Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Alternative Energy (general) Thread pt 3(merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventi

Unread postby Timo » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 12:27:46

Not to rain on the parade of good news here, but the competitiveness of solar and wind is highly dependent on the price of fossil fuels, and oil is forecast to drop as low as $60/bl in 2015. Oil at that low price will greatly lessen the demand for cleaner alternatives. If renewables want to stay competitive, imo, fossil fuels should be taxed at a rate that maintains the parity in the prices of KWHs produced by all technologies of energy production. I may not have said that right, but gasoline should be taxed at a higher rate to encourage the adaptation of electric vehicles. For every 1 gallon of gas, which weighs about 6 lbs., when burned, it releases 20 lbs of CO2. The entire planet has a vested interest in weaning ourselves off of ICE vehicles. The entire planet should price oil and gasoline accordingly. Not doing so only make the problem worse, and delays any progress is addressing the AGW problem we're all facing. Also, a great deal of my retirement investments are in solar ETFs. Right now, they're tanking because of low oil prices.
Timo
 

Re: Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventi

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 16:52:32

Timo, solar and wind do not compete in the transportation sector. They compete in the power sector. And oil is a tiny player in the power sector. It does not drive power prices.

By the early 1980s, oil prices cratered, and America’s energy consciousness did, too. Over the next 20 years, sport-utility vehicles eclipsed small sedans, the size of the average suburban house soared, and subsidies for renewable energy waned. Energy was cheap again—and so was talk of America having shed its profligate ways. Now, as oil prices drop again—they were at $81 a barrel on Wednesday, down 23% from $105 in June—it’s fair to suspect that history is about to repeat itself. But this time, there are intriguing signs that those green shoots will survive a cheap-oil winter.

Oil in the United States is overwhelmingly a transportation fuel. Electricity generation, which consumes more total energy than any other U.S. sector, uses only a negligible bit of oil. That’s an important change from the 1970s, the last time oil prices in the United States shot up and stayed high. Back then, the power sector used one in ten barrels of oil the United States burned. But today, most U.S. electricity comes from burning natural gas and coal.

The power sector thus has been shifting from coal to lower-carbon natural gas, undergoing a cleanup that now will be hard to reverse. It’s conceivable that, if natural-gas prices rose even as oil prices continued to fall, the power sector could revert from natural gas to coal. But the prospects for that were made more difficult earlier this year, when the federal government essentially codified the dash to gas by rolling out new nationwide limits on coal-fired-power-plant emissions—caps that are likely to hasten the shutdown of more U.S. coal-fired power plants. Just as it has moved to natural gas, the U.S. power sector also is using unprecedented levels of renewable energy.

Times have changed since the dawn of the last era of cheap oil. Even assuming low oil prices are the new normal, a cleaner energy system probably is too.
Oil Prices Won't Hurt Green Gains
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 17:29:08

Monte, in an environment of expensive and scarce fossil fuels, why do you assume new alternative sources of energy will not get built? You say you like to look at history as a credible source and mentioned we should have acted in the 70s. But there was alternate sources of energy getting built then. For example:
a huge nuclear roll out in countries like France, the US, etc
Brazil's ethanol program
Israel's solar heating program
Increased interest in renewables such as Wind and Solar PV

Search for alternatives
The energy crisis led to greater interest in renewable energy and spurred research in solar power and wind power.

In Australia, heating oil ceased being considered an appropriate winter heating fuel. This often meant that a lot of oil-fired room heaters that were popular from the late-1950s to the early 1970s were considered outdated. Gas-conversion kits that let the heaters burn natural gas or propane were introduced.

The Brazilian government implemented a very large project in 1975 called "Proálcool" (pro-alcohol) that mixed ethanol with gasoline for automotive fuel.

Israel developed the prototype for a solar water heater now used in over 90% of Israeli homes.
1973 oil crisis

If we could initiate a build out of alternate energy in response to the energy crises of the 70s, why are you skeptical of it happening in a future energy scarcity?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 19:50:01

kublikhan wrote:Monte, in an environment of expensive and scarce fossil fuels, why do you assume new alternative sources of energy will not get built?


Because our monetary system will collapse when growth is no longer possible.

Dollars have value because they are IOU's, claims on future growth.

Loans that create money are based upon future growth.

Huge unrepayable debt.

Look what is happening even now, as FF's become more expensive. Even with interest rates at zero, we can hardly move the dial.

With over a trillion dollars a year in the US subsiding the economy.

And I also think existing demand will take precedence over new energy outlays with distant returns, if the people have a say in it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 20:11:14

An economic collapse doesn't mean society will just sit in the collapsed state forever. Argentina went through an economic collapse. Yet things stabilized there and they are more or less back on their feet, building new energy sources.

As a response to the 2001 economic crisis, electricity tariffs were converted to the Argentine peso and frozen in January 2002 through the Public Emergency and Exchange Regime Law. Together with high inflation (see Economy of Argentina) and the devaluation of the peso, many companies in the sector had to deal with high levels of debt in foreign currency under a scenario in which their revenues remained stable while their costs increased. This situation has led to severe underinvestment and unavailability to keep up with an increasing demand, factors that contributed to the 2003-2004 energy crisis. Since 2003, the government has been in the process of introducing modifications that allow for tariff increases. Industrial and commercial consumers' tariffs have already been raised (near 100% in nominal terms and 50% in real terms), but residential tariffs still remain the same.

In September 2006, SENER launched the Energy Plus (Energía Plus) program with the objective of increasing generation capacity and meeting the rising demand for electricity. In this new de-regulated market, only energy produced from new generation plants will be traded. The aim of the program is twofold. In one hand, it seeks to guarantee supply to residential consumers, public entities, and small and medium enterprises. On the other hand, it aims at encouraging self-generation by the industrial sector and electricity cogeneration.

Two new CCGT plants, the José de San Martín Thermoelectric and Manuel Belgrano Thermoelectric, of 830 MW each, are under construction and expected to start full operations at the beginning of 2009. Endesa, Total S.A., AES Corporation, Petrobras, EDF and Duke Energy are the main shareholders in the plants. Both plants, which have been financed through the FONINVEMEM (total investment amounts up to US$1,097 million), are expected to start full operations at the beginning of 2009.[35]

In addition, the Planning Ministry announced in July 2007 the commissioning of five new thermal plants with a total capacity of 1.6 GW and an overall investment of US$3,250 million. These dual-generation turbine (gas or fuel oil) plants, which are expected to start operations in 2008, will be located in Ensenada (540 MW), Necochea (270 MW), Campana (540 MW), Santa Fe (125 MW) and Córdoba (125 MW). Finally, Enarsa has recently launched bidding for eleven small and transportable generation units (15-30 MW each) and for other three larger generation units (50-100 MW) to be installed on barges. These new units, whose base price is still unknown, will add between 400 and 500 MW of new generation capacity.

In 2006, the Argentine government launched a plan to boost nuclear energy. the Embalse nuclear power plant, with 648 MW of generation capacity, will be refurbished to extend its operational life beyond 2011.

On the hydropower side, the Yacyretá dam's reservoir was elevated by 7 m to the height of 83 m as contemplated in its original design, which increased its capacity from 1,700 to 3,100 MW. This will lead to a 60% increase in its electricity output.
Electricity sector in Argentina
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 20:19:34

kublikhan wrote:An economic collapse doesn't mean society will just sit in the collapsed state forever.


I didn't say economic collapse. I said monetary collapse of fiat currencies world wide.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 20:26:21

Even if their is a worldwide monetary collapse, society is not going to sit in it's collapsed state forever. Eventually it will recover and start building new energy sources.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 20:45:32

kublikhan wrote:Even if their is a worldwide monetary collapse, society is not going to sit in it's collapsed state forever. Eventually it will recover and start building new energy sources.


Recovery assumes growth. Where will this energy come from for this growth?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 21:15:01

MonteQuest wrote:Recovery assumes growth. Where will this energy come from for this growth?
A variety of sources:
carefully husbanded fossil fuel sources
nuclear
renewables
etc
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 21:52:25

kublikhan wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:Recovery assumes growth. Where will this energy come from for this growth?
A variety of sources:
carefully husbanded fossil fuel sources
nuclear
renewables
etc


Other sources of energy have low energy returns. A growing population and a growing middle class requires increasing energy returns. The global economy is essentially capitalist, which means whatever is conserved is sold for profit, and in turn used for middle class conveniences as they have higher profit margins. The profits are reinvested with the expectation of even higher production and consumption.

Various threads in this forum reveal that we face multiple problems that amplify each other: peak oil (with renewable energy components dependent on oil), global warming, continued financial crisis (where growth through increased credit actually makes the problem worse, as financiers, households, and others expect higher profits, wages, and returns on their investment), supply issues for various material resources (including fresh water), increased armaments sales and military spending, growing environmental damage, etc. Other threads reveal that we are in overshoot, i.e., even with the current average ecological footprint per capita (given a world population where most consume little), we have already exceeded biocapacity. The latter will have to keep growing to ensure growth while the latter will shrink because of global warming and environmental damage.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 23:31:51

ralfy wrote:Other sources of energy have low energy returns.
Check out the EROEI figures here. With the exception of coal, most sources I listed have higher EROEI than modern fossil fuels. Hydro at 100 is even higher than coal. Wind at 18 is higher than oil & gas at 15. Even low EROEI solar pv is higher than shale oil or tar sands. The days of 100:1 EROEI oil are long gone. And for fossil fuels, once you use it it's gone. With Solar PV and wind, they can be recycled back into the next generation of energy generators for a fraction of the energy used to create them from scratch.

ralfy wrote:The global economy is essentially capitalist, which means whatever is conserved is sold for profit, and in turn used for middle class conveniences as they have higher profit margins. The profits are reinvested with the expectation of even higher production and consumption.
This feedback loop ignores the implication of higher energy costs. Either through basic supply and demand mechanisms such as depleting fossil fuel reserves driving up the price. Or through taxing energy, such as the European petrol taxes to encourage more economical uses of energy. This changes the equation. Also, every dollar spent in a capitalist economy is not equal. Goods and services with higher energy costs are going to respond more heavily to fluctuations in energy prices. For example, say a new energy tax was introduced and doubled the cost of energy. So you conserve energy by carpooling. Now you have some extra money in your pocket and spend it somewhere else in the economy. All energy intensive goods are services just went up in price so are looking like unattractive purchase options. So you spend your money on goods or services that have a low energy cost. Millions of consumers make the same decision. Economy wide energy consumption falls.

The K-B postulate seems less likely to hold for dedicated energy efficiency technologies such as thermal insulation, particularly when these are used by consumers or when they play a subsidiary role in economic production. These technologies have smaller effects on productivity and economic growth, with the result that economy-wide energy consumption is likely to be reduced.

Policy implications
Energy efficiency may be encouraged through policies that raise energy prices, such as carbon taxes, or through non-price policies such as building regulations.

3. Rebound effects may be mitigated through carbon/energy pricing – whether implemented through taxation or an emissions trading scheme
Carbon/energy pricing can reduce direct and indirect rebound effects by ensuring that the cost of energy services remains relatively constant while energy efficiency improves. Carbon/energy pricing needs to increase over time at a rate sufficient to accommodate both income growth and rebound effects, simply to prevent carbon emissions from increasing. It needs to increase more rapidly if emissions are to be reduced.

Secondary effects
Suppose energy efficiency improvements reduce natural gas consumption per unit of space heated by 10%. If there is no direct rebound effect, consumers will reduce expenditure on natural gas for space heating by 10%. If natural gas for heating accounts for 5% of total consumer expenditure, consumers will experience a 0.5% increase in their real disposable income. For the great majority of goods and services, input-output data suggests that the effective expenditure on energy should be less than 15% of the total expenditure. Hence, by this logic, the secondary effect should be only around one tenth of the direct effect.
The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Alternative Energy (general) Thread pt 3(merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 26 Nov 2014, 17:29:26

Matched 'hybrid' systems may hold key to wider use of renewable energy

The use of renewable energy in the United States could take a significant leap forward with improved storage technologies or more efforts to "match" different forms of alternative energy systems that provide an overall more steady flow of electricity, researchers say in a new report.

Historically, a major drawback to the use and cost-effectiveness of alternative energy systems has been that they are too variable -- if the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, a completely different energy system has to be available to pick up the slack. This lack of dependability is costly and inefficient.
But in an analysis just published in The Electricity Journal, scientists say that much of this problem could be addressed with enhanced energy storage technology or by developing "hybrid" systems in which, on a broader geographic scale, one form of renewable energy is ramping up even while the other is declining.

"Wind energy is already pretty cost-competitive and solar energy is quickly getting there," said Anna Kelly, a graduate student in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University, and an energy policy analyst. "The key to greater use of these and other technologies is to match them in smart-grid, connected systems.

"This is already being done successfully in a number of countries and the approach could be expanded."

For instance, the wind often blows more strongly at night in some regions, Kelly said, and solar technology can only produce energy during the day. By making more sophisticated use of that basic concept in a connected grid, and pairing it with more advanced forms of energy storage, the door could be opened for a much wider use of renewable energy systems, scientists say.


sciencedaily
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 26 Nov 2014, 21:24:27

kublikhan wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:Recovery assumes growth. Where will this energy come from for this growth?
A variety of sources:
carefully husbanded fossil fuel sources
nuclear
renewables
etc


But the population has grown. Demand has risen. You have less energy with each passing day as oil declines initially at 4.5 to 7% and then accelerates as demand and price fall putting marginal plays out of business. Demand is going to have to fall faster than the decline rate of oil for you to have any energy for growth.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 26 Nov 2014, 21:46:46

kublikhan wrote:
ralfy wrote:Other sources of energy have low energy returns.
Check out the EROEI figures here. With the exception of coal, most sources I listed have higher EROEI than modern fossil fuels. Hydro at 100 is even higher than coal. Wind at 18 is higher than oil & gas at 15. Even low EROEI solar pv is higher than shale oil or tar sands. The days of 100:1 EROEI oil are long gone. And for fossil fuels, once you use it it's gone. With Solar PV and wind, they can be recycled back into the next generation of energy generators for a fraction of the energy used to create them from scratch.

ralfy wrote:The global economy is essentially capitalist, which means whatever is conserved is sold for profit, and in turn used for middle class conveniences as they have higher profit margins. The profits are reinvested with the expectation of even higher production and consumption.
This feedback loop ignores the implication of higher energy costs. Either through basic supply and demand mechanisms such as depleting fossil fuel reserves driving up the price. Or through taxing energy, such as the European petrol taxes to encourage more economical uses of energy. This changes the equation. Also, every dollar spent in a capitalist economy is not equal. Goods and services with higher energy costs are going to respond more heavily to fluctuations in energy prices. For example, say a new energy tax was introduced and doubled the cost of energy. So you conserve energy by carpooling. Now you have some extra money in your pocket and spend it somewhere else in the economy. All energy intensive goods are services just went up in price so are looking like unattractive purchase options. So you spend your money on goods or services that have a low energy cost. Millions of consumers make the same decision. Economy wide energy consumption falls.

The K-B postulate seems less likely to hold for dedicated energy efficiency technologies such as thermal insulation, particularly when these are used by consumers or when they play a subsidiary role in economic production. These technologies have smaller effects on productivity and economic growth, with the result that economy-wide energy consumption is likely to be reduced.

Policy implications
Energy efficiency may be encouraged through policies that raise energy prices, such as carbon taxes, or through non-price policies such as building regulations.

3. Rebound effects may be mitigated through carbon/energy pricing – whether implemented through taxation or an emissions trading scheme
Carbon/energy pricing can reduce direct and indirect rebound effects by ensuring that the cost of energy services remains relatively constant while energy efficiency improves. Carbon/energy pricing needs to increase over time at a rate sufficient to accommodate both income growth and rebound effects, simply to prevent carbon emissions from increasing. It needs to increase more rapidly if emissions are to be reduced.

Secondary effects
Suppose energy efficiency improvements reduce natural gas consumption per unit of space heated by 10%. If there is no direct rebound effect, consumers will reduce expenditure on natural gas for space heating by 10%. If natural gas for heating accounts for 5% of total consumer expenditure, consumers will experience a 0.5% increase in their real disposable income. For the great majority of goods and services, input-output data suggests that the effective expenditure on energy should be less than 15% of the total expenditure. Hence, by this logic, the secondary effect should be only around one tenth of the direct effect.
The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency


The U.S. alone needs an energy return of at least 40. And then there's energy quantity:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786

Given these points, the only "solution" is to decrease energy and material resource consumption significantly. But that can't be a solution in a global economy that requires the opposite.

Capitalism obviously ignores such implications as it is assumed that the global economy can continue growing as long as solar energy is a solution. But it's not a solution.

Conservation ultimately doesn't take place in capitalism as unused resources are sold for profit and then used to generate more profits.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 26 Nov 2014, 23:28:56

ralfy wrote: Given these points, the only "solution" is to decrease energy and material resource consumption significantly. But that can't be a solution in a global economy that requires the opposite.


Precisely. Our capitalistic system only knows one way; up. Our money system only works with continuous growth.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby kublikhan » Thu 27 Nov 2014, 01:59:03

ralfy wrote:The U.S. alone needs an energy return of at least 40.
The US alone? Did you mean: "The biggest energy pig on the planet needs..." I would like to know how that calculation was done anyway. Considering oil and gas, which provide 2/3rds of our energy, only have an EROEI of about 15. My math says the US is already quite a bit below an EROEI of 40.

ralfy wrote:Given these points, the only "solution" is to decrease energy and material resource consumption significantly. But that can't be a solution in a global economy that requires the opposite.

Capitalism obviously ignores such implications as it is assumed that the global economy can continue growing as long as solar energy is a solution. But it's not a solution.
Why is solar not a solution?

ralfy wrote:Conservation ultimately doesn't take place in capitalism as unused resources are sold for profit and then used to generate more profits
Then why have some countries successfully conserved resources? For example, Germany cut it's oil consumption. Even during years of cheap oil:
Germany Crude Oil consumption

Also, what solution would you propose ralfy?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby Ulenspiegel » Thu 27 Nov 2014, 04:35:15

Hint: You do not have cheap oil in Germany. Taxes are very high for transportation fuel, so we are talking about expensive oil and very expensive oil. :-)
Ulenspiegel
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 02:15:29

Re: Is solar energy the solution?

Unread postby Ulenspiegel » Thu 27 Nov 2014, 04:41:57

MonteQuest wrote:
ralfy wrote: Given these points, the only "solution" is to decrease energy and material resource consumption significantly. But that can't be a solution in a global economy that requires the opposite.


Precisely. Our capitalistic system only knows one way; up. Our money system only works with continuous growth.


Sorry, that neglects the increase of efficiency. You can produce more with less input. When efficiency is cheaper, e.g. due to fuel taxes, it is used.

That is of course no long term fix but may allow us to muddle through ("transition under stress") the next two or three decades.

BTW: Even an different economic structure reqires an shift from "finite" energy carriers to something better.
Ulenspiegel
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 02:15:29

Re: Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventi

Unread postby AndyA » Thu 27 Nov 2014, 19:47:06

I have been hearing this for a few years now. I think if wind and solar were winning in price, and you could run your grid without storage as has been proclaimed many times, then we would be seeing a lot of these plants constructed especially in China which is having issues with pollution from coal. Yet the Chinese keep on building coal plants despite the costs, either they are stupid or someone is spouting off hot air? Who knows? Who cares? I mean enough to turn off the AC, or use a clothesline.
If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease. -Sen-ts'an
AndyA
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat 10 Aug 2013, 00:26:33

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests