The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The nuclear renaissance is stone cold dead > Comments

The nuclear renaissance is stone cold dead : Comments

By Jim Green, published 23/12/2013

Nuclear generation fell in no less than 17 countries, including all of the top five nuclear-generating countries. Nuclear power accounted for 17% of global electricity generation in 1993 and it has steadily declined to 10% now.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Well, Mr. Green of the greenies, you'll just have to inure yourself to the use of more cheap coal energy. You don't say which of the 'renewables' are getting cheaper, but the price of power is certainly not getting cheaper. SA has more windmills, for instance, than any other state; but SA also has the dearest electricity costs in the world, and climbing all the time.

Your don't want coal; your don't want nuclear. Not much longer now before you have us all in the dark.
Posted by NeverTrustPoliticians, Monday, 23 December 2013 8:41:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another piece from a Green Luddite

<<But a swag of countries in the Middle East and North Africa have put nuclear power on the back-burner, including Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Israel, Morocco, Algeria and Libya>>

Now how do you suppose they are meeting their energy needs --one guess?
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 23 December 2013 8:49:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Three places that have prematurely retired nuclear power stations have each recorded an increase in emissions in the past year.. Germany, Japan and California. I believe more than forty new reactors are construction around the world. For an industry that is supposed to be on the wane it is showing remarkable signs of life.

Here in Oz we are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at non-hydro renewables for a lousy 7% penetration. The financial help includes a 20% quota the RET, renewable energy certificates that reward generators another 30%, purchase rebates, soft loans and absurdly generous feed-in tariffs. Yet no large coal fired station has closed down nor will they as the gas price continues to escalate. I can only conclude Mr Green is happy for us to keep burning coal.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 23 December 2013 9:19:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Jim,

This is a very curious article. It seems to be firmly jammed between “be careful what you wish for” and “now look what you’ve done”

Cherry picking is never a good look if one is to be taken seriously, and my goodness, did you cherry pick this one.

The IAEC Report.

I’d firstly like to draw our attention to the bits in the IAEC annual report that you conveniently excluded.

They relate to trend lines, licenses to operate and upgrades. The trend line is to renew licenses, replace old reactors with higher capacity multi-function reactors and a more cost effective range of small/medium reactors. Agency projections indicate significant growth in the use of nuclear energy worldwide — between 23 and 100%

The Agency, “identified conventional uranium resources recoverable at a cost of less than
$130/kg U at 5.3 million tonnes of uranium (Mt U). Uranium production worldwide rose significantly”.

You say “So annual growth of a little over 1%”, naughty, naughty Jim. Not annual at all, just this year to date.

It actually says, “1% more than at the beginning of the year. Only three reactors were permanently shut down”.

Figures were skewed by 13 permanent shutdowns in 2011 (12 of which followed Fukushima).

The Renewables Industry.

On the other hand we have the “success” of your de-carbonization brigade. No Kyoto, China and India have changed clause 2b in Warsaw to eliminate any binding commitments by the biggest emitters. The global RENIXX renewable industry index has collapsed by 90%, the emissions trading markets have closed or collapsed, CHINA'S Suntech, the world's largest solar panel producer, plunged to bankruptcy in just a year.

All the US subsidized green energy companies have folded or defaulted on loans at a cost of $9.9bn.

In the EU green subsidies have hit the wall and are being withdrawn, the UK has just issues 173 “Fracking” licenses and the EU has declined this week, to impose any new restrictions on Fracking in the EU. Yummy.

Cont’d
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 23 December 2013 9:57:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’d

Germany is to build 9 new coal fired PowerStation’s by 2017, three of which will burn Lignite! They are still burning lignite at 24.5% and hard coal at 22.8% as at 2008, but coal imports are growing at 17% p.a.

The USA has energy prices at 60% less than the EU thanks to Fracking, and the EU is hemorrhaging industry to the USA, Asia and South America.

Motivation and Purpose.

So Jim, when you misrepresent the IAEC Report in such a way that you are able to extract glee from your confected conclusions, it begs the question why? And what to you hope to achieve?

Clearly nuclear power generation is something you wish to see the end of however, your push for de-carbonization has backfired spectacularly. There was a time when it looked as though the shift to renewables was well on track globally and there was even room to trash all things nuclear.

Then came the disintegration of the entire global infrastructure built upon de-carbonization. There is nothing left of it. So by attacking nuclear, you left developed and developing nations with the one option you fought in the first place, carbon based fuels.

Congratulations! What it was you sought to avoid, you created!

Next we will see the new government start the process of defunding the activist NGO’s, that have their snouts in our pockets to fund your activism. I think you might find your organization on the following list? Kiss it goodbye Jim.

The Australian Conservation Foundation $2.9m
The Wilderness Society $125,000
Environment Victoria $4.0m
Total Environment Centre $450,000
Environmental Defenders $1.2m
Conservation Councils, VIC.QLD and W.A Grants under GVEHO schemes, $$?
Friends of the Earth $65,000

Time to formulate your “exit plan” and dust of your c.v.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 23 December 2013 9:58:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The capital cost per unit generated for renewables is between 18 and 22 cents per KWH. For modern nuclear reactors in China that cost is under 5c per KWH.

