Power Vacuum: Australia’s Energy Crisis Screaming Out for Nuclear Option

Crippled by its suicidal obsession with wind and solar, Australia is screaming out for politicians with the wit and temerity to push the nuclear option.

Power prices will continue to rocket, and the routine load shedding and blackouts suffered in SA will eventually burst across the border, plunging Victorians, among others, into Stone Age gloom.

Blessed with abundant reserves of coal and gas, Australia’s energy crisis sounds as nonsensical, as it is perfectly avoidable.

Try getting an Australian politician to explain why Australia, as the world’s largest exporter of uranium, is the only G20 Nation without nuclear power, going so far as to legislate to prohibit the processing of uranium and its use as a fuel for power generation. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act, specifically prohibit nuclear fuel fabrication, power, enrichment or reprocessing facilities.

So far, so ridiculous.

Sure enough, coal-fired plant will continue to power Australians for the foreseeable future. But, for as long as politicians on both sides of the fence remain wedded to the concept that carbon dioxide gas is ‘pollution’, responsible for killing the planet (rather than greening it), energy sources that emit CO2 will have plenty of ill-informed enemies.

That Australia does not have any nuclear power plants astonishes the French, Americans, Canadians, Japanese and Chinese; just to name a few of the 30 countries where you will find nearly 450 nuclear reactors currently operating – their combined output accounts for over 11% of global electricity production – with another 15 countries currently building 60 reactors among them.

Maybe one day, Australia will grow up and join the rest of the world.

STT cops plenty of flak for promoting nuclear power, our response to which is that we’ll stop advocating for nuclear power just as soon as we’re presented with a sensible argument against it.

Here’s The Australian’s Adam Creighton with a pretty sensible argument in favour of it.

South Australia could lead nation with nuclear power development
The Australian
Adam Creighton
16 March 2018

South Australia is crying out for a new industry to replace car manufacturing and give a once-great state some self-respect and influence again. South Australian wine is great, but it hasn’t been enough to wrench Adelaide out of the orbit of Melbourne and Sydney, which have progressively bought out its biggest companies, sucking away much of its managerial and professional class.

Becoming the state that ­powers the nation would be one way to restore self-esteem. The big disappointment in South Australia’s election campaign is that none of the major political parties has had the courage to declare South Australia a perfect site for Australia’s first electricity-generating nuclear reactor, one that could help power the eastern states.

Let’s face it, whoever wins the state election tomorrow won’t make much difference to the state’s long-term fortunes. A look at the major parties’ electoral platforms reveals the same rats-and-mice populist so-called policies that animate most state elections. Erode the payroll tax base here, a few tokenistic handouts there.

There’s not much difference between Liberal and Labor on ­energy. The Weatherill government wants to subsidise a big ­battery, the Liberal opposition wants subsidised small ones, ­having announced a $100 million plan to help households buy them.

Any of the three parties could have declared South Australia’s economic renaissance lay not in wind turbines and batteries, giant or small, but in a hi-tech nuclear reactor with a research facility hooked into the University of ­Adelaide. The bigger the better, ensuring the power could for ­generations provide no-emission, readily available energy to the ­National Electricity Market.

States have lost much of their financial clout to Canberra, but they do have freedom to zone, commission and subsidise.

South Australia could lobby the federal government to end the crazy law that makes Australia the only G20 country with a ban on nuclear energy, despite having among the largest uranium ­reserves in the world.

It could make the commonwealth’s life a lot easier by volunteering a site for a nuclear reactor. It could pick, say, Port Augusta, which would provide any reactor water access. It would also provide scope in decades to build or host a nuclear submarine fleet, if geo­politics developments required it. Port Augusta is a city suffering from huge economic and social problems, which could be allayed by the construction and operation of a state-of-the-art reactor.

None of the three major parties have even mentioned the “n” word in their policy platforms. Yet it’s not the political poison some think. A 2017 survey of households conducted by the Australian ­National University — the Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Science Survey — showed more than 41 per cent of Australians were in favour of nuclear power plants to generate electricity. Only 25 per cent were “strongly opposed”, and less than half were “against”. You read that correctly.

Remarkably, only 16 per cent of respondents were in favour of ­increased use of fracking, and ­almost 50 per cent were strongly against it. So why are we pursuing fracking and coal-seam gas?

A nuclear power station would cut long-term carbon emissions (some smarter Greens might even support it), bolster high-income STEM jobs, enhancing Australia’s national security and diversifying our energy supply. SA Labor had the foresight to have a royal ­commission into ­nuclear power. Its 2016 report sadly excited much debate. “The commission did not find that ­nuclear power is ‘too expensive’ to be viable or that it is ‘yesterday’s technology’. Rather, it found that a nuclear power plant of currently available size at current costs of construction would not be viable in the South Australian market under current market rules,” it ­reported.

Nuclear energy isn’t being phased out. Nuclear power generation makes up a fifth of US electricity supply. China has 37 plans in operation and 20 under construction. About 40 new countries are showing strong interest in launching a nuclear power program for the first time, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Bangladesh has already poured concrete for its first nuclear reactor — with know-how supplied by Russia. Wouldn’t it have been nice if Australian engineers were being put to good use in that country of 170 million people? Of course, Britain is building nuclear reactors too.

Yes it’s expensive. But so are the subsidies to renewable energy, which don’t show up on government budgets but are no less real. The cost of federal and state subsidies to renewable energy are very hard to quantify in dollars, but they are large. And they are certainly large enough to have paid for construction of a nuclear power station by now, which would have solved many of our energy problems.

To build Australia’s first major nuclear reactor might even attract cut-price offers from firms eager for the knowledge. Nuclear energy is it’s 100 per cent reliable and 100 per cent emission-free. This is why countries like France, a big chunk of whose electricity is powered by nuclear fission, has such low per capita emissions and can sanctimoniously host summits about reducing global emissions.

South Australia couldn’t ­become a nuclear hub overnight. It’s a long-term goal. But preparation for it would lift the state’s importance within the country.
The Australian

In an otherwise brilliant article, Adam Creighton falls for the line tossed about by the anti-nuke crowd (read wind and solar subsidy seekers) that nuclear power is expensive. Yeah, right…

In nuclear powered France (the French get almost 75% of their power from nuclear plant), average retail power prices are around half those suffered in Australia’s wind and solar capital, South Australia.

Americans plugged into nuclear power from the beginning.

The USA, the world’s largest nuclear power generator, has 99 nuclear power reactors in 30 states, operated by 30 different power companies, and in 2016 they produced 805 TWh. Since 2001 these plants have achieved an average capacity factor of over 90%, generating up to 807 TWh per year and accounting for about 20% of total electricity generated.

Is it any surprise then, that average retail prices across the US are 1/3 of those in wind and sun powered SA?

The state of Pennsylvania recently sent a delegation to Australia, attempting to lure Australian industries there, with a sales pitch primarily based on cheap power, reliably delivered. Something Australian businesses no longer take for granted, here.

Pennsylvania is one of USA’s biggest nuclear power generators, with almost 40% of its power generated by nuclear plant.

According to the Energy Information Administration, commercial users in Pennsylvania are paying 8.85 cents per KWh, equating to US$88.50 per MWh. Industrial users are paying 6.67 cents per KWh, equating to US$66.70. Depending on the State they’re in, Australian commercial users are paying upwards of A$0.35 per KWh, or A$350 per MWh hour.

So, those claiming that nuclear power is expensive, need to try another angle.

Australia is destroying itself with an ideological obsession with the wind and sun. Which means that there’s no time like right now for leaders to step up and deliver a nuclear powered future.

Who knows, it could even work?: just like in the USA, France, China, India, South Korea, Sweden, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belgium, Hungary, the UAE, the UK, etc, etc…

We could go on to name all 30, but we’ve made our point. The sooner Australia’s gets with the program and features on that growing list, the better.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. Marjorie Curtis (Geologist) says:

    The problem with using, perfectly sensible nuclear power is that, tragically, the general public”s first acquaintance with the word “nuclear” was at the end of World War II when the USA managed to bring to an end the war in the Pacific using two Nuclear bombs. They had horrible effects – no question – but without them a great many more people, Japanese, but also American and its allies would have lost their lives. Since then many countries have been peacefully and safely using the energy derived from nuclear fission as a power source. When there is an accident at a nuclear plant, the media report the incident as if it were the end of the world – remember 3-mile island, and Fukushima, amidst a handful of others, when the number of casualities were low. I think I read that three people died during the 3-mile accident, when on the same day 29 coal miners died in a collapse in a Lancashire (UK) coal mine. In my local paper, 3-mile Island commanded the whole front page, and went on for a couple of weeks, using the whole newsprint (broadsheet) page, whilst the Lancashire miners got about ten lines in a single column on about page 12. Most of my friends never noticed the report – if you can call it that! The tragedy is that South Australia has a great deal of uranium ore, and not just from Roxby Downs, and could produce nuclear power without having to transport the ore very far from the source to, say, Port Augusta which is a suitable place to build a nuclear power generator, like one of your other correspondents suggested. It is really tragic when eco-loons like the (now) former premier of SA get the political power, based on terrible ignorance to cause such a disaster. They even have shut down the Leigh Creek coal mine, and its associated power station at Augusta, for some reason – loony politics, of course. We should use our natural resources, not just ignore them. Maybe the new lot in power in SA will do better, but I somehow doubt it.

  2. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. They end the bias against the safety aspects of nukes, cheaper to build and produce energy matched to demand, which U reactors cant. With lots of U in Australia, you will have even more Th, as you just throw it away now.

  3. Graeme No. 3 says:

    Most nuclear reactors are based on designs that provide plutonium for bombs. There are alternative designs known from successful small scale units e.g. Russia is building a 170MW homogeneous reactor whereas those used for the last 60 years have all been 5MW research types making radioactive isotopes for medical use. The Chinese have started a pebble reactor and of course there is the molten salt thorium reactor that worked in the late 1960’s and was shut for political not safety concerns.
    Choosing one of those might reduce opposition further.

  4. C. Paul Barreira says:

    Little of this is credible. One does, I seem to recall from somewhere, require a considerable cadre of nuclear engineers to run such a plant. From where are they to come?

    The argument from a survey without details is rarely if ever convincing. South Australians have made it perfectly clear they prefer nuclear waste kept in hospitals rather than a dedicated waste facility. They will not accept nuclear power generation in their backyard. Rightly or wrongly, “Fukushima” trumps anything on offer. And mention of Fukushima brings us to the final point here.

    That is the notion, implicit in the above, that the Government of South Australian might be entrusted with managing such a facility. The proposition is risible. Government here cannot run a nursing home efficiently or effectively. The hospitals are full and it’s only March. Government has, over the past half-century and more (possibly beginning in 1960 or thereabouts), reduced its systems of education, notably schools but universities (so-called) as well, to the pitiful purposes of the replication of linguistic and disciplinary ignorance and prejudice.

    It’s worth recalling that Roxby Downs only happened because one Labor member of the Legislative Council voted with the government of the day. SA has yet to erect a statue of Norm Foster. Why? A basic distrust of history I suspect. Think of SA without the Olympic Dam mine.

    Coal offers the only real alternative to penury, ever diminishing public morale and depopulation.

    • 450 reactors operating with 60 being built says otherwise. French power prices are substanially less than coal fired QLD, NSW and VIC.

      The engineers will come from France, via Saudi Arabia and UAE, where they are working now. And you can teach engineers alongside imported ones, just like German engineers taught Victorian ones how to burn lignite in the La Trobe Valley.

      Fukushima, the ‘disaster’ without a single direct fatality, is an anti-nuke mantra, not an argument.

      The only solid point you make is that SA governments have been inept in building a hospital, but that doesn’t rule out nuclear power.

      And your position concedes nothing to CO2 fanatics, who will always push their suicidal policies aimed at killing off coal, and humanity with it. They have no sensible argument against nuclear. If they are truly serious about CO2.

      • C. Paul Barreira says:

        “says otherwise.” My point related to South Australia; for SA the argument is not credible.

        The number of nuclear engineers required is unclear. An ageing class of such persons elsewhere already provokes concern.
        .

        Further, the degree requirements re not inconsiderable (even when, for example, taking the dismal standards of US “schooling” into account (a Ph.D. in two years!).

        See .

        Nuclear engineering is not taught on the job.

        Fukushima is indeed a “mantra, not an argument”. In fact it is much stronger than that, being deeply embedded in people’s mindsets. All of which likely makes it even less capable of being overcome by reasoned argument. When the tsunami hit Fukushima I looked about (per web) to see if other nuclear plants were similarly affected. There were, and at all of them (this from memory) the problems were overcome by automatic systems—none of which was reported by MSM.

        Going from an ineptly designed hospital—and much else—to nuclear facility is a level of complexity and difficulty whose management is way beyond the capacity of the Government of South Australia. These people blew up a power station, replace it (allegedly) with a bunch of windmills and one interconnector and, only after at least three very serious blackouts, wondered how to manage it all (230volt, 50 hz and so on). On the face of it they had no electrical engineers who, for the bureaucracy, could define the requirements for a stable grid—and be heard.

        Regarding CO2 fanatics. In South Australia, in essence, they have won. The change of government has, and likely will, make for no change. To make changes now, even to coal, would be to break an election promise. Nothing unusual in that, but the scale of the issue is comparable to the GST, on which John Howard and co. went back to the people for new mandate. The next election in SA is not due for another four years. The new energy minister (from Port Augusta) seems as clear on CO2 as Michael Mann. Perhaps the CO2 mania will have begun to die by that time. It is possible but depends upon very clear evidence being presented by MSM to a largely disengaged and not very literate public. MSM have it both ways: Michael Mann from one angle (CO2) and Helen Caldicott (nuclear) from the other—reason, like the worm on the railway track, in the middle.

        One might prefer things otherwise, but they are not. Perhaps when house prices fall significantly people will sit up and take some serious notice but I doubt it. Bear in mind, SA was settled by (British) Europeans purely for the purposes of land speculation. That priority has waxed and waned but has latterly returned to its original place of significance.

        SA has had its share of enthusiasms, even a sense of determined purpose (witness the Great War, education and hotel hours among others), though usually with some sort of boundary (in the Great War that was conscription for overseas service). The electorate has changed greatly over the past 80 years or so, partly on account of broad-based immigration but for other significant reasons as well, not least secularisation (bit a fogey that term but it will do for now). It has lost much of its language (government policy now satisfied with a self-replicating school system, for example) and hence capacity for argument.

        Coal may return to public discussion, it may not—time will tell (I won’t know about it, for which I am somewhat thankful). But, reasonable or not, nuclear—no.

      • Thanks for your lengthy comment, none of which causes us to reconsider our position. We’ve yet to hear a sensible argument against nuclear power, as opposed to excuses as why it can’t happen now or in this place or that. The 2 biggest oil/gas producers in the world, UAE and Saudi Arabia are building huge nuclear generation capacity right now. And you can’t tell us that they have Bedouin camel herders building them. The engineers are French and British. Are you seriously suggesting these people wouldn’t come to Australia to work? And are you seriously suggesting that there are no people here capable of becoming engineers, skilled in the operation of nuclear plant?

        There is a difference between what has happened or not and what should happen. Without baseload CO2 free power, which means nuclear, CO2 zealots will succeed in destroying reliable and affordable power supplies. They will never let up in their quest to kill coal. Your position continues to ignore that fact, but wish as you might it isn’t going away.

      • C. Paul Barreira says:

        I have made little or no real comment against nuclear power. I doubt some of the practicalities but they represent questions not firm positions. I do not suggest that some nuclear engineers may not wish to come to Australia, but doubts are abroad regarding training sufficient nuclear engineers for present let alone future requirements.

        Do I suggest “that there are no people here capable of becoming engineers, skilled in the operation of nuclear plant”. That would be to overstate the point but, yes, have I doubts. Such a degree is available at the University of Wollongong. I know not how many students they have.

        Anyway, these are practicalities, quite possibly overcome without great difficulty.

        But I repeat, the question of local nuclear power generation, as a matter of public opinion, is in this part of the world devoid of real possibility. One may wish it otherwise but without public support any part of the nuclear fuel cycle, including essential (or baseload) power generation simply can not happen. (It is worth recalling in June 1982 that just one vote in the Legislative Council allowed Olympic Dam to proceed [Roxby Downs Indenture Ratification Bill].)

        And, yes, “CO2 zealots will succeed in destroying reliable and affordable power supplies”—indeed, it is not “will succeed” but have succeeded. In 1979 or thereabouts I took a Year 11 class to the then new Port Augusta power station. The safety officer took us though the place. All gone.

        Early in January this year I overheard some one say that he had switched off his fan during a recent hot spell (40 degrees and counting on the day concerned) in order to keep some control over his power bill. His fan! Roughly six months earlier I was told of an elderly chap in Campbelltown who had a chilblain on the end of his nose because he could not afford to keep himself sufficiently warm.

        And for the media, bureaucracy, intellectuals and most politicians that is fine. Anthony Trollope was scathing of journalists over one and a half centuries ago. Little could he imagine today’s performances. Intellectuals have by their carelessness created unimaginable levels of suffering over the past century. Governments, under guidance from various academics laboured to reduce the general public’s ability to manipulate language. Few in the public now can ask questions. One could go on but best not. To argue in the face of the cultural changes of the past 70 or 80 years is pointless. The niches making the possibility of change are at present missing.

        In my view the concept of the irreducible dignity of the person is at the heart of any such change. It was not expressed in that way a century ago (1910s) but it was implied in most public expression as found, say, in local newspapers (as well, but less clearly in the metro dailies) or in the Children’s Page of the Daily Herald. It was a ground for the expanded voting rights of South Australians from 1894. Greens contempt for such personhood runs parallel with the hideosity that is contemporary cinema or television or drama (see the programme for any recent Adelaide Festival).

        I have found instances of great courage and determination in the actions of many South Australians, especially civilians, during the Great War. Those characteristics have passed. Oddly, one can see it around Mount Bryan and Hallett. Where once great flocks of valuable sheep ran and farmers also grew cereal crops there are now wind turbines, producing no wealth and little electricity. R. J. M. McBride (1831-1921), to quote an extraordinary example, gave away some £57,000 during his lifetime. Others, on a lesser scale, did likewise. From among those same people came Mary Warnes (though born in Fullarton) who founded the CWA. One really could go on and on but I desist.

        I only observe that the “long march through the institutions” has been incredibly successful. Like public opinion regarding the nuclear fuel cycle, it is likely irreversible. Still, death and taxes aside, nothing is inevitable.

      • Nothing is written in stone, either. Leaders write history, not followers. What this country lacks are leaders. Leaders have courage and patience. Can’t think of a politician since John Howard with either attribute.

    • Tom Foley says:

      Who says the SA Government has to run such a facility?
      You don’t think it can be outsourced to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, GE or someone else well versed in the construction and day to day operations?
      The government can lease/buy back the plant and the excess power generated can pay for the operational costs and pay down the investment.

      • What Paul also overlooks is that, despite its many costly and spectacular failures, South Australia hosts one of the world’s largest uranium mines at Roxby Downs (Olympic Dam, gold/copper/uranium owned and operated by BHP Billiton), and another large operation at Beverly/Four Mile, owned and operated by Heathgate/Quasar. Which, in our view, makes Port Augusta in SA the obvious place for Australia to commence the construction of a 1,000 MW reactor. That project might take a decade, but in the interim SA could easily stage its entry into the atomic age with several Small Modular Reactors and the obvious place to do so is right next to BHP’s Roxby Downs mine.

        Paul also appears to believe that there is a scarce and finite stock of engineers capable of building and operating nuclear plant. You will note our disagreement to that claim among these comments.

        Australia is an open economy, and has always heavily relied upon immigrants with all manner of skills in short supply amongst its locals. Nuclear engineering is no different. Whether they be American, French or British, we expect Australia can readily source engineers with the requisite skills, if it had the desire to build a fleet of nuclear reactors. There is not one practical reason that we have seen that prevents Australia moving towards nuclear power generation. The only obstacles are political and the biggest one is a lack of vision and leadership.

  5. I’m sure I’ve read in the (always lying about everything) MSM that nuclear energy is subsidised, however:
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx
    It seems it is not?

    • Keen to see you quantify it, compare it to the $60 billion in subsidies that will be given to wind and solar under the RET and then compare the true value of nuclear vs wind and solar based on their capacity factor, reliability and dispatchibility. For $60 bn we could have had 5 x 1000 MW nuclear plant built to last a lifetime, instead we have thousands of windmills and millions of panels that have an economic life span of a bit over 10 years. By then the only jobs will be at Bunnings and Dan Murphys.

  6. Tom Foley says:

    Awesome article. Articulated exactly what most non-idealogues are thinking when it comes to being energy self sufficient.
    But hopeless political parties never envision a solution to a problem we could easily extract ourselves from.

    South Australia could be the beacon of hope for energy security, instead of the basket case it is today, with the complete nuclear energy cycle contained within the state.
    But nooooo, that would be to logical!
    This country is backwards!

  7. Paul Symonds says:

    This is dumber than dumb.
    The SA outback is one of the most geologically stable areas in the world.
    At Port Augusta we have the ideal site for nuclear generation with salt water supplies for cooling and an already established transmission grid.
    With Olympic Dam one of worlds largest deposits of uranium just up the road, we could process the uranium, produce emission free nuclear power, and store the waste.
    Everybody I talk to in this state can see it, but they are too scared to push it publicly in fear of being ridiculed.

  8. With LaborLite clone Marshall ending the 16 year rule of Labor eco-loon Weatherill, long suffering crow eaters should not let their hopes for a return to some semblance of energy sanity run too high. In an abysmal start to SA’s new dawn Marshall hasn’t even mentioned what he plans to do to address SA’s most urgent problem, the devastating impact of Weatherill’s scorched earth renewable energy policy (destroy any and all forms of reliable, dispatchable generation).
    So while SA is unquestionably best placed of all Australian states to develop an integrated nuclear industry please don’t hold your breath.

    • My apologies for having credited Jay Weatherill with single handedly having destroyed SA’s once affordable, reliable electricity supply. Of course he was aided and abetted by one Mike Rann who was responsible for the first nine years or so of SA Labor’s scorched earth renewables campaign.

  9. Son of a goat says:

    In a break from tradition the annual Clean Energy Love In gathering was held with a pilgrimage to our mecca of Hepburn Springs, the highlight being an evening with his majesty the Great REM (Renewable Energy Messiah.)

    Zealots, delusionals and rent seekers came en masse and made the trip any way they could, by subsidised transport, even riding a donkey bare back and Kane rode his Malvern Star doing a mono in front of the crowd, to the delight of those Women of Renewables.

    The crowd gathered in the twilight underneath the lengthing shadow of two eco crucifixes, cynically named Merrill and Lynch by the locals (they promised a lot but quite often failed to deliver.)

    The evening started off with acknowledgment of the traditional owners of the land, the birds and animals that had either been sliced and diced or driven from their homes.

    This was followed by the burning of incense, namely effigy’s of Chris Ullman and Josh Frydenberg.

    The evening climaxed with a sermon from the Great REM, as he stretched his hands to his faithful he delivered his sermon;
    “Dear believers, today we are surrounded by the forces of evil and darkness.”
    To which a lone voice in the distance cried out, “that’s because we have got no power, ya clown.”

    The said individual was seized upon a wannabe hipster from Sydney with an assault rifle slung across his back and the hide of a freshly skun moggy on his head. The infidel was thrown in a pit of Fire ants.

    Proceedings finished on a high, as all and sundry followed the lead of the Great REM and sung a stirring rendition of “Eve of Destruction.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdWGp3HQVjU

  10. This article is so important I urge people to share it on Facebook

  11. Absolutely – Great Article _ South Australia should be the most prosperous state in Australia with a blossoming nuclear industry providing a powerful base for industry and public capital works

    To have deposits in your state and no right or ability to use them is ridiculous

    The Nuclear option, considered in the South Australian Royal Commission inquiry into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, should be implemented. It was only dismissed on economic grounds but reckoned to be necessary to be revisited as an option at a later date

    Now is that “later date”

    Nuclear reactors could provide the baseload essential for reliable function of renewables and the excessive intrusion of Wind Farms into peoples lives halted

    Australia should have adopted nuclear power decades ago – We can leap in now with the very latest technology including reactors with vastly diminished waste and several more levels of safety

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: