Recommended Posts

(edited)

45 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

How much better? Based on "SWAG's" from the AGW religionists, Texas should never have seen single digit temperatures. Didn't Texas get the memo? The whole world has a fever! That is, until you look closely and discover they've been lying, cooking the books, hiding data and censoring dissent. We shouldn't be surprised they used the exact same techniques this election, they've been getting away with it so long. 

Then we get to "reliability". I'm paying double what my power used to cost to compensate for the unreliability injected into the system from wind power in Washington State. Even though the state got 80% of its power from hydro, that wasn't considered "renewable". Places like Quebec pay 5 times what they used to for the exact same reason. This has nothing to do with reliability, this is just a secret tax on the rubes and it impacts the poor most of all. Congrats feel good greenies, you've done it again. 

I you wish to doubt my "evidence" for your "evidence" instead, that's fine.

Residential customers in Washington State pay, what, 25% less than the nation's average $/KWH? Quebec Hydro customers pay even less.  All because you and they are loaded with power sources that are driven by solar energy.

Residential power in Texas is more expensive than yours, as well.

As far as I know, Washington State's "grid" has not had to resort to any rotating outages in quite a while.  Ice storms cause localized outages at the distribution level.

Who do you think paid for all your Hydroelectric infrastructure, anyhow?  Both of us.

WTI's over $65.

If I were in your shoes, I'd be happy.

 

 

 

Edited by turbguy
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

One thing I'll say for you and Dan. You go back to your old saws faster than a wino reaches for a bottle. Yes, there's such thing as forecasting and no it is not the Gospel. How many times must I tell you that? You can go back through ERCOT forecasts for decades and find out they're not worth the paper they're printed on. They're just SWAG, scientific wild assed guesses. In point of fact, when wind is such a massive contributor to the mix, everything else shuts down and gets out of the way. I've explained this multiple times, can't you try to understand once? 

Yes, Ward, we are in violent agreement on this point. Wind is a variable source and cannot be depended on for power at any given instant in time, or even for energy in any given week. if you need a certain amount of peak power, you need to have baseline + dispatchable power to meet that peak, and you must count on wind for NONE of it. Wind is only useful to save on gas when the wind is blowing.

YES I understand that wind is a massive contributor when the wind  is blowing, and on a percentage basis, wind+solar can actually reach 100% of the non-baseline demand when the demand is low in spring and fall, causing the entire gas-fires and coal-fired fleet to go idle. In a properly managed system, this saves everybody money. This is not relevant to the February Texas blackouts: Wind was not designed to be a contributor to the grid in February. Those blackouts were caused primarily by freeze-offs of the NG supply and secondarily by NG (and nuclear and coal) failures to winterize.

When wind does by happy chance continue to blow more than you are counting on, you happily keep using the electricity and keep saving NG. This happened in late January, coincident with slightly higher-than predicted temperatures, which allowed wind to provide an unexpectedly high percentage of Texas' electricity. The analyst that wrote your report cherry-picked this single data point as the baseline for his comparison with the datapoint during the crisis just before gas-fired generation collapsed. He then took the absolute numbers, and rather than present them as percentages of provided power, he presented them as percentage changes. If I agree that the results (-93% for wind, +450% for gas-fired) are mathematically correct, will you at least agree that the absolute percentages are correct? ( wind drop from near 100% to less than 7% of wind capacity, gas from about 17% to above 90% of gas-fired capacity). These are the very same numbers either way. I really hope that there is nothing unexpected in the ability of the gas-fired generators to exceed 90% of their capacity: that is what they are designed to do and expected to do. On the other hand, I also really hope that there is nothing unexpected in the fact that sometimes the wind quits blowing.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now finally some clarity, looks like Texas is cowboying UP!. Good for them, perhaps the financial back story will emerge...this could lead to extreme consequences for the environmental community.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Texas-Strikes-Back-At-The-Anti-Fossil-Fuel-Lobby.html

Texas Strikes Back At The Anti-Fossil Fuel Lobby

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yes, Ward, we are in violent agreement on this point. Wind is a variable source and cannot be depended on for power at any given instant in time, or even for energy in any given week. if you need a certain amount of peak power, you need to have baseline + dispatchable power to meet that peak, and you must count on wind for NONE of it. Wind is only useful to save on gas when the wind is blowing.

