- ข้อความ
- ประวัติศาสตร์
Figure 1 Biorefinery thermalenergy
Figure 1 Biorefinery thermal
energy efficiency (MJ L−1 ethanol) in
corn-ethanol production; previous
estimates (found in EBAMM and
GREET) are compared to more
recent survey data from
natural-gas-powered dry mills in the
Corn Belt. Estimates are labeled by
survey organization, survey number
as described in the Methodology
section, and year of biorefinery
operation in parentheses. Standard
deviations of survey results are
shown with error bars. EBAMM =
RG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model;
GREET = Greenhouse Gases,
Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use
in Transpor tation.
(high-yield, progressive crop and soil manage-
ment) or biorefinery operation and coproduct
use (closed loop). Dry-mill types are linked with
average corn production for the U.S. Midwest,
Iowa (IA), Nebraska (NE) or a progressive no-
tillage irrigated high-yield cropping system in
Eastern NE (Verma et al. 2005; see table 1).
The NE state average cropping system was ad-
ditionally coupled with three additional biore-
finery configurations: (1) a natural-gas-powered
dry-mill producing only wet distillers grains and
solubles (DGS) based on a survey of four plants
in NE (NE-NGW); (2) a closed-loop biorefin-
ery assumes that a natural-gas-powered dry-mill
ethanol plant is located adjacent to a cattle feed-
lot that uses all the wet DGS in feed rations
and that the manure and urine are collected as
feedstock for an anaerobic digestion (AD) unit,
which produces methane to power the ethanol
plant thermal energy inputs (NE-CL); and (3) a
coal-powered dry-mill biorefinery that produces
dry DGS is based on data from Energy and En-
vironment Analysis, Inc. (2006; NE-Coal; see
table 1).
Results and Discussion
LCA of Biorefinery Types
The majority of current U.S. corn-ethanol
biorefineries are dry mills (82% of total U.S. pro-
duction capacity in 2006; RFA 2008), as opposed
to wet mills that separate gluten from starch be-
fore fermentation, and nearly all of these facilities
are powered by natural gas. Likewise, most of the
plants under construction are also dry mills pow-
ered by natural gas. The results we report here
are based on a representative cross-section of this
type of biorefinery; they are derived from sur-
veys of individual facilities located in six Corn
Belt states that accounted for 23% of total U.S.
ethanol production in 2006 (1.13 billion gallons).
The results from our analyses indicate a
substantial decrease in the amount of thermal
energy required by these natural-gas-powered
corn-ethanol biorefineries compared to earlier es-
timates (see figure 1). The estimates of biore-
finery energy use from the most recent surveys
show remarkable consistency, even though the
data were obtained independently and represent
a wide geographical distribution within the Corn
Belt. These recent survey values for biorefinery
energy use are used in the LCA results that fol-
low based on the default scenarios analyzed by
the BESS software.
The eight corn-ethanol scenarios had net en-
ergy ratio (NER) values from 1.29 to 2.23 and
GHG intensities ranging from 31 to 76 gCO2e
MJ−1 (see table 1). For the most common biore-
finery types, which are represented by the first
five scenarios, NER ranged from 1.50 to 1.79,
energy efficiency (MJ L−1 ethanol) in
corn-ethanol production; previous
estimates (found in EBAMM and
GREET) are compared to more
recent survey data from
natural-gas-powered dry mills in the
Corn Belt. Estimates are labeled by
survey organization, survey number
as described in the Methodology
section, and year of biorefinery
operation in parentheses. Standard
deviations of survey results are
shown with error bars. EBAMM =
RG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model;
GREET = Greenhouse Gases,
Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use
in Transpor tation.
(high-yield, progressive crop and soil manage-
ment) or biorefinery operation and coproduct
use (closed loop). Dry-mill types are linked with
average corn production for the U.S. Midwest,
Iowa (IA), Nebraska (NE) or a progressive no-
tillage irrigated high-yield cropping system in
Eastern NE (Verma et al. 2005; see table 1).
The NE state average cropping system was ad-
ditionally coupled with three additional biore-
finery configurations: (1) a natural-gas-powered
dry-mill producing only wet distillers grains and
solubles (DGS) based on a survey of four plants
in NE (NE-NGW); (2) a closed-loop biorefin-
ery assumes that a natural-gas-powered dry-mill
ethanol plant is located adjacent to a cattle feed-
lot that uses all the wet DGS in feed rations
and that the manure and urine are collected as
feedstock for an anaerobic digestion (AD) unit,
which produces methane to power the ethanol
plant thermal energy inputs (NE-CL); and (3) a
coal-powered dry-mill biorefinery that produces
dry DGS is based on data from Energy and En-
vironment Analysis, Inc. (2006; NE-Coal; see
table 1).
Results and Discussion
LCA of Biorefinery Types
The majority of current U.S. corn-ethanol
biorefineries are dry mills (82% of total U.S. pro-
duction capacity in 2006; RFA 2008), as opposed
to wet mills that separate gluten from starch be-
fore fermentation, and nearly all of these facilities
are powered by natural gas. Likewise, most of the
plants under construction are also dry mills pow-
ered by natural gas. The results we report here
are based on a representative cross-section of this
type of biorefinery; they are derived from sur-
veys of individual facilities located in six Corn
Belt states that accounted for 23% of total U.S.
ethanol production in 2006 (1.13 billion gallons).
The results from our analyses indicate a
substantial decrease in the amount of thermal
energy required by these natural-gas-powered
corn-ethanol biorefineries compared to earlier es-
timates (see figure 1). The estimates of biore-
finery energy use from the most recent surveys
show remarkable consistency, even though the
data were obtained independently and represent
a wide geographical distribution within the Corn
Belt. These recent survey values for biorefinery
energy use are used in the LCA results that fol-
low based on the default scenarios analyzed by
the BESS software.
The eight corn-ethanol scenarios had net en-
ergy ratio (NER) values from 1.29 to 2.23 and
GHG intensities ranging from 31 to 76 gCO2e
MJ−1 (see table 1). For the most common biore-
finery types, which are represented by the first
five scenarios, NER ranged from 1.50 to 1.79,
0/5000
Figure 1 Biorefinery thermalenergy efficiency (MJ L−1 ethanol) incorn-ethanol production; previousestimates (found in EBAMM andGREET) are compared to morerecent survey data fromnatural-gas-powered dry mills in theCorn Belt. Estimates are labeled bysurvey organization, survey numberas described in the Methodologysection, and year of biorefineryoperation in parentheses. Standarddeviations of survey results areshown with error bars. EBAMM =RG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model;GREET = Greenhouse Gases,Regulated Emissions, and Energy Usein Transpor tation.(high-yield, progressive crop and soil manage-ment) or biorefinery operation and coproductuse (closed loop). Dry-mill types are linked withaverage corn production for the U.S. Midwest,Iowa (IA), Nebraska (NE) or a progressive no-tillage irrigated high-yield cropping system inEastern NE (Verma et al. 2005; see table 1).The NE state average cropping system was ad-ditionally coupled with three additional biore-finery configurations: (1) a natural-gas-powereddry-mill producing only wet distillers grains andsolubles (DGS) based on a survey of four plantsin NE (NE-NGW); (2) a closed-loop biorefin-ery assumes that a natural-gas-powered dry-millethanol plant is located adjacent to a cattle feed-lot that uses all the wet DGS in feed rationsand that the manure and urine are collected asfeedstock for an anaerobic digestion (AD) unit,which produces methane to power the ethanolplant thermal energy inputs (NE-CL); and (3) acoal-powered dry-mill biorefinery that producesdry DGS is based on data from Energy and En-vironment Analysis, Inc. (2006; NE-Coal; seetable 1).Results and DiscussionLCA of Biorefinery TypesThe majority of current U.S. corn-ethanolbiorefineries are dry mills (82% of total U.S. pro-duction capacity in 2006; RFA 2008), as opposedto wet mills that separate gluten from starch be-fore fermentation, and nearly all of these facilitiesare powered by natural gas. Likewise, most of theplants under construction are also dry mills pow-ered by natural gas. The results we report hereare based on a representative cross-section of thistype of biorefinery; they are derived from sur-veys of individual facilities located in six CornBelt states that accounted for 23% of total U.S.ethanol production in 2006 (1.13 billion gallons).The results from our analyses indicate asubstantial decrease in the amount of thermalenergy required by these natural-gas-poweredcorn-ethanol biorefineries compared to earlier es-timates (see figure 1). The estimates of biore-finery energy use from the most recent surveysshow remarkable consistency, even though thedata were obtained independently and representa wide geographical distribution within the CornBelt. These recent survey values for biorefineryenergy use are used in the LCA results that fol-low based on the default scenarios analyzed bythe BESS software.The eight corn-ethanol scenarios had net en-ergy ratio (NER) values from 1.29 to 2.23 andGHG intensities ranging from 31 to 76 gCO2eMJ−1 (see table 1). For the most common biore-finery types, which are represented by the firstfive scenarios, NER ranged from 1.50 to 1.79,
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
Figure 1 Biorefinery thermal
energy efficiency (MJ L−1 ethanol) in
corn-ethanol production; previous
estimates (found in EBAMM and
GREET) are compared to more
recent survey data from
natural-gas-powered dry mills in the
Corn Belt. Estimates are labeled by
survey organization, survey number
as described in the Methodology
section, and year of biorefinery
operation in parentheses. Standard
deviations of survey results are
shown with error bars. EBAMM =
RG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model;
GREET = Greenhouse Gases,
Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use
in Transpor tation.
