Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 435
  1. #126
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    So...

    $1/watt net

    8KW

    $8000 final cost to you? and average $100/month return?

    If I may ask. The numbers interest me, as I have been mulling over doing green consulting for a while.
    My final cost was around $9000.

    Not a bad investment to buy a 20+ year $100 a month tax free income stream that rises as utility rates (up about 5% this year alone) rise.

  2. #127
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Are Solar Panels Facing the Wrong Direction?

    When the data was normalized for a 5.5-kilowatt system, the panels turned to the west generated nearly 50 percent more electricity during peak demand hours than did their southern-facing counterparts.



    Homes with west-facing systems also produced slightly more electricity, with those panels producing 37 percent of total daily electricity use, compared to 35 percent for the south-facing panels.

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...rong-direction


  3. #128
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    My final cost was around $9000.

    Not a bad investment to buy a 20+ year $100 a month tax free income stream that rises as utility rates (up about 5% this year alone) rise.
    How long to break even?

  4. #129
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    How long to break even?
    Approximately 9 years.

  5. #130
    Spur-taaaa TDMVPDPOY's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    41,330
    Approximately 9 years.
    doesnt make a difference if you add more panels right?

    100bucks per month, quarterly bills are around 300 minimum anyway...so ur fkn break even or living on ur own generated power...

    u have a basement or enclave in the backyard? u know what to do right....hotwire and start growing ur own

  6. #131
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    More Solar Workers in US than Coal Miners, and Solar doesn’t Poison Drinking Water

    By the end of 2013, the number of workers in the solar energy industry in the US had grown to 143,000. About a third of them are in California, followed by Arizona, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
    the wind power industry employed another 80,000 or so workers directly, and many more in transportation of components, etc.

    Together, wind and solar energy workers far outnumber all the estimated workers in coal mining, coal transportation, and coal plant operation. Solar installation jobs alone outnumber seasonally adjusted full-time jobs in coal mining by a substantial margin.

    In contrast to the rapidly growing solar and wind sectors, 151 coal mines were idled in the second half of 2013, with a loss of 2600 mining jobs.

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/16-5

    and if WA state blocks the coal export terminals, BigCoal will be really screwed.



  7. #132
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    How a progressive BLUE state moves forward, compared to ed up Repug red state TX that protects its centralized, corporate electric providers.

    California Grandfathers Existing Solar Arrays In, Rates Won’t Change For 20 Years

    The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has ruled that existing rooftop solar arrays can keep selling electricity to the grid at current rates for 20 years.

    This applies to all customers of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company.

    The CPUC’s decision was unanimous and in line with what Governor Jerry Brown intended when he signed Assembly Bill 327 into law.

    At that time, Governor Brown wrote, “As the CPUC considers rules regarding grandfathering of net meter customers, I expect the Commission to ensure that customers who took service under net metering prior to reaching the statutory net metering cap on or before July 1, 2017, are protected under those rules for the expected life of their systems.”

    The rules for California’s next Net Metering Policy (NEM 2.0) have not yet been decided upon, but must be finalized by December 2015.

    There will be an unprecedented surge of demand for solar power after today’s hearing, so it’s impossible to predict when the cap will be hit,” said Daniel Sullivan, president and founder of Sullivan Solar Power, “It is clearly in the best interest for property owners to go solar now, locking in 20 years of protections.”

    “At Baker Electric Solar we’re pleased with the CPUC recent ruling that ensures that existing solar customers are guaranteed the current net energy metering (NEM 1.0) benefits,” said Keith Randhahn, Operations Manager at Baker Electric Solar. “Establishing a grandfathering deadline will also motivate homeowners who haven’t yet considered going solar to step up and investigate the advantages of becoming a renewable energy producer sooner than later.

    “We fully support CALSEIA’s efforts to work with the CPUC as NEM 2.0 is developed and hope it will provide similar guarantees to the next generation of solar adopters. The new definition of net metering should be based on the entire value chain associated with solar power adoption. Solar benefits extend beyond the cost savings for the consumer and the benefit to the utility of distributed grid power. Value can be given to the less tangible environmental benefits as well as the economic benefits of job creation.”

    “This is good news for existing customers and those signing through 2016,” said Martin Learn of Home Energy Systems. “Commissioner Peavey did not bow to other commissioners who wanted to reduce the grandfathering period. The vote was ultimately 4/0, because newly appointed commissioner Picker was in Germany and was able to remain off the record on this.

    Future votes on even more important points may or may not go the way of the solar industry. Stay tuned, and express your opinion by letters, faxes, emails, and pe ions, even in person in San Francisco or Sacramento. Utilities believe they are going to win the war even if we win a battle or two. They have plenty of experience influencing lawmakers and regulators.”

    http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/31/...KQdYpgx4mdD.99



  8. #133
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Is that progress, or suppression?

    As the rates go higher, "current rates" will have less value!

  9. #134
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Is that progress, or suppression?

    As the rates go higher, "current rates" will have less value!
    yep, not clear if "current rates" has some kind of inflation, or other increase.

    But the mo is clearly with distributed solar and against the PUC, so I expect it will get better in later rounds.

  10. #135
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514

  11. #136
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Good.

    Until alternate forms of energy are cost effective, this is a wise move.

  12. #137
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Good.

    Until alternate forms of energy are cost effective, this is a wise move.
    but $10Bs of tax expenditures for BigOil, $Ts going back many decades, is ok.

  13. #138
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    but $10Bs of tax expenditures for BigOil, $Ts going back many decades, is ok.
    I didn't say or imply that now did I? I have repeatedly said I am against subsidies. How costly is green energy to the public without subsidies?

    You don't need to try to prove to us any longer how stupid you are with ASSumptions. We already know.

  14. #139
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Okie Repugs help centalized utilities obstruct distributed solar/wind with a secret, silent, non-debated item slipped into unrelated law.

    Oklahoma Will Charge Customers Who Install Their Own Solar Panels

    Oklahoma residents who produce their own energy through solar panels or small wind turbines on their property will now be charged an additional fee, the result of a new bill passed by the state legislature and expected to be signed into law by Gov. Mary Fallin (R).

    On Monday, S.B. 1456 passed the state House 83-5 after no debate.

    The measure creates a new class of customers: those who install distributed power generation systems like solar panels or small wind turbines on their property and sell the excess energy back to the grid. While those with systems already installed won’t be affected, the new class of customers will now be charged a monthly fee — a shift that happened quickly and caught many in the state off guard.


    “We knew nothing about it and all of a sudden it’s attached to some other bill,” Ctaci Gary, owner of Sun City Oklahoma, told ThinkProgress. “It just appeared out of nowhere.”

    “We’re not anti-solar or anti-wind or trying to slow this down, we’re just trying to keep it fair,” Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. spokeswoman Kathleen O’Shea told the Oklahoman. “We’ve been studying this trend. We know it’s coming, and we want to get ahead of it.”

    ( iow, we hate compe ion from distributed energy sources, so we obstruct barriers to block challenges to our monopoly)


    Oklahoma “could be the first complete defeat for solar advocates in their fight against utility efforts to recover costs lost to DG [distributed generation] use,” writes Utility Dive.

    Net metering survived attacks in Colorado and Kansas and Vermont recently increased its policy in a bipartisan effort. Last year, Arizona added what amounts to a $5 per month surcharge for solar customers, a move that was widely seen as a compromise, particularly after ALEC and other Koch-backed groups got involved.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-solar-wind/




  15. #140
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Solar Power Grows 400 Percent in Only 4 Years


    Since 2010, EIA said, U.S. solar capacity increased 418 percent from 2,326 megawatts, accounting for 0.2 percent of total U.S. electric generation, to today's 12,057 MW, or 1.13 percent of U.S. generation.

    More than half of that additional capacity — 5,251 MW -- has been installed by home and business owners participating in utility net metering programs that allow owners of solar systems to sell excess capacity back to their local utility at retail rates, according to EIA.

    California has the largest net metered solar capacity, with 38 percent of the U.S. total, but Eastern states such as Massachusetts and New Jersey also have significant amounts of net metered solar energy, the agency said.


    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...GYSUS_20140424

    and super-sunny/snow-free Texas, specifically SA CPS, has really no effective policies about FIT/PPA for promoting/rewarding distributed solar, as TX Repug protect their centralized electric utilities from compe ion.


    Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-10-2014 at 03:42 PM.

  16. #141
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    https://sites.google.com/site/anatom...a-and-analysis
    This may be why Tx is so heavy into wind. It's, by far, cheaper and more efficient than solar today.


    One wind turbine generated the same amount of electricity per kWh as about 48704 solar panels. To manufacture and maintain 48704 solar panels, 28,126,560 kWh must be consumed. It took 23,822,339 kWh more to produce 48704 solar panels than it takes to produce one wind turbine.

    When comparing the amount of CO2 released per kWh during a wind turbine and solar panel's life cycle, the wind turbine produced 4.64 grams of CO2/1kWh while the solar panel produced 70 grams of CO2/1kWh. This means the wind turbine released less CO2 than the solar panel to the atmosphere.

    Energy balance is the amount of time needed to pay back the energy consumed. The lower the pay back time, the sooner the machine* starts producing energy that is renewable. The wind turbine took only 6.6 months to repay its energy balance while the solar panel took 3.2 years. Because the turbine took less time to repay its energy balance, the turbine can then profit from the energy generated after its payment.

    Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is used to compare the quan y of energy supplied to the quan y of energy used in supply process. The higher the ratio, the less energy is consumed in producing the energy. The wind turbine's EROI is approximately 36.5 :1 while solar energy has a EROI of 5:1. We can deduce that that the wind turbines return more energy for a certain amount of energy invested.*

  17. #142
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    https://sites.google.com/site/anatom...a-and-analysis
    This may be why Tx is so heavy into wind. It's, by far, cheaper and more efficient than solar today.


    One wind turbine generated the same amount of electricity per kWh as about 48704 solar panels. To manufacture and maintain 48704 solar panels, 28,126,560 kWh must be consumed. It took 23,822,339 kWh more to produce 48704 solar panels than it takes to produce one wind turbine.

    When comparing the amount of CO2 released per kWh during a wind turbine and solar panel's life cycle, the wind turbine produced 4.64 grams of CO2/1kWh while the solar panel produced 70 grams of CO2/1kWh. This means the wind turbine released less CO2 than the solar panel to the atmosphere.

    Energy balance is the amount of time needed to pay back the energy consumed. The lower the pay back time, the sooner the machine* starts producing energy that is renewable. The wind turbine took only 6.6 months to repay its energy balance while the solar panel took 3.2 years. Because the turbine took less time to repay its energy balance, the turbine can then profit from the energy generated after its payment.

    Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is used to compare the quan y of energy supplied to the quan y of energy used in supply process. The higher the ratio, the less energy is consumed in producing the energy. The wind turbine's EROI is approximately 36.5 :1 while solar energy has a EROI of 5:1. We can deduce that that the wind turbines return more energy for a certain amount of energy invested.*
    I don't disagree with eROI, but that's not why TX is not promoting distributed/rooftop solar.

    the battle is between centralized electric monopolies, mostly for profit, versus distributed rooftop solar, which is seen by the entire electric industry as a threat that must be restrained if not killed.

    And you can put solar in Ms more rooftops than there are suitable wind turbine sites.

    eROI? then talk about rapidly depleted fracked wells and tar sands.

  18. #143
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    And you can put solar in Ms more rooftops than there are suitable wind turbine sites.
    You would pretty much have to with a 1:48,704 production defficiency.

  19. #144
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    eROI is not why ALEC, BigCarbon, conservatives, Edison Electric Inst, Republicans are trying to stop rooftop solar and kill renewable energy mandates.

  20. #145
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    You would pretty much have to with a 1:48,704 production defficiency.
    BigCarbon and nukes would be a lot more expensive if we could force them to pay all the $Ts in external costs they dump people + environment.

    eg, BP got off extremely cheap adding more poison to the Gulf + coast already poisoned by BigOil.


  21. #146
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Koch Brothers And ALEC Expand Fight On Clean Energy Users

    The right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an influential lobbying group composed of Republican politicians and big businesses, is in the middle of the state- and local-level clean energy disputes that are currently evolving almost as quickly as the solar and wind technologies themselves. ALEC, known for advancing corporate interests, is aligned with the Koch brothers in the current heated exchange — how to make distributed solar power look bad.

    Solar power is growing rapidly across the U.S., with capacity up an astounding 418 percent in the last four years alone. This has given rise to two primary policy-level debates:

    how much renewable power utilities are required to use, known as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and

    figuring out the logistics of net metering, which guarantees homeowners or businesses with solar panels on their roofs the right to sell any excess electricity back into the power grid.


    The Los Angeles times has recently been reporting out a story about how the Koch brothers are trying to roll back these solar initiatives across the country:

    “The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the nation’s largest power companies have backed efforts in recent months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North Carolina and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states.”

    ALEC, which has referred to homeowners with their own solar panels as “freeriders on the system,” is deeply involved in both combating renewable energy mandates and modeling legislation that targets net metering.

    Last year alone, ALEC pushed more than 70 bills in 37 states that would have impeded clean energy growth. While ALEC was highly unsuccessful at actually passing anti-clean energy bills it advanced at the state level last year, a newdo ent obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy reveals the intensity that ALEC is bringing to 2014 in its anti-environmental efforts — which include not just stifling clean energy, but opposing EPA coal regulations related to public health, promoting the Keystone XL pipeline, and working toward industry-friendly fracking rules.


    The spreadsheet from March, 2014 lays out 131 bills that ALEC is tracking — even though ALEC has claimed that it doesn’t track its model legislation. According to analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy, eleven of the bills attempt to amend net metering laws. Currently 43 states and the District of Columbia have net metering policies. Thirty-one of the bills relate to renewable energy production, with 29 states and the District of Columbia currently employing some form of RPS.


    “An entire section was devoted to tracking renewable energy legislation, which suggests that this is still a top priority for ALEC in 2014 following their near total failure in 2013,” Nick Surgey, Director of Research for the Center for Media and Democracy, told ThinkProgress. “The number of bills in this do ent shows that, as toxic a brand as ALEC is becoming, it is still highly effective at getting the big polluters agenda introduced in the states.”


    One example of this comes in Arizona, where the Los Angeles Times reports “a tangle of secret donors and operatives with ties to ALEC and the Kochs invested millions to persuade state regulators to impose a monthly fee of $50 to $100 on net-metering customers.”


    While ALEC might be doing the dirty work on clean energy, the fossil fuel industry is the one calling the shots, and filling the coffers. This is what makes it so cynical for ALEC to claim to be defending the free market while at the same time trying to punish solar users who have found a way to economically generate clean energy and provide some of it back to the market.


    Solar suppressors like ALEC recently claimed victory in Oklahoma, where Gov. Mary Fallin signed into law a bill that would allow utilities to charge customers who generate electricity from solar panels or small wind turbines. When Gov. Fallin signed the bill she also issued an executive order, an unusual move that few expected, that emphasized the importance of renewable energy in her Oklahoma First Energy Plan. According to Politifact, Fallin told state agencies to implement the bill in accordance with her energy plan, “which promotes wind and solar power as important forms of clean energy,” and for the commission to “consider the use of all available alternatives, including other rate reforms such as increased use of time-of-use rates, minimum bills, and demand charges.”


    The bill lets electric utilities apply to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to establish a higher base customer charge for users of rooftop solar or small wind turbines. While the executive order isn’t binding, it guides the Corporate Commission, made up of statewide elected officials, with what to do.


    “This has been on top of ALEC’s to-do list all year long, a likely result of the utility and fossil fuel corporations that are members of ALEC,” Matt Kasper, energy research assistant at the Center for American Progress, told ThinkProgress about the Oklahoma bill.

    “When the Oklahoma utility companies do request the fee, all stakeholders should be called to the table for a transparent conversation. Hopefully the Oklahoma Corporation Commission will recognize the true value of customer-generated power.”


    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...lar-koch-alec/



  22. #147
    Spur-taaaa TDMVPDPOY's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    41,330
    there was an article down here last week, about ppl without solar are subsidizing ppl with solar to the tune of $400 a year....

    since the suppliers cant make money out of ppl with solar, so they go and make up excuses increasing ppls bills without solar...

    the suppliers down here are a bunch of dogs anyway, the country has enough coal to supply for 1000 years, but we are paying through the roof just to have electricity...

    they never wanted solar, let alone the whole country to go green with solar...cause it kills their revenue, i look at those supplying companies, most of their share prices are around above $10 per

  23. #148
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Fossil fuels face $30 trillion losses from climate, renewables

    The global fossil fuel industry faces a loss of $US28 trillion ($A30.2 trillion) in revenues over the next two decades, if the world takes action to address climate change, cleans up pollution and moves to decarbonise the global energy system.

    The assessment, made by leading European broking house Kepler Chevreux, underlines what’s at stake for the fossil fuel industry from a push to cleaner fuels and concerted efforts to reduce emissions, and helps explain the enormous push back from the oil and coal industries in particular against such policies.

    The Kepler Chevreux report, led by Paris-based analyst Mark Lewis, a former head of Deutsche Bank’s carbon and energy team, says the oil industry has most to lose, with the potential loss of $US19.3 trillion in revenues from 2015 to 2035. The coal industry stands to lose $US4.9 trillion, while the gas industry $US4 trillion.


    The latter two markets have particular implications for Australia, which is among the world’s largest exporters of LNG and thermal coal.

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/28-trillion-11465

    I see the AU conservatives are as bent as US/CA conservatives on killing renewables and promoting BigCarbon.


    Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-28-2014 at 08:42 AM.

  24. #149
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Fossil fuels face $30 trillion losses from climate, renewables

    The global fossil fuel industry faces a loss of $US28 trillion ($A30.2 trillion) in revenues over the next two decades, if the world takes action to address climate change, cleans up pollution and moves to decarbonise the global energy system.
    The assessment, made by leading European broking house Kepler Chevreux, underlines what’s at stake for the fossil fuel industry from a push to cleaner fuels and concerted efforts to reduce emissions, and helps explain the enormous push back from the oil and coal industries in particular against such policies.
    The Kepler Chevreux report, led by Paris-based analyst Mark Lewis, a former head of Deutsche Bank’s carbon and energy team, says the oil industry has most to lose, with the potential loss of $US19.3 trillion in revenues from 2015 to 2035. The coal industry stands to lose $US4.9 trillion, while the gas industry $US4 trillion.
    The latter two markets have particular implications for Australia, which is among the world’s largest exporters of LNG and thermal coal.

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/28-trillion-11465

    I see the AU conservatives are as bent as US/CA conservatives on killing renewables and promoting BigCarbon.


    So?

  25. #150
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Here's how blue states do it:

    Hawaii’s Largest Utility Ordered To Help Customers Install More Rooftop Solar

    Hawaii’s energy regulator got tough with the state’s largest investor-owned utility this week, putting forth a plan for Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) to reduce energy costs and connect more rooftop solar systems to the electric grid.

    “It is now in bent upon the Hawaiian Electric Companies to use this road map diligently and promptly to move forward,” said commissioner Lorraine Akiba of the Public Utilities Commission.

    HECO has been the target of substantial criticism from Hawaiians lately as customers have grown weary of sky-high electricity bills and difficulty installing their own solar panels to mitigate those costs. A recent poll found that 94 percent of Hawaii residents support more rooftop solar, and 90 percent believe that HECO is slowing rooftop solar to protect its profits.

    The PUC ruled that HECO was not moving fast enough to address key sources of customer frustration, namely challenges connecting solar photovoltaic (PV) systems to the electric grid. “The PUC is giving Hawaiian Electric up to 120 days to come up with a more comprehensive strategy that can lower energy costs and help connect more PV systems to the grid,” KHON2 News reported.


    The rapid growth in rooftop solar is catching utilities off-guard across the U.S. and many are fighting back against the trend due to the threat it poses to their bottom line. Quite simply, more customers installing their own rooftop solar panels means they’re producing more of their own electricity and buying less from their utility company.


    ( otoh, red states )

    The battle has grown particularly contentious in states like
    Arizona, where the state’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service Company (APS), has gone as far as to launch a multi-million dollar lobbying and marketing campaign against solar energy, partnering with dark money organizations funded by Charles and David Koch. The latest attack against rooftop solar in Arizona comes in the form of a potential property tax being imposed on customers who lease solar their solar systems — the vast majority of the state’s solar customers.

    And
    Oklahoma, looking to get ahead of the looming threat, passed legislation imposing a fee on customers who install solar panels or small wind turbines on their own property. Gov. Mary Fallin (R) signed the measure last month but took the rare step of issuing an executive order emphasizing the importance of renewable energy and fair implementation of the new legislation.


    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ty-more-solar/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •