tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-77231674473601428322012-10-07T18:21:32.679+02:00Ric Capucho's musings blogMy musings on all manner of things...Ric Capuchohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02793229852370115082noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7723167447360142832.post-25741445937920908552008-01-18T15:45:00.001+01:002008-01-18T16:13:55.832+01:002008-01-18T16:13:55.832+01:00The nukes are coming...<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9-7P2E-2RuA/R5C7-iuVOjI/AAAAAAAAAb0/RsW2d2ofNXo/s1600-h/Centrale-nucleaire-civaux.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9-7P2E-2RuA/R5C7-iuVOjI/AAAAAAAAAb0/RsW2d2ofNXo/s320/Centrale-nucleaire-civaux.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5156828256486636082" /></a><br /><br />Just over ten ago, I happened to work for a short stretch on an office automation IT project alongside a number of British nuclear power engineers – not a nuke project, I stress. Twas an eye-opener, let me tell you, because each and every one of those engineers were avid nuclear energy advocates. Oh, of course they were! The fact that I wasn’t one of them, and, to be honest, that I was fairly open about my own grave misgivings as to their whole industry mattered not one jot with them: they waxed prolific, evangelised, mitigated this or that safety and sustainability problem, and generally did their utmost to convert me to their way of thinking.<br /><br />Why so? Probably because outside of that office, they were as close to social pariahs as makes no difference. "What do you do?", they’d be asked at a party; but they’d have to be very careful as to the answer in case it triggers a major argument next to the beer fridge; "Erm, I work in the energy industry…" I was a captive audience, on their patch, and by gad I’d have to listen to them, sir. And I did - anything’s more interesting than IT, and say what you will about the nuclear industry, but no one can accuse it of being disinteresting.<br /><br />In a limited fashion, their efforts to indoctrinate me succeeded just a tad: I stopped shaking my head whenever reading newspaper articles about this or that Sellafield expansion. I stopped mentally positioning the nuclear industry as an unnecessary offshoot of the Cold War. I loosened up, and opened my mind and weighed the risks. But there still remained the thorny issues of radioactive waste, massive upfront capital costs, impossibly long lead times (ten years plus being a typical project duration), and the patently uneconomic operating costs – all that hassle to generate <i>expensive</i> electricity? Why bother, thought I, when a gas plant was cleaner, quick and cheap to build, and as cheap as chips to operate? Gas is the thing, I thought… and, ten years ago, I was quite right. Gas <i>was</i> indeed the thing.<br /><br />Well, here we are: Global Warming’s on everyone’s lips. Oil, gas and (most especially) filthy coal are collectively considered a major threat to the well-being of the entire planet, and the name of the game’s finding a way to wean the earth off its dependence on fossil fuels.<br /><br />How can the nuclear industry help?<br /><br />Well, here’re some 2006 statistics as to the various sources of the world’s consumed energy, including power plants, car engines, shipping, aircraft, space rockets, <i>everything</i>:<br /><br />Oil 38%<br />Gas 23%<br />Coal 26%<br />Hydro 6%<br />Nuclear 6%<br />Renewables 1%<br /><br />Which adds up to a 100% of a very large number – 15 TWe of capacity, they tell me on Wikipedia. Dunno what that means, really, but it's probably oodles.<br /><br />So, on the surface nuclear energy doesn’t make much on an impact. However, if you consider only <i>mains</i> electricity (about a third of the world’s consumed energy is mains electricity), then nuclear power leaps up to about 16% of the world’s generating capacity. And that’s a huge amount. The USA generates as much as 20% of its electricity by nukes. And Europe’s ahead of even that, at 30% - although Europe’s skewed by France at about 80% of mains electricity, and Switzerland's at 40%.<br /><br />Basically, nukes are already here, and they’re already a very big deal – and apart from the petrol consumed driving their workers to and from the reactor plant, they’re basically carbon neutral. Yes, the problem of irradiated waste and a host of other safety and practical concerns remain, but somehow they don’t seem to be quite as scary as a bleak future of melting icecaps, a redirected Gulf Stream, and massive floods and famines. I’m certain many of those nuke engineers I knew are currently smirking into their glowing test tubes – they think their time has come, and so do many other people.<br /><br />I decided to do some back of envelope calculations on the current nuclear generating capacity: lemme see, we have 440 reactors worldwide with 372,000 MWe of capacity. Some are 1,450 MWe plants, and others are (comparatively) weedy 500 MWe plants, but it averages at about 850 MWe a pop. So, that means (trust me) we’d need a total of 2,750 similar reactors to convert our mains electricity to nuclear, or 7,333 reactors (trust me again) to convert all of our energy needs to nukes – assuming we have a 100% efficient way of getting that electrical energy to drive our cars, ships, aeroplanes and rockets, which we don’t – but that’s another post.<br /><br />That’s an awful lot of planning permission requests. A heck of a lot of concrete. A lot of protests, banners, controversy, water-cannons, hubble-bubble, trouble and strife.<br /><br />But hang on, modern nuclear designs such as France’s so called European Pressurised Reactor (EPR for short) generates a cool 1650 MWe. So I suppose if we’ve got to go through all the inconvenience of building a reactor and putting up with the arguments and kerscuffles at the building site gates, then yer might as well build yerself a whopper. In total, ‘just’ 1,400 EPR reactors converts the planet’s entire current electricity generating capacity to nuclear. 3,750 EPR reactors could, in theory, generate enough power to fuel humanity’s entire energy needs - of course, those energy needs are growing all the time, but again that’s another post.<br /><br />Suddenly, the numbers don’t seem quite so insurmountable. Just very very large.<br /><br />Let’s do some further refining; as 6% of the world’s energy’s already generated by nukes, then that can stay as is, and we’ll leave the hydro-electric industry (another 6%) to carry on with its carbon-neutral stuff. And let’s grow the alternative energy industry from its current paltry 1% up to a hopefully realistic target of 5% - nah, let's push that up to 8% to make the numbers easier. That covers 20%, leaving us with the dreaded oil/coal/gas fossil fuels at 80%. Calculations show that we need a further 1,125 EPRs to nuke our mains electricity and 3,000 for all energy needs.<br /><br />Do I really suggest we use nukes to generate 80 odd percent of the world’s energy needs? Erm, nah. Even France can’t do that, and that's not for want of trying. They’re at 80% of mains electricity, so even our friends across the Channel (actually, just across the Jura mountains from where I am in Switzerland) are ‘only’ serving approximately 30% of their energy needs by nuke.<br /><br />But neither can I imagine a carbon-neutral world where nuclear energy doesn’t take a significant role in world energy production – and by significant, I mean something like 50%. And that would need 1,650 new EPR reactors on top of the mixed bag of 440 reactors we have now. And suddenly, a four to five fold increase in the world’s nuclear reactor count doesn’t seem such a stretch after all. There are, after all, 250 new reactors either being constructed as I type, or at least being very seriously planned - more often than not, right next door to their earlier relatives 'cos planning permission comes easier that way.<br /><br />The nukes are coming in a big way. I know it, you know it now, and for sure your government knows it - England's just voted to build another 10 reactors. But - with the exception of France who doesn’t give a buggah’s what anyone thinks - the western governments are playing their nuclear power cards very close to their chests. They’re wary of decades of anti-nuclear sentiment, and unsure where public opinion currently lies on the subject. I’d say public opinion’s on the cusp right now.<br /><br />What would you say?<div class="blogger-post-footer">My musings on just about anything...<img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7723167447360142832-2574144593792090855?l=ric-capucho.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Ric Capuchohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02793229852370115082noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7723167447360142832.post-35837497677618571482008-01-07T17:02:00.000+01:002008-01-07T17:16:49.146+01:002008-01-07T17:16:49.146+01:00Going solar...<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9-7P2E-2RuA/R4JNkiuVOiI/AAAAAAAAAbU/fBt1QuWXjiI/s1600-h/800px-SolarPowerPlantSerpa.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9-7P2E-2RuA/R4JNkiuVOiI/AAAAAAAAAbU/fBt1QuWXjiI/s320/800px-SolarPowerPlantSerpa.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5152766213857032738" /></a><br /><br />There's a secret revolution in progress, at least it's secret to the majority of the world: solar energy, or more specifically, solar heating and photovoltaics are finally coming on, and they're coming on fast.<br /><br />"Photovoltaics" is the direct generation of electricity from solar energy, and not to be confused with other solar technologies such as "solar thermal", i.e. water heating. Yer photovoltaic engineer would snub a solar thermal engineer at a party, although they're highly unlikely to attend the same social event – few photovoltaic engineers speak mandarin chinese for starters.<br /><br />Now it just so happens that the Chinese have pretty much sewn up the solar heating industry over the last decade or so. How so? Well, recognising that their own fast growing economy is going to need oodles of power over the coming decades, and looking sadly at their coal reserves and the price of imported oil, the Chinese have been tweaking the local bylaws in sunny places such as Shandong province to try to encourage installation of solar thermal towers onto the roof top of every home and apartment block – ideal for heating water. And the amazing thing is that once certain tax breaks and other incentives against electrical boilers (or disincentives, if you will) have been taken into account, the 'extra' cost of the solar towers is pretty much on par with the replacement cost of the traditional boiler after all. And from then on, apart from routine maintenance and a bit of spit and polish, the water gets heated for free. And few have failed to notice that China is fast becoming the manufacturing centre of the world, so the mass production of the millions of solar towers needed to heat the entire nation's domestic water is clearly within their reach – and that's one fifth of the planet's population.<br /><br />Oh, and another two fifths of the planet lives right next door in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, etc etc, so while some solar heating tower may well not appear on <i>your</i> London or New York apartment block roof anytime soon, there're reasons to be optimistic that such towers will spread like wildfire across the Far East.<br /><br />And here's the main point of this post – government incentives to adopt a new technology can work well, <i>if</i> those incentives are aimed at making the whole idea economically feasible. And those incentives have to be economic for government <i>and</i> for industry <i>and</i> for the end user. While the Chinese are just as concerned as anyone as to whether their children's children have an atmosphere to breathe in, or indeed a square patch of dry land to stand upon, they're not in the economic position to be able to pay a premium for their 'clean' energy – not yet anyway.<br /><br />Meanwhile, here in the West it's photovoltaics that are the thing; only this time it's rarely an economic decision – global warming, carbon footprints, alternative energy, all of these are pretty much part of every thinking person's vocabulary.<br /><br />Now the trouble with photovoltaics is that the solar panels are expensive due to the high precision to which the inner gubbins needs to be manufactured in order for the overall efficiency to be high enough to be worth the material cost – most solar panels are a combination of silicon semi-conductor laid upon a glass substrata (backing, to you and me) with yet more glass on top to keep the rain and bird poo out. And last time I heard, silicon of the levels of purity needed for use as a semi-conductor is at a price premium driven by the, ahem, computer industry. So, all that expensive material needs to be justified by higher efficiency, hence the careful precision in which a layer of silicon is carefully laid of a particular thickness, and that extra precision needs special tools, hi-tech processes and expertise which are still more expensive. And round and round we go in a sort of arms race between material costs, efficiency targets, and processing costs. Oh lord, I think I've lost you…<br /><br />Long story short? Electricity generated from a 'farm' of photovoltaic panels is roughly twice as expensive as electricity generated from a stinky and environmentally disasterous coal power station. And those solar panels you see here and there on the rooftops of new houses? More like three times or even more. And the majority of those extra costs are simply because those solar panels are so very expensive to manufacture.<br /><br />The Chinese, again, are carving themselves a huge slice of the photovoltaics panel market - Suntech Power, for example, has grown into a multi-billion dollar corporation almost overnight. But in this case I'd argue that this is more of an extension of their steady absorption of the world's manufacturing base – they've likewise cornered (or are working to cornering) just about every technological market, regardless of greenie aspirations, simply because business is business. This is very much at odds with their approach to solar heating, where there's a domestic policy in place at the highest levels.<br /><br />So why am I pessimistic about photovoltaics in the near future?<br /><br />Simply because although countries like Germany and Spain are offering guaranteed 'buy back' incentives to force the local energy companies to pay you anything up to 50 cents for any excess electricity generated on the roof of yer house, the reality is that photovoltaics electricity still has pay back economics of five years (yeah right, if yer house is in the centre of the Sahara maybe) or more realistically ten to fifteen years. Basically, the economics are right on the knife edge in 'buy back' countries, and well on the wrong side elsewhere. And there's a loser is the incentives (the power generating companies) and thus all that's really happening is that the bad economics are being pushed around from end-user to the encumbant power companies. Good intentions, I agree, and ones that have caused the photovoltaic market in Germany to explode; but not the best way to move a million households to solar. Nor a billion.<br /><br />So why am I optimistic about photovoltaics in the medium term?<br /><br />Well, there's a new generation of photovoltaic panels in the offing based on cheaper materials; some sort of chemical compound laid on what looks to me like tin foil. Ahem, one hopes that's not too technical for yer. There's a Silicon Valley company (Silicon Valley! Oh, the irony…) called Nanosolar that's getting the attention at the moment, because their so called 'thin film' panel is claims to cost somewhere between a fifth and a tenth of the equivalent glass and silicon panel. On what basis those claims are made, I don't know, but one imagines that the new panel has that desirable combination of cheaper materials, a slightly cheaper process, but sacrifices efficiency on a per square metre basis. Fair enough, because the world I live in has oodles of flat surfaces tilted 'just so' to the south. Think home or factory roof tops, think motorway or railway verges, think hillsides… although the best southerly hillsides around the area I live in are used for growing grapes for the vineyards – there are some sacrifices that are unthinkable.<br /><br />And the 'buy back' guarantees that are so in vogue at the moment? Well, they'll be hastily revised downwards as and when cheap and cheerful photovoltaic panels become so ubiquitous that the country's power generating companies start bleeding real money.<br /><br />Of course, solar heating and photovoltaics are only smallish parts of an overall global solution to clean, limitless and economic energy – what happens when the sun sets? Or in Finland during a particularly cloudy winter? Lots more to say anon, but that's enough for now.<div class="blogger-post-footer">My musings on just about anything...<img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7723167447360142832-3583749767761857148?l=ric-capucho.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Ric Capuchohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02793229852370115082noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7723167447360142832.post-21098321562391368612007-12-21T10:38:00.000+01:002007-12-25T09:54:16.826+01:002007-12-25T09:54:16.826+01:00Whatever happened to the future?<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9-7P2E-2RuA/R2uJu0mqEoI/AAAAAAAAAbE/2cf7lthpYAA/s1600-h/456px-Cover_of_Pop_Science_Mar_2006_Cover_1.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9-7P2E-2RuA/R2uJu0mqEoI/AAAAAAAAAbE/2cf7lthpYAA/s320/456px-Cover_of_Pop_Science_Mar_2006_Cover_1.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5146358436688695938" /></a><br /><br />Well, I've been patient. I've scanned the newspapers, examined magazines, and closely questioned experts on these sorts of things.<br /><br />All to no avail.<br /><br />I was sold a little short during my childhood. I was, of course, an avid reader of all manner of science fiction stories, most of which forecast all sorts of technical wonders by now. Surely by the 21st Century all sorts of amazing things should have already happened?<br /><br />But no...<br /><br />Where the hell is my flying car? Why don't I live in a bubble shaped house, cleaned and maintained by slave robots, with automatically sun-shading windows? Why isn't everything clean and white? Why haven't pavements been replaced by moving walk ways? Why aren't there huge cities of crystal glass and stainless steel? Why aren't there any cities floating high up in the air, or indeed domed cities at the bottom of the oceans? Oh and space! Where are the space colonies? Why the hell can't we spend a week's holiday on one of the seven moon bases? Why isn't some astronaut playing golf on Mars? Why isn't there a golf course on Mars? There isn't even a newsagents out there yet, and that doesn't sound so very hard.