Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Moderator T

Trump Approves Funding For Revolutionary Nuclear Power Plant

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Moderator T

Trump Approves Funding For Revolutionary Nuclear Power Plant

JAZZ SHAW

Hot Air

10/18/20

EXCERPT:

Back in August, we looked at an exciting new energy project that’s unfolding in Idaho but which has run into funding issues along with some political skulduggery. The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems is working with a company named NuScale to build the first Small Modular Reactor (SMR) in the nation. This revolutionary technology involves a nuclear reactor that can be constructed from small, individual modules (as the name suggests) that are assembled at a central facility and can then be transported to the site where they will be put in operation. New modules can be added as demand increases, offering more flexibility. The finished plant also takes up far less land than conventional reactors.

Unfortunately, the plan has been criticized for the total costs involved. In addition, as I pointed out in the article linked above, a liberal activist group from California (posing as a group of “concerned” Utah hunters and fishermen) have been lobbying against the proposal and trying to convince the local utility companies to pull out of the project. Some of those cost concerns may have been allayed this week, however. The Trump administration has approved a $1.4 billion grant through the Department of Energy to make the SMR installation more affordable. (Washington Examiner)

A company racing to be among the first to operate a small nuclear reactor in the United States received a vote of confidence from the federal government Friday after encountering recent roadblocks.

The Energy Department approved a $1.4 billion grant to help defray costs for a group of utilities that are the first in line to buy power from the reactors produced by NuScale Power.

The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, a group of small, community-owned utilities in six Western states, had previously indicated the group might pull out of the NuScale project unless it received the extra funding from the government.

 

(Full Story)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Well it is a green power system that actually works so of course the DNC people would oppose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

What about clean coal that Trump has been touting?

Nuclear power is ridiculously expensive and storing the waste on site near where people live always adding more and more to it is both stupid and insane. 

I take it that with these modules that the spent fuel rods are not stored on site and are taken somewhere else to be safely recycled or disposed of?

Edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger
  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker
25 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

What about clean coal that Trump has been touting?

Nuclear power is ridiculously expensive and storing the waste on site near where people live always adding more and more to it is both stupid and insane. 

I take it that with these modules that the spent fuel rods are not stored on site and are taken somewhere else to be safely recycled or disposed of?

I’ve been watching developments of this company for over ten years. (Nuscalepower.com) Their concept is smaller, modular reactors that are factory assembled and shipped to site; larger than, but akin to our naval reactors. When the fuel is spent, the entire module is swapped for another, and the original is removed offsite for fuel removal/recycling.
 

Because the plants are modular, they can be added to the grid almost anywhere they’re needed, without major changes to the scale and type of transmission equipment (transformer farms, new transmission lines, etc.). It’s a novel concept that includes many fail-safe designs. 

Fuel recycling still remains an issue for the industry in general, thanks to Harry Reid’s blocking of Yucca Mountain implementation. (See comment above that was offered while I was writing mine-closer to the industry than I am.)

Edited by Noclevermoniker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
1 minute ago, Noclevermoniker said:

I’ve been watching developments of this company for over ten years. (Nuscalepower.com) Their concept is smaller, modular reactors that are factory assembled and shipped to site; larger than, but akin to our naval reactors. When the fuel is spent, the entire module is swapped for another, and the original is removed offsite for fuel removal/recycling.
 

Because the plants are modular, they can be added to the grid almost anywhere they’re needed, without major changes to the scale and type of transmission equipment (transformer farms, new transmission lines, etc.). It’s a novel concept that includes many fail-safe designs. 

Fuel recycling still remains an issue for the industry in general, thanks to Harry Reid’s blocking of Yucca Mountain implementation. 

Thanks for the info.

This sounds much better than conventional nuclear power plants.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
13 minutes ago, Bad_Apple said:

I work in the Nuclear Fuel Industry going on 38 yrs some of your statements are not exactly correct.

Please tell me what you know about Dry Cask storage of spent nuclear fuel assemblies on site that is stupid and insane.

Also do you know why used fuel is stored onsite and why the US plants can't recycle used fuel rods. (big hint US Gov.)

In addition do you know that all the used fuel assemblies could be stacked about 10 yards high and fit on a football field.

Nuclear fuel itself is not that expensive when you factor in the amount of continuous power it produces.

I could go on but if you would like to discuss just message me I would be happy to fill in any blanks or misconceptions you might have on the Nuclear industry. Yes I might be a little bias but I do know the subject a little  better than most.

Riiiight.

Tell that schidt to Japan.

  • Disagree (-1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker
8 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

Thanks for the info.

This sounds much better than conventional nuclear power plants.

Conventional nuclear power plant costs escalate due to a wonderful sounding, but detrimental requirement called “best available current technology”. (Or it was back in the day-acronyms often change). Basically, this does not allow a design freeze on the plant such that any new “improvement”, no matter how infinitesimal, must be incorporated, regardless of the present state of completion. This means you can never actually bid the cost of a plant and hope to actually construct it for the bid price. Construction becomes a race to get fuel in before something “new” comes along. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
6 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

Riiiight.

Tell that schidt to Japan.

Once again you prove your lack of knowledge and if you would like to discuss in email or messaging I would be glad to discuss it with you. I am currently at nuclear site assisting with core reload and core gap inspection having just left another site last Sunday doing the same job. How many sites have you been to and worked on that have enabled you to acquire your vast knowledge and experience in the Nuclear Industry......Riiiiiight

 

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker
4 minutes ago, Bad_Apple said:

Once again you prove your lack of knowledge and if you would like to discuss in email or messaging I would be glad to discuss it with you. I am currently at nuclear site assisting with core reload and core gap inspection having just left another site last Sunday doing the same job. How many sites have you been to and worked on that have enabled you to acquire your vast knowledge and experience in the Nuclear Industry......Riiiiiight

 

Have you ever worked at Comanche Peak?  College roommate is a career-long engineer/manager there. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple

No but I have worked at South Texas in Bay City TX  many times. My company does supply the fuel to Comanche Peak.

I was just at Point Beach in Green Bay Sunday and now I am at Turkey Point in Miami. had to pack 2 types of clothes for this trip since I did not go home in between 😎

After this Job I go to Taiwan and with the sweet and sour sniffles I must do a 2 week quarantine after I arrive. So looks like a fun times ahead 

Edited by Bad_Apple
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker
10 minutes ago, Bad_Apple said:

No but I have worked at South Texas in Bay City TX  many times. My company does supply the fuel to Comanche Peak.

I was just at Point Beach in Green Bay Sunday and now I am at Turkey Point in Miami. had to pack 2 types of clothes for this trip since I did not go home in between 😎

After this Job I go to Taiwan and with the sweet and sour sniffles I must do a 2 week quarantine after I arrive. So looks like a fun times ahead 

Stay safe and happy returns. Sounds like lots of travel time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
1 hour ago, Bad_Apple said:

Once again you prove your lack of knowledge and if you would like to discuss in email or messaging I would be glad to discuss it with you. I am currently at nuclear site assisting with core reload and core gap inspection having just left another site last Sunday doing the same job. How many sites have you been to and worked on that have enabled you to acquire your vast knowledge and experience in the Nuclear Industry......Riiiiiight

 

No, I didn't prove any lack of knowledge. You obviously do not know anything about the Fukishima plants built by GE? Wet fuel rod on site permanent storage? I have read lots of info about these and there are many just like it and you are mixing apples with oranges, bad apple.

Storing more and more and more spent fuel rods on site in populated areas is danerous and insane and anyone who says that practice and policy is an acceptable permanent solution is an idiot.

I have worked in several industrial commercial fields for 40 years. I have worked with many dangerous idiots who have just been lucky and some who's luck finally ran out. So just touting years of experience as proof of knowledge and safety do not impress me when they defy common sense and never consider the idiot factor of someone possibly screwing things up.

Edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger
  • Disagree (-1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki
2 hours ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

Riiiight.

Tell that schidt to Japan.

      There is a whole lot more to the story.

Very sad really, but there is much much  more to the story.

When the earthquake hit the plant went into emergency shut down, and this required back up power to continue cooling the reactors, back up power failed, because the Generators that powered the system was flooded with the Tsunami.    BUT, what hasn't been mentioned is the fact that There had been a Tsunami in the 1700's which was even higher.  In fact markers and warnings had been placed to tell people it could happen again.  Had the Generators been placed at a higher point such as on top of buildings, and fuel tanks given taller vents, or been given taller intakes and exhausts that would have at least bought some time.  Or, a battery back up for the pumps to draw upon with a minimum amount of time enough to allow for an emergency shut down this would not have happened.  The Earthquake and resulting Tsunami set of a chain of events yes, but sadly any emergency shut down where the Generators went of line would have also caused this as well.  As the Japanese are well known for stuff holding up, things being well designed and well made my guess is someone who knew nothing of history or engineering got involved in the design process to save money.  When it comes to building and industrial design in Japan there is always a high priority put on saving as much land as possible and maximizing usable floor space.  I would not be surprised if the original design called for the generators being on the roof, fuel tanks having had taller vents and even battery back ups for the pumps. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
23 minutes ago, oki said:

      There is a whole lot more to the story.

