Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 21, 2018 11:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Feb 28, 2016 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
Professor, I went to the Ammonia for Fuel Network website that you mentioned at http://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org and it appears to have been taken over by a home decoration company. Not quite what I was hoping for.

Also, about what you've seen with Portland cement rubble as a CO2 sequestration vector I thought that this might also be something to mention further on "enhanced weathering". If weathered cement soaks up CO2 in the ground then would not encouraging the grinding of cement waste also be beneficial? Again I realize that you have limited words to present your ideas, perhaps a different paper on that topic is in order.

If we are going to talk about sequestering CO2 with old cement then there should also be some discussion of sequestering CO2 in new cement. Basalt looks like a good source of silica and carbon negative (or at least carbon neutral) lime for cement production.

Mr. Sorensen has stated that the use of basalt is likely to be the best idea yet for sequestering CO2, I'd like to see this idea reach the widest audience and therefore gain the highest probability of success. If we can frame these ideas in a way that as many people as possible can understand then we can convince more people of its merits and therefore improve successful implementation.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 28, 2016 10:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
Kurt Sellner wrote:
darryl siemer wrote:
All journals, especially the most prestigious ones, have word count limitations that don't let authors spend lots of time/space explaining stuff that anyone who's apt to be reading it could/should readily look up for themselves via GOOGLE (e.g how much basalt there is or that lime is a common soil amendment). The ready availability of such information on the world wide web is one of the "novel" things that my article emphasizes.


I understand your need to be brief, I also understand that a lot of information is available to those with access to the internet but not all information is equally accessible. For example, the IPCC reports and the problems that a 2C temperature rise could cause is something that is widely reported and yet you expend quite a few words on explaining that threat to your audience. For your proposal to gain footing people will need to realize the massive quantities of basalt that is available and yet you say nothing on that. Also, I did some searching on the benefits of lime use in agriculture and the best I could find in a few minutes was reference to a study done in Brazil in 2003, and how lime has been used in agriculture since the Roman Empire. If you could point to a study that is more recent and/or more local then I think you'd encourage more people to study it further on their own.

darryl siemer wrote:
Please do bring this up with your colleagues, faculty, etc at the university. I'd be delighted to come to UI & give one or more seminars about it. I'd especially like to talk to anyone who's empowered to do field studies in soils devoted to corn/soybean production. This is an interdisciplinary subject & needs interdisciplinary attention/study.

Incidentally, this paper represents my second attempt at devising a "killer app" for nuclear power.


I agree that this is a problem with interest in many disciplines but I believe that if I'm going to get anyone interested in these paper at UI then I believe the titles need to change. ing these documents and receiving my feedback. This is important work and I'd like to see your ideas spread far and wide.


The paper has already been sent - I'm not going to withdraw it because you don't think that its title is sufficiently compelling to the people you know. If they actually give a damn about solving the problems it addresses & have an IQ (or attention span) in excess of "average", they'll be able to see that it's something that they ought to be looking into. If they're not willing/able to either do or see that, then they're unlikely to be willing/able enough to do anything about it anyway. This is not a "chat room" - I don't want to just trade opinions back and forth with people.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 28, 2016 11:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
darryl siemer wrote:
The paper has already been sent - I'm not going to withdraw it because you don't think that its title is sufficiently compelling to the people you know.


I did not intend to imply the paper should be withdrawn. I am merely suggesting changes to be made for future revisions to reach a wider audience. Even for your intended audience I would think it helpful to add something like X Gt of readily accessible basalt in the world divided by Y Gt/a to sequester the CO2 that human activity produces per year equals Z years of sustainable mining. I'm assuming that Z in this case would be on the order of thousand to millions of years. A geologist might know this off the top of their head but a nuclear engineer would not.

Also, I don't find including some information that may be readily accessible from a Google search to be a waste of words on a paper when the number of words may be limited by a publisher. I believe that if you want to convince an audience that you have a compelling proposal that you'd have to show you did your homework. Without some indication on where to start their research one might be easily frustrated and ignore the proposal. It's not for lack of intelligence or patience but merely a lack of time. The people that would read this, researchers, educators, lawmakers, and businesspeople, have limited time and without enough information to make your case I'd expect many to move on rather than spend the time to search with Google to fill in what you left out.

If you don't have the time to make the revisions I suggest to reach an audience such as educators and policymakers in Iowa that is fine. What I would like is permission to revise your papers myself with the intent to show UI professors in the hope they might investigate this further and perhaps invite you to speak on campus. As you say this is an interdisciplinary problem, and I'd like to see this get the attention of some people with a focus on sustainability and agriculture.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 29, 2016 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
Kurt Sellner wrote:
darryl siemer wrote:
The paper has already been sent - I'm not going to withdraw it because you don't think that its title is sufficiently compelling to the people you know.


I did not intend to imply the paper should be withdrawn. I am merely suggesting changes to be made for future revisions to reach a wider audience. Even for your intended audience I would think it helpful to add something like X Gt of readily accessible basalt in the world divided by Y Gt/a to sequester the CO2 that human activity produces per year equals Z years of sustainable mining. I'm assuming that Z in this case would be on the order of thousand to millions of years. A geologist might know this off the top of their head but a nuclear engineer would not.

Also, I don't find including some information that may be readily accessible from a Google search to be a waste of words on a paper when the number of words may be limited by a publisher. I believe that if you want to convince an audience that you have a compelling proposal that you'd have to show you did your homework. Without some indication on where to start their research one might be easily frustrated and ignore the proposal. It's not for lack of intelligence or patience but merely a lack of time. The people that would read this, researchers, educators, lawmakers, and businesspeople, have limited time and without enough information to make your case I'd expect many to move on rather than spend the time to search with Google to fill in what you left out.

If you don't have the time to make the revisions I suggest to reach an audience such as educators and policymakers in Iowa that is fine. What I would like is permission to revise your papers myself with the intent to show UI professors in the hope they might investigate this further and perhaps invite you to speak on campus. As you say this is an interdisciplinary problem, and I'd like to see this get the attention of some people with a focus on sustainability and agriculture.


If you are going to "revise" my paper please let me look at/check your changes before you present it to anyone else. The reason for this is that I've found that lots of people who should know better seem to have lots of trouble actually grasping its concepts. For instance most PhD nuclear engineers don't seem to understand that just building more of today's reactors can't solve the problems I've addressed. Many of them even/also seem to believe that global warming is a hoax - I don't. Another thing that very few people seem willing to do is look up relevant data/numbers for different "what ifs" and then perform the simple calculations necessary to rank them in ways that actually mean something (put things into perspective). As far as reassuring people that there's plenty of basalt available, the first couple references under my paper's table should do that as would WIKIPEDIA's "basalt" entry.

One thing you might want to do is to summarize its ideas as you understand them a powerpoint slide set. I'll help you do it. d.siemer@hotmail.com.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 29, 2016 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
I've spent the day translating my paper into a set of slides.

Constructive comments & advice from anyone are welcomed.

Kirk is the LFTR depiction the one that you would use?


Attachments:
Nuclear Powered geoen..slides.pdf [1.28 MiB]
Downloaded 114 times

_________________
Darryl Siemer
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 29, 2016 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3386
Location: Alabama
The picture is good but link to this report instead:

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/Pro ... 3002005460


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 29, 2016 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
The picture is good but link to this report instead:

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/Pro ... 3002005460


Done! I've also added my table of "really important numbers" & a slide showing that breeder reactor power is "renewable".


Attachments:
Nuclear Powered geoen..slides.pdf [1.29 MiB]
Downloaded 136 times

_________________
Darryl Siemer
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 01, 2016 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 18, 2011 11:44 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Sydney, Australia
Darryl - your slide deck is neat. I have a question though. There is a good argument for us being in a technological position to stop the emission of CO2. That's one reason to love atomic power. But the CO2 that we have released to date is of itself mostly a positive thing. We get better plant productivity, less death from cold days etc. So isn't it just enough to slow and then stop further emissions of CO2? Most of the good cost benefit analysis on CO2 emissions that I have seen (admittedly there are not many) suggests that CO2 emissions will create many costs and benefits but the benefits out weigh the costs until late in this century. So why do we want to reverse emissions? And assuming you have a good answer then should it be in your slide deck?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 02, 2016 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2233
It may take quite some time before MSR is available to save the world. Terrestrial energy design may be the first.
Someone should (perhaps Chinese will) use the modified LWR to do the best. Important modifications necessary are
1. Th-20%LEU fuelas given in https://drive.google.com/drive/search?q ... 0leu%20300. Th-Pu MOX could also be used.
2. A metallic thorium replaceable liner to reactor vessel as a blanket. It should be replaced with every fuel change.
3. A high boiling hydrocarbon moderator-coolant which need not be under high pressure now required in LWRs.
The next generation fuel could be Th-U233.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 02, 2016 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
TerjeP wrote:
Darryl - your slide deck is neat. I have a question though. There is a good argument for us being in a technological position to stop the emission of CO2. That's one reason to love atomic power. But the CO2 that we have released to date is of itself mostly a positive thing. We get better plant productivity, less death from cold days etc. So isn't it just enough to slow and then stop further emissions of CO2? Most of the good cost benefit analysis on CO2 emissions that I have seen (admittedly there are not many) suggests that CO2 emissions will create many costs and benefits but the benefits out weigh the costs until late in this century. So why do we want to reverse emissions? And assuming you have a good answer then should it be in your slide deck?


I agree with the 97% of all "climate scientists" who believe that mankind is responsible for the changes we're experiencing and should do "something" about it. The purpose of my paper is to make it easier for them to understand that the latter is actually possible if they're only willing to challenge some of the tenets dominating thought today.

Climate changes have already caused some huge disruptions. One that's close to home as far as I am concerned is that the trout & whitefish populations of most of the rivers here in Eastern Idaho & SW Montana have pretty much tanked during the last decade. Another is that the warmer winters have permitted bark beetle populations to explode which is rapidly killing off many of the trees. Not all changes are "bad" but some, like the more persistent droughts over the USA's SW, are already causing serious problems.

In terms of human survival, climate change itself won't be what does the damage*, it'll be our response to such changes - almost inevitably more wars including maybe a WW III that dwarfs its predecessors' body counts.

*"Humans are like weeds. We are the invasive generalists par excellence. We spread rapidly, grow quickly, and successfully inhabit almost any environment." Ken Caldiera

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 02, 2016 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
jagdish wrote:
It may take quite some time before MSR is available to save the world. Terrestrial energy design may be the first.
Someone should (perhaps Chinese will) use the modified LWR to do the best. Important modifications necessary are
1. Th-20%LEU fuel as given in https://drive.google.com/drive/search?q ... 0leu%20300. Th-Pu MOX could also be used.
2. A metallic thorium replaceable liner to reactor vessel as a blanket. It should be replaced with every fuel change.
3. A high boiling hydrocarbon moderator-coolant which need not be under high pressure now required in LWRs.
The next generation fuel could be Th-U233.


I doubt that surrounding a LWR's core with metallic thorium would turn it into an isobreeder. It's also a bit risky in that the next Fukashima-like meltdown would probably result in much greater hydrogen generation - thorium is more chemically reactive than is zirconium - & significantly higher total radioisotope release.

I don't believe that any organic compound could survive the combination of high temperature & huge radiation doserates that a moderator experiences.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 02, 2016 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
darryl siemer wrote:
TerjeP wrote:
So why do we want to reverse emissions?


I agree with the 97% of all "climate scientists" who believe that mankind is responsible for the changes we're experiencing and should do "something" about it.

In terms of human survival, climate change itself won't be what does the damage*, it'll be our response to such changes - almost inevitably more wars including maybe a WW III that dwarfs its predecessors' body counts.


If I may be so bold, I'd like to add to this.

While it is true that increased CO2 in the air has been shown to improve crop productivity that CO2 does not all stay in the air, it also dissolves in the water. As CO2 enters the air it will dissolve in the water until it reaches an equilibrium, where the air to water and water to air exchange rates of CO2 balance out. Part of this exchange is with rain, the CO2 dissolves in the droplets and it falls to the ground. This now slightly acidic water will dissolve away nutrients from the soil.

This CO2 dissolved in the water, called carbonic acid, will weather exposed rock and these dissolved and suspended minerals will find their way to soils where plants can grow. This weathering has been going on for a very long time and will continue even if CO2 output from human activity is reduced, it is part of the natural carbon cycle. What human activity has also done is increase the output of the soils by enhancing this weathering action, which I will explain further shortly. Growing highly productive crops on the same land year after year will sap it of nutrients unless replenished. What farmers have done is spread fertilizers but that only replaces the nutrients, it does not counteract the effects of the carbonic acid in the rain.

To make sure the plants can draw nutrients from the soil efficiently the farmers must add buffering agents to the soil, this is typically done with agricultural lime. The term agricultural lime covers a lot of different minerals and the quality of these minerals is noted with a number called the "calcium carbonate equivalency" (CCE), which basically measures the quality of the mineral compared to common ground up limestone which is nearly pure calcium carbonate.

I went through that somewhat lengthy explanation so I can say this, basalt could be used to control the effects of this acidic rain rather than current agricultural limes.

Common basalt contains calcium and magnesium oxides as well as other minerals. Calcium oxide has a CCE rating of 180, magnesium oxide has a rating of 250. That means to match 250 tons of limestone a farmer would have to spread only 100 tons of magnesium oxide, for calcium oxide 100 tons is equivalent to 180 tons of limestone. The primary driver of the cost to the farmer of these minerals is their weight. One way to reduce the weight of limestone is to "cook" it to drive off the CO2 and turn the calcium carbonate, CaCO3, into calcium oxide, CaO (also called quicklime). With cheap coal and expensive diesel fuel there is a benefit in cost to the farmer to have the limestone turned to quicklime before being applied to the field.

As the professor pointed out quicklime is somewhat dangerous to handle so the quicklime is often hydrated (or slaked) with water. This also benefits by making it clump together so it doesn't blow away while in transport. Adding water reduces the CCE from 180 to 135 because when adding water the chemical composition changes from CaO to Ca(OH)2. This lime is not often completely hydrated so the CCE is going to be somewhere in between 180 and 135.

The farmer "wins" on this processing of limestone because the "heavy" limestone with a CCE of about 100 is now a "light" lime with a CCE of somewhere around 150. The "win" is also that the CO2 is increased in the air but reduced in the soil by putting the lime in the field.

Again I went through that explanation to get to this point, even though the farmers "win" on this the fishers "lose". That CO2 in the air is not only going to find its way to the farmer's field, some of it will end up in the rivers and oceans. This carbonic acid will reduce the free calcium in the water that aquatic life needs for things like building bones. Some of this is replaced by the action of the carbonic acid with the plentiful basalt on the sea floor. But what we have here is a basic "cube-square" problem. The CO2 capacity of the ocean is limited by it's volume, in cubic kilometers, but the reaction rate with the basalt is limited by the area of the floor, in square kilometers. This is even more problematic in that the corals near the surface will react preferentially with the CO2 over the basalt on the floor many meters, or kilometers, below.

A problem I see is that basalt is not just this valuable CaO and MgO, it also has a large amount of highly inert silica, SiO. About half of the basalt is this silica, one quarter is the valuable CaO and MgO, and the rest is FeO, Al2O3, and some other minerals. If I did my math right common basalt will have a CCE of about 50. If we assume the mining and processing costs of basalt, limestone, and quicklime is nearly equal and relatively minor compared to the transport cost, then the basalt will cost three times as much as the hydrated lime and twice as much as the limestone to the farmer. Basalt is not common in Iowa but can be found easily in Missouri, making basalt prohibitively expensive in Iowa and still at a disadvantage in parts of Missouri.

My calculations assumed that FeO and Al2O3 have a CCE rating of zero. I know that Al2O3 does have a weak buffering effect but I could not find a CCE rating for the mineral, I would appreciate it if someone can help me find that rating. I assume FeO also has a buffering effect but I saw no mention of it so far, again I'd appreciate some help with that.

The proposal that Prof. Siemer has given is to spread basalt on crop land to counteract the effects that the excess CO2 has on the environment. I'm proposing an additional aspect to this in that basalt could replace the current sources of agricultural lime.

Using nuclear power to mine and process limestone to agricultural lime would mean a near net zero impact on the CO2 in the air. Using basalt instead of limestone would, I speculate, also achieve a near net zero effect on CO2 in the air. I speculate because I have not done a rigorous calculation of the energy required to mine, process, and transport the basalt. I merely suspect that the diesel fuel and coal burned would equate roughly to the CO2 capture ability of the minerals in the basalt. If nuclear power is combined with the mining of basalt then we can achieve a net negative CO2 output.

I would also propose an additional means by which we can use basalt to sequester CO2 from the air. The cement industry is famous (or infamous) for its CO2 output. Making cement requires lots of quicklime, which (as best I can tell) always comes from the "cooking" of limestone. This releases the CO2 trapped in the carbonate rock and produces more CO2 from the burning of the coal or natural gas to heat it. The mineral content of basalt looks to me like it would provide the quicklime and sand needed for cement production. Adding crushed basalt as aggregate would also contribute to the CO2 sequestering ability of the concrete, admittedly not nearly as efficiently as the ground basalt.

Ground basalt could also be used to improve traction on icy roads. The sand and salt used now could be replaced with basalt. The reaction of the CaO in water is an exothermic process, and dissolving lime in the water will raise its melting point. The lime also will not damage roads and vehicles like the rock salt commonly used now.

The problem is that basalt is not as cheap as what we are using now. If it were cheaper then we would not have to do any convincing on the merits of using basalt, as basic economics would make the case for us. This gets to what the professor proposes in providing a government subsidy to encourage the use of basalt.

If any of you reading this find fault in my explanation above then please reply with comments, I would appreciate it.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 02, 2016 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
Kurt Sellner wrote:
darryl siemer wrote:
TerjeP wrote:
So why do we want to reverse emissions?


I agree with the 97% of all... ".


If I may be so bold, I'd like to add to this....
While it is true that increased CO2 in the air h.


Well said Kurt!!

I've added a few "extra" slides to my presentation that ought to make the case for a nuclear renaissance even more compelling. see ATTACHMENT


Attachments:
Nuclear Powered geo...slides extended.pdf [1.78 MiB]
Downloaded 135 times

_________________
Darryl Siemer
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 04, 2016 6:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
Professor, I've been doing some more research on this and I found a few more problems on replacing current sources of agricultural lime with ground basalt besides the weight. I believe I may also have a solution.

A problem with acidic soils is that aluminum becomes mobile and starts to react with valuable plant nutrients, making the soil toxic. Using basalt dust, which has a relatively high alumina content, could make this problem worse. If the reason a farmer is adding buffer material to address this aluminum toxicity and the material being added also contains a not insignificant amount of aluminum then the problem may get worse.

Basalt also contains a not insignificant amount of iron and while iron is a valuable nutrient for plants there can be too much of a good thing. From what I read the problem of too much iron is not near the problem that aluminum would be since iron is taken up by the plants while the aluminum tends to stay put, so the problem of too much iron can resolve itself by not adding more. Again there is the problem of basalt having a high silica content, while silica is inert it adds nothing to the soil nutrients and makes up a bulk of the weight of basalt.

Fortunately silica, alumina, and ferrous oxides are pretty much insoluble in water while calcium and magnesium oxides are highly soluble. If the basalt is ground up then the valuable calcium and magnesium can be washed out of the resulting dust with water and the silica, alumina, and ferrous oxides will remain as solids. The solids can be separated from the solution by a number of means, filter grates, spin dry, and I'm sure that there are others.

This slurry made of water and dissolved calcium and magnesium can be applied to the fields as is, I found that this is not uncommon as lime water is an industrial byproduct that is often sold to farmers. If the weight of the water is a problem then it can be boiled off to whatever degree is desired. It can be boiled down to a "mud" and spread on fields like manure would. If dried to a slaked lime then it can be spread like agricultural limes are spread now. If heated to the point that the hydroxides are converted to oxides then this mix of CaO and MgO is now a highly potent soil buffer for agriculture but due to the difficulty in handling this material it would likely be more valuable as an industrial product, such as cement production.

The sand left over can be sold off as well for the many things that people use sand. I do have to wonder if this basalt sand, now freed of calcium and magnesium, can be mined for other elements. For example, how much of this sand would be uranium and thorium and would it be worth the effort to extract those elements as nuclear fuel?

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2016 9:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
I've put together another paper, "A nuclear renaissance's 'killer apps'", that's going to be sent to the same journals/editors in the same order as was my last one - it's kinda fun to be tweaking the "establishment" again. My recent encounters with climate science's gate keepers have been a real eye opener for me - the INL's "technical" work culture has apparently spread everywhere.

Anyway, it's going off on Monday so I need your advice/comments/suggestions ASAP.

Thanks.


Attachments:
CO2 basalt A nuclear renaissance's killer apps.doc [1.35 MiB]
Downloaded 122 times
CO2 basalt A nuclear renaissance's killer apps.doc [1.35 MiB]
Downloaded 108 times

_________________
Darryl Siemer
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group