Displaying items by tag: Misc
We've seen a lot of interest in electric trucks this past three years, especially package vans -- the Ford Transit Connect Electric, Internationals' e-Star, the Smith Newton, Freightliner Custom Chassis' MT45-EV. But did you know there were electric delivery trucks 100 years ago? We’ve had a recent Facebook group post on picture from 1917 displaying some of the M.R.C. fleet in London of Walker Electric trucks charging our discussion page HERE . This sparked some attention and discussion so let’s dive a little deeper.
Daimler, Tesla, Cummins and many other companies are all creating new electric trucks. Some of them will hit the market very soon and, as experts predict, the truck industry will be changed forever. However, none of these companies invented a battery-powered truck – they were already delivering milk and baked goods more than a hundred years ago.
Nothing new under the Sun…….
We now consider electric trucks to be transportation of the future, but in reality, the world has already seen electric trucks in the past. For example, Walker Electric Truck company in US in 1907-1942 was manufacturing rather popular little electric trucks. They were regarded as extremely reliable and tough, although quite slow. Modern electric trucks will be at least as quick as diesel-powered ones. But Walker trucks were not that fast at all. A Walker truck was powered by a 3.5 HP motor, drawing energy from 66-80-volt batteries, delivering a maximum of 40 amps. You don’t have to know anything about engineering to know that this is not a lot of power even for a small truck.
Walker trucks obviously could not reach a very high-top speeds – they maxed out at around 16-19 km/h. However, no one really complained about that sort of disadvantage back in 1910’s, especially since the truck had steel wheels with solid rubber tyres. The controls were simple: a large steering wheel, with the driver positioned high over the front wheels; two brake pedals either side of the steering wheel; and a lever speed control. Reverse is engaged by another foot lever. The bank of batteries sat in the middle of the truck halfway between the front and rear axles. The motor was located in the differential and the drive gears were in the wheels. By the way, batteries provided 80 km of range, this would have varied depending on load and road conditions. This range of operation was pretty much enough for daily operations at that period, they were charged every night anyway.
Walker Electric Truck company did not make semis – all of their models were conventional wagon-type transporters. The cargo compartment was customized to match client’s needs. It was not an aerodynamic masterpiece either – it was pretty much a wooden box on wheels and batteries between the axles. Not that it matters when you are driving that slow.
You may laugh at these specifications, but at the time they were pretty good. Don’t forget that these trucks were replacing horses and carriages. They were quicker, easier to maintain and could carry significantly heavier loads. Walker exported some of these electric trucks to Great Britain, Norway and New Zealand. In fact, it is said that electrical company Orion New Zealand Limited is using one Walker truck till this day, although it is more of a symbol than a tool.
With no gears, no clutch and simple stop-go operation but also supremely economical as the motor stops when the truck stops. Half the life of a gas truck is spent 'idling, ‘one reason they wear out more quickly, and at the time and in comparison, cost 50% to 100% more than Walkers per delivery, per mile or per day. These factors made electric vehicles popular with companies like Rail companies, US Postal Service, delivery, diary companies as well as bakeries and other small businesses. It is said that the famous chain Marshall Field & Company had 276 Walker trucks in 1925. However, eventually it all came to an end.
Without lithium Ion and modern semi-conductors’ electric cars were never viable and at this time it was nickel-iron batteries that Edison used had a specific energy of around 22 Wh/kg. Gasoline has a specific energy of 12778 Wh/kg. If we assume the combustion engine was only 5% efficient, which is wildly generous if we're trying to argue against gasoline, Even accounting for the added weight of the engine over an electric motor, gasoline, by weight, was 20-30 times more efficient than the battery technology of the time
One might say we’ve come full circle now that the technology has caught up with this invention. Tesla Motors paved the way by capturing the attention of consumers in North America and Europe. In June of 2016 it was the fourth anniversary of the first S Sedans rolling off the Fremont, CA production line and the S is now the best-selling EV in the world today. In the same month Nikola (pronounced Neek-oh-la) Motor Company Founder and CEO Trevor Milton announced that $2.3 billion in reservations have been generated in the first month, totaling more than 7,000 truck reservations with deposits. The company in the prior month that it will launch an electric class 8 semi-truck, dubbed “Nikola One.”. Since then Nikola Motor Company has been absorbed by Tesla Motors however the truck which has translated into the Tesla “Semi” is due for production at the end of this year. The initial production has been pushed back multiple times due to battery sourcing issues, however as the company ramped up high-volume production of its tabless 4680 batteries we’re promised that 2021 is the year. The “Semi” would have a 500 miles (805 km) range on a full charge and with its new batteries it would be able to run for 400 miles (640 km) after an 80% charge in 30 minutes using a solar-powered "Tesla Mega charger"
Many large companies aren’t waiting for Tesla and going with other electric truck test beds, one example is that Coca Cola has been testing their Refrigerated Electric Powered delivery vans: Green goes better with Coke, as seen through the Company’s ongoing advertising efforts to deliver their products via six all-electric, zero-emissions trucks built by eStar. These electric vehicles will join Coca-Cola’s growing fleet of 750 heavy-duty, alternative fuel vehicles, taking the “Lead” and “Not Looking Back”
The six electric Coca-Cola trucks are on the roads since 2017 in San Francisco; New York City; Washington, D.C.; and Hartford, Conn.; with two trucks in Los Angeles. These eStar vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions and can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 10 tons annually. The windshield design offers nearly 180-degree visibility, improving safety. The vehicle is almost completely quiet.
Another notable mention is UPS with Workhorse Group are currently in testing phases of their own electric package truck, A project on going since 2018-2019 and it should be important to note that UPS’s first electric vehicle was in 1935 and you may have guessed that it was a Walker Electric Truck.
We look to the future with optimism and for business the promise substantially lower operational and maintenance costs over time, all-electric trucks so far haven't been able to beat their diesel or gasoline counterparts in their initial price tag. Seems like our world driven on the whim of big business and hopefully with the current romantics of Tesla Motors and other large and tenured business organizations getting more involved with energy sustainability we’ll see much more traction on the issue.
- S.M. Jenkins
Repairing things, a subject right up my alley. What boy or girl wasn’t guilty of taking apart an old alarm clock or two in their youth, some of which may have become the very people you take your vehicle to when its due for maintenance or for that unforeseen break down, perhaps they are now the very engineers designing the everyday products we use. Sadly, these engineers have failed us and you may have heard the phrase “it was made to break”. It seems like our everyday objects are made with a deliberately shortened useful life so that their makers could profit from forcing consumers to replace or upgrade them.
This feeling was popularized in the 1960s when there was concern that automobiles were not built to last, but that was small potatoes before the digital age. Today, electronics from microwave ovens to laptop computers, appliances (and yes, those cars again, but now with embedded electronics) are not easily repaired.
But wait, what’s happened to your old fashioned T.V. Repairman? A exert from a 2008 “The Implied Observer’s” article from a Fremont T.V. Repair shop owner certainly tells us :
There’s nothing left to say, he continued, pushing past drifts of gutted cases, dusty repair manuals, cardboard boxes, circuit boards and coiled, tangled nests of electrical wire that once were the central nervous systems for televisions.
“We live in a throwaway society,” said the 60-year-old repairman and soon-to-be former owner of Adams TV in Fremont. “It got to where I just couldn’t fight that anymore.”
it’s surely no accident. In many cases, manufacturers don’t make or distribute spare parts or share diagnostic tools. The result? A lot of digital technology is headed toward a premature burial in local landfills. That’s an increasingly costly environmental problem and it’s also outrageously wasteful and unnecessary.
The problem of electronic equipment entering the waste stream is significant. Even in places where electronics are accepted as recyclables, studies show people often don’t bother. It’s just too easy to toss a dead phone in the garbage can without thought to the toxic mix of chemicals and heavy metals contained inside, not to mention a potentially explosive battery. Advocates estimate that more than 20 million tons of end-of-life electronic products are produced every year.North Americans should view that as an embarrassment but also an opportunity — even recycling costs money (chiefly to sort and break apart devices) whereas reuse is not only more cost-effective, it’s potentially profitable.
There are challenges, of course. Manufacturers will no doubt resent greater government oversight of their successful business model. There will be cries of proprietary secrets, of diminished brand value, of resale rights, perhaps even of liability. But none of these hurdles seem impossible to overcome. And surely, it is far better for companies to voluntarily step forward and embrace an ethos of repair than to face potential penalties down the road like getting billed for every cellphone, robotic vacuum or Bluetooth speaker that ends up at the landfill or local incinerator.
Protecting the environment is just one of the potential benefits. Extending the life of products creates jobs and these are jobs that would effectively be distributed widely like electronic products — not just in one or two locations but across the country in cities, suburbs and rural areas, where these items are used. It would also likely save taxpayers money, not only in extending the life of these common household items but in creating less burden on waste disposal. Remember that 20 million tons of electronics? If every blue whale alive today were measured on a scale, all those consumer items would be heavier. About six times heavier, according to the Digital Right to Repair Coalition.
The pandemic has led to an increased interest in repair as people need to save money in the COVID-19 economy and don’t want to risk infection by going out to purchase replacements(I've covered a little on the low income family post covid in my last article "Uncertain thinking for Uncertain Times"). But we also see another benefit in repairing these items beyond tangible advantages like saving money and reducing waste, there are psychological benefits in repairing belongings like inspiring creativity and making people feel self-reliant all the while learning a new skill.
Covid-19 has also changed our relationship with technology and it's obvious that laws need to catch up as many more now need devices to work and learn.
It would seem that the future of this fight will lay with the high courts of your country, in the U.S. this has extended to Congress and the Supreme Court, too, where justices made it clear in Impression Products v Lexmark decision in 2017 that refilling ink cartridges (a form of recycling) was not a violation of patent rights. Ultimately, this ought to be common sense. There is hope however with 14 States Are Now Considering 'Right to Repair' Legislation as of February this year and many more have passed various versions of repair Acts into law however further development on this probably won’t happen unless those in political power continue to give manufacturers at least a serious nudge in the right direction and you can bank on manufacturers circumventing these acts with loopholes to keep what they believe is a loss of profit to a minimum.
companies have tried to cling tightly to nonsense in a bid to derail momentum. Usually this involves perpetuation and spread of nonexistent harms that threaten public safety and security. Apple last year insisted that passing a right to repair law in Nebraska would turn the state into a "mecca for hackers, or this year when the auto industry tried to claim that expanding Massachusetts' existing consumer tech law, to make sure that independent garages could access tools and diagnostic gear, would result in a "boom in sexual predators." The multi-sector quest to demonize the right to repair movement is relentless, and almost always involves making up bogus claims related to security and safety.
- S.M. Jenkins
& YES .. climate change IS real .. as it has been for eons of time ...
THE WATERSHED PROJECT
From THE PREPAREDNESS PROJECT GROUP March 2019
I’ve been asked many times to explain what it is we are trying to achieve with this organization. “What are you going to do?” has been the question. The fact is, since this is a project being built for the next generation, I don’t actually know for sure what they will do with it. I do know, however, that they will need this lobbying power through the difficult times from about 2030 onward.
To satisfy those trying to understand the Preparedness Project, I can tell a story of what we could do now if we had the numbers necessary to do some effective lobbying.
To start, I will refer to the map attached, which shows substantial drought areas that will develop if we stay on the course of climate change we are on. The map was created by U.N. sponsored scientists in a yearly report they create. (See video.Below or linked here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8PWkZ7FB5s) Within their information are worst-case scenario predictions.
How likely are these predictions to materialize?
The U.N. scientists that authored the attached map put it this way: first, they said, “we must change from a fossil fuel consuming culture, and that will stop climate change in its tracks.” Then they said, “there is no sign that we are about to change in time to prevent the consequences depicted on the map.” (The widespread droughts.)
Taking a lead from the U.N. scientists mentioned above, here is a probable outcome. There will be tremendous effort put forward by all the front-line climate activists to keep the climatic status quo, which is to keep warming trends from going up. However, as has been seen so far, deniers and vested interests rooted in the economy will slow the reform progress.
So, with all the effort we can apply, the global temperature is most likely to rise from its present level before the efforts to bring it down are effective. I want to insert here that the effect of eventually bringing CO2 levels down is going to take a herculean effort—one that I believe will materialize, but not by the current example of complacency by individuals, governments, and industry. The attached map displays a worst-case scenario, and if nothing changes substantially, we will have to deal with that reality. Summed up, the near worst-case scenario is, if not inevitable, then highly likely.
Considering a worst-case scenario, let’s focus on the situation of North America as pictured in the map. From the map, you can see that the main agriculture areas of the U.S. are potentially wiped out, and about one quarter or more of Canadian prairie agricultural area is threatened as well. From this information, we see the potential for a very large problem: food shortages.
With the probability of drought, and considering current attitudes and realities, it is fair to say there is a reason to plan seriously for what is predicted. With regard to preparation, we would advise that the planning stage should be initiated at this time. All research and design could be accomplished now, or soon, with the intention of shortening the time of implementation when the need arises. It may be possible to shave 2 to 3 years off the implementation of this proposed project if the groundwork is done now.
Here are some general areas that should be investigated:
1. How many desalinating plants on the east and west coasts of North America would it take to contribute to an overall water plan for the irrigation of the central part of the continent?
2. To what degree has technology progressed to provide solar and renewable power to run the desalinating plants? If solar and wind power can be used for desalination operations, the carbon footprint will be kept to a minimum. What power needs are required?
3. A major hurdle to desalination is its waste product, salt. Research, in this case, could extend to solving the waste product problem thus: why continue to mine salt when it would be produced as a by-product of vast desalination factories?
4. Remember, this is research, not real-world activity—but it would not hurt to know if salt mines could be shut down. Can the workforce in those mines be relocated to salt production from the desalination operations? Furthermore, how much salt can be digested by our personal and industrial use of the product?
5. Research could start now on how to move this manufactured fresh water on each coast to the center of the continent. This would normally be cost-prohibitive and produce a carbon footprint itself. Considering that trucks and trains would be employed to move the water—this might seem to be the stumbling block to end any serious talk about a project like this, except for one thing. The means to transport the water is already available and sits right under our noses. It is the spiders’ web of existing oil and gas pipelines.
However, we need research on what it would take to repurpose oil and gas pipelines so they could pump water instead of oil. They could move water to the center of the continent, instead of moving oil east and west. It may even be possible to accommodate both uses of the pipeline, if the water was pumped along a separate pipe piggybacked along with the existing pipeline routes.
6. Furthermore, research should be done to determine how much water can be taken safely from lakes and rivers to put toward irrigation. There is evidence right now that the aquifer beneath the vast North American agricultural areas is heading toward depletion—it is certainly unable to endure greater demand than it has now. So this research is justified for that reason alone.
7. Research should be done on utilizing recovered rainwater on a scale necessary to contribute to drought relief. Clues on rainwater retrieval could be gleaned from Bermuda: an entire country that runs solely on captured rainwater. It seems likely that catchment facilities could be built at a justifiable cost, but there is a catch. For every drop of rain you collect (and we are talking millions of gallons) you have to find a way to store it. The cost and complexity of creating storage facilities would probably knock this idea down from the start. The storage container for captured rainwater would just be too massive and costly to make practical sense. However, some good fortune once again—it turns out we have such a storage capacity right under our noses.
This possibility for storing vast quantities of water emerged simply by talking amongst group members. One member realized that we can solve two problems with one application. She pointed out that the depleted aquafers right underneath those affected lands could be recharged with the captured rainwater. The infrastructure already exists to extract and distribute water from the aquifer, so that part of storage and distribution is solved.
Transportation of the captured rainwater once again bedevils this idea. However, we will soon have to find answers to tough questions like this and shoulder costs, or face a food crisis. What is more important: water for agriculture, at whatever cost, or social chaos? The option of failing to plan is far too risky.
Costs are always thrown up as obstacles to doing projects like this and here again, is where preparedness makes its graceful entrance. In none of the above was there a hint about actually breaking ground for the massive project proposed. Instead, the entire thrust of this article was to initiate research. Why do the research? Because it could shave years off the project if it is needed. If this project is needed—and there is good evidence that it will be—if all the research is done we could hit the ground running.
Again, costs considered, where would the money come from for such a huge research project as described here? It seems a reasonable idea that when you come upon something of high priority like drought-induced food shortages, then you should reallocate financial resources from one type of research to another.
Less urgent matters, such as physics and the mysteries of dark matter, for example, may have to wait while the engineers and environmentalists carve out a plan for our survival. In this way, when the time comes there would be no extra money needed to fund this research project. In this way, a plan could be in place to offset the effects we can see are likely. In this way, panic, hunger, and strife could be mitigated—at least to some degree. To the degree, we are able to predict.
https://external.fyhz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php… the New Yorker contributed y Richard Zurowski
I have selected several paragraphs from a larger article that I recommend you read. I hope by doing this, more people are inclined to read important articles and to read the books they are featuring. In this case “The Unthinkable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells.
The Preparedness Project poses this proposition. If things are as serious as this author tells and if we are witnessing a runaway train (climate change) then shouldn’t we make proper preparations for that time to come? We encourage the fight to stop climate change. However, we recognize the danger of failure to stop climate change or at least having to live with a reduced version of it that would still be detrimental to our wellbeing.
Join us in the fight for climate change reform and preparation for a changed future.
The Other Kind of Climate Denialism
By Rachel Riederer
March 6, 2019, 3:29 PM
David Wallace-Wells’s new book about how climate change will affect human life begins, “It is worse, much worse, than you think.” In superhot cities, roads will melt and train tracks will buckle. At five degrees of warming, much of the planet would be in constant drought. With just six metres of sea-level rise—an optimistic projection—land where three hundred and seventy-five million people currently live will be underwater. Some of the apocalyptic stories aren’t from the future but our recent past: in the Paradise Camp Fire of late 2018, people fleeing the flames “found themselves sprinting past exploding cars, their sneakers melting to the asphalt as they ran.”
In a poignant essay posted on Medium, Mary Annaïse Heglar, who works at the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote that the climate movement has a lot to learn from the civil-rights movement. Climate change might be the first existential threat leveled at all of humanity, but America itself has been an existential threat to black people for hundreds of years. Describing the calculated violence of Jim Crow, she writes, “I want you to understand how overwhelming, how insurmountable it must have felt. I want you to understand that there was no end in sight. . . . They, too, trembled for every baby born into that world.” The flooding and fires of our changed climate may be unprecedented, but the threat of annihilation is certainly not—in their discussions of climate change, both Wallace-Wells and Salamon refer to their ancestors who lived through the Holocaust. Put in this light, the response of quiet climate denialism—not disbelief in the phenomenon but the choice to bury one’s head in the sand because thinking about it is too unpleasant—is not just untenable but childish. As Heglar writes, “You don’t fight something like that because you think you will win. You fight because you have to.”
Wallace-Wells writes that the past century of fossil-fuel extraction and industrial capitalism has enabled a life style I enjoy—that this very process “made middle-class-ness possible” for billions of people.” Yet, at the same time, it is a system that must be radically overhauled. Modern people have a tendency, he writes, to see human systems as more inviolable than natural ones. And so “renovating capitalism so that it doesn’t reward fossil fuel extraction can seem unlikelier than suspending sulfur in the air to dye the sky red and cool the planet off by a degree or two.” It’s why creating global factories to suck carbon out of the atmosphere might appear to be easier than simply ending fossil-fuel subsidies, he writes. These are the competing truths we have to integrate: a livable world is incompatible with fossil fuels, and fossil fuels made the world we live in.
Decarbonizing the economy will be difficult, but it must be done. It will be hard—but not as hard as surviving the catalogue of disasters that will befall us if we don’t. This is, to my mind, the great strength of Wallace-Wells’s approach to storytelling. The thing to grieve, then, is not the Earth’s habitable climate but, instead, the century of carefree car-driving and reckless deforestation, the years of eating meat with abandon and inexpensively flying around the world—and the massive economic growth that this system has enabled. Overhauling the fossil-fuel economy will represent a true loss, but its sacrifices will be nowhere near the alternative. The process is subject to all matter of difficulties: the problem of collective action, scientific uncertainty, technological challenges, political mobilization, and many others. But to do anything less is to go insane.
I have a long history with the idea and use of things natural that can help our health.One of the criticisms I have heard about natural cures and supplements is that they don't work. The reality may be otherwise because supplements work for most or many but not everybody. Simply put if you are taking vitamin C to prevent the common cold and you still get a cold you were deficient in something else. You could say in this case that vitamin C does not work when in fact it is working unseen in its other roles within your body (as an antioxidant) and may well be preventing other serious conditions but because it didn't cure a cold for some would condemn it Drugs are similar in that people experience side effects differently from one another. So my advice is to learn all you can about these curative ideas keep them in mind in case you or someone you know is in need.
