Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
All is not what it appears to be.
Mick
1710914581283.png
 
SirRumpole said:
Chris Bowen exaggerates the build time of nuclear reactors in the US.

Still, that's no comparison to Australia that has little nuclear industry.

www.abc.net.au

Chris Bowen says the average build time of a nuclear plant in the US has been 19 years. Is that correct?

Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen says the average build time for a nuclear power plant in the United States has been nearly two decades. Is that correct? RMIT ABC Fact Check runs the numbers.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
I guess the issue isn't how long it will take, as that won't change, the issue is how prepared are we if that becomes the only viable option.

The fact remains, like it or not, nuclear is the most energy dense 'clean energy' on earth, sooner or later it may be called upon.

To say it will never happen is a child like attitude, everything is finite LNG, Lithium, Nickel, Silicon etc, we need to be researching and developing a plan, whether the media, the politicians or the loonies agree or not.

It is a bit like when the pandemic hit, it exposed the fact we couldn't develop our own vaccines, we didn't have the facilities or the abilities.
Now we are developing a vaccine production facility, we may never need it.

The whole issue has become just a political footy, it has lost all sense of perspective and become an emotional slanging match, young people must be getting fed up with idiot politicians IMO.
 
SirRumpole said:
Dick Smith backs nuclear power, saying no country has ever run on 100% renewables?
Click to expand...

I'll simply point out that the Tasmanian hydro system, using real data going back to 1916, has been 100% reliable if operated within its design limits.

That failures have occurred in practice, repeatedly during the 1950's and 60's plus the 2015-16 incident, was in all cases due to operation beyond those limits. Unavoidable in practice during the 50's and 60's in a society still recovering from WW2 and with constant rapid increase in consumption and construction struggling to keep up. Directly caused by a certain individual in 2015-16.

Plenty of other such examples globally.

So a renewable system based around hydro with large storages, and that includes using pumped hydro with wind and solar as the energy source, can do it theoretically and there's outright proof in the case of all-hydro systems having done it in the past for extended periods.

Fully wind and solar well it's just down to meteorology and engineering.

Trouble is we're in a society of declining competence generally, to the point that we now have people in positions of influence (eg politics) who not only don't know how to work it out but far worse, they don't grasp that it's actually possible to do so. :banghead:
 
Small modular thorium reactors are currently being developed, but don't hold your breath.



This is what Finkel is on about, if we hang around waiting for things like this, the switch to renewables won't happen and we will be in the poo.
 
SirRumpole said:
This is what Finkel is on about, if we hang around waiting for things like this, the switch to renewables won't happen and we will be in the poo.
Click to expand...
That is the whole issue, we are moving quickly toward renewables, one of the fastest transitions in the World, we have actually slowed a little bit in the last couple of years to let infrastructure catch up.
The reality is, renewables isn't the only clean energy being developed and we have to be mindful of that, the problem is the nuclear debate is becoming black and white, yes and no, that doesn't help anyone.
Thorium reactors are being developed, recently the U.K from memory actually sustained fusion for 20 seconds, China has commissioned a gen 4 reactor apparently, Bill Gates is working on a new type gen 4 reactor, no technology is standing still.

Let's not forget 15 years ago we were manufacturing early model solar panels in Sydney, Australia invented them, it wasn't until 10 or so years ago that they weren't even a feasible alternative to legacy generation.
Now everyone is saying why the hell isn't it everywhere, everyone becomes an expert especially the media and the muppets.

Unfortunately that is who the politicians play to and that is where all the problems start, everyone needs to take one step back and let the experts look at it all IMO. ;)

The next 5 years will make or break Australia IMO, reliable power at an affordable price is probably the main building block of a nation.
 
SirRumpole said:
Small modular thorium reactors are currently being developed, but don't hold your breath.



This is what Finkel is on about, if we hang around waiting for things like this, the switch to renewables won't happen and we will be in the poo.
Click to expand...

Good video Rumpy, the wife and I went on a river cruise from Vilshofen to Budapest last year, we flew into Munich and a bust took us to the boat it was about 150km away.
On the way the way the bus driver over the intercom pointed out a nuclear power station, then he went on to say how stupid the Govt was because they were shutting it down, but buying power from France that were producing it from nuclear power stations.
Even there the plebs think the politicians are FW's. 🤣
 
One of the reasons I suggested to the son he go off grid, when he bought the 100 acres a few years ago, this was bound to happen.

www.abc.net.au

Western Power conducts private power pole inspections, tells WA residents to replace them at own cost

The electricity network operator began the private power pole inspection program in 2021 after a fallen pole on private property in the Perth Hills sparked the 2014 Parkerville bushfires, leading to the loss of 57 houses.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

  • In short: About 35,000 property owners have been sent letters recommending they replace their electricity pole.
  • Many homeowners have been surprised to learn they own the infrastructure and are responsible for maintaining it.
  • What's next: More poles are expected to be inspected by early 2025, with the infrastructure to be inspected every four years.
After inspecting 120,000 power poles on private properties across the state, Western Power has sent about 1,000 notices to homeowners telling them to replace the pole or face having their electricity disconnected.

The electricity network operator began the private power pole inspection program in 2021 after a fallen pole on private property sparked the 2014 Parkerville bushfires, leading to the loss of 57 houses.

A Western Australian Court of Appeal decision had found that while Western Power did not own the pole, it had failed in its duty of care to avoid risk or damage by not conducting periodic assessments of such poles on private property.

Since then, the corporation has issued notices to about 1,000 customers, giving them either 30 or 90 days to have their poles replaced or risk having the power disconnected.
 
sptrawler said:
One of the reasons I suggested to the son he go off grid, when he bought the 100 acres a few years ago, this was bound to happen.

www.abc.net.au

Western Power conducts private power pole inspections, tells WA residents to replace them at own cost

The electricity network operator began the private power pole inspection program in 2021 after a fallen pole on private property in the Perth Hills sparked the 2014 Parkerville bushfires, leading to the loss of 57 houses.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

  • In short: About 35,000 property owners have been sent letters recommending they replace their electricity pole.
  • Many homeowners have been surprised to learn they own the infrastructure and are responsible for maintaining it.
  • What's next: More poles are expected to be inspected by early 2025, with the infrastructure to be inspected every four years.
After inspecting 120,000 power poles on private properties across the state, Western Power has sent about 1,000 notices to homeowners telling them to replace the pole or face having their electricity disconnected.

The electricity network operator began the private power pole inspection program in 2021 after a fallen pole on private property sparked the 2014 Parkerville bushfires, leading to the loss of 57 houses.

A Western Australian Court of Appeal decision had found that while Western Power did not own the pole, it had failed in its duty of care to avoid risk or damage by not conducting periodic assessments of such poles on private property.

Since then, the corporation has issued notices to about 1,000 customers, giving them either 30 or 90 days to have their poles replaced or risk having the power disconnected.
Click to expand...
If indeed, many of the homeowners were surprised to learn that they themselves owned the infrastructure, perhaps its time for someone in WA to sue Western Power for unauthorised use of those pieces of infrastructure.
Mick
 
www.abc.net.au

Analysts say there's plenty of gas to go around as market operator forecasts major supply shortages

Australia's energy market operator says the closure of a giant Victorian gas plant within years risks tipping supply into a shortage, but not everybody agrees.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Australia's south-eastern states are facing a major shortfall of gas supplies within four years as production from historic fields in Bass Strait falls away much quicker than demand for the fuel.

A new report from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has painted a grim picture for gas users from 2028, when the agency says the closure of Victoria's biggest gas plant will leave a major hole in supplies.

The report also warns "peak-day shortfalls" may emerge from as early as next year during extreme weather in winter, when demand for gas for heating as well as electricity can spike.

Similarly, AEMO said such "supply gas" would only get worse from 2026.

While the forecasts were backed by big business and those aligned with the gas industry, some analysts questioned whether the market operator had overestimated demand.

Kevin Morrison from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) also noted that Australia's eastern states were not short of gas and therefore did not need more supplies.

Mr Morrison instead indicated that more of what the region produced could be directed to the local market rather than sent offshore as exports.

"AEMO could be setting themselves up for another year of overestimating demand," Mr Morrison said.
In its report, the market operator highlighted what it said was a crucial role for gas to play in Australia's energy transition.

AEMO chief executive Daniel Westerman said gas was a source of flexible electricity generation that would allow ever greater amounts of intermittent renewable energy to be added to the system.

He said this would be increasingly important as more coal-fired power stations retired — a reference to the planned closure of the giant Eraring plant in New South Wales during mid-2025.

"Flexible gas-powered electricity generation is an essential component of the energy mix into the future," Mr Westerman said.

"Gas, along with batteries and pumped hydro, will enable higher rates of renewables and support electricity reliability as Australia's coal-fired power stations retire."
According to AEMO, demand for gas was falling as more households and businesses turned away from the fuel and opted to electrify heating and cooking appliances.

However, the agency said production — particularly from Bass Strait — was falling at a faster rate and this was imperilling supplies.

It said that unless new fields or sources of supply were urgently brought into production, there was a risk that gas could run short from as early as 2025 on some days.

Those risks would be heightened significantly once United States energy behemoth ExxonMobil retired one of two remaining gas plants at its Longford facility in South Gippsland during 2028.

Longford, which has been in service since 1969, is the biggest source of gas to Australia's southern states of Victoria, South Australian, New South Wales and Tasmania.

"Gas production is forecast to fall faster than demand in the south, driven by declining production from Bass Strait, which has historically supplied around two-thirds of southern Australia's gas," Mr Westerman said.

"While the report identifies the need to deliver new infrastructure by 2026, running gas-powered generators on liquid fuels [diesel] could provide temporary relief during periods of extremely high gas demand.

"From 2028, supply gaps will increase in size as Bass Strait production falls significantly."

Rick Wilkinson, the boss of research company EnergyQuest, said AEMO's forecasts were "perfectly consistent" with the firm's own assessments.

Mr Wilkinson said the loss of Longford would be a huge blow to gas consumers in southern states and make them far more reliant on supplies from Queensland.
 
Dr Alan Finkel sums up the Nuclear Power story

Here’s why there is no nuclear option for Australia to reach net zero​

Dr Alan Finkel

Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years
Fri 22 Mar 2024 01.00 AEDTLast modified on Fri 22 Mar 2024 11.01 AEDT

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tion-for-australia-to-reach-net-zero#comments
647
The battle lines have been drawn over Australia’s energy future.
With the nation signed up to net zero emissions by 2050, the Albanese Labor government is committed to renewables. The Coalition wants nuclear.

The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has a vision for meeting Australia’s energy needs that would include large-scale nuclear power plants and small modular reactors, a technology that is not yet proven, but which the shadow minister for energy, Ted O’Brien, says could be “up and running within a 10-year period.”
While nuclear power might experience a resurgence globally and eventually have a role in Australia, right now, no matter how much intent there might be to activate a nuclear power industry, it is difficult to envision before 2040.
978.jpg
Nuclear power?! Why are you people still talking about this?
Read more
The reality is there is no substitute for solar and wind power this decade and next, supported by batteries, transmission lines and peaking gas generation.

Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years.

Let’s unpack the pros and cons of nuclear power, the obstacles to getting it up and running in Australia by the mid-2040s, and the longer-term

 
sptrawler said:
retired one of two remaining gas plants at its Longford facility in South Gippsland during 2028.
Click to expand...
There's three plants, in layman's terms three independent production lines (though they do share some common pipes etc) at Longford processing gas from Bass Strait.

Plant No.1, the oldest, is being shut about 15 July 2024.

One of the other two will shut about 4 years later give or take a bit. That'll leave one remaining plant in operation until such time as they shut that then it's game over, production goes to zero.

Original nameplate capacity = 1115 TJ / Day. In practice has achieved slightly higher ~1168 TJ / Day if everything goes perfectly.

Present usable capacity = 810 TJ / Day and falling. Limited by flow of raw gas from Bass Strait.

Capacity after closure of Plant No.1 = 700 TJ / day.

Noting a further restriction in that much of the more recently developed gas is poor quality and goes through a preconditioning plant the capacity of which is 450 TJ / Day. So the ability to produce above 450 TJ / Day is running out faster than production up to that level, being drawn from separate reservoirs that are pretty much stuffed. That was only commissioned in 2017, prior to that all production came from the higher quality reservoirs. So in other words, maximum flow from the higher quality reservoirs has dropped dramatically and continues to slide.

Trouble is, there's been massive denial about all this. Let's just say I've copped a fair bit of ridicule for pointing it out in the relatively recent past, 2010's, but all of a sudden those same people have gone very, very quiet. I claim no brilliance there - just an ability to do maths which, it seems, is sadly lacking in much of society.

In practice it's going to end up with trying to run gas turbines on diesel. Just wait until reality hits that a good portion of the gas turbines don't have dual fuel capability and of those that do, many only have 4 hour fuel tanks and are located nowhere near a bulk fuel storage. Logistically that's not totally impossible but it's a nightmare to say the least. :2twocents
 
Another article from Dr Finkle also gives a great explanation on nuclear power and the realities, without the political hyperbole.

www.smh.com.au

Yes, nuclear’s an option. But let there be no confusion about its flaws

Nuclear power, as clean and safe as it is, cannot help us in our transition to clean energy this decade or next.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
From the article:
Let’s start with a look at its benefits.
From the engineering point of view, it ticks many boxes. It is unequivocally zero emissions during operation and the emissions associated with construction are low. It integrates smoothly with our existing electricity grid and contributes to frequency control and system strength.

Nuclear power can be dispatched on demand independently of the weather and can, in principle, be located near existing transmission lines. The only technological limitation is that – like coal-fired power plants – large nuclear reactors are slow to ramp their output up and down, but small modular reactors (SMRs) are expected to be better in this respect.
The mining resources required for construction are low: no battery materials such as lithium and cobalt, or rare-earth elements such as neodymium and terbium, are needed.

The volume of fuel is small, with only one tonne of uranium needed to produce the same amount of electricity as 100,000 tonnes of black coal.

The land footprint is only about three square kilometres for a one-gigawatt nuclear plant versus about 60 square kilometres for a three-gigawatt solar plant that would generate the same annual output.

And nuclear power has an excellent safety record. Since commercial operations began in the late 1950s, the death rate from accidents and air pollution is as low as the death rate from solar and wind power and much lower than the death rate from coal power.

So, what are the barriers?

The most obvious is that there is a legislated ban on construction of nuclear power plants, introduced by the Howard government in 1998. Removal of this ban is a prerequisite for deeper consideration.

To create a nuclear power industry in Australia, we would need to identify a waste-storage site, beef up the regulatory system, find the first location, identify the first operator, issue construction contracts, run the environmental regulatory gamut, train a workforce and fight protests in the streets, and in the courts.

Despite the challenges, it is worth considering nuclear power as a long-term option in Australia for two reasons.

The first is to minimise the new land area and additional mining to expand electricity generation as our population continues to grow and as we invest in producing decarbonised versions of our export products, such as green iron, aluminium, ammonia-based fertiliser and sustainable liquid fuels.
The second is to minimise the ongoing mining and landfill from replacing batteries about every 10 years and solar panels and wind turbines every 25 years.

However, given the timeframes to develop a nuclear industry capability from scratch, then commission and build our first nuclear power plant, nuclear power cannot help us in our transition to clean energy this decade or next and would not be ready to replace the electricity generation we will lose as our ageing coal-fired power fleet shuts down.

In the short term, there is no alternative other than solar and wind power, supported by battery storage and gas-fired electricity generation.
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
Another article from Dr Finkle also gives a great explanation on nuclear power and the realities.

www.smh.com.au

Yes, nuclear’s an option. But let there be no confusion about its flaws

Nuclear power, as clean and safe as it is, cannot help us in our transition to clean energy this decade or next.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
From the article:
Let’s start with a look at its benefits.
From the engineering point of view, it ticks many boxes. It is unequivocally zero emissions during operation and the emissions associated with construction are low. It integrates smoothly with our existing electricity grid and contributes to frequency control and system strength.

Nuclear power can be dispatched on demand independently of the weather and can, in principle, be located near existing transmission lines. The only technological limitation is that – like coal-fired power plants – large nuclear reactors are slow to ramp their output up and down, but small modular reactors (SMRs) are expected to be better in this respect.
The mining resources required for construction are low: no battery materials such as lithium and cobalt, or rare-earth elements such as neodymium and terbium, are needed.

The volume of fuel is small, with only one tonne of uranium needed to produce the same amount of electricity as 100,000 tonnes of black coal.

The land footprint is only about three square kilometres for a one-gigawatt nuclear plant versus about 60 square kilometres for a three-gigawatt solar plant that would generate the same annual output.

And nuclear power has an excellent safety record. Since commercial operations began in the late 1950s, the death rate from accidents and air pollution is as low as the death rate from solar and wind power and much lower than the death rate from coal power.

So, what are the barriers?

The most obvious is that there is a legislated ban on construction of nuclear power plants, introduced by the Howard government in 1998. Removal of this ban is a prerequisite for deeper consideration.

To create a nuclear power industry in Australia, we would need to identify a waste-storage site, beef up the regulatory system, find the first location, identify the first operator, issue construction contracts, run the environmental regulatory gamut, train a workforce and fight protests in the streets, and in the courts.

Despite the challenges, it is worth considering nuclear power as a long-term option in Australia for two reasons.

The first is to minimise the new land area and additional mining to expand electricity generation as our population continues to grow and as we invest in producing decarbonised versions of our export products, such as green iron, aluminium, ammonia-based fertiliser and sustainable liquid fuels.
The second is to minimise the ongoing mining and landfill from replacing batteries about every 10 years and solar panels and wind turbines every 25 years.

However, given the timeframes to develop a nuclear industry capability from scratch, then commission and build our first nuclear power plant, nuclear power cannot help us in our transition to clean energy this decade or next and would not be ready to replace the electricity generation we will lose as our ageing coal-fired power fleet shuts down.

In the short term, there is no alternative other than solar and wind power, supported by battery storage and gas-fired electricity generation.
Click to expand...
That is the same article SP that I was referencing. I just copied in the introduction.

I can see the POV that maybe, if, the engineering issues can be resolved then in the longer term nuclear power could be a part of our energy system. But as Dr Finkel points out it cannot be part of our near term need to rapidly reduce CO2. And most importantly it can't replace our aging coal fired power stations in the required time span.

We still have critical problems moving to a renewable energy based society but going nuclear is not the solution to that problem even if it could be useful in the much longer term.
 
basilio said:
That is the same article SP that I was referencing. I just copied in the introduction.

I can see the POV that maybe, if, the engineering issues can be resolved then in the longer term nuclear power could be a part of our energy system. But as Dr Finkel points out it cannot be part of our near term need to rapidly reduce CO2. And most importantly it can't replace our aging coal fired power stations in the required time span.

We still have critical problems moving to a renewable energy based society but going nuclear is not the solution to that problem even if it could be useful in the much longer term.
Click to expand...
No one has disagreed with that, in this thread.
We are trying to keep this thread as technically correct as we can and if possible also trying to keep emotions and politics out, there are plenty of climate and political threads already to vent those aspects.

We have already talked a lot on the SMR's and their early stage development and also large Nuclear installations, which I for one have already said I feel are not suitable in Australia.
 
sptrawler said:
Another article from Dr Finkle also gives a great explanation on nuclear power and the realities, without the political hyperbole.

www.smh.com.au

Yes, nuclear’s an option. But let there be no confusion about its flaws

Nuclear power, as clean and safe as it is, cannot help us in our transition to clean energy this decade or next.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
From the article:
Let’s start with a look at its benefits.
From the engineering point of view, it ticks many boxes. It is unequivocally zero emissions during operation and the emissions associated with construction are low. It integrates smoothly with our existing electricity grid and contributes to frequency control and system strength.

Nuclear power can be dispatched on demand independently of the weather and can, in principle, be located near existing transmission lines. The only technological limitation is that – like coal-fired power plants – large nuclear reactors are slow to ramp their output up and down, but small modular reactors (SMRs) are expected to be better in this respect.
The mining resources required for construction are low: no battery materials such as lithium and cobalt, or rare-earth elements such as neodymium and terbium, are needed.

The volume of fuel is small, with only one tonne of uranium needed to produce the same amount of electricity as 100,000 tonnes of black coal.

The land footprint is only about three square kilometres for a one-gigawatt nuclear plant versus about 60 square kilometres for a three-gigawatt solar plant that would generate the same annual output.

And nuclear power has an excellent safety record. Since commercial operations began in the late 1950s, the death rate from accidents and air pollution is as low as the death rate from solar and wind power and much lower than the death rate from coal power.

So, what are the barriers?

The most obvious is that there is a legislated ban on construction of nuclear power plants, introduced by the Howard government in 1998. Removal of this ban is a prerequisite for deeper consideration.

To create a nuclear power industry in Australia, we would need to identify a waste-storage site, beef up the regulatory system, find the first location, identify the first operator, issue construction contracts, run the environmental regulatory gamut, train a workforce and fight protests in the streets, and in the courts.

Despite the challenges, it is worth considering nuclear power as a long-term option in Australia for two reasons.

The first is to minimise the new land area and additional mining to expand electricity generation as our population continues to grow and as we invest in producing decarbonised versions of our export products, such as green iron, aluminium, ammonia-based fertiliser and sustainable liquid fuels.
The second is to minimise the ongoing mining and landfill from replacing batteries about every 10 years and solar panels and wind turbines every 25 years.

However, given the timeframes to develop a nuclear industry capability from scratch, then commission and build our first nuclear power plant, nuclear power cannot help us in our transition to clean energy this decade or next and would not be ready to replace the electricity generation we will lose as our ageing coal-fired power fleet shuts down.

In the short term, there is no alternative other than solar and wind power, supported by battery storage and gas-fired electricity generation.
Click to expand...
I notice he doesn't mention hydro. This may have been an unintentional omission, but could also indicate that the industry has given up trying to placate the greenies and have written off hydro as a viable option.
 
SirRumpole said:
I notice he doesn't mention hydro. This may have been an unintentional omission, but could also indicate that the industry has given up trying to placate the greenies and have written off hydro as a viable option.
Click to expand...
The latter.

There's more than a few who could broadly be placed in the category of saying that they can see the point in hydro as a non-fossil means of deep firming but at the same time, they really don't think society's ready to go there.

There's quite a few river flow monitoring gauges out there quietly collecting data and suffice to say those who one might expect to disagree are pretty well aware of where they are.

Going a step further, even within what I'll generically refer to as the conservation movement there's a split. One on side are the staunch "No Dams" (anywhere) crowd, on the other side are those who take a more scientific view that says well let's have a look, where's the dam proposed, what would be flooded, what's there, what are the impacts versus the benefits, etc.

A lot can be done to provide the deep firming with either pumped or conventional (on river) hydro but politically anything beyond old quarry sites etc basically nobody's willing to push. Gas is a path of least resistance there, even if it has to be imported as LNG.

Noting that for the LNG, the Port Kembla terminal is being progressed by Squadron (one of Andrew Forrest's companies) meanwhile Venice Energy, which despite the name is a South Australian based company, is pursuing an import terminal at Outer Harbour (Adelaide port area) plus the idea with that is to reverse the flow, which requires some changes to valves, compressors etc, on the Port Campbell - Adelaide pipeline to allow flow from West to East. Port Campbell being in SW Victoria and ultimately connected via another pipeline through to Melbourne.

Only if / when society gets really serious on the CO2 issue will we see a sudden boom in hydro construction is the thinking. In the meantime the flow gauges keep recording data "for scientific purposes".

My personal view is it'll take an "incident" to bring change. What that incident is I won't pretend to know - could be energy related, could be war, could be climate, could just be economic but it'll need some sort of trigger.

Worth noting in that context that whilst small schemes had been built earlier, Tasmania's head first jump into the deep end of hydro development was triggered by WW1, and the state doubled down when the Great Depression hit. Meanwhile the Snowy scheme was a product of WW2 indeed the War Act was used to build it. That's the sort of thing I mean, it needs a "big" trigger. :2twocents
 

Similar threads

System
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Sean K
Sean K
Dona Ferentes
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
505
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
ASK - Abacus Storage King
Replies
12
Views
2K
divs4ever
divs4ever
System
D3E - D3 Energy
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
17K
ducati916
ducati916
Top