Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Wild Country: Set of 7 X WC Rockcentrics. (Sizes 3 to 9) Anodized different colours! SUPER SPECIAL!  $119.00
21% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 6 of 7. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 128
Author
No More Overseas Travel? - Running out of oil?

EJ
9/11/2007
2:10:38 PM
>I work in Greenhouse Gas recording and have a good mat in the Fed. GHG
>office. Cows are WAY bad. Yes the carbon comes from the atmosphere etc,
>but the big difference is that cows turn it into Methane, about 25 times
>more powerful as a GHG than CO2. So, if cows only convert 2 in 25 carbon
>molecules into methane it makes this carbon twice as bad. I repeat, cows
>are bad.

Yeah, good point Evan, forgot about that! By the way, in the Greenhouse Gas calculations does the carbon output of farm related activities such as livestock transport, hay/grain cartage etc get taken into account?

evanbb
9/11/2007
2:26:29 PM
Nationally I think it is recorded, through the National Polution Index survey done annually, but like a lot of this stuff (electricity use, fugitive emissions, water use etc) it depends entirely on the accuracy and ability of those involved to report. So, say a large cattle farm, the only thing they might do is count their head of cattle and multiply it by a factor; smaller operations might not bother at all. So I reckon well organised businesses would take it into account (by recording fuel use and power use) but others definitely not. Their might be a +- 10% certainty, but it could be worse than that.

Dom
9/11/2007
3:22:33 PM
The nuclear issue is an interesting one. I'm sure there are alot of people out, I'm sure, thinking that renewable energy sources can play the same role that nuclear power would in the Australian energy mix, and they're right. The problem is there are increased costs to be paid for the use of these technologies. Base load power should be able to be purchased for $30-$40 MWh depending on the state (prices are about 70-100% higher than that at the moment because the base load generators are gaming the market - I'll save that rant for another time). Obviously the aim of introducing renewables in the mix is to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions; so, if all of our coal and gas fired generation was replaced with wind\solar\geothermal the price of electricity could be expected to rise to $120-$150 MWh even after the cost offsets such as Renewable Energy Certificates are factored in to the calc.

Every time I think about this subject, and I think about it alot, I always get stuck on the prisoners’ dilemma (made famous in the movie A Brilliant Mind):

Two prisoners have been called in for questioning by police and are housed in cells at opposite ends of the station so they can't know what the other is doing. Each prisoner is faced with a choice; they can confess or not confess.
If they both choose 'confess' they both get 5 years in jail
If they both choose 'not confess' they both get 2 years in jail
But if one (either one) chooses to 'confess' and the other chooses 'not confess' then the confessor gets 1 year and the confessee gets 10 years

If that made no sense check wiki out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

The whole premise behind it is that you can do better IN THE SHORT RUN by cheating.

If every nation decided to abide by a Kyoto style agreement then there will be an incentive to 'cheat' and emit more thus providing the cheaters nation with an increase in wealth. So while it is possible for political leaders to mandate the use of clean energy technology I think it is very unlike to happen until the average Australian starts to see some adverse impacts of global warming\carbon emissions. This is simply because people enjoy running the air con over right through summer and only seeing a $500 bill at the end of it. Why would they vote for a policy that will take Plasma screens out of their lounge rooms?

Just to put air con in to prospective too... I was at a talkfest a few years ago when a senior manager for a very large energy retail in Victoria said that air con (residential and commercial combined) makes up 70% of the energy that they sell...

So if you want clean energy you've got to be prepared to pay for it (nationally speaking). Its ok for the single office Johnny on 50k a year to say they'd be prepared to pay for it but what about the fitter and turner in Horsham on 29k who’s providing for 2 kids and a wife at home? No. Government intervention in to the WORKINGS of the market is not the answer here. Government is simply there to provide guidance to the private sector, to lay in place a framework in which Australians are free to operate in any way we see fit.

The answer is you. I wonder how many peoples homes are powered by 100% green energy sources. Every energy retailer in Australia now offers a green product... get on the phone and ask them about it.

This is a rambling post but... ya know.
Wendy
9/11/2007
3:39:43 PM
Did i forget to mention eat roo not cow? It's basically organic, free range meat, almost no fat and cheap. And they are getting culled all over the country (along with emus) because they get in the way of european style farming. Amongst the many things we should be changing is our diet, to one based on things that grow sustainably in our environment.

Anthonyk, studies of plant grown in high co2 environments show that they are much less nutrient rich than those in our current co2 levels. It also promotes grownth of certain species over others, and with the changing weather patterns predicted, we wouldn't have many conditions left in which to grow most things anyway. I believe Canada and Russia are the only areas that might gain an agricultural advantage out of climate change.

Ah, yes, nuclear power. There is probably a good reason why western countries are not putting on line more nuclear power stations. The UK and US haven't commissioned one in over 20 years. Amongst other problems, they are outrageously expensive, take about 10 years to get through the permit process then another 5 years to build, so they aren't going to help us out in the immediate future. Besides, there's always the not in my backyard problem. No one wants the nuclear waste dump near them either. Nor it transported through their area. In fact, the US is so far behind in successful commissioning of waste dumps that should they get one opened, it would be immediately filled and another required. Then there's the old plants. For reasons unknown to me, they have a limited life span, but they cost a fortune to decommission and again, no one wants to do it or deal with the by products. Then there's the limited supply of uranium. With India and China going ahead with nuclear power at a great rate, we're going to encounter a supply problem soon enough. There's a lot less uranium than oil or coal. And all these things actually do is create steam to run turbines. We could just do that from geothermal sources, although to be honest, we are a fair way from being able to do that on a large scale as well.

So then we have the popular baby of the moment, geosequestration. Someone mentioned Karl speaking out about it this week, but i believe he withdrew that in light of new information about the technology, which i haven't actually heard about. Love to know about it if anyone else does. From my understanding, we haven't successful done it yet. And it uses about 20% of the energy produced to do it, then there's the transport of the stuff and the sheer volume of the stuff. We currently create enough co2 from coal world wide to produce 50 km3 of liquified gas each day that we need to find a home for. And to make sure it stays there, because any leaking of it would be disasterous.

Maybe I'm just being a fluffy hippy, but it continues to be beyond me why the government doesn't just fund solar panels. We have the technology, we have the sun, we have north facing roofs all over the place and they can feed straight into the existing grid. Of course it's not a complete solution as sun doesn't shine all the time, but if every house had a grid interactive solar array on it, we'd supply at least half the power needs of the country. And grid interactive systems require basically no maintainance. Similarly, if everyone had a rainwater tank with a filter and pump on it, and their water rates covered a technician to come round every 6 months and change the filter and service the pump, how much less pressure on water reserves would we have? Surely these sort of immediately possible projects are far less expensive than building new power stations, dams or geosequestration?

evanbb
9/11/2007
4:05:25 PM
Well, so much to repond to!

Nuclear: in my opinion it's not really an option. What we need to do is reduce carbon emissions RIGHT NOW. To build a nuke, it's about 10years, during which time a butt-load (scientific term) of CO2 is emitted; making concrete, transport, making the other extremely fancy materials, damming rivers for cooling etc. So much so that it will take another 15 years to off-set enough coal emissions to break even. So if Australia decides tomorrow to go fully nuke, it'll be 25 years before there are any benifits.

On the topic of nuclear fuel, there is a shedload around, apparently enough energy for 1000 years or so. It's much more energy dense than coal.

This 'spec' for technologies is described as either 'Carbon payback time' for carbon emissions, and 'energy payback time' for energy use. For solar, energy payback is about 2.5 years (time until more energy is produceed than takes to make it) wind is about 3, but highly dependent on installation site and size. And so for this reason, a big push on these techs will make a big short term difference. If you make a 'breeder' plant it's even better; a plant powered by solar cells, making solar cells.

Australian Governments will probably never stop digging up coal and burning it, selling it over seas. Australians seem to value prudent economic management over virtually anything else (common decency, human rights, the environment all come to mind), and so stopping coal exports will never be a popular decision. It makes an ENORMOUS difference to our bottom line to make such cheap energy and huge exports. Sadly it'll never change. Hence the major parties excitement about 'clean-coal'. They love the idea of being able to continue exporting millions of dollars a month, AND sell the clean tech to go along with it.

And yes, diversifying the solar network will eliminate the irregularity of supply, but another solution is energy storage. We currently use storage all over Australia; the Snowy Hydro scheme is more for storage than generation. In short there are no technical challenges stopping us from implementing solar across the country. The only limitations are financial and political.

By the way, I've written a thesis on just that topic (energy storage) and anyone with way too much time on their hands and an altruistic need to stroke my ego is welcome to read it. PM if you want.

EB

Zebedee
9/11/2007
5:02:23 PM


On 9/11/2007 evanbb wrote:
>On 28/10/2007 harold wrote:
>>Zebedee is quite right with the cow thing. Its really basic high school
>>chemistry. CO2 from the air is photosynthesized to grow the grass -
>cow
>>eats the grass for energy - part of the carbon in the grass is belched
>>out as CH4 (methane)
>Sorry Dudes, this is waaaaay late in the piece but I better interject.
>
>
>I work in Greenhouse Gas recording and have a good mat in the Fed. GHG
>office. Cows are WAY bad. Yes the carbon comes from the atmosphere etc,
>but the big difference is that cows turn it into Methane, about 25 times
>more powerful as a GHG than CO2. So, if cows only convert 2 in 25 carbon
>molecules into methane it makes this carbon twice as bad. I repeat, cows
>are bad.
On 26/10/2007 Zebedee wrote
>This may be converted into methane (a more 'effective' greenhouse gas)
I did mention in my original post that methane was more badder than co2 but I hadn't realised how much. But I stick with my other point that it is really a diversion to point at cows when it's people who need to change. So cows aren't bad it's people who are WAY bad .

anthonyk
9/11/2007
5:05:02 PM
On 9/11/2007 evanbb wrote:
>What we need to do is reduce carbon emissions RIGHT NOW. To build a nuke, it's about 10years,
>during which time a butt-load (scientific term) of CO2 is emitted; making concrete, transport, making
>the other extremely fancy materials, damming rivers for cooling etc. So much so that it will take
>another 15 years to off-set enough coal emissions to break even. So if Australia decides tomorrow to
>go fully nuke, it'll be 25 years before there are any benifits.

>This 'spec' for technologies is described as either 'Carbon payback time'
>for carbon emissions, and 'energy payback time' for energy use. For solar,
>energy payback is about 2.5 years (time until more energy is produceed
>than takes to make it) wind is about 3, but highly dependent on installation
>site and size.

i don't know where those figures come from but i'd say they're pretty selective

http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/nuclearpower/03.htm :

"Nuclear, for the whole lifecycle, is about 1% of the emissions from coal, 2% of emissions from gas and 10% of those from solar (due to the process for making solar cells).

Grams of CO2/kWh

Coal 970-1245 grams
Gas 450-660 grams
Solar 100-280 grams
Wind 6-29 grams
Nuclear 9-21 grams
Hydro 3-11 grams

- Ron Cameron, Chief of Operations, ANSTO"

and yes it takes a while to build nuclear plants but building renewable sources to give the same power output doesn't happen over night either. i think a lot of the time people get drawn into looking at the worst numbers for things they don't like and the best numbers for things they do like, instead of an even comparison.



On 9/11/2007 Wendy wrote:
>Did i forget to mention eat roo not cow? It's basically organic, free range
>meat, almost no fat and cheap.

i wonder if any carbon offset programs invest in making roos more popular and affordable? ;) (do they emit different levels of methane compared to cows by any chance? i doubt anyones looked at it)

>Maybe I'm just being a fluffy hippy, but it continues to be beyond me
>why the government doesn't just fund solar panels. We have the technology,
>we have the sun, we have north facing roofs all over the place and they
>can feed straight into the existing grid.

take a look at http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/renovationnation/archives/2007/11/solar_power_gre.html

its just not as cost effective at reducing output as other methods like buying green power

bigmike
9/11/2007
5:21:04 PM
On 9/11/2007 anthonyk wrote:

>
>i wonder if any carbon offset programs invest in making roos more popular
>and affordable? ;) (do they emit different levels of methane compared to
>cows by any chance? i doubt anyones looked at it)

Why would you doubt it?

Kangaroos produce no methane. Your average cow produces 200 to 300 litres of methane EVERY DAY.

"As a greenhouse gas [methane is] effectively 20-21 times as strong as CO2. There is a lot less of it of course. But, from Australia's emission perspective, the big source of methane is belching sheep and cattle. And it's something like two-thirds of all the methane produced in Australia comes out of burping livestock. So it's a big deal."

Here is the source. Scientists banging on about how to get cows to stop burping methane:

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/stories/s1928598.htm

Lots of degrees but as usual missing the point - there wouldn't be billions of burping cows and sheep if we weren't farming them to eat.




anthonyk
9/11/2007
5:35:17 PM
On 9/11/2007 bigmike wrote:
>Kangaroos produce no methane. Your average cow produces 200 to 300 litres
>of methane EVERY DAY.
>
>Here is the source. Scientists banging on about how to get cows to stop
>burping methane:
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/stories/s1928598.htm

thats a really interesting study. i wonder if they can use the same stuff on people that burp and fart too much.

GravityHound
9/11/2007
5:41:04 PM
On 9/11/2007 anthonyk wrote:
>On 9/11/2007 evanbb wrote:
>>What we need to do is reduce carbon emissions RIGHT NOW. To build a nuke,
>it's about 10years,
>>during which time a butt-load (scientific term) of CO2 is emitted; making
>concrete, transport, making
>>the other extremely fancy materials, damming rivers for cooling etc.
>So much so that it will take
>>another 15 years to off-set enough coal emissions to break even. So if
>Australia decides tomorrow to
>>go fully nuke, it'll be 25 years before there are any benifits.
>

"Nuclear, for the whole lifecycle, is about 1% of the emissions from coal, 2% of emissions from gas and 10% of those from solar (due to the process for making solar cells).

Grams of CO2/kWh

Coal 970-1245 grams
Gas 450-660 grams
Solar 100-280 grams
Wind 6-29 grams
Nuclear 9-21 grams
Hydro 3-11 grams

- Ron Cameron, Chief of Operations, ANSTO"

coming from the ANSTO (Aus Nuclear Science and Tech Organiosation) chief I would say these figures are pretty selective as well. the other thing to consider about nuclear power plants is what they are made of - concrete. and what emits a large amount of CO2 in the production process (between 5 and 10% of all emissions??) - concrete. I have heard that you have to run a nuc power station (not emitting CO2) for many years to offset the carbon produced by the concrete making process alone. take into account enrichment, emissions from mining and transport of nuclear fuel. not particularly friendly. then we have disposal of radioactive waste....

i pay for 100% green energy and when i drive to my research site i cruise past the Carcoar Wind Farm where they make green energy. the turbines dont bother me (I think they are mesmerising and I am likely to have some built within a few km from my home) but i understand why they bother others.

we are about to put on solar hot water,we dont have an airconditioner (we only need them for a month a year anyway) and use gas (lucky enough to have it connected) and use a wood fire from renewable sources in winter (and autumn and spring when a front comes through). and i run my diesel ute on waste cooking oil from the pubs in town. being energy concious works. it can keep you fit (driving 15 km to work, riding another 15). it is an alternative way of living that doesnt revolve around consumption. sure, it isnt as 'comfie' as 'normal' living but i sleep better at night knowing my impact on the planet isnt as great as it could be. i guess i am a bit of a hippy (vege gardening, keeping chooks) but it can work. you just have to be open to an alternative way of living.

Chuck Norris
9/11/2007
9:12:54 PM
On 9/11/2007 GravityHound wrote:
i cruise
>past the Carcoar Wind Farm where they make green energy. the turbines dont
>bother me (I think they are mesmerising and I am likely to have some built
>within a few km from my home) but i understand why they bother others.

a lot of the NW part of spain (with plans for ALL!!) have their electricity from wind sources and in general
are completely accepted/embraced by the locals.

evanbb
9/11/2007
9:21:55 PM

>i don't know where those figures come from but i'd say they're pretty
>selective


Oh yeah, they're totally selective. How else can I win the argument? They're actually the only figures I've ever heard, I liked them, so I've stuck with it ever since. But it doesn't change my over-riding point that I think the risks of nuclear far outweigh the benifits. We've got safe, relatively simple technology that can do the same job, it just costs a little bit more. If it was your house, what would you do? Install something that is ridiculously complex and could possibly kill you, or put a piece of plastic on the roof that makes electricity? It's a no brainer for me, even if the economics aren't so favourable.

Wendy
10/11/2007
3:03:56 PM
I wasn't talking about individuals buying solar panels - which I agree is still pretty expensive for your average household unfortuneately, but the government putting panels on houses for people. ie, instead of them investing 2 billion in a nuclear plant or however much it is for new coal plants, or for geosequestration, use that money to put in grid connect systems on the houses of anyone who's willing and well situated for it. Whilst it may not be a perfect plan, it seems like a pretty simple one to start implementing immediately. And it saves on the cost of a centralised system and the trouble of finding some where to put said centralised system because we are using structures that already exist and the loss of power in transmission is negligible by producing power where it's used.

On the green power topic - sometimes I suspect this is largely a feel good plan for consumers. Sure, some of the green power options are really green, some really do invest in further technology but a lot of them are including the snowy hydro scheme in their kilowatts drawn from green sources, and whilst it may not be emitting co2, the snowy hydro scheme has a whole pile of other negative environmental effects. And it's not exactly investing in new alternative power sources. And i believe all the oldgrowth wood chip burning plants due to come on line in Tas will class as green power under biomass. It's worth investigating your company's scheme thoroughly before putting your money in it.

I forward a friends of the earth petition for wind power to our delightful mp out here a few years ago and I recieved in response a letter explaining to me that the national party does not support windfarms because they are unsightly, bad for tourism, bad for the environment, bad for communities, devalue the area etc etc. I had to wonder if he had been to the Latrobe valley recently. Surely nowhere in Victoria suffers from health and socio-economic problems as much as that area. And coal has done wonders in beautification of the region and attracting tourists.

I do have a friend who insists that wind turbines require so much wind to get them started that electricity is actually used to keep them ticking over in times of low wind and that they really suck as much or more power than they create. I find this a little hard to believe, but if anyone is better informed on the situation, I'd love to know about it.
uwhp510
10/11/2007
4:56:32 PM
I've been doing access work on one of the chimneys at the Yallourn coal power station in the lovely LaTrobe Valley, for the last month or so, and the view from up there hits home the (non greenhouse related) environmental devastation involved. The station which supplies 23% of Victoria's power consumes 2400 tonnes of coal.... per hour. The open cut coal mine is absolutely mind boggling in size, as it would have to be considering the rate of coal burning (and so are the ash pits). Then there is the rate of corrosion of anything made from steel (you should see the non-stainless biners that get left up there) thanks to the gases coming from the portholes in the chimney due to brick collapses. Every moving part gets replaced every five years, so there's clearly a fair bit of energy embedded in that process. Burning brown coal is just so bloody 19th century.

In Germany I understand there is a requirement for power companies to buy power from residential and commercial rooftop solar panels at three times the market rate, which makes them a much more attractive investment and as a result almost every rooftop in Germany which has much less sun than we have, is covered in solar panels.

JamesMc
10/11/2007
6:49:13 PM
On 10/11/2007 uwhp510 wrote:

>In Germany I understand there is a requirement for power companies to
>buy power from residential and commercial rooftop solar panels at three
>times the market rate, which makes them a much more attractive investment
>and as a result almost every rooftop in Germany which has much less sun
>than we have, is covered in solar panels.

Funny, I don't recall noticing ANY solar panels on roof tops when I was in Germany last year. If I ever get back, I'll look out for them.


JamesMc

evanbb
12/11/2007
9:31:17 AM
Wendy wrote:
On the green power topic - sometimes I suspect this is largely a feel good plan for consumers. Sure, some of the green power options are really green, some really do invest in further technology but a lot of them are including the snowy hydro scheme in their kilowatts drawn from green sources, and whilst it may not be emitting co2
-------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the Snowy hydro scheme is part of any Green power initiatives; if you want confirmation of the mix from your retailer they should be able to give it to you. I'm with origin and they are using sustainable resources.
Green Power from the Snowy Hydro only counts if they produce power above a baseline figure that was established in 1997. It's pretty high too, and since water levels are so low down there they're not generating at all at the moment I don't think. This was part of the reason NSW returned such a high average CO2 per unit power last year.

Wendy also said:
I do have a friend who insists that wind turbines require so much wind to get them started that electricity is actually used to keep them ticking over in times of low wind and that they really suck as much or more power than they create.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is A-grade, 100% Australian bullshiit. A lot of hardcore computational fluid dynamics goes into wind turbine design, particularly concentrating on 'start-up torque' specs. Turbines can't be designed to operate optimally at every wind speed, so they balance their curves within the predicted range. So they have a minimum and maximum wind speed they can operate in, and they definitely do not use power to keep turning! What would be the point of that?


Organ Pipe
12/11/2007
1:26:56 PM
On 10/11/2007 Wendy wrote:
>I do have a friend who insists that wind turbines require so much wind
>to get them started that electricity is actually used to keep them ticking
>over in times of low wind...

I'm prety sure on trips from Melb to Araps I've seen turbines at the Stawell array motionless.

Organ Pipe
12/11/2007
1:33:47 PM
I'm as interested and active in the ongoing debate about 'energy generation' as the next guy, but 'energy conservation' probably needs to get just as much attention.

Dom
12/11/2007
1:36:13 PM
On 12/11/2007 evanbb wrote:
>Wendy also said:
>I do have a friend who insists that wind turbines require so much wind
>to get them started that electricity is actually used to keep them ticking
>over in times of low wind and that they really suck as much or more power
>than they create.

Every generator with <50MW of capacity attached to the transmission system has to schedule their output with the industries’ governing body (NEMMCO). If they get the amount they schedule incorrect then they're liable for very large fines and jail time for the people that scheduled the electrical load. This is done to prevent 'gaming' of the electricity markets. Generators can't 'dispatch' less load than they say they would and see the price go through the roof.

Wind generation presents a problem in this area because its very difficult to accurately schedule output because of variations in wind speed. Because of this variability and the penalties associated with 'gaming' the wind generators can sometime build (or buy) supplementary diesel powered generation which would allow them to very quickly make up for any shortfall in their anticipated electricity generation. Its pretty easy to see why people could get the wrong message about some green generation through the grape vine.

As evanbb said; wind powered generators never have draw power from the grid to get the turbines started.

As for The Snowy it's probably a good thing that the amount of permits issued to them was given a base line. The only way green can power compete in the Australian market is to have a carbon trading scheme developed (we’re seeing a poor proxy of it operating at the moment). Right now the government sets a mandatory level of 5% (or something very close to that number) of the total energy sold in National Electricity Grid which must come from renewable energy sources. For every megawatt of electricity a green generator pumps in to the grid they get one Renewable Energy Certificate. These are then sold to the electricity retailers who must meet the 5% level mandated by the government. It's because of the relatively higher price of these Certificates that 'green' power generators are able to compete. If Snowy was given the right to produce these certificates below the base line other green generators would probably become uncompetitive as soon as the drought breaks.

evanbb
12/11/2007
1:52:47 PM
On 12/11/2007 Organ Pipe wrote:
>I'm as interested and active in the ongoing debate about 'energy generation'
>as the next guy, but 'energy conservation' probably needs to get just as
>much attention.

Those in the know (ie the Greens, WWF, other smart enviro people, and definitely not the Libs or Labour) do include this in their calcs. A few simple things could make a big difference too. For example, if every house in Aus went to solar hot water it would negate the need for any new baseload generation in Aus for a decade I think it was.

Energy efficiency does have a large contribution to make, but it's limited (because some critical loads can't be used more efficiently). It will come down to cost/benifit in most cases; eg, do we spend (say) $30M rolling out solar hot water across the country for a 20% saving, or provide (say) 18% generation using renewables for the same price? There will be some fairly firey debates around how to spend this as time goes on, and having a cost on carbon will allow a proper market, as the Economic Conservatives hold so dear.

 Page 6 of 7. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 128
There are 128 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints