An Ancient Greek Weapon Could Become the Future of Solar Energy
Apr 7, 2022 10:58:38 #
Converting death rays into electricity
Some 2,200 years ago, the Roman Empire decided to take over Sicily, an island located in modern-day Italy. It was a strategic move against the Carthaginians, whose influence spread over the Mediterranean basin.
The invasion was supposed to be a picnic for Rome’s well-trained soldiers. What they didn’t expect was that a clever older man named Archimedes was about to unleash hellfire on them.
Historians claim that Archimedes devised a technology capable of emitting heat rays that burned battleships from a distance. Supposedly, the Greek mathematician used curved, highly polished shields to turn the hot Mediterranean sun into a deadly weapon. That’s how the tiny city of Syracuse managed to fend off the great Roman army for an entire year.
While the accuracy of the story remains questionable, the technology involved turned out to be very real. Scientists call it Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), and modern powerplants use it to produce electricity at increasingly lower prices.
“[CSP] is a fairly new development,” said energy expert and author Craig Shields. “What it essentially means is focusing the sun’s rays on a certain point or a certain line and using that heat to turn a turbine to generate electricity,” he continued. “The fact that [this tech] is new means there’s so much potential for the costs to come down.”
Comparing the two variants of CSP
The first flavor of CSP dates back to 1866, and it’s as close as it gets to the legendary Greek weapon. The idea is to bend mirrors in a U shape — also called parabolic trough — to focus sunlight onto a central line. Across this line, you place a tube pumped with a liquid, often water or oil, to capture heat.
Illustration of how parabolic troughs turn sunlight into heat. Source.
Once the liquid absorbs enough thermal energy, you can use it to generate steam, which generates electricity via a turbine. The first documented application of this tech appeared in 1912 in Egypt. It helped farmers pump water into the desert through steam-powered mechanisms — and since then, CSP has come a long way.
A 2020 project in Dubai produces enough electricity to power more than 1.2 million houses — and the output is expected to grow fivefold by 2030. This project, called DEWA, doesn’t only use U-shaped mirrors. It also relies on a variant of CSP known as Solar Power Towers.
The first designs of this CSP variant appeared in 1968 and showed great potential to outperform U-shaped mirrors. The idea is to rely on a central tower and a field of straight mirrors. These mirrors track the sun via movable supports operated by computers. The reflected sunlight is concentrated on a limited area at the top of the tower, where a heat-capturing liquid awaits.
Because solar towers stack the energy of hundreds of mirrors on the same spot, they reach higher temperatures than parabolic troughs — 565°C compared to 400°C. But that’s not their only advantage.
CSP towers have an edge over U-shaped mirrors in three additional areas: flexibility, efficiency and cost.
•Flexibility: Solar Towers use molten salt as heat recipient and conductor. It’s more convenient than oil and water (used in solar troughs) because it has a wider operating range. In other words, you could make steam faster and in larger quantities.
•Greater efficiency: U-shaped mirrors conduct heat using multiple networks of pipes that are small in size. In contrast, Solar Towers use big single-pipe systems, resulting in less energy loss. Small volumes lose their heat faster than big ones.
•Reduced costs: CSP parabolic troughs use bent mirrors which are more expensive to produce than straight ones. Plus, CSP towers use fewer piping systems and require less maintenance.
That being said, the original CSP tech won’t go down without a fight. “A key advantage of parabolic troughs is that it is a very modular technology,” said Valerio Fernandez, an operations manager in a solar energy company. “Just by adding more loops in parallel, the capacity of the plant can be expanded.” Fernandez also explained that those U-shaped mirrors won the trust of investors over the last two decades, which makes new projects easier to sell.
Regardless of which type of CSP will end up dominating the market, the ongoing competition will improve both techs. Even better, troughs and towers won’t necessarily overshadow one another as they can be complementary. You can only put so many flat mirrors around a given tower, so why not fill the rest of the available space with U-shaped ones?
CSP tech may also leave behind the classic photovoltaic (PV) technology.
Where CSP beats PV solar panels
Where CSP beats PV solar panels
It boils down to two words: “stored heat.”