YES I understand that wind is a massive contributor when the wind  is blowing, and on a percentage basis, wind+solar can actually reach 100% of the non-baseline demand when the demand is low in spring and fall, causing the entire gas-fires and coal-fired fleet to go idle. In a properly managed system, this saves everybody money. This is not relevant to the February Texas blackouts: Wind was not designed to be a contributor to the grid in February. Those blackouts were caused primarily by freeze-offs of the NG supply and secondarily by NG (and nuclear and coal) failures to winterize.

When wind does by happy chance continue to blow more than you are counting on, you happily keep using the electricity and keep saving NG. This happened in late January, coincident with slightly higher-than predicted temperatures, which allowed wind to provide an unexpectedly high percentage of Texas' electricity. The analyst that wrote your report cherry-picked this single data point as the baseline for his comparison with the datapoint during the crisis just before gas-fired generation collapsed. He then took the absolute numbers, and rather than present them as percentages of provided power, he presented them as percentage changes. If I agree that the results (-93% for wind, +450% for gas-fired) are mathematically correct, will you at least agree that the absolute percentages are correct? ( wind drop from near 100% to less than 7% of wind capacity, gas from about 17% to above 90% of gas-fired capacity). These are the very same numbers either way. I really hope that there is nothing unexpected in the ability of the gas-fired generators to exceed 90% of their capacity: that is what they are designed to do and expected to do. On the other hand, I also really hope that there is nothing unexpected in the fact that sometimes the wind quits blowing.

Okay, let me see if I have this right: The wind is unreliable, but it can save on gas (which the state is flaring to the tune of $3M/day). To save on gas, and to support this unreliable wind source, the Great State of Texas is supposed to have dozens of natural gas utility plants that cost hundreds of billions sitting idle, waiting for when the wind stops blowing. 

And you're still stuck on "those blackouts were caused primarily by freeze-offs of the NG supply and secondarily by NG failures to winterize."

Holy Mother of God!

  • Great Response! 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Okay, let me see if I have this right: The wind is unreliable, but it can save on gas (which the state is flaring to the tune of $3M/day). To save on gas, and to support this unreliable wind source, the Great State of Texas is supposed to have dozens of natural gas utility plants that cost hundreds of billions sitting idle, waiting for when the wind stops blowing. 

And you're still stuck on "those blackouts were caused primarily by freeze-offs of the NG supply and secondarily by NG failures to winterize."

Holy Mother of God!

those blackouts were caused primarily by freeze-offs of the NG supply and secondarily by NG failures to winterize?  now you got it, God you are slow PS you are a Texan?  you where in Texas when this all occured? or where you also in Cancun with Ted ?

Edited by notsonice
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, notsonice said:

those blackouts were caused primarily by freeze-offs of the NG supply and secondarily by NG failures to winterize?  now you got it, God you are slow PS you are a Texan?  you where in Texas when this all occured? or where you also in Cancun with Ted ?

I see your quite a capable individual, are your efforts overwhelming?...Asking for a friend.

f94.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I see your quite a capable individual, are your efforts overwhelming?...Asking for a friend.

f94.jpg

Notsonice is another Eejit sock puppet 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I see your quite a capable individual, are your efforts overwhelming?...Asking for a friend.

f94.jpg

You are a monkey? IQ of maybe 75? That explains your low IQ posts

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ward Smith said:

Notsonice is another Eejit sock puppet 

Ohh Enthalapic is ancient history. A by gone waste product of yesterday. Sorry if i mispelled the handle. Odd is it not?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, notsonice said:

You are a monkey? IQ of maybe 75? That explains your low IQ posts

Communicating with a another sometimes requires getting into their "Character". I can be quite a Eye Opening experience.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

..Asking for a friend.

Ward is not your friend.  Stop stroking his **** to please imagined e-friends.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Well now finally some clarity, looks like Texas is cowboying UP!. Good for them, perhaps the financial back story will emerge...this could lead to extreme consequences for the environmental community.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Texas-Strikes-Back-At-The-Anti-Fossil-Fuel-Lobby.html

Texas Strikes Back At The Anti-Fossil Fuel Lobby

Hmmm...

Wonder if Wyoming might do something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Okay, let me see if I have this right: The wind is unreliable, but it can save on gas (which the state is flaring to the tune of $3M/day). To save on gas, and to support this unreliable wind source, the Great State of Texas is supposed to have dozens of natural gas utility plants that cost hundreds of billions sitting idle, waiting for when the wind stops blowing. 

And you're still stuck on "those blackouts were caused primarily by freeze-offs of the NG supply and secondarily by NG failures to winterize."

The wind is not "unreliable".  It is less reliable than thermal generation.

Yup, if the wind generation is there, you don't need to burn so much stuff.

If the wind generation is not there, you use the sources that burn more stuff.

If neither wind or thermal sources aren't there, you rely on demand management.

Since wind "wasn't there", what happened to the thermal sources?

Edited by turbguy
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NickW said:

This is interesting, in the interests of actually considering potential solutions to this problem. 

There are at least 10 potential close loop pump storage sites across Texas with 150 Gwh of capacity around San Antonio and Amarillo. In addition another 10 50 Gwh sites. 

NationalMap (terria.io)

 

Interesting map!  Thanx!!

Most of those potential "sites" would require condemning a lot of agricultural land, as well as affecting irrigation throughout larger regions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Hmmm...

Wonder if Wyoming might do something similar.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/965775584/north-dakota-officials-block-wind-power-in-effort-to-save-coal

If one can get there heads out of this failure.. that failure.. and you dunnit attitude.. things become quite clear.Texas literally blew out top admin weeks ago. The term in my former was industry is being broomed, That takes a lot of malfeasance/corruption being played out financially. It could be such a embarrassment it will never be known,or in the true nature of some Texans the gentleman leave the building and it gets real nasty..just nasty.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Communicating with a another sometimes requires getting into their "Character". I can be quite a Eye Opening experience.

Notice how you post to notsonice and symmetry rushed to his sock puppet's defence? 

He's actually enough of an Eejit that be believes we can't see right through him. Sad and pathetic really

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Notice how you post to notsonice and symmetry rushed to his sock puppet's defence? 

He's actually enough of an Eejit that be believes we can't see right through him. Sad and pathetic really

It is odd yet so many ties that bind "IT" all into one. Bradley PNW snuck out a few days ago...guitar amps/electronics..Only Bradley and one other make such references...Oh well "Such Is Life".. I count perhaps 7 in one.

Stunted Savant's..?

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I repeat:

Since wind "wasn't there", what happened to the thermal sources?

BTW, the February ERCOT operating report should make for an interesting read...

Edited by turbguy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

55 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/965775584/north-dakota-officials-block-wind-power-in-effort-to-save-coal

If one can get there heads out of this failure.. that failure.. and you dunnit attitude.. things become quite clear.Texas literally blew out top admin weeks ago. The term in my former was industry is being broomed, That takes a lot of malfeasance/corruption being played out financially. It could be such a embarrassment it will never be known,or in the true nature of some Texans the gentleman leave the building and it gets real nasty..just nasty.

Unless Coal Creek plant can get lower priced fuel, it WILL shut down.   These are really shocks to the local communities.  Without political actions to the market, it is going to happen.

That unused transmission line WILL be used for "something else" once that coal plant ceases operation.  After some delays, the courts will see to that.

How about fueling the plant with something that might have gone thru the Keystone XL instead?  

 

Edited by turbguy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I repeat:

Since wind "wasn't there", what happened to the thermal sources?

Well there are 10,700 wind turbines in TX, what is the sum of there total output. How many turbines were on line when the failure occurred, what was the sum of there total output at the time of failure.

How much slack did the gensets have to pick up, how much output did the genset network have? 

Answer those question and you will get somewhat of a understanding, then it would be most interesting watching these gensets light up and fail as the loads increased...did the gensets fail due to design or did the gensets run out of gas...ahh then which gas lines failed or was it a massive gas line failure....This might take awhile all over freezing rain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Well there are 10,700 wind turbines in TX, what is the sum of there total output. How many turbines were on line when the failure occurred, what was the sum of there total output at the time of failure.

How much slack did the gensets have to pick up, how much output did the genset network have? 

Answer those question and you will get somewhat of a understanding, then it would be most interesting watching these gensets light up and fail as the loads increased...did the gensets fail due to design or did the gensets run out of gas...ahh then which gas lines failed or was it a massive gas line failure....This might take awhile all over freezing rain.

I would rather get an answer to my question, first. 

Gensets do not "fail" as the demand increases.  They trip for a host of reasons, but not for operating at normal frequency, at or below their rated nameplate.

Don't ignore the FACT that thermal generation that was on-line, TRIPPED!  A LOT of it!

Since wind "wasn't there", what happened to the thermal sources?

Edited by turbguy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, turbguy said:

The wind is not "unreliable". 

When I said the wind was "unreliable," I was merely picking up on Mr. Clemmensen's quote above. Here, I'll repeat it . . .

3 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Wind is a variable source and cannot be depended on for power at any given instant in time, or even for energy in any given week.

Now, I do not personally know Mr. Clemmensen. He sounds confident in his knowledge, but to be fair, he may or may not be a reliable analysis of wind conditions in Texas, or of the wind in general for that matter. To me, though, his comment makes it sound like the wind is pretty damn unreliable. In fact, I took it as a given.

It would seem that you also have a good relationship with the wind. And since both you and Mr. Clemmensen seem intent on making some sort of point about the wind, perhaps the two of you should conference on the appropriate way to address Queen Wind in a non-inflammatory, politically-correct manner. Once we're all sure of the exact terminology, I'm sure all of us hayseeds will fall in line. For example, do we say "winds," or "windx?"

I've actually spent a lot of time in the Wind River area. The wind blows, just as the name suggests. But I think it blows more over near Casper. Whatever, the wind is so reliable that the state has long been ranked as the #1 windiest state in the Union. In fact, Wyoming is a lot windier than Texas. Despite this dichotomy, Texas has polluted its landscape with some 13,000+ wind turbines, of which ~60% froze up during the storm. That's bad enough but as Mr. Clemmensen is fond of pointing out, the wind "cannot be depended on." I took his statement to refer to just about any wind, but maybe he was talking about the Texas wind, and perhaps only in the winter. 

But in Wyoming, where you say you live, the wind is quite reliable in the winter: 30-40 knots most all winter long with gusts up to 50-60. Despite this, the state of Wyoming harvests only 10% of its energy from wind and 90% from coal-fired utility plants, while Texas, with its quasi-reliable wind and 13,000 wind turbines harvests 25% of its energy from wind and a whopping 46% from natural-gas-fired utility plants. 

That just seems so wrong, doesn't it?

We could argue how "reliable" the wind is until the cows come home, but let's just agree that both Wyoming and Texas have ample wind--some of the time, but not all of the time, and even then it is, as you say, "less reliable than thermal generation." But then we get back to your original statement, "the wind is not unreliable." I swear to God, I've gone over and over this and I cannot for the life of me figure it out. Not-so-nice, which is an apt moniker for the nasty little sucker, suggested that I was slow. And he may be right. 

Otherwise I'm sure I'd be able to understand how the state of Wyoming, the windiest state in the Union, develops 10% of its energy from wind but its leading wind expert is pretty sure the state of Texas, which develops 25% of its energy from wind, somehow screwed up because it hadn't taken lessons from northern states, and is also adamant that "if the wind generation if there, you don't need to burn so much stuff." 

Oh, and I see that you have repeated yourself once again during the time that I have been furiously whacking at the keyboard: "Since wind 'wasn't there,' what happened to the thermal sources?" My, my. I'm not sure how I can help you. I devoted a long diatribe to just this topic up above somewhere. Others have pitched in, too, trying to ease my burden.

Hell, I don't know what happened to the "thermal sources," but if I had to guess, I'd say the wind likely blew them away. 

  

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

When I said the wind was "unreliable," I was merely picking up on Mr. Clemmensen's quote above. Here, I'll repeat it . . .

Now, I do not personally know Mr. Clemmensen. He sounds confident in his knowledge, but to be fair, he may or may not be a reliable analysis of wind conditions in Texas, or of the wind in general for that matter. To me, though, his comment makes it sound like the wind is pretty damn unreliable. In fact, I took it as a given.

It would seem that you also have a good relationship with the wind. And since both you and Mr. Clemmensen seem intent on making some sort of point about the wind, perhaps the two of you should conference on the appropriate way to address Queen Wind in a non-inflammatory, politically-correct manner. Once we're all sure of the exact terminology, I'm sure all of us hayseeds will fall in line. For example, do we say "winds," or "windx?"

I've actually spent a lot of time in the Wind River area. The wind blows, just as the name suggests. But I think it blows more over near Casper. Whatever, the wind is so reliable that the state has long been ranked as the #1 windiest state in the Union. In fact, Wyoming is a lot windier than Texas. Despite this dichotomy, Texas has polluted its landscape with some 13,000+ wind turbines, of which ~60% froze up during the storm. That's bad enough but as Mr. Clemmensen is fond of pointing out, the wind "cannot be depended on." I took his statement to refer to just about any wind, but maybe he was talking about the Texas wind, and perhaps only in the winter. 

But in Wyoming, where you say you live, the wind is quite reliable in the winter: 30-40 knots most all winter long with gusts up to 50-60. Despite this, the state of Wyoming harvests only 10% of its energy from wind and 90% from coal-fired utility plants, while Texas, with its quasi-reliable wind and 13,000 wind turbines harvests 25% of its energy from wind and a whopping 46% from natural-gas-fired utility plants. 

That just seems so wrong, doesn't it?

We could argue how "reliable" the wind is until the cows come home, but let's just agree that both Wyoming and Texas have ample wind--some of the time, but not all of the time, and even then it is, as you say, "less reliable than thermal generation." But then we get back to your original statement, "the wind is not unreliable." I swear to God, I've gone over and over this and I cannot for the life of me figure it out. Not-so-nice, which is an apt moniker for the nasty little sucker, suggested that I was slow. And he may be right. 

Otherwise I'm sure I'd be able to understand how the state of Wyoming, the windiest state in the Union, develops 10% of its energy from wind but its leading wind expert is pretty sure the state of Texas, which develops 25% of its energy from wind, somehow screwed up because it hadn't taken lessons from northern states, and is also adamant that "if the wind generation if there, you don't need to burn so much stuff." 

Oh, and I see that you have repeated yourself once again during the time that I have been furiously whacking at the keyboard: "Since wind 'wasn't there,' what happened to the thermal sources?" My, my. I'm not sure how I can help you. I devoted a long diatribe to just this topic up above somewhere. Others have pitched in, too, trying to ease my burden.

Hell, I don't know what happened to the "thermal sources," but if I had to guess, I'd say the wind likely blew them away. 

  

I would have to agree.  If the wind is considered weather, then the weather did seem to hamper the thermal sources.

Without a detailed, unit by unit, answer to my question, the way Texas has built ERCOT, it WILL happen again.

AND...the answer(s) is known.  

Opinions are stated here as well. 

They are merely opinions, not answers.

In the meantime, Southeast Wyoming is about to be hit with some weather this weekend.  A blizzard, with some icing expected as a precursor.  I reside in Albany County, well outside of Laramie.  Let's see if my power survives.  I will report back.

 

 

Edited by turbguy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Unless Coal Creek plant can get lower priced fuel, it WILL shut down.   These are really shocks to the local communities.  Without political actions to the market, it is going to happen.

That unused transmission line WILL be used for "something else" once that coal plant ceases operation.  After some delays, the courts will see to that.

How about fueling the plant with something that might have gone thru the Keystone XL instead?  

 

I can only make one observation into this entire green energy debacle. Actually it goes to automotive engines, like bolting on 100 hp with a cam, sooner or later the mains fail, or the 

 

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

I would rather get an answer to my question, first. 

Gensets do not "fail" as the demand increases.  They trip for a host of reasons, but not for operating at normal frequency, at or below their rated nameplate.

Don't ignore the FACT that thermal generation that was on-line, TRIPPED!  A LOT of it!

Since wind "wasn't there", what happened to the thermal sources?

We are in complete agreement, it is my opinion only this grid was designed around wind power, it was never intended to run on natural gas solely. When that load was introduced the grid went off and on like blinking Christmas tree lights.

The grid was a money maker a huge money maker, and that is a opinion. Now who paid for this power and who benefited from this power and poor design in my opinion is about to be disclosed.

Average Yearly Revenue

Turbine owners receive payment from the energy consumer, whichever utility company buys their generated power.

Depending on the PPA that both parties have agreed upon, the average payment is between $3,000 and $8,000 for each wind turbine.

For the more powerful turbines that exceed 2Mw, the payments increase to $10,000+.

An Owner with just five wind turbines, could mean an annual salary between $15,000 and $40,000.

It is common for wind turbine purchase and installation costs to be recouped within the first 5-15 years of operation. With a life expectancy of 25 years, there is a possibility of at least 10 years of profit, besides repair and maintenance costs.

Wind farmers need to factor these costs into their expenditure, along with the removal and disposal of the wind turbine at the end of its useful life.

 

Final Thoughts

Taking all things into consideration, including the location, size, and rated capacity of a wind turbine, there is a possibility of a massive return on any investment.

For land farmers, struggling in difficult and unprecedented times, renting out land to utility companies can subsidize a fluctuating income.

How much money does a wind turbine make depends on many factors, however, profits aside, the green credentials and the ready supply of clean, renewable energy are a huge incentive to invest in wind power.

https://energyfollower.com/how-much-money-does-a-wind-turbine-make/

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Actually, I do not believe the "grid" has been "designed" at all.

ERCOT's construct has been reactionarly built.   As permitted and constrained by political decisions by people in power.

I could agree that some of those decisions are suspect...

That said, What happened with thermal generation??   The answer(s) is known.  People in power may not want it to be known.  It WILL become known.  They cannot stop it.

Edited by turbguy
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.