Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Paris Climate Disagreement

The Paris Climate Disagreement (Page 5)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:13 PM
 
Let's put this into some more perspective, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change :

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[128] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[129] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[130]
24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors. Literature from all over the world (not just the US). Only 5 articles by 4 authors rejecting global warming.

So, you guys know better than 69,402 scientific authors from all over the world?

Stop making dumb arguments. Please.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:23 PM
 
YOU are not a scientist. Quit trying to have some relevance by parroting things you don't understand. You have a reputation of trying to lecture others. Can you explain in technical terms why you believe? WIKI as an accurate source? You don't know enough about the data and how it has been used or altered to match the narrative.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Stop making dumb arguments. Please.
I am repeating the following argument (posed in question form) in the hopes it's "smart" enough to deserve an answer.

Is the difference between an apocalyptic outcome and a survivable one the decision to let the American fossil fuel industry die naturally or get dismantled by the government?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Okay, here's my question for the class.

We have two broad choices. Let the American fossil fuel industry die a natural death, or have it be actively dismantled by the government.

Is how this gets played the deciding factor for whether the end result is an apocalypse?
Aren't we living in a third reality where the government is propping it up?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
YOU are not a scientist. Quit trying to have some relevance by parroting things you don't understand. You have a reputation of trying to lecture others. Can you explain in technical terms why you believe? WIKI as an accurate source? You don't know enough about the data and how it has been used or altered to match the narrative.
I don't have to explain anything. You need to explain why you know better than 69,402 peer reviewed scientific authors. Go ahead, we are all waiting...

69,402 Badkosh. 69,402... Let that sink in for a minute. When it does maybe the parade of stupid arguments will come to an end.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I am repeating the following argument (posed in question form) in the hopes it's "smart" enough to deserve an answer.

Is the difference between an apocalyptic outcome and a survivable one the decision to let the American fossil fuel industry die naturally or get dismantled by the government?
I think this is a great question, but it is putting the cart before the horse for right now?

To what extent the government plays a role seems to be a question that follows getting people to acknowledge that global warming is real. We have 3 people in here that are deniers, which is not only super depressing but suggests that there is a lot of work yet to be done. I don't see how we can come to a solution without first acknowledging the problem.

Thankfully CTP seems onboard for some solutions we could perhaps ultimately agree upon despite coming to them from a different place. I used to be all about encouraging clean energy for all of its virtues as the best path forward, which seems to be where CTP is at, but while I feel that this is certainly better than nothing we'd be far better off if we didn't undermine scientists like we are now. It stimulates a very stupid and ignorant population.

Additionally, whatever government role may exist will depend on political will which also comes back to the basic acknowledgment of the existence of global warming.

It is ****ing sad that we are still at the acknowledgement phase right now, but here we are.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Aren't we living in a third reality where the government is propping it up?
Kinda?

Quick Google on American coal says it's a $28B industry, and gets about $600MM in subsidies. Presumably, it also has the living **** regulated out of it.

Our coal roller-in-chief can quadruple this and it's only a few extra buckets on the Titanic.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:02 PM
 
Propping it up through policy, not subsidies.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The efficiency of electric-hydrogen-electric is much lower than storing energy directly in batteries. In fact,

Efficiency is not everything, though, another point is the refueling network: one of the reasons why gasoline-powered cars initially won over electric cars was the lack of electrification in rural America. Especially if power generation is “free” (because the electrolysis is powered by renewable energies), lack of efficiency may not be a problem. Power lines are everywhere, but building an H2 delivery network is very expensive.
This is one of the great challenges for H2, but for the sake of the environment, it's the right call. So while it's not the easiest solution, the best ones seldom are. I see dedicated EVs as nothing more than a stop-gap on our way to almost exclusive H2 usage within the regular and industrial consumer space. The fact remains; once you consider acquisition, manufacture, reclamation, recycling, and eventual disposal, Li-Ion isn't much cleaner than diesel, it gets even worse when you consider that (at least in the USA) 70% of the power used to recharge those batteries is still produced by burning coal (remind SoCal greenies that they're using coal to recharge their Prii and they almost faint), due to our mostly-irrational fear of fission reactors.

Looking abroad, Japan hedges its bets (I have seen hydrogen-based cars here, every once in a while I see a Mirai, but I have seen many more battery powered EVs; my research institute is heavily invested in battery technology-related research). China seems to lean towards EVs. And while BMW and Mercedes have had H2-powered cars for decades, they have yet to bring one to market (BMW used H2 instead of gasoline while Mercedes tested fuel cells).
As seemingly backwards as we are, here in East TN, we have hydrogen refueling stations in production right now. However, some use of petroleum-powered vehicles in rural areas is simply something we will need to endure for many decades to come, as the ranges of even the most robust EVs are too limited, unless you essentially turn such cars into nothing more than gigantic batteries on wheels, which also present major problems.

Honestly, when it comes to H2-powered vs. battery powered cars, I think the answer for most people is neither, electrically assisted bicycles are becoming very popular in cities and urban areas (which is where most people live) around the world, though. To a lesser degree I have also seen electric scooters.
In most of Europe and Asia, perhaps, but getting Americans to abandon their cars in favor of bikes will be nigh-impossible, they won't give up their A/C and heaters (not to mention comfort, safety, and carrying capacity), and trying to force them will only cause them to elect people who'll give them whatever they want. H2, though difficult and costly to implement, doesn't drastically change lifestyles.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't have to explain anything. You need to explain why you know better than 69,402 peer reviewed scientific authors. Go ahead, we are all waiting...

69,402 Badkosh. 69,402... Let that sink in for a minute. When it does maybe the parade of stupid arguments will come to an end.
TRANSLATED:

I don't understand the science, but all these other guys do.(ASSUMPTION, and gullibility)

DATA TAMPERING. MOVING the ground based thermometers etc to match the narrative. Removing Satellite data from the NOAA and NASA databases. I could go on but you don't get the basics we've been telling you for a while.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Okay, here's my question for the class.

We have two broad choices. Let the American fossil fuel industry die a natural death, or have it be actively dismantled by the government.

Is how this gets played the deciding factor for whether the end result is an apocalypse?
If the gov't actively tries to dismantle it, forcing people rely on lesser alternatives, you'll see a Repub-controlled gov't for the next 5 decades (or at least until oil starts to truly become scarce). The way I see it, EVs are a niche until domestic oil starts to run out, which gives us a decent amount of time to work out the costs associated with H2 solutions. Energy companies aren't stupid, I don't believe they're going to wait until the last moment to cobble something together. During that time we can reward people who trade in for more efficient cars, or even operate within a window of "acceptable" consumption, and more severely punish those who buy or keep inefficient vehicles (yeah, I'm looking at myself, here).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think this is a great question, but it is putting the cart before the horse for right now?
It's wholly dependent on the answer.

If it will be the deciding factor in the apocalypse, the only way the apocalypse can be averted is to convince enough people.

If it is not the deciding factor, then I argue the proper course is to let the industry die naturally. There is nothing to convince me of. My conclusion is based on taking the data I have been provided at face value. Why should anyone care someone else has come to the same conclusion for the wrong reasons?

Let's say someone wants to let coal die naturally because they'll get filthy rich that way, so they deny, deny, deny.

The argument here is "if only we could convince this person to believe in the models saying his denials and profiteering won't cause the apocalypse..."

Which will accomplish exactly what?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Propping it up through policy, not subsidies.
That's... kinda vague, no?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
uses an infrastructure we already have (electric grid)
Not quite...

Until we can fast charge without breaking it, where's the infrastructure for these people?

     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
YOU are not a scientist.
You seem to be missing his point. He's acknowledging that he's not a scientist, and he's suggesting that actual scientists know what they're talking about. He's not posting a dataset and using it to make claims regarding climate change.

Are you a scientist?

Quit trying to have some relevance by parroting things you don't understand.
"99.99% of scientists in the field believe that man made climate change is real"

That's not hard to understand.

You have a reputation of trying to lecture others.
What do you think your reputation is?

Can you explain in technical terms why you believe?
Can you explain in technical terms why you don't? Of course not, your only response is that every dataset for the past 30+ years has been tampered with, and you have no evidence to back this up.

WIKI as an accurate source?
Yes, around 2005 everyone was sick of people complaining about Wikipedia being used as a source, it has its place and linking to it here isn't out of place.

You don't know enough about the data and how it has been used or altered to match the narrative.
*implying that you do*
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's... kinda vague, no?
I'm on a phone so I can't back my shit up. But think Reagan taking down the solar panels on the WH roof, invading Iraq, permits for drilling, emissions regulations, indifference to public transportation, and my recent favorite, a focus on 'diverse' energy as coal becomes expensive and green energy cheaper.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
TRANSLATED:

I don't understand the science, but all these other guys do.(ASSUMPTION, and gullibility)

DATA TAMPERING. MOVING the ground based thermometers etc to match the narrative. Removing Satellite data from the NOAA and NASA databases. I could go on but you don't get the basics we've been telling you for a while.

I don't understand the science, but the difference between us is that I'm wise enough to know that. But I also don't need to understand the science to make my argument.

69,402 articles. Are you saying that all of this has been tampered with, globally?

If so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Also, your argument is stupid.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
blah.. blah.. blah.. Did you actually just use "sheeple" unironically?
Did you?

I'm really not concerned about the approval ratings of the sheeple.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
remind SoCal greenies that they're using coal to recharge their Prii and they almost faint
According to the federal Energy Information Administration, California doesn't generate any electricity from coal. Scroll down to the bar graph.

As of April 2017, the biggest source is renewables (excluding hydro) followed by hydro and natural gas. Nuclear trails those.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
According to the federal Energy Information Administration, California doesn't generate any electricity from coal. Scroll down to the bar graph.

As of April 2017, the biggest source is renewables (excluding hydro) followed by hydro and natural gas. Nuclear trails those.
But SRP in Arizona does, and does supply electricity to SoCal, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. SRP has a coal fired plant IN Colorado. SRP's other plants, other than Pablo Verde Nuclear, are natural gas/oil powered, another hydrocarbon.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Sure ya do, buddy. I've only been using HFCs as the main source of power in my home and garage for the last 4+ years. I guess you don't remember, but anyone else here can tell you I've been singing its praises ever since I converted over. Hell, I've even reported my tribulations in attempting to give power back to the local grid, because we often make too much, but they said it isn't designed for it. In fact, I loved the tech so much I invested in the companies developing and manufacturing them.
A) I've seen your comments. But I didn't pay a shotload of money to have someone install a fuel cell or invest in some companies; I worked for a HFC company. And that is how one learns a lot about hydrogen fuel cells.

B) Really? You want to start this conversation by announcing that you've already invested in it? Way to set yourself up as a neutral party....

What? Hydrogen production is an economy of scale issue, nothing more.
This is an astonishingly simplified view. Like many production problems, economies of scale will certainly help - but hydrogen still has to deal with the fundamental problem that it is simply a way of storing energy that exists somewhere else, and we haven't yet figured out how to separate it without consuming energy in an inefficient manner - or using hydrocarbons for steam reformation, and producing greenhouse gases as a byproduct with little of no emissions benefit over current basic hybrids. I'm not saying that our current techniques won't improve on an ongoing basis - but it's a far more complicated equation than simply "economy of scale"; you're literally banking on multiple breakthroughs for research & development first.

The simple fact is that the least cost/mile for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is currently so heavily in favour of steam reforming that adopting the technology would ensure that natural gas extraction as a source would economically prevail for the foreseeable future.....which is exactly what the current fuel source industry wants.

Even extracting it from natural gas, the least "green" method, it's cleaner than other hydrocarbon sources, in every way.
I didn't argue against this at all, but will also note that from an emissions reduction perspective, a pure hydrogen fuel cell vehicle has higher well to wheel emissions than a battery-electric vehicle that is even powered by a fossil fuel-dominated grid, let alone a cleaner central grid source.

I mean.....yeah that would be great, but to date it's the exact same problem - this is inherently a super inefficient process.

Also, are you seriously using a Clean Technica link - you know, the website that has produced a more recent article such as "Why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars are not Competitive" as well as "Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars - #FAIL, in depth" and "Study: Battery EVs Better For Emissions Reductions than Hudrogen Fuel Cell vehicles"?

Even using the most advanced production and recycling methods, do you know how destructive to the environment Li-Ion type cells are? And here I thought you cared about the planet?
How destructive? And compared to what? Please provide me with some actual information rather than the usual scare-monger tactics. I'll note that at no point have I ever suggested that mass production of expensive cars is a non-destructive proposition....again, it's currently not economically feasible to create hydrogen at a mass scale without hydrocarbon extraction - how destructive is that?

While we'll still need batteries and capacitors, even with HFCs, with proper implementation we'll require only a fraction of the amount of batteries Musk suggests. Mostly we only need the high-output, lower capacity variety, not the mountains of monster capacity cells he wants to produce (and make 100s of $billions$ in the process by cornering the market with his Gigafactories).
A) odd to see you apparently resistant to Musk making so much money - I'm going to assume you wouldn't mind "cornering the market" with your HFC investments....

B) the Gigafactories are supposed to be largely if not entirely solar powered - further reducing the emissions impact of BEV production.....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm on a phone so I can't back my shit up. But think Reagan taking down the solar panels on the WH roof, invading Iraq, permits for drilling, emissions regulations, indifference to public transportation, and my recent favorite, a focus on 'diverse' energy as coal becomes expensive and green energy cheaper.
I get what you're saying.

My instincts tell me,

1) The policies which will have the largest effects on the lifespan are the ones which directly give the industry money, or take it away (subsidies and regulations).

2) This is a macroeconomics question. A climatologist's opinion here is no different from the opinion of a random internet asshole.


Also, the result of a policy isn't necessarily what's expected. For example, disincentivizing public transportation hastens the death by dint of using up supply more quickly, no?
( Last edited by subego; Jul 20, 2017 at 10:55 PM. )
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 10:58 PM
 
Hey BadKosh, CTP, and Chongo,

Before we get too far into this interesting conversation about HFC, I just want to bring up the number 69,402 one more time.

69,402 articles, 5 from the original set rejected.

I'm hoping RIP dumb arguments.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 11:21 PM
 
@besson

Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's wholly dependent on the answer.

If it will be the deciding factor in the apocalypse, the only way the apocalypse can be averted is to convince enough people.

If it is not the deciding factor, then I argue the proper course is to let the industry die naturally. There is nothing to convince me of. My conclusion is based on taking the data I have been provided at face value. Why should anyone care someone else has come to the same conclusion for the wrong reasons?

Let's say someone wants to let coal die naturally because they'll get filthy rich that way, so they deny, deny, deny.

The argument here is "if only we could convince this person to believe in the models saying his denials and profiteering won't cause the apocalypse..."

Which will accomplish exactly what?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 11:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@besson

I don't understand where you are going with this.

My motivations, I think, are pretty clear. They are simply to acknowledge the facts and stop undermining so much scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is suggesting some pretty dire stuff if this dramatic upwards trend in temperatures is not slowed. I guess whether you call this an apocalypse depends on your definition and perhaps level of selfishness, but the consensus is dire consequences.

Is your point to focus on how to best get to where we need to be and to focus less on how people are convinced?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 02:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
A) I've seen your comments. But I didn't pay a shotload of money to have someone install a fuel cell or invest in some companies; I worked for a HFC company. And that is how one learns a lot about hydrogen fuel cells.
Not the only way, at all.

B) Really? You want to start this conversation by announcing that you've already invested in it? Way to set yourself up as a neutral party....
*shrug*

This is an astonishingly simplified view.
It gets down to brass tacks.

The simple fact is that the least cost/mile for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is currently so heavily in favour of steam reforming that adopting the technology would ensure that natural gas extraction as a source would economically prevail for the foreseeable future.....which is exactly what the current fuel source industry wants.
Go completely against the "current fuel source industry" is just a way to get them to throw all their resources against you in a fight for their lives, prolonging adaptation. Yeah, yeah, "**** them", "stick it to the man", it's no wonder green activists are often denied what they want. They behave like children, refusing to admit reality, and are entirely inflexible. NG extraction for HFCs keep one business operational while introducing a much cleaner tech for all.

I didn't argue against this at all, but will also note that from an emissions reduction perspective, a pure hydrogen fuel cell vehicle has higher well to wheel emissions than a battery-electric vehicle that is even powered by a fossil fuel-dominated grid, let alone a cleaner central grid source.
It isn't all just about emissions. The consequences of producing as many batteries as would be required, to go entirely EV, would have consequences that we simply can't avoid. We'd be trading one form of ecological disaster for another. I also don't accept your statement on its face, as the studies I've seen would make them practically a wash.

I mean.....yeah that would be great, but to date it's the exact same problem - this is inherently a super inefficient process.
"To date"

Also, are you seriously using a Clean Technica link - you know, the website that has produced a more recent article such as "Why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars are not Competitive" as well as "Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars - #FAIL, in depth" and "Study: Battery EVs Better For Emissions Reductions than Hudrogen Fuel Cell vehicles"?
Where they're looking at current production capabilities and not the long term? Yep.

How destructive? And compared to what? Please provide me with some actual information rather than the usual scare-monger tactics. I'll note that at no point have I ever suggested that mass production of expensive cars is a non-destructive proposition....again, it's currently not economically feasible to create hydrogen at a mass scale without hydrocarbon extraction - how destructive is that?
Not as destructive as the Li-Ion cell production>recycle>disposal cycle proposed by Elon, et al.

A) odd to see you apparently resistant to Musk making so much money - I'm going to assume you wouldn't mind "cornering the market" with your HFC investments....
I'm not resistant to the $$, that's ignorant, I've been right there with him, as it's been the most lucrative business over the last decade (especially considering the vast federal subsidies), but it's seriously flawed. As I said before, trading one ecological mess for another isn't a fix. The stress on the environment sourcing all the materials required to meet his goals will get ugly. Uglier than using the NG resources we already have available, as we switch to cleaner hydrogen extraction methods.

B) the Gigafactories are supposed to be largely if not entirely solar powered - further reducing the emissions impact of BEV production.....
That's the press statement, and it sounds great, people really went ga-ga over it (it was very well written and I hear it made some people swoon) but... I guess we'll see how that actually works out. But hey, at the very least all those panels look really cool up there.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 03:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The fact remains; once you consider acquisition, manufacture, reclamation, recycling, and eventual disposal, Li-Ion isn't much cleaner than diesel,
Do you have numbers on that?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
[...] it gets even worse when you consider that (at least in the USA) 70% of the power used to recharge those batteries is still produced by burning coal (remind SoCal greenies that they're using coal to recharge their Prii and they almost faint), due to our mostly-irrational fear of fission reactors.
But that is also true of H2-powered cars if you want to produce H2 in an eco-friendly fashion. The only difference is that because of the lower efficiency (a factor of 3 is very significant) of an H2-powered future, you'd actually need 3x the green electricity.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
As seemingly backwards as we are, here in East TN, we have hydrogen refueling stations in production right now. However, some use of petroleum-powered vehicles in rural areas is simply something we will need to endure for many decades to come, as the ranges of even the most robust EVs are too limited, unless you essentially turn such cars into nothing more than gigantic batteries on wheels, which also present major problems.
I don't think range will be an issue, because transportation will change significantly and move away from cars (especially individually owned cars). Most people live in or near cities, and the share of people living on the country side has consistently dropped since industrialization began. People of my generation (mid-30s) have much lower car ownership rates and things like rental bicycles (including electric bikes) are gaining popularity. A bike (electric or not) is a lot more efficient than any car (electric or not), and takes up much less space (decreasing congestion). The trend will be slower in rural areas where typical distances are longer and public transportation or bicycles are less of an option.

One area where it is easiest to switch to electric will be commercial vehicles where things like range and power are explicitly known. The German postal service has a very successful in-house startup for its new electric mail delivery vehicle, the StreetScooter. They asked all the German manufacturers to produce an electric mail and parcel delivery vehicle tailed to their purposes, but since the volume was too low, nobody wanted to do that. So they have a new production method geared towards flexible low-volume production.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
In most of Europe and Asia, perhaps, but getting Americans to abandon their cars in favor of bikes will be nigh-impossible, they won't give up their A/C and heaters (not to mention comfort, safety, and carrying capacity), and trying to force them will only cause them to elect people who'll give them whatever they want.
I've lived in three different regions of North America, and while the attachment to cars is greater, the trend is exactly the same. People living inside of Toronto proper love cycling and the subway as much as anyone from Paris, Berlin or Osaka, and the conflict is typically between those living inside of Toronto and those who have a house in the suburbs and insist on taking their car. Ditto for the Bay Area.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 04:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But that is also true of H2-powered cars if you want to produce H2 in an eco-friendly fashion. The only difference is that because of the lower efficiency (a factor of 3 is very significant) of an H2-powered future, you'd actually need 3x the green electricity.
Producing it from NG isn't especially unfriendly, at least not compared to ICEs, and it throws the petroleum companies a bone. You think they'll just roll over and die, with the size of their war chests? That's mental.

I don't think range will be an issue, because transportation will change significantly and move away from cars (especially individually owned cars). Most people live in or near cities, and the share of people living on the country side has consistently dropped since industrialization began. People of my generation (mid-30s) have much lower car ownership rates and things like rental bicycles (including electric bikes) are gaining popularity. A bike (electric or not) is a lot more efficient than any car (electric or not), and takes up much less space (decreasing congestion). The trend will be slower in rural areas where typical distances are longer and public transportation or bicycles are less of an option.

One area where it is easiest to switch to electric will be commercial vehicles where things like range and power are explicitly known. The German postal service has a very successful in-house startup for its new electric mail delivery vehicle, the StreetScooter. They asked all the German manufacturers to produce an electric mail and parcel delivery vehicle tailed to their purposes, but since the volume was too low, nobody wanted to do that. So they have a new production method geared towards flexible low-volume production.

I've lived in three different regions of North America, and while the attachment to cars is greater, the trend is exactly the same. People living inside of Toronto proper love cycling and the subway as much as anyone from Paris, Berlin or Osaka, and the conflict is typically between those living inside of Toronto and those who have a house in the suburbs and insist on taking their car. Ditto for the Bay Area.
You don't understand Americans at all, their perspectives aren't the same in any way. So you lived in the most "progressive" areas and you feel that you have the pulse of the nation? Bikes will not work for people in suburbs and rural areas and most people here hate mass transit. Just try and force people to give up their cars, anyone who attempts it will be run out office on a rail.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 11:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Do you have numbers on that?
This is a question that I ask a lot but seems to rarely get a response.....

But that is also true of H2-powered cars if you want to produce H2 in an eco-friendly fashion. The only difference is that because of the lower efficiency (a factor of 3 is very significant) of an H2-powered future, you'd actually need 3x the green electricity.
And in fact, as I noted, WTW emissions are currently lower in BEV than HFCV even when using a "dirty grid" like the modern US one - significantly based on non-renewable energy. And that is only getting cleaner....
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 11:28 AM
 
The coal/oil companies should be as smart as the Capt and diversify. They have to see the way the wind is blowing (heh) and have only themselves to blame for not being part of the new energy technologies.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 11:36 AM
 
I'm sure the coal companies will invest in other sources as soon as doing so becomes cheaper. I'd like to see American roads electrified, powered by nuke power and the vehicles can become 200 percent lighter not needing batteries or fuel storage. I don't know anybody in the oil business but I do know folks in the coal business.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Not the only way, at all.
Of course not. But there's an interesting difference between the research and conversation in the boardroom, and what gets presented to the rich purchasers and investors.

It gets down to brass tacks.
No it doesn't. It substitutes the magical phrase "economy of scale" for serious R&D hurdles that have yet to be solved because of technical and scientific constraints. I'm not saying they won't be solved; I'm saying making a massive investment before seeing significant progress on serious roadblocks seems unlikely.


Go completely against the "current fuel source industry" is just a way to get them to throw all their resources against you in a fight for their lives, prolonging adaptation. Yeah, yeah, "**** them", "stick it to the man", it's no wonder green activists are often denied what they want. They behave like children, refusing to admit reality, and are entirely inflexible. NG extraction for HFCs keep one business operational while introducing a much cleaner tech for all.
This is just stupid nonsense talk. How does it ensure much cleaner tech for all of this comes at the expense of BEVs, which are cleaner from an emissions perspective?

Using natural gas as a fuel source doesn't get us around the inherent problems in producing it sustainably at all....


It isn't all just about emissions. The consequences of producing as many batteries as would be required, to go entirely EV, would have consequences that we simply can't avoid. We'd be trading one form of ecological disaster for another. I also don't accept your statement on its face, as the studies I've seen would make them practically a wash.
OK I'll bite. What studies have you seen and where? Mine is a fairly recent and widely cited study of WTW emissions published in I believe 2015 and easily Google-able. Thanks.

"To date"
What annoys me about this response is that you're assuming battery electric is also operating in a vacuum, when in fact the technology has continued to evolve - and in fact at a much faster pace than HFC.

So "to date" applies to both of them. Which ultimately is a good thing, but not a reason to choose HFC over BEV at this point....


Where they're looking at current production capabilities and not the long term? Yep.
....and yet you're applying that logic only to HFCs.....


Not as destructive as the Li-Ion cell production>recycle>disposal cycle proposed by Elon, et al.
By how much? We should be able to get numbers here I would think....



I'm not resistant to the $$, that's ignorant, I've been right there with him, as it's been the most lucrative business over the last decade (especially considering the vast federal subsidies), but it's seriously flawed. As I said before, trading one ecological mess for another isn't a fix. The stress on the environment sourcing all the materials required to meet his goals will get ugly. Uglier than using the NG resources we already have available, as we switch to cleaner hydrogen extraction methods.
You're talking rare-earth mining, recycling & disposal vs a mythical "cleaner hydrogen extraction methods" - which haven't yet shown they are economically or efficiently viable on a commercial basis.


That's the press statement, and it sounds great, people really went ga-ga over it (it was very well written and I hear it made some people swoon) but... I guess we'll see how that actually works out. But hey, at the very least all those panels look really cool up there.
Right. So on the one hand, some mythical future way to efficiently produce Hydrogen that we haven't figured out yet is absolutely the way we should go. On the other hand, the construction and development currently on the ground "looks cool" and "we'll see" and isn't the right approach.

Okaaaayyyyy......
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; Jul 21, 2017 at 05:41 PM. )
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I'm sure the coal companies will invest in other sources as soon as doing so becomes cheaper. I'd like to see American roads electrified, powered by nuke power and the vehicles can become 200 percent lighter not needing batteries or fuel storage. I don't know anybody in the oil business but I do know folks in the coal business.
You mean as soon as someone else pays/does the research? A bit of a cop out. Lazy. Does that type of industry deserve being propped up and toadied to?

Otherwise, all those ideas sound good.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
This is a question that I ask a lot but seems to rarely get a response.....
I'd love to, and I have the research docs, but I also like not being sued (which has already happened once already, because I ran my mouth online).
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Jul 21, 2017 at 08:01 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 07:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Of course not.
Your self-righteousness was getting even beyond my ability to tolerate. "Unless you learned this the way *I* did... blah. blah."

No it doesn't.
Yes it does.

This is just stupid nonsense talk.

Using natural gas as a fuel source doesn't get us around the inherent problems in producing it sustainably at all....
We could easily make it "sustainably", in a matter of a few years, if motivated (and financed).

OK I'll bite. What studies have you seen and where? Mine is a fairly recent and widely cited study of WTW emissions published in I believe 2015 and easily Google-able. Thanks.
2015? Not that I can find.

What annoys me about this response is that you're assuming battery electric is also operating in a vacuum, when in fact the technology has continued to evolve - and in fact at a much faster pace than HFC.

So "to date" applies to both of them. Which ultimately is a good thing, but not a reason to choose HFC over BEV at this point....
Except for all the waste from eventually disposing of those cells, and their production. You know, the stuff that EV worshippers like to gloss over.

....and yet you're applying that logic only to HFCs.....
Because HFCs don't produce mountains of shit we'll need to deal with later.

By how much? We should be able to get numbers here I would think....
When they're published online, you'll have them?

You're talking rare-earth mining, recycling & disposal vs a mythical "cleaner hydrogen extraction methods" - which haven't yet shown they are economically or efficiently viable on a commercial basis.
The big money is in one corner, batteries, and the renewable energy market has sunk all they have into it, for good or ill. If as much money had been invested in HFCs you'd see parity in viability, at the very least.

Right. So on the one hand, some mythical future way to efficiently produce Hydrogen that we haven't figured out yet is absolutely the way we should go. On the other hand, the construction and development currently on the ground "looks cool" and "we'll see" and isn't the right approach.

Okaaaayyyyy......
I can't deal with you sarcastic bullshit anymore, it's like nails on a chalkboard. Just talk to yourself. Ugh.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 08:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I'd like to see American roads electrified, powered by nuke power and the vehicles can become 200 percent lighter not needing batteries or fuel storage.
Why insist on nuclear power? It is more expensive than renewables (especially wind) at this point, it makes no financial sense to invest in nuclear power plants these days even if you forget about the problem of nuclear waste.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 10:04 PM
 
Nuclear doesn't have intermittency issues, takes less space, and can be located arbitrarily distant from the source of fuel.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Nuclear doesn't have intermittency issues, takes less space, and can be located arbitrarily distant from the source of fuel.
Renewables also do not suffer from intermittency issues, these are solved problems and priced in already. You just need to design your electricity grid accordingly (and if you want to electrify roads, it goes without saying that you need to completely revamp your electricity grid). This ain't rocket science, it's being done in many countries right now (including Germany). You'd be right that in certain countries the fact that, say, a solar farm takes up a lot of space could be problematic. But that isn't an issue for the US, because there are regions which have relatively predictable and constant winds as well as desert with a lot of sun.

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are no longer economically competitive and are becoming less so as the prices for solar and wind drops further. The operating costs are much lower for renewables. If you have a coal or gas power plant, you need a constant supply of fuel which means you need a pipeline or trains full of fuel and the whole infrastructure that comes with it. Renewables are remarkably low maintenance, and you don't have catastrophic failures either.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 11:04 PM
 
I'm going on what I was given in the article.

"On the renewable front, costs to overcome intermittency of renewable energy sources (basically, presuming a very high penetration of renewables on the grid) are also not included"

If these aren't included, I doubt the cost of redesigning the grid is included either.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 11:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yes it does.
We could easily make it "sustainably", in a matter of a few years, if motivated (and financed).
.....using "economies of scale" I assume?

I'd settled for some basic explanations involving science and chemistry here


2015? Not that I can find.
Literally the 3rd Google result with relevant search terms. I trust you're simply being deliberately obtuse and not something more...unfortunate.


Except for all the waste from eventually disposing of those cells, and their production. You know, the stuff that EV worshippers like to gloss over.
Battery recycling and disposal has literally been one of the biggest question marks of BEVs - stop resorting to form and making up imaginary conspiracy theories.

And in fact, one of the primary issues in doing so has been......economies of scale.

Because HFCs don't produce mountains of shit we'll need to deal with later.
When they're published online, you'll have them?
Lmao. Oh you're nothing if not unoriginal. Shaddim proves true to form with the old "it's an exclusive secret that only I can know" routine.

The big money is in one corner, batteries, and the renewable energy market has sunk all they have into it, for good or ill. If as much money had been invested in HFCs you'd see parity in viability, at the very least.
You don't really get it. I'm going to assume this is something that your companies earnestly tell you every quarter? Are you deliberately ignoring the enormous sums sunk into HFC by some of the largest auto manufacturers in the world? The issue is that we can't yet figure out how to produce and transfer it without it ending up being more expensive from an efficiency standpoint than the available alternatives like BEVs.

Look, I think the concept of building a worldwide hydrogen pipeline system is.....let's call it interesting to say the least. But we all need more tha. Pie-in the-sky investor-speak is great......but you're going to have to wait to get your money until you show us those super-secret R&D results you've been hiding under your bed.

I can't deal with you sarcastic bullshit anymore, it's like nails on a chalkboard. Just talk to yourself. Ugh.
Yup. Take your toys and go home when your badly flawed logic is exposed.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; Jul 22, 2017 at 11:36 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm going on what I was given in the article.

"On the renewable front, costs to overcome intermittency of renewable energy sources (basically, presuming a very high penetration of renewables on the grid) are also not included"
A traditional energy grid splits power demands into base load, mid load and peak load. This distinction is necessary, because large nuclear or coal power plants cannot quickly change their energy output. Plus, they become very inefficient (if you throttle a coal power plant to 50 % of its peak output it still consumes 80 % of coals as compared to running it at full tilt). Mid load and peak load power plants can adjust their power output more quickly, but at a higher cost per Wh. Peak load power plants include energy storage (such as pumped storage hydroelectricity, batteries and hydroelectric dams). “Fueling” traffic with a bunch of nuclear power plants will not be possible.

Renewables require a more flexible energy grid which on the one hand is more delocalized but on the other allows for energy transmission over longer distances if necessary. Local fluctuations in energy production are compensated for by transferring power from other regions. With the exception of solar, other forms of renewables are available 24/7. Fortunately, energy demand is larger during the day, so the availability of solar power during the day slots nicely into the demand curve. Renewables are excellent for replacing base load power plants such as nuclear power plants. Intermittency is more of a problem for covering what was mid and peak load — load types which are not covered by nuclear power plants.

Of course, there is a lot of research into newer forms of energy storage (such as molten salt, flywheels, compressed air or batteries) that would allow some regions (villages or small cities) to be essentially energy-independent. You'd just need to be connected to the grid in case energy production is insufficient (for a discussion by an engineer who is an expert on the topic, I suggest you listen to episode 2 John Chidgey's Pragmatic as well as the few follow-up episodes).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 12:01 AM
 
I repeat, this isn't factored into the cost analysis provided as evidence renewables are currently a cheaper option than nuclear.

That was the original claim. Renewables are currently a cheaper than nuclear. It makes no sense to invest in a nuclear plant.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I repeat, this isn't factored into the cost analysis provided as evidence renewables are currently a cheaper option than nuclear.
The context here was quite specific: revamp the electricity grid to power roads, so you need investments on a huge scale — and it is these investments that are necessary to make renewables viable as the main (and later sole) mean of energy generation. This is what is currently slowing down further adoption of wind power in Germany: to supply the south with power, wind energy from offshort wind parks needs to be transported with “energy highways” — which haven't been completed yet.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That was the original claim. Renewables are currently a cheaper than nuclear. It makes no sense to invest in a nuclear plant.
That's all I wanted to say in my response to BadKosh.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 06:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Yup. Take your toys and go home when your badly flawed logic is exposed.
Nope, just tired of dealing with your mental/emotional issues (or whatever is wrong with you). You aren't worth it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Nope, just tired of dealing with your mental/emotional issues (or whatever is wrong with you). You aren't worth it.
Wait, so you are disrespectful to his background and obvious knowledge in this subject matter because your insecurity that stimulates your demonstrating yourself as an expert in yet another subject prevails, and he has the mental/emotional issues (and you are a climate change denier to boot)?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Wait *snip*
No. Digging through a mountain of sarcasm and mockery in every reply gets old, and the same goes for your crap.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No. Digging through a mountain of sarcasm and mockery in every reply gets old, and the same goes for your crap.
Having to coax some modesty and respect out of you gets very old too.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 08:26 PM
 
^^ As if you (and 90% of the other people on `NN) are a model for either? Of course, your idea of "respect" is that someone agrees with you entirely, as you've already demonstrated in this very thread, multiple times.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 08:32 PM
 
Calmness - this isn't the end of the world. At worst, some densely-populated locations will end up under water. Along with some very expensive beach-front properties. It will happen slowly enough that we can refinance along the way.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Calmness - this isn't the end of the world. At worst, some densely-populated locations will end up under water. Along with some very expensive beach-front properties. It will happen slowly enough that we can refinance along the way.
This is essentially how I feel.

Humans are adaptable and innovative. We can handle anything up to the following:

1) Runaway greenhouse
2) Flatline the oceans

Both of these are highly unlikely scenarios.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:08 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,