(high-yield, progressive crop and soil manage-
ment) or biorefinery operation and coproduct
use (closed loop). Dry-mill types are linked with
average corn production for the U.S. Midwest,
Iowa (IA), Nebraska (NE) or a progressive no-
tillage irrigated high-yield cropping system in
Eastern NE (Verma et al. 2005; see table 1).
The NE state average cropping system was ad-
ditionally coupled with three additional biore-
finery configurations: (1) a natural-gas-powered
dry-mill producing only wet distillers grains and
solubles (DGS) based on a survey of four plants
in NE (NE-NGW); (2) a closed-loop biorefin-
ery assumes that a natural-gas-powered dry-mill
ethanol plant is located adjacent to a cattle feed-
lot that uses all the wet DGS in feed rations
and that the manure and urine are collected as
feedstock for an anaerobic digestion (AD) unit,
which produces methane to power the ethanol
plant thermal energy inputs (NE-CL); and (3) a
coal-powered dry-mill biorefinery that produces
dry DGS is based on data from Energy and En-
vironment Analysis, Inc. (2006; NE-Coal; see
table 1).
Results and Discussion
LCA of Biorefinery Types
The majority of current U.S. corn-ethanol
biorefineries are dry mills (82% of total U.S. pro-
duction capacity in 2006; RFA 2008), as opposed
to wet mills that separate gluten from starch be-
fore fermentation, and nearly all of these facilities
are powered by natural gas. Likewise, most of the
plants under construction are also dry mills pow-
ered by natural gas. The results we report here
are based on a representative cross-section of this
type of biorefinery; they are derived from sur-
veys of individual facilities located in six Corn
Belt states that accounted for 23% of total U.S.
ethanol production in 2006 (1.13 billion gallons).
The results from our analyses indicate a
substantial decrease in the amount of thermal
energy required by these natural-gas-powered
corn-ethanol biorefineries compared to earlier es-
timates (see figure 1). The estimates of biore-
finery energy use from the most recent surveys
show remarkable consistency, even though the
data were obtained independently and represent
a wide geographical distribution within the Corn
Belt. These recent survey values for biorefinery
energy use are used in the LCA results that fol-
low based on the default scenarios analyzed by
the BESS software.
The eight corn-ethanol scenarios had net en-
ergy ratio (NER) values from 1.29 to 2.23 and
GHG intensities ranging from 31 to 76 gCO2e
MJ−1 (see table 1). For the most common biore-
finery types, which are represented by the first
five scenarios, NER ranged from 1.50 to 1.79,
energy efficiency (MJ L−1 ethanol) in
corn-ethanol production; previous
estimates (found in EBAMM and
GREET) are compared to more
recent survey data from
natural-gas-powered dry mills in the
Corn Belt. Estimates are labeled by
survey organization, survey number
as described in the Methodology
section, and year of biorefinery
operation in parentheses. Standard
deviations of survey results are
shown with error bars. EBAMM =
RG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model;
GREET = Greenhouse Gases,
Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use
in Transpor tation.
(high-yield, progressive crop and soil manage-
ment) or biorefinery operation and coproduct
use (closed loop). Dry-mill types are linked with
average corn production for the U.S. Midwest,
Iowa (IA), Nebraska (NE) or a progressive no-
tillage irrigated high-yield cropping system in
Eastern NE (Verma et al. 2005; see table 1).
The NE state average cropping system was ad-
ditionally coupled with three additional biore-
finery configurations: (1) a natural-gas-powered
dry-mill producing only wet distillers grains and
solubles (DGS) based on a survey of four plants
in NE (NE-NGW); (2) a closed-loop biorefin-
ery assumes that a natural-gas-powered dry-mill
ethanol plant is located adjacent to a cattle feed-
lot that uses all the wet DGS in feed rations
and that the manure and urine are collected as
feedstock for an anaerobic digestion (AD) unit,
which produces methane to power the ethanol
plant thermal energy inputs (NE-CL); and (3) a
coal-powered dry-mill biorefinery that produces
dry DGS is based on data from Energy and En-
vironment Analysis, Inc. (2006; NE-Coal; see
table 1).
Results and Discussion
LCA of Biorefinery Types
The majority of current U.S. corn-ethanol
biorefineries are dry mills (82% of total U.S. pro-
duction capacity in 2006; RFA 2008), as opposed
to wet mills that separate gluten from starch be-
fore fermentation, and nearly all of these facilities
are powered by natural gas. Likewise, most of the
plants under construction are also dry mills pow-
ered by natural gas. The results we report here
are based on a representative cross-section of this
type of biorefinery; they are derived from sur-
veys of individual facilities located in six Corn
Belt states that accounted for 23% of total U.S.
ethanol production in 2006 (1.13 billion gallons).
The results from our analyses indicate a
substantial decrease in the amount of thermal
energy required by these natural-gas-powered
corn-ethanol biorefineries compared to earlier es-
timates (see figure 1). The estimates of biore-
finery energy use from the most recent surveys
show remarkable consistency, even though the
data were obtained independently and represent
a wide geographical distribution within the Corn
Belt. These recent survey values for biorefinery
energy use are used in the LCA results that fol-
low based on the default scenarios analyzed by
the BESS software.
The eight corn-ethanol scenarios had net en-
ergy ratio (NER) values from 1.29 to 2.23 and
GHG intensities ranging from 31 to 76 gCO2e
MJ−1 (see table 1). For the most common biore-
finery types, which are represented by the first
five scenarios, NER ranged from 1.50 to 1.79,
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
รูปที่ 1
* ความร้อนใช้พลังงานอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพ ( MJ L − 1 เอทานอล ) ในการผลิตเอทานอลข้าวโพดก่อน
; ประมาณการ ( พบใน ebamm และ
ทักทาย ) เมื่อเทียบกับการสำรวจข้อมูลล่าสุดเพิ่มเติม
ก๊าซธรรมชาติขับเคลื่อนโรงงานบริการใน
เข็มขัดข้าวโพด . ประมาณการระบุว่าโดยองค์กรเบอร์
แบบสำรวจตามที่อธิบายในส่วนวิธีการ
, และปีของการดำเนินงาน *
ในวงเล็บ . มาตรฐาน
deviations of survey results are
shown with error bars. EBAMM =
RG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model;
GREET = Greenhouse Gases,
Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use
in Transpor tation.
(high-yield, progressive crop and soil manage-
ment) or biorefinery operation and coproduct
use (closed loop). Dry-mill types are linked with
average corn production for the U.S. Midwest,
Iowa (IA),เนแบรสกา ( NE ) หรือการไม่ไถพรวนให้ผลตอบแทนสูงระบบการปลูกพืชในเขตชลประทาน
ทางทิศตะวันออกเฉียงเหนือ ( verma et al . 2005 เห็นตารางที่ 1 ) .
NE รัฐเฉลี่ยการปลูกพืชระบบโฆษณา -
ditionally ควบคู่กับสามเพิ่มเติมบีโอเร -
วิภูษณะการกำหนดค่า ( 1 ) โรงงานผลิตก๊าซธรรมชาติขับเคลื่อน
แห้งเปียกการกลั่นธัญพืชและ
solubles ( DGS ) ตามการสำรวจสี่พืช
Ne ( ne-ngw ) (2) a closed-loop biorefin-
ery assumes that a natural-gas-powered dry-mill
ethanol plant is located adjacent to a cattle feed-
lot that uses all the wet DGS in feed rations
and that the manure and urine are collected as
feedstock for an anaerobic digestion (AD) unit,
which produces methane to power the ethanol
plant thermal energy inputs (NE-CL); and (3) a
coal-powered dry-mill biorefinery that produces
dry DGS is based on data from Energy and En-
vironment Analysis, Inc. (2006; NE-Coal; see
table 1).
Results and Discussion
LCA of Biorefinery Types
The majority of current U.S. corn-ethanol
biorefineries are dry mills (82% of total U.S. pro-
duction capacity in 2006; RFA 2008), as opposed
to wet mills that separate gluten from starch be-
ก่อนการหมัก และเกือบทั้งหมดของเครื่อง
เหล่านี้เป็นพลังงานจากก๊าซธรรมชาติ อนึ่ง ที่สุดของ
พืชภายใต้การก่อสร้างยังมีบริการโรงสี POW -
รด โดยก๊าซธรรมชาติ ผลลัพธ์ที่เรารายงานที่นี่
ขึ้นอยู่กับตัวแทนภาคตัดขวางของประเภทนี้ของ *
; พวกเขาจะได้มาจากซูร์ -
veys ของแต่ละเครื่องอยู่ในหกข้าวโพด
เข็มขัดสหรัฐอเมริกา คิดเป็นร้อยละ 23 ของทั้งหมดอเมริกัน
* ความร้อนใช้พลังงานอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพ ( MJ L − 1 เอทานอล ) ในการผลิตเอทานอลข้าวโพดก่อน
; ประมาณการ ( พบใน ebamm และ
ทักทาย ) เมื่อเทียบกับการสำรวจข้อมูลล่าสุดเพิ่มเติม
ก๊าซธรรมชาติขับเคลื่อนโรงงานบริการใน
เข็มขัดข้าวโพด . ประมาณการระบุว่าโดยองค์กรเบอร์
แบบสำรวจตามที่อธิบายในส่วนวิธีการ
, และปีของการดำเนินงาน *
ในวงเล็บ . มาตรฐาน
deviations of survey results are
shown with error bars. EBAMM =
RG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model;
GREET = Greenhouse Gases,
Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use
in Transpor tation.
(high-yield, progressive crop and soil manage-
ment) or biorefinery operation and coproduct
use (closed loop). Dry-mill types are linked with
average corn production for the U.S. Midwest,
Iowa (IA),เนแบรสกา ( NE ) หรือการไม่ไถพรวนให้ผลตอบแทนสูงระบบการปลูกพืชในเขตชลประทาน
ทางทิศตะวันออกเฉียงเหนือ ( verma et al . 2005 เห็นตารางที่ 1 ) .
NE รัฐเฉลี่ยการปลูกพืชระบบโฆษณา -
ditionally ควบคู่กับสามเพิ่มเติมบีโอเร -
วิภูษณะการกำหนดค่า ( 1 ) โรงงานผลิตก๊าซธรรมชาติขับเคลื่อน
แห้งเปียกการกลั่นธัญพืชและ
solubles ( DGS ) ตามการสำรวจสี่พืช
Ne ( ne-ngw ) (2) a closed-loop biorefin-
ery assumes that a natural-gas-powered dry-mill
ethanol plant is located adjacent to a cattle feed-
lot that uses all the wet DGS in feed rations
and that the manure and urine are collected as
feedstock for an anaerobic digestion (AD) unit,
which produces methane to power the ethanol
plant thermal energy inputs (NE-CL); and (3) a
coal-powered dry-mill biorefinery that produces
dry DGS is based on data from Energy and En-
vironment Analysis, Inc. (2006; NE-Coal; see
table 1).
Results and Discussion
LCA of Biorefinery Types
The majority of current U.S. corn-ethanol
biorefineries are dry mills (82% of total U.S. pro-
duction capacity in 2006; RFA 2008), as opposed
to wet mills that separate gluten from starch be-
ก่อนการหมัก และเกือบทั้งหมดของเครื่อง
เหล่านี้เป็นพลังงานจากก๊าซธรรมชาติ อนึ่ง ที่สุดของ
พืชภายใต้การก่อสร้างยังมีบริการโรงสี POW -
รด โดยก๊าซธรรมชาติ ผลลัพธ์ที่เรารายงานที่นี่
ขึ้นอยู่กับตัวแทนภาคตัดขวางของประเภทนี้ของ *
; พวกเขาจะได้มาจากซูร์ -
veys ของแต่ละเครื่องอยู่ในหกข้าวโพด
เข็มขัดสหรัฐอเมริกา คิดเป็นร้อยละ 23 ของทั้งหมดอเมริกัน
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
ภาษาอื่น ๆ
การสนับสนุนเครื่องมือแปลภาษา: กรีก, กันนาดา, กาลิเชียน, คลิงออน, คอร์สิกา, คาซัค, คาตาลัน, คินยารวันดา, คีร์กิซ, คุชราต, จอร์เจีย, จีน, จีนดั้งเดิม, ชวา, ชิเชวา, ซามัว, ซีบัวโน, ซุนดา, ซูลู, ญี่ปุ่น, ดัตช์, ตรวจหาภาษา, ตุรกี, ทมิฬ, ทาจิก, ทาทาร์, นอร์เวย์, บอสเนีย, บัลแกเรีย, บาสก์, ปัญจาป, ฝรั่งเศส, พาชตู, ฟริเชียน, ฟินแลนด์, ฟิลิปปินส์, ภาษาอินโดนีเซี, มองโกเลีย, มัลทีส, มาซีโดเนีย, มาราฐี, มาลากาซี, มาลายาลัม, มาเลย์, ม้ง, ยิดดิช, ยูเครน, รัสเซีย, ละติน, ลักเซมเบิร์ก, ลัตเวีย, ลาว, ลิทัวเนีย, สวาฮิลี, สวีเดน, สิงหล, สินธี, สเปน, สโลวัก, สโลวีเนีย, อังกฤษ, อัมฮาริก, อาร์เซอร์ไบจัน, อาร์เมเนีย, อาหรับ, อิกโบ, อิตาลี, อุยกูร์, อุสเบกิสถาน, อูรดู, ฮังการี, ฮัวซา, ฮาวาย, ฮินดี, ฮีบรู, เกลิกสกอต, เกาหลี, เขมร, เคิร์ด, เช็ก, เซอร์เบียน, เซโซโท, เดนมาร์ก, เตลูกู, เติร์กเมน, เนปาล, เบงกอล, เบลารุส, เปอร์เซีย, เมารี, เมียนมา (พม่า), เยอรมัน, เวลส์, เวียดนาม, เอสเปอแรนโต, เอสโทเนีย, เฮติครีโอล, แอฟริกา, แอลเบเนีย, โคซา, โครเอเชีย, โชนา, โซมาลี, โปรตุเกส, โปแลนด์, โยรูบา, โรมาเนีย, โอเดีย (โอริยา), ไทย, ไอซ์แลนด์, ไอร์แลนด์, การแปลภาษา.
- พรุ่งนี้คือวันตัดสินของฉัน
- Where do you see yourself in 5 years
- เสป็ค
- What did they not see in the roomMrs ree
- Friedhof militärische Allianz
- คุณพิมพ์ภาษาอังกฤษได้ไหม ฉันไม่เก่งภาษาเ
- Im sommer reisten Meine Familie und ich
- แพทย์
- To change something about a product to w
- My mind
- ภูกระดึงมีธรรมชาติอันสวยสดงดงาม
- ศูนย์อาเซียนศึกษา
- ถ้าฉันไปตอนนี้ได้จะรีบเหาะไปชน
- เพราะเพื่อนฉันเคยเล่าให้ฟัง ตอนที่เธอคุย
- สลบไป
- sedimentation
- Replace the air conditioning and ventila
- the question should be'h0w young am I
- Wait.. huaaaa i cant your name account
- แพทย์
- Overall the system delivers reliable res
- capacity a fuel tank with a capacity of
- I believe we will have underground citie
- เวลาที่ฉันป่วยฉันจะนึกถึงเขา,ฉันอยากให้เ
