[HN Gopher] Dutch designer drives his car on the plastic waste h...
___________________________________________________________________
Dutch designer drives his car on the plastic waste he collects
Author : akeck
Score : 54 points
Date : 2024-01-14 19:40 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (solar.lowtechmagazine.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (solar.lowtechmagazine.com)
| yreg wrote:
| Fuel consumption: 14 kg of plastic per 100 km, but to be fair
| it's a Volvo 240 with a tiny refinery mounted on the roof.
|
| Why don't the fuel producers do this? Is it less efficient than
| recycling the waste?
| eptcyka wrote:
| We kind of already do - just instead of making diesel, the
| plastic is burned to generate electricity. Since machines to
| harvest a difference in temperature or exothermic processes
| scales with size, one could argue it's more efficient to burn
| it in a massive, very efficient furnaces instead of converting
| the plastic into diesel that is then burned in an engine that
| must be operational at a far larger range of RPMs.
| Ekaros wrote:
| My understanding is that higher temperatures also mean some
| toxic byproducts get processed. And you can install scrubbers
| and other technologies to clean rest from exhaust... And with
| combined production also capturing waste heat after
| electricity production efficiency is comparatively good.
| jamil7 wrote:
| In countries like Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands it's kind
| of done indirectly through waste to energy systems where
| plastic waste is burnt. I think there's a few systems in place
| to mitigate the environmental impact.
| westbywest wrote:
| Highlighting Vienna's district heating system which does
| this, partly because the facility in Spittelau had artist
| Friedensreich Hundertwasser design it to look like a
| psychedelic castle. https://hundertwasser.com/en/architecture
| /910_arch73_fernwae...
| nbutyllithium wrote:
| > Why don't the fuel producers do this?
|
| I recall reading about some of them looking into it but running
| into issues ensuring a "clean" recycled plastic supply at the
| scales they need. Can't seem to find the article in my history
| but there's a ton of varied results I'm seeing from searches
| talking about the idea of recycling plastic. Example:
| https://www2.afpm.org/forms/store/ProductFormPublic/sum-21-3...
|
| I think one of the main issues was, at least in the US,
| chlorinated plastic (e.g. PVC) ends up in the bulk supply of
| used plastics through negligence/malice/whatever and even at a
| few percent ends up creating some pretty corrosive compounds
| which are difficult/expensive to remove before they damage the
| equipment.
|
| Looks like people are working on that issue too though:
| https://www.power-technology.com/features/plastic-pyrolysis-...
| jp57 wrote:
| _The plastic waste is heated in a boiler to about 700 degrees
| Celsius, after which it evaporates. The gas is then cooled down
| and turns into a diesel-like liquid one hour later._
|
| A kind of pyrolysis, I assume, and very energy intensive. Does
| this process really produce more stored energy in the output
| product than it took to run the reaction?
| dotancohen wrote:
| The source material is industrial waste that the owner is
| receiving for free. Neither economics nor ecological concerns
| favor this approach notwithstanding the free source of plastic
| chips.
| schiffern wrote:
| The article says it produces 300% more CO2, so it's also
| roughly a 3-to-1 ratio of process energy in to fuel output.
|
| "fuel production by burning plastic on the roof is four times
| more carbon intensive than producing fuel from crude oil in a
| refinery."
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Which begs a question if a solar concentrator can be used for
| this.
| samstave wrote:
| >>> _diesel-like liquid_
|
| What, _specifically_ is that liquid and how toxic is that stuff
| vs diesel/petrol...?
|
| If you spill a liter of that stuff into a canal/ditch/stream,
| What consequences?
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| Yeah, that's my worry. I like the idea of pyrolizing plastic
| to dispose of it (and get energy), but -- a petrochemical
| company was just proposing to do this, in what presumably was
| a much better-controlled process, and there were (justified)
| protests, because the process was going to send horrible
| quantities of serious carcinogens up the stack. Which makes
| me wonder what horrible byproducts this might inadvertently
| be making.
|
| This:
|
| https://www.propublica.org/article/chevron-pascagoula-
| pollut...
| tsimionescu wrote:
| So he's trying to increase his greenhouse gas emissions as much
| as possible?
|
| Plastic waste is carbon that isn't going into the atmosphere, not
| very fast at least. Turning it back into oil and then burning
| that is the very opposite of what we should be doing with it.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Plastic is just fuel that spent it's wild teenage years as
| something useful. We _should_ burn our garbage and use the
| energy for useful things.
|
| Pumping our environment full of artificial hormones and getting
| everybody full of random plasticy bits is bad. Until we have so
| much renewable energy that we don't need fossil fuels, burning
| garbage displacing burning coal/oil/gas is a net positive.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Proper sequestration of plastic garbage in well managed
| garbage dumps is much better. Turning plastic into fuel and
| then burning the fuel is far less energy efficient than
| burning extracted fuel, so it's worse in the most critical
| way right now: it releases more greenhouse gas.
|
| Of course, it's much better to produce less plastic in the
| first place.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I think if we compare burying plastic to properly
| controller industrial incineration in combined production
| that is both electricity and heat is likely better option.
| As that means we do not need to extract and process the
| fuel we would use for same purpose.
|
| Now refining plastic to fuel used in other ways or small
| scale burning is likely just idiotic.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I very much doubt this. Burning plastic is much less
| energy efficient than burning oil. However, plastic
| contains a similar amount of carbon/kg as oil. So,
| sequestering a kg of plastic while extracting a kg of oil
| is better than doing it the other way around.
|
| Even if we look at production costs, extracting and
| transporting liquids from the ground is also less energy
| intensive than transporting and processing solid plastic
| waste.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Burning plastic, especially recycled plastic has the risk of
| producing all kinds of unintended by-products, some of which
| can be highly toxic.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| On the flip side, a lot of plastic toxicity is _burnt away_
| in the furnace. The rest, is what filters are for. Seems a
| lot easier to deal with it at the co-generation plant than
| in a garbage heap.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The toxicity that you burn away is much less than the one
| that you get in return.
|
| Dioxins for instance:
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266676
| 572...
| xyst wrote:
| I'm far from an expert on recycling of plastic. However, the
| options I see are as follows:
|
| - it sits in a landfill where the plastic eventually (many
| years down the line) breaks down into microplastics.
|
| - it gets sent into to a recycling facility (fuel/time/energy
| spent to transport), then it may or may not get "burned" or
| processed with other like plastics and eventually recycled
| (iirc, plastic can really only be recycled through this process
| a few times)
|
| - it gets sent to city recycling facility but repackaged and
| sold to some other state or country for processing (+more fuel
| consumption/time/energy). Then depending on the country, or
| state it's processed in same fashion as option 2 and thus
| incurring more GHGs
|
| - or maybe it somehow ends up in your local street, rivers,
| lakes, oceans and eventually degrade into microplastics and
| eventually into the food/water you live on
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Plasma gasification is the cleanest mechanism to convert
| plastics to energy while rendering byproducts inert, there
| just isn't much will to implement. Energy output can
| contribute towards direct air capture of carbon to
| mineralize, the rest can be from renewables.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification
|
| https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-
| systems/gasificati...
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03783.
| .. ("Plasma gasification versus incineration of plastic
| waste: Energy, economic and environmental analysis")
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38722984 (u/CptFribble:
| "I am once again asking you to consider plasma gasification.
| Here is my standard comment, copied again")
|
| https://news.mit.edu/2021/inentec-turning-trash-into-
| valuabl... (Control-F "Recycling plastic")
|
| HN Discussion stream on the topic: https://hn.algolia.com/?da
| teRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
|
| (the art project is fine though)
| mulmen wrote:
| Where do we get more plastic after we plasma gasify what we
| have? Can the byproducts be used to make more plastic?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| You can gasify many materials besides plastic
| (garbage/waste stream). Filter out metals, brick, rock,
| glass first. Perhaps site near existing landfills in
| order to balance the ingest stream between ongoing waste
| and the waste mine. I have heard the phrase that the
| landfills of today are the mines of tomorrow, but I think
| they're more like Superfund sites, all to require
| remediation in the future at some point (hence the
| importance of projects that can reasonably degrade these
| materials into inert byproducts).
|
| https://netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-
| systems/gasificati...
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I want to believe landfills of plastic are a form of carbon
| sequestering, but that depends entirely on whether anything
| leeches out of it over time into ground water.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Even if it does leech, the carbon emissions are at least
| significantly slowed down compared to directly burning the
| plastic.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The first one is much better than any of the others. Global
| warming is a _far_ more pressing problem than microplastic
| pollution. Plastic is in fact one of the few materials we
| have that can sequester carbon in a relatively inert way, so
| burying it in a landfill is infinitely better than burning
| it.
| yreg wrote:
| Yeah, I don't get why are we burning plastics. It seems
| like a terrible idea.
| jayd16 wrote:
| It specifically calls this out in the article... but its an art
| project not a way of life.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| and thought provoking too, whether that was the artists
| intention or not.
|
| Has a good callback to history (wood gas cars)
|
| Has an interesting take on plastic waste - it's currently
| free which is weird when you think about it.
|
| Is horrendous for the environment so would never scale but
| again do our current activities scale in a way that is
| acceptable any more.
|
| Doesn't matter if you like it or not - as art it works well.
| djha-skin wrote:
| And instead we should continue to burn gasoline?
|
| Your premise implies that he wouldn't have burned anything if
| he didn't burn plastic. This is largely false for most of the
| population. You're going to burn _something_ somewhere, whether
| coal or natural gas at the power plant or most likely gasoline
| in your car. You might as well burn things that need to be
| cleaned up anyway.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Yes, we should absolutely burn gasoline before burning
| plastic. Plastic should be buried, not burned. Of course,
| ideally we should be riding electrified public transport
| consuming renewable energy instead of ICE cars - but not
| everything that's less than ideal is as bad. And burning
| plastic is probably one of the worse ways of powering a car.
| Maybe coal-powdered would be worse, but I wouldn't bet on it.
|
| The article itself how much more CO2 this art project
| produces compared to a gasoline car.
| h0l0cube wrote:
| This is covered in the fine article:
|
| > On the other hand, the CO2 emissions from fuel production and
| combustion are not praiseworthy. First, there is the burning of
| plastic on the roof. Making 1 liter of diesel requires burning
| 1 kg of plastic, which results in 2-2.7 kg of carbon emissions.
| Second, there is the combustion of diesel fuel while driving,
| which emits 2.7 kg of carbon dioxide per liter. Together, that
| becomes 4.7 to 5.4 kg CO2 per liter. Consequently, with a fuel
| economy of 7.14 liters per 100 km, the Volvo emits 33.6 to 38.6
| kg of greenhouse gases per 100 km.
|
| > In contrast, the emissions of the average fossil fuel-powered
| car in Europe amount to 25.8 kg/100 km, including crude oil
| production, fuel refining, and vehicle manufacturing The
| emissions of a small electric car like the Nissan Leaf amount
| to 10.9 kg/100km in Europe, including the emissions of
| electricity production.
|
| The article make some other interesting points:
|
| > Much of the plastic waste that the Volvo 240 burns burns
| anyway. Not in cars but in incinerators. That is the case for
| 44% of plastic waste in Europe.
|
| > The carbon emissions are the same. So is the air pollution,
| although it's easier to put a flue gas scrubber on thousands of
| incinerators than on millions of cars. The main difference is
| that burning plastic waste in incinerators to power electric
| cars allows many of us to externalize the side effects of car
| driving. An incinerator can be (and always is) located in a
| poor neighborhood, where it causes high incidences of cancer
| and other health problems despite air pollution control.
|
| And moreover, this isn't really meant to be for widespread
| adoption:
|
| > In contrast, Schalkx's Volvo internalizes all the side
| effects of driving automobiles. The car is not a pleasure to
| drive, at least not regularly. It is dirty. Its interior stinks
| of plastic, which cannot be healthy - Gijs keeps the car
| windows open no matter the weather. Furthermore, he needs to
| spend a lot of time collecting plastic and making fuel, and all
| these disadvantages make him think twice before he gets behind
| the wheel.
|
| There's plenty more interesting points, and the article is
| relatively short and worth the read.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Good point. Most of it is indeed incinerated here.
| yreg wrote:
| But an incineration plant has probably better filters on
| its chimneys than the homebrew mobile refinery.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Sure, it calls it out to some extent, but overall both the
| article and the art piece itself seem to imply that this is a
| somewhat good idea, and definitely imply that plastic waste
| is a comparable problem to global warming (or even more
| pressing, given that the art piece massively sacrifices
| carbon emissions per km for the massive gain of burning some
| plastic).
|
| The reality is that plastic waste is a much, much lesser
| problem than global warming. Burning plastic to power cars,
| even a statement, is insane given that we have already blown
| past the 1.5 degrees warming and are on a trajectory that
| will probably lead to much more than 2 degrees, which is now
| the most _optimistic_ target for 2100 - and even this assumes
| 0 net emissions in 10 years, which is obviously a fantasy.
|
| Overall this is an idiotic art piece that entirely misses the
| point of what we should really care about in
| environmentalism.
| h0l0cube wrote:
| > overall both the article and the art piece itself seem to
| imply that this is a somewhat good idea
|
| Literally this is not the case, and should be evidenced by
| the quotes I highlighted. It's more an intellectual deep
| dive on an interesting concept. It's not advocating that
| people ought to do this. To quote TFA:
|
| > Carbon emissions are not the only worry. Because of the
| chemicals added to plastic, burning it to make fuel creates
| a lot of nasty air pollution. Nobody in their right mind
| would propose a switch to cars fuelled by plastic waste.
| However, it is instructive to examine the motives behind
| this unanimous conclusion.
|
| Low-Tech Magazine's niche is _low tech_ self-sufficiency,
| which is the main talking point of the article. Here from
| the first paragraph:
|
| > During the Second World War, many motorized vehicles in
| continental Europe were converted to drive on firewood. 1
| That happened as a consequence of the rationing of fossil
| fuels. Wood gas vehicles were a not-so-elegant alternative
| to their petrol cousins, but their range was comparable to
| today's electric vehicles. In Germany alone, around 500,000
| wood gas cars, buses, and trucks were operated by the end
| of WWII. An even more cumbersome alternative was the gas
| bag vehicle.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > It's unlikely that Schalkx will drive 12,000 km per
| year, and so, ultimately, he will produce less pollution
| than the drivers of more sustainable-looking cars that
| face none of these problems.
|
| > Somehow, the Dutch authorities, who are not known for
| their permissivity, officially approved the car after
| inspection. Schalkx drives tax-free and - thanks to his
| car being an oldtimer - can enter low-emission zones,
| where he parks alongside the latest electric SUV. Justice
| is not yet out of this world.
|
| To me this seems to be an overall endorsement of the
| project as an environmentally friendly idea.
| paulmd wrote:
| Low-tech or traditional methods don't mean they're
| inherently better for the climate or environment though.
| The Victorian era coal smog was very low-tech and yet we
| can probably agree that it would be a bad idea to return
| to that.
|
| like if they called it "trash-burning monthly" it
| wouldn't be _surprising_ that you open the cover and find
| that's exactly what's inside, but it's also not a good
| thing to encourage even in a hobby sense, really. And
| there is a lot of the world that has done some pretty
| awful things environmentally for a very long time.
|
| If it makes you feel better I have hobbies that are
| environmental disasters too. I don't feel great about the
| knowledge that mercury/chromium/selenium intensifier or
| pyrocat exist, even plain old fixer isn't great (although
| people will take it since it's full of silver and worth
| recovering).
|
| https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/mercury-
| intensifier.74... (Mmm mercury II chloride, if you don't
| have any in your medicine cabinet just pop over to the
| barber and ask them for a scoop, very "traditional"!)
|
| https://www.ebay.com/itm/324458861037
|
| (In film, this will bind to the un-fixed silver and help
| pull a little more in, or even strip the fixed silver and
| re-precipitate another metallic salt instead. Obviously
| takes a pretty aggressive reducing agent to bind to
| precipitated noble metals, so more aggressive the action
| the better it works... and those agents also love to bind
| to your nerves. So it's pretty much literally "the better
| it works the more poisonous". Mmm, organometallic
| chemistry, isn't it grand?)
| h0l0cube wrote:
| > Low-tech or traditional methods don't mean they're
| inherently better for the climate or environment though
|
| How is this in contradiction with what I'm saying? To
| quote my own post:
|
| > Low-Tech Magazine's niche is low tech self-sufficiency
|
| Neither I nor the writer of TFA think the venn diagram of
| low-tech self-sufficiency and environmentalism isn't a
| perfect circle, and that should be pretty obvious.
|
| > it's also not a good thing to encourage even in a hobby
| sense
|
| That's not what TFA is doing. Do you really think there's
| going to be any consequential amount of people taking
| this up after reading the article? Maybe a few hackers
| will think it's fun, but the article spends a lot of time
| emphasizing how undesirable this idea is in practice.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > and all these disadvantages make him think twice before he
| gets behind the wheel.
|
| So.. it's a toy and not a tool. It tries to invest interest
| around this mans childish ambitions, but it fails to produce
| anything of lasting or shared value.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| Think of it more like conceptual / performance art.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > The emissions of a small electric car like the Nissan Leaf
| amount to 10.9 kg/100km in Europe, including the emissions of
| electricity production.
|
| Why are they measuring carbon impact per mile for
| manufacture? Is this based off some assumed period of
| ownership after which the car magically is useless and the
| battery can't be recycled, etc?
| dotancohen wrote:
| The article suggests that the fuel is made completely on site (on
| the roof of the vehicle) from discarded plastic chips from a
| neighbor's business. But some numbers do not add up.
| > Making 1 liter of diesel requires burning 1 kg of plastic,
| which results in 2-2.7 kg of carbon emissions.
|
| Does that number (1 kg) include the plastic consumed in the
| burning process, whose heat is then used to define (opposite of
| refine) the plastic back to liquid? How does 1 kg of plastic
| contain 2 kg of carbon? Or is the O2 in CO2 so heavy that "carbon
| emissions" weigh significantly more than the source hydrocarbon?
| > Second, there is the combustion of diesel fuel while driving,
| which emits 2.7 kg of carbon dioxide per liter.
|
| Same question.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| The carbon atom has an atomic weight of 12, while each oxygen
| is 16, so you have 32 weight of oxygen per 12 carbon.
|
| The hydrogen in hydrocarbons on the other hand, doesn't weigh
| much at all. Atomic weight of 1. But with a high school
| knowledge of chemistry I couldn't tell you what all is in those
| plastics.
| bruce343434 wrote:
| Atomic weight of C is ~12. Atomic weight of O is ~16.
|
| C : CO2
|
| 12 : (12+16+16)
|
| 12 : 44
|
| 1 : 3.666
|
| so turning 1kg of pure C into pure CO2 by pulling O2 from the
| surrounding air creates 3.666kg CO2
|
| Plastic also contains some H (weight ~1). Depends on the kind
| of plastic. Assuming water bottle plastic, AKA PET, AKA
| Polyethylene terephthalate, Its molecular formula is
| (C10H8O4)n.
|
| So starting weight of 10x12+8x1+4x16=192, and we assume
| complete burning so CO2 + H2O end products.
|
| 1 C10H8O4 + 10 O2 = 10 CO2 + 4 H2O
|
| 1x192 : 10x44
|
| 192 : 440
|
| 1 : 2.29
|
| perfectly burning 1kg of PET produces 2.29kg of CO2
| fatuna wrote:
| Fair question! Carbon had an atomic weight of ~12, oxygen has
| an atomic weight of ~16. So carbon is responsible for 12/44
| part of the weight of CO2. If we assume plastic to be 80%
| carbon, then 1kg of plastic would produce (0,8*44)/12~= 2,9 kg
| of plastic. So probably plastic is less than 80% plastic :).
| But then number makes sense, similarly for diesel.
| pard68 wrote:
| Oxygen in the air is the extra weight.
| bdcravens wrote:
| So he's basically just making diesel fuel, which could be done as
| a separate process, and used in any diesel-compatible engine (I
| presume)
|
| > 1 kg of plastic gives 0.5 liters of diesel, so the fuel economy
| is 7.14 liters per 100 km
|
| This converts to about 33 MPG
|
| https://convertermaniacs.com/liter-per-100-kilometers-to-mil...
| dontlaugh wrote:
| That's pretty miserable efficiency. Lots of diesel cars can do
| as low as 3-4 l/100km.
| systems_glitch wrote:
| Indeed, our 2002 Jetta TDI has 300K miles on the clock and
| still does 40-45 MPG highway.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Is that with functioning emissions controls, or without?
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Those weren't affected by dieselgate
| dontlaugh wrote:
| My Peugeot 207 was doing up to 60 mpg (UK). Newer small
| diesel cars beat that easily.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Incredibly - mind blowingly good for a full sized station
| wagon from the 1980s... most vehicles this size were getting
| 15mpg at the time. The 245 has massive storage area and with
| the optional 3rd row seat can seat 7.
| stere0 wrote:
| I'm not a chemist, but isn't this an application of the Fischer
| Tropsch process similar to coal to liquid and gas to liquid?
| eterevsky wrote:
| It's _much_ better to burning trash in special facilities, where
| it is burnt down to CO2, rather to some kind of soot that will
| pollute the atmosphere. It will also be more efficient in terms
| of energy production.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Better yet to bury it in a landfill and not deliberately
| release CO2 at all.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Are there metrics on how many `kg` of plastic waste required
| input wise -> how many `l` of "diesel like liquid" output? how
| many "kilometers per liter" is the car getting on the diesel /
| how many "kilometers per kg of plastic"? Curious on
| yield/waste/efficiency/etc.
| Neil44 wrote:
| How do you get 2.7kg of carbon by burning 1kg of plastic? Am I
| thinking too simplistically about that? Also he's currently using
| industrial plastic chips, high quality homogeneous material, if
| you were using plastic garbage you then run into contaminants,
| full bottles of whatever, labels, glues different types of
| plastic - not all plastics will liqify etc etc etc. Well done for
| the proof of concept though.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| When you burn it the oxygen gets bound to it so the CO2 weight
| is higher.
|
| It does sound like a lot though yes
|
| Edit: Like bruce343434 said below it is right:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38994147
| yread wrote:
| There is a video (in Dutch) https://www.autovisie.nl/video/uw-
| garage/gijs-rijdt-met-zijn...
|
| You can see how dirty the burning is producing soot-heavy smoke
| when he drives it around Arnhem
| SigmundA wrote:
| In my area they burn garbage for electricity[1] which a lot of
| the content will be plastics, they collect metals from the ash.
| As mentioned it still releases carbon in to the atmosphere but
| better than this setup since the emissions controls are much
| better as they are with most power plants.
|
| With an electric car you are not limited to any one fuel, whether
| it be solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, nat gas, oil, coal or plastic
| / garbage this is the big win decoupling fuel from transport.
|
| 1. https://pinellas.gov/waste-to-energy-facility/
| WalterBright wrote:
| > Because of the chemicals added to plastic, burning it to make
| fuel creates a lot of nasty air pollution.
|
| Even a tiny whiff of burning plastic makes me nauseous for hours.
| I want nothing to do with that. If I seal clothes in a plastic
| tub for a few years, the clothes take on a plastic smell that
| also makes me nauseous. It doesn't wash out, so those clothes get
| thrown out. Long ago I got rid of all the dishes made of plastic.
| Even plastic cups impart a plasticy taste to water.
| jokoon wrote:
| It's ridiculous what people will do to keep using their car
| foul wrote:
| Woodgas vehicles were enormously inefficient. Said that, rest of
| the story is sick AF, he made a pyrolithic device all by himself.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-14 23:01 UTC)