<br /><br />All we've managed to do is to mass produce the DVD player, put a couple of creaky space stations into orbit, and produce a robot dog called an 'Aibo', that can't even 'woof' convincingly.<br /><br />Pah! I want my money back!<br /><br />Aren't we supposed to be able to chatter to computers by now? They're supposed to say "Wittgenstein was wrong, Ric, because I can quite easily speak about things that are not in the universe", or "the meaning of life is quite simple, Ric, well it is to <i>me</i> anyway...", or "there's at least £10 of change down the back of the sofa", or "What're you doing, Ric? Ric? Ric, what're you doing?". The best we ever get is "Page not found". Not exactly a worthy intellectual adversary.<br /><br />And what about those wonder cures we're supposed to have discovered by now? We're still getting 'flu, colds and cancer, and they've gone and added HIV, Ebola and SARS to the list. The list is getting longer, not shorter.<br /><br />Progress has slowed to a crawl. Places like Liverpool have actually slipped back into the 20th Century. Poor Macclesfield never made it that far, and is all dark satanic mills, top hats and terraced houses.<br /><br />And windscreen wipers should be utrasonic by now. Did you know that the bloke who invented them (I think some Czech bloke around 1920) said "they're not pretty, but they'll just have do until we think of something better". Eighty years later, and the wipers on my brand new Audi squeak marginally worse than the ones on my Dear Old Mum's old Austin Maxi.<br /><br />And why do I still have to drive my car? Them robot servants should be doing all the driving, steering and avoiding accidents, while we humans sit in the back sipping flourescent green cocktails, and looking at bubble house brochures. And anti-gravity; yer car of the future can switch from road to air using its anti-gravity thingy. That's what's wrong with flying car designs thus far - they start with a car and then add wings and stuff so it can fly. Results in an inefficient bad joke. Why not start with something that can <i>already</i> fly perfectly well, thank you very much, and then add the car-like bits to it? There, we all need a very small Airbus each with a few simply modifications to make it road legal. <br /><br />And why do we still have cloudy days? The future's always shown as being bright and sunny. Or very dark and rainy like Blade Runner. Never cloudy. <i>Cloudy</i> is soooo 20th century, daaaaarling. Soooo passé.<br /><br />Blade Runner's supposed to be set in 2019. They've got human-like androids with emotions and everything, huge pyramid-like buildings the size of cities, off-world colonies AND flying-bloody-cars. Oh and huge zeppelin advertising boards with scary Japanese girls selling you noodles in a sloooooooooow vooooooice. Can't beat it with a stick. I hate to be pessimistic, but we're gonna have to put our skates if we're gonna achieve all that in 12 years time.<br /><br />No Thunderbirds, no International Rescue, no Tracy Island. No 2001: A Space Odyssey, no Hal, no big round wheely space station, nor moon shuttles to the moon base. No moon base. No Jetsons.<br /><br />We've been done a kipper.<br /><br />Ok, so Thunderbird's is set in 2065, which leaves us with a little extra time to figure things out. If only we'd started gaining this sort of technology back in 1965 when the show started, we'd be on the right track by now. As always, after nearly 40 years we're barely a step closer. Need to invent really big audio speakers to play that music when the swimming pool opens up. That and some method to stop the water slopping about. Oh, and palm trees with hinges on them.<br /><br />Just wonder if we arrived at the future, didn't really notice anything different, and then went clear over the top? I look around me here, and it all looks rather the same as 1996. So maybe we peaked at 2000 after all. Y2K problem did for us after all. Bloody hell, I don't like the thought of going back to VHS again. Just getting used to DVDs, the only vaguely futuristic thing we've managed to accomplish thus far.<br /><br />Oh, and hologram photos, where are they? And video phones! We're supposed to talk to each other via video phones by now. Space 1999 had 'em, so we're well over due. We've got telephones that takes snapshots, which is about as logical as a microwave oven with a built-in ironing board, but no video phones. Great.<br /><br />It was memories of the UFO series that triggered this line of reasoning. Remember how it was always sunny, even at night? All the girls had purple hair, of course. Some of the blokes too, except the boss who had silver hair. Or white. Always too sunny to tell, to be honest. Turbine powered cars, real space fighters, a proper moon base, and a bloody space station that <i>looks</i> like a space station, and not like a collection of old loo roll tubes. And no clouds. And clean, everything was all clean and nice, especially the girls. And the cars were clean too. Cars in the future don't get dirty, so why's mine covered in dirt and bird crap? Because there're no robot servants to clean it, that's why. Ray guns! Where the bloody hell are the ray guns? We're still using bullets, mate. Might as well be using bows and arrows, pikes and maces.<br /><br />And I've never heard of anyone in the future playing football. Rollerball, Death Race 2000, even some sort of flying basket ball in Judge Dredd, but never footy. I'm beginning to suspect the future didn't happen after all. Maybe we got the dates wrong and it's actually the 1970s. Could explain the fashions of today. And the music. That daft Pope Gregory sod made a mistake working out his new calendar. Probably should have added four months every leap year, rather than this measly February 29th nonsense. Yeah, a sixteen month leap year. Lemme see, we've had the Greg calendar for about 400 years, so we're about 400 months behind, which works out about 33 years.<br /><br />Explains a lot: it's only 1974.<br /><br />Hmm, I don't deny there's been some incremental progress here and there, but nothing really dramatically futuristic has happened. The DVD is just a replacement for the VHS/Betamax, and the Internet's just a hop skip and jump away from the telephone network. Nah, I'm missing the BIG changes. Still, at least we've been spared the widely forecast nuclear holocaust (touch wood), so we don't have to live in a post-apocalyptic wasteland of sand, glass, and daft sods driving lashed together bits of cars fighting with even dafter sods on motorbikes.<br /><br />Why don't door swish open and shut automatically yet? That can't be so hard to do. The ones on Star Trek do, but I guess that's the year 2400 or somesuch. Seem to remember that the ones on UFO also swished open on their own, but with a different sound. Maybe a 'hum... plop'? Dunno. Anyways, 21st Century doors shouldn't have locks and hinges and handles and stuff. Nor should they be made of wood. They should be alloy and swish. And be painted white like all futuristic things.<br /><br />A word of warning to the wise: don't just walk up to a white door and expect it to swish open. Most of 'em are duds. You'll get a flat nose.<br /><br />And nuclear fusion's been 'just around the corner' since the 1950s. A bloody <i>fortune's</i> been spent on fusion for decade after decade. Result to date? It was only after 40 years of trying that they got more electricity out of a fusion reactor than they had to put into it in the first place. About 2% more. That, and the time-frame of 'just around the corner' has increased from 5 years to 25 years. Bloody big corners in fusion research.<br /><br />Meanwhile we're still up to our necks in coal-powered stations. And the fission nuke stations are being switched off. It'll soon be back to steam engines, paddle wheels, and horses. And top hats and flat caps, typhoid and cholera. Don't get me started on global warming; imagine how bad it'll get if we go backwards through the industrial revolution again?<br /><br />Seen the film Groundhog Day? Well, I propose that we do something similar; we deduct 50 years from the today's date, and try again; only harder this time. Have a good run at it, you see. A bit like that old teacher making us go back up the corridor and 'walk properly'. Every time we reach 2,000 AD and there're still no flying cars, white bubble houses, robot whores, endlessly sunny days, video phones, and <i>especially</i> moon bases with hotels and somewhere to park your personal spaceship, then 50 years gets deducted from the date again. Oh and sonic screw-drivers. It'll give everyone an incentive: Clement Attlee, the arms race, the Richard Nixon. Kajagoogoo, Bucks Fizz, and Grease. The Dukes of Hazzard. Russ Abbott! Scratched LPs, 8-track cassette players and black and white telly. Yes, it hurts, doesn't it; but then it's supposed to. It's an incentive for the world to finally get its act together and reach the future, as promised.<br /><br />Great idea, even if I say so myself.<div class="blogger-post-footer">My musings on just about anything...<img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7723167447360142832-2109832156239136861?l=ric-capucho.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Ric Capuchohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02793229852370115082noreply@blogger.com0