We'd like to share a video from our friends at Extinction Rebellion.Scroll to the bottom of this page to view.
WARMING OCEANS ACCELERATE GLOBAL WARMING. And what to do because of that.
I found this post I created in November. It is edited and updated with other observations. The first part is a bit of review for new observers. But do take the whole 60 seconds to read the new material included.
There is more alarming news for us to digest contained in Chelsea Harvey’s’ article of November 1, 2018 for E&E News www.eenews.net. Her article begins this way.
Quote: The Ocean is warming much faster than previously thought, new research has found, suggesting that global climate goals may be even harder to reach.
The new study published yesterday in the journal Nature concluded that the global oceans may be absorbing up to 60 percent more heat since the 1990s than older estimates had found. End Quote.
This is a much longer and thorough article but I have reduced it in a nutshell. Here is the gist of it.
Previous calculations on ocean warming rates were not correct.
Current research shows that the oceans are warming at a faster rate than anticipated.
The warming oceans will accelerate global warming. Therefore, previous prescriptions of carbon reductions necessary to curb climate change are too little.
All of this means we have a troubled future on our hands and the recipients of the bulk of these troubles are our children and grandchildren. What can we do to help them through this dilemma?
First of all we must do all we can to reduce the eminent rise of temperature. You can do this by Joining and supporting environmental action groups Yes, it appears that the environmentalists are failing to stop climate change but if we all support them they would and will have greater success. We owe it to the world to support everything possible to lessen the impact of climate change.
Next and equally important it turns out there is something simple and meaningful we can do to give the next generation the tool they need to navigate the troubled times that are ahead. Troubles like drought.
Drought means crop failures, crop failures lead to food scarcities, food scarcities lead to chaos. Look at the consequences of isolated drought from the last decades. Now think about this on a world scale, Will it happen? It works like this. There are already droughts happening and with each part of a degree of warming so advances the specter of greater drought.
So what tool can we give to the next generation that will give them power to navigate times and circumstances the likes of which they may see? The answer is simple, it is elegant and it is a time tested tool. It has been used many times in history for people to make remarkable progress in social, cultural and economic reforms. We can give them their own lobby group.
A tool to cause Governments and Academic researchers to do the right things to ensure a continuing middle class. The creation of this tool is one of the main goals of the “Preparedness Project.”
…………… to be continued………… We used to do complete articles that took 4 or 5 minutes to read and found that some of the most critical information was never being read. We are now breaking posts up into 1 or 2 minute segments with the entire article available on our website and in the Facebook group. Two more segments of this project.
From the Guardian: Fiona Harvey in Katowice Sun 16 Dec 2018 15.25 GMT
(Taken from the web site blog Wake up N.S .Dec.17th 2018)
UN climate accord 'inadequate' and lacks urgency, experts warn
Agreement will fail to halt devastating rise in global temperature, say scientists
The two-week-long conference in Poland left questions about reducing greenhouse gas emissions unanswered.
The world has been put on notice that its best efforts so far will fail to halt the devastation of climate change, as countries came to a partial agreement at UN talks that failed to match up to the challenges faced.
Leading figures in climate science and economics said much more must be done, and quickly, to stave off the prospect of dangerous levels of global warming.
Nicholas Stern, the former World Bank chief economist and author of a seminal review of the economics of climate change, said: “It is clear that the progress we are making is inadequate, given the scale and urgency of the risks we face. The latest figures show carbon dioxide emissions are still rising. A much more attractive, clean and efficient path for economic development and poverty reduction is in our hands.”
'We can move forward now': UN climate talks take significant step
Johan Rockstrom, director designate at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said: “My biggest concern is that the UN talks failed to align ambitions with science. We continue to follow a path that will take us to a very dangerous 3-4C warmer world within this century. Extreme weather events hit people across the planet already, at only 1C of warming.”
The two-week-long UN talks in Poland ended with clarity over the “rulebook” that will govern how the Paris agreement of 2015 is put into action, but the crucial question of how to lift governments’ targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was left unanswered.
This is an excerpt from an article by Fiona Harvey. Please follow the Guardian link for the complete version.
Interpretation: We are doing too little too late therefore the need for the “Preparedness project.”