Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 24   Go Down

Author Topic: The Climate Change Hoax  (Read 117798 times)

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #260 on: April 02, 2017, 09:33:38 pm »

I don't know, Alan. But my local power utility tells me that it is for them more economical to operate with the existing facilities and ask their customers not to increase their electric consumption rather than to build a new power plant. So every bit in the usage conservation or adding even small solar facilities helps.
   
At one time, I had several clients in this industry, both in coal and nuclear generating plants, but it was in their maintenance departments. Since my knowledge is quite limited when it comes to the operation or new construction of power plants, I defer respectfully to your esteemed opinion and expertise.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2017, 09:47:16 pm by LesPalenik »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #261 on: April 02, 2017, 09:40:24 pm »

So to answer my own question, it seems that until everyone is on solar within a grid and they have complete battery backup, the fossil fuel plant will remain.  Who pays for its operation with an every declining customers base until everyone is on their own?  Those without solar, will pay higher and higher rates unless offset by the government rebates for fossil fuel generation.  Now wouldn't that be something?  Here's an interesting article about this.  See the "duck curve" explain power distribution problems at night and at peak when solar is part of the mix.  The bottom line is that fossil fuel plants will have to remain for a long time especially in areas where the sun isn't strong, during winter, lots of cloudy weather, etc.
http://theconversation.com/why-rooftop-solar-is-disruptive-to-utilities-and-the-grid-39032

 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #262 on: April 02, 2017, 09:59:49 pm »

Analyzing this a bit further, it seems that individual costs for electricity will go down for those on solar after the ROI Return on Investment period covering it's installation.  There will be less "pollutants" and CO2. However, since fossil fuels plants have to remain as backup to solar, the overall cost to society could be higher.  If government has to subsidize fossil fuel plants to make them available during "dark" periods, those costs have to be passed on to the taxpayers.  So you may save on electric costs for your home but then pay for it in extra taxes reimbursed to the fossil plant.  So the government first subsidizes solar to get people off of fossil fuel.  Then the same government has to subsidize fossil fuel.  A case of unintended consequences. 

Has anyone figured this in the actual monetary costs to society?  Not that it will matter.  What will drive the market is lower costs through solar to the individual home owner. 

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #263 on: April 02, 2017, 11:30:10 pm »

Simply put, no.

Here in Australia we have a state government building a gas-fired plant for "backup" purposes, to deal with extreme loads and/or failures of other system (including renewables).  It will operate all the time, but at a very minimal level.  When it needs to increase output, it will.  There is no prediction of cost increases for consumers.  Most businesses have backups and BCP in place, and those costs are factored in.  Overall, though, vastly reduced costs of renewables mean the cost of maintaining a backup isn't that great.
Logged
Phil Brown

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #264 on: April 03, 2017, 03:11:02 am »

Despite my skepticism about the effects of CO2 on our climate, I'm actually all in favour of cleaner and more efficient energy supplies. My main objection is with the description of the current and projected levels of CO2 as a pollutant. That's just nonsense.

There are a lot of environmental and health issues related to the mining and transport of fossil fuels, whether coal, oil or gas. These factors should always be taken into consideration when comparing the true cost of different sources of energy.

If wind and solar energy, together with an efficient means of storage, proves to be more efficient and a lower cost than energy from fossil fuels, then I rejoice.

Perhaps the big question is, 'Do the ends justify the means?' Is lying about the climate effects of CO2 justified if the eventual outcome is a cleaner and more efficient energy supply.
Are there any negative effects to such lying? One negative effect that has occurred to me, is that certain forms of energy which can be efficient and clean, using modern technology and the best environmental practices, could be banned on the grounds that they still emit that clean and odourless gas called CO2, even though all the known harmful emissions have been reduced to negligible proportions.

When we do this, we are depriving ourselves (on average) of increased prosperity, not only in terms of the efficiency of energy production, but also in terms of the increased crop production resulting from the fertilization effect of CO2. There might also be future disastrous effects of extreme weather events which we haven't protected ourselves against because of the delusion that reducing CO2 levels will make our climate benign.

On the other hand, without the climate scare of rising CO2 levels, perhaps very little research would be done on alternative energy supplies until a crisis of diminishing fossil fuel reserves eventuated, in fifty or a hundred years or so.

In the state of South Australia recently, there have been some disturbing power outages due to a reliance upon solar and wind power without adequate back-up. Storms and heat waves have been the cause of the disruption of supply.

Our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has proposed an interesting 'alternative energy supply' solution. We have a massive hydroelectric scheme in the Snowy Mountains in NSW, but the limitations of the hydro-electric power process is that eventually the higher dam will become empty if one releases water continuously for a long period, and electricity supply ceases.

Malcol Turnbull's idea is that we should use the surplus power of windmill farms, which might generate huge amounts of electricity in the middle of the night when everyone is asleep, to pump the water back up to the higher dam so that there is plenty of water that can be released during the times of great need for electricity, such as during a heat wave when everyone turns on their airconditioning. This is perhaps an efficient alternative to battery storage.

Here are a couple of articles describing the proposal:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/is-the-snowy-hydro-scheme-the-smartest-thing-australia-ever-built/news-story/c07c2834a04adac853a220fad2aa01f1
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-16/snowy-hydro-expansion-wont-be-magical-solution-to-power-problems/8360320

"It is somewhat ironic that climate change and renewable energy sceptics who have said that solar power and wind power can't be used for baseline energy supply, are now embracing this off-the-shelf bulk standard technology in pumped hydro, which enables wind and solar power to supply our basic energy needs," Dr Pittock said."

Another issue is the long term viability of battery storage based upon rare metals such as Lithium and Vanadium. We could easily run out of supplies if battery storage became in high demand.

However, there is good news (I'm an eternal optimist).  ;)
"An Adelaide company has developed a silicon storage device that it claims costs a tenth as much as a lithium ion battery to store the same energy, and is eyeing a $10 million public float."


Those of you who identify with Al Gore, jump in quick.  ;)

http://www.afr.com/news/silicon-will-blow-lithium-batteries-out-of-water-says-adelaide-firm-20170207-gu7eg7
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 03:25:38 am by Ray »
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8915
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #265 on: April 03, 2017, 05:33:46 am »

My main objection is with the description of the current and projected levels of CO2 as a pollutant. That's just nonsense.

Not true, the anthropogenic amount of additional greenhouse gas CO2 (and other combustion byproducts) is detrimental to the environment as a whole.

Quote
Perhaps the big question is, 'Do the ends justify the means?' Is lying about the climate effects of CO2 justified if the eventual outcome is a cleaner and more efficient energy supply.

So according to you 97% of the scientists are lying? Not true.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #266 on: April 03, 2017, 06:22:52 am »

Simply put, no.

Here in Australia we have a state government building a gas-fired plant for "backup" purposes, to deal with extreme loads and/or failures of other system (including renewables).  It will operate all the time, but at a very minimal level.  When it needs to increase output, it will.  There is no prediction of cost increases for consumers.  Most businesses have backups and BCP in place, and those costs are factored in.  Overall, though, vastly reduced costs of renewables mean the cost of maintaining a backup isn't that great.

Here is a solution from Tesla's Elon Musk for Australia http://www.wired.co.uk/article/tesla-elon-musk-australia-power-island

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #267 on: April 03, 2017, 06:25:25 am »

Analyzing this a bit further, it seems that individual costs for electricity will go down for those on solar after the ROI Return on Investment period covering it's installation.  There will be less "pollutants" and CO2. However, since fossil fuels plants have to remain as backup to solar, the overall cost to society could be higher.  If government has to subsidize fossil fuel plants to make them available during "dark" periods, those costs have to be passed on to the taxpayers.  So you may save on electric costs for your home but then pay for it in extra taxes reimbursed to the fossil plant.  So the government first subsidizes solar to get people off of fossil fuel.  Then the same government has to subsidize fossil fuel.  A case of unintended consequences. 

Has anyone figured this in the actual monetary costs to society?  Not that it will matter.  What will drive the market is lower costs through solar to the individual home owner.

The cost of storage using batteries is going down rapidly although this is probably not a universal solution to be paired with solar and wind power storage. You can see here https://electrek.co/2016/12/01/tesla-battery-cost-chart/ how big a difference there is a how Tesla is leading the pack.

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #268 on: April 03, 2017, 07:04:23 am »

Maybe in the future. We'll have to check with Ellon Musk about his new batteries.

Here are some examples of what Tesla has been doing http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/8/14854858/tesla-solar-hawaii-kauai-kiuc-powerpack-battery-generator and https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/01/a-look-at-the-new-battery-storage-facility-in-california-built-with-tesla-powerpacks/ and here is info and status about the Tesla gigafactory https://electrek.co/2017/02/07/tesla-gigafactory-construction-costs-battery-production/ where batteries for the model 3 and storage units are built as well as drive units for the model 3 which will be in production later this year to start filling the 400.000 preorders of the car. Some earlier reports doubting Tesla's approach is here http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/advanced-cars/2017-is-the-makeorbreak-year-for-teslas-gigafactory  and Musk showed a model 3 release candidate https://electrek.co/2017/03/24/tesla-model-3-release-candidate-drive-elon-musk/ which is a car that was produced on the new production line.

All this to say there is a huge transition process underway here and we will see in a couple of years how well it all played out. Lot's of ideas coming out of research labs promissing miracles. See here https://qz.com/400314/elon-musk-is-sick-of-inventors-pitching-him-the-next-big-thing-in-batteries/

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8915
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #269 on: April 03, 2017, 07:13:34 am »

The cost of storage using batteries is going down rapidly although this is probably not a universal solution to be paired with solar and wind power storage.

I tend to agree, it is not the solution but it can be one of several solutions. Besides the important step to first conserve more energy, there are several technologies that can currently be employed as buffer storage during low wind and/or low light conditions. It depends on local conditions and maturity of the technology which ones are to be preferred. GeoThermal is an option, Hydro Pumped Storage (either below ground or on/above the surface) can be a solution, and Hydrogen produced with solar/wind can also be a solution. In coastal areas, tidal and wave generators can contribute as well.

Some of these can be used as buffer storage and some may produce enough to feed the grid as an auxiliary source.

With ongoing R&D, the efficiency of existing solutions will also increase over time, so it then becomes more of a logistical problem to transport the energy to those spots where it's needed.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. Here's an overview of some of the current Energy storage technologies:
http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/energy-storage-technologies
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 07:34:19 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #270 on: April 03, 2017, 07:42:06 am »

Simply put, no.

Here in Australia we have a state government building a gas-fired plant for "backup" purposes, to deal with extreme loads and/or failures of other system (including renewables).  It will operate all the time, but at a very minimal level.  When it needs to increase output, it will.  There is no prediction of cost increases for consumers.  Most businesses have backups and BCP in place, and those costs are factored in.  Overall, though, vastly reduced costs of renewables mean the cost of maintaining a backup isn't that great.
Phil's point is correct.  There will always be the need for traditional power plants but the need will be much reduced.  Plants will be much smaller as the share of renewables increase.  It worth noting that not every house can accommodate solar panels.  It may be a lack of sufficient roof size or the wrong orientation.  Large apartment buildings have insufficient roof size per the number of inhabitants.  Look at Manahattan; it will never be able to generate enough solar panel for the 2M citizens who live there.

We are seeing a weird thing going on in my area.  Older houses are being demolished for new very large homes.  Most of these are not designed with solar panels in mind which is rather strange.  I think in other areas of the country this is not the case. 
Logged

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #271 on: April 03, 2017, 08:43:30 am »

...
...
Has anyone figured this in the actual monetary costs to society?  Not that it will matter.  What will drive the market is lower costs through solar to the individual home owner.

No cost/benefit analysis is complete without accounting for the health impacts of fossil fueled power generation.

https://www.toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/locations.php?id=155
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coal-fired-power-plants.pdf
Logged
- Dean

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #272 on: April 03, 2017, 09:07:54 am »

Not true, the anthropogenic amount of additional greenhouse gas CO2 (and other combustion byproducts) is detrimental to the environment as a whole.

That's a belief, not a scientific fact, Bart. However there can be other combustion by-products which are detrimental to the environment. That's why we have emissions controls in advanced countries.

Quote
So according to you 97% of the scientists are lying? Not true.

Lying is a major talent of the human species. Didn't you know that, Bart?  ;)

There are big, blatant lies at one end of the spectrum, such as the Michael Mann Hockey Stick graph, and little white lies at the other end of the spectrum, such as telling your overweight wife that she isn't really fat when she asks if you think she is overweight.

97% of all scientists certainly do not accept that CO2 and Methane levels are a significant problem, but 97% of scientists working in government-funded climate research centres might well tell you that they agree with the ethos and ideology of their workplace, otherwise their prospects of promotion would not only be seriously reduced, they might even get the sack.

If you wanted to determine scientifically what the true consensus of opinion is among the scientists in the various disciplines involved in climate research, ticking a box on a questionnaire form would not be sufficient. To get a scientifically sound result, each scientist would have to be interviewed whilst attached to a reliable lie-detector machine. Unfortunately, there are no such reliable machines, and such a process would be socially unacceptable anyway.

The next best option would be to interview each scientist individually with the pledge that their name would not be revealed to their employer. However, I think it's reasonable to suppose that those scientists who wanted to keep their job, despite having serious doubts that CO2 is a major problem, would not take the risk of being perfectly honest.

There is also the issue that many scientists are able to justify their dishonest stance on the dangers of CO2 because they believe that switching to renewables will be of benefit to mankind in the long run because fossil fuels are a limited resource, and sooner or later they will become scarce, and also because certain countries with major issues of poverty will not spend the money to build the cleanest fossil fuel power plants that modern technology can provide, such as the Ultra-Supercritical variety of coal plants.

There is also the issue that at least some of the scientists working in these government-funded research centres may simply be second-rate scientists who genuinely accept the mantra that CO2 is bad because they are conformists, or are pathologically worried about the future of their grandchildren, or are not particularly good at thinking for themselves.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 09:38:31 am by Ray »
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4692
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #273 on: April 03, 2017, 10:52:00 am »

My main objection is with the description of the current and projected levels of CO2 as a pollutant. That's just nonsense.

So is that statement. 

As far as I know, you are not a climatologist, you are just a person on the Internet who happens to disagree with science.
Inflammatory, ill-informed statements like that do little to advance your specious claims.

Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #274 on: April 03, 2017, 11:15:31 am »

So is that statement. 

As far as I know, you are not a climatologist, you are just a person on the Internet who happens to disagree with science.
Inflammatory, ill-informed statements like that do little to advance your specious claims.

I have a great respect for science. It is because of my respect that I'm dismayed at the unfounded certainty expressed about the effects of CO2 on future climate.

There are 'hard' sciences like physics and chemistry, where high degrees of certainty can be achieved, and 'soft' sciences such as climatology, weather forecasts, and economics, where the complexities do not allow for certainty.

In defence of 'real' scientists, I will admit that the certainty expressed about the effects of CO2 and the so-called 97% consensus is merely a political tactic to get people motivated.

Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #275 on: April 03, 2017, 12:23:45 pm »

Phil's point is correct.  There will always be the need for traditional power plants but the need will be much reduced.  Plants will be much smaller as the share of renewables increase.  It worth noting that not every house can accommodate solar panels.  It may be a lack of sufficient roof size or the wrong orientation.  Large apartment buildings have insufficient roof size per the number of inhabitants.  Look at Manahattan; it will never be able to generate enough solar panel for the 2M citizens who live there.

We are seeing a weird thing going on in my area.  Older houses are being demolished for new very large homes.  Most of these are not designed with solar panels in mind which is rather strange.  I think in other areas of the country this is not the case.

You are correct, of course, but have you seen this new feature from Google? Right now only for the US though https://www.google.com/get/sunroof#p=0

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #276 on: April 03, 2017, 02:19:17 pm »

I tend to agree, it is not the solution but it can be one of several solutions. Besides the important step to first conserve more energy, there are several technologies that can currently be employed as buffer storage during low wind and/or low light conditions. It depends on local conditions and maturity of the technology which ones are to be preferred. GeoThermal is an option, Hydro Pumped Storage (either below ground or on/above the surface) can be a solution, and Hydrogen produced with solar/wind can also be a solution. In coastal areas, tidal and wave generators can contribute as well.

Some of these can be used as buffer storage and some may produce enough to feed the grid as an auxiliary source.

With ongoing R&D, the efficiency of existing solutions will also increase over time, so it then becomes more of a logistical problem to transport the energy to those spots where it's needed.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. Here's an overview of some of the current Energy storage technologies:
http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/energy-storage-technologies
where's the money coming from to pay for all these new techniques?  It would seem that existing grids would continue to use existing power generator stations that use coal or at the most switch over to gas. 

Also,  as Alan G posted apartment buildings and many homes don't lens themselves to solar panels on rooves.  Congrats areas like the DC NYC  Boston corridor are to crowded.   Also,  areas in the north don't get enough sun as do areas on winter.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #277 on: April 03, 2017, 02:34:32 pm »


There are big, blatant lies at one end of the spectrum, such as the Michael Mann Hockey Stick graph, and little white lies at the other end of the spectrum, such as telling your overweight wife that she isn't really fat when she asks if you think she is overweight.

97% of all scientists certainly do not accept that CO2 and Methane levels are a significant problem, but 97% of scientists working in government-funded climate research centres might well tell you that they agree with the ethos and ideology of their workplace, otherwise their prospects of promotion would not only be seriously reduced, they might even get the sack.
You are really going off the rails on this Ray.  100% of Trump voters probably don't believe in climate change or global warming and that doesn't prove anything.  Someone with a PhD in organic chemistry might not be equipped to pass judgement on atmospheric chemistry but they are a scientist and maybe they don't believe in global warming either.  A scientist who receives funding from a Koch Brother foundation might have a different view on this than someone working on a scientific grant from the US government and so on.  Your statement blithely ignores what happens in peer reviewed science (at least here in the US; you can better tell me how it works in Australia).

Quote
If you wanted to determine scientifically what the true consensus of opinion is among the scientists in the various disciplines involved in climate research, ticking a box on a questionnaire form would not be sufficient. To get a scientifically sound result, each scientist would have to be interviewed whilst attached to a reliable lie-detector machine. Unfortunately, there are no such reliable machines, and such a process would be socially unacceptable anyway.
Yes, and we have now way of discerning whether you represent any type of consensus among those who post on LuLa in the absence of a lie detctor.

[qoute]The next best option would be to interview each scientist individually with the pledge that their name would not be revealed to their employer. However, I think it's reasonable to suppose that those scientists who wanted to keep their job, despite having serious doubts that CO2 is a major problem, would not take the risk of being perfectly honest.[/quote] you don't even have to do this as they all publish in the open scientific literature and their results are out there for anyone to try to poke a hole into.

Quote
There is also the issue that many scientists are able to justify their dishonest stance on the dangers of CO2 because they believe that switching to renewables will be of benefit to mankind in the long run because fossil fuels are a limited resource, and sooner or later they will become scarce, and also because certain countries with major issues of poverty will not spend the money to build the cleanest fossil fuel power plants that modern technology can provide, such as the Ultra-Supercritical variety of coal plants.
Do you really believe in conspiracy theories?  Perhaps this is all part of a big plan by Putin to distract everyone.  Perhaps it is a bit plot by the Chinese so that they can position there country to capture the majority share of renewable energy equipment and supplies (Hey, wait a minute; this is actually happening!!!  they are the world leaders in solar panel and wind turbines right now.  Maybe this is why President Trump is meeting President Xi).

Quote
There is also the issue that at least some of the scientists working in these government-funded research centres may simply be second-rate scientists who genuinely accept the mantra that CO2 is bad because they are conformists, or are pathologically worried about the future of their grandchildren, or are not particularly good at thinking for themselves.
Perhaps but also don't forget that it might just be you have bias in the other direction. Confirmational biases run in both directions.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #278 on: April 03, 2017, 02:37:37 pm »

You are correct, of course, but have you seen this new feature from Google? Right now only for the US though https://www.google.com/get/sunroof#p=0
Hans, the new houses whose prices start at $1.5 million tend to have these gabled roof designs that are not amendable to standard solar panels.  Each roof section is too small in area.  Dow Chemical had developed solar shingles that could have been used in such designs but the shingles were not cost competitive and have been withdrawn from the market.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #279 on: April 03, 2017, 03:39:47 pm »

Hans, the new houses whose prices start at $1.5 million tend to have these gabled roof designs that are not amendable to standard solar panels.  Each roof section is too small in area.  Dow Chemical had developed solar shingles that could have been used in such designs but the shingles were not cost competitive and have been withdrawn from the market.
Solar panels are ugly, to boot. How do you repair and replace the roof when you have too?  Do people consider those costs when they buy solar?  What's the real ROI on solar? 

My walkway lights are off the grid.  It's the type with the solar element at top charging a battery inside.  During the summer, I get hours and hours from them before the batteries run down.  During the winter, I'm lucky to get an hour or two and some of them mostly in the shade don't even charge up enough to come on.  So I told the wife we're going onto the grid with new lights with a permanent 24v supply cable from the house.  :)
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 24   Go Up