Unlike photovoltaic solar panels that convert sunshine into electricity right away, CSP produces heat first. Heat happens to be much easier and cheaper to store than electricity. To visualize the gap, picture a coffee thermos and a car battery. Both can store energy, but one is much more affordable and durable than the other.
You might say we got better at designing electric batteries (thank you, Tesla), and it’s true. But we’re still far from being able to store large amounts of electricity cost-effectively.
For instance, equipping the US electric grid with a nationwide network of lithium-ion batteries would cost $2.5 trillion. Even if you manage to build such a system, you’ll still need to replace them every two to three years, generating massive amounts of e-waste and recurring expenses.
In contrast, a storage tank used for molten salt can last 30 years — and you don’t have to replace it once it reaches its limit. All you need are a few months of maintenance, and you’ll be ready for another three decades.
PV solar panels aren’t entirely out of the storage game. The tech continues to shine thanks to crafty solutions like electric power walls (Thanks again, Tesla) and energy credits that financially reward individuals for producing more electricity than they consume.
Illustration of how Tesla’s powerwall works
Illustration of how Tesla’s powerwall works. Source.
But it keeps circling back to the issues of cost and scale. The aforementioned solutions are designed for individual consumption — and let’s face it: not everyone owns a (large) roof, let alone the means to turn it into a mini powerplant.
Thus, it makes sense to see governments show increasing interest in CSP.
Adoption is going up and prices down
CSP might be thousands of years old, but it only got attention during the last two decades. In particular, global CSP production grew 15 fold between 2009 and 2020, with Spain and the US as the leading countries.
In general, CSP projects are built in phases. The idea is to generate electricity as soon as possible and test the reliability of the tech.
For instance, the DEWA project in Dubai involved four phases; by the end, the facility attained a world-record price of $0.73 per kWh. That’s still twice the cost of electricity coming from coal-based plants, but experts are confident there’s lots of room for improvement. The U.S. Department of Energy Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) believes CSP electricity cost can be brought down to $0.5 per kWh by 2030, which is pretty close to PV prices.
Price of solar electricity (PV and CSP) in the past, present, and future. Source.
CSP tech has to overcome technical, financial, and environmental obstacles for that to happen.
•The technical challenges involve efficiency and energy t***sportation. In an ideal scenario, we’d be able to power cloudy cities using powerplants installed in deserts.
•The financial challenges involve a chicken-and-egg problem. Investors won’t bet on a tech that’s not popular yet. The tech won’t be popular without new investments.
•The environmental challenges come from the use of large amounts of water and harmful materials like thermal oils and molten salts, which may pose spill risks.
Luckily, the first two obstacles depend mostly on incentives, which can be created by regulations and subsidies. As for the last, we can use ocean water and high safety standards to preserve our planet.
A sun-powered future
Every hour, the sun showers our planet with enough energy to power all of our electric grids for an entire month. Which raises the question: What the heck are we waiting for to go all-in with solar?
Up until now, we didn’t have compelling incentives. Fossils worked just fine, and we kept pollution as a problem for future generations.
But we can’t do that anymore.
As a result, sustainable energy is getting cheaper and more efficient, and solar seems to be our best bet. The next logical step would be to engage in mega-projects that turn poor abandoned deserts into energy paradises. This sounds like a far-fetched idea until you learn about the Desertec Industrial Initiative.
In 2003, The European Union considered developing a $774 billion network of CSP power plants in the Sahara region. The idea was to build a carbon-free network linking Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. But there was a catch: the deal wasn’t fair.
“Many Africans are skeptical about Desertec,” said Daniel Ayuk Mbi Egbe from the African Network for Solar Energy. “Europeans make promises, but at the end of the day, they bring their engineers, they bring their equipment, and they go. It’s a new form of resource exploitation, just like in the past.”
Perhaps we can do better going forward. Instead of merely using African deserts as giant batteries, we can build fruitful ecosystems where the local economies thrive. With enough energy, everything is possible: green factories, desalination plants, data centers, eco-farms, you name it.
Not only would it be a great way to pay back the continent that kept being robbed of its resources over the centuries. But we’d also boost the global economy like never before.
CSP would then reenter history books, but it won’t be a destructive weapon this time. It would be humanity’s pathway to a better future. Archimedes himself would be astounded
Some 2,200 years ago, the Roman Empire decided to take over Sicily, an island located in modern-day Italy. It was a strategic move against the Carthaginians, whose influence spread over the Mediterranean basin.
The invasion was supposed to be a picnic for Rome’s well-trained soldiers. What they didn’t expect was that a clever older man named Archimedes was about to unleash hellfire on them.
Historians claim that Archimedes devised a technology capable of emitting heat rays that burned battleships from a distance. Supposedly, the Greek mathematician used curved, highly polished shields to turn the hot Mediterranean sun into a deadly weapon. That’s how the tiny city of Syracuse managed to fend off the great Roman army for an entire year.
While the accuracy of the story remains questionable, the technology involved turned out to be very real. Scientists call it Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), and modern powerplants use it to produce electricity at increasingly lower prices.
“[CSP] is a fairly new development,” said energy expert and author Craig Shields. “What it essentially means is focusing the sun’s rays on a certain point or a certain line and using that heat to turn a turbine to generate electricity,” he continued. “The fact that [this tech] is new means there’s so much potential for the costs to come down.”
Comparing the two variants of CSP
The first flavor of CSP dates back to 1866, and it’s as close as it gets to the legendary Greek weapon. The idea is to bend mirrors in a U shape — also called parabolic trough — to focus sunlight onto a central line. Across this line, you place a tube pumped with a liquid, often water or oil, to capture heat.
Illustration of how parabolic troughs turn sunlight into heat. Source.
Once the liquid absorbs enough thermal energy, you can use it to generate steam, which generates electricity via a turbine. The first documented application of this tech appeared in 1912 in Egypt. It helped farmers pump water into the desert through steam-powered mechanisms — and since then, CSP has come a long way.
A 2020 project in Dubai produces enough electricity to power more than 1.2 million houses — and the output is expected to grow fivefold by 2030. This project, called DEWA, doesn’t only use U-shaped mirrors. It also relies on a variant of CSP known as Solar Power Towers.
The first designs of this CSP variant appeared in 1968 and showed great potential to outperform U-shaped mirrors. The idea is to rely on a central tower and a field of straight mirrors. These mirrors track the sun via movable supports operated by computers. The reflected sunlight is concentrated on a limited area at the top of the tower, where a heat-capturing liquid awaits.
Because solar towers stack the energy of hundreds of mirrors on the same spot, they reach higher temperatures than parabolic troughs — 565°C compared to 400°C. But that’s not their only advantage.
CSP towers have an edge over U-shaped mirrors in three additional areas: flexibility, efficiency and cost.
•Flexibility: Solar Towers use molten salt as heat recipient and conductor. It’s more convenient than oil and water (used in solar troughs) because it has a wider operating range. In other words, you could make steam faster and in larger quantities.
•Greater efficiency: U-shaped mirrors conduct heat using multiple networks of pipes that are small in size. In contrast, Solar Towers use big single-pipe systems, resulting in less energy loss. Small volumes lose their heat faster than big ones.
•Reduced costs: CSP parabolic troughs use bent mirrors which are more expensive to produce than straight ones. Plus, CSP towers use fewer piping systems and require less maintenance.
That being said, the original CSP tech won’t go down without a fight. “A key advantage of parabolic troughs is that it is a very modular technology,” said Valerio Fernandez, an operations manager in a solar energy company. “Just by adding more loops in parallel, the capacity of the plant can be expanded.” Fernandez also explained that those U-shaped mirrors won the trust of investors over the last two decades, which makes new projects easier to sell.
Regardless of which type of CSP will end up dominating the market, the ongoing competition will improve both techs. Even better, troughs and towers won’t necessarily overshadow one another as they can be complementary. You can only put so many flat mirrors around a given tower, so why not fill the rest of the available space with U-shaped ones?
CSP tech may also leave behind the classic photovoltaic (PV) technology.
Where CSP beats PV solar panels
Where CSP beats PV solar panels
It boils down to two words: “stored heat.”
Unlike photovoltaic solar panels that convert sunshine into electricity right away, CSP produces heat first. Heat happens to be much easier and cheaper to store than electricity. To visualize the gap, picture a coffee thermos and a car battery. Both can store energy, but one is much more affordable and durable than the other.
You might say we got better at designing electric batteries (thank you, Tesla), and it’s true. But we’re still far from being able to store large amounts of electricity cost-effectively.
For instance, equipping the US electric grid with a nationwide network of lithium-ion batteries would cost $2.5 trillion. Even if you manage to build such a system, you’ll still need to replace them every two to three years, generating massive amounts of e-waste and recurring expenses.
In contrast, a storage tank used for molten salt can last 30 years — and you don’t have to replace it once it reaches its limit. All you need are a few months of maintenance, and you’ll be ready for another three decades.
PV solar panels aren’t entirely out of the storage game. The tech continues to shine thanks to crafty solutions like electric power walls (Thanks again, Tesla) and energy credits that financially reward individuals for producing more electricity than they consume.
Illustration of how Tesla’s powerwall works
Illustration of how Tesla’s powerwall works. Source.
But it keeps circling back to the issues of cost and scale. The aforementioned solutions are designed for individual consumption — and let’s face it: not everyone owns a (large) roof, let alone the means to turn it into a mini powerplant.
Thus, it makes sense to see governments show increasing interest in CSP.
Adoption is going up and prices down
CSP might be thousands of years old, but it only got attention during the last two decades. In particular, global CSP production grew 15 fold between 2009 and 2020, with Spain and the US as the leading countries.
In general, CSP projects are built in phases. The idea is to generate electricity as soon as possible and test the reliability of the tech.
For instance, the DEWA project in Dubai involved four phases; by the end, the facility attained a world-record price of $0.73 per kWh. That’s still twice the cost of electricity coming from coal-based plants, but experts are confident there’s lots of room for improvement. The U.S. Department of Energy Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) believes CSP electricity cost can be brought down to $0.5 per kWh by 2030, which is pretty close to PV prices.
Price of solar electricity (PV and CSP) in the past, present, and future. Source.
CSP tech has to overcome technical, financial, and environmental obstacles for that to happen.
•The technical challenges involve efficiency and energy t***sportation. In an ideal scenario, we’d be able to power cloudy cities using powerplants installed in deserts.
•The financial challenges involve a chicken-and-egg problem. Investors won’t bet on a tech that’s not popular yet. The tech won’t be popular without new investments.
•The environmental challenges come from the use of large amounts of water and harmful materials like thermal oils and molten salts, which may pose spill risks.
Luckily, the first two obstacles depend mostly on incentives, which can be created by regulations and subsidies. As for the last, we can use ocean water and high safety standards to preserve our planet.
A sun-powered future
Every hour, the sun showers our planet with enough energy to power all of our electric grids for an entire month. Which raises the question: What the heck are we waiting for to go all-in with solar?
Up until now, we didn’t have compelling incentives. Fossils worked just fine, and we kept pollution as a problem for future generations.
But we can’t do that anymore.
As a result, sustainable energy is getting cheaper and more efficient, and solar seems to be our best bet. The next logical step would be to engage in mega-projects that turn poor abandoned deserts into energy paradises. This sounds like a far-fetched idea until you learn about the Desertec Industrial Initiative.
In 2003, The European Union considered developing a $774 billion network of CSP power plants in the Sahara region. The idea was to build a carbon-free network linking Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. But there was a catch: the deal wasn’t fair.
“Many Africans are skeptical about Desertec,” said Daniel Ayuk Mbi Egbe from the African Network for Solar Energy. “Europeans make promises, but at the end of the day, they bring their engineers, they bring their equipment, and they go. It’s a new form of resource exploitation, just like in the past.”
Perhaps we can do better going forward. Instead of merely using African deserts as giant batteries, we can build fruitful ecosystems where the local economies thrive. With enough energy, everything is possible: green factories, desalination plants, data centers, eco-farms, you name it.
Not only would it be a great way to pay back the continent that kept being robbed of its resources over the centuries. But we’d also boost the global economy like never before.
CSP would then reenter history books, but it won’t be a destructive weapon this time. It would be humanity’s pathway to a better future. Archimedes himself would be astounded
Apr 7, 2022 11:04:27 #
Apr 7, 2022 13:04:43 #
Slimshady
Loc: Central Pennsylvania
Very interesting article and not something I was aware of. Makes for some intriguing possibilities
Apr 7, 2022 13:13:26 #
Gordon wrote:
Converting death rays into electricity br br br ... (show quote)
Great read Gordon. My son in Austin, Tx. went total solar about five years ago. His electric bill is $12 to $15 a month. When we had the big freeze in February of last year his power stayed on due to the grid he’s on. It’s getting more popular now and the costs for installation is going up. We’ve checked into it and it’s expensive.
Hack 🇺🇸🍺🍺
Apr 7, 2022 15:07:34 #
It’s a Bright Future for some of us. I been tinkering with solar stuff since about 5 or 6 years old. I was with my dad and found the solar cell on a hat with a propeller.
I put 98% ( of average consumption ) solar system on house several years ago. The bill was about $10,000 every 3 years. The monthly bill is now $12.50. I did the math. Trying to get the nay sayers to appreciate a proven technology is impossible. Many friends tell me I wasted my money. They also tell me Solar takes 20 years to pay for itself. I completely disagree. In 9 years I would of consumed the cost of the system at the rate I use to pay. If electric KWH goes up then I make it even sooner.
I put 98% ( of average consumption ) solar system on house several years ago. The bill was about $10,000 every 3 years. The monthly bill is now $12.50. I did the math. Trying to get the nay sayers to appreciate a proven technology is impossible. Many friends tell me I wasted my money. They also tell me Solar takes 20 years to pay for itself. I completely disagree. In 9 years I would of consumed the cost of the system at the rate I use to pay. If electric KWH goes up then I make it even sooner.
Apr 7, 2022 15:10:13 #
Jeremy wrote:
It’s a Bright Future for some of us. I been tinke... (show quote)
Here is app on phone that tells me how much the system is producing
Apr 7, 2022 15:16:30 #
Many asked me what about cold season in Oregon. Solar Panels are more efficient in cold conditions. I get asked what about rainy days. Rain cleans dust and pollen off the panels. I get asked what about cloudy days. The system was designed to be 98% of our average usage for a few years before designing it. Before son went in Air Force the 98% included all his computers and other electric usage that is now no longer used.
Anyone that complains about Solar ( no matter what type ) not working are dead wrong. Usually they are motivated by other things besides reality. Good post Gordon. Here is more proof that very old technology can be the answer. Convincing the rich from current energy sources and the nay sayers is the only thing needed.
Anyone that complains about Solar ( no matter what type ) not working are dead wrong. Usually they are motivated by other things besides reality. Good post Gordon. Here is more proof that very old technology can be the answer. Convincing the rich from current energy sources and the nay sayers is the only thing needed.
Apr 7, 2022 16:24:34 #
Blackdog
Loc: Round Rock, TX
Gordon wrote:
Converting death rays into electricity br br br ... (show quote)
Yeah, great presentation, and if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt.
Oh no, I'm not nay saying Solar or "Green" energy solutions. Let's just compare a barrel of f****l f**l (stored energy) to say a Solar CSP Energy. One is certainly t***sportable. Imagine t***sporting Molten Salt! That's like hauling around hot lava. And costs? I currently pay $0.081 per KWh, imagine $.73 or $.50?! At the very best estimates, it is 6 times more expensive.
I think there are far too many variables to discuss the topic on the stage, but then again why not.
More importantly, I don't think you can just take America off the oil tit and plug her into the "G***n E****y" tit without some kind of a plan. Saying let's just reduce our carbon footprint negates all of the other benefits of f****l f**l, namely medicines and plastics. Obviously Craig points out scalability issues getting started.
Let Me Quote....
"Price of solar electricity (PV and CSP) in the past, present, and future. Source.
CSP tech has to overcome technical, financial, and environmental obstacles for that to happen."
•The technical challenges involve efficiency and energy t***sportation. In an ideal scenario, we’d be able to power cloudy cities using powerplants installed in deserts. (WE COULD HAUL HOT LAVE BY TRAIN PLANE TRUCK OR PIPELINE bd)
•The financial challenges involve a chicken-and-egg problem. Investors won’t bet on a tech that’s not popular yet. The tech won’t be popular without new investments.
•The environmental challenges come from the use of large amounts of water and harmful materials like thermal oils and molten salts, which may pose spill risks.
"Luckily, the first two obstacles depend mostly on incentives, which can be created by regulations and subsidies. As for the last, we can use ocean water and high safety standards to preserve our planet." (DID HE SAY REGULATIONS AND SUBSIDIES? HAVE WE NOT LEARNED A THING?bd)
Moving right along....
I wonder if Jeremy owns any electric vehicles? Say maybe one or two vehicles that he charges nightly or as needed? This would be great because we already know that if more than 30% of the homes on the grid had electric vehicles charging, that the grid could not support the power load.
What about electric boats? No no, not your everyday run of the mill power or fishing boat but the big boys the big shipping container ships, the US NAVY, should we drop nuclear power for solar power?
My point is....Its one thing to say CSP (solar type power) is the future. its quite another thing to really look at the vast variety of, and how much "Power" is really required, and the in what forms it needs to be stored.
Ah well, G***n E****y will be a big part of our future. How it is rolled out is what concerns me.
If it is not cheaper, safer, easier to manufacture, then I think oil is king for a long time to come. IMHO
Thanks Gordon
BD
I wonder how many times in the past 2000 years a civilization has considered Archimedes solution?
Apr 7, 2022 18:37:58 #
DC
Loc: Washington state
solar might have a future as a partial solution but not the end all. when solar does not need to be subsidized to make it pincil out then it may work. but that is not the case now. it wpuld be good to know how much land will be needed for csp with storage of the molten salt? what would be the trade off in the land loss such as crops ir live stock. what is the total environmental impact all said and done compared to natural gas, geothermal, nuclear etc. the t***h is no one source will be the answer and we should not rule out any sources of energy. all have advatages and disadvantages all will do some harm to some part of the enviroment. it is always cost vs benifit type calculation which is seldom done n an honest way with out biases. but it was n interresting post
Apr 7, 2022 18:53:40 #
Blackdog wrote:
Yeah, great presentation, and if a frog had wings ... (show quote)
BD. I just poster this to let people see what others think about our energy future. Believe me I am not for g***n e****y, solar panels or wind turbines. I will never oun an electric car. It won't pull a boat. This also is why I put it in the Attic. Didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest.
Apr 7, 2022 18:59:12 #
Gordon wrote:
BD. I just poster this to let people see what others think about our energy future. Believe me I am not for g***n e****y, solar panels or wind turbines. I will never oun an electric car. It won't pull a boat. This also is why I put it in the Attic. Didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest.
Oh! You did too...bbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz🦟🦟🦟🦟
Hack 🇺🇸🍺🍺
Apr 7, 2022 19:41:27 #
Blackdog
Loc: Round Rock, TX
Gordon wrote:
BD. I just poster this to let people see what others think about our energy future. Believe me I am not for g***n e****y, solar panels or wind turbines. I will never oun an electric car. It won't pull a boat. This also is why I put it in the Attic. Didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest.
Love ya Brother!
It must be the meds or that steroid shot......(LOL)
BD
Apr 8, 2022 13:55:54 #
hacksaw wrote:
Oh! You did too...bbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz🦟🦟🦟🦟
Hack 🇺🇸🍺🍺
Hack 🇺🇸🍺🍺
I'm sorry ! Those are hornets ?
Looks like a swarm of 'skeeters
to me ! 😳
Apr 8, 2022 14:16:29 #
Big A wrote:
I'm sorry ! Those are hornets ?
Looks like a swarm of 'skeeters
to me ! 😳
Looks like a swarm of 'skeeters
to me ! 😳
Do you need stronger lenses again?🦟🦟🦟🦟🦟
Increase your page size and maybe you’ll see better.
Hack 🇺🇸🍺🍺
Apr 8, 2022 17:06:48 #
DC
Loc: Washington state
hacksaw wrote:
Do you need stronger lenses again?🦟🦟🦟🦟🦟
Increase your page size and maybe you’ll see better.
Hack 🇺🇸🍺🍺
Increase your page size and maybe you’ll see better.
Hack 🇺🇸🍺🍺
maybe depends on the state you are from in Texas I hear the skeeters are much bigger and you hut them with 10 Gauge Shotguns and you sure don't have to increase your page size to know what they are. most likely in Arizona they are much smaller and easier to confuse. Of course the Hornet is still much bigger and flies at super sonic speeds and is much more lethal and hard to confuse with a skeeter
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.