Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5514
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 09 2020 6:59pm

Internet cartoonist Randall Munroe answers absurd questions with technically-correct, if flippant answers. In his recent book, he answered the question of whether a typical U.S. can be can energy self-sufficient. The answer is fun and a little interesting so I thought I''d summarise it here:

The Median U.S. house sits on a 0.2 acre plot (of which it occupies 25%) and consumes ~1kW averaged over the year. All potential sources of energy available are considered, either directly on your 0.2 acres or as a pro-rata share for the entire U.S. No consideration of technically feasibility is given to harnessing energy sources on small scales.

Biomass

Sustainably grown & harvested pine on 0.2 acres: 38W average, forever
Switchgrass: 150W

Water

The U.S. averages 31 inches of rain over its whole land area at an average elevation of 2500 ft, giving a total potential of 1.7 TW, or 14 kW per household. Actual total exploitable hydroelectric power is much less: 85 GW, or 700W per household.

Mineable reserves

Your 0.2 acres represents 1/12,000,000,000 of the U.S. If mineable resources were evenly distributed you'd have:

3 barrels of oil: enough to power your house for 8 months
38,000 cubic feet of natural gas: enough for 16 months
19 tons of coal: enough for 12 years
1.5 ounces of uranium: enough to a few months in a conventional reactor, or a decade in a fast neutron reactor

Total non-renewable sources are sufficient to power your house at 1 kW for a few decades

Geothermal

If your house is in a typical geologically quiet area, heat flow would be approx 50mW per sqaure metre, or 40W indefinitely for your 0.2 acre plot

If you live in a geologically active area like The Geysers geothermal plant in NorCal, which produces 77 kW per acre, you have 15kW available

Techtonic

If you lived on a fault line with movement of 1 inch per year and you could somehow build a piston and turbine device to harness this movement you could generate 1 kW - if the pistons had an area of 0.2 acres and operated at 800 MPa. The devices and it's extensive anchors are estimated to weigh 60 billion tons and cost $40 billion in materials.

Solar

Average insolation in the U.S. is 200W per square metre averaged over the year. With 15% efficient panels, your 0.2 acre plot would generate 25 kW

Wind

An average area like St. Louis has a wind power potential of about 50W per square metre at 50 metres above the ground, 200 W/m^2 at 100 m and approx 400 W/m^2 at 200m. A very windy area like the Rockies might be 4x those figures, while central Georgia & Alabama might be a quarter of those.

The maximum size turbine that can be fitted on 0.2 acres is 28 metres in diameter (40 metres if fitted diagonally). If installed 50 metres off the ground in an area with 100 W/m^2 and assuming 30% efficiency, total power would be around 19 kW.

Space Itself

If spacetime contains residual tension after settling out from the Big Bang, it is not a true vacuum and contains a lot of potential energy per cubic metre. If you could decay this false vacuum it could release the energy of the Higgs field, probably as extremely high energy radiation. However, it would also form a bubble of true vacuum that would expand at the speed of light, ultimately destroying and collapsing the entire universe.

I recommend the book, "How To" by Randall Munroe. This one chapter was not intended as a serious examination of energy sources, but I found it revealed just how unsustainable fossil fuels, and even nuclear, look from even a cursory inspection. It's also surprising just how good solar & wind look.

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1970
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Feb 09 2020 8:59pm

South Australia lost their main 700MW extension electricity cord to Victorian coal power for the last ~10 days.
But they still have the secondary 150MW link.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austr ... ned-30929/
The loss of ... transmission lines, has effectively closed the main electricity highway between Victoria and South Australia (the Heywood Interconnector).

And while the smaller MurrayLink in the north of the state remains open, and will allow some limited transfers to and from South Australia, the Australian Energy Market Operator is effectively operating the South Australia grid as an island.

Image
Side note, I am permanently banned from making entry into the comments section on Renewecomony website, all I did was post Wikipedia URLs etc..

This was a snap-shot just before South Australia lost its main connection to Victorian coal.
You can see the regular days of SA importing up to a massive 771MW of coal-fired electricity from Victoria in purple color to keep its "clean wind energy dream" running nicely and cheaply.
Larger image view here download/file.php?id=266718
2020-01-31_SA.jpg
South Australia electricity imports week lead up
2020-01-31_SA.jpg (238.7 KiB) Viewed 1094 times
Since the storms, the wind has been well above average for SA in the last week, but today we start a week of more normal weather in SA combined with a proper start of normal power consumption with the resuming of school etc as summer holidays have ended...

So now depending on when they get the Heywood electricity interconnector fixed we will have a real-world window into the prices/workings of South Australia's green energy vision without being able to suck well over 50% (65% in the snapshot above) of all their energy via Victorian coal transmission towers, instead, they can rely on the wind and the Tesla battery etc.

If you go to Opennem.org.au you will see South Australia's electricity prices are listed as the cheapest in the whole of Australia, but that's because Opennem is set up entirely by the renewables industry to lobby green energy, it's riddled with misleading data, IMO.
Instead, if you go the government-backed official AEOM website, you will see South Australia has the most expensive electricity in the country right now.
As does ElectricityMap show a nice healthy solid $300MW/h for SA for most of the last 24 hours.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=fa ... emote=true
https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/ ... hboard-nem
So South Australia is about ~$300 vs $50 for every other state :lol:.
Also, South Australia requires far less electricity than the other states, in fact, SA can even power its self via diesel generators, SA should be the easiest state to power.
2020-02-10 (1).png
real-world electricity prices SA at $300 vs $50 for every other state
2020-02-10 (1).png (76.97 KiB) Viewed 1088 times
The with the main link severed between SA and Vic, the only thing the renewables industry can do to make SA's electricity look cheap is to buy the remaining wind power via the remaining 150MW link for the most expensive/cheapest MW/h possible, depending on how you want to look at it.

Also the next most very notable thing is that Victoria's electricity prices have come down in price significantly since the Heywood electricity link cut, normally Victoria follows SA's electricity prices in an exact fashion like a carbon copy due to having such a large connection with each other, but at a HUGE detriment to Victoria having cheaper electricity, Victoria props up SA's electricity at a huge cost.

It's actually long been a secret dream of mine to somehow lose control of a tractor or something and push over the SA-Vic electricity pylon towers so that Victoria could enjoy cheaper electricity prices, but now nature has done it for us. :lol:
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1326
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 17 2020 1:33pm

"Called the Great Acceleration, the speed-up is driving what Earth System scientists describe as “the most rapid transformation of the human relationship with the natural world in the history of humankind.”[1] It marks the beginning of a new historical and geological epoch, the Anthropocene — a time when “human activities have become so pervasive and profound that they rival the great forces of nature and are pushing the Earth into planetary terra incognita.”
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020 ... he-oceans/
.
Image
.

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1970
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Feb 27 2020 3:58am

Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1326
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 27 2020 6:19am

Apparently, corrosion of the electrodes in photo-electrolytic cells is a big challenge.
.
"Photoelectrolytic cells have passed the 10 percent economic efficiency barrier. Corrosion of the semiconductors remains an issue, given their direct contact with water.[5] Research is now ongoing to reach a service life of 10000 hours, a requirement established by the United States Department of Energy. In 2013 a cell with 2 nanometers of nickel on a silicon electrode, paired with a stainless steel electrode, immersed in an aqueous electrolyte of potassium borate and lithium borate operated for 80 hours without noticeable corrosion, versus 8 hours for titanium dioxide. In the process, about 150 ml of hydrogen gas was generated, representing the storage of about 2 kilojoules of energy."
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectrochemical_cell
.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 27 2020 10:36pm

Developments of Direct fuel cell tech could enable “zero emissions”. Coal fueled electricity generation.
..Advancements in a fuel cell technology powered by solid carbon could make electricity generation from coal and biomass cleaner and more efficient, according to a new article. Innovations in the anode, the electrolyte and the fuel allow the fuel cell to utilize more carbon, operate at lower temperatures and show higher maximum power densities than earlier direct carbon fuel cells (DCFCs)....
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 091312.htm
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... generation
For large stationary power generation, current interest is in integrating a coal gasification process with high-temperature fuel cells (IGFC) to create ultra-high-efficiency, low-emissions power generation systems. The first IGFC demonstration plant with CCS may be in Japan in 2021 as a result of the CoolGen project. ...
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5514
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 28 2020 4:05am

So potentially twice the efficiency of a normal coal fired power plant but likely to need the fuel gasifying first and the resulting CO2 sequestering. Sounds expensive. Might be useful as an alternative to gas turbine or piston engined peak shavers, backup or remote site power.

User avatar
Dauntless   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 8263
Joined: May 29 2010 1:49am
Location: Coordinates: 33°52′48″N 117°55′43″W

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Dauntless » Mar 01 2020 11:12pm

Not just the '60 Minute's' report on the Bahamas going solar, but a link to the very first 60 minutes report on solar 41 years ago.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bahamas-hu ... 020-03-01/
Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 02 2020 12:08am

There's a growing consensus among scientists that climate change is what's making hurricanes stronger and more destructive. ]
Why do they persist with this utter bollocks ?
Do we have to chew over old discussions and recorded facts again ?

And of course the “blame” and compensate bandwagon ..
'First World nations make the greatest contribution to climate change,'" Minnis told Whitaker. "They are the ones responsible for the changes that we see. The increase in velocity and ferocity of the hurricanes and the different-- and the changes, typhoons that we see today, but we're the innocent victim. We're the ones that are being impacted by what you have created."

Minnis and leaders of other island nations have proposed that the U.S. and European countries contribute to an insurance fund – ....
Yes , ..lets all contribute to a fund so the rich can continue their island lifestyle .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5514
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Mar 02 2020 4:11am

You are aware that hurricanes are a phenomenon powered by heat, right?

User avatar
ZeroEm   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 329
Joined: May 03 2019 11:53am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by ZeroEm » Mar 02 2020 11:01am

Nothing to discuss the earth is round. But there are the few that would strap themselves to a rocket before accepting the truth.
2019 Performer E-Trike 9w/km
2013 Nissan Leaf S 8 bars 328.306w/KM

User avatar
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2597
Joined: Feb 09 2007 3:02am
Location: Marlboro

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh » Mar 02 2020 12:05pm

Punx0r wrote:
Mar 02 2020 4:11am
You are aware that hurricanes are a phenomenon powered by heat, right?
you are aware of haarp pumping a billion watts of microwave energy into the ionosphere, right?

sky iz falling turkee lurkee

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5514
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Mar 02 2020 5:02pm

Obvious troll is obvious

User avatar
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2597
Joined: Feb 09 2007 3:02am
Location: Marlboro

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh » Mar 02 2020 5:46pm

you can be dismissive of me all you like but it don't change the fact that weather warfare & geo-engineering are going on right now.
there wouldn't be the need for a treaty if it wasn't real.
the true purpose of any treaty is to attempt to keep your enemy from breaking the treaty while you keep forging ahead.
bury your head in the sand if you must, just answer for yourself if microwave cooking the atmosphere is helping with global warming?

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4686605A/en

JackFlorey   100 W

100 W
Posts: 214
Joined: Feb 19 2020 7:22pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by JackFlorey » Mar 02 2020 6:19pm

Punx0r wrote:
Mar 02 2020 5:02pm
Obvious troll is obvious
Yep. HAARP is an oldie but a goodie. Although usually it's the government trying to control your brain, rather than the government causing global warming.

JackFlorey   100 W

100 W
Posts: 214
Joined: Feb 19 2020 7:22pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by JackFlorey » Mar 02 2020 6:20pm

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 02 2020 12:08am
Yes , ..lets all contribute to a fund so the rich can continue their island lifestyle .
More like "let's all contribute to a fund so the poor who live on islands can still . . . have islands."

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1970
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Mar 03 2020 12:02am

In reference to the news ( viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&p=1533833#p1528833 ) of the South Australia Heywood interstate connector being disconnected for about 2 weeks and then being reconnected, we can see the difference of how much South Australia relies on Victorian coal electricity for stable electricity prices.

I merely copied and pasted the data into a Google docs spreadsheet from AEMO's website from the daily "Average Price" section, and turned it into a chart, I set electricity price spike above $500 as $500 max to help with chart clarity.
https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/ ... rice-table
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

I believe if Victoria just permanently severed their interstate grid connection with South Australia then Victoria would be major beneficiaries saving billions of dollars in wholesale electricity costs. :bolt:
SA and VIC wholesale electricity, before and after interstate connection loss. 2020_Jan_01 to 2020_Feb_17.png
SA and Vic wholesale electricity. Before and after interstate connection loss.
SA and VIC wholesale electricity, before and after interstate connection loss. 2020_Jan_01 to 2020_Feb_17.png (42.64 KiB) Viewed 747 times
The disturbing reality is the almost perfect lockstep of wholesale electricity prices between SA/Vic BEFORE the interstate-grid cut, then the reality after which starts at the big price spike for both states.. Victoria is secretly/invisibly burdened with the vast majority of eating real-world costs for SA, the only easy way to have seen this fact is with them being disconnected, which was a rare opportunity.

Then on top, we have to remember that South Australia powered via "renewables of wind-farms/solar+fossil fuel gas :flame: " is often at 500 CO2/kWh, and averages around 10 times MORE CO2 emissions than France via nuclear power :bolt:
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=fa ... emote=true
https://youtu.be/qMpOCGjHCmw

If we were considering these two technologies as "cars emissions", then it would be a joke :lol: No one would accept even a car that has x2 times more emissions as acceptable, but folks tribally accept renewable wind/solar energy when its ultimately causing 10 times more co2 emissions.
I thought climate change via CO2 emissions was supposed to be a massive emergency :warn:, but when it comes to the real-world data and facts it appears the doomsayers don't care at all, just like typical politicians.

To see it any other way is entirely due to the power of old broadcast media that can endlessly repeat misleading lies about wind/solar until people believe the claims to their bones. All broadcast media will always be abused until it's replaced with streaming.
Last edited by TheBeastie on Mar 03 2020 8:30am, edited 2 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 03 2020 4:38am

Interesting insight on the development of Fusion power
These guys seem convinced they will have fusion power generation within 10 years
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5514
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Mar 03 2020 9:13am

They always are ;)

User avatar
ZeroEm   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 329
Joined: May 03 2019 11:53am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by ZeroEm » Mar 03 2020 10:33am

That could replace our batteries and have unlimited distance.
2019 Performer E-Trike 9w/km
2013 Nissan Leaf S 8 bars 328.306w/KM

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1326
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 03 2020 3:30pm

"Our core ecological problem is not climate change. It is overshoot, of which global warming is a symptom. Overshoot is a systemic issue. Over the past century-and-a-half, enormous amounts of cheap energy from fossil fuels enabled the rapid growth of resource extraction, manufacturing, and consumption; and these in turn led to population increase, pollution, and loss of natural habitat and hence biodiversity. The human system expanded dramatically, overshooting Earth’s long-term carrying capacity for humans while upsetting the ecological systems we depend on for our survival. Until we understand and address this systemic imbalance, symptomatic treatment (doing what we can to reverse pollution dilemmas like climate change, trying to save threatened species, and hoping to feed a burgeoning population with genetically modified crops) will constitute an endlessly frustrating round of stopgap measures that are ultimately destined to fail."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017 ... t-save-us/

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 03 2020 4:24pm

Punx0r wrote:
Mar 03 2020 9:13am
They always are ;)
They are in your neck of the woods..(Oxford.).. You should pop round and have a chat..put them straight ! :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 03 2020 4:35pm

TheBeastie wrote:
Mar 03 2020 12:02am
In reference to the news ( viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&p=1533833#p1528833 ) of the South Australia Heywood interstate connector being disconnected for about 2 weeks and then being reconnected, we can see the difference of how much South Australia relies on Victorian coal electricity for stable electricity prices.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

I believe if Victoria just permanently severed their interstate grid connection with South Australia then Victoria would be major beneficiaries saving billions of dollars in wholesale electricity costs.
And that effect was still limited by the 200+MW single interconnector that remained in use.
That would have protected SA from the worst extremes of price peaks, as well as preventing even lower prices in VIC.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 03 2020 4:55pm

The MEGA grid...
It would appear that the ideal RE solution of distributed generation potentially eliminating the need for high capacity Grid infrastructure, has been rethought to the extent that infact “super” and Continent wide “Mega” Grids are necessary to enable RE to function effectively.
The EU has already dictated that every country/state will have at least capacity to trasfer 10% of its generation capacity to neighbouring countries by 2025 and even higher levels beyond that.
This involves the construction of huge amounts of HVDC interconnectors between countries.
https://www.tdworld.com/grid-innovation ... -mega-grid
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 03 2020 5:22pm

Subsidies to Australian wind turbines will amount to $5.0 + MILLION EACH ! :shock:
Currently , each turbine averages $525,000 in subsidies annually !
Note:- each wind turbine generates less than 8000MWh annually,..value less than $400,000 !!
..On the basis of there being 2 077 wind turbines in Australia, the RET provides $1.09 billion per annum to the wind industry. On this basis, and assuming the RET operates for another 15 years, the RET cross-subsidy for existing turbines from now until 2030 will be in the vicinity of $9.3 billion.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... Report/c07
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Post Reply