Very sad really, but there is much much  more to the story.

When the earthquake hit the plant went into emergency shut down, and this required back up power to continue cooling the reactors, back up power failed, because the Generators that powered the system was flooded with the Tsunami.    BUT, what hasn't been mentioned is the fact that There had been a Tsunami in the 1700's which was even higher.  In fact markers and warnings had been placed to tell people it could happen again.  Had the Generators been placed at a higher point such as on top of buildings, and fuel tanks given taller vents, or been given taller intakes and exhausts that would have at least bought some time.  Or, a battery back up for the pumps to draw upon with a minimum amount of time enough to allow for an emergency shut down this would not have happened.  The Earthquake and resulting Tsunami set of a chain of events yes, but sadly any emergency shut down where the Generators went of line would have also caused this as well.  As the Japanese are well known for stuff holding up, things being well designed and well made my guess is someone who knew nothing of history or engineering got involved in the design process to save money.  When it comes to building and industrial design in Japan there is always a high priority put on saving as much land as possible and maximizing usable floor space.  I would not be surprised if the original design called for the generators being on the roof, fuel tanks having had taller vents and even battery back ups for the pumps. 

 

I am aware of all of that.

The bulk of fuel rods that had melted down were spent (but still hot) MOX fuel rods permanently stored on site in water tanks supplied with cooling water. That dangerous material should have never been planned to be stored there permanently. A really bad idea.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
1 hour ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

No, I didn't prove any lack of knowledge. You obviously do not know anything about the Fukishima plants built by GE? Wet fuel rod on site permanent storage? I have read lots of info about these and there are many just like it and you are mixing apples with oranges, bad apple.

Storing more and more and more spent fuel rods on site in populated areas is danerous and insane and anyone who says that practice and policy is an acceptable permanent solution is an idiot.

I have worked in several industrial commercial fields for 40 years. I have worked with many dangerous idiots who have just been lucky and some who's luck finally ran out. So just touting years of experience as proof of knowledge and safety do not impress me when they defy common sense and never consider the idiot factor of someone possibly screwing things up.

Actually I surprised you didn't say learned it from watching the Simpson's. Your key to knowledge is you *read* gee my key is actually working with nuclear fuel . I know more about Fukishima than you trust me GE's reactor design there was a BWR built in the late 60s early 70s there spent fuel pool was shared between 3 other reactors and they had just offload a full core from 1 of them so water cooling circulation is key when power was lost water evaporated and the fuel was exposed when the water level went down normally you have 20 ft of water over spent fuel for shielding and safety. So when fuel was exposed to atmosphere it let off Hydrogen gas which collected at the top of building and that was your explosion. Nuclear fuel reactors run at a temperature of around 625 Degrees F so when you offload fuel for reload you must constantly circulate cooling water but I am sure you read about that riiiight.

So there have been 3  major accidents in Nuclear (3 mile, Chernobyl and Fukishima  ) and of course when we dropped 2 atomic bombs those actually killed alot people so you got me there. 

Also Chief most US plants now have Dry cask storage because most of their spent full pools are full. So after fuel is offloaded for final time some fuel does 3 18 months cycles in reactor and each outage about a third is replace with new fuel and the rest is 2nd and 3rd burned to complete core but I am sure you also read about this too.

Look I don't claim to be the worlds expert of Nuclear but I do know way more than you can read about. Let me say this my job title is 

Irradiated Fuel Inspection Specialist

Product Performance Engineering

So what my job actually does is Nuclear Power plant have me onsite to assist if there is any questions or damage pertaining to their fuel during receiving of brand new fuel or the offloading and reloading of fuel during outage.

If fuel is damage my job now is to help determine what caused the damage and assist in the repair in other words to be onsite to make sure the utility and us the vendor agree.

Before this assignment I work in our PE Development test lab running test loop called VIPER which was actually a reactor simulator  for testing new fuel designs against old design of course the fuel was natural pellets so there was no radiation.

These test ran for either 500 hrs or 1000 after completion Me and my guys would take apart fuel and inspect for grid to rod fretting (I sure you have read about that too) you trying to improve the new design. Of yeah would size the grids(8 to 12 in total depend on design) you know the ones that hold rods in fuel assembly to 3rd cycle cell size cause you know the rods expand every time they get heated so your original cell size was around .354 and rod size is .374 so by the end of 3rd cycle permanent set has happened to the springs and dimple feature that hole rods in place in the grids but I am sure you read all about it. Not even going to talk about the other jobs I had during my career but those 2 cover the last 20 yrs don't wish to come off as know it all blow hard. 

So to summarize I think I know a tad bit more than you on Nuclear. I don't post much on here prefer to stay in my lane and when Nuclear comes up lets just say I will comment based on my experience.

 

PS one of the VIPER loop test was on are 8ft SMR fuel design regular fuel assemblies are 12 to 14 ft.

So since I actually have worked on that fuel type felt the need to comment and have also worked on and around spent fuel pools and witness fuel being put into dry cask at nuclear sites now felt i would chime in. 

Now you have a great and safe day.

  • Best Post (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
11 minutes ago, Bad_Apple said:

Actually I surprised you didn't say learned it from watching the Simpson's. Your key to knowledge is you *read* gee my key is actually working with nuclear fuel . I know more about Fukishima than you trust me GE's reactor design there was a BWR built in the late 60s early 70s there spent fuel pool was shared between 3 other reactors and they had just offload a full core from 1 of them so water cooling circulation is key when power was lost water evaporated and the fuel was exposed when the water level went down normally you have 20 ft of water over spent fuel for shielding and safety. So when fuel was exposed to atmosphere it let off Hydrogen gas which collected at the top of building and that was your explosion. Nuclear fuel reactors run at a temperature of around 625 Degrees F so when you offload fuel for reload you must constantly circulate cooling water but I am sure you read about that riiiight.

So there have been 3  major accidents in Nuclear (3 mile, Chernobyl and Fukishima  ) and of course when we dropped 2 atomic bombs those actually killed alot people so you got me there. 

Also Chief most US plants now have Dry cask storage because most of their spent full pools are full. So after fuel is offloaded for final time some fuel does 3 18 months cycles in reactor and each outage about a third is replace with new fuel and the rest is 2nd and 3rd burned to complete core but I am sure you also read about this too.

Look I don't claim to be the worlds expert of Nuclear but I do know way more than you can read about. Let me say this my job title is 

Irradiated Fuel Inspection Specialist

Product Performance Engineering

So what my job actually does is Nuclear Power plant have me onsite to assist if there is any questions or damage pertaining to their fuel during receiving of brand new fuel or the offloading and reloading of fuel during outage.

If fuel is damage my job now is to help determine what caused the damage and assist in the repair in other words to be onsite to make sure the utility and us the vendor agree.

Before this assignment I work in our PE Development test lab running test loop called VIPER which was actually a reactor simulator  for testing new fuel designs against old design of course the fuel was natural pellets so there was no radiation.

These test ran for either 500 hrs or 1000 after completion Me and my guys would take apart fuel and inspect for grid to rod fretting (I sure you have read about that too) you trying to improve the new design. Of yeah would size the grids(8 to 12 in total depend on design) you know the ones that hold rods in fuel assembly to 3rd cycle cell size cause you know the rods expand every time they get heated so your original cell size was around .354 and rod size is .374 so by the end of 3rd cycle permanent set has happened to the springs and dimple feature that hole rods in place in the grids but I am sure you read all about it. Not even going to talk about the other jobs I had during my career but those 2 cover the last 20 yrs don't wish to come off as know it all blow hard. 

So to summarize I think I know a tad bit more than you on Nuclear. I don't post much on here prefer to stay in my lane and when Nuclear comes up lets just say I will comment based on my experience.

 

PS one of the VIPER loop test was on are 8ft SMR fuel design regular fuel assemblies are 12 to 14 ft.

So since I actually have worked on that fuel type felt the need to comment and have also worked on and around spent fuel pools and witness fuel being put into dry cask at nuclear sites now felt i would chime in. 

Now you have a great and safe day.

You are a joke! Exactly one of the dangerous fools that I had described. You can muddy the water with tech stuff to dodge the point but my point remains spot on. I'm aware of all of what you said and you in your arrogance assume that I did not.

You can believe that storing that dangerous radioactive material long term in populated areas is safe, but it is not and it's foolish.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger
  • Disagree (-1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian
6 minutes ago, Bad_Apple said:

Also Chief most US plants now have Dry cask storage because most of their spent full pools are full.

And if the Nevada fuel storage site was actually allowed to be open and running...seems this problem would go away.

One issue I've read about (sorry) so am unsure of the truth of it is that in Fukishima the sea wall should have been high enough to block the tsunami, but they didn't count on the fact that the earthquake caused the whole coastline area it was built on to subside significantly, by about the same height as the wave crest.

Dirty Harry Reid was just fine with the repository when it was a cash cow for his state and construction companies there, then was against it after he'd milked the cow for as much as he thought he could get out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
2 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

You are a joke! Exactly one of the dangerous fools that I had described.

Ok just do me a favor don't say rods call it a fuel assembly cause depending on design you can have 200 to 250 rods in 1 assembly.

Also depending on design you can have anywhere from 121 to 193 fuel assembly's in a reactor core and you can have anywhere up to 1000 assemblies in a spent fuel pool don't want you to come off sounding like some Kentucky rube  by saying rods.

Thanks and have safe day 

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki
5 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

I am aware of all of that.

The bulk of fuel rods that had melted down were spent (but still hot) MOX fuel rods permanently stored on site in water tanks supplied with cooling water. That dangerous material should have never been planned to be stored there permanently. A really bad idea.

 

      When rods are spent they are still hot?  Did not know that.  Japan has no where to put anything any more.  Short of paying a third world crap hole to take them, there isn't anywhere to put the things.  Otherwise it's coal or gasoline fired steam power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
2 minutes ago, Severian said:

And if the Nevada fuel storage site was actually allowed to be open and running...seems this problem would go away.

One issue I've read about (sorry) so am unsure of the truth of it is that in Fukishima the sea wall should have been high enough to block the tsunami, but they didn't count on the fact that the earthquake caused the whole coastline area it was built on to subside significantly, by about the same height as the wave crest.

Dirty Harry Reid was just fine with the repository when it was a cash cow for his state and construction companies there, then was against it after he'd milked the cow for as much as he thought he could get out of it.

1  of the biggest issues was Diesel back up power generators were only 27 ft above sea level and water got over 30 ft and flooded them out.  You are correct because of Yucca mountain delay site had to do Dry cask storage on site. 

The thing that amazed me about Fukishima was that it didn't just break off and fall into the sea as bad as it was it could have been alot worse. The workers that stayed and did all they could to supply cooling water was extremely courageous and dedicated. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
12 minutes ago, oki said:

 

      When rods are spent they are still hot?  Did not know that.  Japan has no where to put anything any more.  Short of paying a third world crap hole to take them, there isn't anywhere to put the things.  Otherwise it's coal or gasoline fired steam power. 

After being offload from a core Fuel assemblies are around 600 F and spent assembly (1 that has been thru 3 cycles) will sit in the fuel pool for 5 years for cooling before it is transferred to a Dry cask made of concrete and lead  and stored onsite in a outside building .   

Edited by Bad_Apple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
15 minutes ago, oki said:

 

      When rods are spent they are still hot?  Did not know that.  Japan has no where to put anything any more.  Short of paying a third world crap hole to take them, there isn't anywhere to put the things.  Otherwise it's coal or gasoline fired steam power. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/world/asia/fukushima-japan-fuel-rods.html

Stored in pools.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki
1 minute ago, Bad_Apple said:

After being offload from a core Fuel assemblies are around 600 F and spent assembly (1 that has been thru 3 cycles) will sit in the fuel pool for 5 years for cooling before it is transferred to a Dry cask made of concrete and lead  and stored onsite in a outside building .   

    Gotcha, thought once they where spent they rapidly cooled down on there own.  Per Fukushima, I honestly think this was a case of cost cutting.  i say that because Japanese ESPECIALLY industrial safety are absolutely meticulous about safety and attention to detail.   

This was not a this has never happened before situation.  There was a Tsunami just as high or higher in the 1700's in that area and markers where placed as a warning.  Those markers still stand.  Japanese design in general tries to minimize the foot print of structures as much as possible, why the generators weren't placed on top is a surprise to me.  Plus, why there was no battery back up to keep the pumps running long enough in case the generators failed is also a surprise. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
5 minutes ago, oki said:

    Gotcha, thought once they where spent they rapidly cooled down on there own.  Per Fukushima, I honestly think this was a case of cost cutting.  i say that because Japanese ESPECIALLY industrial safety are absolutely meticulous about safety and attention to detail.   

This was not a this has never happened before situation.  There was a Tsunami just as high or higher in the 1700's in that area and markers where placed as a warning.  Those markers still stand.  Japanese design in general tries to minimize the foot print of structures as much as possible, why the generators weren't placed on top is a surprise to me.  Plus, why there was no battery back up to keep the pumps running long enough in case the generators failed is also a surprise. 

 

After Fukushima all US plants made major changes to Diesel generators and the placement of water hoses that could spray cooling water if they were knocked out. One good thing is all US plants share OE and work together for improvements if 1 has an issue all get informed about it.

At work we have had lots of study on Chernobyl and Fukushima to discuss what happened and why.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...