We do not need scorn, we need action. We have known for decades and decades that we would reach a point where the cost of the extraction of fossil fuel would exceed the point where our economy could function and continue to extract them. But there are powerful political forces that make up the status quo whose personal economic wealth is derived from those fuels.
Unfortunately a capitalistic society places the interest of self above the interest of the many and those with the greatest personal ambitions insure themselves the greatest rewards. For these reasons, including the narcoleptic buying binge induced in the population by billions of advertisements created by these same power controllers to magnify their already bloated personal fortunes and the stinginess of the salaries they pay, the American people are forced to devote most of their time running harder and harder as the hill they run up gets steeper.
Almost everything now is about now and today including quarterly earnings. In politics it is exactly the same. What can I do that will get me reelected. Naturally that is to coddle to the interests of wealth and among them are the fossil fuel companies.
So as the day of reckoning approaches and the power folk look around for a new gig, naturally they will send up the message that our savior is nuclear power. Only in keeping you at the end of a drip line can they keep you comatose for bleeding. Only when they can keep you subjected to you need for light and heat can then send you a monthly bill and keep you docile to their needs.
Solar power is like the right to bear arms. If the people arm themselves with solar they will not be as easily ruled. Of course they will not be as easily terrorized either. But the more green power generation is distributed the safer society will be from the loss of a power source by any means.
So I have been against fossil fuels since almost the first day I began to think. But because the wise have understood how astonishingly little forethought humans really apply, they have devised warnings of advise such as: "Don't jump out of the frying pan into the fire. Again, insanity is doing more of the same and expecting a different result.
We are going to make something of a filthy mess just to convert to green. Our goal should be to walk through the forest and leave the smallest footprint that we can. This will leave the beauty of the earth to future generations.
Choose you poison with care. Maybe when we have nanobots that can disassemble radioactive isotopes we can go nuclear. But of course we had better have nanobots that disassemble nanobots first in case some pin head creates a nanobot that disassembles anything.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,745
- 46,513
- 136
The irony is that the capitalistic system you denigrate so eagerly is the one that will end up producing they very alternatives you advocate. Those companies run by those short sighted executives execs pour cash into R&D so they can stay ahead of the market and practical technology advances as a result. As to the rest of your tirade against personal wealth, that is another discussion entirely.
Solar power's day will come, but it is not today nor tomorrow. It also will not replace the reqirement for a baseline generation capacity for a long time or possibly never. At this time it is simply not possible to immediately transfer off of all fossil fuels to renewable energy without causing massive economic and social problems.
The point isn't that we were lucky at 3 mile island, unless you are saying that what happened there is the worst that could have happened ?
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,745
- 46,513
- 136
The point is that our plants are designed a lot better (than Chernobyl) and have a far higher safety margin as a result.
Human error caused (or caused to worsen) both accidents. The difference is that the engineering of the TMI unit prevented the accident from effecting the envrioment outside the plant.
Pebble-bed reactors are not prone to meltdowns (almost impossible), and thermoexpansive polymer reactors physically cannot melt down... so with regards to NEW nuclear power plants, the issue of meltdowns is moot.
As for solar power, I am all for it - it may indeed allow us to drastically cut down civilian electricity consumption (25-50% is my guess), but it is not sufficient, nor is it scalable to produce industrial power requirements (sorry, but I see mile-wide solar arrays as pollution). Hydroelectric plants destroy whole regions, and wind power is a myth that will never come to fruition.
The future is in fusion power... but until we can get a working plant (unlikely while there are fossil fuels, since energy companies will not allow the projects to proceed) we must choose the lesser evil... and the new type nuclear reactors will provide us with that.
Mothers are also not likely to allow nuclear power to proceed also, so lets go in a direction that makes more sense. You guess 25-50% and you 'say' wind won't work but you can't predict what can come from a shoot for the moon war on energy focused on green applications. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of, assuming in areas where you are scientifically ignorant. Show me your PhD in solar and wind energy, please. And if solar farms are pollution, how about regular farms. And don't forget there's lots of nice spots to farm sunlight on the moon.
WTF are you talking about?
I predict, based on my research into solar power for my parents' home. We are on the waiting list for solar panel installations, and I have estimates from the installers in terms of what we can expect.
And we don't need a "shoot for the moon war on energy"... we need a shoot for the moon fusion power project. If we took the $400B we spent in Iraq, and used ALL of it on fusion power research, we'd have a working plant by 2025, guaranteed. The theory is there... the physics is there... the problem is purely an engineering challenge... like the nuclear fission project was.
Please show me how you're going to get the solar panels there, then how you're going to get the energy back... and then how you're going to do all of this while:
a) producing any energy surplus, given that you have to transport millions of tons of materials offworld.
b) not polluting the atmosphere to hell with burned rocket fuel
Until we have a space elevator established, which can act as a conduit for superconductive wire, any talk of acquiring energy offworld is simply idiocy.
So let me see - you want to beam gigawatts of microwaves at the Earth surface... and you're talking about the risk of nuclear reactors as being too much?
Wow... talk about selective perception.
WTF are you on?
The paper talks about the economics and efficiency of solar panel design... where the heck did you get "reproductive capacity"... what - you gave solar panels DNA now?
First off,
I really enjoyed the semi-civil argument in the thread.
Solar is a low-yeild solution in most all its forms. Unless the trend is to more efficient (and less of them) electrical devices, then it is a limited use technology at the moment as well as the near future. Hydro is not always earth friendly, and is limited by weather and location. The only fuel sources for coal, oil and gas turbine plants are depleting rapidly. There is enough fuel for nuclear power forever.
As far as moon based power plants suppying power to Earth.....
These monstrous microwave radiation transmissions through the ionoshpere from the moon were tested when??
NEVER...
HAARP is the closest thing that we have tested, and it is best used as a weapon to destroy ICBMS and control the weather.
Moon-based power to Earth is pointless compared to fusion reactors already in development.
I really enjoyed the semi-civil argument in the thread.
Solar is a low-yeild solution in most all its forms. Unless the trend is to more efficient (and less of them) electrical devices, then it is a limited use technology at the moment as well as the near future. Hydro is not always earth friendly, and is limited by weather and location. The only fuel sources for coal, oil and gas turbine plants are depleting rapidly. There is enough fuel for nuclear power forever.
As far as moon based power plants suppying power to Earth.....
These monstrous microwave radiation transmissions through the ionoshpere from the moon were tested when??
NEVER...
HAARP is the closest thing that we have tested, and it is best used as a weapon to destroy ICBMS and control the weather.
Moon-based power to Earth is pointless compared to fusion reactors already in development.
ma: Solar is a low-yeild solution in most all its forms.
Mo: Well the splitting of an atom is also a low yield solution as well. That is why the reaction is chained. But you get the same effect when the solar cell chains itself. But if the nuclear chain reaction gets away you have a mess. If too many solar cells are produced we can use them for decorations.
ma: Unless the trend is to more efficient (and less of them) electrical devices, then it is a limited use technology at the moment as well as the near future.
Mo: Come on, maluckey, you know that the development time of a technology is inversely proportional to investment. Put the money into alternatives that you put into nuclear and you will see some results. Stop funding nuclear for weapons research and see how fast nuclear technology grows.
ma: Hydro is not always earth friendly, and is limited by weather and location. The only fuel sources for coal, oil and gas turbine plants are depleting rapidly. There is enough fuel for nuclear power forever.
Mo: Not forever as in sunshine. Think a bit on that. You need more fissionables than a breeder reactor can breed. The sun is our big free lunch.
ma: As far as moon based power plants suppying power to Earth.....
These monstrous microwave radiation transmissions through the ionoshpere from the moon were tested when??
NEVER...
Mo: Somebody run a 100,000 year test on the survivability of humanity gone nuclear?
ma: HAARP is the closest thing that we have tested, and it is best used as a weapon to destroy ICBMS and control the weather.
Mo: Give me back my tinfoil beanie.
ma: Moon-based power to Earth is pointless compared to fusion reactors already in development.
Mo: Fusion reactors already in development are pointless compared to Moon-based power to Earth becomes true because I say it? At least the Moon Men have websites that lay out a case.
Mo: Well the splitting of an atom is also a low yield solution as well. That is why the reaction is chained. But you get the same effect when the solar cell chains itself. But if the nuclear chain reaction gets away you have a mess. If too many solar cells are produced we can use them for decorations.
ma: Unless the trend is to more efficient (and less of them) electrical devices, then it is a limited use technology at the moment as well as the near future.
Mo: Come on, maluckey, you know that the development time of a technology is inversely proportional to investment. Put the money into alternatives that you put into nuclear and you will see some results. Stop funding nuclear for weapons research and see how fast nuclear technology grows.
ma: Hydro is not always earth friendly, and is limited by weather and location. The only fuel sources for coal, oil and gas turbine plants are depleting rapidly. There is enough fuel for nuclear power forever.
Mo: Not forever as in sunshine. Think a bit on that. You need more fissionables than a breeder reactor can breed. The sun is our big free lunch.
ma: As far as moon based power plants suppying power to Earth.....
These monstrous microwave radiation transmissions through the ionoshpere from the moon were tested when??
NEVER...
Mo: Somebody run a 100,000 year test on the survivability of humanity gone nuclear?
ma: HAARP is the closest thing that we have tested, and it is best used as a weapon to destroy ICBMS and control the weather.
Mo: Give me back my tinfoil beanie.
ma: Moon-based power to Earth is pointless compared to fusion reactors already in development.
Mo: Fusion reactors already in development are pointless compared to Moon-based power to Earth becomes true because I say it? At least the Moon Men have websites that lay out a case.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Here comes the hubris again, Meuge, your blind faith in the notion that we've seen the worst disaster. Neither you nor I can possibly imagine all the things that can happen. What we do know without any doubt at all is that all things being equal we are much better off without nuclear. I say we don't open the stupid door till we have put real and concentrated effort into alternatives. To jump up and down about nuclear with your blithe indifference to the future is simply not very mature. Pretend for a second that no energy is released by splitting an atom. What are the solutions now. Apply your pinhead to that question. You might surprise yourself and find a new toy.I would have thought a pinhead like your, for example, would have already realized that the CO2 from burning coal means we won't need to burn it any more to heat our homes in winter. Nobody will want Nuclear Winter.
Moonbeam, you arent conveying any thought.
Youre turning "youre a stupid poopie head and nuclear power will kill us all" into 40 paragraphs, and posting no backup data to suggest any of what you say is correct.
How do you propose this "super disaster" to occur? there isnt enough fuel in a reactor to have an atomic bomb - like reaction.
Sort of but I apologize. I have this fertile scientific mind that makes huge leaps in logic because of my multidisciplinary scientific education and well, I suppose just plain gift, so I often forget that what is obvious to me, the steps from hither to thither, are for others up in the clouds. I can be such a pin head at times.
At the moment I have been occupying myself with contemplation of the coming Singularity. Autonomous manufacturing of machines by machines will require energy, naturally, and a simple devise that makes more energy them it takes to make it, is a ticket to ride. The machine intelligence to do this may be literally around the corner and of course the units of energy production will be part of the design. So in a sense the solar energy gathers, whatever their nature, will duplicate themselves. DNA is on one level just information.
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Here comes the hubris again, Meuge, your blind faith in the notion that we've seen the worst disaster. Neither you nor I can possibly imagine all the things that can happen. What we do know without any doubt at all is that all things being equal we are much better off without nuclear. I say we don't open the stupid door till we have put real and concentrated effort into alternatives. To jump up and down about nuclear with your blithe indifference to the future is simply not very mature. Pretend for a second that no energy is released by splitting an atom. What are the solutions now. Apply your pinhead to that question. You might surprise yourself and find a new toy.
Moonbeam, you arent conveying any thought.
Youre turning "youre a stupid poopie head and nuclear power will kill us all" into 40 paragraphs, and posting no backup data to suggest any of what you say is correct.
How do you propose this "super disaster" to occur? there isnt enough fuel in a reactor to have an atomic bomb - like reaction.
OK that's it. Now I'm really mad. GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!
And you talk about hubris to ME?
I think you should occupy yourself with making an appointment with a psychiatrist instead.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can be such a pin head at times.
Originally posted by: Meuge
And you talk about hubris to ME?
I think you should occupy yourself with making an appointment with a psychiatrist instead.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can be such a pin head at times.
Two things:
I will never understand anything about you that I haven't understood about me.
There is no better mirror to ones own insanity then the instant aversion that occurs on exposure to someone with a worse case. Whether one sees one reaction as pathological or justifiable is, of course, where ones intention enters in. One can react blindly and remain unconscious or choose to apply this new information to oneself and develop insight into ones life.
He can't, because 50 years from now nobody will even think about putting windmills all over the place, and beaming deadly ionizing microwaves into the earth's atmosphere (he's insane, as it would annihilate the ozone layer, heat up the atmosphere, and likely cause serious meteorological consequences)... nobody will care because fusion power will be forthcoming. We are but a step away, with only 2 major problems left:
1) keep the reaction sustained. Heating the tritium pellet with lasers is all well and good, but we need a way to keep a stream of tritium/deuterium going into the epicenter of the reaction
2) the neutron emissions of fusion reactions are so powerful, they make the containment vessel radioactive, and physically destroy its structure. Whether the solution to this will come from a different type of containment electromagnetic field (as opposed to the torus tokamak, or whether advances in material sciences will solve this problem, one thing is clear - that's the future.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Wow, I usually stay far away from P&N... But, this thread wasn't that bad of a read.
However, I'd like to point out just a couple of things:
1. The OP is wrong on the first line:
2. For the "nuclear is bad, mmkay" people, I hope you realize that you're really arguing "Fission is bad, mmmkay?"
It's unfortunate that more money isn't put into fusion research. It's an expensive technology. But, hey, instead of worrying about Yucca mountain, I have the perfect solution to storage of by-products of fusion reactors: balloons. That's right, we put the fusion waste products into balloons and let them float off into the sky (helium for the non-science people in here)
3. Some of the arguments against fusion, while valid 25 years ago, are becoming increasingly invalid. Newest technologies are rendering those points completely irrelevant. I'm not saying there are no valid points against fission... I'm saying that some of your arguments are very out-dated. This is particularly true if the chance of meltdowns has been rendered impossible by the material mentioned earlier in this thread (I haven't personally read any articles on this.)
However, I'd like to point out just a couple of things:
1. The OP is wrong on the first line:
Nope. Not true. First, I suppose he means energy. Regardless, hydrogen, yes folks, hydrogen is the answer. Fusion.
2. For the "nuclear is bad, mmkay" people, I hope you realize that you're really arguing "Fission is bad, mmmkay?"
It's unfortunate that more money isn't put into fusion research. It's an expensive technology. But, hey, instead of worrying about Yucca mountain, I have the perfect solution to storage of by-products of fusion reactors: balloons. That's right, we put the fusion waste products into balloons and let them float off into the sky
(helium for the non-science people in here)3. Some of the arguments against fusion, while valid 25 years ago, are becoming increasingly invalid. Newest technologies are rendering those points completely irrelevant. I'm not saying there are no valid points against fission... I'm saying that some of your arguments are very out-dated. This is particularly true if the chance of meltdowns has been rendered impossible by the material mentioned earlier in this thread (I haven't personally read any articles on this.)
Well, actually Manganese (Mn) would probably provide the most power per unit mass, since it's the heaviest element that can still undergo fusion.
Everything else, I totally agree with you on. But you already knew that.
we all know it is the most power-per-weight ratio of any material, by far.
-------------------
Nope. Not true. First, I suppose he means energy. Regardless, hydrogen, yes folks, hydrogen is the answer. Fusion.
==============
Actually, neither of those answers is technically exactly accurate because all equal masses contain exactly the same amount of energy, as we know from Einsteins equation.
===================================================
===================================================
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
January 14, 2005
Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day.
The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.
Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery.
The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.
"The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material.
"If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable."
Infrared Power
Plastic solar cells are not new. But existing materials are only able to harness the sun's visible light. While half of the sun's power lies in the visible spectrum, the other half lies in the infrared spectrum.
The new material is the first plastic composite that is able to harness the infrared portion.
"Everything that's warm gives off some heat. Even people and animals give off heat," Sargent said. "So there actually is some power remaining in the infrared [spectrum], even when it appears to us to be dark outside."
The researchers combined specially designed nano particles called quantum dots with a polymer to make the plastic that can detect energy in the infrared.
With further advances, the new plastic "could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells," said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work.
The new material could make technology truly wireless.
"We have this expectation that we don't have to plug into a phone jack anymore to talk on the phone, but we're resigned to the fact that we have to plug into an electrical outlet to recharge the batteries," Sargent said. "That's only communications wireless, not power wireless."
He said the plastic coating could be woven into a shirt or sweater and used to charge an item like a cell phone.
"A sweater is already absorbing all sorts of light both in the infrared and the visible," said Sargent. "Instead of just turning that into heat, as it currently does, imagine if it were to turn that into electricity."
Other possibilities include energy-saving plastic sheeting that could be unfurled onto a rooftop to supply heating needs, or solar cell window coating that could let in enough infrared light to power home appliances.
Cost-Effectiveness
Ultimately, a large amount of the sun's energy could be harnessed through "solar farms" and used to power all our energy needs, the researchers predict.
"This could potentially displace other sources of electrical production that produce greenhouse gases, such as coal," Sargent said.
In Japan, the world's largest solar-power market, the government expects that 50 percent of residential power supply will come from solar power by 2030, up from a fraction of a percent today.
The biggest hurdle facing solar power is cost-effectiveness.
At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power is significantly more expensive than conventional electrical power for residences. Average U.S. residential power prices are less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour, according to experts.
But that could change with the new material.
"Flexible, roller-processed solar cells have the potential to turn the sun's power into a clean, green, convenient source of energy," said John Wolfe, a nanotechnology venture capital investor at Lux Capital in New York City.
================================
"It is widely expected that renewable energy sources will continue to drop in costs as additional investments are made in R&D and as increased mass production improves the economies of scale. Nuclear power has been subsidized by 0.5-1 trillion dollars since the 1950s. No comparable investment has yet been made in renewable energy. Even so, the technology is improving rapidly. For example, solar cells are a hundred times less expensive today than the 1970s and development continues."
1% of the land devoted to farming will supply the world's needs based on today's technologies.
Just no need to create poisons that last for thousands of years. It is immoral to had such a thing to the future when we haven't even taken care of what we already have stupidly made.
Check here for some scoop on the brilliant ways we create and handle nuclear waste.
"But that's then and this is now" is pure BS hubris, baby.
-------------------
Nope. Not true. First, I suppose he means energy. Regardless, hydrogen, yes folks, hydrogen is the answer. Fusion.
==============
Actually, neither of those answers is technically exactly accurate because all equal masses contain exactly the same amount of energy, as we know from Einsteins equation.
===================================================
===================================================
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
January 14, 2005
Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day.
The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.
Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery.
The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.
"The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material.
"If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable."
Infrared Power
Plastic solar cells are not new. But existing materials are only able to harness the sun's visible light. While half of the sun's power lies in the visible spectrum, the other half lies in the infrared spectrum.
The new material is the first plastic composite that is able to harness the infrared portion.
"Everything that's warm gives off some heat. Even people and animals give off heat," Sargent said. "So there actually is some power remaining in the infrared [spectrum], even when it appears to us to be dark outside."
The researchers combined specially designed nano particles called quantum dots with a polymer to make the plastic that can detect energy in the infrared.
With further advances, the new plastic "could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells," said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work.
The new material could make technology truly wireless.
"We have this expectation that we don't have to plug into a phone jack anymore to talk on the phone, but we're resigned to the fact that we have to plug into an electrical outlet to recharge the batteries," Sargent said. "That's only communications wireless, not power wireless."
He said the plastic coating could be woven into a shirt or sweater and used to charge an item like a cell phone.
"A sweater is already absorbing all sorts of light both in the infrared and the visible," said Sargent. "Instead of just turning that into heat, as it currently does, imagine if it were to turn that into electricity."
Other possibilities include energy-saving plastic sheeting that could be unfurled onto a rooftop to supply heating needs, or solar cell window coating that could let in enough infrared light to power home appliances.
Cost-Effectiveness
Ultimately, a large amount of the sun's energy could be harnessed through "solar farms" and used to power all our energy needs, the researchers predict.
"This could potentially displace other sources of electrical production that produce greenhouse gases, such as coal," Sargent said.
In Japan, the world's largest solar-power market, the government expects that 50 percent of residential power supply will come from solar power by 2030, up from a fraction of a percent today.
The biggest hurdle facing solar power is cost-effectiveness.
At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power is significantly more expensive than conventional electrical power for residences. Average U.S. residential power prices are less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour, according to experts.
But that could change with the new material.
"Flexible, roller-processed solar cells have the potential to turn the sun's power into a clean, green, convenient source of energy," said John Wolfe, a nanotechnology venture capital investor at Lux Capital in New York City.
================================
"It is widely expected that renewable energy sources will continue to drop in costs as additional investments are made in R&D and as increased mass production improves the economies of scale. Nuclear power has been subsidized by 0.5-1 trillion dollars since the 1950s. No comparable investment has yet been made in renewable energy. Even so, the technology is improving rapidly. For example, solar cells are a hundred times less expensive today than the 1970s and development continues."
1% of the land devoted to farming will supply the world's needs based on today's technologies.
Just no need to create poisons that last for thousands of years. It is immoral to had such a thing to the future when we haven't even taken care of what we already have stupidly made.
Check here for some scoop on the brilliant ways we create and handle nuclear waste.
"But that's then and this is now" is pure BS hubris, baby.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter