Ignoring the cost of capital

April 20th, 2013 at 2:15 pm by David Farrar

I blogged on Wednesday the following graph:

total-cost-electricity-production-per-kwh

 

I was pointing out the are against nuclear, coal and large hydro which doesn’t bode well for the future cost of power.

Now Gareth Hughes has responded with this graph:

nzpowercosts

 

But do you see what is missing? The cost of capital or construction. These costs are often the largest part of total costs.

Of course once you have a dam in place, or a wind turbine in place, the operating costs are less than having to keep digging up coal from the ground. But capital is not free (unless you print money!) and there is an ongoing cost to capital – either interest or opportunity cost.

So if you look at the graph I provided, it shows that solar has no operating costs (of course) but huge construction costs.

Now don’t get me wrong. I think renewables are the future. I think wind, hydro, solar and even tidal are part of our future energy supply. But they need to be cost effective. Blanket bans on coal and large hydro are not the way to go.

Tags: , ,

37 Responses to “Ignoring the cost of capital”

  1. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    I guess it’s full steam ahead for Right wing ‘lets make profit from a public good’ propaganda machine.

    Unfortunately for the Right, the facts are plain and simple. The Tory plan will deliver shareholder returns to the wealthy few. Labour and the Greens will deliver cheaper power prices for all.

    [DPF – off topic. This is about costs of different sources of power. You are just trolling. Use general debate]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    Is depreciation an operating cost? If so, solar and wind have quite high depreciation rates – the equipment wears out far faster than a nuclear or coal plant, many of which can operate for 50 years or more. Wind turbines go about 20 years is my understanding, solar is obsolete after about 10 years due to pace of technology, plus if it’s PV then the cells themselves lose efficiency over time.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MikeG (425 comments) says:

    In the top graph the construction costs of hydro and coal look to be quite similar, so what is your point?

    Solar power needs to be treated differently – it is relatively straight forward to install solar power on the roofs of most houses, so individually no huge capital project, and this would reduce the requirements of future generation projects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    I guess it’s full steam ahead for Right wing ‘lets make profit from a public good’ propaganda machine.

    Funny you say that, when the fact is that power price increases and profits surged under Labour, and have been restrained under the current Govt.

    Labour and the Greens will deliver cheaper power prices for all.

    On their track record, Labour does the exact opposite.

    At least put in a tiny little bit of effort please, hamnida.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Now Gareth Hughes has responded with this graph:

    Garerh Hughes’s font is nicer, and he uses gradients.

    The Greens may not know much about the environment or economics, but they sure know marketing.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. DeepScience (48 comments) says:

    Solar is good to heat water, but mostly in the top half of the North Island. Photovoltaics can’t realise the benefits yet.
    Wind is good for nothing. You cannot run electricity networks on unreliable power.
    Tidal is good for killing fish. Wave pumps are good at getting broken in storms.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    “Is depreciation an operating cost”

    It’s generally treated as an operating cost for tax purposes as it reflects the loss of value of the original capital item.

    However, a high cap business should retain substantially greater earnings (or take big loans at replacement time) to rebuild\replace the asset.

    So, in theory if you get your depreciation right then the average operating costs over the life of the asset take in to account the loss in value.

    We then need to add to that a decent return on the original capital over the life of the asset. A 1$bn asset needs to return about 8% p.a. (very crudely speaking) otherwise the money should not go in to power generation as one could earn more elsewhere with the money.

    However, I think that’s all moot as confusingly operating costs can also mean the costs of operating the asset without worrying about depreciation and my judgement is that the graphs above are the ones without worrying about depreciation. Either picture is awful for so called new green mechanisms for power generation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    1. MikeG: it may be straightforward to install solar panels on roofs, but a) it isn’t cheap – on a per KWH basis it’s far more expensive, due to poor economies of scale with lots of small solar units everywhere, and b) the price to the grid of that solar is often very high, depending on what sort of feed-in tariff is agreed.

    2. I think Gareth’s point is that the govt paid for those dams, so really the power companies aren’t paying a cost of capital on those. But his logic is a bit shaky – the power companies do pay a cost of capital, that cost of capital is known as “dividends.” And given those power companies are owned by the govt, the govt is the one that created the rule that those power companies should pay dividends so as to cover their cost of capital. When in power the Labour party didn’t change that, presumably they thought it sensible then. What has changed? My personal view is that if you start saying that govt owned companies don’t pay the cost of capital, then you may as well give up on the SOE model. And then we’re heading back to the old power board days, which frankly were a disaster, with a messy combination of over engineering and under serving the public.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Inky_the_Red (764 comments) says:

    The cost of capital claimed by NZ electricity generators is as dodgy as. They claim depreciation every year but every 3 years they revalue.
    Meridian has already claimed in depreciation almost the entire 1999 value of its hydro dams yet it has in its books a value of (from memory) $6-$8 billion more than actual cost of building the assets (1999 value was $1.6 billion)

    Shadbolt was fairly correct when he claimed that it cost a few cents to produce power by hydro. However he did ignore the cost of upgrades a few years back including the drilling a of new tunnel at Manapouri.

    As for the advantages of solar. They are not there yet cheaper power in NZ (I think your graph is not accurate for 2013 looks closer to the 2000 solar power situation) , however they are more efficient than 10-20 years ago. Eventually the technology will be there. Solar panels on roofs in NZ is a more expensive way of getting electricity. However some people are happy to pay for it so good on them. At some point it will be cheaper (especially than buying from MRP who tried to tell me the had to put my power up by 13% due to Orion rising distribution prices by about 5%)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    ““Is depreciation an operating cost””

    I bothered to read the original article – he basically dodged the depreciation issue by the way he did the original calculation.

    He converted everything in to costs per KWh and used production costs, expected life of the asset, construction and decommissioning costs and as such it DOES take in to account all capital costs but does NOT include any returns (profits) or risk costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @Inky

    those graphs did not include any costs relating to storage of wind and solar generated energy. They are thus very understated if there is going to be significant use of either. They, of course, cannot provide any form of guaranteed supply until energy storage technology also makes some major leaps and bounds in terms of efficiencies and costs.

    I reckon closer to 2050.

    On a side note – nuclear would be safer than anything involving batteries (and coal and oil incidentally). The stuff used in batteries can relatively easily end up in the environment and ends up at the top of the food chain and is toxic.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ross12 (1,486 comments) says:

    A repost from the thread below.

    A very good article by Lance Wiggs on the NBR site. Full of facts which shows how complex the electricity market is and I think it shows the Labour / Greens don’t understand it properly. While I don’t agree with everything Lance has to say I like the fact he is very transparent with his involvement and any “biases” he may have. Well worth a read.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/electrickery-10-alternative-suggestions-changing-nzs-electricity-industry-ck-138956

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. JeffW (327 comments) says:

    Hamnida, I guess you lived in Korea, but doubt that you are ethnic Korean – migrants generally want to improve themselves, rather than chase a socialist utopia – after all they have one next door to move to if they want. Most NZers in Korea are teachers, are you one? I trust you are not spouting your left wing hatred in our classrooms? Your post early this am on GD was truly awful. If things worked out in practice as the left would like, communism would have been a success. Instead it is capitalism which has improved the lot of mankind, hard though that might be for you to accept. I recommend opening your eyes, with the mind to follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Akld Commercial Lawyer (166 comments) says:

    Regrettably, I have not seen the TV3 item from this morning. Hopefully it will be available on line.

    Again, on this and the earlier thread, whilst the effort of some of the Opposition’s supporters is commendable – and (I think) frankly is useful in teasing out the complexities of the subject matter, there are some issues with much of what they are claiming as foundation data – starting with the Wolak report.

    I should add that there are a few issues with IFRS too- but a simplistic (namely that of yours truly) view of amortising on the basis of historic costs is that you simply-under provision for an asset that you will have to replace at a future price – not a backward looking one.

    Finally, and with apologies for banging on about some pet themes, but if the debate is simply a tribal one about returns on capital vs those on labour (little “l”) then we will end up shouting at each other and learning very little.

    Oh and personally, I have lost what little sliver of respect for BERL I had clung on to. This is an appalling piece of work and I think that they are likely to have marked themselves as political cannon fodder. I am aware of some experts who are dismissive of their work as expert witnesses – but this appears to be a Fair Trading Act claim (something I can speak about with some authority) in a can. Very poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    “Garerh Hughes’s font is nicer, and he uses gradients.

    The Greens may not know much about the environment or economics, but they sure know marketing.”

    Both of Gareth’s graphs are actually poorly designed from a usability perspective – going for pretty is a common mistake.

    If you look at both graphs on his site you see that his choice of colour and very light hues is awful – makes it very hard to separate out different elements – You need to use base colours more including black and grey, some of the colours are too close to separate etc. If I received a graph from like this from someone working for me in a corporate environment I would point them at basic graph design techniques on the net and get them to re-do it.

    Looking at the graphs the choice of colours looks deliberate to stress or lessen different elements. So, might be more sinister than that.

    It is also hilarious that one can hardly see a comment about his post – it’s a fun set of random ravings.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @AKL Comm

    The situation is quite simple – we don’t have a truly competitive environment. It is regulated in a way that lets the governments rent seek as the main owner or drive for political reasons and they have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    While talking of cheap hydro has anyone got a clue as to what the lifespan of a dam is and do the storage lakes silt up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    Is depreciation an operating cost? If so, solar and wind have quite high depreciation rates – the equipment wears out far faster than a nuclear or coal plant, many of which can operate for 50 years or more

    My understanding is that not a single wind turbine built in NZ will generate enough electricity to repay its capital cost. Deliberately increasing the cost of electricity (ETS, limiting supply etc) does make the ROIC look better though.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    DPF –

    I think renewables are the future. I think wind, hydro, solar and even tidal are part of our future energy supply

    We have vast reserves of oil and shale gas, enough for anticipated world demand for centuries ahead.

    New sources of energy are part of the future, but probably our great-great-great-great-great grandchildren’s future.

    Of course none of this will stop the Malthusian’s trying to send us back to the caves through energy deprivation.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ChrisM (109 comments) says:

    If one looks at the actual data (not the Green dream factory stuff), wind turbines on land only last about 15 years and those at sea only 10. Then they need a total rebuild. That isn’t built into the operating costings. They also need gas turbines or coal plant running all the time for when the wind suddenly drops and more generation is needed. That is why despite Denmark having all those turbines (and power double the cost of ours) they haven’t been able to shut any of their thermal plant down.

    The hydro plant in NZ has had an almost total rebuild over the last ten years. MRP is in the middle of very expensive rebuilds of their generators. A lot of the transformers have needed replacing as well. There have also been very expensive upgrades to meet the new grid compliance and protection rules.

    As for the graphs, if fraccing was allowed, the cost of CCGTs on gas would be by far the cheapest LRMC. Look at the US data.

    It isn’t worth trying to have any discussion with the Greens on electricity generation. Their knowledge of the system could fit on a Tee shirt and usually does.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Matt (213 comments) says:

    I’d be interested to know, how does Geothermal fit onto your graph, David?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    Further to my 4:36 comment above, here’s historical view of global oil reserves.

    1882 — Institute of Mining Engineers estimates 95 million barrels of oil remain.

    1926 — Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 4.5 billion barrels remain.

    1932 — Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 10 billion barrels of oil remain.

    1944 — Petroleum Administrator for War estimates 20 billion barrelsof oil remain.

    1950 — American Petroleum Institute says world oil reserves are at 100 billion barrels.

    1980 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 648 billion barrels

    1993 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 999 billion barrels

    2000 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1016 billion barrels.

    2003 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1212 billion barrels. (Source OSJ)

    2007 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1313 billion barrels. (Source OSJ)

    2011 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1469 billion barrels. (Source OSJ)

    2013 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1637 billion barrels. (Source OSJ)

    Can anyone see a trend here?

    The now widespread use of fracking and access to tar sands will continute increase oil reserves, while newly discovered, vast quantities of shale gas will transform our energy future.

    The Greens will be pissed!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    “While talking of cheap hydro has anyone got a clue as to what the lifespan of a dam is and do the storage lakes silt up?”

    You can basically keep them going forever (not literally of course) – it can require some significant costs though. Silting is dependent on the feeds.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Reg (128 comments) says:

    Just backing up Matts request. Any data on where geothermal fits in to the graph David? Seems the best by far, a thermal power station where you don’t have to pay to heat the water.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. JC (951 comments) says:

    “Their knowledge of the system could fit on a Tee shirt and usually does.”

    Heh.

    But what gets me is these buggers fighting an election on keeping a near monopoly on power, then trashing it for being a monopoly only to propose a bigger monopoly (monopsony).

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ChrisM (109 comments) says:

    If one takes the published data on MRPs Ngatamariki, the capital cost is about $480M for 80MW and 25 year life. Generation would be at about 95% load factor and the O&M would be about $10-20Mpa, depends on how many well workovers are needed. I can’t be bothered working out the numbers but I would say 10c/unit, most of which is capital repayment.

    Though the Greens don’t think depreciation matters! They also can’t distinguish between revenue and profit, which puts them on a parallel universe and explains why few with any braincells take them seriously. They make Chavez look like a capitalst.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ChrisM (109 comments) says:

    To answer Johnboy’s earlier question at 3:58, dams are regarded as near permanent. The baseline case the regional authorities consider in consent applications is if the dams are there and the floodgates fully open.
    They can and do silt up. There is a small hydro scheme up the Waihopai in Blenheim that was filled in a year and is now run of the river. At Clyde and Roxburgh, Contact opens sluice gates on the bottom of the dams in big floods to try and desilt. This should slow it a lot but there will be some loss of storage.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ross12 (1,486 comments) says:

    This does not apply to NZ ( as we already have 75+% renewables and have had for a long time –just in case the Greens did not realise ). This graph ex Bloomberg is instructive for the Greens who see the great export potential of selling our knowledge of geothermal etc ( ( even though there are plenty of places around the world with geothermal energy knowledge)

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/money/renewable-investment-2013.png

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    Ross12 – spare a thought for Spain …

    Green investment plummets 96% in Spain
    :::
    Ironically, the hardest hit country was Spain, writes gstriatum.com. In the first quarter of 2013 Spain saw almost all of its investment in renewable energies evaporate, plummeting a mind-numbing 96%. President Obama once touted Spain as a shining example of green economy success, see here and here. Clearly Obama’s energy advisers had no clue about the complete lack of viability of renewable energies and have left the President standing embarrassed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    Wind turbines break down, wear out. They must be written off through depreciation.

    Hydro dams such as those on the Clutha will silt up over the decades, so have a finite life, even if this is a century or more. Clearing out the silt will be a momentous task. The dam’s turbines wear out, and need replacing, and of course, continuing maintenance.

    Geothermal steam sources are not stable. Consider the tourist geysers at Rotorua as an example. There is uncertainty about how long they last. There is considerable infrastructure for them that must be maintained and depreciated.

    Renewable electricity is not free.

    The cheap electricity days of New Zealand came not from our hydro dams, which are characterised by having fairly poor back-up storage compared with many overseas. This is because of topography and our regard for the environment (eg stopping the raising of Lake Manapouri).

    Cheap electricity in NZ came from the windfall of the huge Maui gas field, which now, alas is in its old age, with its economic breath weak.

    With NZ’s instability from sitting on the edge of the Pacific tectonic plate, and even more from New Zealanders’ phobia about anything nuclear, there is little chance of permanent cheaper power.

    If the Bluff smelter closes, the price of infrastructure to take power north and pressure from our balance of payments deficit will force us to find another big industrial client from abroad, whose only reason to come to NZ, will be a deal on electricity.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. HC (154 comments) says:

    So we get graphs for “supposed” production, construction and operating costs, so what are we supposed to believe? Operating costs for hydro, wind and geothermal are low. That tells us that there are great efficiencies there. Solar is a split case, as I stated in another comment. Solar thermal and solar PV are different, and perform differently.

    What is not addressed here is the fact, that fossil fuels get more expensive year by year, due to increased scarcity or increased costs of extracting of what is left to be available.

    KrazyKiwi believes to know better, thinking more and more resources are discovered and can be exploited. But hey, shale gas and other resources of bitumen type oil or coal that are not yet mined, they are not easy to extract, and the volumes stated seem to be volumes of gross value, not of net extraction value. So do not mislead us with such crap, KK, thanks.

    It is NOT getting cheaper to get the stuff out of the grounds, and that is showing in the resource prices traded.

    In the end, there is NO alternative, to switch to alternative energy sources. It will be wise to start now, and to do this gradually, also using funds available smartly, and to diversify anyway.

    Smart countries do this, NZ is asleep at the wheel, I am afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. OneTrack (3,371 comments) says:

    HC – We don’t have to switch everything to alternative energy sources. No reason we can’t have more hydro. But for some reason, some people, like the Greens, are against this. Not sure why.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    HC – Do some research. Better oil extraction techniques and the advent of widespread shale gas is fundamentally challenging the ‘peak this’ and ‘peak that’ cry of the rabid, green left. How is Russia’s virtual gas monopoly in Europe looking with the growth of shale gas? Will the USA be a net importer of oil (as it is today), or net exporter in the very near future? Just how much oil is really available from Canada’s vast Athabasca tar sands?

    As for future energy sources, we have already started exploring these. It’s just that todays government planned, funded and incentivised schemes are turning out to be a total waste of money (who would have thought, huh?), and probably the source of delay the realisation of alternatives to oil, gas and coal.

    As for your pleas of “there is no alternative”, do you presume to know what all the alternatives are? I certainly don’t …. but I’m guessing that so many haven’t been suggested yet, let alone researched, trailed or tested.

    But if you want to worry and fret, then go right ahead. I plan to be celebrating abundant, life-giving energy for the rest of my life.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ChrisM (109 comments) says:

    HC
    Are you a troll or just stupid?
    Fossil fuels for power generation aren’t getting more expensive. Shale gas has lowered the cost of generating plants in the US to below that of all others. Even coal like that from the PRB or the new fields is cheaper now than 20 years ago. The old stuff was underground, now it’s opencast. Look at the listed reserves in North America or China – that proven not speculative.
    Operating costs or SRMC might be used on merit order but it is LRMC that determines what plants are built. Wind is not considered because it needs fast start gas plant to make it dispatchable. Solar PV is only “cheap” at present because the Chinese overproduced and there is a glut on the market so they are dumping. The other hasn’t any proven power generation. Maximum power demand in NZ is on cold frosty nights. Wind and Solar are really great then, aren’t they.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    slijmbal (898) Says:
    April 20th, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    …those graphs did not include any costs relating to storage of wind and solar generated energy. They are thus very understated if there is going to be significant use of either. They, of course, cannot provide any form of guaranteed supply until energy storage technology also makes some major leaps and bounds in terms of efficiencies and costs.

    I reckon closer to 2050.

    krazykiwi (9,075) Says:
    April 20th, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    New sources of energy are part of the future, but probably our great-great-great-great-great grandchildren’s future.

    2050? Our great great great great grandchildren? Ridiculously pessimistic and reflects a linear intuition. Solar is improving exponentially in terms of cost per Kwh. Grid parity is already reached in many parts of the world and looks set to achieve that throughout the world within the decade. While storage technology is one issue this must be looked at in context of the exponential improvements in PVs. Moreover, this is an active area of research and development and with solar achieving grid parity is only going to increase the incentive and the interest in making these developments.


    Engineering researchers at the University of Arkansas have developed a thermal energy storage system that will work as a viable alternative to current methods used for storing energy collected from solar panels. Incorporating the researchers’ design into the operation of a concentrated solar power plant will dramatically increase annual energy production while significantly decreasing production costs.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121109083731.htm

    Modeling results showed the concrete plates conducted heat with an efficiency of 93.9 percent, which is higher than the Department of Energy’s goal and only slightly less than the efficiency of the packed-bed method. Tests also confirmed that the concrete layers conducted heat without causing damage to materials used for storage. In addition, energy storage using the concrete method cost only $0.78 per kilowatt-hour, far below the Department of Energy’s goal of achieving thermal energy storage at a cost of $15 per kilowatt-hour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. flipper (4,332 comments) says:

    KrazyKiwi…nice piece.

    But I am slow this morning.
    Enlighten me: ” OSJ” is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Ed Snack (1,940 comments) says:

    If all these wonderful discoveries are being made regarding advances in PVs, then we’d be completely and utterly stark raving mad to invest in now, just before all these paradigm changing things are introduced !

    However, there are lots of possible improvements but very few of them scale effectively or can be manufactured industrially. The researchers release all these gosh wow press releases because they want more research money. Don’t get sucked into all the hype. That said, some of the materials engineering being made possible by research into nano-structures (a very broad term) looks very promising, in the medium term.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote