Hansen + 30 Years Later: What Needs to Change

July 4, 2018

renewable

If you want to start a food fight at a climate conference, bring up nuclear power.

Boston Globe:

THIRTY YEARS AGO, while the Midwest withered in massive drought and East Coast temperatures exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit, I testified to the Senate as a senior NASA scientist about climate change. I said that ongoing global warming was outside the range of natural variability and it could be attributed, with high confidence, to human activity — mainly from the spewing of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. “It’s time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here,” I said.

It’s not rocket science. As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be burned and emissions will be high. Fossil fuel use will decline only if the price is made to include costs of pollution and climate change to society. The simplest and most effective way to do this is by collecting a rising carbon fee from fossil fuel companies at domestic mines and ports of entry.

Economists agree: If 100 percent of this fee is distributed uniformly to the public, the economy will be spurred, GNP will rise, and millions of jobs will be created. Our energy infrastructure will be steadily modernized with clean energies and energy efficiency.

The clinching argument for a carbon fee, as opposed to ineffectual cap-and-trade schemes dreamed up by politicians, is that the fee can be imposed almost globally via border duties on products from countries that do not have a fee, based on standard fossil fuel content of the products. This will be a strong incentive for most countries to have their own fee.

Any cap approach, by contrast, leaves the impossible task of negotiating 190 caps on all the world’s nations. Governments of some countries may keep a carbon fee as a tax. However, in democracies uniform 100 percent distribution of the funds will be needed to achieve public support.

A carbon fee is crucial, but not enough. Countries such as India and China need massive amounts of energy to raise living standards. The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries. Worse, tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate change grows.

Grist:

The roughest head-knocking has been between the energy wonks who think we should use whatever power sources necessary to eliminate emissions — nuclear, biofuels, carbon-capture — and those who think renewable energy is the only answer.

The science historian Naomi Oreskes accused James Hansen, the well-known NASA climate scientist, of engaging in “a new form of climate denialism” for saying the world needs nuclear power. Tisha Schuller, an environmentalist who came to think fracking could help reduce emissions, received regular death threats. Activists even distributed pictures of her children. The fights rage on social media, and recently they spilled into the courts.

In November, Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford researcher, renewable-energy champion, and one-time Grist 50 member, sued a group of scientists for publishing a critique of an influential paper he had written laying out a path for the United States to run purely on renewables. (He later dropped the suit.)

“People tend to either agree on the goals, or on the means — if you want to get something dramatic done you have to agree on both,” said Jane Long, a senior consulting scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund and one of the researchers who critiqued Jacobson’s paper. “I think the kind of changes we contemplate isn’t the kind we can accomplish without alignment of both goals and means.”

Amid all this rancour, it’s easy to forget that all these people are on one side of a climate fight; they agree about more than they disagree.

“Even though [the debate] consumes a lot of my time and other people’s time, it’s sort of beside the point,” Jacobson told Grist. “I’d say there’s no disagreement on 90 percent of our plans.”

So where’s the common ground among all these scientists, academics, and advocates who care about climate change? What are the things that we’re going to need no matter what path we take? Here’s a rundown of broad areas of agreement. Consider it a checklist — or rather, a to-do list — for climate hawks.

You pollute, you pay.

How much do you have to pay to use the atmosphere as a dump for greenhouse gases? For most people and businesses, it’s totally free. Make polluting expensive, and it would cut the amount of greenhouse gases people spew.

“We should all be able to get behind tech-neutral policies to reduce greenhouse gases,” Kaufman said. You could do that by putting a price on carbon — as some 40 countries from Denmark to China have done — or by regulating pollution, punishing companies for releasing methane into the atmosphere. Either one encourages the development of better technologies without causing a fight over exactly which technologies should win.

It’s a pattern that runs throughout history. People assume they can pollute for free until the pollution builds up and becomes a serious problem. Then — under duress — they start paying for the trouble. Consider regular old trash. When neighbors live far apart from each other, they can toss garbage out the window without worrying about the consequences. But it’s a different story in cities.

In 1866, New York City told residents they needed to stop the “throwing of dead animals, garbage or ashes into the streets.” Soon, New Yorkers started paying to get their waste picked up. Without a free pass to pollute, the carriage operators who had been leaving dead horses in the streets were at a disadvantage when a new technology came along that didn’t produce piles of manure and leave carcasses behind. At the time, nobody worried that this new horseless carriage would dump carbon into the air. But today that carbon is piling up.

Putting a price on carbon emissions is the same as charging people for the dead animals and ashes they toss into the road. A tax or a regulation curbing emissions would have the same result, Kaufman said. Both would raise the cost of polluting and also raise the rewards for any modern-day Henry Fords developing revolutionary technologies.

If someone figures out a way to extend the shelf life of electricity on the cheap, it will help in every carbon-cutting scenario, whether it’s 100 percent renewable or 100 percent nuclear.

The other way to handle the mismatch between electric supply and demand is to send electricity farther afield. If it gets really windy in Wyoming, and the turbines there start producing too much juice, the state could send that extra electricity to big cities in California.

Well, it could if a major power line connected the two states.

“The transmission system we have today wasn’t built to get to zero carbon,” said Dan Kammen, Director of Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. “Those power lines don’t go to the best wind areas in the mountain states, they don’t go to the best solar areas in the Southwest.”

Most clean-energy scenarios rely on new transmission wires to connect the places with too much electricity to the places with too little, balancing things out.

 

 

Advertisements

17 Responses to “Hansen + 30 Years Later: What Needs to Change”

  1. rhymeswithgoalie Says:

    From the full Grist article: A little over 1 percent of cars on the road run on electricity right now.

    ERROR! ERROR!

    The link from the Grist article goes to an IEA report which talks about the worldwide MARKET SHARE OF NEW CARS being close to 1%, and that combines both battery-only and plug-in hybrid vehicles. For decades car companies have been making higher quality long-lived ICE vehicles that will remain on the road for years to come.

  2. J4Zonian Says:

    “We should all be able to get behind tech-neutral policies to reduce greenhouse gases,” … You could do that by putting a price on carbon…or by regulating pollution, punishing companies for releasing …. Either one encourages the development of better technologies without causing a fight over exactly which technologies should win.

    There are no tech-neutral ways to reduce GHGs. That’s true by definition, and it will proved by the details of whatever policies are fought over and which is finally established. At some point we’ll have to confront subsidies–including externalities, another form of subsidy created by policy, including a libertarianish policy to have no policy. That includes subsidies that keep nuclear power alive—or at least keep it as a zombie technology, never quite alive and never quite dead as long as there are rich people who think they can profit from it. The epitome of subsidies is the Price-Anderson Act and similar laws that shunt into unconsciousness the question of who pays when catastrophic accidents happen. (There is no if, only when, and there’s a “catastrophic” before and an “s” at the end of “accidents”.) Papering the question over with Price-Anderson is just another externality, making Isaac and Iphigenia pay the price for Abraham’s and Agamemnon’s machinations.

    Build more reactors, have more accidents. Sooner or later, some will happen in densely-populated areas and kill millions, or in ecologically or economically crucial areas and devastate them with rippling tsunamis of effects. If that were the cost of solving the climate crisis… well, then humans’ only rational, compassionate choices would be to use dramatically less energy or allow themselves to become extinct. That’s not the choice.

    ”Where love rules, there is no will to power; and where power predominates, there love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.
    Carl Jung, Psychology of the Unconscious

    The choice is between spending capital and political capital on something that can’t compete in the market most nuke proponents worship, (except when it interferes with their drive to profit, punish, coerce, and destroy) OR… going for cheaper, faster, more ecological, more democratic, more egalitarian, more water-conserving clean safe renewables. Since Hansen’s Senate testimony, the evolving energy situation has made his words obsolete. Nukes continue to rise in price–only faster–and renewables, now joined by batteries, continue to fall in price–only faster. Tech advances and price drops in dispatchable renewables and increases in efficiency, output and capacity factor of wind, and past and very likely future improvements in solar efficiency (even possible use at night through the force of rain) have created the harmonized renewable grid that makes nukes obsolete.

    PS If one mentions the irrelevant lawsuit by Jacobson, it’s irresponsible to leave out what triggered it: a dishonest attack on Jacobson’s research by the people Jacobson then ended up suing—so dishonest it was worthy only of denying delayalists. I’m not defending the suit, only saying that Clack and others (how many others was something Clack et al lied about, by crediting more than 20 people as authors of the attack piece who weren’t. That was only the start of the deceptions.

  3. J4Zonian Says:

    ”tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate change grows.”

    Oh, corium lava. There’s no trick, and in a country that even according to the aforementioned Clack, already has enough nukes to provide all the dispatchable power needed to complement variable renewables like sun and wind, the path to 80% renewable and 100% renewable are virtually the same for the first 70% of the transition.

    Clack was wrong, mainly because baseload is an obsolete concept. NO nukes are needed for low cost 100% noncarboniferous energy. Between 24/7 CSP, high capacity-factor offshore wind (and deep ocean floating wind), US hydro, and Canadian hydro (60% of their grid already, which means that as they build toward their phenomenal capacity for wind, they’ll have plenty of clean energy to sell) we can build renewables while shutting down nukes safely and on schedule over the next 10 years or so.

    Working for 100% RE isn’t what’s slowing the ditching of fossils; the psychopathic oligarchs who own the fossils are. (Just like 3rd party candidates aren’t losing Democratic presidential candidates he elections. The Democratic presidential candidates are.) Through Machiavellian political maneuvering and sheer blunt-force application of billions of dollars, the fossil magnates have delayed rational action for decades.


    • Minor point, not every country/continent has a crap load of hydro. Also,whilst on the subject, those Norwegian dams cannot supply every European country that blithely expects to use them in the carbon free future. Wind and solar economics dive as supply becomes high. There is still no return when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine and with ‘excess’ supply, returns drop often into the negative. The storage requirements are humungess and and in the future (come the day) or fantasy. So to balance the bluddy supply a large turn key output, be it hydro or nuclear, really simplifies things. Nuclear is the safest conventional power, by a country mile, and does not kill 9 million people a year from pollution either. By the way, most impressive rants above.

      • J4Zonian Says:

        (I looked it up but can’t tell if a “crap load” is English or metric). No, I guess if it were metric it would be “crappe load”.

        Every continent except Antarctica does have crappe loads of hydro, and Antarctica doesn’t need it; wind and batteries do fine for everyone there. Not every country needs crappe loads of hydro. As my post showed. And Jacobson, Lappeenranta, IEA’s World Energy Outlook, recent NREL studies, the IIASA Global Energy Assessment, and the REN 21 Renewables Global Future Report — all show that the barriers to 100% renewables are not technological.”
        http://theenergycollective.com/rosana-francescato/215641/100-percent-renewable-energy-100-percent-possible

        Efficiency and wiser lives. (The US wastes more than 85% of its energy.)

        24/7 CSP. Micro-hydro. Small amounts of waste biomass when needed. Offshore wind with a higher capacity factor than coal and most gas now, and increasingly, what nukes get now, cause they can’t compete. (Are you a market religion fanatic, an anti-renewable fanatic (arf), a spent fuel rod, or all of the above?)

        –a hocketed mix of multiple dispatchable and variable clean safe renewable energy sources.

        In a distributed generation grid.

        With batteries.

        And pumped storage.

        Nukes are neither conventional nor safe.

        By the way, using bizarre irrelevancies, straw person nonsense, and ignorance–real or feigned–as rhetorical tactics won’t fool anybody. You should give them up.

        • J4Zonian Says:

          And PS, demand-shifting strategies. David Roberts at Vox has written a number of good pieces on 100% RE, etc. that include the advantages of electrification and some about demand responses, and the Drawdown people have done some calculations.

        • J4Zonian Says:

          PPS. Meant to say “wind and batteries WILL do fine or COULD do fine in Antarctica.” McMurdo Station (2MW system) uses 3 small wind turbines and diesel backup. 2 MW is now a fairly small turbine, (9.5 is cutting edge; by 2020 GE will be producing a 12 MW turbine. So depending on wind conditions, 2 or 3 2 MW turbines with battery storage should be more than enough, and leave room for expansion.

          • jfon Says:

            Mawson Station in Antarctica, the Australian base, gets the strongest and most consistent wind on the planet ( catabatic gales off the ice sheet, plus circumpolar screaming sixties.) By definition, it also has the most expensive diesel on the planet, so they used to get about half their power from wind -even there, there are calmer months, and going without power is not an option. They’re certainly not using batteries for the wind lulls, and as of recently, they were back to full time diesel.
            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-08/mawson-antarctic-wind-turbine-failure-investigated/9130554
            For comparison, Bilibino in the Russian Arctic has been getting all its power and heating from four small nuclear reactors for the last forty years, with a replacement pair of floating reactors just about ready to take over. McMurdo, the main US Antarctic base, also used a small nuke for power and heating in the seventies. It was shut down after it sprang a small leak from a radiation shield tank, and was considered too expensive to fly specialised welders down to fix – a few months before the 1973 oil shock doubled diesel prices.


          • J1quarter actually accuses me of irrelevancies. Don’t bother trying to be concise, you fail miserably and should check the word in a dictionary.
            Nukes are conventional and produce more power per death/injury than coal or gas/oil. These unexpected FACTS can be found on the NASA website and are upsetting to the dogma brigade. Isn’t that just too dam bad.
            Have heard the Norwegian hydro nominated as backup for British tidal power to German RE and more. Wishful thinking is not a solution. On that note, find an intelligent person to explain the laws of thermodynamics to you re 24/7 csp, and another to explain the economics of ‘no power produced equals no return’.
            Now having wasted time responding, please go away, grow up, and return when you wish to part of the solution.
            P.S. What Dog said!
            P.P.S. Is agreeing with Dog permitted?


        • MY desire is to see an improved world.
          Australia is a continent, is out of dam sites, and is CHRONICALLY short of water for the few we have. Just because you reference writes a crapee loadee of wish full thinking does not make it true. Look at any denier website.
          And to be clear, I love alternate energy, detest carbon power and do not give a stuff about nuclear as and of itself. Saving the world comes before all, including unscientific dogma.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            I always regret trying to be concise. I wanted to say that almost every place that doesn’t have enough hydro to serve as dispatchable power has plenty of potential sites for 24/7 solar thermal that can serve the same function, and clothesline paradox solar energies like passive and active solar heating and cooling, Annual Cycle Energy Systems, that take power needs off the grid completely and so serve as functional dispatchable energy. As hydro declines, solar will increase.

            Australia’s development has been stunted by the same thing as the US–a strong fossil fuel component in the economic and therefore political sectors. If it had any intelligence it would be well on its way to 100% RE already. But it’s stuck below 20% with the US and Russia. Between CSP, utility and rooftop (and parking lot and roadway) PV, onshore and offshore wind, and batteries, with some extra help from efficiency, demand response and everything tied together in a distributed grid. Australia has all the energy it needs.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            Brent,

            You posted a series of false, misleading or irrelevant statements:

            “not every country/continent has a crap load of hydro.”

            Every continent does except Antarctica, which has plenty of wind and even solar to provide power for everyone there, especially when batteries are included. At whatever amount needed, they’re far cheaper than diesel fuel brought all the way there. Australia’s electricity is 14.6% renewable; of that, 63% is hydro. Yes, one of the effects of climate change is to reduce available hydro power in many places, which is only one of many reasons it’s so important to replace fossil fuels as fast as possible. The dire urgency of the climate crisis rules out nukes, which take decades to build and pay back the carbon costs of their construction. Building and fueling anywhere near enough nukes would be utterly impossible, taking all the capital resources we need to mitigate and adapt to climate catastrophe.

            “those Norwegian dams cannot supply every European country that blithely expects to use them in the carbon free future.”

            Whoa! Where did that come from? First, it’s a straw person; no one’s saying they want that to happen. Second, Norway is only one country in Europe with large to tremendous amounts of hydro power that complements the increasing wind and solar. Sharing power on a larger distributed generation grid is an excellent way to use dispatchable hydro with other dispatchable and variable renewables, demand responses, efficiency, wiser lives, etc.

            “Wind and solar economics dive as supply becomes high.”
            “There is still no return when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine and with ‘excess’ supply, returns drop often into the negative.”

            ”Still”? What does that mean?

            You say ”MY desire is to see an improved world” and ”Saving the world comes before all”. You should pay attention to that and not worry so much about the decreased marginal profits from high amounts of variable renewable energy. Having extra energy to give away is not a bad thing. You should also consider that wind, especially deep ocean wind, has a very high and increasing capacity factor—the percent of time it produces at its rated capacity. It’s 65% and rising, higher than coal, most gas, and some nukes, because their electricity is too expensive. Solar, wind and batteries are now so cheap to build that new renewables are cheaper than old everything else in an increasing number of places.

            “The storage requirements are humungess and and in the future (come the day) or fantasy.”

            Our energy use is humongous, so anything that replaces it has to prioritize reducing waste (the US wastes 85% fo the energy it uses) as well as ecological sustainability. While improvements are always happening, we have the technology to do all of this right now.

            ”Just because you reference writes a crapee loadee of wish full thinking does not make it true.”

            Several typos and misspellings make it hard to understand what you’re saying here; I have no idea what you’re talking about.

            “unscientific dogma.”

            I don’t know if that’s supposed to be a crack about me, but everything I say is science and fact stitched together with logic and reason. The only one who seems ruled by unscientific dogma is you; you do indeed seem to be against renewables and for nukes for dogmatic reasons. All the false things you say about both lead inexorably to that conclusion.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            WOW! Look at Jeffy go! In his arrogant narcissism and omnipotence, he launches a bloviating attack on yet another Crocker.

            “You posted a series of false, misleading or irrelevant statements”, says Jeffy? IMO, that’s far more true of Jeffy than of Brent.

            “Several typos and misspellings make it hard to understand what you’re saying here; I have no idea what you’re talking about”. JFC! Unless one says exactly what Jeffy wants them to say and uses the (excessive number of) words that Jeffy would use, their thoughts are undecipherable. Typos and mispellings do NOT take away from the facts and logic of a statement, just as my misspelling of mispelling does not here. Jeffy is obviously OD’ing on the fumes from his perfumed sleeve hanky—-hope he doesn’t pass out and fall ff his high horse.

            “Everything I say is science and fact stitched together with logic and reason” Lord love a duck and JFC again! ALL HAIL JEFFY! He is all-knowing and infallible. Too bad he really doesn’t understand how climate change is likely to affect the availability of hydropower or its impacts on wildlife habitat, farmland, and human communities—-biggest worry being the possible failure of the South Asia monsoon and melting of the mountain glaciers.

            PS Speaking of irrelevancies, “…every country/continent has a crap load of hydro.
            Every continent does except Antarctica” is HUGELY irrelevant. No one lives there, Jeffy, and the only thing about Antarctica that IS relevant here is that its ice sheet appears to be collapsing.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            OOOOH! A typo! Jeffy? I left out an “O” in “off”——“fall ff his high horse”.

            I hope you were able to decipher that.


  4. J1quarter actually accuses me of irrelevancies. Don’t bother trying to be concise, you fail miserably and should check the word in a dictionary.
    Nukes are conventional and produce more power per death/injury than coal or gas/oil. These unexpected FACTS can be found on the NASA website and are upsetting to the dogma brigade. Isn’t that just too dam bad.
    Have heard the Norwegian hydro nominated as backup for British tidal power to German RE and more. Wishful thinking is not a solution. On that note, find an intelligent person to explain the laws of thermodynamics to you re 24/7 csp, and another to explain the economics of ‘no power produced equals no return’.
    Now having wasted time responding, please go away, grow up, and return when you wish to part of the solution.
    P.S. What Dog said!
    P.P.S. Is agreeing with Dog permitted?

    • J4Zonian Says:

      This is a huge subject, and I’m being as concise as I can with people who Gishly gallop and, intentionally or not, need (but don’t ever seem to absorb) extensive education.

      False dichotomy. The choice isn’t between fossils and nukes. The fossil age is over; the faster we leave its pitiful destructive remnants behind, the more chance we have for civilization to survive. Since nukes can’t even come close to doing the job in time without massively increasing carbon emissions, tyranny, inequality, mining and other pollution, and more, and triggering tipping points galore, the choice is between a mix of efficiency, wiser lives, & clean safe renewables—and extinction. Wishful thinking is not a solution but since it once again has nothing to with this situation, it’s irrelevant. I’m pretty sure you keep calling nukes ”conventional” because 20 years ago solar and wind were called ”alternative energy” and you want to 1. repeat the same false dichotomy and 2. make nukes seem more regular or acceptable or something. They’re not. Nukes lost. The energy system of the 21st century is renewable. More than half the US is opposed to nukes (44% in favor and dropping). 80% want more wind; 90% want more solar. Both will go up as people see that the Koch-Exxon-ALEC et al lies are lies.
      https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/11/17555644/nuclear-power-energy-climate-decarbonization-renewables

      ”returns drop into the negative” All energy sources are intermittent, as is demand. The electricity (per KWh or LCOE) of solar and wind are now lowest most places and still dropping, so with efficiency, wiser lives, and demand responses, a distributed generation, hocketed mix of renewables can and will supply the energy humanity needs.
      If you mean returns=profits, irrelevant. If we want civilization to survive we need to replace fossil fuels with clean safe renewable energy, whatever profits corporations and the rich make on it. Half the nukes in the US are already losing money and the rest will soon follow but despite your market religion you seem to be OK with that, so if solar prices are negative at times. so what? Experience, V2G EVs, a wider grid, and other adjustments will correct it over time.

    • J4Zonian Says:

      ”not every country/continent has a crap load of hydro”
      Every continent except Antarctica does have one. Every country doesn’t need one so some not having it is irrelevant. Let me explain why, again. Wasting less, especially targeted at times of lower local supply, can reduce the need overall. There are other dispatchable renewables besides hydro; CSP (price dropping rapidly and surprise to pseudo-intellectual Dunning-Kruger morons: does not break any laws—legal, economic, or thermodynamic!). Also geothermal, clothesline paradox energies, small amounts of waste biomass, and increasingly, near-dispatchable offshore wind, with a higher capacity factor than coal and most gas and soon nukes. Of course, even variable energies can complement each other, and batteries, pumped storage, and demand responses will fill any gaps.

      Countries also sell power to each other. Energy from all sources will be shared because it benefits everyone. There’s a loss of 1-2% over a thousand miles, so Nordic hydro can help power Germany along with Saharan sunlight and Caucasus wind—and vice versa.

      Without a citation, ”Heard…nominated…blah blah…tidal… German…” means nothing. Less than nothing since it’s such a confused jumble of made-up irrelevancies. No one who knows anything about the subject would put it that simplistically, but there are always lots of people who don’t know much so maybe you did heard it somewhere [sic].

      Since I already explained (too concisely, apparently) why the Norway thing’s a moronic point even if true, I hope I only have to do it 4 or 5 more times before you get it. I suggest you have someone explain it to you after they read my post. Norway (98% renewable (RE) electricity) is part of the Nordic grid, which includes Finland’s 39% RE electricity, incl.13% hydro; Sweden’s 51-60% RE electricity* and 52% primary energy (PE) most of which is hydro; plus Denmark’s 43% wind. (IEA data with other sources as needed) There’s no way to tell which electron came from where or what so your statement makes no sense at all. A distributed generation hocketed grid of multiple dispatchable and variable sources is the solution. Along with stopping the insane and destructive assumption that capitalism must rule. The energy problems we have are not technical, only paying attention to psychotic, psychopathic oligarchs and right wing lunatics and sticking to an insane, destructive political-economic system is holding us back.

      Of course you can agree with dog—anytime you want. As long as you don’t mind revealing yourself as a dense, arrogant, ignorant, intolerant ass. That seems to be no problem for you, so sure, go ahead.

      Sources: David Roberts, Joe Romm et al at Climate Progress, cleantechnica, Climate Crock of the Week…

      *complicated by sources, exports, and imprecise language. %RE PE is relevant because most of it must be electrified to be renewablized.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: