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 > Death of the CET > Comments

Death of the CET : Comments

By Graeme McLeay, published 19/9/2017

Coalition talk of dumping Finkel's Clean Energy Target leaves Australia's climate policy in tatters.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
He is talking the usual rubbish vented by spoiled rich kids who love to dictate to the rest of us. Ordering us around and bullying others is what gets him his jollies!
I suggest a very large brown coal plant in the Latrobe Valley, where I live. None of this electricity for trendy Adelaide they can enjoy paying for wind and solar and diesel generation when needed
Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 7:02:14 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
Good thing...now to wind back the clock to a time when power was affordable to more than a select few at the top!
Renationalise essential services quickly!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 7:24:18 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
I don't know how Turnbull can lie straight in bed after years of tough talk about emissions, including at the Paris climate conference. Since Aussies don't like bull artists you'd think he will be punished at the polls for changing his tune.

More of the the same is not going to work. The RET is costing us billions yet emissions are going up along with power bills. Some of these places (Germany, California) that talk about 100% renewables are facing the same problems, namely same or increased CO2 along with power price rises. Meanwhile France has 5% of Australia's electricity emissions intensity with stable power prices. Perhaps we're not seeing the obvious.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 7:40:59 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 author, perhaps due to his evident enthusiasm for a cause, has exaggerated.

First, "dispatchable" is not at all a new term - it has been in use for decades to describe that which intermittent electricity sources such as wind turbines do not provide - electricity on demand 24/7/365. Added bulk storage such as pumped hydro is needed in order for renewables to achieve that goal. Even world-class batteries as are being installed in SA won't provide dispatchability. Without being backed by substantial dedicated storage neither solar PV nor wind power is able to be classed as either baseload or dispatchable. Why argue the difference between these two terms, neither of which describes that which is being recommended? There is no point to the argument.

Second, China has not announced plans to ban the internal combustion engine for cars. It has announced an intention to phase out manufacture and sales of most petrol and diesel internal combustion engines over an unspecified period, perhaps 50 years, to be replaced in the market by NEV's, which term includes hybrids such as Toyota's Prius, which has been manufactured for 20 years.

On current expectations, internal combustion engines will still be in use in China until the end of this century.

I accept that the goal is to achieve zero-carbon electricity and transport. Unfortunately, we are not heading in a direction that could rationally be expected to achieve that goal. Solar and wind may be components of such a system but will never suffice.

As for "old technology term" Vs "new technology term": while perhaps new to this author, in fact they are both established english terms.
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 7:44:31 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
Deaths that are far more important are the deaths of coal miners, due to black lung disease. But their votes count along with the monumental control of a threatened fossil fuel industry!

And this is where it gets conflated by competing interests/ideologies! Many sounding like foaming at the mouth recalcitrant intransigent ideologues, going ballistic! The second the word nuclear is uttered!

Others listening in grim faced attention as they mentally compose their best rebuttal! As has been the case now for a couple of decades!

As we slide further down the list of banana republics going somewhere to happen? Why? Because brainwashed nincompoops, refuse to desert their fondly held, fact free mantras and fear based crap!

So, We are torn between so called renewables, and the mountain of toxic waste their manufacture creates, along with astronomical power bills and subsidies we pay, in order to placate a massively misinformed moronic (don't give a rat's) mob?

Or folks (gutless wonders) who are welded to cheap coal fired energy? Because it is the cheapest? No!

But because we have mountains of the stuff and others are willing to buy it! Moreover, we know how to build power stations that burn this relatively cheap stuff, while keeping a couple or three thousand folks, gainfully employed. Mostly by tax avoiding, profit repatriating, price gouging foreigners?

This industry has gone from bad to worse with moribund (sell your soul and economic sovereignty to the devil) privatisation!
TBC. Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 19 September 2017 8:45:59 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
Continued: Down to me, this outcome would be very very different!

We're uniquely placed as one of the few industrialized countries without a nuclear industry! Which is largely centred around fuel fabrication and where the real money is, for them!

Because we don't yet have a nuclear industry, we can take advantage of some older fifties technology. Walk away safe, molten salt thorium reactors that will allow us to do many things currently withheld!

Provide cost effective, desalinated water, cheap enough to drought proof a nation, while turning our most arid dust bowls into our most productive regions.

Provide the world's cheapest most reliable CARBON FREE power! and at least for the next 1,000 years!

AND EARN ANNUAL BILLIONS REPROCESSING OTHER FOLK'S NUCLEAR WASTE WHILE DOING IT! And thereby reduce reduce the half life of what can't yet be reprocessed, to just 300 years! No bull!

With a median price of $1.98PKH (Prof.Hargreaves, "Cheaper than coal, thorium") as available nuclear sourced, not for profit, industrial power. As an integral part of that bargain.

Some of which could be employed to power the arc furnaces of 24/7 highly automated, single step steel production, which in turn, would not just be the lowest costing, but with the lowest possible carbon footprint!

Ditto Aluminum and all light metals. Imagine what the entrepreneurs/family enterprise/co-ops among us could do, if given a fibre to the kerb NBN, the world's cheapest electricity, and genuine tax reform!

We'd have to employ people to hold/beat them back, with a stick!

Can we afford to do this? Yes we can! However, the real question should be, can we really truly, afford not to?

With that answered!? The next question surely has to be, why vote for folks who want anything else, or the self inflicted, status quo!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 19 September 2017 9:24:22 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
When did Turnbull act like a 'leader'. Must have been one of the split second events I missed. The fact that this bloke had to have a go at Tony Abbott, backbencher with no influence whatever, says a lot about this writer. He should stick to grandfathering, which is something he thinks is important or he wouldn't mention it. Anybody who thinks the Paris agreement and Finkel and his mad ideas will save the world from “climate chaos” should stick to reading fairy stories to little tackers.

Finkel, the Paris Agreement CET, RET and Malcolm Turnbull should all be flushed down the toilet.

“Is it possible to decouple prosperity from fossil fuels?” No, it is not! The clear descent of Australia into Third World status should be obvious to anyone except ideologues like this fellow.

Nature cannot – will not – be controlled by idiots in thrall to eco-religious madness.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 9:53:31 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
Alan, Australia does have a nuclear industry. The ANSTO facility at Lucas Heights contains a serious research reactor and makes a wide range of medical isotopes which are used widely in Australia and our wider region.

I agree with you if you are saying that nuclear power has been overlooked for too long and is ripe for reconsideration.

But the truth is that trained, competent, skilled nuclear scientists and engineers are working in Australia right now. We also have ANSTO itself and ARPANSA, the national nuclear safety regulatory authority.

What is lacking is political will and a willingness to consider the only truly scaleable, safe, available, zero carbon electricity source that is achievable. For too long Australia and Australians have been led astray by loud voices (bullies?) and their exaggerated claims regarding nuclear safety and the merits of weather-dependent electricity generation such as wind and solar photovoltaics, both of which, while useful, are severely limited when they contribute more than half of the total generation mix in a region, as is the case in South Australia and which is now being addressed in somewhat of an expensive hurry.
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 10:20:11 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
Fact check: The longer the half life of nuclear material, the lower the radioactive emission? True!

So, uranium with a half life of around 5 billion years is not very or dangerously reactive in its natural, unenriched state? True!

Is thorium with a half life of 15 billion years, less radioactive in its natural state, than a banana? True!

Can you pick up more rads in a day of international flight, than a lifetime exposure to thorium? I don't know! But possibly true?

Is exposure to marginally higher, naturally occurring radioactivity harmfull or produce higher cancer clusters among affected cohorts? No the opposite seems to be the case, with some radioactivity exposure actually suppressing cancer? True!

The shorter the half life the higher the radioactive emission? True!

Thus the first product of thorium fission has a half life of around 22 minutes and as hot as hell? True!

Can we completely protect ourselves and operators from this level of short lived, massive burst of gamma radiation? Yes we can? True!

Can left over nuclear waste be very safely buried? Yes, if buried as locally invented, rockcrete, and very safely as an impervious product that reacts, neither with an acid or alkali? True!

As such, able to be safely buried almost anywhere, and has a lower radioactive emission than naturally occurring uranium? True!

Have coal fired power plants traditionally produced more air and waterborne radioactive waste than any operational nuclear power plant? Yes, reported and true!

Have coal fired power plants produced such toxic waste products such as mercury, lead, cadmium and arsenic? True!

Has mercury gotten into the food chain, in fish in particular, and are there examples of mercury contamination adversely impacting cognitive ability/average IQ's, particularly in children? True!

Can fertile material like thorium be compressed to create a nuclear explosion? No! And true!

Is the radioactive isotope bismuth 213, produced in a thorium reaction, a real miracle cure for some of the nastiest cancers like death sentence pancreatic or brain cancer, real? True!

Is the only thing to fear here, fear itself? True!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 19 September 2017 10:32:32 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
Dr McLeay, has written about health matters arising from fossil fuels, very much the hidden costs that have impacted on Asian countries more so than Australia.

The state of the Energy Industry displays the past poor policies of State governments privatising energy.
South Australia keeps getting knocked for heading towards renewable energy; power towers were knocked out by high winds, so no matter what the power source the knocked down towers created a black out. East Coast States have also had blackouts due to storms ... but ... there are no comments about those events, conveniently.

Private Companies are in it for the profits and provide dividends for share holders. The "clean coal" power stations cost billions of dollars to build, there is a time lag of years between when a coal power plant is planned and when it begins to operate. It takes some years before energy plants start bringing in profits.

The Energy Market is quite confused as there has been no direction provided by government. It is very unlikely that a private energy company will build a new coal fired power station.

Storms are a natural occurrence in tropical waters; two potential new storms were recently identified in the Atlantic. One of the storms has been named Maria as intensity had increased.
Maria, has jumped to Category 5 in record time, Costa Rica and other Caribbean Islands appear to be the target. Luckily Jose has turned North and does not appear as though it will make landfall though storm surges are expected to impact some coastal areas.

Continued
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 10:33:31 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
Continued

Climate change did not create Harvey, Irma, Jose, Katia, and now Maria; but, scientists are saying that climate change has added to their strength.
Harvey was destructive through the sheer amount of precipitation it dropped. A warm marine environment and atmosphere allows for more water vapour to be carried. In one spot 51.8 inches of rain fell. Irma was a monstrously large storm in area and a Category 5 storm.
Early assessments suggest that Harvey and Irma have created record damage in the US.

The point being that these storms have been made stronger through climate change; climate change being a product of extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Renewables might not solve all problems; but, the costs accruing from hurricanes/typhoons, wild fires and flooding in South Asia in the last month or so make fossil fuels horrendously expensive.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 10:33:50 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
we know every year for the last 60 the planet has only 10 years left unless urgent action (giving to charlotans and pseudo science) is taken. Maybe even Malcolm with his regressive ideologies might be waking up to the hoax. Can't dumb down the whole population like they have with the getup clowns.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 10:34:59 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 author relies on a lot of unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions. That's typical of the "activist" fantasies pursued by Doctors for the Environment Australia and similar green groups.

Poor Andy Vesey. Turnbull is interfering in the market and trying to force him to keep Liddell operational after 2020 or to sell it to someone who will. Why would he bother? AGL will make billions from wind and solar subsidies and save money on maintenance or replacement of Liddell.

Turnbull is interfering in the market now precisely because earlier interference in the market via ridiculous subisidies for uneconomical, unreliable and very expensive wind and solar generation has become the catastrophe anyone with half a brain knew it would be.

The only surprise in all of that is that the Liberal Party's free market posturers remained silent when it all began. Yet again Liberal parliamentarians have abandoned Liberal principles.

It will be little consolation if blackouts and brownouts this summer allow us to say, "told you so."
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 10:42:12 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
ant says: "The point being that these storms have been made stronger through climate change; climate change being a product of extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

ant, would you mind sharing the evidence for that assertion? You know, the hard evidence of a direct causal relationship between "extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" and worse storms?

Your Nobel Prize awaits.
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 10:51:39 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
Storms etc. have absolutely nothing to do with climate change; in fact, the number of cyclones and extreme weather events have actually been fewer since all the frothing-at-the-mouth climate change twaddle started.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 1:06:25 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
One of the major claims of the CO2 causes global warming/climate change clowns is that the poles will warm, [are warming] quicker than the rest of the globe. It is the crutch of their claim that sea-level is rising rapidly.

Now the reason we have these large storms is that nature is using them to transfer heat from the tropics to the poles. This knocks on the head, at least one of their claims. To generate stronger storms the poles must be colder. To raise sea level the polls must be warmer.

What a dilemma for our poor ratbag greenies/doctors for whatever/etc.

They are going to have to pick the worst scare & go with that. Keep with some claiming stronger storms, & they make the hotter poles accelerating sea level rise lot like the dills they are.

Gee it's getting tough to be a greenie these days, when people actually analyse every little fib you utter.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 1:55:02 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
Well, actually, the evidence is that frequency of large storms and cyclones, at least in the southwest Atlantic, has remained either the same or very slightly increasing during the past 150 years.

OTOH, the largest storms have been increasing in severity over time, due to three or four specific, demonstrable, physical consequences of increased atmospheric temperature.

Reference here: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Reasons cited include:
Atmospheric temp increase => increase in water vapour present in air.
Temp increase => Higher energy driving formation of low pressure cells.
Higher atmospheric temp => higher water temp, especially shallow aters.
Higher water vapour load => higher precipitation rates, hence flooding.

What other specific other factors might be at work? The onus reverts to those who claim that intensity is not increasing to demonstrate that it is and why. Or to change their minds.
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 1:57:36 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
A couple of things:

China has enacted laws to phase out conventional engined cars by 2020. And will roll out one affordable electric cars this year, with an averaged range of 200 kilometres and an averaged price tag of around 17 grand. And according to informed sources, is building, 50 brand new nuclear reactors this year.

Moreover, and thanks to Yank stupidity, is beavering away, with walk away safe, molten salt, thorium reactors. and spending billions.

The Indians, also beavering away, with thorium, have apparently abandoned trying to use it in conventional, solid fuel reactors, due to, insurmountable difficulties and have switched to molten salt as holding the most promise for all future reactors?

And like most rational people, will chose the safest, cleanest, cheapest over dirty cheap coal and the endemic corruption that seems to accompany that life taking monster!

And given new Yank law, the first to register, will own the patent, regardless of who invented what! Thus our single step steel smelting became, LEGALLY theirs. As well as our pulsed laser light uranium enrichment!?

Just as one swallow does not, a summer, make. neither does one small reactor, that has yet to generate a single watt of electricity, on Lucas Heights, a nuclear industry, make.

Of course trained technicians will want to stick with what they know/have some expertise in! Even if that's the worst of all available choices? Time reason and logic prevailed over fear mongering invention/vested interest!?

Don't ask me to react to any and all spurious claims today, given I've already racked up my daily limit! Unless, you want to propagandize the topic, with half truths/blatant misinformation?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:35:49 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 Bureau of Meteorology now has a reputation for fiddling the books in relation to temperature records and so-called climate change.

But this is one record set that is difficult to fiddle: it's flood records for the Brisbane River, measured at the Port Office.

One might reasonably assume that the bigger the storm, the bigger the flood. One might also reasonably assume that flood height would increase as Brisbane grew and a much greater area of land was sealed, though perhaps some of that would be offset by increased drainage.

Oddly, the record shows something quite different:
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

The two highest flood peaks (8m plus) were in the 1830s and 1893, with a 7m plus flood in the early 1840s. There was a 6.6m flood peak in 1974 and a 4.46m in January 2011, following heavy rain from a strong La Nina weather pattern.

Tropical cyclones have been part of the scene in and around Australia for at least 5000 years, often associated with flooding. Since 1960, there have been, by my count, 275 severe tropical cyclones in the Australian region, plus many more tropical lows, tropical cyclones and storms. So I think it would be difficult to argue that storms are "getting worse" or "more frequent".

In fact, in 1950 a tropical cyclone tracked from the Gulf to Sydney and caused 10 deaths, including a girl swept off the Esplanade at Cronulla, and in 1954 another tropical cyclone crossed the coast at Coolangatta, causing great damage on the Gold Coast and northern NSW. We haven't seen cyclones that far south since then.
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 3:22:01 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
Explanation of how climate change adds to hurricanes/Typhoons/Cyclones though it doesn't create them:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/cyclone-and-extreme-weather-events-intensifying-bom-says/8869042

http://www.newscientist.com/article/2146562-hurricane-irmas-epic-size-is-being-fuelled-by-global-warming/

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/06092017/hurricane-irma-harvey-climate-change-warm-atlantic-ocean-questions

http://www.wired.com/story/what-are-the-odds-of-a-super-storm-like-harvey/

http://time.com/4933743/hurricane-irma-climate-change-global-warming/

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41082668

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/08/549280066/hurricanes-are-sweeping-the-atlantic-whats-the-role-of-climate-change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=132&v=9mKC49AUVUo
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 3:44:23 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
Well Ant, that is a great list of the global warming propaganda organisations. Doesn't say much for your choice of reading/viewing matter.

calwest there was also the 1946 cyclone that did not hit the south coast, but was close enough that it removed the Noosa sand dunes, converting the brackish inland lagoon to the estuary it now is.

Guess where we were for dads discharge holiday at the time. At least the high winds kept the sand flies grounded for a few days.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 7:30:26 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 Hasbeen,

Yes, there have been many cyclones that nobody remembers any more. For example, I was surprised to discover that Broome was pretty much wiped out by a cyclone back in the 1930s and it was creepily similar to Tracy.

I don't recall the '46 cyclone, but I do remember the '54 cyclone which just missed Brisbane and hit the Gold Coast. Very scary in an old wooden house on stilts, but in the end we survived without any serious damage.

The point of all this is that there have been hundreds of cyclones of various intensity, including 275 severe ones since 1960. Frankly, my childhood memories are that Brisbane was a lot hotter back then, too, but that may be just my memory playing tricks. My great grandfather died in the 1893 flood in Brisbane, still the worst on record and way before the global warming scam, so I've had an interest in extreme weather for a long time.

In any case, I find it very difficult to accept arguments that cyclones and hurricanes are bigger, stronger and more frequent than in the past and I've seen no evidence that that is the case.
Posted by calwest, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 1:19:28 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
Hasbeen "... Doesn't say much for your choice of reading/viewing matter."

The articles and youtube film quoted a number of scientists ... Kevin Trenberth, Stefan Rahmstorf, Katherine Hayhoe, Kerry Emanuel, Heidi Cullen, Blair Trewin, Sarah Kapnick, Gabriel Vecchi, Frederick Otto, Dalia Kirschbaum and Peter Jacobs. The sources are a bit odd as well; eh Hasbeen, Time, Scientific American, BBC, ABC, and Inside Climate News.

The view that a warm marine environment creates more water vapour is known ... the Clausius Clapeyron equation is used to work out how much more water vapour can be expected to be taken up.

There are very simple experiments that can be conducted to show how warm water creates more water vapour than cooler water.

Comments stating something is wrong are meaningless without any evidence.

Comments are made such as there have been no more extreme events than in the past; Climate & Extreme Weather News suggests otherwise, since the referenced youtube film showing what had been happening between 20-22 June 2017 there have been 31 further films to bring us up to date.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CduMGg8aohQ&feature=share
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 6:11:25 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
Some interesting statistics of Atlantic Category 5 Hurricanes:
1851 - 1900 = 0
1901 - 1930 = 2
1931 - 1960 = 8
1961 - 1990 = 10
1991 - 2017 = 13

From:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/hurdat/hurdat2-1851-2016-041117.txt

Translated by Eric Holthaus, Meteorologist:

http://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/910016642104664064

Joe Room, Physicist writes:

"Holland, the Director of NCAR’s Capacity Center for Climate and Weather Extremes, pointed out last week that “globally, the proportion of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased from ~20 percent of all hurricanes to around 40 percent due to climate change over the past 60 years.”"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate-scientists-rise-in-super-hurricanes-4596dfb294ee/
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 7:07:06 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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