists as they are the people making CO2 with their toxic EVs by 3-10 times over New Engine Type tech.
Below is discussed 11 reasons why the Green New Deal will fail. It is not a complete list...
1) In order to replace oil you need Electro-plastics. Oil is 20% plastics, tars and waxes, and 80% fuels. To get access to plastics via oil, the waste products of oil (fuels) must be dealt with.
The same applies to rare earth metals and Thorium waste. Access to rare earth metals requires use or disposal of Thorium, in most cases, not all. A Thorium nuclear reactor can use the waste and we can get rare earths too without pollution.
The same thing applies to oil and plastics (goal). To get the plastics from oil you have to deal with the fuels. Unless you can make plastics some other way, like Electro-plastics, you must have oil and thus fuels as waste. These waste fuels can run engines and be converted to CO2 and water cleanly via the New Engine Type. This New Engine Type has no HCs or NOx emissions and therefore can use the fuel waste from plastics made from oil. EVs cannot use the fuels and therefore have no way to use the waste fuels. They are relying on oil for their products and are in denial of the use of oil to make plastics to make their products function.
The technology to construct plastics from electricity and carbon sources does NOT exist now. It will cost billions of dollar to develop this required technology before oil can be made obsolete. The modern world runs on plastics. Electro-fuels are the first step to Electro-plastics which then leads to making oil obsolete. Yes, plastics can be made from Hemp and other sources to some degree, but the waste of hemp would also need to be addressed, which EVs don't.
2) Batteries cannot store and move energy from one season to another cost effectively both in terms of technology or space. The only known way to store energy over long periods of time (6 days to years) is with fuels.
Storing energy in batteries takes now 20 times more volume than with fuels compared to Li-ion. Lead Acid is 5 times worse, or 100 times more than gasoline. A Lead Acid battery can only be used 50% charge, so the actual volume ratio is 200:1 for Lead Acid to gasoline storage ratio.
In 2040, the ratio for Li-ion could be as around 9 times. The weight/energy is 64 times more than gasoline for Li-ion now and will be 18 times more in 2040. 18 times is still a joke...
The cost of storing energy in batteries is now $278/kwh for Lead Acid, and could be $100/kwh by 2035 with new technologies according to some optimists.
3) More storage means less solar/wind harvest capacity that is needed, which means less costs of energy harvest equipment (solar panels or wind). The cost of storage needs to be balanced with harvesting equipment (solar panel) costs during peak loads.
With fuel storage, the AVERAGE for the year is all that is needed, not the worst case in Winter with no sun or wind. Over capacity (3-6 times in cases) to meet drops in supply, or dumping energy when over supply exists, are eliminated with fuel as the fuel can be used years later.
With fuels, the solar and wind can be put to full use all the time and nobody needs to be paid to dump energy. Competition can be established with two energy paths of the grid and Electro-fuel supply. Without a second path for energy (fuels) there cannot be a true and honest competition that works without a regulated system of pay to not produce contracts.
The question then is who gets to generate when oversupply is reached on a sunny or windy day? Does the grid pay them all to generate and then dump the energy? With a second path via Electro-fuels, wind and solar can be turned into fuels and later sold at a higher price, just like what happens with food stuffs.
A fuels based system also allows bio energy to enter into the energy stream, as well as nuclear (base load) without energy shedding/dumping costs. When the sun shines and wind blows, nuclear can make fuels instead during the day to use all the solar or wind where possible without wasteful storage with associated costs. At night, nuclear can provide power when wind and solar are gone and excess power can be made into fuels. The system can be right sized without excess day or night.
All energy sources then can compete with the "currency" of fuels and not just grid tariffs. Oil, nuclear, wind, solar, bio, hydro, geothermal, etc. can all compete by making fuels or powering to the grid or local buildings.
For example, during a strong solar day with excess solar capacity, lots of solar energy will have to be wasted without large fuel storage ability to use the energy and not waste it. It is called the "Duck curve" where supply of solar exceeds demand. When every house has solar panels, the value of electricity will be zero or negative when power needs to be dumped. There is no place or way to store the excess in great amounts with batteries. This excess can only be store as fuels that can be used much later in cars, trucks, airplane, factories (processes) and buildings.
Batteries cost more than the electricity generated by solar by a factor of 3-4 times. In 2040, Solar will be 1.5 cent/kwh and batteries will be 6 cents/kwh, or 4 times more. The maintenance of the grid will be at least 30 cent/kwh, and a total of 60-160 cents/kwh is the likely the 100% RE price.
On poor solar days or night periods, especially in the winter in northern climates, the cost of electricity will go sky high once the expensive batteries run out in 1-2 days. Fueled machine will have to be used to bridge the gap and they need to be paid a premium to make up for not being able to run/make money. Such energy could well exceed $1.6/kwh. In Texas, prices jumped to $9/kwh during an ice storm in February 2021. Coal is 5 cent/kwh wholesale. That is a 180 x times wholesale in price.
Fuel is the only way to move Spring, Summer and Fall to Winter and cover ALL climates without massive transmission lines that ruin landscape and cost huge amounts of money.
4) A plastic tank is 10-15,000 times less cost now than Li-ion battery. A fuel maker will cost around $3,000-6,000 and can make a huge volume of fuel. This fixed cost can be coupled to large fuel tanks at trivial costs. This is key to low costs for renewable energy.
In contrast, a battery is expensive for each unit of storage. The inverters and charging systems are the "fuel maker" for battery storage and cost ~$2-3,000 or about 1/2 a fuel maker, give or take. The battery "fuel tank" however is massively expensive by over 15,000 times more. Once the initial costs of the fuel maker are made, the volume of storage is trivial, thus allowing months of storage at a very low cost.
For example, a $3000 fuel maker and two $25 tanks of 55 gallons each, can store 110 gallons x 33.7=3707 kwh. Li-ion battery cost of $200/kwh for 3707 kwh is $741,400. Ratio? 741,400/3050=243:1. Add in 2 more 55 gallon tanks and the cost ratio is: 481:1 (741k x 2)/3080=481:1) and so on.... A 220 gallon tank would store 220 days of electricity and combined heat for a large house. In Winter, at 8 GGE/day load (example) 220 gallon could store 27 days of energy. 220 gallons = 7414 kwh = $1.5 million at $200/kwh for Li-ion. Fuel is key...
5) Making fuels costs 1.5 times more energy, but the wind and solar devices can be 1.5-2 times less costs due to the fuel making being at the plant and the electricity to the fuel maker being DC instead of AC. The lower cost is due to a much simpler machine, no inverters, no grid compliance issues, no speed limit, and on and on.
This 1.5-2 x cost factor makes fuel making EQUAL to Grid AT THE PLANT. 1.5-2 fuel making / 1.5-2 lower costs = 1. It is a wash.
Fuel in a car with the New Engine Type engine system makes the car 2/3 to 1/2 the weight, plus it can have active drag reduction. Thus it is ~1.5x times better fuel economy than an EV.
Even if fuel is made by grid electricity or machines that are grid able (more expensive), the fuel + engine combination is always lower costs than grid and battery EV as grid maintenance costs of 15-45 cents/kwh (depending on % of RE) are NOT added to the cost due to the fuel being made at the plant and shipped.
The key issue is to avoid the scam contracts that force people (rate payers) to pay for not producing electricity which are required by the grid being mixed with intermittent renewables with priority generation.
If grid prices fall to zero then grid attached fuel makers can take power for free or negative rates (pay to make fuel!). These fuel makers will make a killing as a grid power absorption devices. New Engine Type systems could be used to power the grid and so on...
There are several ways to mix in fuel making either on or off grid. If the grid prices go negative or less than the plant costs, the plant would take electricity from the grid side at negative costs as well as make fuel from the plant side so that they don't have to shut down the plant (nuclear), thus giving them a lower average for fuel costs. For example, if plant costs are 3 cents/kwh, but grid is negative 2 cents/kwh, the plant would have an average of 0.5 cents/kwh (3 + -2)/2=0.5) cost. Plants that did not make fuel would pay to have power taken away at 2 cents/kwh, but plants that make fuel can sell it wholesale for 3 cents/kwh ($1/GGE), netting out an extra 2.5 cent/kwh.
The investment decision would consider fuel making relative to grid and oil/fuel prices. These prices will change daily or hourly in a true market that is free to change prices without the contracts needed by a closed grid. Instead of a 2.5 cents/kwh contract for solar, the solar plant would be open to price changes. When solar is strong, they would make nothing due to over supply. Fuel making would be key to financial viability. Without fuels and combustion, fixed contracts are the only option, as is the case now. This must ALL stop due the the sweetheart deals involved...corruption...and the added costs that drive up grid cost to levels that people will opt out, leaving the grid with no customers.
Fuel makers can absorb power locally to the plant or remotely to offset nuclear or coal plants that don't want to shut down when the "duck curve" from solar supply kicks in. This is an entire new angle that batteries cannot take advantage of due to the storage costs and shear volume of storage.
Remember, a battery is around 10-12 cents/kwh for electricity in-and-out of the battery at current prices. Prices for electricity will be 6 cent/kwh by 2035 for off grid energy, such as New Engine Type technology (2-6 cents/kwh). If open market fuel prices are around 3 cents/kwh ($1/GGE) from all sources (oil, ethanol, methanol, electro-fuels), this makes a battery worth 1/2 what it will be priced at 6 cents/kwh. All battery technology for grid use will go bankrupt long before the 6 cent/kwh price point in 2035 is reached when fuels and market prices dictate use and not insider corrupt fixed contracts as they are now.
6) Seasonal heating loads are 3-5 times electrical grid loads, depending on climate. As shown in the graph to the left at the top of this section, the shaped "M" heating load curve shows the problem faced where Summer heating is zero and Winter heating is 6.25 GGE/day, in the example. Total loads are 8 GGE/day peak for New Engine Type cars and 8.125 for EVs.
EVs: Electrical loads are ~ 0.75 GGE/day and car loads are ~0.625 GGE/day (for an EV), along with hot water loads at 0.5 GGE/day. Do the math: 0.75 + 0.625 + 0.5 = 1.875 GGE/day for electrical house loads, two EV cars and hot water.
8.125/1.875=4.33 times more for heating. 1.875/8.125= 23% 6.25/8.125= 77%
7) To cover the loads with 100% renewable would require at least 2 months storage or excess capacity in batteries to cover the drop in supply, especially during a cold and calm winter night. Total grid collapse would still be possible with batteries!
The uncertainties of the renewable grid requires a safety factor that would have to be added to cover when wind and solar do not work. If we assume a 1.5 times factor more wind and solar, the amount of total capacity for a 100% renewable grid would be 12 GGE/day in the example above. This is 2.4 times the needed average capacity of ~5 GGE/day as shown in the example when using fuels. Reality is much higher excess capacity for a 100% RE grid.
A solar energy system is set by the Winter peak load. In this case it would be 12 GGE/day capacity. The Winter peak load would be 8 GGE/day and Summer load would be 1.875. The summer production would be twice (2x) that of Winter, or 24 GGE/day, but the Summer load would only be 1.875 GGE/day.
Result is: 12.8 times more (24/1.875 =12.8) power than is needed in Summer with no place to store it. Better idea is to size it at 2 GGE/day electric to cover electricity for house and fuel making for cars as well as waste heat for hot water. In the Summer the 2 GGE/day system then makes 4-6 GGE/day or 2-3 times more electricity due to efficiency issues in the thermal cycle. This excess can be stored for Winter...
The minimum system would be close to 1 GGE/day, as shown in the picture. This compares to 12 GGE/day for a PV system needed to meet the Winter peak loads without large and expensive batteries.
This 12 to 1 ratio in sizing says all you need to know about the problem of Solar PV compared to Solar thermal + engine + fuel storage. The fuel storage allows a much smaller panel system by 12 to 1, and it uses the capital ALL YEAR long at full output from whatever the sun will give. There is NO wasting of energy as would be needed by solar PV during the Summer. The excess is simply made into fuels that are stored cheaply.
Moreover, the house does NOT need to be insulated at all with a fuel based system, which is another reason or key to why the Green New Deal is so expensive... Adding a few more panels is MUCH cheaper than adding insulation. A poorly insulated building could be zero CO2 without any upgrades other than the new solar thermal panels, engine system, fuel maker, and storage tanks.
8) Basically, fuel making turns intermittent supply into an on-demand supply that can be priced in time for any time in the future for delivery on an on-demand grid or fuel energy supply basis. The uncertainties of renewable energy supply are mostly removed as the AVERAGE supply can be known from history. No renewable supply should be without fuel makers and fuels...the real battery...
9) The GND is like a one party Communist organization with no competition enabled. Without the fuel energy path from electricity, that in turn competes with bio fuels and oil fuels, the grid is a managed systems much like a single party political system, full of corruption, special deals, bribes and insider deals that destroy innovation.
"Competition" is fake at best in a communist system. This is due to the lack of valid price signals as the means to differentiate values and allocate capital. A few idiots and incompetent fools who don't have a clue, allocate scarce resources without other valid view points.
Low cost suppliers, such as nuclear and coal are held as "second chair" in favor of "renewable" suppliers in a communistically controlled system. The uncertainty of making money increases for base load suppliers to a point that they cannot operate. Their income becomes dependent on bribes and corruption with special favors and contracts, which in turn costs grid payers a lot of money.
By making fuels, base load power can keep constant with fuel making balancing out load.
The equation is: Base load = fuel making + grid load. No "toppers" will be needed.
10) Wind and solar will destroy the landscape and wildlife, as well as ground soil and water. Current wind designs are unacceptable and kill birds. They cause health issues for people around them too. Solar wastes valuable land and can contaminate the soils. Both cannot be allowed to exist or the world will be paved over with PV panels and wind mills, making life ugly and full of junk. As a pilot, I say this cannot be allowed... This New Engine Type is a way to unplug the Green New Deal and allow real competition leading to clean and low cost energy.
11) With the CO2 capture with New Engine Type tech, the idea that only EVs can be zero emissions is no longer true. Combustion can be zero emissions and CO2 can be captured, stored and made into fuels or used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth. CO2 then has value that people will be willing to pay money to take CO2 from cars. This valuable CO2 ASSET can enhance crops by up to 3 times better growth rates, thus feeding a hungry world.
The reasons are many why the Green New Deal won't work. This list could go on for many pages well beyond this web site...
Wind and solar PV is NOT a solution to our energy problems due to environmental issues. Thorium nuclear is the best candidate to replace fossil fuels via fuel making and NOT EVs.
With CO2 capture in cars and houses, nuclear also can be made obsolete. Without a grid, nuclear will be over.
But that said, how could a 100% Wind and Solar PV systems work?
The ONLY way is by using fuel making and fuel storage, which would be C8 (gasoline), C10 (Diesel) and NH3/N2H4/NH4-OH. C8 and C10 would allow all known combustion engines to still work without any CO2 issues.
There is no known way to move the seasonal loads from warm periods to cold in a cost effective and environmentally sound way without using fuel making. It cannot be done ON THE GRID. Batteries are 10,000-15,000 times to costly.
Key issue... Turn all excess renewable energy generation into fuels and let them compete via fuels. Retail Fuel prices would be around 4.5-6 cents/kwh, or $1.5 to $2/GGE. The grid renewables would be only 1.5-2.5 cents/kwh before transmission (15-45 cents/kwh).
Electro-fuels would compete against oil and over time replace oil as the fuel for cars, trucks, houses and so forth. Electro-fuels and Electro-plastics technology can be developed over time via revenues from Electro-fuels and eventually oil becomes the high cost producer and is no longer needed.
The ideal solution is Thorium nuclear grid with fuels/plastics made from electricity. This would be the end game, provided the grid survives...which is not likely. These new Thorium nuclear plants could be located near the ocean and suck in CO2 and water to make an infinite amount of liquid fuels that can run all know combustion engines and some fuel cells.
Bio fuels, such as Ethanol and Methanol, could also be used. Wood from forests could be made into Methanol and used in cars, trucks and even airplanes. The wood would come from forest management work, allowing forests to be cleaned and the cost basically free to the tax payer. No more massive fires!
In the end, fuels are required to make any RE work, especially at RE approaches 100%. What do you do with fuel? You combust them. This requires the New Engine Type engine systems or similar so that the fuels are used efficiently. It makes no sense to make fuels and use them in a 5% engine when New Engine Type engine systems can use them at 60-75%. That is a 12-15 times better use of fuels.
If you want to end oil, you have to replace it with something else such as Electro-fuels and Electro-plastics, otherwise you will continue to need oil and have nothing to use the waste products from plastics. Remember, Oil is 20% plastics/tars and 80% fuels. You MUST deal with the waste products known as Gasoline, Diesel, Kerosene/Jet fuel if you want to have plastics from oil. EVs rob the R&D funds to get us off of oil, and thus are the problem, not the solution.
Making EVs requires an entire new Car and Truck industry, as well as fueling/charging systems.
Using fuels does not. All that would be needed to quickly get 80+% of the CO2 gone from a car is to install the New Engine Type technology in old designs, either on the factory floor as new cars, or in old cars and trucks that don't have airbags.
The Existing fuel tank (20 gallons?) would be fine, as well as all the gauges and other systems currently found in IC cars. No major changes would be needed, just a new engine. Take out the old IC engine and put in this New Engine Type IC engine, and get over 80% of the fuel use gone NOW, not 30-40 years from now.
The following are five steps to get over 95% of the fuel gone from a car as shown below.
1) Start with an old Grandma Car Buick/Camry as the base line
2) Add in new engine to old car body, no material changes
3) Lighten old car with new materials
4) Make a new car with New Engine type "skateboard" tech with drag reduction
5) Make an all new roadable airplane car without wings (end game).
Below are the fuel economy figures (MPG) for the five steps. The weight, efficiency (%), and Aerodynamic drag in "Square Feet of flat plate drag" (Cd x frontal area) are shown with the results in MPG at the three driving scenarios.
At 65 mph:
1) 3600 lbs car with old IC engine (15%) 8 sq ft drag (Buick) = 28 mpg baseline
2) 3000 lbs car with New Engine (60%) 8 sq ft drag (Buick) = 118 mpg or 76%
3) 2400 lbs car with New Engine (75%), new structure material 8 sq ft (Buick) = 155 mpg or 82%
4) 2000 lbs New car with NET (75%), low weight, active drag reduction 3.5 sq ft= 284 mpg or 90%
5) 1200 lbs new roadable airplane car with all the features, 1.4 sq ft drag = 557 mpg or 95%
1) 3600 lbs car with old IC engine (15.5%) 8 sq ft drag (Buick) = 20 mpg baseline
2) 3000 lbs car with New Engine (60%, 50%) 8 sq ft drag (Buick) = 170 mpg or 88%
3) 2400 lbs car with New Engine (75%,50%), new struc. material 8 sq ft (Buick) = 198 mpg or 90%
4) 2000 lbs New car, NET (75%), low weight, active drag reduction 3.5 sq ft= 322 mpg or 93.7%
5) 1200 lbs new roadable airplane car with all the features, 1.4 sq ft drag = 582 mpg or 96.5%
City at 35 mph:
1) 3600 lbs car with old IC engine (4.5%) 8 sq ft drag (Buick) = 18 mpg baseline
2) 3000 lbs car with New Engine (50%) 8 sq ft drag (Buick) = 215 mpg or 92%%
3) 2400 lbs car with New Engine (75%,50%), new struc. material 8 sq ft (Buick) = 238 mpg or 93%
4) 2000 lbs New car, NET (75%), low weight, active drag reduction 3.5 sq ft= 365 mpg or 95%
5) 1200 lbs new roadable airplane car with all the features, 1.4 sq ft drag = 630 mpg or 97%
The above estimates are based on computer models of aerodynamic drag and rolling drag. The point is to see how each step (1-5) changes the performance. Note that the engine can be 500 HP or more and the fuel economy is not lowered, unlike old IC engines of high power.
No EV comes close to the reduction of CO2 compared to the New Engine Type technology. Notice that by simply taking the old engine out and putting in the New Engine Type that 88% of the fuel for combined driving cycle for the Buick would be GONE with the OLD BODY STILL in use. All the rest of the effort only takes it from 88% to 97%.
88% of the reduction for LESS COST than the old engine, by just swapping out the engines. No need for Trillions of dollars in battery development and factories. Just exchange the engines out. You could even use the old exhaust system, without the catalytic converted being needed, of course...
Notice that REAL SOLUTIONS DON'T COST MORE MONEY. THEY COST LESS! BEVs are NOT real solutions. They are scams to make well connected people rich.
EVs fail when it comes to being valid as a new idea. After Trillions of dollars invested in EVs, this New Engine Type will beat them all for 1% of the investment, all of which is self funding after the first engine for a semi truck is ready for less than $1-5 million, depending on cost of engineering staff. Nothing comes close as an investment...nothing.
Smart people can understand that if CO2 is important, this New Engine Type exceeds Kyoto Protocol just by swapping out the old engine when the combined cycle (true averages) mpg rating is considered. 88% of the Fuel is GONE, which exceeds the goal of 80% by 2050.
Better yet, make electro-fuels and be CO2 neutral tomorrow! The Navy has the technology ready to go for carrier jets. Just use it... Add in CO2 capture and you can be away from ocean water and have the needed supply of CO2.
Again, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to use EVs to lower CO2. NONE! An EV is at least 3 times MORE CO2 than this New Engine Type Technology. 3 times! 88% of the fuel is over 8 times less fuel...gone...ASAP. No need for battery advancements, subsidies or acts of Congress...just this New Engine Type.
A Tesla at 65 mph is 136. The end game with the roadable airplane car three place tandem car would be 582 mpg in combined driving cycle with gasoline. Remember gasoline is 2x less CO2 than grid. That would be 88% of the CO2 gone from a Tesla... (1- 136/582x2)=88%, which is over 8 times less CO2 than a Tesla Model 3. Over 8 times before you consider the battery which adds one unit of CO2. (1-136/582x3)=92.2% or 12.85 times?
Reality is 8-12 times LESS CO2 than a Tesla Model 3 by going with a roadable airplane car body that can have wings attached and flown...a flying car... The speed can be up to 300 mph...
Game over folks. No way can an EVs compete if CO2 is the reason, unless, of course government bans this technology like Governor Gavin Newsom recently did (Sept 2020) by 2035. (Lawsuit...).
It will take time (2070 at best) and $90 Trillion dollars to make a 100% renewable grid and they still will not have solved the oil problem due to no electro-plastics.
Then there is the CO2 needed to make PV panels and Wind. This is debatable as to how much CO2, but reason would say that it takes a lot of CO2 to make a wind mill.
All that Wind and Solar does is pay the CO2 in advance, all at once. This is exactly opposite to what you want if CO2 actually controlled climate. All of that $90 trillion dollars will be loaded with CO2 and the mining of rare earth metals needed to make the junk will make the land toxic and kill wildlife and greatly add to the CO2 NOW, which in turn will boost temperature if CO2 does control climate (which it does not). Front loading the CO2 is exactly what you don't want to do and that is exactly what a battery does. All the CO2 NOW.
It is all just a scam to make a few people who are well connects very rich off the backs of poor rate payers who can't find a job because criminals control the economy with government scammers... Wake up.
Question: Why can't people see that fuels are the key to renewable energy and even nuclear?
Answer; It's hard to get a person to understand when they are being bribed to not understand.