There has not been a fatal accident in the western developed world from the nuclear reactor section of nuclear generation. Per unit of power generated the accident rate from the fuel supply chain for coal is 40 times the nuclear rate. The record of safe operation for US nuclear submarines is 5,400 reactor years.

Physicist Dr Robert Hargraves states "Radiation protection guidelines based on acute doses are far too conservative, needlessly displacing thousands of people from areas near Fukushima where radiations are well below the safe level of 100 mSv/yr.

In Taiwan over a 20 year period 8,000 people were accidently exposed to 400 mSv of radiation from contaminated structural steel. Linear No Threshold rules predicted an increase in cancers from 186 to 242. The actual result was a fall from 186 to 5. That is right! In a normal population of 8,000 the expected normal cancer rate was 186 cases. The exposed population only suffered from 5 cases. Can someone please tell me where I can be conveniently exposed to 20mSv of radiation for each of the next 20 years.
Posted by Foyle, Monday, 23 December 2013 10:00:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
with in a while we should be able to build thorium nuclear power .then old king coal,will be out of soul

ben
Posted by ben gershon, Monday, 23 December 2013 10:09:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep this bloke must have a doctorate in cherry picking.

Mr. Green is horrified the "UK government is guaranteeing French utility EDF a staggering 16 cents for every kilowatt-hour generated by the Hinkley Point reactors". 16C for some real power, always on tap. Please do tell us Jim, how much we are paying for the miserable trickle, that occasionally comes from those subsidised solar cells on peoples roofs.

Where would you suggest we get our power on those cold windless nights, we experience so often in winter.

Hydro could be good, if you lot & your idiot mates had not managed to get a huge percentage of or expensively stored water rushing uselessly back down the Snowy, because it looks nice to the few tourists who may see it.

That wouldn't be so bad, if the same stupidity had not been applied to waste even more of it to fill an artificial waterski lake in South Australia. How that becomes conservation only someone with a doctorate in cherry picking could even attempt to explain.

Jim, you quote a whole list of countries who have made crazy decisions on power generation, most of them in terminal decline from such decisions, & expect that to convince any but the fools. Why did you not quote China & India, where we see the policies that are "generating" success with their power policies.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 23 December 2013 10:46:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't count your Chrissie propellers and solar cells before they're unwrapped Jim.

As spindoc indicates coal is being used in place of any drops in electricity generation by nuclear

http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/coal/ indicates:

Since the start of the 21st century, coal production has been the fastest-growing global energy source. It is the second source of primary energy in the world after oil, and the first source of electricity generation.

Coal consumption increased by nearly 60% from 4,600 million tonnes (mt) in 2000 to an estimated 7,200mt in 2010.

The surge in global coal consumption is driven primarily by developing economies, such as China and India. Coal is the key fuel in both countries’ energy mix and since economic growth and energy use are highly correlated, coal demand prospects for both countries are bullish to 2016.

Meanwhile the US is burning cheap fracked oil.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 23 December 2013 12:46:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodness Jim. Every comment so far seems to pour scorn on your assessment of the nuclear power industry. I guess this will give you something to reflect on over Christmas.

In particular, I hope you reflect that if the nuclear power industry were to shut down completely (fortunately, extremely unlikely) the recent evidence, as expressed in many of the comments, is that our ability to stay climate change will be seriously affected.

The evidence that the only practical alternative to nuclear is large scale coal or gas is extremely strong, as we have seen in the US, Germany and Japan. These countries would all be doing it with wind and solar of they could. But they know they can’t. So, for the sake of the environment, I dearly hope you are proved wrong.
Posted by Martin N, Monday, 23 December 2013 1:26:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow! Nuclear energy has some loyal fans.

Let's see if we can get a couple things on the table.

Germany is not building new coal generation because they are closing nuclear plants. The new coal plants being built were begun before the decision to close nuclear and will result in older, less efficient coal plants closing. Germany will end up burning less coal for more electricity.

Germany had a small increase in CO2 last year due to it being a cold winter. Japan and California saw CO2 increases because their reactors went off line abruptly. There was no opportunity to get clean generation in place before the shutdowns. Things are getting cleaned up.

Wind and solar are already competitive in parts of the world. The average price for wind purchase agreements in 2011 and 2012 was 4 cents per kWh. About 5.3 cents with the subsidy added back in.

Solar is now selling for 5 cents per kWh in the Southwest. 6.3 cents with the subsidy included.

Both are less than half the cost of new nuclear. Or new coal.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Monday, 23 December 2013 2:13:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There has not been a fatal accident in the western developed world from the nuclear reactor section of nuclear generation."

No wind farm workers have been killed by the wind nor have any solar farm workers been killed by sunshine.
--

The cost of fueling a uranium reactor in the US is only $0.0075/kWh. Moving to thorium would hardly lower the cost of electricity. Nuclear energy already has very low fuel costs. It's the capital and financing costs that make the cost of electricity from a new reactor so expensive.

And some US reactors are expensive to run, aside from fuel costs. The Kewaunee reactor which was paid off and working fine closed this year because it couldn't compete with wind and NG. Four other reactors needed repairs and that made them noncompetitive and they have closed/are closing. Another dozen and a half of paid off reactors are in danger of closing over the next few years.

If a paid off reactor can't compete it's very clear that a newly built reactor has no chance. Reactors are only being built with government (taxpayer) money. The free market won't touch them.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Monday, 23 December 2013 2:23:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Herr Wallace

For some reason you've restricted your attempted coal belittlement to Germany. What is your take on increasing coal use in the more rapidly growing Chinese and Indian economies?

Noting also increased use of oil and gas in the US and Russian economies.

Meanwhile use of renewables runs at around 1% or less worldwide.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 23 December 2013 2:36:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
China's government passed laws to cap coal use starting in 2015. The total amount to be consumed will be set at 2011 levels which are 6% below what was burned in 2012.

The Chinese people are starting to put a lot of pressure on the government to do something about air quality. The government has canceled plans to build new coal plants in some of the most populated areas. They are also installing a lot of wind and solar.

China has significant inland water problems. A very large percentage of their fresh water goes to coal mining and coal plants. There's a lot of pressure to reduce coal use and free up water for agriculture.

India has the same water problems. Plus they (like China) have to import diesel to haul coal from mines to plants. That makes coal an expensive fuel and makes wind and solar much more attractive.

Both countries are moving toward renewables for both economic and air quality reasons.

China had said that they would be able to stop their increase in CO2 production by 2030. Recently they rolled that back to 2025. I think China is very serious about global warming and we may see them hit peak CO2 even sooner.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Monday, 23 December 2013 2:45:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Reactors are only being built with government (taxpayer) money. The free market won't touch them." How many $ have governments put into wind and solar? How many birds killed by nuclear reactors as opposed to wind farms? How much acreage of land used by wind farms as opposed to reactors? Jim, you are a conservationist, rare and endangered wildlife are being decimated by whirring blades...??

Were the $ (trillions) in 'green' clean energy subsidies factored into your costings of nuclear, perhaps a different equation would result?
Posted by Prompete, Monday, 23 December 2013 2:51:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, I missed the US.

The US is closing 150 coal plants in the next couple of years (some are already closed). We've got a small number on which construction started years ago and are now being completed, but only a half dozen or so. Basically no new coal plants have been permitted in the last few years and with the rapidly dropping cost of NG and renewables it's unlikely any more coal plants will be built in the US.

Oil use in the US is dropping. Our drivers are driving less (more public transportation use) and our vehicles are getting more efficient. We use oil for only ~1% of our electricity. Basically for emergency generators.

Natural gas prices are coming off their low and that is starting to cut into NG use and sending utilities looking for more wind and solar contracts. Wind is already cheaper than new CCNG and solar in the Southwest is about tied.

We're about to see storage increasing on the grid and that will push NG off.

It's not going to be an overnight transition away from fossil fuels. It will take decades, but it's started and with the still rapidly falling price of solar things are speeding up.

Now, Australia. With the price you pay for electricity I expect you'll be solar and storage champs. Your rooftop solar is about half what we pay. You are definitely out in the lead there.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Monday, 23 December 2013 2:54:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bob

Yes certainly China has some attractive sounding policies and intentions just like Australia's longish term aspirations.

For some reason China and India, as purportedly "developing countries", appear to be reluctant to sign on to the same level of Kyoto style agreements that the West Europeans have signed.

Just a point about "renewable" energy. If hydro-electricity is included renewable energy looks promising. However fresh-water is a diminishing resource given irrigation and city use. Amounts for wind power, solar and sea-wave power look comparatively tiny compared to hydro-power, hydrocarbons and nuclear.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 23 December 2013 2:57:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob Wallace,

@ Bob Wallace “No wind farm workers have been killed by the wind nor have any solar farm workers been killed by sunshine”.

Rubbish. The UK alone has had 1446 wind turbine related accidents over the last five years to Sept 2013, with 144 deaths. Plus 440 deaths related to solar power.

The bad news for you is that the rest of your posts are even less factual.

How about you do some research rather than wishful speculation before you operate your keyboard.

OLO is no place for bulltishers like you!
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 23 December 2013 4:44:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Pete,

Kyoto expired in intensive care in December 2012. At this point in time there is no replacement for anyone to sign. A draft is planned for approval in 2015 which is planned to come into effect in 2020 in the remote possiblitlity that someone may sign it.

Unfortunately the developed nations will sign nothing if the developing nations don't sign up. Since china and India changed clause 2b of the Warsaw draft to eliminate any binding commitments by developing nations until 2030, who is going to sign what precisely?

Tell us again about this "Kyoto" thingy you speak of?
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 23 December 2013 5:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi spindoc

Thanks for clarifying that the Kyoto process or follow-up agreements are no more.

Its interesting how Western Eurocentric the renewalists are. Outside of Western Europe carbon use is growing rapidly. Any moral influence of reducing carbon use (entertained by Western Europe or the likes of Rudd) is an illusion.

Cheers

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 23 December 2013 5:50:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't like the Greens mainly because of their support of the anti human United Nations Agenda 21.

However on Fukushima, they are right. It is an ongoing disaster that is being covered up. Any Journo in Japan will now get 10 yrs gaol for printing uncensored Govt spin. It is far worse than Chernobyl and is currently equal to 15000 Hiroshima Bombs.

The Govt feeds data on gamma rays but there is not data on hot particle alpha rays form elements such as Caesium 137 which our bodies absorb and slowly cause cancer and birth deformities.http://fairewinds.org/
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 23 December 2013 11:26:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did not think I would see the economic failure of nuclear energy in my lifetime.
I was warned of this in a book I read before peak oil occurred.
The warning was that if we did not use the power of the coal and oil
energy sources before peak oil to produce whatever the replacement
energy source was to be, we would never achieve a new viable industrial energy system.

It now appears that the financial system cannot produce the funds to
enable the building of new nuclear plant let alone a completely energy new regime.

Likewise, we are now struggling to produce 5% of the worlds demand of
the existing declining energy sources with renewables.
It will hopefully not have a major effect on myself but my children
and grandchildren are in for a rough time of it.

The basis of the problem is that peak oil occurred a lot earlier than
many thought possible and of course the politicians dismissed the idea totally.
The tight oil production in the US has given them a few years grace
which is why their economy is picking up slightly but it is beginning
to look like that is about to end 10 years earlier than expected.

For Australia, the only mitigation I can see is to immediately ban
all export of coal and gas and use the extra time that will give us
to build tidal, solar, wind and whatever the best alternatives will be.
We will have to be selfish enough to keep for ourselves all our energy
sources or stave or live a subsistence farming life with the rest of the world.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 1:23:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob Wallace says:

"Wind and solar are already competitive in parts of the world. The average price for wind purchase agreements in 2011 and 2012 was 4 cents per kWh. About 5.3 cents with the subsidy added back in.

Solar is now selling for 5 cents per kWh in the Southwest. 6.3 cents with the subsidy included.

Both are less than half the cost of new nuclear. Or new coal."

All rubbish, complete and utter.

Wind and solar do not work at any price.

I suggest that any electorate which votes in a green or an advocate of wind and solar is mandated to ONLY get its power from these sources.

If Greenies love the dark so much that is what they should get. It won't change their minds [sic] but it will demonstrate to wavers and fence-sitters who have not thought properly about wind and solar that they are chimeras and scams.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 2:07:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate about nuclear power is similar to what the US Navy would do
if Iran blocked the Straits of Hormuz.
Well they would do nothing because the unblocking would be controlled
by the insurance companies.

Whether nuclear power stations are built will be decided by the insurance companies.
If they say no, they will not be built.
I think that currently the premiums would be unaffordable.
It would be hard to get even thorium reactors accepted.
You could not get even workers compensation policies.
Remember it was not the politicians who outlawed smoking in offices.
It was the insurance companies.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 2:27:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@spindoc -

My 'no one killed by wind or sunshine' was a bit tongue in cheek. People have died in the wind and solar industries, just not been killed by the energy source.

During the last four decades 12 people have died in the wind industry.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/whats-the-deadliest-power-source

"The UK alone has had 1446 wind turbine related accidents over the last five years to Sept 2013, with 144 deaths."

That's a misrepresentation. Renewable UK recorded 1,500 incidents over the past five years, many of which were very minor. Of those, about 18 per cent - or close to 300 incidents - led to an injury, again usually very minor."

Most of the 144 "wind industry" deaths had nothing to do with the wind industry. They simply occurred close by a wind farm. Again, 12 wind industry deaths in 40 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8948363/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-UK-wind-farms.html

"Plus 440 deaths related to solar power."

You seem to be taking all UK industrial deaths due to falls and attributing them to solar. If that is not the case please provide documentation for you claim.

"OLO is no place for bulltishers like you!"
Posted by Bob Wallace, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 4:57:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@arjay -

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

It concerns you that people believe we should pursue sustainable development?

Or did someone tell you that Agenda 21 (a non-binding, voluntary plan) meant that blue helmeted shock troops would seize control of the planet?

If so, you might want to move to a different news source. Someone is treating you like a mushroom.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 5:03:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob Wallace see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fetZKwaInW0 Senator Anne Bressington knows the truth. Agenda 21 is not voluntary and is being implemented by our Govts surrepticiously.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 8:11:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Senator Anne Bressington is a nutcase from down under.

Agenda 21, Club of Rome, fluoride..., she's piling up the list of tinfoil hat credentials.

It's a shame that we let people of her poor intellectual and reasoning skills get involved in our governments. Perhaps some day we may evolve.....
Posted by Bob Wallace, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 8:19:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So anyone who disagrees with Bob Wallace is a nut case. What do you say about the scientific evidence here Bob. http://www.ae911truth.org/
How about the 1000's of professionals here http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 9:47:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We've got to give Bob Wallace credit--at least he admits Agenda 21 exists! Not too long ago on OLO, renewable energy spruikers --and New World Order acolytes (like Bob)-- used to claim that anyone who even suggested an Agenda 21 existed belonged to the tinfoil hat brigade.

Now their story is: "Yeah, Agenda 21 exists, but it's totally innocuous" <<Agenda 21 is a non-binding [and] voluntarily...>>
So Oz is still considering it --right? -- WRONG!

Because, this is how the (Australian) Dept of Environment sees it:" Australia's commitment to Agenda 21 is reflected in a strong national response to meet our obligations under this international agreement"
http://www.environment.gov.au/node/13068

The words "commitment" and "obligation" are a mite stronger than Bob is wanting us to believe.

Then Bob tries to sell it as about:<< sustainable development>>
After-all, who among you would not want sustainable development! but that ain't all it is about. This is how the UN describes it:
"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level."
[The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993)]

Consider these words again: "a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced"

I am sure if Bob Wallace was coaxing lobsters into the cooking pot, his pitch would be that he was warming up the water to make it more comfy for them.
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 11:16:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level."

Well, seems a bit over the top. Clearly we need to switch to sustainable practices. Otherwise we wipe our economies out and we "return to the cave".

But it's not going to take disruptive or even that noticeable action.

Move electricity generation to renewables.

Move most transportation to electric. What we can't can be done with biofuels.

Make our houses more efficient and heat them with heat pumps, especially geothermal heat pumps.

Substitute non-petroleum feedstocks for petroleum feedstocks. Sustainable materials for non-sustainable.

Don't think we'll need 'one world order' to do that. It's just common sense.
-.-.

Hey! Do you know that now with Obamacare paranoids in the US can get treatment covered by their health insurance? Got anything like that down under?
Posted by Bob Wallace, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 3:12:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coaxing the lobster into the cooking pot with warm water to make it comfy.. Ha ha, love it, dead accurate!
Bob, the language you use, in terms of the warm and soft 'sustainability' meme is soooo transparent . Refer to Cohenite, Arjay, Spindoc and Plantagenet above. Agenda 21 is out of the kennel and off the leash and the more astute mentioned above can see it running around pooping in their local government areas.
'Be off' with your forked tongued subversion of our freedoms!
Posted by Prompete, Thursday, 26 December 2013 5:54:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob,

Haven't met too many people who are against sustainable development. But our experience Down Under has been that those who see sustainability as all about solar and wind are from the extreme left side of politics --and do very much have an "over the top" agenda.

<<Hey! Do you know that now with Obamacare paranoids in the US can get treatment covered by their health insurance? Got anything like that down under?>>
Sorry, can't advise you in this regard having had no call for it --and in fact, I don't think there is much calling for it Down Under, generally--it being more a north Atlantic thing. But a word of advice, I'm hearing that Omnbamacare is so full of holes it wont survive Obama, so I'd suggest if you are sitting on any unredeemed shrink consultation/treatment fees you'd better trot along to your local Obamacare outlet and redeem them real quick.
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 26 December 2013 6:15:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One can't support the continued use of coal and oil and be in favor of sustainable development at the same time. If one wants sustainable then we have to look for energy sources that won't run out or screw up our climate.

It shouldn't be a left/right thing, but it is. In the US it is starting to break down, but the right has until recently been very strongly anti-renewable energy. But now we have the Tea Party in Georgia campaigning for more solar on the grid and Republican governors lobbying for continued support for wind.

Some of our most conservative (right wing) states (South Dakota, Iowa and Texas) are the most heavily into renewables.

As for Obamacare, you need a different information source. The web site got off to a very bad start, but that's now straightened out. The cost of insurance policies has decreased from initial estimates and over 5 million people who did not have health insurance now are insured. With quality policies.

I suspect that before the end of 2014 most of the 30 million people who had no health coverage will find their way to coverage.

The only thing that might interfere with that is the Republican governors of some states are refusing to let single poor people sign up for federal paid for Medicaid. They will be under a lot of pressure from their hospitals because uninsured people must be treated if they show up in emergency rooms and hospitals are having to eat those costs. The cost of treating the uninsured has caused some hospitals to close their emergency rooms.

Republicans (conservatives) are fighting very hard against Obamacare because they realize that people are going to love it once they figure it out and that will help Democrats (liberals) win elections in the future.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Thursday, 26 December 2013 8:03:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Agenda 21 is out of the kennel and off the leash."

Yep. Most people in most countries have figured out that some day oil, natural gas and coal will run out. And that if we keep burning it until it's gone we'll melt the polar ice caps, flooding our cities, and create massive weather/climate problems for ourselves.

That's why we are right now seeing a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. A few countries like North Korea are holding back, but most are on board. (It is voluntary, you remember?)

It's why were starting to see a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action. And why we are starting to integrate sustainability into individual and collective decision-making at every level.

Each country is finding its own best route. (It's non-binding, do you recall? No need to fear the black helicopters.)

Had we been smart enough to start earlier we could have avoided a lot of pain. But, being humans, we tend to not get started on fixing problems until after we've messed in the nest.

Sometimes a good idea is nothing more than a good idea....
Posted by Bob Wallace, Thursday, 26 December 2013 8:13:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob,

I doubt if there is any way known that solar and wind can supply the worlds current needs.

Yes, work towards replacements,and that is happening, but only someone foolhardy --or the same thing, someone with left-Green leanings-- would expect us to go cold turkey in the next decade.

It is very telling that the article writer (Green by name and conviction) was pretty much saying: "Hardy Har Har...nuclear is failing" while seemingly completely oblivious of the fact that in the countries he cited where nuclear retreated or stalled carbon based sources would have been tapped to fill the gap.

And your attempt to shame us in/by comparison with China was equally mischievous.

(by the way North Korea is not the Green energy lagard you imply: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/korean_peninsula/AJ201111290057)

The thing you need to be mindful of is that countries like China , North Korea, India etc are not developing Green sources because they are IPCC acolytes. They are concurrently developing all energy sources with the view to self sufficiency--and if tomorrow any of them discovered a Saudi type oil field it would be developed without the slightest hesitation.

<<Each country is finding its own best route>>
Hardy Har Har! maybe it's you who needs better sources.

Please read the left-Greens/IPCCs fine print. I think you'll find most of your like minded concerned environmentalists are pushing for one route overseen by one world body --funded by multi-trillion dollar climate reparations from the West.
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 26 December 2013 9:29:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"One can't support the continued use of coal and oil and be in favor of sustainable development at the same time". Well Bob, if you recon the use of food crops (corn, palm oil etc) for biofuels is 'sustainable development), then count me right out (I, as oppose to the sustainalista have a conscience). This use of the 'sustainability meme is quite unconscionable.

I am quite content to continue the use of oil and fuel energy sources for the next 100 or so years. In the meantime an alternative high density energy fuel source will be developed that will defeat any coal/oil/gas product on cost.

With new coal fired power stations producing almost no particulate carbon and sulphure emissions they are quite environmentally friendly. Carbon dioxide is good for the environment Bob.

When the global mean temperature exceeds the temperatures experienced in the Roman and Medieval warm periods I might be prepared to worry, just a little, about what sun spot, planetary configuration or other natural phenomena may be driving it. In the meantime, I think I will direct my concerns towards the cleation of wealth in developing countries and the reduction in poverty in developed countries. Far healthier for us all Bob. Cheers.
Posted by Prompete, Thursday, 26 December 2013 9:46:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear oh dear;
Agenda 21, the greens, etc are all worrying about the wrong problem.
Now that the world economy appears to have reached the point where it
just cannot finance nuclear energy then we are also too late probably
to invent, & develop and then manufacture whatever is the next energy regime.
The one possible exception appears to be geothermal energy.
The development costs are probably still manageable and there is an
unending amount of energy down there.
Ironically it is nuclear energy because it is generated by the decay
of radio activity in granite. Half life I believe is more than 100,000 years !

The global warming worry is misdirected because the IPCC & others are
using incorrect amounts of fossil fuels for their computer models.
This was pointed out some time ago, but everyone is just pretending
not to hear.
Another paper I very recently read about is the NOAA satellite data
on long wave emissions by the earth.
The paper suggested that either the satellite data is faulty or global
warming is not happening.
It all has to do with thermodynamics and was above my head.
All the data was there to be perused and the challenge has been made.
What is the bet it will be poo pooed without even checking the data ?

It does not matter two hoots what Agenda 21 says, it is irrelevant as
we have to get busy on renewable energy systems if we do not all end
up running subsidence farms.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 26 December 2013 10:15:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I doubt if there is any way known that solar and wind can supply the worlds current needs."

There's an extensive body of research that shows that we have enough solar and wind potential to power the world many times over. Here's the first paper that laid it out.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

This paper was written in 2009 and both solar and wind technology have improved since then making the job easier.

The small green rectangles on this map indicate how much of the Earth's surface we would have to cover with solar panels to get 100% of our electricity from PV panels.

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/surface-area-power-world-with-solar-power.jpg

This map shows how much of the world's coastline we'd have to use to power ourselves 100% with offshore wind.

http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequiredWindOnly.jpg

Note: no one is suggesting 100% solar or 100% wind.

The Sun shines strongly about 25% of the time. I'd guess we would get 30% to 40% from solar, 40% to 50% from wind since it blows more hours. And the other 20% to 30% from hydro, geothermal, tidal biomass/gas and maybe some wave energy. And we'd need storage to make it all work.

China, India and much of the rest of the world is installing renewable technology simply because it works. It's the cheapest new capacity and it helps with climate change. The facts are out there, all you have to do is open your mind and take a look.

The article is correct. Nuclear is failing largely because of its price. Most of the world's reactors are aging and we simply aren't building at anything close to a replacement rate, let alone increasing the share.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Thursday, 26 December 2013 3:27:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If people wish to continue their belief that the climate isn't warming or that it's warming but humans aren't causing the warming or it's warming but that's a good thing - I'm not going to spend my time trying to argue otherwise with you.

There are tens of thousands of climate scientists, very intelligent people, who have spent years studying the issue and almost 100% of them find that the data shows buildups of CO2 in our atmosphere are increasing planetary temperature and that CO2 comes largely from humans burning fossil fuel. And that if we do not cut our greenhouse gas emissions soon we are going to wreck our climate.

If you believe that somehow these scientists are forced to produce data supporting climate change you have no idea how science is funded or carried out. If someone could prove the climate was not warming or that it was due to something other than greenhouse gases they would become immediately extremely famous, never again want for research money, and become personally rich.

If you're on the fence and wondering let me suggest you spend some time on the site I'm linking and read some of the denier myths and what science has to say about them. Click on the brief description and dig in. The "Basic" pages are easy to follow. And then, if you wish, you can push on to the Intermediate and Advanced explanations.

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Get the facts and let your common sense tell you what is happening.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Thursday, 26 December 2013 3:45:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if Bob Wallace goes back to sleep with the fairies down the bottom of the garden, or if he has escaped permanently?

If the latter, I hope the men in white coats catch up with him soon.

It's bad enough he believes in pixy dust to power our lives, but he must be stopped from spreading dangerous lies about Obama care. He'll have some of our loony left believing it soon, & trying to get it introduced here. God help us.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 26 December 2013 6:18:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When will they realise that it doesn't matter whether global warming is
real or not. It has been becoming irrelevant for some time.
If you do not know that, then you are simply clueless to what is going on.

Those that think we can build the new energy regime from where we stand
now need to know that we are at the point of fail or succeed.
The scale of the problem is so huge that I do not think we can take the
poor of the developing countries with us.

I believe we have a choice gradually being revealed before us.
Use the coal, oil, gas and iron ore that we have now to produce the
new energy regime, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and critically,
energy storage to enable close to a zero growth business as usual
economy for the developed world
or
use all our resources to lift the poor economies while lowering our
economies to meet theirs sustainably in the middle.

If that cannot be done then billions must starve.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 26 December 2013 10:11:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob,

The most enlightening part of your link "A Path to Sustainable Energy --Scientific American" was the comments on/about it. And we know how you *scientific consensus* types are BIG BIG BIG on peer review. So here is some of what your articles author's peers had to say about it:

1)"As a physicist focused on energy research, I find this paper so absurdly poorly done that it is borderline irresponsible..."

2)"The November 2009 article "A Path To Sustainable Energy By 2030" is based on a false premise and then naturally develops the wrong solution..."

3)"Jacobson & Delucchi have convincingly shown that powering the world with their combination of measures is infeasible..."

4)"Pure garbage. Jacobson has written similar trash in the past. Charles Barton rips Jacobson's previous work to shreds:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/search?q=jacobson"

5)"Even though the costs are probably understated in the article, as fwegert points out, the costs alone make this idea impossible..."

Well well well! any other whiz bang proposals?

As for the skepticalscience website --we were already a wake up to it--in more ways than one!

Here is some of skepticalscience's "TEAM" telling us of their backgrounds (ie the thing(s) that make them especially qualified to adjudicate on matters of climate change)--QUOTE:

1) "Rob Honeycutt: Rob's claim to fame is being the founder of the popular pack and bag company Timbuk2."

2) "Rob Painting: Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity"

3)"BaerbelW:... lives and works in Germany. She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo"

4)"jg: John Garrett is a technical illustrator residing in Wildomar, California, USA"

Yes I will grant you, skepticalscience does have a good line-up of "geologists", but here Down Under, we were told early in the piece that geologists don't count --as they are not bona fide climate scientists!
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 27 December 2013 7:44:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To those of you think I have lost the plot, I now find I am in good
scientific company.

The following is to a link by an occasional contributor to OLO and an
occasional poster.

http://peakoil.com/consumption/the-propaganda-campaign-against-peaking-fossil-fuel-production

I thought it was a blank page at first but it is well down before the article starts.
I suspect that we might well have missed the boat and if we have we
might have to follow Belly's example and start gardening.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 27 December 2013 10:18:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It's bad enough he believes in pixy dust to power our lives, but he must be stopped from spreading dangerous lies about Obama care. He'll have some of our loony left believing it soon, & trying to get it introduced here. God help us"

"Australia achieves universal coverage through Medicare, a tax-funded public insurance program that covers most medical care, including physician and hospital services and prescription drugs. Most health services are financed and regulated by the federal government, although the states and territories have responsibility for public hospital care. Besides Medicare, roughly half of Australians receive additional coverage through private insurance, which the government subsidizes and which covers such services as dental care and private hospitals."

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Fellowships/Australian-American-Health-Policy-Fellowships/The-Health-Care-System-and-Health-Policy-in-Australia.aspx

You folks already have Obamacare 2.0 or 3.0.

You enjoy socialized health care. We're still largely using private insurance companies to cover most Americans. Only the poorest and oldest get Medicare/Medicaid like all Australians do.

Our seniors don't get free pharmaceuticals like all Australians do.

Only some people get government help paying for private insurance but you folks get government subsidies.

Dental? We're on our own. You people have socialized it.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Friday, 27 December 2013 11:45:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR - I read through all the comments a few years ago and I could not find a single criticism based on fact. Only opinion. And very large amounts of misunderstanding.

Let's take your first comment -

"As a physicist focused on energy research, I find this paper so absurdly poorly done that it is borderline irresponsible.
....
The fact that they think hydrogen fuel cells and tidal power have any value in the energy future......."

Fact is, we now have tidal hooked to grids and hydrogen fuel cells are being manufactured and used. Anyone who was keeping up with renewable energy in 2009 would have know these to be highly likely. South Korea was constructing tidal generation at the time.

The "2)"The November 2009 article ... is based on a false premise and then naturally develops the wrong solution..."" fails to recognize that all our existing power plants will have to be replaced at some point and that is money we will spend one way or another.

This one - "3)"Jacobson & Delucchi have convincingly shown that powering the world with their combination of measures is infeasible..." simply argues that it can't be done in 20 years. The statement is based on an opinion but no facts.

It goes on and on like that.

One can legitimately argue that we won't convert in 20 years. Even Jacobson and Delucchi state that it would take significant political will to do so. What they have done is show that it is possible.

Let's get back on point. Jacobson and Delucchi have done the math to show that we could, in fact, power our world with nothing but renewable energy. That finding has been confirmed by other studies.

BTW, since the 2009 paper was written solar panels have become more efficient and very much cheaper. Wind has already reached 4c/kWh and we've discovered that we have much greater wind resources at 80m as opposed to the 50m level used in 2009. Our wind turbines are more efficient than what we had in 2009. All that makes the job easier.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Friday, 27 December 2013 1:07:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cut short on the previous one by word count.

Here's where we started -

"I doubt if there is any way known that solar and wind can supply the worlds current needs."

I gave you multiple sites demonstrating that we have more than enough renewable energy to power the world's current and future needs.
-.-.

The people you list at Skeptical Science are "reporters". They are not climate scientists. But they do a very good job of bringing the science together in a format that most people can comprehend.

Here's what I see you doing. You admit that you're not up to speed on climate and energy information. But when shown sources that could educate you, you look for some excuse to wave them away.

Do you understand what you're doing? What's more important to you, denying climate change or knowing facts?

-.-.

Someone mentioned the developing world. The developing world is installing a lot of renewable generation. The poorest are going solar. Already over a million people (a million in Bangladesh alone) have micro-solar systems that replace their kerosene lamps and cost them less than what they were spending for kero.

Just like the developing world skipped land line phones and went direct to mobiles they are skipping fossil fuel generation and installing renewables. They get the "free fuel" stuff.
Posted by Bob Wallace, Friday, 27 December 2013 3:56:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob,
<<Here's where we started ...>

I think we started where you rode into town --John Wayne like-- to act as shotgun for the author, Jim Green.

Jim Green is a professional anti-nuclear campaigner and a member of the Australian Greens.The Greens in this country are renowned for supporting anything that undermines Oz's sovereignty.Their founder and former leader openly pranced around the world stage in support of --one person one vote -- world govt.So none of us are surprised when one of the Greens favourite causes, AGW, is associated with Agenda 21 and trillions of dollars worth of climate reparations.

Yes, renewable energy is the way to go. But you need to be able to give us a cogent plan without denigrating those who query aspects of it--and without spruiking every "extreme weather event" as sure fire proof of AGW.

As John Lennon might have said/sung:

You say you want a [Green-volution]
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's [cool solution]
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about [Agenda 21]
Don't you know you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

You say [we've gotta reduce pollution]
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a affirmation
Well you know
[We're still waitin' on that plan]
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is bro [I aint takin' the bait].

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright, al...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman [Pachauri]
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 28 December 2013 6:39:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fukushima has been a game changer for our planet. It is by far the worst environmental disaster this planet faces. The unwillingness to put resources to contain this disaster totally confounds me.http://fairewinds.com/ Both Prof Michio Kaku and Prof David Suzuki say that if reactor 4 goes up with the stored fuel, they should evacuate all of Japan and the West Coast of the USA.

The Japanese Govt now censors all info about this disaster and has a 10 yr gaol sentence for any journo publishing uncensored material.

If you are not concerned, then you are brain dead.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 28 December 2013 4:23:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah thanks Arjay, you've put my mind at rest.

If that fool David Suzuki says it, you know it's bull dust & there is nothing to worry about.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 28 December 2013 4:46:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen you just don't get it. There are many issues like AGW that I disagee with including David Suzuki and Dr Helen Caldicott, their science on Fukushima in my mind is sound.

Your tribalism does not make for sound logic.http://fairewinds.com/
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 28 December 2013 6:50:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy