Google CEO: How to fix U.S. energy problems
SAN FRANCISCO--The United States government has been unable to fix the country's energy problems, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said, but the Internet giant on Wednesday proposed its own 22-year solution.
"We have seen a total and complete failure of leadership in the political parties of the United States," Schmidt said in a speech at the Commonwealth Club here. "We've been working on a plan to help solve this problem."
Google CEO Eric Schmidt describes the company's energy plan.
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News)Earlier in the day, Google unveiled that plan, which doesn't lack for chutzpah: Clean Energy 2030 aims to wean the United States from its dependence on fossil fuels within 22 years.
Schmidt said the plan requires $4.5 trillion in spending to pull it off, but it'll pay for itself with $5.5 trillion in savings. "With this plan, it's cheaper to fix global warming than it is to ignore it," Schmidt said.
The general plan consists of various efforts to save energy; a shift to renewable wind, geothermal, and solar energy; and a complete cessation of energy from coal and oil and halving of natural gas. Those changes would cut energy production-related carbon dioxide emissions from about 6 billion metric tons per year today to 4 billion per year in 2030.
Energy efficiency is at the forefront of Google's thoughts: the company operates hundreds of thousands of servers, and the company has warned that energy costs could outpace server hardware costs. So a decline in energy costs makes practical sense, Schmidt said.
"We save a lot of money when prices go down. It's good for shareholders, good for earnings," he said.
However, he made clear in a meeting with reporters later that the effort is also driven by the moral beliefs of Google's co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
Also on Wednesday, Google announced the fruits of its effort to increase the energy efficiency of its data centers.
Google's Clean Energy 2030 plan would completely eliminate coal and oil use for energy production in 22 years.
(Credit: Google)
Economic stimulus
The present financial crisis, with an expected bailout that will cost $700 billion, likely will be followed by further economic stimulus spending that likely will reach $100 million, Schmidt predicted.
"Why not use that money to solve once and for all the things we debate: energy security, rising oil prices, a lack of jobs--especially in rural areas--(and) a lack of technology investment?" Schmidt said. "If you follow my reasoning and take advantage of the technological opportunities--and the apparent willingness of the government to write large checks during a crisis--we can do this."
He acknowledged that the problem will require sustained attention to solve, but said that's the job of governments. "The government spends lots of money on many things that are strategic. It seems to me that energy independence, given the history of the last 10 years, should be at the top of the list," Schmidt said.
Google predicts energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will drop by about a third with its plan.
(Credit: Google)
Energy plan details
How does Google propose to transform the country's energy usage? Here's Google's description:
• Deploying aggressive end-use electrical energy efficiency measures (about 1.4 percent per year savings) to reduce demand 33 percent.• Replacing all coal and oil electricity generation, and about half of that from natural gas, with renewable electricity: 380 gigawatts (GW) wind: 300 GW onshore + 80 GW offshore; 250 GW solar: 170 GW photovoltaic + 80 GW concentrating solar power; 80 GW geothermal: 15 GW conventional + 65 GW enhanced geothermal systems
• Increasing plug-in vehicles (hybrids & pure electrics) to 90 percent of new car sales in 2030, reaching 42 percent of the total U.S. fleet that year
• Increasing new conventional vehicle fuel efficiency from 31 mpg to 45 mpg in 2030
• Accelerating the turnover of the vehicle fleet from 19 to 13 years (resulting in 25 million new vehicle sales per year in 2030, a 31 percent increase over the baseline)
Advising Obama
Schmidt, who said he's an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, said he prefers that candidate's energy plans. "The Obama program is more in line with the one I'm describing," Schmidt said.
He also dinged Republicans for using the term "clean coal," which he called an oxymoron not unlike "limited nuclear war," and said that offshore oil drilling, although a lively topic of debate, will satisfy only a tiny fraction of the nation's needs and only five years from now at that.
Now is the time to offer the plan, according to author Jeffery Greenblatt, climate and energy technology manager for the company's philanthropic Google.org arm.
"With a new administration and Congress--and multiple energy-related imperatives--this is an opportune, perhaps unprecedented, moment to move from plan to action," Greenblatt said.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank.
Why don't you realize that in order for the world to move forward, things must change.
Or is it just the ordinary american that has to conserve fuel, while the "sperior beings" at Google and Hollywood conrtinue to waste gas?
These guys are such hypocrates, and such a ****** joke!
His windmill proposal does not include the new major backbone high tension power lines to distribute from remote locations.
Why not use a lower tech method of energy storage & distribution and at each turbine site take the more recent tech for to supply the water from air distill water from air then thrugh electrosis convert it to compressed hydrogen gas and a local fueling station for hydrogen powered transportation simulator to the tests in Canida with the solar fuel stations, and Pipe the excess gas for safer transfer as soon as your at a reasonable transfer distance to a high population area convert back to power via fuel cells.
It appears to be less damaging to the land to bury mildly compressed hydrogen fuel line than to have all that structural steel crossing vast spaces of land and the high levels of Magnetic force around the lines wont be present
If their was a leak it is ligher than air so would harmlessley dissapate as it floats to the surface and beyond and in dry climate areas take the water created as a waste product and use it for agriculture or if pure enough to drink provide water for consumption this would be great for a Vegas like area where population is growing and water is extremely short supply.
A common mans thought to the worlds Power problem
Arguments for coal and so called "clean coal" will never happen - this is a beat up by the coal industry.
From what, exactly? Oh, yeah -- I almost forgot that we're all going to die if we don't "solve" global warming in 10 years. Fear mongering is not a good strategy.
-Mister Winky
For more on how we have not addressed our energy problems for the past 35(!) years, read The 21st Century Energy Initiative: How to solve our energy problems." Available at www.energy2025.com
In a nutshell we derive almost 1/2 of our energy needs from coal - and it is local, not imported. We derive most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. Oil is 3x more efficient then any other form of energy we use, highly transportable, etc.
A good way to get up to speed is to read the non partisan book Gusher of Lies. This is a dense, factual book that lays out what our options really are. In a nutshell, solar and nuclear, nothing else works.
If oil is 3x more efficient than any other form of energy, then I'm afraid you screwed up your calculations somewhere. Get your head out of the sand.
Marverick - do you have any idea how much pollution is occuring from "bio fuels"? Way, way more than with coal. A lot more. Not to mention the disparities in BTU output. Coal isn't great long term, you are correct, it does pollute, but we aren't getting off coal for another 30 years minimum.
What we need are more nukes and an investment in solar. Almost everything else, sadly, is a waste of time and money.
Fusion nuclear plants use helium as fuel rather than radioactive uranium and unlike conventional nuke plants, there is no waste, the fuel is totally consumed in the process. Sounds too good to be true, but it is. The big problem is that there is only a handful of helium available on the planet. But it is available in great quantities on the moon because, helium which comes from dust that the sun throws off is collected on the moon but due to the earth's atmosphere, very little makes it through.
This actually has been know for a long time by scientists and that is why when they designed the shuttle fleet it was to be able to transport people, equipment and materials to the space stations orbiting the earth and the moon and then from the space stations transport them via lunar modules. There would ahve to be accomodation camps on the moon for people to operate the plant which would process moon dust into helium and then transport it to the lunar orbiting space station and then onward to planet earth. It is said that one shuttle load of helium, equivalent to about a railroad boxcar, can power 40 to 50 nuclear fusion plants across the US for a year which is about the number of electrical plants that it takes to supply the US with electrical power.
But looking at the shuttle program over the last thirty years, it has been an abyssmal failure compared to the stunning success that the US Space program enjoyed in the 1960's when under the leadership of President Kennedy, he boldly challenged the space agency and Amwerica to land a man on the moon and return him safely by the end of the decade. We have sorely been without such leadership and that is the underlying problem.
These fusion plants would eliminate the need for all coal and the oil and gas used for electrical generating plants. The facilities to build and maintain the lunar plant and transport systems can be located in those areas that supply coal and the people in the region would have opportunity to be educated and trained to work in this new industry.
The plants can be designed and built after the prototype is designed, tested and proven. The lunar transport system can be designed and built from now. It can probably be in operation by 2020 with full build-out by 2030. It would of course have to be an international consortium to build and operate to avoid a star wars scenario for control.
But it could be done and would be done if there was any leadership to inspire and take the risks of being lampooned like President Reagan was when he proposed Star Wars type weaponry to be developed as a missile shield.
2. The shuttle was never designed to go farther than low earth orbit. It's too massive to push all the way to the moon and back. You don't need wings or landing gear in space.
3. While not perfect, the shuttle has accomplished it's design goals. Install and maintain the Hubble and the ISS.
Thank you for making my day today with this post!
BTW, Nuclear fusion is based on hydrogen as the fuel and helium is the waste product. But your post did provide some needed levity!
Transport: The shuttle was indeed designed as a transport from earth to an earth-orbiting platform and back; they still need the right rocketry configuration to launch from earth, but the shuttle is the vehicle. From the earth orbitor, a space vehicle would take payloads between the earth's orbital platform and the lunar orbiting platform. From the lunar orbitor, a lunar landing vehicle would shuttle between the lunar orbitor and the moon's surface.
Fusion Technology: indeed this is the main problem, but not unsolvalble and with sufficient resources, a global Manhattan-type project, it could be done. As I said the prototype is already in planning and prelim design in France (because the French are the leaders in nuclear technology due to the US giving up on it thirty years ago), but without a push and pull from effective leadership, read US leadership, it may take 50 to 100 years to develop.
It's not for show; it's about strategic minerals, one of them being helium to fuel fusion nuclear power plants while there are other minerals and technol;ogies which will enable them to tilt the balance of power to their side for the 21st Century. At the rate they are going, they will be the leader in space exploration, development and exploiting the moon for supply of strategic minerals and nuclear fuel to the earth.
And we'll be tinkering around with windmills and solar panels, a marginal strategy at best.
Use of Coal, Oil and Natural Gas has to go to Zero in time.
Solar, Wind, Geothermal + Series/Plugin-Hybrid is the future.
What he probably miss out is Oil from Algae.
Eliminate coal?
Replace our cars with electric cars?
So in the meantime, while we are waiting for all these wonderful techniologies to come from the supermen at Google, we should keep sending $700 Billion every year to terrorist countires like Iran and Venezualla to import over 75% of our vitally needed oil needs huh?
How do all these pie in the sky, notions help us TODAY with the over 120 million fossil fuel based cars that we need to drive to our jobs, for groceries etc every single day in this country?
Hey Eric Schmidht, exactly how much fossil fuel based gas do the two GIGANTIC personal jets that Google founders Sergei Brin and Larry Page own, use? And how do those planes contrbite to our fuel import bill in this country?
The trouble with idiots like Eric Schmidt, Obambi, and their Hollywood pals is, they keep lecteurin\g the the rest of us on how Americans consumue too much fossil fuels, even while they themselves continue to ride in private jets and consume over 1000 times more fosil fuels than the average Amercan does.
Gimme a break!
We have billions of barels of oil off our shores, billions of barrels at ANWR, that we could be drilling TODAY, if the brain dead Democrats in congress, and the enviro-wacko crazies would just get the hack out of the way and let us get at that oil.
Thanks to these idiots, $700 Billion that could be spent in this country and help our ecenomy, is being sent out to people who hate us,so they can use that money to buy weapons to attack us.
75% of US Oil soes not come from terrorist staes. Canada and Mexico alone account for 35.6 of oil imports in the US.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country YTD 2007
CANADA 2,458 21.6%
SAUDI ARABIA 1,435 12.6%
VENEZUELA 1,363 12.0%
MEXICO 1,593 14.0%
NIGERIA 1,054 9.3%
IRAQ 473 4.2%
ANGOLA 554 4.9%
RUSSIA 419 3.7%
ALGERIA 722 6.3%
VIRGIN ISLANDS 327 2.9%
BRAZIL 204 1.8%
ECUADOR 195 1.7%
COLOMBIA 138 1.2%
UNITED KINGDOM 319 2.8%
NETHERLANDS 126 1.1%
11,380
"Don't be evil"
Offshore drilling will yield a miniscule amount of oil compared to our consumptive needs. It also ignores the fact that oil companies already lease land from the government they have yet to drill on. By your logic, we should NOT drill offshore because we won't get anything out of it for at least 5 years, and we need energy today so we should maximize the use of land oil companies already lease but aren't using. Either way, the world is running out of oil. Saying the solution to the world's running out of oil is to use up the finite supply of it faster is, well, stupid. "Drill, Baby Drill" is nothing more than a campaign chant designed to make morons feel good. You might as well be canting "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" or "Sam-I-am. I do not like green eggs and ham" A catchy, rhyming cadence that makes a good sound byte should not be the foundation of an energy policy.
How does the fact that rich people fly around in fuel guzzling jets or drive hummers, or anything else of the sort negate our need to find alternative fuels?
How exactly does the fact that we don' have a particular mature technology today mean that we should do nothing today to get us to the point of having that mature technology in the future? If everyone thought like you do, we would all still be running around naked, eating raw meat, "Trog, you tree-hugger, why are wasting time trying to make fire, we don't have fire now, we should not try to make it. We should just practice our raw meat chewing skills instead."
Nonsense.
Every drop of oil drilled on this planet is by definition a short term solution, in that oil is a wasting asset that wil eventually run out. But then its goung to take a very long time before the world runs out of oil.
Meanwhile, we need to drive our over 120 milion cars, trucks for work, business commerce etc. TODAY, and we are importing a massive 75% of the over 20 million barrels of oil that oil that we use today.
None of those altrenative energy sources that you guys are bleating on about is even close to meetinmg our energy needs TODAY.
So while we wait for these shiny alterante energy sources to take over, in the eal world we are still spending $700 billion to import oil, while we have billions of barrels off shore, billions of barrels at ANWR, and even more billions of oil in oil shale deposits in this country. And we can't drill them because emocrats are taking huge amounts of money from George Soros backed envirowacko groups? How does that make any sense?
75% of US Oil soes not come from terrorist staes"
No one said they did.
Read my post again.
I said 75% of our oil needs are IMPORTED, and some of that money goes to terrorist states.
For your information, most of the 9/11 bombers came from Saudi Arabia, which even from your own list, accounts for 12.6% of our oil imports.
Why send our money to Saudi Arabia or even Mexico or Canada, when we can soend the money here driling for our own oil? This oil imports is the biggest transfer of wealth since this country was founded. We sould be keeping the money here and creating American jobs.
------------------
Here's what the Pentagon itself says on the matter as reported by Reuters in a June 28 article:
"The Taliban has created a "resilient insurgency" in Afghanistan and will likely maintain or increase the pace of its attacks this year, the Pentagon said on Friday. . . "
. . . Washington and its allies had made substantial progress since ousting the Taliban from power after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States but lasting success would take time and require much more than just military means."
------------------
Unless you were living on Pluto in the last few months, you'd have noticed the Afghan war is not "mission complete" Sure, they're not the governing body, but they have not been "taken out" by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, when we destabilized Iraq, we left a gaping hole in that country for the Taliban and Al-Quede to export their ideology along with their violence and recruitment efforts. Even though McBush keeps saying, the "surge worked, the surge worked" we're still in Iraq, that war is not over.
We have yet to succeed in Afghanistan because we erroneously tied up our resources in fighting the wrong war. And again, you completely ignored Iraq in any of your posts in which you're trying to do what?justify the cost of war based on the fact that our current wars have be such a resounding success over spending the same money towards finding away out from under oil dependancy?
You gave yourself away by dismissing concepts regarding a future that doesn't depend on oil as belonging to a "tree-hugger." What, do you own an oil well somewhere? Face it. For whatever reason, you've aligned your thinking with Bush neocon ideology which the last 8 years have proven to be a massive failure. That lame approach to defining our place in the world relies on military might to force other regions to exist in our likeness (whether they're cable of it or not, never mind what they want ) so we can avoid facing the inevitable fall of oil based economies.
Money thrown at Iraq was not money well spent, it just means we drag Afghanistan out longer and end up spending more money there than we would have if we had just done it right to start with. Our government has to make a concrete statement and an active commitment in a very real way to move away from oil. That won't happen until we have a government that isn't run by people who are intrenched in the oil industry. Of course you've heard the words below a gazillion times. Read them one more time and substitute the main subject with "end our dependancy on oil." Of course we don't know how to that today, but you have to start somewhere. Why do you reject the effort to try? We need leaders who have the ability to lead us forward, not backwards. Oil is the wrong direction?After all, It's just dinosaur ****.
------------------
we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win
-JFK
I know there is an immediacy of need. Unfortunately there is not an immediate solution. Offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR are not immediate solutions. They will take years to come to fruition.
The point of Eric Schmidt's vision is that we need to focus on real, permanent solutions to the problem. We should have been focusing on them for the last three decades (ever since the oil crisis in the 70's.) If the Presidents that followed Carter would have followed a semblance of his energy plan, we would not be in this predicament today. (Here's Carter's speech about his energy proposal giving in 1977 - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html .)
We have real engineering problems on our hands that will take time to solve. We need to start now since we didn't sustain the start that happened 30 years ago. Offshore drilling and ANWR are short term solutions (10 years from now that will last 20 years). We need long term solutions (20 years from now that will last in perpetuity.)
Your non-sequitur about the 700 billion dollar bailout has little to do with people who hate us, at least as far as my understanding. It has everything to do with greed in an unregulated market. I am not for the bailout in any sense. I am for an multi-billion dollar economic stimulus package to foster the economy on a local level to get initiative like the one that Eric Schmidt is advocating off the ground. A few hundred billion dollars spent on solving our looming energy crisis will go a long way towards solving the energy crisis and shoring up our failing economy. A 700 billion dollar bail out will do nothing but reward bad people for bad practices.
Why can't we invest in renewable energy resources when others around the world are? We have the technologies to do so, but when you read who's really implementing these technologies it's always some other country.
I didn't realize this war was already 27 years old, as we have been spending about 3 billion a month.
Groan!
# 1. We haven't even come close to spending $3 trillion on any wars. {perhaps you will give us the source of your ridiculous, plucked from thin air figure}?
# 2. While no war is good, there is nothing "undesired" about the Afganistan war. Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda controlled a whiole country called Afghanistan, from where he was able to launch the 9/11 attacks, US Embassy in Africa attacks, and any terrorist attacks they wanted at will, without fear of conseqences.
If we hadn't gone to after them, we would have had plenty more attcks in this country after 9/11, like every expert at the time predicted. As it is, we haven't had even one terrorist attack in this country since 9/11, thanks to us taking out the Taliban/Al Quaeda regime in Afghanistan
MSNBC March 17, 2006: "Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion..."
Washington Post: The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More...." These are sources not from thin air!!!
# 2. While no war is good, there is nothing "undesired" ....
True, no good comes from wars, and certainly we had to reply to that attack. I'm not opposing this 100%, I served in the military, have friends and family doing so with pride. But when is enough?
Besides creating more enemies due to our foreign policies, maybe we could invest those resources into productive things like, technologies that would remove as much as possible from the need to go into somebody's back yard to get their oil. If solar, wind, hydraulic and other technologies can give us a way to get rid of this oil dependancy, maybe we wouldn't have to go there to kill or be killed. After all is only those that did serve in the military the ones sacrificing our lives, so that others have the right to get fat and happy with their oil dependent lives. And maybe we would have less enemies around the world.
I believe Iraq is the "undesired war" the poster was speaking of. You've heard of the Iraq war haven't you? The fact that you didn't even mention the biggest, most costly blunder in our nation's history when talking about war, as if Iraq never happened, says a lot about the capacity for cognitive dissonance that exists in the Right today.
So the mad man Olberman and his cohorts at MSNBC claim that the cost of the war COULD surpass $1 Trillion, somehow miraclously changes into we've spent $3 (Three) trillion on the war does it?
Unless you were living on Pluto during the Afghanistan war, you would have seen that tens of thousands of Al Quaeda and Taliban were taken out during the Afghan war.
We not ony took out tens of thousands of Al Quaeda/Taliban vermin, Afghanistan went on to write a free democratic consitution, vote to accept the constitution, and vote in a fully democtratic goverment in Afghanistan for the first time ever in Afghani history.
Today, Afghanistan is a heck of a lot better off than they have been from even before the Soviet Invasion in December 1979, smething that happened under the Democrats when the cluless Jimmy carter was president.
Only the Daily Kos crazies and their partnres in crime will deny that reality.
------------------
Here's what the Pentagon itself says on the matter as reported by Reuters in a June 28 article:
"The Taliban has created a "resilient insurgency" in Afghanistan and will likely maintain or increase the pace of its attacks this year, the Pentagon said on Friday. . . "
. . . Washington and its allies had made substantial progress since ousting the Taliban from power after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States but lasting success would take time and require much more than just military means."
------------------
Unless you were living on Pluto in the last few months, you'd have noticed the Afghan war is not "mission complete" Sure, the Taliban isn't the governing body, but they have not been "taken out" by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, when we destabilized Iraq, we left a gaping hole in that country for the Taliban and Al-Quede to export their ideology along with their violence and recruitment efforts. Even though McBush keeps saying, the "surge worked, the surge worked" we're still in Iraq, that war is not over either.
We have yet to succeed in Afghanistan because as everyone now knows, we erroneously tied up our resources in fighting the wrong war. And again, you completely ignored Iraq in any of your posts in which you're trying to do what?justify the cost of war based on the fact that our current wars have be such a resounding success over spending the same money towards finding away out from under oil dependancy?
You gave yourself away by dismissing concepts regarding a future that doesn't depend on oil as belonging to a "tree-hugger." What, do you own an oil well somewhere? Face it. For whatever reason, you've aligned your thinking with Bush neocon ideology which the last 8 years have proven to be a massive failure. That lame approach to defining our place in the world relies on military might to force other regions to exist in our likeness (whether they're cable of it or not, never mind what they want ) so we can avoid facing the inevitable fall of oil based economies.
Money thrown at Iraq was not money well spent, it just means we drag Afghanistan out longer and end up spending more money there than we would have if we had just done it right to start with. Who's next on the McBush hit-list of countries we need to bomb, bomb, bomb? We can't leave our infrastructure and energy problems at home unattended because we're too busy trying to "police" the world. Our government has to make a concrete statement and an active commitment in a very real way to move away from oil. That is also the best thing we can do for national security. That won't happen until we have a government that isn't run by people who are intrenched in the oil industry. Of course you've heard the words below a gazillion times. Read them one more time and substitute the main subject with "end our dependancy on oil." Of course we don't know how to that today, but you have to start somewhere. Why do you reject the effort to try? We need leaders who have the ability to lead us forward, not backwards. Oil is the wrong direction?After all, It's just dinosaur ****.
------------------
we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win
-JFK
Add in veterans from Vietnam, and Desert Storm (not to mention the many smaller conflicts) and you'll get quite a bit more money. Add in the VA budget between 1973 and 2001 and you get about $1.5T
Thus, on the Veterans costs alone since 1973, we're looking at $2.2 trillion. And that's not even counting the DoD budgets and direct war costs since the end of the Vietnam war.
I agree - we need to step up the nuclear programming ASAP.
Thanks to google and the rest of the IT industry a lot of work can be done by people through telecommuting. The less driving to work - the better.
-
by bo1700
October 2, 2008 8:50 AM PDT
- I think there are necessary wars, unfortunately, and I believe Afghanistan is one of them, for the reasons stated above. I am not quite as sure about the war in Iraq. It would only make sense if we could guarantee the next generation of Americans a stable source of oil until we can switch to renewable sources.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (94 Comments)