1 / 44

ENERGY BALANCES 2010 AND POWER BALANCES 2010/11 June 2007

ENERGY BALANCES 2010 AND POWER BALANCES 2010/11 June 2007. Summary and Conclusions 3 - 4 Forecasts 5 - 11 Simulated energy balances 12 - 21 Estimated power balances 22 - 26 Probability of market failure and system failure 27 - 34 Appendices 35 - 44

Leo
Download Presentation

ENERGY BALANCES 2010 AND POWER BALANCES 2010/11 June 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ENERGY BALANCES2010ANDPOWER BALANCES 2010/11June 2007

  2. Summary and Conclusions 3 - 4 Forecasts 5 - 11 Simulated energy balances 12 - 21 Estimated power balances 22 - 26 Probability of market failure and system failure 27 - 34 Appendices 35 - 44 1. Energy (purpose, definitions, fundamentals) 2. Power (definitions, fundamentals) 3. Energy (retrospect 2006) 4. Power balance (retrospect 2006/07) Prepared by Nordel's Balance Group June 2007 CONTENTS

  3. The annual electricity consumption in the Nordic market is estimated to grow to about 420 TWh by the end of year 2010 (1.5%/a) from 395 TWh in 2006 (not temperature corrected, including electrical boilers). The production in the Nordic market in a year with normal conditions is estimated to be 411 TWh in year 2010, while the maximum available production capacity is 78300 MWh/h (operational reserves excluded). The sum of the national peak demands in average temperature conditions is estimated to grow to 72 000 MWh/h in the winter period 2010/11. The forecast for the corresponding demand in the cold temperature conditions (statistically once in ten years nationally) is 3 700 MWh/h higher (75 700 MWh/h). On the Nordic level this corresponds to a probability of once in 30 to 40 years. Simultaneous peak demand is expected to be 1 700 MWh/h lower. Simultaneous all time high has been 69 000 MWh/h in 2001. Investments in production capacity by the end of 2010 are estimated to increase the installed production capacity by about 7 000 MW. The decided and planned investments would increase the production capability by about 34 TWh/a by end of 2010, including the new nuclear unit in Finland, 13 TWh/a. The new nuclear unit in Finland is included in the power balance 2010/2011, not in the energy balance for 2010. Iceland is presented separately and it is not included in the other figures. SUMMARY OF THE FORECASTS

  4. The Nordic electricity system is able to meet the estimated consumption and the corresponding typical power demand pattern in average conditions even without imports. The energy balance in 2010 and the power balance in 2010/11 are better than the former Nordel estimates. This is due to additional investments in new generation capacity. In order to meet the energy demand in low inflow conditions the Nordic power system needs to import from neighbouring countries. Some areas in Norway can be exposed to a risk of rationing in case of extremely low precipitation. The Nordic production capacity is sufficient to meet without imports the simultaneous peak power demand also in cold conditions. Analysis on security of supply show that all the Nordic countries fulfil the requirements of Nordel and UCTE for both normal winter temperatures and ten year winter temperatures. In a case of a common mode failure in several nuclear power plants (8000 MW) in normal conditions, the Nordic system can experience a difficult situation. However, this is a very unlikely scenario with very low probability. In practice, the balance between Nordic supply and import/export will be based on the prevailing market situation between the Nordic electricity market and the neighbouring markets. CONCLUSIONS

  5. Consumption and demand 6 Additions in production capacity 7 - 8 Changes in interconnection capacity 9 Cross-border trading capacities in 2010 10 Iceland 11 FORECASTS

  6. CONSUMPTION AND DEMAND 1) Probability once in 10 years 2) Sum of national peaks (probability once in 30 to 40 years)

  7. NET ADDITIONS IN GENERATION CAPACITY 2007 to 2010 (decided and planned) • New nuclear unit in Finland 2010/2011 • Many small projects (green certificates) • Available wind capacity at peak is 0% for each country but 6% for Nordic countries together

