Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4497
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 11, 2018 6:12 pm

I'm talking about nationwide fluctuations in demand, so it seems you have to have a few coal plants idling alongside your inflexible baseload coal plants to take up the peaks (and presumably you still need to predict the peak well in advance to feed the boiler and raise sufficient steam).

Doesn't that seem rather inefficient? And reminiscent of the faulty argument that coal plants must be kept idling to back up RE generators?

Seems like grid battery or idling wind turbine or PV sat in the sun would be able to respond near-instantly and much more efficiently.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 749
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 11, 2018 6:41 pm

Does all of the steam from a thermal plant have to pass through the turbines all of the time or can some of it be controlled to regulate voltage and frequency? Balancing instantaneous demand is nothing like maintaining a high percentage of non-intermittent generation to back up RE when the wind didn't happen to blow all night. Or all week in the winter when there is very little sun.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 11, 2018 7:13 pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Jan 11, 2018 6:27 am
Hillhater wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 5:35 pm

Wind generators in Germany are "guaranteed" a feed in tarrif of 8€ct/kWh for 5 years, and a lower rate for the next 15 yrs.....
So who is paying the extra 4€cts ? ( hidden in taxes ?)
Again you are not up to date to the real data. They have to bid for the feed in tarif price now.......
...But only introduced in 2016, and only for new projects.
All the existing RE plants will still operate on the original agreed feed in tarif until their 20 yr contracts expire.
Then again, these are just "bid" prices, which bear no relationship to the actual cost of generation.
They are simply a way of securing a contract to supply an agreed amount of power, and unless you know the fine print in the tender , we do not know if that is a minimum price, or if those plants can still sell excess capacity into the peak markets at much higher costs ...as happens in other similarpower markets.
Also, there is a suspicion that some of these bids are speculative on future equipment and construction costs reducing significantly before they have to actually commence the projects.

Is a solar PV plant that is able to produce at around 5ct/kWh and produces most electricity when it is need most (during daytime) a good idea or is it that expensive, non efficient nonsese that you still think about it?

In more sunnier regions large solar PV plants can now produce electricity for less than 3ct/kWh....
No matter what the cost, a power source that does not work for several months of the year is a folly !
(Germany was reported to have only 10 hours equivalent of sunshine during all of December )
https://sunshinehours.net/2018/01/04/10 ... mber-2017/


Much of Germanys recent wind farm projects have been offshore,
No.
Installed wind capacity in Germany at the end of 2017

onshore: 50.29 GW
offshore: 5.27GW
Yes, but.. Most of the offshore capacity has been in the last 3 years

with generation costs 2-3 times higher than onshore.
So far there was just one bid round for wind offshore yet.
Result for average feed in tariff:

0,44ct/kWh...
??? 0,44ct/kWh. ??,.... Or. 44,0ct/kWh ?
Extreme either way .
...? sounds like € 4 bn of wasted money to me. Who is getting rich from that ?.
And the extra costs for those new grid lines to facilitate RE integration is .....??????
Who is getting rich opperation a grid in your country?.....
..The private owners of the distribution network (grid) which has been in private ownership for many years.
They are mostly overseas owners ..Chinese, French, USA, etc
So that kind of financial waste is revenue lost to our economy.
Last edited by Hillhater on Jan 11, 2018 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 11, 2018 7:35 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 11, 2018 6:12 pm
I'm talking about nationwide fluctuations in demand, so it seems you have to have a few coal plants idling alongside your inflexible baseload coal plants to take up the peaks (and presumably you still need to predict the peak well in advance to feed the boiler and raise sufficient steam).

Doesn't that seem rather inefficient? And reminiscent of the faulty argument that coal plants must be kept idling to back up RE generators?

Seems like grid battery or idling wind turbine or PV sat in the sun would be able to respond near-instantly and much more efficiently.
All grid systems work that way. (.remember Wind, Solar, are only a few years old in grid terms)
Look at a typical week in Germanys power demand..
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm? ... &year=2017
Notice how its the coal and Gas plants mainly altering output to match demand..even Nuclear at times !
Most generation plants comprice of multiple turbine/generator units,.. 2, 4, 8, or more in one site and its common to have surplus capacity for both routine maintenance, and continuity of output and grid support (FCAS) purposes.
Generators can be kept idling " off load" but ready to be switched on line very quickly for either capacity or frequency stabilisation.
Gas "peaker" plants are designed for fast response/start up also.
Even in Australia, where a sucession of negligent Governments have allowed a steady decline in generation capacity to the point where 80-90% of all capacity is online at any one time, the system is still able to respond to major cuts in generator output .. Only last month a 700MW generator tripped offline without warning, but the mainly coal fired system was able to respond fast enough to prevent any disruption in supply.
Sure its not a 100% cost effective solution, bit for any secure 24/7 continuous operation you have to have standby backup available if you cannot afford disruption..and that is all factored into your operating costs.
Unfortunately that has not been done for RE generation,....other than to retain 100% fossil back up capacity ! :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 11, 2018 7:52 pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Jan 11, 2018 6:27 am
There is political discussion now about raising the RE electricity share goal from 50% in 2030 to 65% in 2030, because other sectors so far lack in CO2 reductions...
And there are also these political discussions about dropping the emmissions targets..
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germa ... KKBN1EX0OW
....BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany’s would-be coalition partners have agreed to drop plans to lower carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, sources familiar with negotiations said on Monday -- a potential embarrassment for Chancellor Angela Merkel.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 927
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jan 11, 2018 9:55 pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jan 11, 2018 7:13 pm
No matter what the cost, a power source that does not work for several months of the year is a folly !
Wow. So I imagine emergency generators, car engines, jet aircraft and flashlights are all folly. They "don't work" most of the time, after all. Interesting. Will you sell your useless car, now? (Although I imagine if you decided to start driving it 24 hours a day it wouldn't be folly.)
And the extra costs for those new grid lines to facilitate RE integration is .....??????
About the same as the extra costs for a big new fossil fuel power plant.
--bill von

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 11, 2018 10:21 pm

billvon wrote:
Jan 11, 2018 9:55 pm
[quote=Hillhater post_id=<a href="tel:1350319">1350319</a> time=<a href="tel:1515716021">1515716021</a> user_id=16882]
No matter what the cost, a power source that does not work for several months of the year is a folly !
..Wow. So I imagine emergency generators, car engines, jet aircraft and flashlights are all folly. They "don't work" most of the time, after all. Interesting. Will you sell your useless car, now? (Although I imagine if you decided to start driving it 24 hours a day it wouldn't be folly.)
And the extra costs for those new grid lines to facilitate RE integration is .....??????
About the same as the extra costs for a big new fossil fuel power plant.
You are lowering your standards bill.
That is hardly worthy of a reply !
You could build several new fossil fueled power plants for the 10 billion Euro estimated for the N/S grid link.
And the difference between a grid line and a power plant is..?
....One generates electricity, and hence revenue to return its costs..
.....The other transmits (and consumes) electricity and it’s additional cost that would not be required for local power plants....assuming you have followed that part of the discussion?
So spend the money on a local fossil fueled power plant which will pay for itself.
Last edited by Hillhater on Jan 15, 2018 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 927
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jan 11, 2018 11:37 pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jan 11, 2018 10:21 pm
You could build several new fossil fueled power plants for the 10 billion Euro estimated for the N/S grid link.
Right. And then you'd have to run a grid link to them for billions more to get the power out of those fossil fueled power plants.

Coal power is stuck in a bit of a quandry. No one wants coal power plants close to them; they realize the health risks they pose. They want them far away in someone _else's_ back yard. But even if they find some suckers who are willing to let the utility build such plants close to their homes, the utility still has to get that power to the NIMBY's - which means billions in additional costs for those powerlines.
And the difference between a grid line and a power plant is..?
One is a source of power; the other enables distribution and use of that power, whether the source is renewable or fossil.
...One generates electricity, and hence revenue to return its costs..
If a utility built a power plant, but did not build the transmission lines to connect it to the grid, how much money would it make, in your estimation?
So spend the money on a local fossil fueled power plant which will pay for itself.
Not without transmission lines.

And in any case, a utility is going to prefer to spend their money on cheaper power sources, like solar or wind. Not everyone is so gullible as to fall for the "you need 100% fossil back up capacity" lie, even if coal power advocates repeat it ad infinitum.
--bill von

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 12, 2018 2:44 am

Sorry bill, you are not following this at all are you ?
We are discussing Germany, where they have built wind farms everywhere, but most concentrated in the North , and offshore, where there is more wind. The issue is now to get that wind power to the south where the demand is, as they shut down the existing coal and Nuclear plants to satisfy their masterplan.
They didnt need the new long distance grid links for the existing plants, they were already there, where they were needed. They could have just rebuilt existing plants, or converted them to gas etc, but no,...they are determined to be wind powered even if it bankrupts them.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 749
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 13, 2018 10:13 am

I just noticed another stat on the wiki for Solar Star PV farm where they differentiate nameplate Power at 747 MW and nameplate AC at 597. It averaged 171 MW for 2016 which is 22% of the nameplate panel rating. It is running at about 13Wac/ meter. The offshore wind farm I found data on was at 31%, which would be high for onshore, and producing at 2.2 W/ meter.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Star
.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 749
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 13, 2018 7:22 pm

Shepards Flat wind farm in Oregon is 845 MW nameplate for $1.9 Billion = $2.2 / watt. Pretty cheap. But it is only doing 27% so the real cost is $8.1 / Watt and there are $3.4 Million / year in land use fees so $2B over 25 years. If it makes 2,000 GWh/ year that is paid back over 25 years at $0.04 / kWh.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherds_Flat_Wind_Farm
.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 15, 2018 9:25 pm

$0.04/kWh is inline with the eia.gov LCOE data for onshore wind. ( after tax concessions )
But , the odd thing is that those Sheperds Flat costs all relate to 2008-2012 contracts whilst the eia figures are for 2022 start ups. A 10 year time difference , which i would have expected to increase the costs for future projects ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 749
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 15, 2018 9:51 pm

It's hard to really know what the true cap cost of any project is. Most projects don't even list them. $2B for that Shepards flat wind farm seems a bit low but that's what Wiki says.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 15, 2018 11:18 pm

A possible option for the near future . A Continuous , Reliable, Clean, Safe, power source..
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/ARISThorCon9.pdf
Costed at $2/W but prdicted as low as $1.20/W
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 749
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 16, 2018 7:59 am

ThorCon Molten salt fuel mixes at near atmoshperic pressure are the way to go for using a Thorium mix. The Moltex SSR design is also based on this and will beat them to market by a decade but is more optimised to burn reprocessed high level waste or depleted Uranium which we have already.
.
No steam explosions. No Hydrogen explosions. No Cesium or Iodine in gaseous form. ThorCon has proposed a centralized solution to the previous big hang up of using Thorium in the reaction which requires reprocessing whereas the earlier designs always envisioned continuous online reprocessing at every reactor site. Which is what killed the idea 50 years ago. Factory construction of transportable, finished modules is also a key cost cutting feature of both. Moltex can travel by road. But the ThorCon would be perfect to save the vast population centers of the USA around the Great lakes and Eastern sea board where there is no sun throughout much of the winter. And anywhere around the world that can be reached by barge.
.
As Moltex has stated, the 600C operating temp is perfect for cost effective molten salt energy storage on site to allow variable output throughout the day to compliment any production from future distributed roof top solar. Which they say only adds $0.005/ kWh in cap costs.
.
Video on the ThorCon
.
https://youtu.be/VfsOYzOpYRw
.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 16, 2018 6:24 pm

Tesla's "Big f'n Battery" performance report.
..its been in operation for over a month now in SAustralia and some data is available..

Over the full month of December, the Battery operated in "brief bursts" of 30MW charge, and 30 MW discharge, usually for a few minutes at a time and only ocasionally for 30 mins - 1hour.
Officially it is supporting the grid with FCAS services, however, It would seem to be used mostly to "play" the wholesale power price market,..discharging when prices are high, and only charging when prices are noticable lower.
During the month , in total it generated 2.42 gigawatt-hours of energy, and consumed 3.06GWh.
So, it is a net consumer of energy.
This is often described in terms of “round trip efficiency”, a measure of the energy out to the energy in. In this case, the round trip efficiency appears to be roughly 80%.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 18, 2018 6:47 pm

Australia's 4000 MWh "battery"
There has been much news chat about Teslas "worlds biggest 129 MWh battery" in south Australia, but few will be aware that we already have a much bigger one anchored 500km off the siuthern coast.! :shock:
Its called Tasmania !...
Recently, every night , the mainland has "charged" Tasmania for 8 hours @ 500MW via the undersea connector HVDC link, using onshore coal fired power, then immediatelly at 7am until 9 pm reversed the flow to support the mainland (Victoria and SAustralia) during their daytime peak demands.
This is repeated daily.
This is possible because Tas has a high proportion of Hydro which it can turn the taps off at night to preserve flow for the daytime "discharge"... But it is behaving just like a huge battery.
This graphic of Tasmanias power demand shows the effect best. (There is a corresponding graphic of the Victoria power usage , but i wont bother posting that.
Image
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 749
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 18, 2018 7:02 pm

Natural hydro-storage covering the daytime peak.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 18, 2018 7:34 pm

Yes, ....but whilst that is normal for many grid systems, (indeed Victoria itself also has the 4GW "Snowy" hydro system operating ina similar way)...but this is 500km offshore and needing the onshore coal plants to "cover" the hydro turndown at night via some HVDC submarine cables.
It just shows how close to the limit the Australian generation system is when the wind doesnt cooperate.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 18, 2018 8:18 pm

Peak summer heat is highlighting the limitations of South Australias rush into Wind generation.
Electricity market prices are difficult to understand , and impossible to explain, but the continuous 30 minute "bids" from the generators to supply power are all logged and accessible for public confusion.
However as its such a critical topic at the moment, there are many agencies analysing the data and publishing results.
For example, yesterday Jan 18th , South Australias wholesale power price went to over $14,000 MWh !! ..for extended periods. In other states at the same time prices were down around $130 MWh.
This is the result of low wind conditions, and the decision to shut down the bulk of FF generators
Obviously, the end consumer doesnt pay those prices, they pay an average over several weeks/months, but for sure those in SA will pay a much higher bill than other states....especially the commercial consumers who may be on "spot price" contracts.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 19, 2018 8:44 pm

There are 5 main states in the Australian National Electricity market. (NEM)
They are grid linked, and Nationally controlled, but obviously pricing is determined by state power policy, and local generating cost, demand, etc
The following is a summary of the actual wholesale pricing ($/MWh) of individual state power for the past few days and month to date average....
NSW Jan 19 $70 – Jan 18 $78 – Jan month to date $72 –
Qld Jan 19 $77 – Jan 18 $75 – Jan month to date $77 –
SA Jan 19 $1012. – Jan 18 $1074. – Jan month to date $184 –
Tas. Jan 19 $42 – Jan 18 $160 – Jan month to date $88 –
Vic. Jan 19. $523. – Jan 18 $905. – Jan month to date $147 –
Guess which states have the highest % RE generation, and which have the least. ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4497
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 20, 2018 9:18 am

Tasmania, with a whopping 93% RE for electricity generation, a 5cent/kwh feed-in tarrif for domestic solar and the lowest CO2 emissions in Australia. It's also close to the cheapest on your list, and, against some predictions for high-percentage RE somehow seems to be able to keep the lights on year-round... And, as you said earlier, actually exports surplus RE to other, predominately coal-fired, states to stop their grids falling over during peak demand.

I'm guessing that's not the conclusion you were looking to draw :lol:

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 749
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 20, 2018 9:17 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 20, 2018 9:18 am
Tasmania, with a whopping 93% RE for electricity generation,I'm guessing that's not the conclusion you were looking to draw :lol:
Well, of course you did the thing that solar PV advocates tend to do by implying that "RE" always = solar and wind. I see the same type of intentional misrepresentation whenever news articles talk about the high percentages of "RE" in NZ or Costa Rica as a model for the rest of the world to start building out solar PV. Hydro power really works to produce for a modern grid if you have the greography. Wind's contribution is still a small percentage in TAS and solar needs a magnifying glass to be seen. I will let the HillMan finish beating you up when he wakes and sees this.
.
.
Image
.
.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 20, 2018 9:56 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 20, 2018 9:18 am
Tasmania, with a whopping 93% RE for electricity generation, a 5cent/kwh feed-in tarrif for domestic solar and the lowest CO2 emissions in Australia. It's also close to the cheapest on your list, and, against some predictions for high-percentage RE somehow seems to be able to keep the lights on year-round... And, as you said earlier, actually exports surplus RE to other, predominately coal-fired, states to stop their grids falling over during peak demand.
Tassie actually has 200+% of RE generation if you are considering their Hydro (2260 MWh) , together with the 300MWh of wind, ..to supply an average demand of only 1100-1200MWh.
But they are not able to use even a continuous 1200MWh of Hydro as the rainfall would not support it...
( they ran water resources down to below 12% in 2016 before fireing up their gas generators)
Currently they tend to run gas generation fairly continuously to both preserve hydro resources and to export surplus to other states and hence earn RET rebates to reduce their power costs.
So yes, they have a exceptional high ratio of "non fossil" generation (hydro) to demand, but that is due to their unique combination of low demand and hydro friendly geology and climate.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8693
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 20, 2018 10:01 pm

Ooops ! Duplicate post
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Post Reply