Sunday May 27, 2012

Kyushu Electric restarts power generation at Genkai nuclear reactor

National ( 44 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

44 Comments

Login to comment

  • 2

    zichi

    No doubt other reactors will also be restarted. The Kansai power company, KEPCO has requested to start its shut down reactors and is calling for a 5% power cut from normal households over the winter period.

  • 1

    Newsman

    Notice how all of the Kyushu politicians ran for cover, avoiding getting out in front of the issue and justifying the restart. KyuDen was left to spring the announcement without any previous warning, ensuring that if there is any public wrath over this incident, it will all fall directly upon the company.

  • 1

    some14some

    The government approved Genkai’s restart after examining the operator’s investigation report

    Lucky Operator, got an easy endorsement from Noda govt.

  • -6

    NetNinja

    strong public opposition? Obviously not strong enough. Get ready for another accident. We Americans know it's takes 2 for Japanese to give up on something.

  • 1

    JapanGal

    A bit cruel there NetNInja. It was not the peoples fault but the imperialistic govt. that refused to give up.

    They need these reactors on line. Good luck.

  • 2

    alladin

    The Japanese government will never learn. I guess it will have to take another nuclear explosion for them to realize how bad nuclear power is.

  • 4

    smithinjapan

    JapanGal: "A bit cruel there NetNInja. It was not the peoples fault but the imperialistic govt. that refused to give up."

    True. Now these clowns have no excuse -- especially since this is a democracy. I fear NetNinja, with his rather callous allusion, is correct. It'll take at least one more major nuclear plant disaster for the government to act in favour of the people and not just profit.

  • -6

    okimike67

    **Power (Nuke) to the People! Learn it, Know it, LOVE IT!! **Its the only way to provide for the needs without polluting excessivly (coal and China come to mind). It is safer that cars which we also need. Safer that alcohol which we dont NEED but sure enjoy. Enjoy it ALMOST as much as the electricity that keeps the beer cold.

    Anybody against it should pull off the grid adn become self sufficient. If you are going to preach then live by your gospel.

  • 2

    SquidBert

    Anybody against it should pull off the grid adn become self sufficient. If you are going to preach then live by your gospel.

    Then how would I share my excess electricity with others?

  • 2

    gogogo

    the operator’s investigation report

    Why did they investigate themselves, that is not an investigation it is a report and the could say anything. The government needs to the nuke police and make inspections.

  • 4

    zichi

    Being anti nuclear power does not mean that you should be off the grid, although my art studio in Shinshu is completely off the grid. Solar panels, no flushing toilet, water from a well.

    Prior to 3/11 there were 54 working reactors. Following 3/11, during the heat of the summer there were only 18 operational reactors. That number has since dropped to 10, and now 10+1. That shows there isn't a need for 54 atomic reactors. Prior to 3/11 atomic power generated about 24%-27% of total power. Following 3/11 that dropped to about 18%.

    There are four atomic power reactors under construction and another 12 in the planning stage. The original plan was to generate 50% of power from atomic energy by 2030.

    Nuclear power stations cost billions to build, billions to decommission, billions to deal with all the nuclear waste, and trillions when there's a major nuclear disaster like at Fukushima, displacing tens of thousands of people and destroying their lives and communities.

    The fast breeder Monju reactor has cost ¥1.7 trillion and only managed to generate 60 minutes of power. The budget has been cut and now it will be a research project only.

    There are 13,000 sq km of contaminated land across eight prefectures.

    Nuclear power is not free from producing its share of CO2 and other green house gases. There needs to be better use of CO2 scrubbers to reduce the 1,200 million tons of CO2 produced every year.

    Prior to about 2002(?) nuclear power plants were given a life span of 30 years but that was increased to 40 years. All reactors older than 30 years should be shut down.

    Every year, the government spends ¥500 billion on energy R&D, with 64% of it going to nuclear and only 8% to renewables. If that was reversed quicker advancements could be made with renewables.

    According to a "model" run by the Fujitsu Research Institute, by 2020 nuclear energy will only be 16.7% and renewables 11.2%.

    There will be 'X' number of atomic reactors for many years, but the government and industrial determination must be to close down as many as possible.

    In the next general election, atomic power will be a major part of the campaigns.

  • 5

    zichi

    90% of total power is generated by ten national power companies. The other 10% is generated by industry.

    There needs to be a separation between power generation and power supply. TEPCO, recently admitted that for 10 years it had over charged its customers. Any company should be able to buy power from the 10 national power companies and resell it to its customers.

    There needs to be a unified national power grid with one electrical system instead of the present two.

    There are about 190 waste incinerators which also generate power. All incinerators should be producing power. There should be maximum use of biomass or human waste to generate power and provide healthy fertiliser for farmers.

    Major companies need to be encouraged to generate some of its power with solar panels. Some companies are now starting to do that.

    Geothermal power needs to increased from the current level of less than 2% to 15%.

    Japan is an island and could make use of tidal power and off shore wind turbines. There are many islands where a solar thermal power plant could be built.

    All new house construction should be required to have solar panels.

    People should be educated and informed how to reduce their power consumption by 5%-10%. New energy saving appliances should be free of all taxes.

    Two new hydro's are due to come on line.

  • 4

    zichi

    Big Nuke is striking back.

    There has been an organized effort to trivialize the disaster in Japan including a few supposed experts asking for the evacuation zone to be lifted and claiming the evacuations were more damaging than nuclear fallout. This rather bizarre concept plays heavily on the claim of radiophobia. Claiming that people’s fear of radiation is the real problem, not the damaging effects of radiation. Radiophobia is not an actual medical or psychological term or phobia. No official medical or psychological body recognizes this term or phobia.

    This technique of claiming radiophobia insidiously and quite subtly places blame on the victims of the disaster. It paints disaster victims in a way that portrays them as irrational or hysterical, yet in a much more socially acceptable way by claiming there is some sort of mental problem or group hysteria going on. If these critics were to come straight out and call all victims of the disaster hysterical or mentally ill there would be great backlash.

  • 2

    saru_au

    even if there are 10 more disasters like Fukushima, will there still be people telling us nuke is best, "okimike67" WTF ?

  • -5

    Star-viking

    Good news on the restart, will contribute to a reduction in Japan's greenhouse gas emissions.

  • -6

    Star-viking

    zichi Nov. 02, 2011 - 10:43AM JST

    This rather bizarre concept plays heavily on the claim of radiophobia. Claiming that people’s fear of radiation is the real problem, not the damaging effects of radiation.

    Plenty of peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that it is the psychological effects of nuclear disasters which cause the most damage to people's health - so there is a point there.

    That said, we should be assiduously monitoring the situation.

    Also, if people did want to reduce their exposure to radiation they'd also want to close Coal-powered energy plants, and Radium Springs. Nothing happening on that front.

  • -7

    Star-viking

    zichi Nov. 02, 2011 - 10:01AM JST

    Nuclear power stations cost billions to build, billions to decommission, billions to deal with all the nuclear waste, and trillions when there's a major nuclear disaster like at Fukushima, displacing tens of thousands of people and destroying their lives and communities.

    And coal, oil and natural gas are changing the climate.

    Also, despite costs of trillions - nuclear energy is still one of the cheapest providers of electricity worldwide.

    The fast breeder Monju reactor has cost ¥1.7 trillion and only managed to generate 60 minutes of power. The budget has been cut and now it will be a research project only.

    It's experimental, and run in a bureaucratic way - so cost overruns are not unexpected.

    There are 13,000 sq km of contaminated land across eight prefectures.

    By your calculations.

    Nuclear power is not free from producing its share of CO2 and other green house gases. There needs to be better use of CO2 scrubbers to reduce the 1,200 million tons of CO2 produced every year.

    Not according to the IPCC - Nuclear power is a low carbon technology. CO2 scrubbers are unproven.

    Every year, the government spends ¥500 billion on energy R&D, with 64% of it going to nuclear and only 8% to renewables. If that was reversed quicker advancements could be made with renewables.

    That is possible, but I wouldn't bet the bank on it.

    There will be 'X' number of atomic reactors for many years, but the government and industrial determination must be to close down as many as possible.

    I think they should be looking at things scientifically, and not bowing to Pro- or Anti-Nuclear sentiment.

    In the next general election, atomic power will be a major part of the campaigns.

    True.

  • -6

    Star-viking

    zichi Nov. 02, 2011 - 10:29AM JST

    There needs to be a separation between power generation and power supply. TEPCO, recently admitted that for 10 years it had over charged its customers. Any company should be able to buy power from the 10 national power companies and resell it to its customers.

    Agreed

    There needs to be a unified national power grid with one electrical system instead of the present two.

    Agreed, but it will be costly and take time.

    There are about 190 waste incinerators which also generate power. All incinerators should be producing power. There should be maximum use of biomass or human waste to generate power and provide healthy fertiliser for farmers.

    First, if you use biomass for power, producing lots of greenhouse gasses, then it is unlikely to be available as fertilizer. Also, power is not the best way of assessing what we get from power-producing incinerators. If, for example, they are only producing power for a short period of the day, or at much lower than their maximum capacity, then we are not getting much energy from them. As far as I know we have not been given the data on how much energy we are getting from these incinerators.

    Major companies need to be encouraged to generate some of its power with solar panels. Some companies are now starting to do that.

    Would be good - but unlikely to produce much power. If you go to the shinkansen waiting room at Tokyo Station you can see that their solar panels do not produce anywhere near their fully-rated capacity. On a sunny mid-September day I observed them running at about an eighth of capacity.

    Geothermal power needs to increased from the current level of less than 2% to 15%.

    A good idea, but once again easier said than done. Geothermal fields need extensive surveying - and even after that may not perform as promised. To get things up and running will take decades, and may not pan out as promised.

    Japan is an island and could make use of tidal power and off shore wind turbines. There are many islands where a solar thermal power plant could be built.

    Japan has rough seas and strong, gusty winds. I wouldn't count on tidal or off shore wind too much, or inshore for that matter. As for solar thermal systems - what islands are you thinking about?

    All new house construction should be required to have solar panels.

    And who will pay for them? Solar heating would be better and cheaper.

    People should be educated and informed how to reduce their power consumption by 5%-10%. New energy saving appliances should be free of all taxes.

    Agreed.

    Two new hydro's are due to come on line.

    Where and what capacity? I sure hope they're not located in any earthquake zones.

  • 5

    zichi

    Star-viking

    The figure of 13,000 sq km of contaminated land across 8 prefectures, with 8,000 of it inside Fukushima Prefecture are not figures by me, because I wouldn't even know how to calculate it. Those are the latest figures issued by the government.

    Figures from ANRE 2003.

    cost of power: LNG ¥6.1/kWh. Nuclear ¥5.1kWh energy efficiency: LNG 48.4%. Nuclear 34.5%. Unit price of construction $/kW: LG $1344. Nuclear $2287.

    The price for nuclear is only for construction costs and if the decommissioning costs and the cost of nuclear waste storage for 10,000+ years, the figure of 2,287 would be much greater.

    CO2 scrubbers and others have been used by the heavy chemical industry for decades. I have first hand experience of working on them as far back as the '60's.

    CO2 scrubbers could be a part of all air conditioning units.

  • 6

    zichi

    Star-viking

    Japan is an Earthquake zone, period, which is why there should be no nuclear plants here.

    There are new hydro plants under construction. The 2,350MW Kanagawa plant due online in 2017, and the 1,20MW Omarugawa pant due online 2011.

    As of September 2011, Japan had 1,807 wind turbines generating 2440 MW of power. 1,198 small hydropower plants producing 3,225 MW of power.

    190 generators attached to municipal waste units and 70 independent plants using biomass fuel to produce energy. In 2008, Japan produced 322 million tons of biomass fuel and converted 76% of it into energy.

  • 3

    nandakandamanda

    They must have had some initial trouble working a new foolproof lighter to get this reactor lit up again.

    Unfortunately it is upwind of most of Japan so when one of these SW reactors blows we are all stuffed.

    Even worse is the thought of China building 75 new reactors within the prevailing winds, which blow from the Himalayas to Japan.

  • 4

    zichi

    Star-viking,

    Japan produces about 1,200 million tons of CO2 which is about 4% of the world total of 29,888,121,000 tons.

    I don't think there would be a country in the world which would object to Japan shutting down all its atomic plants even if it meant in the short term and increase in the amount of CO2 produced, provided it also sought ways to reduce the overall total of CO2.

  • 1

    Cricky

    zichi don't bite, you know what you are talking about, thank you by the way. It's Data Vs Dogma. You have the Data. Hope Viking is being well paid for the posts.

  • 3

    Samantha Zoe Aso

    Zichi is right. Probably by this time next year, most of the reactors will be back on line. Radiation and food contamination fears will still be being downplayed........unless we have a big aftershock or another biggie quake.

  • 2

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Time to change over to other kinds of clean energy ASAP!!!

  • 2

    SquidBert

    zichi writes:

    Japan produces about 1,200 million tons of CO2 which is about 4% of the world total of 29,888,121,000 tons.

    Some stats from Wikipedia (list of countries by CO2 emission) to help to put that into perspective for the reader.

    Qatar tops the league by emitting 53.5 tons of CO2 per capita in 2008. US emitted 17.5 tons of CO2 per capita in 2008. Japan emitted 9.9 tons of CO2 per capita in 2008.

    There are also stats show that for GDP/CO2 Japan takes the top position in the world, being the most effective at generating GDP per ton of CO2 released. (Unfortunately, I can not find the source right now, but maybe someone with a stronger google-fu will assist)

    Caveat: I think the stats on that Wikipedia page leave something to be desired, but for a general comparison it is probably OK.

  • 2

    wanderlust

    Everyone paid off? OK. Power on!

  • 0

    okimike67

    Could, should and maybe dont light the bulbs! Yeah, it would be nice if we all could have a panel on the house that produced enoughto meet the demand. Not present and most likely wont be for a long time. Not saying to stop or that supplemental should not be sought.

    The simple FACT, not based on emotion, hypethetical or dreams is that nuke power is the cheapest and cleanest power CURRENTLY available on a commercial basis. This is due to the excessive demand our society puts on the grid.

    The point that made it through the summer without fail is not a good one, it was just luck. Look at the SoCal crash ad the wide reaching effects, due to the grid. Having more capacity is not a bad thing, it keeps the grid from being strained and perhaps crashing. Why do you think the elec co's give incentives to shift consumption??

    I do hope for a better solution in the future but for today...its the best option.

  • 3

    Darren Brannan

    Considering that Japan's nuclear safety organisation RIPPED OFF it's safety procedures from their fuel suppliers EVERYONE should be concerned. Nuclear safety and Japan should not be seen in the same sentence. Oxymoron.

    http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111102p2a00m0na016000c.html

  • -3

    Star-viking

    zichi Nov. 02, 2011 - 11:58AM JST

    The figure of 13,000 sq km of contaminated land across 8 prefectures, with 8,000 of it inside Fukushima Prefecture are not figures by me, because I wouldn't even know how to calculate it. Those are the latest figures issued by the government.

    Do you have a reference handy?

    Figures from ANRE 2003.

    Can you expand on the acronym?

    The price for nuclear is only for construction costs and if the decommissioning costs and the cost of nuclear waste storage for 10,000+ years, the figure of 2,287 would be much greater.

    It would be higher, but as storage is planned for geologically stable areas maintenance would be minimal, if not non-existent if civilization crashes. If we do maintain civilization then we can use some of the 4th generation reactor technologies to 'burn' the waste in reactors to produce power.

    CO2 scrubbers and others have been used by the heavy chemical industry for decades. I have first hand experience of working on them as far back as the '60's.

    There will be a problem of both the amount of CO2 to be absorbed from a power plant, and the need to not block the 'exhaust' from the plant so the power generation is not interrupted.

    CO2 scrubbers could be a part of all air conditioning units.

    Why? is there any combustion occurring in AC units?

  • -3

    Star-viking

    zichi Nov. 02, 2011 - 12:07PM JST

    Japan is an Earthquake zone, period, which is why there should be no nuclear plants here.

    We could say the same thing about dams. As long as power plants are designed to tolerate earthquakes (and this is an evolving thing) then I have no problems with them.

    There are new hydro plants under construction. The 2,350MW Kanagawa plant due online in 2017, and the 1,20MW Omarugawa pant due online 2011.

    Kanagawa and Omuragawa are not technically power plants- they are pumped storage facilities. Renewable, or other energy sources power them to pump water up to a dam up a hill. When power is needed later the water is allowed to flow back downhill to produce power - at 50% efficiency.

    As of September 2011, Japan had 1,807 wind turbines generating 2440 MW of power. 1,198 small hydropower plants producing 3,225 MW of power.

    Do you have references for those? Wind turbines are often rated by 'maximum output', rather than what any one location will actually deliver.

    190 generators attached to municipal waste units and 70 independent plants using biomass fuel to produce energy. In 2008, Japan produced 322 million tons of biomass fuel and converted 76% of it into energy.

    Sorry, but that's meaningless. We need to know how much energy they produced.

  • -1

    Star-viking

    Cricky Nov. 02, 2011 - 02:06PM JST

    zichi don't bite, you know what you are talking about, thank you by the way. It's Data Vs Dogma. You have the Data. Hope Viking is being well paid for the posts.

    Please Cricky - don't bring the 'paid shill' into this. Zichi seems to be a genuine bloke, and you'll have to take my word that I'm a genuine fella.

  • -2

    Star-viking

    zichi Nov. 02, 2011 - 01:35PM JST

    Japan produces about 1,200 million tons of CO2 which is about 4% of the world total of 29,888,121,000 tons.

    And abandonment of nuclear power could lead to an increase of 12 to 14% in CO2 emissions if the shortfall is made up by thermal power plants (as it currently is). Now that is only 4.5% - but when you look to Germany, Switzerland, Belgium - we could be looking at a massive increases in emissions. Let's not forget that with emission as they are we are looking at massive warming - 2+ degrees C globally, but hitting the higher latitudes more (due to the Arctic and Antarctic ice covers retreating). We need to be emitting much less CO2.

    I don't think there would be a country in the world which would object to Japan shutting down all its atomic plants even if it meant in the short term and increase in the amount of CO2 produced, provided it also sought ways to reduce the overall total of CO2.

    That may be the case - but what if the other low-CO2 solutions didn't pan out?

  • 4

    zichi

    Star-viking

    please don't concentrate on my comments so much, I don't have the time to keep responding to all your questions, sorry. I was requested by JT not to include too many links in my comments.

    You are pro nuclear energy and are using the problem of climate change to back up your arguments. Even though I'm an environmentalist the "climate change" still isn't a done deal and many experts also oppose that theory. But I would guess that even without the problem of climate change, you would still be a strong pro nuclear supporter, and whatever I state in my comments will not change you.

    If a dam were to burst it would be far less of a disaster than a nuclear disaster and one that wouldn't take decades to fix. Dams seem to be built to higher earthquake standards than nuclear power plants. If TEPCO had carried out the 600 requests from NISA to update essential equipment we probably wouldn't be having the current nuclear disaster.

    ANRE is the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, Japan.

  • -1

    Star-viking

    okimike67Nov. 02, 2011 - 08:06PM JST

    The point that made it through the summer without fail is not a good one, it was just luck. Look at the SoCal crash ad the wide reaching effects, due to the grid. Having more capacity is not a bad thing, it keeps the grid from being strained and perhaps crashing. Why do you think the elec co's give incentives to shift consumption??

    Up in Tohoku we were running at 98% of capacity - once the floods knocked out our hydro plants. If we had had a hot year (and up until recently we had Japan's record of 40 degrees C) we would have been sweltering, trying to find electricity to power the air conditioners, and looking at a lot of fatalities.

  • 1

    zichi

    Following 3/11, Britain stated it would keep its nuclear power stations but its also looking at other methods of power generation. It operates 19 nuclear reactors at 9 locations. It was one of the first countries to build an atomic plant in 1956. Peak power generation was in 1997 with 26% of total power from atomic plants. By 2004, that dropped to 19.26%, and by 2009, 16%. The country intends to build 8 new plants. The cost of decommissioning atomic plants is increasing, running into tens of billions of sterling pounds.

    Britain is planning to invest more than ¥15 trillion to build a large-scale wind power station in the North Sea with an output equivalent to that of over 30 nuclear reactors.

    http://mdn.mainichi.jp/features/archive/news/2011/08/20110827p2a00m0na008000c.html

  • 1

    zichi

    Japan could reduce its year production of about 1,200 million tons of CO2, by building power plants in other countries using the best type of renewable energy for a particular location. A form of carbon credit. Developing countries get power plants, Japan uses the CO2 saved against its own production.

    The Kyoto Protocol ends next next year, and America never even signed it.

  • 1

    zichi

    Japan produces 1,214 million tons of CO2 every year. This figure is calculated from what industry produces. Britain produces 572 million tons with a per capita production of 9.38 tons which is almost the same as the per capita rate of Japan with 9.54 tons, but the population of Japan is twice that of the UK. These figures don't take into account that Japan has millions of more trees than Britain, which are the most effective CO2 scrubbers. Japan is producing less CO2 than Britain when the those natural scrubbers are considered. There are improvements which could be made to reduce the total CO2 produced by Japan, which does not involve atomic power.

  • 0

    Ranger_Miffy2

    Okimi apparently has not digest the fact of the TRILLIONS of yen that this Fukushima npp 3/11 is going to cost. Give him time, Zichi-san. Okimi is a little slow.

  • 0

    delrennich

    I can see now that the climax from the film Akira is in many ways coming true.

  • -2

    Star-viking

    Star-viking

    please don't concentrate on my comments so much, I don't have the time to keep responding to all your questions, sorry. I was requested by JT not to include too many links in my comments.

    Please at least take on board my corrections then - see my comments about the Hydro dams that aren't actually hydro dams above.

    You are pro nuclear energy and are using the problem of climate change to back up your arguments. Even though I'm an environmentalist the "climate change" still isn't a done deal and many experts also oppose that theory.

    The current figure is that 98% of Climatologists support the theory that humanity is changing the climate. The theory itself makes scientific sense, and we are seeing its effects across a wide range: species migrating rapidly, global temperature increases, acidifying oceans, and melting icecaps.

    But I would guess that even without the problem of climate change, you would still be a strong pro nuclear supporter, and whatever I state in my comments will not change you.

    There is always a chance that something you state might change my opinion - but you have to understand that I have a background in science and engineering, so a lot of things that might seem convincing to a layperson would look dubious to me.

    If a dam were to burst it would be far less of a disaster than a nuclear disaster and one that wouldn't take decades to fix. Dams seem to be built to higher earthquake standards than nuclear power plants. If TEPCO had carried out the 600 requests from NISA to update essential equipment we probably wouldn't be having the current nuclear disaster.

    Dams can wipe out communities down stream - and this has happened in Italy and China, the Chinese incident resulting in about 100,000 deaths. As for TEPCO and NISA, I fear that only building a tsunami wall would have had a positive effect.

    ANRE is the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, Japan.

    Thanks, I will see if I can hunt down the 2003 report.

  • -2

    Star-viking

    zichi Nov. 03, 2011 - 09:03AM JST

    Britain is planning to invest more than ¥15 trillion to build a large-scale wind power station in the North Sea with an output equivalent to that of over 30 nuclear reactors.

    And with a capacity factor of around 30% they'd actually be equivalent to about 9 nuclear reactors - that's not taking into account the need to provide means to store the energy. Ref: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf

  • -2

    Star-viking

    Japan could reduce its year production of about 1,200 million tons of CO2, by building power plants in other countries using the best type of renewable energy for a particular location. A form of carbon credit. Developing countries get power plants, Japan uses the CO2 saved against its own production.

    That would be a good idea.

    These figures don't take into account that Japan has millions of more trees than Britain, which are the most effective CO2 scrubbers. Japan is producing less CO2 than Britain when the those natural scrubbers are considered.

    See http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html - most of Japan's forests are mature, and so are no longer absorbing CO2.

    Besides, don't we want to chop down and burn these trees for biopower?

    There are improvements which could be made to reduce the total CO2 produced by Japan, which does not involve atomic power.

    True, but when you get rid of nuclear power, producing around 25% of Japan's power - then the replacements are going to have to hit that 25% level - just to achieve what we can do now with low carbon emissions.

  • 1

    zichi

    Star-viking,

    "so a lot of things that might seem convincing to a layperson would look dubious to me."

    If that reference is directed at me, I'm not a layperson but a highly qualified engineer with decades of industrial experience, working for some of the world's leading companies.

    On this forum, there's at least one nuclear physicist, and several other scientists opposed to the use of nuclear energy.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in National

View all

View all