What to do about the energy transition? | Alan Finkel and Aidan Morrison
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.ค. 2024
- Alan Finkel, former Chief Scientist of Australia, and Aidan Morrison Director of Energy at the Centre for Independent Studies discuss the energy transition, tackling the question of whether the current efforts should be redoubled, or whether a rethink is required.
Australia stands at a fork in the road. The current plan to transition to a system dominated by wind and solar is encountering headwinds, with infrastructure investments facing unexpected social, economic, and environmental challenges. Are we still on the optimal path to net-zero? Are we on a viable one?
As Alan said, "It's been a long time since I've had to convince an audience that climate change is real" so it is clear we are making progress in public discourse. However, with climate change is happening faster than we even expected it to, we urgently need a solution. But of the four options for clean energy we have handicapped ourselves by only accepting wind and solar. No one is talking about hydro and nuclear has been banned in Australia.
If we are to effectively tackle climate change, we need to have very good reason to take any clean energy source off the table and out of the conversation.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS promotes free choice and individual liberty and the open exchange of ideas. CIS encourages debate among leading academics, politicians, media and the public. We aim to make sure good policy ideas are heard and seriously considered so that Australia can prosper. Follow CIS on our Socials;
Twitter - / cisoz
Facebook - / centreindependentstudies
Linkedin - / the-centre-for-indepen...
Telegram - t.me/centreforindependentstudies
📖 Read more from CIS here: www.cis.org.au/
💬 Join in the conversation in the comments.
👍 Like this video if you enjoyed it and want to see more, it really helps us out!
🔔 Subscribe to our channel and click the bell to watch our videos first: / @cisaus
⏲️ Missed this event live? Subscribe to CIS to be up to date with all our events:
www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
📝 Subscribe to CIS mailing list- www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
💳 Support us with a tax-deductible donation at - www.cis.org.au/support/
Watch Professor of minerals and metals Simon Michau along with Petroleum geologist Art Berman A very helpful truth regarding Green Energy and how much water is truly needed to power these data banks for this And where will the waste product of these solar wind power go along with the huge production of batteries We must save our Agricultural lands and not give away our gas and food supplies 🧐🕊🌍
Aidan’s presentation is spot on. How we’ve not taken account of so many costs in looking at the “Transition”.
We MUST look at the present costs vs the alleged benefits way down the line.
GenCost includes firmed renewables. Try reading it
People in summer who own electric cars told not to charge them in California to avoid blackouts.
18:54 we build a wind farm and reduce the risk of global warming? isn't Australia 1% of global emissions
Believe it or not, we're not the only country trying to solve climate change.
@@infinityubs what about the gas and coal we export that is burnt overseas. Does that count?
@@budawang77 > Believe it or not, we're not the only country trying to solve climate change.
Unlike France which decarbonized their electricity decades back with nuclear, and is now working on their other emissions sectors.
@@factnotfiction5915 France indeed generates much of its electricity from nuclear. However, they built their nuclear plants a long ago when wind and solar were not viable technologies. France was and still is a more technologically advanced country than Australia with deep expertise in nuclear physics. Australia has no existing nuclear industry and would have an enormous challenge to build the required scientific and industrial capability almost from scratch.Despite its success with nuclear, France is planning to reduce its reliance on nuclear. Turns out nuclear reactors are not that reliable.
@@budawang77 "However, they built their nuclear plants a long ago when wind and solar were not viable technologies."
Wind and solar have *_never_* been "viable technologies". They are *_infinitely-expensive,_* on a sustained basis.
th-cam.com/video/bUfXbSZXqas/w-d-xo.html "It could be a blip". Of course it's a blip; it's called El Niño. Global temperatures have already dropped 0.25C in the last three months.
So if the last kW sold dictates the electricity price should we bypass the whole VRE vs nuclear debate as reframe the conversation as what is the second cheapest source of electricity to complement VRE's? Then the question should be: is it better to have gas peaking and batteries or nuclear to complement VRE's?
(For context Gencost (Apx Table B.10) puts peaking gas LCOE (20% load) at between $138 - $296 /MWh and nuclear LCOE at $136 - $252 /MWh. So with the ISP's plan to have peaking gas run at 5% then the gas supplied electricity is most certainly going to be a lot more expensive than having nuclear in the mix.)
gas/batteries vs nuclear:
Environmentally: nuclear beats gas and batteries on emissions and mining
Flexibility: gas wins
Price volatility: nuclear wins as uranium is such a small component of the cost
Compatibility with heavy industry*: nuclear is the only player as it trumps gas on emissions (and firmed VRE's on cost predictability)
*For me the most important. As Aidan notes cement, steel, and global transport are the most daunting items on the decarb list and if Australia is not able to be price competitive with solutions then we are surrendering these most important decarb challenges to developing countries who may not share the same urgency and/or means as us to to prioritise.
So if nuclear ticks most of the boxes then when it's bought online the regulator will have good rational to prioritise nuclear's contribution to the grid to negate the need for peaking gas. VRE's will be curtailed in the interest of long-term electricity prices and for environmental impact reasons.
Then with all this stable nuclear electricity the economy (inc. green exports) will thrive and electricity rebates and the cost of living crises will be a distant memory.
Agree
LCOE per MWH is very difficult for Gas Turbine Peakers cos how much will they ever produce. Better to think like this. We build 15GW of Gas Turbine Peakers and we will never have to worry about a Supply Gap again and we can reach 90%+ renewables with that model.
That's exactly the crux of the problem. The renewable crowd is fixated on an arbitrary renewable target at the cost of all else. The target should be sustainably low carbon electricity AND low as practicable electricity prices. The cost of electricity impacts every single aspect of our economy. Electricity prices are a fundamental input to our economic productivity and competitiveness. Cheap electricity (not to be confused with cheap capex) is the best economic stimulation that a government can deliver, it increases our competitiveness across the board allows an economy to thrive.
Australia is currently a wealthy country, we should be aiming for the Rolls Royce solution. VRE's are great for developing countries as some electricity is better than no electricity but we need the best electricity in order to sustain our prosperity and contribute meaningfully to the global decarb project. Global warming will be expensive and we will need every dollar we can generate to get through.
Totally predictable, should have started sooner, it's going to hurt a lot, never believe 'the best', prepare for the worst.
In Europe it’s a straight line up and to the right: The more the amount of RE in the economy, the more the cost of electricity.
It’s simply wrong to say the Renewables are “cheap”. They’re not. Australia is the same. We’ve gone from cheap-ish electricity to amongst the highest in the world.
Let’s go nuclear.
@@peterforsythe3643 Not true our electricity prices are the absolute average in the world, do your research before making BS claims.
In September 2023, French people (non business rates) paid on average 27.2 cents per kWh, compared to 46.5 in the UK, 37.9 in Germany and 34.9 in the Netherlands. Italy and Spain rank lower at 23.9 and 19.4 respectively.
Wrong 😑 AEMO credits renewables for bringing down the wholesale cost of electricity over Summer: Victoria and parts of NSW are getting 6% price cuts for their wholesale electricity, it’s up to the retailers to pass them on.
@lindam.1502 the same AEMO that deceitfully manipulates the costing of renewable in their ISP - gotcha
@@lindam.1502 "it’s up to the retailers to pass them on". This is precisely the problem. Because of the unreliability of wind and solar, the electricity retailers have to maintain supplies of electricity from gas, oil, coal and nuclear as well. So they have the capital costs of fossil fuel and nuclear as well as wind and gas. This is the main reason that retail prices don't come down; the consumer has to pay for all of that infrastructure.
So wholesale prices and retail prices are two different worlds with very different conditions. It's not like selling tins of beans.
If a network could be run on wind/solar alone, and the rest could be shut down, then maybe retail electricity prices could come down. The question is, why isn't that happening?
I don't understand how he can say last summer was hotter than ever. We never got past 35c. Normally, our summer temperatures are around 40/45c. The east coast had the most rain and flooding. So sick of the BS.
The climate is different from your personal experience. Just look at a chart of average global temperatures and you'll see why people are concerned
It's the average over a large area that counts not that over a local region.
Agree though the La Nina weather pattern allowed Eastern Australia to avoid heat waves, but this was at the expense of flooding from moisture laden air streaming in from the Pacific.
@jimgraham6722
It also meant that the government knew what weather events were coming and as usual, the dams were at 99% and they spilled. If the idiots let the water go early, things wouldn't get that bad.
@@marjgunn9511 I experienced the great Ipswich/Brisbane flood of 73 when the Bremer River, unexpectedly rose 25m. The results were devastating.
All I can say is the flood dynamics in the Lockyer Valley are complex and difficult to predict with certainty. If you pulse the Brisbane River just as the Bremer is rising you have big problems as the two flows collide head to head.
Hopefully better modelling will allow better management.
With nuclear no one ever talks about the stable society required to look after the waste for 100000 years. Is that factored in to EROEI. If the whole world goes to nuclear there is enough reserves of uranium for 80 years and it doesn't address transport freight,only electrickity.
Where does the 100k years come from? What is the risk threshold? How much should we value 1 life in 100k years versus 100 years versus today? Would we be better off spending money on healthcare, sanitation and education elsewhere in the world today with the economic impact generated by nuclear, or by changing the risk thresholds of the nuclear repository?
Nothing subjected to *_Deep Isolation_* need be looked-after. Besides that, *_high-level "waste" already exists._* Therefore, the cost of managing high-level "waste" is already baked-in. So, the additional cost for new high-level "waste" *_would be zero._*
"Reserves" have nothing to do with geology. Geologically, there remain 10 billion years' worth of uranium in the earth's crust.
Prof. Finkel, why aren’t people considering expanding hydroelectricity in Australia? The answer is simple and I am surprised you don’t seem to know this. It’s because we are an arid climate with intermittent wet periods. Hydroelectricity is designed for 24/7 generation and we certainly could not achieve that anywhere other than where Hydro is currently installed.
Regarding Nuclear, we keep talking about building SMNR’s as if they as something of a compromise between doing something and doing nothing. What few observers have stated, including yourself is that Australia uses about 20 gWe of power at any point in time. Of this, 60% is from brown, black coal and gas. This needs to be replaced within a decade which is over 2X the renewables installed base. If we used nuclear instead and used “large” sized reactors that generate circa 1.2 gWe we need at least ten of them to meet current electricity needs along with keeping the renewables already installed running.
One factor nobody has included is that out population is doubling between 30 and 50 years and so, by 2075, we will need to have added at least 30 gWe of nuclear power plants. That’s about 28 new nuclear plants @ 1.2 gWe and by the turn of the century in 2100 we will need to add another 50 gWe in nuclear generation just to keep place with population rise. This is sheer madness when the primary driving force of global warming, runaway demand for energy, shrinking supply of food is down to one problem - runaway population growth. Fix that, and everything else will solve itself.
00:01 PUBLIC CHANNEL* Educate on Money * Credit * Debt & Politics * Keep it Simple ! Ham Radio Operator VK3GFS is following this great content 73s Frank 1:29:10
Why do I get the impression that Aidan is a gun for hire for big nuclear industrial interests?
Because he is.
That is not how Aiden became involved in understanding and calling out the (deliberate) errors and omissions in both AEMO's ISP and CSIRO's GenCosts. Literally someone asked Aidan to look into them both and it all grew from there.
Why is Aidan pro-nuclear? Because he is a Physicist and nuclear makes total sense to anyone wanting reliable, abundant, clean power.
Who cares? If you really want CO2 reduction, why would you care if he worked for nuclear interests?
I don't care if he's paid by Satan himself. He brings strong arguments.
@@johnk-pc2zx Really? Dr Finkel was much more convincing and clearly far more experienced and knowledgeable.
In other words, the real problem is that Australians are extremely conservative and parochial and can't (or don't want to) comprehend the big picture.
@@budawang77 people don’t think about electricity beyond their home and more recently their car. Additionally they don’t understand the connection between prosperity and energy.
@@handlethejandalnonsense
Aidan Morrison is the probably the best energy analyst in Australia. He knows more about the energy needs of Australia than AEMO and CSIRO combined. Aidan leaves Finkel in the dust when assessing the future of energy.
@@shaunbooth1836 he’s a right wing puppet of the fossil fuel industry. He lacks any unbiased knowledge of the clean energy transition and is trapped by an archaic dogma. The facade of knowledge is not the same as industry experts and scientists.
Solar energy is cheap if you have low cost capital and if you use the electricity to produce green hydrogen, for cooling buildings or charging EVs when the sun shines. There are plenty of applications where solar energy is cheap, but it is much too expensive for base-load electricity.
Way less expensive than nuclear ☢️
Wind and solar are *_infinitely-expensive,_* on a sustained basis. This was proven by Elon Musk.
What is a 'social conscience' ? - We were told that privatisation of energy companies would make energy cheaper. - That was a whopping big lie. Our energy companies are probably now owned by private equity investment corporations, and have CEOs who are paid to maximise returns to shareholders.- th-cam.com/video/nermCANqyvM/w-d-xo.html
Stop Snowy 2.0 now.
as outrageously expensive as it is I think the argument for completing is is very similar to the argument for nuclear. Large capex but extremely long and dependable life, pumped hydro also has a long history of working hand in hand with nuclear
@handlethejandal Thank you for your comment. "In the long run, we will all be dead." In my opinion, both arguments rely, at least in part, on the man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming scam, and are inadequate for a finite economy. If there is made a sound economic case for nuclear against coal, then I will accept that.
Poor-old Aidan, rallying against the awful scourge of rooftop solar while extolling the virtues of coal. Like a PowerPoint presentation from 2013 with updated adjectives. You're fighting the last war, solider
This guys figures are massively incorrect.
I'd love to see the experiment, modelling anything that shows 75% of "GHG's" is C02 that is anthropogenic.
The problem with the nuclear option is the carbon released by old infrastrure in the 20+ years it will take to come online.
CO2 is not a pollutant. You've been using that exact same excuse for the past quarter century.
@@aliendroneservices6621
What on earth are you talking about?
Atmospheric CO2 is causing an increase in our planets temperature.
There are holes in a lot of what you say.
Fires. Blackburn's were not allowed in somenational parks & some farmers & bushland.
Cost, more tax to the tax payer than ever.
12 interest rates rise under Labor.
This year, Labor spent more than it earned. Yes, hitting up the FOREIGN DEBT Were supposed to be paying down our foreign debt, not making it worse.
Black coal is cheaper than gas, so that is what we need for base load power.
Australia 1% of world pollution.
China over 30% of world pollution.
It can't hurt if Australia uses
Black coal fired powerstations.
Take the strain off
The cost of living nightmare
My last power bill went up 6.2 × more as a pensioner even with 9 solar panels on the back shed feeding the grid.
You get paid bugger all for your feed in.
Homelessness, no rentals very high prices.
No housing yet immigration gone nuts 1.2 million over 2 years.
Anti-Australian Albanese Labor government.
"Hurry up and approve my renewables projects so I can make a fortune. I don't care about the dying birds, I need my money now! I'll be dead soon!"
- Alan Finkel
More birds 🦅 are killed by pollution and climate change than turbines 🤦♀️
Aiden Morrison avoids mentioning the cost of Nuclear Waste. The longer he spoke the more it seems he is supported by legacy power sources.
The cost of nuclear waste is quite low. In the US, it has been set at 0.1 cents / kWh (decimal place is correct), collected at the time of generation.
Clearly not a large % issue for costs.
@@factnotfiction5915, your not including the security which in the USA particularly has escalated since 9/11, no one mentions this !
@@RichardCostello-wj8gy you spoke of nuclear waste, not security - typical
however, AGAIN the cost of the security is borne by the plant operator, so that is INCLUDED in the electricity price
Starting any discussion with "the question of climate change is settled and therefore..." is absurd.
Certainly NOT an open discussion.
@@stevenmitchell7830 I would say that the science is settled: there is decisive scientific argument and evidence that the man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming story is false.
The evidence is way past debating it's reality. Such a space for discussion long left the platform, maybe you're still stuck on the 80s?
So many errors in this thinking.
Of course the climate is changing, it has done for millenia. To think that controlling the amount of emitted CO2 is going to control the climate is not supported by climate science. It is strongly put forwrd by the unelected politicians in the U.N. but that is not what science shows.
There is no sound engineering support for renewables, they do not meet any of the criteria for stable, reliable and economic sources of electrical generation for a grid system. Not only that they need such vast amounts of support and infrastructure just to connect to a grid.
Specifically it is intermittent, uncontrollable supplying a system that need finite control of supply and demand on an instantaneous basis, it has no inertia necessary to dampen frequency variation and keep the grid in balance, it has no reactive power input necessary for stable voltgae control, it cannot support short circuit current levels necessary for the proportionate and timely operation of grid protective systems. Also it has short life and it's output reduces steadily as they age. They cannot support a grid black start which becomes more likely as more renewables are added to the grid making it less stable.
In short renewables are a waste of time and money and are not even cheap as is claimed, they are very expensive.
None of the above is opinion, it is all available to anyone who cares to look in the right place.
Just returned from Paris ,France has 52 NUCLEAR power stations and building another 8. The new ones will be operational within 10 years. France has some of the cheapest power on the PLANET....We should have gone NUCLEAR years ago and also built that WASTE STORAGE FACILITY in SA , but for couple people complaining it was sheved ..How stupid are we . Just look up the costings on our renewable plans if you tell me we cannot afford NUCLEAR,
Australia should embrace fossil fuels while benefitting from alternative energy sources when and if it is economically feasible. Climate change is a baseless argument. CO2, as a culprit, was pulled out of a hat. The notion that climate change, if it could be determined to occur and was caused by humans, is the result of CO2 is absurd.
Finkle's found another hockey stick
Agree with Alan,
The situation is potentially existential. Collapse is already happening in some parts of the world and are very likely to spread. Australia must act in making itself both secure and part of the solution.
When it comes to nucleAr technology three or four standardised Canadian developed CANDU power stations, comparable to Canada's Darlington Nuclear Power Station would solve Australia's base load problem, which amounts to about 25% of total power needed.
CANDUs are a reliable, mature technology and lend themselves to lower tech manufacturing. They have a very good safety record, are proliferation resistant and can burn a mix of nuclear fuels including low enriched uranium, waste from other reactors, and thorium, a metal Australia has in abundance. Their main downside is the initial added cost of loading them with heavy water.
Existential? No, it's not. We don't even know if it is occurring, caused by man, or if we could (should) do anything about it. The only thing for sure is that climate alarmists are running wild.
@jimgraham6722 Yes I think CANDU (heavy water, unenriched uranium, or even the Clean Core thorium HALEU) is a good match, just like in Canada.
The heavy water cost is far more predictable than other aspects of nuclear construction. One might argue that the lead times and a build program might enable Australia to develop their own heavy water manufacturing capability, so is money circulating around the economy. The heavy water plant might even be a good fit for solar thermal, for added credentials.
@@asabriggs6426 I attended the opening ceremony for the US's most recently approved "fail safe" NPP. A contingent from the Indian Government was present. The company announced the purchase of three identical plants and an option for two more.
Existential to modern society. agree. If one pandemic and a small war in Europe upended our economies and supply chains imagine what global coastal flooding will do. The question is not if but when and will we be dependant on foreign jurisdictions or will we be self reliant.
100% that CANDU is clearly viable. That said, it seemed to me that Finkel was suggesting that Solar / Wind / Storage were good enough solutions 'off the shelf'. An interesting conclusion for a guy who opened with seeing the world from an engineering lens - define the problem first etc. It would seem to me the more logical solution would be to tap your considerable Natural Gas resources, replace the coal with that thermal generation until the Nuclear can be established.
Building future landfill projects - Solar / Wind just doesn't seem logical. We just finished that experiment in Ontario Canada and thankfully came out the other end rejuvenating our Nuclear plants. It cost us millions in useless 'Subsidy Farms', but better to have loved and lost than not...
Don't try to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
Is energy transition like gender transition?
Turning something that works into something that doesn't work? 😂
Wind turbines and solar panels are rebuildable not renewable,require huge amount s of coal for their production. You won't smelt aluminium with rebuildables
Aluminium smelting isn’t a huge percentage of our emissions 🤦♀️
@lindam.1502 seems like you're missing the point, aluminium is only one consideration, many industries require significant energy inputs that renewables alone can't deliver.
You won't believe it, but coal plants literally run on coal.
We need Saul Griffiths, to be part of this debate ! Saul is already getting on with the job !
@@RichardCostello-wj8gy Saul is excellent. One smart guy.
Which job is getting on with? His book The Big Switch is very poorly informed and plain wrong in places so which job?
We need Simon Michaux and real number crunching, not pie in the sky ideas.
You cannot solve the Base load energy problem you solve nothing. Use Gas-based energy as a transition to Nuclear.
Dr Finkel's arguments were weaker than expected for a person of his statue.
@@user-rq2do4wg1b were you watching the same presentation?
@@Carbonalternatives"17:09 quoting Hugh Mackay the BHP Chief Economist "The cure to high prices is high prices" ... not a great argument as that can also be applied to the nuclear learning curve!
I can comprehend the big picture in one hundred years, if technology is not continually improved. The Liberal Party has totally stuffed science in Australia.
Well yes, they banned nuclear power....fucking bananas!
Aiden Morrison, seems to forget that the power of electricity, is being controlled by the many, not the greedy few. Roof Top Solar is definitely empowering for the individual, there are individuals who are able to make very good use of sharing their power generation.
Australians are sick of the privatisation that is the true source of high power prices. Amusingly Nuclear power would be government owned because private business doesn't want the risk. Grid forming inverter technology continues to change the way 'baseload@ power is thought of ! More balance is needed in this debate.
Rooftop solar empowers a certain class of people who own a home - and can afford the upfront installation. Poorer people like me in an apartment have no such opportunities - but privileged home owners can buy into the roof-top business which is partly subsidized by the state - and in the USA are guaranteed a certain resale price, whether or not the electricity provider needs the power or not. That raises prices for everybody else who can't afford that luxury. People tend not just to "share" their surplus - they tend to sell it.
@@pascalbercker7487. Not buying a Submarine would allow all Australian households to be part of the transition 👍
Aidans speech was an insult to Alan Finkels deep knowledge, industry experience and intelligence. It was devoid of any common sense and so biased towards maintaining the status quo. Carbon reduction targets are urgent due to delaying the energy transition and climate denial of the coalition.
You will struggle to find a sensible person who thinks rooftop solar is the worst option. You need to broaden your thinking and expand your circle of influence. We didn’t do nuclear because coal was cheaper and we won’t do nuclear because renewables are cheaper and getting cheaper. You need to rethink your ideology as it’s trapped you into a narrowing path and dogma. 1:03:07
He said rooftop solar was most expensive not worst. You should support legalising nuclear so we can get to net 0
@@danielmaher964You really don't understand the big picture, Siberia need nuclear power, Australia doesn't we all get to net zero or none of do. Your 20 century competitive thing will ensure mankind will fail.
Trashing and undermining someone’s argument is not an insult. Finkel is a sold out liar.
@@geoffreyrobertson6041 it wasn’t a sensible argument but uniformed rant.
@@danielmaher964 can he please explain how rooftop solar is the most expensive form of energy? 3.76 million systems producing around 3.75GW of electricity. That’s a lot of households making a bad financial decision. You cannot be serious.
Watch people run to the Transition when their home and business insurances disappear. The cost of doing nothing=societal collapse, just work out the costs!
Why is Australia becoming a third world country and being forced to keep our resources in the ground? Use them to make Australia a rich and powerful nation.
How short-sighted are you? Can you not see the wildfires caused by climate change already, also in Australia? How much hotter would you like it to be? Many countries are also already fighting with rising sea levels, others with extended droughts, a "storm of the century" every year or likewise floodings of a century every year but you just want to keep going as if nothing had happened? Seriously?
@@PEdulis Climate Alarmism is a mental illness.
@@PEdulisyou can't be serious you poor brainwashed soul
Australia is not being forced to keep it resources in the ground, it basically gives it away to foreign countries
Short term solution will only make it worse because it’s not fixing d root issue
Alan has always been a snake oil salesman when it comes to climate.
As an engineer his first question should be “is there a problem?”.
That would have saved him wasting his time with the rest of his climate spiel.
@@geoffreyrobertson6041 are you a climate change denier?
@@Carbonalternativesno, the climate always changes, I’m a realist. The AGW hypothesis is bunk. There is NO EVIDENCE man is influencing global temperature. NONE bar fabrications based on spurious data and modelling.
@@geoffreyrobertson6041 you cannot be serious. Yes, climate changes occur naturally but the link between rising Co2e emissions and warming is irrefutable. To take the opposite position is denying the facts.
@@Carbonalternativesyour appeal to authority is worthless. CO2 levels are the result of temperature changes, they are not the driver.
@@geoffreyrobertson6041 🤯😂👌🏻