Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Water for Energy: Systems Integration and Analysis to Address Resource Challenges

  • Nexus of Food, Water, Energy (R Mohtar, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Water for the energy sector is an interdisciplinary challenge that requires new integrated systems knowledge, well-documented case studies that test various decision processes, and both quantitative and qualitative modeling and analyses to support sustainable decision-making. This review paper highlights water requirements of the energy sector and summarizes interdisciplinary research opportunities for sustainable and efficient management of water for energy, and new datasets to inform analysis of water policies and programs affecting energy systems.

Recent Findings

The energy sector depends closely on water resources for primary fuels production (including extraction or cultivation, processing, and refining) and electric power generation in thermoelectric and hydroelectric power plants. While research in these areas has advanced significantly in recent years, questions remain regarding water quality and quantity impacts of emerging technologies and policies in the water-energy sectors, potential for use of alternative water resources, impact of energy portfolio transitions, and tools to aid decision-making under uncertainty.

Summary

Water is essential for energy production and power generation processes. Projected transitions in energy portfolios and water for energy policy hold the potential to both mitigate or exacerbate water stress, therefore motivating a critical need for systems integration and analysis approaches that can guide the development of cost-effective, resource-efficient, and resilient systems and services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Associated Press. Drought could shut down nuclear power plants. January 23, 2008. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22804065/ns/weather/t/drought-could-shut-down-nuclear-power-plants/#.WLYt1hjMyqA.

  2. California Energy Commission. Drought Impacts California’s Energy; Governor Brown’s Response Plan (Executive Order B-29-15). http://www.energy.ca.gov/drought/.

  3. O’Grady E. Drought adds to 2012 Texas power supply worry. October 18, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/utilities-texas-drought-idAFN1E79H1L620111018.

  4. Walsh B. How climate change and the monsoons affect India’s blackouts. July 31, 2012. http://science.time.com/2012/07/31/how-climate-change-and-the-monsoons-affect-indias-blackouts/.

  5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.

  6. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release: Annotated Summary of Two Cases. U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2016).pdf.

  7. Medlock KB III. Modeling the implications of expanded US shale gas production. Energy Strat Rev. 2012;1:33–41. doi:10.1016/j.esr.2011.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gleick PH. Water and energy. Annu Rev Energy Environ. 1994;19:267–99. doi:10.1146/annurev.eg.19.110194.001411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. King CW, Webber ME. Water intensity of transportation. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42:7866–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Twomey KM, Beal CM, King CW, Webber ME. Biofuels: an energy and water conundrum. World Energy Monitor 2012:3.

  11. • Lampert DJ, Cai H, Elgowainy A. Wells to wheels: water consumption for transportation fuels in the United States. Energy Environ Sci 2016:vol:pp. doi:10.1039/c5ee03254g. This paper reports updated life-cycle water consumption results for a wide range of transportation fuels.

  12. Maupin MA. Kenny JF, Hutson SS, Lovelace JK, Barber NL, Linsey KS. Estimated use of water in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405 2014.

  13. Solley WB, Pierce RP, Perlman HA. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200 1998.

  14. •• Sanders KT. Critical review: uncharted waters? The future of the electricity-water nexus. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;49:51–66. This critical review provides a detailed overview and future directions of water use for electric power generation.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Department of Energy, 2014. Secretary science and energy on the water-energy nexus: challenges and opportunities. Department of Energy Available at http://energy.gov/under-secretary-science-and-energy/downloads/water-energy-nexus-challenges-and-opportunities.

  16. van Vliet MTH, Yearsley JR, Ludwig F, Vögele S, Lettenmaier DP, Kabat P. Vulnerability of U.S. and European electricity supply to climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2012;2(9):676–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bartos MD, Chester MV. Impacts of climate change on electric power supply in the western United States. Nat Clim Chang. 2015;5(1):748–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cook MA, King CW, Todd Davidson F, Webber ME. Assessing the impacts of droughts and heat waves at thermoelectric power plants in the United States using integrated regression, thermodynamics, and climate models. Energy Rep. 2015;1(1):193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tidwell VC, Bailey M, Zemlick KM, Moreland BD. Water supply as a constraint on transmission expansion planning in the western interconnection. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:124001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. • van Vliet MTH, Wiberg D, Leduc S, Riahi K. Power-generation system vulnerability and adaptation to changes in climate and water resources. Nat Clim Chang. 2016; doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2903. This paper examines the climate change impacts on hydroelectric and thermoelectric power plants globally.

  21. van Vliet MTH, Sheffield J, Wiberg D, Wood EF. Impacts of recent drought and warm years on water resources and electricity supply worldwide. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:124021. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Talati S, Zhai H, Kyle GP, Morgan MG, Patel P, Liu L. Consumptive water use from electricity generation in the southwest under alternative climate, technology, and policy futures. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:12095–104. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b01389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bloomfield HC, Brayshaw DJ, Shaffrey LC, Coker PJ, Thornton HE. Quantifying the increasing sensitivity of power systems to climate variability. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:124025. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Henry CL, Pratson LF. Effects of environmental temperature change on the efficiency of coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:9764–72. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b01503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hanlon, P., Madel, R., Olson-Sawyer, K., Rabin, K., & Rose, J. (2013). Food, water and energy: know the nexus, 32. Retrieved from http://gracelinks.org/1828/food-water-and-energy-know-the-nexus.

  26. • Grubert EA. Water consumption from hydroelectricity in the United States. Adv Water Resour. 2016;96(1):88–94. This paper reports net and gross water consumption from hydropower operations.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sovacool BK, Sovacool KE. Identifying future electricity-water tradeoffs in the United States. Energ Policy. 2009;37(7):2763–73. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Environmental Protection Agency. Scoping materials for initial design of EPA research study on potential relationships between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency; 2010. Available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/3B745430D624ED3B852576D400514B76/$File/Hydraulic+Frac+Scoping+Doc+for+SAB-3-22-10+Final.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mauter MS, Alvarez PJJ, Burton A, Cafaro DC, Chen W, Gregory KB, et al. Regional variation in water-related impacts of shale gas development and implications for emerging international plays. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(15):8298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Grubert EA, Beach FC, Webber ME. Can switching fuels save water? A life cycle quantification of freshwater consumption for Texas coal- and natural gas-fired electricity. Environ Res Lett. 2012;7:045801. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Scanlon BR, Reedy RC, Nicot JP. Will water scarcity in semiarid regions limit hydraulic fracturing of shale plays? Environ Res Lett. 2014;9:124011. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nicot JP, Reedy RC, Costley RA, Huang Y. Oil & gas water use in Texas: update to the 2011 mining water use report. Jackson School of Geosciences and The University of Texas at Austin: Bureau of Economic Geology; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gallegos, T. J., Bern, C. R., Birdwell, J. E., Haines, S. S., & Engle, M. (2015). The role of water in unconventional in situ energy resource extraction technologies. Food, energy, and water: the chemistry connection, edited by Ahuja S., editor, 183–215.

  34. •• Scanlon BR, Reedy RC, Nicot JP. Comparison of water use for hydraulic fracturing for unconventional oil and gas versus conventional oil. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:12386–93. doi:10.1021/es502506v. This paper provides a detailed comparison of water use for production of conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nicot JP, Scanlon BR. Water use for shale-gas production in Texas, U.S. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46(6):3580–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Weingarten M, Ge S, Godt JW, Bekins BA, Rubinstein JL. High-rate injection is associated with increase in U.S. mid-continent seismicity. Science. 2015;348(6241):1336–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Choy GL, Rubinstein JL, Yeck WL, McNamara DE, Mueller CS, Boyd OS. A rare moderate-sized (MW 4.9) earthquake in Kansas: rupture process of the Milan, Kansas, earthquake of 12 November 2014 and its relationship to fluid injection. Seismol Res Lett. 2016;87(6):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Torres L, Yadav OP, Khan E. A review on risk assessment techniques for hydraulic fracturing water and produced water management implemented in onshore unconventional oil and gas production. Sci Total Environ. 2016;539:478–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner N, Darrah TH, Kondash A. A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(15):8334–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Chiu Y-W, Walseth B, Suh S. Water embodied in bioethanol in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(8):2688–92. doi:10.1021/es8031067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Twomey KM, Stillwell AS, Webber ME. The unintended energy impacts of increased nitrate contamination from biofuels production. J Environ Monit. 2010;12:218–24. doi:10.1039/b913137j.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants Volume 1: bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity. 2013 DOE/NETL-2010/1397.

  43. Stillwell AS, King CW, Webber ME, Duncan IJ, Hardberger A. The energy-water nexus in Texas. Ecol Soc. 2011;16:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. C. Kutscher, Gladden, C. (2006). Wet-dry cooling for power plants, Parabolic Trough Technology Workshop, Incline Village, Nevada, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2006.

  45. Thermosyphon Cooler Hybrid System for Water Savings in Power Plants, Technology Insights: A Report from EPRI’s Innovation Scouts, 2012.

  46. Western Resource Advocates. (2011). Every Drop Counts - Valuing the Water Used to Generate Electricity. Western Resource Advocates.

  47. Macknick J, Newmark R, Heath G, Hallett KC. Operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of existing literature. Environ Res Lett. 2012;7(4):045802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. DeNooyer TA, Peschel JM, Zhang Z, Stillwell AS. Integrating water resources and power generation: the energy-water nexus in Illinois. Appl Energy. 2016;162(1):363–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Peer RAM, Garrison JB, Timms CP, Sanders KT. Spatially and temporally resolved analysis of environmental trade-offs in electricity generation. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:4537–45. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b05419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Peer RAM, Sanders KT. Characterizing cooling water source and usage patterns across US thermoelectric power plants: a comparative assessment of self-reported cooling water data. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:124030. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa51d8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. EPRI. Water & Sustainability (Volume 3): U.S. Water Consumption for Power Production—The Next Half Century. Electric Power Research Institute 2002. Report 1006786.

  52. Fthenakis V, Kim HC. Life-cycle uses of water in U.S. electricity generation. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2010;14(7):2039–48. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of the Interior, History of the Clean Water Act 2012. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act.

  54. Peredo-Alvarez VM, Bellas AS, Trainor-Guitton WJ, Lange I. Mandate a man to fish?: technological advance in cooling systems at U.S. thermal electric plants. Water Resour Res. 2016;52:1418–26. doi:10.1002/2015WR017676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Macknick J, Sattler S, Averyt K, Clemmer S, Rogers J. The water implications of generating electricity: water use across the United States based on different electricity pathways through 2050. Environ Res Lett. 2012;7(4):045803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Raptis CE, van Vliet MTH, Pfister S. Global thermal pollution of rivers from thermoelectric power plants. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:104011. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Raptis CE, Pfister S. Global freshwater thermal emissions from steam-electric power plants with once-through cooling systems. Energy. 2016;97:46–57. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Miara A, Vörösmarty CJ. A dynamic model to assess tradeoffs in power production and riverine ecosystem protection. Environ Sci Processes Impacts. 2013;15:1113–26. doi:10.1039/c3em00196b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Madden N, Lewis A, Davis M. Thermal effluent from the power sector: an analysis of once-through cooling system impacts on surface water temperature. Environ Res Lett. 2013;8:035006. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Williams, E. D. and J. E. Simmons. (2013). Water in the energy industry: an introduction. BP International Ltd. http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/sustainability/group-reports/BP-ESC-water-handbook.pdf.

  61. Water Constraints on Energy Production: Altering our Current Collision Course, Synapses Energy Economics Civil Society Institute, 2013.

  62. EPA: “Data gaps” block verdict on fracking, drinking water. (2016, December 13). Retrieved January 15, 2017, from http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/12/13/epa-data-gaps-block-verdict-on-fracking-drinking-water/.

  63. Mazdiyasni O, AghaKouchak A. Substantial increase in concurrent droughts and heatwaves in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:11484–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.1422945112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Gray D. 25-year agreement allows Denver to reduce Shoshone water right. Post Independent January 9, 2007. http://www.postindependent.com/news/25-year-agreement-allows-denver-to-reduce-shoshone-water-right/.

  65. Rahm D. Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: the case of Texas. Energ Policy. 2011;39(5):2974–81. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ferrell SL, Adams DC, Kizer MA, Engle DM, Ott C. The Oklahoma Water Law Handbook. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service E-10106.

  67. Loew A, Jaramillo P, Zhai H. Marginal costs of water savings from cooling system retrofits: a case study for Texas power plants. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:104004. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Stillwell AS, Clayton ME, Webber ME. Technical analysis of a river basin-based model of advanced power plant cooling technologies for mitigating water management challenges. Environ Res Lett. 2011;6:034015. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Stillwell AS, Webber ME. Novel methodology for evaluating economic feasibility of low-water cooling technology retrofits at power plants. Water Policy. 2013;15:292–308. doi:10.2166/wp.2012.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Tidwell VC, Macknick J, Zemlick K, Sanchez J, Woldeyesus T. Transitioning to zero freshwater withdrawal in the U.S. for thermoelectric generation. Appl Energy. 2014;131(1):508–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Li H, Chien S-H, Hsieh M-K, Dzombak DA, Vidic RD. Escalating water demand for energy production and the potential for use of treated municipal wastewater. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45(10):4195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Stillwell AS, Webber ME. Geographic, technologic, and economic analysis of using reclaimed water for thermoelectric power plant cooling. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(8):4588–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Barker ZA, Stillwell AS. Implications of transitioning from de facto to engineered water reuse for power plant cooling. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(10):5379–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Glazer YR, Kjellsson JB, Sanders KT, Webber ME. Potential for using energy from flared gas for on-site hydraulic fracturing wastewater treatment in Texas. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2014;1(7):300–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Barbot E, Vidic NS, Gregory KB, Vidic RD. Spatial and temporal correlation of water quality parameters of produced waters from Devonian-age shale following hydraulic fracturing. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(6):2562–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Scanlon BR, Reedy RC, Male F, Hove M. Managing the increasing water footprint of hydraulic fracturing in the Bakken Play, United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:10273–81. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b01375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Tiedeman K, Yeh S, Scanlon BR, Teter J, Shankar MG. Recent trends in water use and production for California oil production. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:7904–12. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b01240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Nicot JP, Scanlon BR, Reedy RC, Costley RA. Source and fate of hydraulic fracturing water in the Barnett Shale: a historical perspective. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:2464–71. doi:10.1021/es404050r.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Meng M, Chen M, Sanders KT. Evaluating the feasibility of using produced water from oil and natural gas production to address water scarcity in California’s Central Valley. Sustainability. 2016;8:1318. doi:10.3390/su8121318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Proposed Resolution by the California State Lands Commission Regarding Once-through Cooling in California Power Plants, Technical Report, California State Lands Commission, 2006.

  81. Chini CM, Schreiber KL, Barker ZA, Stillwell AS. Quantifying energy and water savings in the U.S. residential sector. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:9003–12. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b01559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Engström RE, Howells M, Destouni G, Bhatt V, Bazilian M, Rogner HH. Connecting the resource nexus to basic urban service provision—with focus on water-energy interactions in New York City. Sustain Cities Soc. 2017; doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.007.

  83. Stillwell AS, Twomey KM, Osborne R, Greene DM, Pedersen DW, Webber ME. An integrated energy, carbon, water, and economic analysis of reclaimed water use in urban settings: a case study of Austin, Texas. J Water Reuse Desalination. 2011;1(4):208–23. doi:10.2166/wrd.2011.058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Chen S, Chen B. Urban energy-water nexus: a network perspective. Appl Energy. 2016;184:905–14. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Chini CM, Konar M, Stillwell AS. Direct and indirect urban water footprints of the United States. Water Resour Res. 2017;53:316–27. doi:10.1002/2016WR0194373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. King, C.; Stillwell, A.; Twomey, K.; Webber, M. (2013). Coherence between water and energy policies. Natural Resources Journal 53(1), 117-[iv].

  87. Hussey K, Pittock J. The energy-water nexus: managing the links between energy and water for a sustainable future. Ecol Soc. 2012;17(1) doi:10.5751/ES-04641-170131.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Texas A&M WEF Nexus initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

    Ashlynn S. Stillwell

  2. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Ahmed M. Mroue, Tyler Hussey & David Burnett

  3. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Joshua D. Rhodes, Margaret A. Cook & Michael E. Webber

  4. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA

    Joshua B. Sperling

Authors
  1. Ashlynn S. Stillwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmed M. Mroue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua D. Rhodes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Margaret A. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joshua B. Sperling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tyler Hussey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Burnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael E. Webber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashlynn S. Stillwell.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Ashlynn S. Stillwell, Ahmed M. Mroue, Joshua B. Sperling, Tyler Hussey, David Burnett, and Michael E. Webber declare no conflicts of interest.

Joshua D. Rhodes is an equity partner in IdeaSmiths LLC, which consults on topics in the same areas of interests. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of Texas at Austin in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.

Margaret A. Cook reports her recent employment with Apache Corporation as of May 30, 2017.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

FEW Nexus Workshop on Integrated Science, Engineering, and Policy: A Multi Stakeholder Dialogue. January 26–27, 2017, College Station Texas

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Nexus of Food, Water, Energy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stillwell, A.S., Mroue, A.M., Rhodes, J.D. et al. Water for Energy: Systems Integration and Analysis to Address Resource Challenges. Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep 4, 90–98 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-017-0081-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-017-0081-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation