Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › $100 barrel of oil, here we come….
- This topic has 115 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 2, 2007 at 6:04 PM #95024November 2, 2007 at 6:04 PM #95028
drunkle
Participantheh. i’ve been tossing the idea of a diesel turbine/electric hybrid around for awhile. good to see someone doing it.
an interesting advance in air flow analysis will hopefully produce more efficient turbines to boot.
note, the best solution imo is still a pure electric. as noted by the other poster, electricity is more efficient, has bigger potential, lower costs, better environmental impact…
November 2, 2007 at 7:33 PM #94968Arraya
ParticipantYou guys are missing the bigger picture. There are a few premises you must first understand.
1: Technology is not energy
2: Basically the earth is a closed loop system and we can neither create nor destroy energy, we merely gather it.Unfortunately, we gathered all the best stuff first and now we will have to concoct a myriad of ways to gather energy in energy intensive ways. Thusly losing vast amounts of efficiency from our current paradigm of gathering energy.
In a post peak world we will have a mosaic of alternatives that cannot nearly fill the energy VOID if peak happens within the next 5-10 years at current technology levels and thats even with small % declines. Maybe if we have a full scale “Apollo” mission it could be achieved within a decade w/o terrible consequences. But what are the chances of that happing in the next year or two on a global scale.
Currently there seems to be a growing chorus of experts that say it will be between now and 2011. A few say it happened in 06 and if the current production levels persist thru the new year it looks like it could be true, though maybe on purpose(Saudi could be holding back).
My biggest concern is what happens when the world economy does not have unfettered access to cheap energy as it did in the past? Are all the world countries going to act like civilized adults and work it out? I personally think there will be a huge freak out moment when we really find out how it feels to conserve. It’s the human nature aspect that will get us.
Sprinkle a little climate change, eco-system destruction, water shortages and other resource depletion, financial alchemy and overpopulation into the mix and we have the perfect storm. But I’m sure the invisable hand will take care of all that.
All the while Atlanta decides that it would be a good idea to stop watering lawns just a week or two ago when they have only 80 days of water left. Curious to see how that one plays out. Not a good sign of how we are going react on a global level.
I think we could get of this crisis relatively painlessly with a massive, well planned out group effort, but will invariably will pick the more destructive path. Hell, outlawing non-emergeny single car commuters would save us years but I’d bet we would invade another country before that.
“If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.”
— “God’s Utility Function”
Sir Richard Dawkins
Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85Today on CNBC
November 2, 2007 at 7:33 PM #95023ParticipantYou guys are missing the bigger picture. There are a few premises you must first understand.
1: Technology is not energy
2: Basically the earth is a closed loop system and we can neither create nor destroy energy, we merely gather it.Unfortunately, we gathered all the best stuff first and now we will have to concoct a myriad of ways to gather energy in energy intensive ways. Thusly losing vast amounts of efficiency from our current paradigm of gathering energy.
In a post peak world we will have a mosaic of alternatives that cannot nearly fill the energy VOID if peak happens within the next 5-10 years at current technology levels and thats even with small % declines. Maybe if we have a full scale “Apollo” mission it could be achieved within a decade w/o terrible consequences. But what are the chances of that happing in the next year or two on a global scale.
Currently there seems to be a growing chorus of experts that say it will be between now and 2011. A few say it happened in 06 and if the current production levels persist thru the new year it looks like it could be true, though maybe on purpose(Saudi could be holding back).
My biggest concern is what happens when the world economy does not have unfettered access to cheap energy as it did in the past? Are all the world countries going to act like civilized adults and work it out? I personally think there will be a huge freak out moment when we really find out how it feels to conserve. It’s the human nature aspect that will get us.
Sprinkle a little climate change, eco-system destruction, water shortages and other resource depletion, financial alchemy and overpopulation into the mix and we have the perfect storm. But I’m sure the invisable hand will take care of all that.
All the while Atlanta decides that it would be a good idea to stop watering lawns just a week or two ago when they have only 80 days of water left. Curious to see how that one plays out. Not a good sign of how we are going react on a global level.
I think we could get of this crisis relatively painlessly with a massive, well planned out group effort, but will invariably will pick the more destructive path. Hell, outlawing non-emergeny single car commuters would save us years but I’d bet we would invade another country before that.
“If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.”
— “God’s Utility Function”
Sir Richard Dawkins
Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85Today on CNBC
November 2, 2007 at 7:33 PM #95029ParticipantYou guys are missing the bigger picture. There are a few premises you must first understand.
1: Technology is not energy
2: Basically the earth is a closed loop system and we can neither create nor destroy energy, we merely gather it.Unfortunately, we gathered all the best stuff first and now we will have to concoct a myriad of ways to gather energy in energy intensive ways. Thusly losing vast amounts of efficiency from our current paradigm of gathering energy.
In a post peak world we will have a mosaic of alternatives that cannot nearly fill the energy VOID if peak happens within the next 5-10 years at current technology levels and thats even with small % declines. Maybe if we have a full scale “Apollo” mission it could be achieved within a decade w/o terrible consequences. But what are the chances of that happing in the next year or two on a global scale.
Currently there seems to be a growing chorus of experts that say it will be between now and 2011. A few say it happened in 06 and if the current production levels persist thru the new year it looks like it could be true, though maybe on purpose(Saudi could be holding back).
My biggest concern is what happens when the world economy does not have unfettered access to cheap energy as it did in the past? Are all the world countries going to act like civilized adults and work it out? I personally think there will be a huge freak out moment when we really find out how it feels to conserve. It’s the human nature aspect that will get us.
Sprinkle a little climate change, eco-system destruction, water shortages and other resource depletion, financial alchemy and overpopulation into the mix and we have the perfect storm. But I’m sure the invisable hand will take care of all that.
All the while Atlanta decides that it would be a good idea to stop watering lawns just a week or two ago when they have only 80 days of water left. Curious to see how that one plays out. Not a good sign of how we are going react on a global level.
I think we could get of this crisis relatively painlessly with a massive, well planned out group effort, but will invariably will pick the more destructive path. Hell, outlawing non-emergeny single car commuters would save us years but I’d bet we would invade another country before that.
“If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.”
— “God’s Utility Function”
Sir Richard Dawkins
Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85Today on CNBC
November 2, 2007 at 7:33 PM #95034ParticipantYou guys are missing the bigger picture. There are a few premises you must first understand.
1: Technology is not energy
2: Basically the earth is a closed loop system and we can neither create nor destroy energy, we merely gather it.Unfortunately, we gathered all the best stuff first and now we will have to concoct a myriad of ways to gather energy in energy intensive ways. Thusly losing vast amounts of efficiency from our current paradigm of gathering energy.
In a post peak world we will have a mosaic of alternatives that cannot nearly fill the energy VOID if peak happens within the next 5-10 years at current technology levels and thats even with small % declines. Maybe if we have a full scale “Apollo” mission it could be achieved within a decade w/o terrible consequences. But what are the chances of that happing in the next year or two on a global scale.
Currently there seems to be a growing chorus of experts that say it will be between now and 2011. A few say it happened in 06 and if the current production levels persist thru the new year it looks like it could be true, though maybe on purpose(Saudi could be holding back).
My biggest concern is what happens when the world economy does not have unfettered access to cheap energy as it did in the past? Are all the world countries going to act like civilized adults and work it out? I personally think there will be a huge freak out moment when we really find out how it feels to conserve. It’s the human nature aspect that will get us.
Sprinkle a little climate change, eco-system destruction, water shortages and other resource depletion, financial alchemy and overpopulation into the mix and we have the perfect storm. But I’m sure the invisable hand will take care of all that.
All the while Atlanta decides that it would be a good idea to stop watering lawns just a week or two ago when they have only 80 days of water left. Curious to see how that one plays out. Not a good sign of how we are going react on a global level.
I think we could get of this crisis relatively painlessly with a massive, well planned out group effort, but will invariably will pick the more destructive path. Hell, outlawing non-emergeny single car commuters would save us years but I’d bet we would invade another country before that.
“If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.”
— “God’s Utility Function”
Sir Richard Dawkins
Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85Today on CNBC
November 2, 2007 at 9:08 PM #94988ucodegen
Participantucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”
I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way?
Because the nature of the chemistry involved. Batteries are capturing the charge that moves in a reaction. The reaction involves few bonds. In the case of gasoline, the reaction involves several bonds and several exothermic reactions. If you notice, the higher capacity batteries are almost (but not quite) like explosive (ie: Lithium Ion batteries) The chemistry in these batteries have to be very reactive to produce the electrical energy. But these batteries end up producing even more energy if they burn (but then they can’t be recharged).
Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.
Not really. Ultra capacitors will never be able to store the amount of energy in a battery. That is because capacitors (even ultra caps) store energy at a physical structural level(several atoms in size) while a battery stores energy at an atomic level. Ultra caps are useful for storing moderate amounts of energy over a short time (they leak energy) and being able to dump that energy incredibly rapidly. They can be used to flatten peaks in the demand and fill up the valleys.. ie: discharge an ultra cap when acceleration and recharge when de-accelerating. You need very high currents during both of these, but between.. the demand is low.I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas… This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.
Are you taking into account transmission losses (radiated, resistive and inductive coupling)? Step down transformer losses? These loses are quite considerable, and are part of the reason why several companies have resorted to generating their electricity on site (UCSD is an example). If you look at the cost of generating electricity with an engine vs what it costs to produce with your own generator, it can come quite close. This ignores that the electrical generating stations get a break on the cost of fuel (buy in bulk – Costco model, don’t have consumption taxes – no gasoline tax, can sell their waste heat to factories near by). I have read the same.. but using my EE-CE background and running the numbers, it just ain’t so. In fact these losses are so great that power companies try to get the generating station as close to the point of consumption as possible.
Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.
There are people already doing this. The problem is that you need over 2000sq ft with full sun visibility to have it effective. Using solar panels at the site of consumption(house) is more effective than off in the desert somewhere. You have eliminated the electrical transmission losses. The one problem in “price of solar panels comes down” is that they are already subsidized (through tax offsets). You need large amounts of very pure silicon (same type you make computer chips from) to make solar cells (99+% pure is very expensive) Even then, you are looking at a conversion efficiency under 10% except for expensive exotics. The reason why it is hard to get any higher than this has to do with quantum physics; energy of a photon and electrical breakdown voltage threshold in a semiconductor junction. Each wavelength of light has a different energy in Volts, though each contributes 1 electron of charge at that potential.I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.
This will only be feasible of you tax the crap out of gasoline and subsidize electricity. Electrical companies are all for this.@kewp
There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.Yep there are. It is interesting how it takes only one auto company to prod things into motion. Example: the direct injection gasoline(not diesel) engine that Audi and Mazda are coming out with/using was first being designed back around 1982 (or before. ’82 was when I first heard about it).
@arraya
We don’t panic very easily around here… so don’t bother. There is still an incredible amount of energy around (in one form or another)… so the population will continue to grow…November 2, 2007 at 9:08 PM #95044Participantucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”
I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way?
Because the nature of the chemistry involved. Batteries are capturing the charge that moves in a reaction. The reaction involves few bonds. In the case of gasoline, the reaction involves several bonds and several exothermic reactions. If you notice, the higher capacity batteries are almost (but not quite) like explosive (ie: Lithium Ion batteries) The chemistry in these batteries have to be very reactive to produce the electrical energy. But these batteries end up producing even more energy if they burn (but then they can’t be recharged).
Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.
Not really. Ultra capacitors will never be able to store the amount of energy in a battery. That is because capacitors (even ultra caps) store energy at a physical structural level(several atoms in size) while a battery stores energy at an atomic level. Ultra caps are useful for storing moderate amounts of energy over a short time (they leak energy) and being able to dump that energy incredibly rapidly. They can be used to flatten peaks in the demand and fill up the valleys.. ie: discharge an ultra cap when acceleration and recharge when de-accelerating. You need very high currents during both of these, but between.. the demand is low.I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas… This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.
Are you taking into account transmission losses (radiated, resistive and inductive coupling)? Step down transformer losses? These loses are quite considerable, and are part of the reason why several companies have resorted to generating their electricity on site (UCSD is an example). If you look at the cost of generating electricity with an engine vs what it costs to produce with your own generator, it can come quite close. This ignores that the electrical generating stations get a break on the cost of fuel (buy in bulk – Costco model, don’t have consumption taxes – no gasoline tax, can sell their waste heat to factories near by). I have read the same.. but using my EE-CE background and running the numbers, it just ain’t so. In fact these losses are so great that power companies try to get the generating station as close to the point of consumption as possible.
Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.
There are people already doing this. The problem is that you need over 2000sq ft with full sun visibility to have it effective. Using solar panels at the site of consumption(house) is more effective than off in the desert somewhere. You have eliminated the electrical transmission losses. The one problem in “price of solar panels comes down” is that they are already subsidized (through tax offsets). You need large amounts of very pure silicon (same type you make computer chips from) to make solar cells (99+% pure is very expensive) Even then, you are looking at a conversion efficiency under 10% except for expensive exotics. The reason why it is hard to get any higher than this has to do with quantum physics; energy of a photon and electrical breakdown voltage threshold in a semiconductor junction. Each wavelength of light has a different energy in Volts, though each contributes 1 electron of charge at that potential.I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.
This will only be feasible of you tax the crap out of gasoline and subsidize electricity. Electrical companies are all for this.@kewp
There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.Yep there are. It is interesting how it takes only one auto company to prod things into motion. Example: the direct injection gasoline(not diesel) engine that Audi and Mazda are coming out with/using was first being designed back around 1982 (or before. ’82 was when I first heard about it).
@arraya
We don’t panic very easily around here… so don’t bother. There is still an incredible amount of energy around (in one form or another)… so the population will continue to grow…November 2, 2007 at 9:08 PM #95052Participantucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”
I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way?
Because the nature of the chemistry involved. Batteries are capturing the charge that moves in a reaction. The reaction involves few bonds. In the case of gasoline, the reaction involves several bonds and several exothermic reactions. If you notice, the higher capacity batteries are almost (but not quite) like explosive (ie: Lithium Ion batteries) The chemistry in these batteries have to be very reactive to produce the electrical energy. But these batteries end up producing even more energy if they burn (but then they can’t be recharged).
Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.
Not really. Ultra capacitors will never be able to store the amount of energy in a battery. That is because capacitors (even ultra caps) store energy at a physical structural level(several atoms in size) while a battery stores energy at an atomic level. Ultra caps are useful for storing moderate amounts of energy over a short time (they leak energy) and being able to dump that energy incredibly rapidly. They can be used to flatten peaks in the demand and fill up the valleys.. ie: discharge an ultra cap when acceleration and recharge when de-accelerating. You need very high currents during both of these, but between.. the demand is low.I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas… This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.
Are you taking into account transmission losses (radiated, resistive and inductive coupling)? Step down transformer losses? These loses are quite considerable, and are part of the reason why several companies have resorted to generating their electricity on site (UCSD is an example). If you look at the cost of generating electricity with an engine vs what it costs to produce with your own generator, it can come quite close. This ignores that the electrical generating stations get a break on the cost of fuel (buy in bulk – Costco model, don’t have consumption taxes – no gasoline tax, can sell their waste heat to factories near by). I have read the same.. but using my EE-CE background and running the numbers, it just ain’t so. In fact these losses are so great that power companies try to get the generating station as close to the point of consumption as possible.
Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.
There are people already doing this. The problem is that you need over 2000sq ft with full sun visibility to have it effective. Using solar panels at the site of consumption(house) is more effective than off in the desert somewhere. You have eliminated the electrical transmission losses. The one problem in “price of solar panels comes down” is that they are already subsidized (through tax offsets). You need large amounts of very pure silicon (same type you make computer chips from) to make solar cells (99+% pure is very expensive) Even then, you are looking at a conversion efficiency under 10% except for expensive exotics. The reason why it is hard to get any higher than this has to do with quantum physics; energy of a photon and electrical breakdown voltage threshold in a semiconductor junction. Each wavelength of light has a different energy in Volts, though each contributes 1 electron of charge at that potential.I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.
This will only be feasible of you tax the crap out of gasoline and subsidize electricity. Electrical companies are all for this.@kewp
There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.Yep there are. It is interesting how it takes only one auto company to prod things into motion. Example: the direct injection gasoline(not diesel) engine that Audi and Mazda are coming out with/using was first being designed back around 1982 (or before. ’82 was when I first heard about it).
@arraya
We don’t panic very easily around here… so don’t bother. There is still an incredible amount of energy around (in one form or another)… so the population will continue to grow…November 2, 2007 at 9:08 PM #95055Participantucodegen, you said “There is no way for a battery to contain the same amount of energy per pound as a gallon of gasoline.”
I agree that today’s batteries can’t, but why do you say that there is no way?
Because the nature of the chemistry involved. Batteries are capturing the charge that moves in a reaction. The reaction involves few bonds. In the case of gasoline, the reaction involves several bonds and several exothermic reactions. If you notice, the higher capacity batteries are almost (but not quite) like explosive (ie: Lithium Ion batteries) The chemistry in these batteries have to be very reactive to produce the electrical energy. But these batteries end up producing even more energy if they burn (but then they can’t be recharged).
Also, I’ve heard of ultra capacitors possibly being used in electric cars, which could be a significant break through.
Not really. Ultra capacitors will never be able to store the amount of energy in a battery. That is because capacitors (even ultra caps) store energy at a physical structural level(several atoms in size) while a battery stores energy at an atomic level. Ultra caps are useful for storing moderate amounts of energy over a short time (they leak energy) and being able to dump that energy incredibly rapidly. They can be used to flatten peaks in the demand and fill up the valleys.. ie: discharge an ultra cap when acceleration and recharge when de-accelerating. You need very high currents during both of these, but between.. the demand is low.I’ve read that that the “well-to-wheel” efficiency is better using an electric car than a gasoline car. In other words, generating electricity at a remotely located power plant using a gallon of gas… This is because the power plant is much more efficient and clean in the power conversion process.
Are you taking into account transmission losses (radiated, resistive and inductive coupling)? Step down transformer losses? These loses are quite considerable, and are part of the reason why several companies have resorted to generating their electricity on site (UCSD is an example). If you look at the cost of generating electricity with an engine vs what it costs to produce with your own generator, it can come quite close. This ignores that the electrical generating stations get a break on the cost of fuel (buy in bulk – Costco model, don’t have consumption taxes – no gasoline tax, can sell their waste heat to factories near by). I have read the same.. but using my EE-CE background and running the numbers, it just ain’t so. In fact these losses are so great that power companies try to get the generating station as close to the point of consumption as possible.
Once the price of solar panels comes down, people can install panels on their roof and possibly drive with only the cost of vehicle maintenance.
There are people already doing this. The problem is that you need over 2000sq ft with full sun visibility to have it effective. Using solar panels at the site of consumption(house) is more effective than off in the desert somewhere. You have eliminated the electrical transmission losses. The one problem in “price of solar panels comes down” is that they are already subsidized (through tax offsets). You need large amounts of very pure silicon (same type you make computer chips from) to make solar cells (99+% pure is very expensive) Even then, you are looking at a conversion efficiency under 10% except for expensive exotics. The reason why it is hard to get any higher than this has to do with quantum physics; energy of a photon and electrical breakdown voltage threshold in a semiconductor junction. Each wavelength of light has a different energy in Volts, though each contributes 1 electron of charge at that potential.I admit we likely do not have the power generation facilities to accommodate a large number of electric cars today, but it is certainly a feasible alternative in the near future.
This will only be feasible of you tax the crap out of gasoline and subsidize electricity. Electrical companies are all for this.@kewp
There are much more efficient engine designs available, its just no one has brought them to market yet. I guess the invisible hand is going to change that shortly.Yep there are. It is interesting how it takes only one auto company to prod things into motion. Example: the direct injection gasoline(not diesel) engine that Audi and Mazda are coming out with/using was first being designed back around 1982 (or before. ’82 was when I first heard about it).
@arraya
We don’t panic very easily around here… so don’t bother. There is still an incredible amount of energy around (in one form or another)… so the population will continue to grow…November 2, 2007 at 11:33 PM #95014DaCounselor
ParticipantI’m not sure what Pirrong is trying to say. At the end of the day, the global market sets the price. If investors move the market, they have a hand in setting the price. Bidding up futures contracts will have that effect, regardless of how truly sound or unsound market underpinnings are at the time.
November 2, 2007 at 11:33 PM #95072ParticipantI’m not sure what Pirrong is trying to say. At the end of the day, the global market sets the price. If investors move the market, they have a hand in setting the price. Bidding up futures contracts will have that effect, regardless of how truly sound or unsound market underpinnings are at the time.
November 2, 2007 at 11:33 PM #95078ParticipantI’m not sure what Pirrong is trying to say. At the end of the day, the global market sets the price. If investors move the market, they have a hand in setting the price. Bidding up futures contracts will have that effect, regardless of how truly sound or unsound market underpinnings are at the time.
November 2, 2007 at 11:33 PM #95082ParticipantI’m not sure what Pirrong is trying to say. At the end of the day, the global market sets the price. If investors move the market, they have a hand in setting the price. Bidding up futures contracts will have that effect, regardless of how truly sound or unsound market underpinnings are at the time.
November 3, 2007 at 2:07 AM #95004ParticipantNot trying to panic.
The underlying problem is not energy but time scales. And the real problem is will we not only convert to new energy sources but continue to grow our energy usage on a time scale that will prevent major disruptions in our society.
People are concerned about our ability to transition are also suggesting that we take a more balanced approach to energy and energy usage and maintain and increase our standards of living in the happiness and health sense.
It does not have to be measured in energy consumption.We can probably build enough coal/nuclear and even better renewable resources no matter what to ensure that some small fraction of society can maintain an nice lifestyle. I think the chance of a complete breakdown is very low.
So for me the real underlying problem is who gets technology
this is an issue of how much we create and when.“so the population will continue to grow…”
Unfortunately it will only to exacebate future problems, but only temporarily.
Do you think that is what they said when the cut down the last tree on Easter Island?
Infinate growth does not work on a finite world. It has its consequences to try and do it. The sad thing is that it is overly obvious yet we act like that it is not true.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.