I dont know but if I had to guess - a lot of power used used just to push the electricity through the grid, so maybe nuclear just produces such giant megawattages that it covers need + transmission?
But the solar ovens are pretty cool - maybe with zero resistance transmission lines the deserts of NV will power New England
The Australians, imo, have the best residential architecture scene is the world right now. Much of this comes out of the harsh realities and constraints of the genius loci. Have you read Collapse by Jared Diamond? In lays out the case for Australia as an environmental disaster. The Australians are making lemonade out of their lemons.
We on the other hand want to build more coal and nuclear power plants. The nuclear power plants are the biggest carbon offenders on the planet because every kilowatt of electricity they make today will require hundreds, if not thousands of kilowatts, to keep them safe for the next 10,000 years while their nuclear fuel rods are dangerously radioactive. It's a lot like today's deficit spending. We are taxing future generations by merely deferring today's costs.
Again, America could lead the way on solar power. Where are the candidates on this?
if you had 8464 square miles of nuclear power plants you could power the world.
the ausra stuff is pretty badass though.. once 40-50% effiency becomes available commercially a large scale intervention like you suggest would make much more sense.
50%+ is on the way. see university of delaware's research.
this tech is nothing new, to my knowledge the original utility-scale solar plants used frensel (sp) mirror reflectors to superheat water and run turbines.
I find it very, very hard to believe 92sq miles could power the whole US, especially coming from the corporation that makes the tech.
92 x 92. that is a massive land area. imagine driving (or walking, for you new urbanists) 92 miles, making a right turn and driving 92 more miles. all of that being a grid of solar panels. as much as i like alternative energy ideas, i'm not sure that is the way to go.
no, i'm just saying putting it in those terms makes the answer seem less accessible to me. i imagine a realistic alternative energy policy will include some combination of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and yes, even nuclear.
i like your imagination though. big things can come of improbable ideas.
While I think solar is part of the solution, it will never carry 100% of the grid. There are too many deficiencies that need to be worked out.
A big one is the fact that it's dark at night and there's no good way to store energy created in daylight hours for use during the night. I've seen proposals for solar farms around the globe kicking on and keeping a global grid up 24/7...yeah right.
Another problem is while solar is great in places with a lot of sun it doesn't make a ton of sense in places like Seattle. Sure, you can put a ton of panels in the desert but the voltage drop getting that power to New England would negate the usefulness.
Also, "renewables" are not carbon neutral. Solar panels do not just appear out of thin air. It takes raw materials construct them and energy to manufacture them. There's also the transmission lines. Ever looked into how metals are mines and smelted? Not carbon neutral in my book. So, if solar can call themselves "carbon neutral" nuclear should be able to as well.
Nuclear is baseload power. About the only thing you need to make it run is water. Oddly enough something that's lacking in AZ where there's plenty of sun, but relatively plentiful in Pacific NW where sunlight isn't so common. New technologies like pebble-bed reactors are making it safer and more efficient than ever before. I'll gladly deal with some waste storage than make W. Virginia look like Kansas. Face it, without nucler coal will be the only option.
i wasnt attacking the question le bossman
i apologize if it came across that way
just thinking out loud, since that is a good point, and also makes you wonder how much gas is wasted with trucks driving it to gas stations all across the country
the transportation of resources alone uses up a big percentage of those same resources
it would be interesting to see if there is any research on how much is used in transportation, before it even gets to the consumer
large scale electrical generation is typically int 50-70% efficient range. transmission loss is typically cited as being in the 8-12% range. most of the inefficiency is from heat, pollution controls, and transportation of the fuels. of the existing fuels, natural gas has the lowest embedded transportation footprint/processing once a pipeline is laid while nuclear has the highest.
the existing PV technology is between 5-20% efficient at converting the 150watts/m2 of solar energy that hits the surface of the planet- there is no other losses beyond the transmission loss to worry about.
solar thermal electrical generation has the potential to be more efficient (and can generate power in the dark) and then there are the solar chimney variation of solar thermal.
i think the important part is that it is something renewable
yes, maybe the initial setup requires an energy-intensive element to mine and process, but you would hope that its sort of a one time thing
then your solar plant is up and running, and during that time, you have an alternative to oil and coal
and one would hope that there will continue to be developments in more efficient ways to harvest renewable energy.
"Nuclear is baseload power. About the only thing you need to make it run is water. Oddly enough something that's lacking in AZ where there's plenty of sun, but relatively plentiful in Pacific NW where sunlight isn't so common. New technologies like pebble-bed reactors are making it safer and more efficient than ever before. I'll gladly deal with some waste storage than make W. Virginia look like Kansas. Face it, without nucler coal will be the only option."
Let's say you make 1 watt if power from a nuclear reactor.
OK
How many watts of electricity does it take to move and store the spent rods for the next 10,000 years?
100 watts?
1000 watss?
10,000 watts?
Compare that to 50 to 75% transmission loss on power from Arizona to say Washington State.
Then the argument in favor of nuclear energy is absurd.
I don't think the transmission loss on sending the power from Arizona to Seattle or Chicago would be that great.
Again, if for every watt of power I get from nuclear power I have to create 10 or 100 watts or more at a future date to store the spent rods, it makes no sense.
but its also for much shorter distances. i sort of agree with jafidler's original remark that energy in the future will come from a variety of sources, even so-called 'clean coal.' this technology will probably make an exciting contribution but as a one-off way to solve the whole problem seems a bit too good to be true to me. of course i assume we are sort of half-serious here, but as far as i know none of us here are electrical engineers, and i'd assume there would be serious hurdles to overcome in the distribution of power. might make perfect theoretical sense, but it defies the rules of common sense. and the athorities would never allow for power to come from a single source simply for the sake of national security. how to defeat america in a war? attack their one power plant in arizona. besides, who says the people of arizona want a giant portion of their beautiful state covered with solar panels?
make, How do you figure that there is exponential storage fees associated with storing nuclear waste? No plant would ever create waste for the propose of creating just one watt, they would create way more power then what is needed to store it. No? what ever happened to blasting it into space?
nuclear waste really requires power to cool it while it is still "hot" where it is kept in chilled water for a period of something like 100 years. It doesn't take that much energy to chill water.
What i find interesting is why you wouldn't be able to recycle heat in spent fuel rods.
well i guess that's it make, you've sold me man. since we know from wikipedia that the only thing possibly wrong with this idea is null and void, let's get going on getting this thing built tomorrow.
wooohoooo, i'm so there. can we build our own little taliesin/arcosanti style village to stay in while we undertake making the 1,000,000,000,000 panels it will take to construct the grid?!
What we should be thinking about is solar powered metal smelting plants...that is the only way were going to outdo the Chinese. Invention and creative thinking.
i am just friggin' amazed about a group of architects so intent on rationalizing why solar energy just wouldn't work. haven't felt so many negative vibes since i walked by the white house a few months ago.
how about this: how about we just try it, before everyone dumps on it: i mean, we have examples of coal plants, nuclear plants, etc. etc. so why not put some solar in, see how it performs? maybe not the whole 92x92 right off the bat, but enough to test its performance. as far as the material used to make the panels, yes, that uses energy, but the main product, the sun, is free, i repeat, FREE, and will last a good many years. try to beat that with anything else.
92 x 92 miles if south of Florida would make it the 4th largest Caribbean island where there is loads of sunshine. Jafilder the thing is that you really don't want that concentrated in any one location, and is infact a significant reduction in previous solar generation needs. 92 x 92 miles spread across the entire US would be less than all the toll booths added up (granted I'm pulling that statistic from my ass)
for the record, the map makearchitecture shows is of the general area of the deposits, not the mine itself. that would be like showing this picture,
and implying that all of these areas are strip mines. there's no such thing as a mine the size of florida. nor will there ever be such thing as a ~1000 square mile solar array. and i've always been very pro solar power, just for the record. currently, one of the largest solar plants is being installed in arizona, and they have several already. they even have a great program to buy back excess power you produce when you install them on your own home.
also, here is another map of the mining areas in northern alberta. significant environmental degradation for sure, but hardly on the scope of what has been implied here:
this is just an incredibly schizophrenic discussion. we're supposed to be serious about solar power which is great, but we're talking about it in terms that are ridiculous. this reminds a lot of the 70s when people were jacked about environmental causes, but were completely incapable of finding real world solutions hence we descended back into the excesses of the 80s. i find architechno's toll booth idea, while said in jest, to be far more realistic. let's get over the x-men fantasies and put this in terms that are real.
Jafidler,
I agree, with the sentiment.
However, i disagree that people in the 70s etc were unable to come up with real world solutions. Part of the current problem is that people do not like the solutions that have been suggested. Most green tech and green building concepts are not new. Sure effeciencies have gotten better on turbines, solar etc but the fundamentals haven't really changed. Same is true in the realm of urban planning etc.
The real problem is that people want to be able to keep on living and enjoying the same consumerists, easy no pain lifestyle. It is why green washing and green consumerism are all the rage now on Madison Avenue...
Now you could argue that because people aren't willing to use/implement those changes they aren't/weren't "real world".
In my mind the real problem is the lack of political will which is necessary if we are ever going to correct the market forces/prices that have been extertnalized onto the commons rather than being paid for as part of the real price of a good/service/or in this case cheap energy...
In my mind the real problem is the lack of political will
some truth here, but i think things are changing and fast. i would also say that part of the problem is the left itself. how quick leftists are to dismiss initiatives such as leed as simply being "madison ave. green washing." this is perhaps the largest national initiative to implement environmental thinking into the built environment, and what are young architects saying about it? "green washing," instead, "let's build a 92x92 square mile solar panel to power the whole country."
i'll be the first to admit that leed is sterile, it's not enough, but let's face it, in our political climate, that's what we've got to work with and if we don't jump on these boats when they come, i think we face the real risk of alienating people that may not share our ideologies or enthusiasm.
now i don't want this discussion to turn to leed which has been largely talked to death here, so here's a thought piggy backing on architechno's toll booth idea. what if the federal government partnered with costco, walmart, best buy, target, etc. to have them put solar panels on the roofs of all their stores (at least in climates where it made sense)? i think we could get to that 92x92 square mile area pretty fast that way.
The debate of solar vs. nucler is just plain ridiculous. Solar is just not to the level yet where it can generate power the way Americans consume it.
I think solar has to be part of the solution, but it is not the only solution, nor do I belive it ever will be.
My argument is that due to the limitations of solar we need other power generation. The USA has a lot of coal, and given a lights on or lights off scenario that coal will be exploited with bigger consequences than some nuclear waste storage.
My argument for oil exploration is much the same, because you better not fool yourself thinking the environment will get top priority when there are brownouts or shortages of gasoline or the supermarket shelves aren't stocked.
oh, and the wind is FREE as well. here's an article from Business Week on its promise. notice that the blurb under the title points to "the difficulty in building an industry that threatens the status quo". that's very different than the difficulty of how it would perform.
in the same issue, this article on the problems with the economics of nuclear power.
Jul 1, 08 10:48 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
92 x 92 mile area in Arizona
Using Ausra's current solar technologies, all U.S. electric power, day and night, can be generated using a land area smaller than 92 by 92 miles.
Their solar factory goes online today:
http://www.ausra.com/news/releases/080630.html
http://www.ausra.com/technology/
http://www.ausra.com/about/
So why do we need nuclear power plants when this clean power is available today?
you should add this to the news section mA. There are a lot of folks that would be interested in this that do not make it to the forums often.
I dont know but if I had to guess - a lot of power used used just to push the electricity through the grid, so maybe nuclear just produces such giant megawattages that it covers need + transmission?
But the solar ovens are pretty cool - maybe with zero resistance transmission lines the deserts of NV will power New England
The Australians, imo, have the best residential architecture scene is the world right now. Much of this comes out of the harsh realities and constraints of the genius loci. Have you read Collapse by Jared Diamond? In lays out the case for Australia as an environmental disaster. The Australians are making lemonade out of their lemons.
We on the other hand want to build more coal and nuclear power plants. The nuclear power plants are the biggest carbon offenders on the planet because every kilowatt of electricity they make today will require hundreds, if not thousands of kilowatts, to keep them safe for the next 10,000 years while their nuclear fuel rods are dangerously radioactive. It's a lot like today's deficit spending. We are taxing future generations by merely deferring today's costs.
Again, America could lead the way on solar power. Where are the candidates on this?
if you had 8464 square miles of nuclear power plants you could power the world.
the ausra stuff is pretty badass though.. once 40-50% effiency becomes available commercially a large scale intervention like you suggest would make much more sense.
50%+ is on the way. see university of delaware's research.
this tech is nothing new, to my knowledge the original utility-scale solar plants used frensel (sp) mirror reflectors to superheat water and run turbines.
I find it very, very hard to believe 92sq miles could power the whole US, especially coming from the corporation that makes the tech.
sorry 8464 sq. miles.
And we believe the nuclear power industry when they say that nuclear power is "green"?
It's a peer-reviewed study:
http://ausra.com/pdfs/T_1_1_David_Mills_2049.pdf
http://ausra.com/pdfs/SolarPACESMills-Morgan.pdf
92 x 92. that is a massive land area. imagine driving (or walking, for you new urbanists) 92 miles, making a right turn and driving 92 more miles. all of that being a grid of solar panels. as much as i like alternative energy ideas, i'm not sure that is the way to go.
jafidler,
Where's your imagination?
It could be chopped up all kinds of ways. It could be decentralized.
This is food for thought.
Remember the oil sands strip mine in Canada is already this big and getting bigger.
There is seriously a 92x92 strip mine in alberta? Holy crap.
that's one big ass hole.
no, i'm just saying putting it in those terms makes the answer seem less accessible to me. i imagine a realistic alternative energy policy will include some combination of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and yes, even nuclear.
i like your imagination though. big things can come of improbable ideas.
imagine how much electricity it would take to get the power from arizona to the rest of the country.
the oil sand area isn't quite that big, if you look it up on google earth.
Not yet. It's a quarter that size now. Give it 10 years. They are talking about excavating an area the size of Florida.
"imagine how much electricity it would take to get the power from arizona to the rest of the country."
Remember--it's from a carbon neutral source. heat would from the resistance would be the thing to measure.
"imagine how much electricity it would take to get the power from arizona to the rest of the country."
wouldnt it at least be the same as the energy required to drill for oil or coal, package it, ship it and all that?
who knows? what is it an invalid question or something?
While I think solar is part of the solution, it will never carry 100% of the grid. There are too many deficiencies that need to be worked out.
A big one is the fact that it's dark at night and there's no good way to store energy created in daylight hours for use during the night. I've seen proposals for solar farms around the globe kicking on and keeping a global grid up 24/7...yeah right.
Another problem is while solar is great in places with a lot of sun it doesn't make a ton of sense in places like Seattle. Sure, you can put a ton of panels in the desert but the voltage drop getting that power to New England would negate the usefulness.
Also, "renewables" are not carbon neutral. Solar panels do not just appear out of thin air. It takes raw materials construct them and energy to manufacture them. There's also the transmission lines. Ever looked into how metals are mines and smelted? Not carbon neutral in my book. So, if solar can call themselves "carbon neutral" nuclear should be able to as well.
Nuclear is baseload power. About the only thing you need to make it run is water. Oddly enough something that's lacking in AZ where there's plenty of sun, but relatively plentiful in Pacific NW where sunlight isn't so common. New technologies like pebble-bed reactors are making it safer and more efficient than ever before. I'll gladly deal with some waste storage than make W. Virginia look like Kansas. Face it, without nucler coal will be the only option.
i wasnt attacking the question le bossman
i apologize if it came across that way
just thinking out loud, since that is a good point, and also makes you wonder how much gas is wasted with trucks driving it to gas stations all across the country
the transportation of resources alone uses up a big percentage of those same resources
it would be interesting to see if there is any research on how much is used in transportation, before it even gets to the consumer
large scale electrical generation is typically int 50-70% efficient range. transmission loss is typically cited as being in the 8-12% range. most of the inefficiency is from heat, pollution controls, and transportation of the fuels. of the existing fuels, natural gas has the lowest embedded transportation footprint/processing once a pipeline is laid while nuclear has the highest.
the existing PV technology is between 5-20% efficient at converting the 150watts/m2 of solar energy that hits the surface of the planet- there is no other losses beyond the transmission loss to worry about.
solar thermal electrical generation has the potential to be more efficient (and can generate power in the dark) and then there are the solar chimney variation of solar thermal.
The aluminum used in high-tension power lines is the most energy-intensive element to mine and process. Just food for thought.
aqua, check out the second link in the topic to see how this system stores energy for use when the sun isn't shining.
i think the important part is that it is something renewable
yes, maybe the initial setup requires an energy-intensive element to mine and process, but you would hope that its sort of a one time thing
then your solar plant is up and running, and during that time, you have an alternative to oil and coal
and one would hope that there will continue to be developments in more efficient ways to harvest renewable energy.
"Nuclear is baseload power. About the only thing you need to make it run is water. Oddly enough something that's lacking in AZ where there's plenty of sun, but relatively plentiful in Pacific NW where sunlight isn't so common. New technologies like pebble-bed reactors are making it safer and more efficient than ever before. I'll gladly deal with some waste storage than make W. Virginia look like Kansas. Face it, without nucler coal will be the only option."
Let's say you make 1 watt if power from a nuclear reactor.
OK
How many watts of electricity does it take to move and store the spent rods for the next 10,000 years?
100 watts?
1000 watss?
10,000 watts?
Compare that to 50 to 75% transmission loss on power from Arizona to say Washington State.
Then the argument in favor of nuclear energy is absurd.
I don't think the transmission loss on sending the power from Arizona to Seattle or Chicago would be that great.
Again, if for every watt of power I get from nuclear power I have to create 10 or 100 watts or more at a future date to store the spent rods, it makes no sense.
according to wikipedia - "Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 "
^^^ thats for basic aluminum high power transmission lines
but its also for much shorter distances. i sort of agree with jafidler's original remark that energy in the future will come from a variety of sources, even so-called 'clean coal.' this technology will probably make an exciting contribution but as a one-off way to solve the whole problem seems a bit too good to be true to me. of course i assume we are sort of half-serious here, but as far as i know none of us here are electrical engineers, and i'd assume there would be serious hurdles to overcome in the distribution of power. might make perfect theoretical sense, but it defies the rules of common sense. and the athorities would never allow for power to come from a single source simply for the sake of national security. how to defeat america in a war? attack their one power plant in arizona. besides, who says the people of arizona want a giant portion of their beautiful state covered with solar panels?
" i'd assume there would be serious hurdles to overcome in the distribution of power"
Don't assume:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
Here's the facts:
"As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for electricity was 4,000 miles (7,000 km)"
"who says the people of arizona want a giant portion of their beautiful state covered with solar panels?"
Who says that the people of Alberta want a Florida-sized portion of their province turned into a strip mine so Americans can drive SUVs?
make, How do you figure that there is exponential storage fees associated with storing nuclear waste? No plant would ever create waste for the propose of creating just one watt, they would create way more power then what is needed to store it. No? what ever happened to blasting it into space?
nuclear waste really requires power to cool it while it is still "hot" where it is kept in chilled water for a period of something like 100 years. It doesn't take that much energy to chill water.
What i find interesting is why you wouldn't be able to recycle heat in spent fuel rods.
well i guess that's it make, you've sold me man. since we know from wikipedia that the only thing possibly wrong with this idea is null and void, let's get going on getting this thing built tomorrow.
wooohoooo, i'm so there. can we build our own little taliesin/arcosanti style village to stay in while we undertake making the 1,000,000,000,000 panels it will take to construct the grid?!
this year 30 gigawatts of wind power were added that is like building 30 nuclear power plants, but NOT!
y ruin the future with toxic waste?!? oh ya rich old white men need to profit, i forget...
make architecture....I was told Australia was the most expensive place to build in the world from the standpoint of a continent.
What we should be thinking about is solar powered metal smelting plants...that is the only way were going to outdo the Chinese. Invention and creative thinking.
i am just friggin' amazed about a group of architects so intent on rationalizing why solar energy just wouldn't work. haven't felt so many negative vibes since i walked by the white house a few months ago.
how about this: how about we just try it, before everyone dumps on it: i mean, we have examples of coal plants, nuclear plants, etc. etc. so why not put some solar in, see how it performs? maybe not the whole 92x92 right off the bat, but enough to test its performance. as far as the material used to make the panels, yes, that uses energy, but the main product, the sun, is free, i repeat, FREE, and will last a good many years. try to beat that with anything else.
92 x 92 miles if south of Florida would make it the 4th largest Caribbean island where there is loads of sunshine. Jafilder the thing is that you really don't want that concentrated in any one location, and is infact a significant reduction in previous solar generation needs. 92 x 92 miles spread across the entire US would be less than all the toll booths added up (granted I'm pulling that statistic from my ass)
for the record, the map makearchitecture shows is of the general area of the deposits, not the mine itself. that would be like showing this picture,
and implying that all of these areas are strip mines. there's no such thing as a mine the size of florida. nor will there ever be such thing as a ~1000 square mile solar array. and i've always been very pro solar power, just for the record. currently, one of the largest solar plants is being installed in arizona, and they have several already. they even have a great program to buy back excess power you produce when you install them on your own home.
also, here is another map of the mining areas in northern alberta. significant environmental degradation for sure, but hardly on the scope of what has been implied here:
First - Nuclear waste isnt a problem - just shoot it into the sun.
Second - I just heard on Hist Channel all the human crap in the world, if burned, could give us 10% of our electricity. Awesome.
Emilio,
Word.. It may not be the solution but, shesh..
Plus who needs the Arizona desert.
Also, Le Bosmman
Your right the landscape in the image below certainly has it's charm.
Plus, it's not like Calgary and Edmonton need the water from the Athabasca River, right?
this is just an incredibly schizophrenic discussion. we're supposed to be serious about solar power which is great, but we're talking about it in terms that are ridiculous. this reminds a lot of the 70s when people were jacked about environmental causes, but were completely incapable of finding real world solutions hence we descended back into the excesses of the 80s. i find architechno's toll booth idea, while said in jest, to be far more realistic. let's get over the x-men fantasies and put this in terms that are real.
Jafidler,
I agree, with the sentiment.
However, i disagree that people in the 70s etc were unable to come up with real world solutions. Part of the current problem is that people do not like the solutions that have been suggested. Most green tech and green building concepts are not new. Sure effeciencies have gotten better on turbines, solar etc but the fundamentals haven't really changed. Same is true in the realm of urban planning etc.
The real problem is that people want to be able to keep on living and enjoying the same consumerists, easy no pain lifestyle. It is why green washing and green consumerism are all the rage now on Madison Avenue...
Now you could argue that because people aren't willing to use/implement those changes they aren't/weren't "real world".
In my mind the real problem is the lack of political will which is necessary if we are ever going to correct the market forces/prices that have been extertnalized onto the commons rather than being paid for as part of the real price of a good/service/or in this case cheap energy...
some truth here, but i think things are changing and fast. i would also say that part of the problem is the left itself. how quick leftists are to dismiss initiatives such as leed as simply being "madison ave. green washing." this is perhaps the largest national initiative to implement environmental thinking into the built environment, and what are young architects saying about it? "green washing," instead, "let's build a 92x92 square mile solar panel to power the whole country."
i'll be the first to admit that leed is sterile, it's not enough, but let's face it, in our political climate, that's what we've got to work with and if we don't jump on these boats when they come, i think we face the real risk of alienating people that may not share our ideologies or enthusiasm.
now i don't want this discussion to turn to leed which has been largely talked to death here, so here's a thought piggy backing on architechno's toll booth idea. what if the federal government partnered with costco, walmart, best buy, target, etc. to have them put solar panels on the roofs of all their stores (at least in climates where it made sense)? i think we could get to that 92x92 square mile area pretty fast that way.
The debate of solar vs. nucler is just plain ridiculous. Solar is just not to the level yet where it can generate power the way Americans consume it.
I think solar has to be part of the solution, but it is not the only solution, nor do I belive it ever will be.
My argument is that due to the limitations of solar we need other power generation. The USA has a lot of coal, and given a lights on or lights off scenario that coal will be exploited with bigger consequences than some nuclear waste storage.
My argument for oil exploration is much the same, because you better not fool yourself thinking the environment will get top priority when there are brownouts or shortages of gasoline or the supermarket shelves aren't stocked.
oh, and the wind is FREE as well. here's an article from Business Week on its promise. notice that the blurb under the title points to "the difficulty in building an industry that threatens the status quo". that's very different than the difficulty of how it would perform.
in the same issue, this article on the problems with the economics of nuclear power.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.