  8. INSTALLED PRODUCTION CAPACITY(at the end of year)

  9. Interconnections New interconnection NorNed (between Norway and the Netherlands) 700 MW (by end 2007) will increase the transmission capacity to outside Nordel. The interconnection between Jutland and Germany is expected to be upgraded to at least 1500 MW in both directions, presumably even higher in southbound direction, by 2009/2010. Of the five prioritised Nordic grid investments Nea - Järpströmmen between Norway and Sweden is expected to be commissioned in autumn 2009. The other prioritised grid investments are scheduled as followed: Great Belt, 600 MW connection between Eastern and Western Denmark, is expected to be commissioned 2010. Fenno-Skan 2, 800 MW new capacity on the connection between Finland and Sweden, is expected to be commissioned at the turn of the year 2010/11. South link in Sweden, investment decision is taken, but the technical solution is not decided, and therefore also not the capacity. Expected to be commissioned in 2013. Skagerrak 4, a Letter of Intent for the project is signed. According to the time schedule connection can be commissioned in 2012. CHANGES IN INTERCONNECTIONS

  10. AVAILABLE CROSS BORDER TRADING CAPACITIES AT THE END OF 2010, MW 30 100 0 100 RU 1750 Finland Sweden Norway 1460 0 3550 3350 2050 Of the five prioritised Nordic grid investments, Nea - Järpströmmen is expected to be commissioned by 2010. 350 700 1000 670 EST 600 350 630 700 1750 NL 600 1000 1350 PL 600 600 1500 Denmark-W Denmark-E D 1500 600 600

  11. ICELAND Iceland is not included in the figures elsewhere in the report. The annual energy consumption in Iceland is estimated to grow by about 6.6 TWh by year 2010 (14 %/a) due to one new aluminium plant to be started in 2007 and extensions in existing plants.

  12. Energy balances Average conditions 13 - 16 Low inflow 17 - 18 Extremely low inflow 19 - 21 SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCES 2010

  13. The Simulated Energy Market Balance on pages 14 to 16 illustrates the simulated physical exchanges between areas. The exchange between the Nordic and Continental markets is based on simulations in the Nordic market and the price forecast in the Continental market. The analysis show the situation before the fifth nuclear power plant in Finland is in operation. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010Average conditions • Due to imports the production in the Nordic countries remains remarkably lower than the production capability. • There is remarkable import from Russia. • Net exchange with Central-Europe remains small, with large export in peak situations and large import in off-peak situations. • It is expected that import from Estonia continues despite the closing of the nuclear power plant Ignalina in Lithuania 2009.

  14. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010Average of all inflow years RU 0 0,5 P = Production, simulated C = Consumption B = Balance without energy exchange All units in TWh Finland Sweden Norway P 79 C 95 B -16 P 156 C 153 B 3 P 131 C 135 B -4 Nordel 1,5 4 RU 12 P 411 C 422 -11 EST 2 1 Denmark-W 2 P 28 C 23 B 5 Denmark-E 0,5 P 17 C 16 B 1 2 PL 0 NL 0,5 0 D 0

  15. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010(average of all inflow years) 2000 to 2006 actual values

  16. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010(average of all inflow years) 2000 to 2006 actual values

  17. The Simulated Energy Market Balance on page 18 illustrates the simulated market balance in low inflow conditions. The inflow series used is 1978. It results in hydro power production once in 10 years. The simulation results show compared to average situation: SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010(low inflow) • hydro production is decreased by 17,5 TWh • thermal production is increased by 11 TWh • demand is decreased by 2 TWh (demand response) • import from outside is increased by 4 TWh

  18. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010Low inflow year (1/10 years) RU 0 0,5 P = Production, simulated C = Consumption B = Balance without energy exchange All units in TWh Finland Sweden Norway P 81 C 95 B -14 P 151 C 152 B -1 P 122 (-9) C 134 (-1) B -12 8 Nordel 0 RU 12 P 405 C 420 -15 EST 2 3 Denmark-W 3 P 30 C 23 B 7 Denmark-E 5 P 21 C 16 B 5 NL 0,5 PL 1 1 1 D 0,5

  19. The Simulated Energy Market Balance on page 21 illustrates the simulated market balance in extremely low inflow conditions. The year used is 1970 which followed another low inflow year 1969. It results in the lowest hydro power production among the 50 inflow series used in simulations. In this case water reservoirs are used more than the inflow thus resulting in decreasing water levels. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010(extremely low inflow)

  20. An extremely low inflow corresponds to a reduction of about 41 TWh in hydropower production compared to average conditions (sum of extremes in Finland, Norway and Sweden). The simulation results show that compared to the average of all simulated inflow series: SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (cont.)(extremely low inflow) • hydro power production is decreased by 41 TWh • thermal production is increased by 17 TWh • demand is decreased by 13 TWh (demand response) • import from outside is increased by 11 TWh In a hydro-based system the market price can temporarily be very high during dry years and can result in decreased demand.  Some areas in Norway can be exposed to a risk for rationing or other measures in case of extremely low precipitation.

  21. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010Extremely low inflow year (1/50 years) RU 0 0 P = Production, simulated C = Consumption B = Balance without energy exchange All units in TWh Finland Sweden Norway P 85 C 95 B -10 P 144 C 150 B -6 P 106 (-25) C 125 (-10) B -19 Nordel 4 12 RU 12 P 387 C 409 -22 EST 2 Denmark-W 5 3 P 30 C 23 B 7 Denmark-E 7 P 22 C 16 B 6 1 NL 2 PL 2 2 2 D

  22. Available power capacity and peak demand (average temperature) 23 - 24 Available power capacity and peak demand (temperature once in ten years) 25 - 26 ESTIMATED POWER BALANCES 2010/11

  23. The maximum available production capacity exceeds the peak demand by 8 000 MWh/h. Both sum of national peak demands and simultaneous peak demand is used in the forecasts. The simultaneous peak is estimated to be 1600 MWh/h lower. Considering this the capacity margin is even bigger and exceeds export capacity outside the area. The sum of national peaks corresponds to a probability of once in 30 to 40 years. AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY ANDPEAK DEMAND 2010/11Average winter temperatures • Peak load situation is, like last years balance, remarkably easier than in previous power balances due to investments in new generation capacity . • Every Nordic country is able to meet an average winter day peak demand with its own production capacity. As a whole the Nordic area is able to meet the demand without import. • New nuclear unit in Finland is included in the power balance. This gives a positive balance also for Finland.

  24. AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY ANDPEAK DEMAND 2010/11No exchange between areasAverage winter temperatures P - maximum available production capacity (operational reserves excluded) C - peak demand in each country B - power balance All units in MWh/h Norway P 25200 C 22850 B 2350 Finland P 15400 C 15200 B 200 Sweden Nordic peak values1 P 29700 C 27000 B 2700 P 78300 C 70400 B 7900 Denmark-W Denmark-E P 4600 C 4050 B 550 P 3000 C 2900 B 100 1 Total Nordic values with coincident factors for both wind and demand

  25. The national peak demands correspond a probability of once in ten years. The sum of these corresponds a probability of once in 30 to 40 years. The sum of peak demands in cold conditions is estimated to be 3700 MWh/h higher than in average temperature conditions. The simultaneous peak is estimated to be 1700 MWh/h lower. The power balance is expected to be positive for the Nordic countries in this situation.  Nordic production capacity is sufficient to cover the simultaneous peak demand without import. AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY AND PEAK DEMAND 2010/11Cold winter day

  26. AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY AND PEAK DEMAND 2010/11No exchange between areasTemperatures correspondingto a ten years winter day P - estimated production C - peak demand in each country B - estimated net power exchange export(+)/import(-) All units in MWh/h Norway Finland P 25200 C 24000 B 1200 P 15400 C 16000 B - 600 Nordic peak values1 Sweden P 29700 C 28500 B 1200 P 78300 C 74000 B 4300 Denmark-E Denmark-W P 3000 C 2950 B 50 P 4600 C 4250 B 350 1 Total Nordic values with coincident factors for both wind and demand

  27. PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11 • The probability of market failure is calculated as the expected probability of supply and demand do not meet in the day ahead spot market. Production units used for system reserves are not taken into account. • The probability of system failure is calculated as expected loss of load probability, that means probability that loads have to be disconnected to maintain system security. In this calculation only 600 MW in total are kept for disturbance reserves for system security. • The calculations are made taking into account internal transmission capacities. Import possibilities from neighbouring systems are assumed to be half of the existing capacity. • The calculations are done for three scenarios: • Load level corresponding to average winter temperatures • Load level corresponding to ten years winter temperatures • Largest type of nuclear power plant out of operation in normal conditions (Common mode failure, Nuclear BWR units in Finland and Sweden, 7950 MW)

  28. PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11 • Conclusions: • The probability of market failure is below the required 1‰ in all areas with normal winter temperature and with ten years winter temperature. With lack of approximately 8000 MW nuclear units in Finland and Sweden in normal conditions the probability of market failure is higher than 1‰ in southern Sweden and mid and eastern Norway. • The margins in Norway, Finland and Sweden are between 2000 and 3000 MW in each area with normal winter temperature to the required 1‰ probability of market failure, 300 MW in eastern part of Denmark and 800 MW in the western part. • With 10 years winter temperature the margins decrease especially in Norway and Sweden • The lack of 8000 MW nuclear power in Sweden and Finland has only a minor influence on the margins in Denmark, but in Norway and Sweden the margins to the required 1‰ probability of market failure are negative. This means that in order to solve the situation some of the operational reserves have to be used.

  29. MARGIN TO MARKET FAILURE 2010/11Average winter and 10 years winter MF - Margin to market failure average winter (MW) MF - Margin to market failure 10 years winter (MW) Margin to Nordel's criteria of 1‰ for market failure. Norway Finland In a market failure situation the supply capability is not sufficient to meet the demand in the day ahead market without use of some system reserves. MF 2200 MW MF 1000 MW MF 3000 MW MF 2300 MW Sweden MF 2900 MW MF 1400 MW Denmark.-W Denmark-E MF 800 MW MF 600 MW MF 300 MW MF 200 MW

  30. PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE 2010/11Average winter and 10 years winter MF - Probability of market failure average winter (‰) MF - Probability of market failure 10 years winter (‰) Nordel's probability criteria maximum 1‰. Norway Finland In a market failure situation the supply capability is not sufficient to meet the demand in the day ahead market without use of some system reserves. MF 0.02‰ MF 0.18‰ MF 0.00‰ MF 0.00‰ Sweden MF 0.00‰ MF 0.10‰ Denmark.-W Denmark-E MF 0.00‰ MF 0.00‰ MF 0.00‰ MF 0.00‰

  31. MARGIN TO SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11Average winter and 10 years winter SF - Margin to system failure average winter (MW) SF - Margin to system failure 10 years winter (MW) Margin to Nordel's criteria of 1‰ for system failure. Norway Finland In a system failure situation the supply capability is not sufficient to meet the demand in the operational hour without disconnection of some load. The system reserves (except 600 MW) are included in the supply capability. SF 3000 MW SF 1700 MW SF 3500 MW SF 2700 MW Sweden SF 3900 MW SF 2600 MW Denmark.-W Denmark-E SF 1000 MW SF 800 MW SF 700 MW SF 700 MW

  32. PROBABILITY OF SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11Average winter and 10 years winter SF - Probability of system failure average winter (‰) SF - Probability of system failure 10 years winter (‰) Nordel's probability criteria maximum 1‰. Norway Finland In a system failure situation the supply capability is not sufficient to meet the demand in the operational hour without disconnection of some load. The system reserves (except 600 MW) are included in the supply capability. SF 0.00‰ SF 0.05‰ SF 0.00‰ SF 0.00‰ Sweden SF 0.00‰ SF 0.01‰ Denmark.-W Denmark-E SF 0.00‰ SF 0.00‰ SF 0.00‰ SF 0.00‰

  33. MARGIN TO MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/118000 MW nuclear units out of operation (Common mode failure, Nuclear BWR units) MF - Margin to market failure average winter (MW) SF - Margin to system failure average winter (MW) Margins to Nordel's criteria of 1‰ both for market failure and system failure. The scenario is very unlikely and has a very low probability. In order to solve the situation some of the system reserves have to be used. Norway Finland MF -100 MW SF 1000 MW MF 1200 MW SF 1500 MW Sweden MF -900 MW SF 200 MW Denmark.-W Denmark-E MF 700 MW SF 800 MW MF 300 MW SF 700 MW

  34. PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/118000 MW nuclear units out of operation (Common mode failure, Nuclear BWR units) MF - Probability of market failure average winter (‰) SF - Probability of system failure average winter (‰) Nordel's probability criteria maximum 1‰ both for market failure and system failure. The scenario is very unlikely and has a very low probability. In order to solve the situation some of the system reserves have to be used. Norway Finland MF 1.14‰ SF 0.17‰ MF 0.00‰ SF 0.00‰ Sweden MF 3.67‰ SF 0.75‰ Denmark.-W Denmark-E MF 0.00‰ SF 0.00‰ MF 0.00‰ SF 0.00‰

  35. 1. Energy (purpose, definitions, fundamentals) 36 2. Power (definitions, fundamentals) 37 - 39 3. Energy (retrospect 2006) 40 - 41 4. Power balance (retrospect 2006/07) 42 - 44 APPENDICES

  36. Purpose The purpose of this presentation is to give a picture of the energy balance for each country and the whole Nordic electricity market. Focus is set on production capacity and need for import from the neighbouring countries outside Nordel. Definitions Low inflow = There is a probability of 10 % to obtain energy below the estimated value. Extreme low inflow = There is a probability of 2 % to obtain energy below the estimated value (1 out of 50 years) Fundamentals The exchange between the Nordel countries are market based. Hence it is the spot price that decides flow directions and volumes. The exchange between the Nordel countries and its neighbours is developing towards a market based operation. The method does not necessarily indicate possible problems in certain areas. Forecasted consumption/demand includes demand response during extreme dry years. Forecasted production in the energy balance does not include the 5. nuclear plant in Finland. Consumption/demand includes network losses. Appendix 1ENERGY

  37. Definitions Available capacity = installed capacity - unavailable capacity - reserves Reserves = frequency controlled momentary and fast disturbance reserves. Peak Demand = maximum one hour load in temperature circumstances with occurrence probability one winter during respectively two and ten years, denoted as an average winter day and a cold winter day. Ten years winter. The peak demand is based on a temperature that has an occurrence of one out of ten years in each country separately. A simultaneous peak demand in all the countries at a working day has an occurrence probability less than 7 %. Appendix 2.1POWER

  38. Fundamentals Estimated power exchangetakes into account limitations both in transmissions and production capabilities. The method does not necessarily indicate possible problems in certain areas. Generation Unavailable capacity is based on experiences from earlier peak demand situations. Not available hydropower is approximately 13 % (6000 MW) of installed capacity. Nuclear power output is supposed to be 100 % of full capacity. Availability of other thermal power is reduced by e.g. forced outage rate, max heat production in combined heat and power plants, use of fuel other than oil etc. The available wind power during peak load is assumed to be 0 % in each Nordic country individually, and due to coincidence factor, 6 % for the total of the Nordic countries. Appendix 2.2POWER

  39. Appendix 2.2POWER Demand The coincident factor used for the total consumption of the Nordel is 97,7 % of the sum of the country specific demands. Demand forecast for ten years peak load includes demand response. Reserves Nordel has recommended common fast disturbance reserves. From a total of 5 200 MW (3 200 MW in production capacity and 2 000 MW in dispatch able load ) it can be reduced to a minimum of 600 MW in a connected system without severe bottlenecks before load shedding is executed. The recommended reserves have been subtracted from available production capacity.

  40. Total consumption in 2006 was 395.3 TWh (394.0 TWh in 2005). During spring and summer 2006 the reservoir levels fell far below the long term median due to lack of accumulated snow and due to low precipitation, but much precipitation at the end of the year normalized the hydrologic balance going into 2007. The Nord Pool spot price was relatively high throughout the year, especially for late summer and autumn, due to poor power balance in addition to lack of Swedish nuclear power and high prices of raw material (oil, gas etc.). Demand decreased in all countries except Finland. The increase of demand in Finland was 5.5 TWh, partly because of paper industry dispute in 2005. Demand decreased in Norway by 3.3 TWh mainly due to high energy prices and mild weather. Denmark and Sweden showed minor changes. The total production in 2006 was 383.9 TWh (394.9 TWh in 2005 and 379.3 TWh in 2004).The hydro power production was 199 TWh (222/184 TWh), wind power 8 TWh (8/8 TWh), thermal power excluding nuclear was 97 TWh (73/91 TWh) and nuclear power was 87 TWh (92/97 TWh). In 2006 the Nordel countries together had a net import of 11.4 TWh (0.9 TWh export in 2005, 11.6 TWh import in 2004). The import from Russia was 11.7 TWh, Poland 1.2 TWh while there was a net export of 1.5 TWh to Germany. Appendix 3.1ENERGYRetrospect 2006

  41. 0.1 Appendix 3.2ENERGY BALANCE 2006 [TWh]Retrospect 0.2 Norway 0.2 RU P 121.7 C 122.6 B -0.9 P - productionC - consumption B - energy balance (P-C), export (+) / import (-) Finland P 78.6 C 90.0 B -11.4 3.8 7.7 7.2 3.4 Total Nordel Sweden 11.5 P 383.9 C 395.3 B -11.4 P 140.3 C 146.4 B -6.1 RU 2.3 EST 0 1.8 Denmark-E Denmark-W 1.1 3.9 0.6 P 16.6 C 14.2 B 2.4 P 25.7 C 21.2 B 4.5 1.5 1.0 2.1 1.9 4.2 1.9 0.3 1.6 D D PL 1.5

  42. Synchronous Peak Demand 21 February 2007, hour 18-19 Peak demand this winter was 67 950 MWh/h, while a peak demand with a ten years temperature was estimated to 72 300MWh/h. The total maximum winter peak demand 2000/2001 was 69 000 MWh/h which is the all time high peak demand in the Nordel system. It was very cold in the northern Nordic countries during the winter peak 2006/2007. This seasons peak load was recorded in Norway and Sweden the same hour as the synchronous peak. Compared to estimated peak demand for ten years winter the difference was between 5% and 16% in the individual areas. Country specific peak demands The different Nordic countries had their peaks between January 11 and February 21, 2007. The sum of the individual peaks was 1,5% higher than the synchronous peak. The demand in Finland the 8. of February 2007 was a new all time high, 14900 MWh/h. Appendix 4.1POWER BALANCE, Retrospect 2006/07

  43. Appendix 4.2PEAK LOAD 2006/2007 IN THE TOTAL NORDEL AREA Measured on 21 February 2007, 18 - 19, estimated 1 in 10 years and all time high (average temperature of the day) -12°C Measured consumtion [MWh/h] Forecasted peak demand [MWh/h] (one of 10 winters) All time high [MWh/h] Simultaneous all time high; 5 Feb 2001 [MWh/h] -17°C -15°C Sweden Finland 26 200 28 900 27 000 14 250 15 000 14 900 Norway -22°C Nordel 67 950 72 300 69 000 21 450 22 900 23 050 -11°C -15°C -18°C -12°C -13°C Denmark - W Denmark - E 2 550 3 030 2 700 3 500 4 160 3 780 0°C 0°C 0°C

  44. Appendix 4.3COUNTRY SPECIFIC PEAKDEMAND 2006/07 [MWh/h] P - production C - consumption B - power balance excluding exchange export (+) / import (-) H - hour, CET Norway Sweden Finland P 22830 C 21430 B 1400 21 Feb 07 H 18 - 19 P 23250 C 26200 B -2950 21 Feb 07 H 18 - 19 P 12070 C 14900 B -2830 8 Feb 07 H 06 - 07 P 4130 C 3740 B 390 24 Jan 07 H 17 - 18 P 2310 C 2650 B -340 25 Jan 07 H 17 - 18 Denmark - W Denmark - E

More Related