So, umm.....about that oil in Iraq....
September 24, 2003 6:53 AM   Subscribe

Wind Power cheaper than coal, electric car does 0 to 60 in 3.7 w/300 mile cruising range

It's official: wind power is now cheaper than electricity from Coal, Stanford Researchers report in a study published in the Journal Science. Quiz for Metafilter science wonks: how much of current US energy consumption could be supplied by spending 200 billion dollars on wind turbines?

Meanwhile...Powered by 6800 lithium-ion batteries, the Tzero "from zero to 100 and through the quarter mile, will run with, or beat, the $281,000 Lamborghini Murci
posted by troutfishing (53 comments total)

 
For some reason my post got truncated. Maybe that's for the best, but here is the whole thing:

electric car does 0 to 60 in 3.7 w/300 mile cruising range

It's official: wind power is now cheaper than electricity from Coal, Stanford Researchers report in a study published in the Journal Science. Quiz for Metafilter science wonks: how much of current US energy consumption could be supplied by spending 200 billion dollars on wind turbines?

Meanwhile...Powered by 6800 lithium-ion batteries, the Tzero "from zero to 100 and through the quarter mile, will run with, or beat, the $281,000 Lamborghini Murciélago, the $224,000 Ferrari 575M Maranello or the $440,000 Porsche Carrera GT. And do it cleanly and quietly." Top speed is only about 100 mph, but what fun getting there. Is the Tzero a Hypercar? - [The Hypercar was concieved by futurists at RMI to address the fact that only 15 to 20% of the energy used by the average gas powered car actually gets to the wheels, and only 1% is actually used to move the passenger.]
posted by troutfishing at 6:57 AM on September 24, 2003


"And do it cleanly..."

Except, you know, for mining and manufacturing materials for 6800 Li-Ion cells and disposing of them when they reach the end of their very finite lifecycle. Is there really a net gain in (arguably hard to quantify) "cleanness" when electrical energy storage involves huge batteries with a very limited lifespan comprised of nonrenewable material? Where does the mountain of batteries that won't hold a charge any more go?

I don't know, but I pray someone is trying to find out.
posted by majick at 7:15 AM on September 24, 2003


majick, this might answer some of your questions.
posted by stonerose at 7:26 AM on September 24, 2003


majick, the batteries are manufactured and disposed of somewhere else, so we don't care. All we care about is cleanness here, not there. Sheesh.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:29 AM on September 24, 2003


Actually, MrMoonPie, that's the point.

Gas engine byproducts need to be exhausted immediately. You can't control where you exhaust them, other than not letting a running engine go there.

Now, you can scrub them -- but scrubbers are heavy and expensive. Thus, the whole idea of electric cars is moving the pollutants (namely, whatever creates the electricity, and whatever disposes of the batteries) to places where we can control them, rather than spewing them out into the atmosphere.

You can build one 1,000 megawatt plant, or 1,000 one megawatt plants -- but to put scrubbers on 1000 small plants will cost far more than one big plant, despite the fact that the big plant will need a much larger scrubber system.

Similarly, you can't control the disposal of gas engine exhaust -- but you can control the disposal of the batteries.

Electric cars aren't truly zero-pollution. Nothing that does work is -- thermodynamics insists on that. Electric cars, however, let us control where the waste products go far more than gas engines do -- about the only thing we don't control is waste heat (thermodynamics, again.)

The difference between waste and pollution is you control waste. Waste isn't ideal -- but it's far better than random pollution. Personally, I like my skies blue and my waters not flammable.
posted by eriko at 7:48 AM on September 24, 2003


I do need to note, though, that the image of having to replace 6800 AA sized batteries is compelling.
posted by eriko at 7:50 AM on September 24, 2003


Of course to generate anything near to usable levels of power (ie to power say a medium sized city) you'd have to pave the country side with hundreds of thousands of giant windmills which would destroy more natural wildlife habitat and kill more birds than coal has ever done...
posted by PenDevil at 7:54 AM on September 24, 2003


Darn, PenDevil. My vision was that they'd just airlift them into the forests between the trees.
posted by VulcanMike at 8:02 AM on September 24, 2003


I hate being pedantic, but the Lambo does the quarter mile in 12.6 seconds.
posted by machaus at 8:03 AM on September 24, 2003


Quiz for Metafilter science wonks: how much of current US energy consumption could be supplied by spending 200 billion dollars on wind turbines?

This is actually a more complex question than it appears.
Firstly, if we assume that wind turbines in the US are currently about $1000/kW installed, then $200 Billion gives us 200GW of installed capacity. Converting this to actual electricity produced is very dependent on where the turbines are located geographically as output has a cubic relationship with wind speed (ie windspeed x2 = energy x8). A typical turbine will return 2,300 hours of full load operation per year, 2,300x200=460TWh per year. US supply in 2001 was 582TWh, against a demand of 501TWh, so this much wind could, in theory, provide a very large chunk of US electricity needs.
However, this is the simplified version, a number of complexities must be considered before the figures become meaningful. Firstly, this level of investment will see the prices of the technology fall rapidly, typically we see an 18% price reduction for every doubling of capacity, current world capacity is about 32GW, so guesstimate about a 40% reduction in price over the period of the support. Likely additional benefits include the potential for considerable US based manufacturing, plus knowledge creation that will see a US-centred export industry, potentially with significant job creation in more rural areas to support construction closer to turbine sites. There are currently an estimated 112,000 jobs in the industry worldwide.
Now the negatives: Wind is intermittent, it requires significant levels of back-up capacity to ensure security of supply. The evidence is that this becomes a significant cost once the intermittent generators account for between 10-20% of capacity, and continues to climb as capacity increases. On this basis alone it is unrealistic to have wind provide more than, at best 50%, of energy needs. Investment in other renewable technologies, alongside wind, will best serve a totally renewable electricity future. Examples of possible future technologies include biomass, wave and tidal stream technology. Biomass (essentially growing and then burning plant matter) in particular has the potential for large scale use in both electricity and heat production.
It is likely that considerable investment will also be required on distribution networks if large amounts of generating capacity are to be added to them. This is also likely to require changes in regulation regarding network operation and is likely to have political implications regarding investment in these.
finally, the way in which the investment is provided to the new technology will play a major role in the rate of installation and in how fast the price is brought down. There is evidence to suggest that countries which rely on market mechanisms (such as the Renewable Portfolio Standards applied in many US states) experience less success in reducing investment risk in new capacity than is the case in nations employing non-competitive mechanisms such as the German tariff mechanism. The level of investment quoted here however, is likely to overcome a lot of barriers.

To address Pendevil's remark, the UK currently has 1030 turbines, with a combined capacity of 587MW, they provide enough power to support an estimated 386,000 homes (about a medium sized city). This includes older, smaller turbines - by using the newer multi-Megawatt turbines this number of homes could be supported with considerably less turbines (<170 if GE-Wind 3.6MW turbine is used). Also, while groups of turbines take up large fields, their footprint is less than 98% of the land available, leaving the rest to be used as farmland or left undisturbed.
Further to this, the US has the potential to employ considerable offshore capacity.
posted by biffa at 8:09 AM on September 24, 2003


Of course to generate anything near to usable levels of power (ie to power say a medium sized city) you'd have to pave the country side with hundreds of thousands of giant windmills which would destroy more natural wildlife habitat and kill more birds than coal has ever done...

Bullshit. Pure, utter, bullshit. Read the articles next time, and do a little research. And visit western PA, or West VA sometime.
posted by Cerebus at 8:14 AM on September 24, 2003


Thanks for the informed comments biffa!
posted by gwint at 8:19 AM on September 24, 2003


We have a couple of windfarms around my area (northern Iowa), and the main problem with them is that the country folk are pissed because they get shit for TV reception. On the other hand, lying on the ground and staring up at one of those things while stoned is definitely an experience I'd recommend to anyone.
posted by angry modem at 8:40 AM on September 24, 2003


Firstly, if we assume that wind turbines in the US are currently about $1000/kW installed, then $200 Billion gives us 200GW of installed capacity.

But to scale it up, you'd start having to spend nontrivial amounts of money in legal battles with NIMBY-ites who don't want their view "spoiled." Except in west Texas, where anything is better to look at than that godforsaken landscape.

I like the stuff, but I wonder how well it scales up. It's one thing to remove a few utterly insignificant gigawatts here and there from atmospheric energy. But what would extracting multiple terawatts, presumably primarily from small areas of high, predictable wind, do to weather patterns? If anything, of course -- what I really wonder is how much energy we could extract from the atmosphere (or from ocean thermal energy) before we start seeing Unintended Consequences, especially if we're tapping it at what sound like choke-points.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:51 AM on September 24, 2003


I was going to say pretty much exactly what biffa said, but I'm too paranoid my browser will crash 85% of the way through typing it in. That's why it is my custom to limit my comments always to brief, snarky asides.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:53 AM on September 24, 2003


Of course to generate anything near to usable levels of power (ie to power say a medium sized city) you'd have to pave the country side with hundreds of thousands of giant windmills

Most large windfarms these days are offshore. Yes there is still some concern for bird life. But for me windfarms look like something intelligent beings would build.
posted by carfilhiot at 8:53 AM on September 24, 2003


But to scale it up, you'd start having to spend nontrivial amounts of money in legal battles with NIMBY-ites who don't want their view "spoiled." Except in west Texas, where anything is better to look at than that godforsaken landscape.


Call me trivial, but I find the lines of wind turbines aesthetically pleasing. The last time I was in SoCal (near Palm Springs) I saw tons of the things and I was utterly fascinated by them.

Are there any power companies, communities or any other concentrations of people who rely solely on wind power in the US?
posted by TeamBilly at 9:01 AM on September 24, 2003


me snark like flanders to, but me dum
posted by putzface_dickman at 9:18 AM on September 24, 2003


If anything, of course -- what I really wonder is how much energy we could extract from the atmosphere before we start seeing Unintended Consequences, especially if we're tapping it at what sound like choke-points.

The studies seem to indicate that its impossible to tell the difference in airflow once you get a few hundred metres downwind of a turbine. Bear in mind that we're talking about taking a trivial amount of energy out of the entire atmosphere. Would you care to expand upon what you mean by choke points?

Most large windfarms these days are offshore.

Actually, that's not true. There's only 260.75MW offshore at the moment, compared with at least 32,000MW onshore. There is likely to be increasing movement offshore over the next few years though. the Uk alone has put out 1500MW of offshore licenses, has 6000MW more on offer and is likely to offer even more in the next year or too.

Call me trivial, but I find the lines of wind turbines aesthetically pleasing. The last time I was in SoCal (near Palm Springs) I saw tons of the things and I was utterly fascinated by them.

This is actually an important point as it adds considerably to acceptance of new windfarms. The evidence seem s to be that most people do favour them, and that approval figures go up after construction.
Nimbyism is a problem and can have degrees of impact dependent on the nature of the local planning process. Key methods for dealing with this are community involvement and encouraging local economic interest, be it through local/co-operative ownership of turbines, increased local employment opportunities or land rental.
posted by biffa at 9:19 AM on September 24, 2003


My vision was that they'd just airlift them into the forests between the trees.

They're big propellers; let them airlift THEMSELVES in, using wind power.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:28 AM on September 24, 2003


About the car, maximum range 100 miles, recharge time one hour. Looks like they haven't really solved the other problem yet.
posted by rusty at 9:41 AM on September 24, 2003


biffa: And there was me thinking you were a psychic ;-)
Thanks for a very understandable explanation...

[on preview] explanations
posted by i_cola at 9:42 AM on September 24, 2003


Wind is intermittent, it requires significant levels of back-up capacity to ensure security of supply.

Isn't that where hydrogen comes in, as a way to store power and smooth out the supply curve while staying clean?
posted by alms at 9:42 AM on September 24, 2003


By the way, Great Britain is on a crash course to derive about 10% of it's energy from wind in 10 years or so. Ambitious.

As Global Warming feeds more energy into global weather, it probably would be smart to grab some of that energy which otherwise will be expressed as high winds, storms, etc.

I doubt we can grab enough of it to make a difference though.

The cost of solar is dropping too. Bear that in mind. Furthermore, conservation and energy efficiency technologies "produce" (the negawatt concept) energy even cheaper than wind or coal. So if we negawatt at one end and wind/solar at the other, we may be able to actually meet a decent percentage of current energy consumption.

Meanwhile - what about the cool electric sports car?
posted by troutfishing at 9:43 AM on September 24, 2003


biffa - thanks for the analysis btw.
posted by troutfishing at 9:44 AM on September 24, 2003


Er, should have put this in above, but amusingly this means that the electric car's actual top speed over anything greater than 100 miles is a rip-snorting fifty miles per hour (drive 100 miles in first hour, sit still and recharge in second hour).
posted by rusty at 9:44 AM on September 24, 2003


And after 15,000 to 20,000 miles, be prepared to sink $3,000 into it for a new battery pack.
posted by rusty at 9:48 AM on September 24, 2003


There is likely to be increasing movement offshore over the next few years though

yeah, that's what i meant to say :)
posted by carfilhiot at 10:18 AM on September 24, 2003


Isn't that where hydrogen comes in, as a way to store power and smooth out the supply curve while staying clean?

Possibly, but it would require significant additional capital costs, which is already one of the major barriers to expansion. You'd have to invest in equipment for manufacturing the hydrogen and for combusting it (or alternatively, whatever it is that fuel cells do), as well as the turbine itself.

Great Britain is on a crash course to derive about 10% of it's energy from wind in 10 years or so.

Minor correction, the target is for 10% renewables, not just wind, a third of it is supposed to come from biomass. The most ambitious country is Denmark, its target for renewables is 20% this year. Most of this will come from wind. There have apparently been some nights where wind has provided in excess of 100% of Danish electricity needs. Denmark has interconnections with Norway, Sweden and Germany and shunts any excess their, or draws in power should wind be insufficient for its needs.
posted by biffa at 10:19 AM on September 24, 2003


Possibly, but it would require significant additional capital costs, which is already one of the major barriers to expansion.

Not sure why this is an issue, we don't store electricity now, its all created on demand.
posted by soren at 10:26 AM on September 24, 2003


See also Australia's solar tower as another way to produce clean energy, and the Tango, another electric car.
posted by homunculus at 10:30 AM on September 24, 2003


Soren- because wind isn't created on demand.
posted by crazy finger at 10:30 AM on September 24, 2003


Speaking of storing energy from wind turbines, what about pumping water? Can't we just pump water into dams when there is a surplus and then let it loose when the wind dies down at night?

Also, studies on wind show that the peaks and troughs of wind turbine electricity production correspond rather well with current electricity usage. The wind is strongest during the two big peaks of electricity use on the average day and so the whole storage problem may be less of a issue than we are making it out to be.
posted by crazy finger at 10:34 AM on September 24, 2003


The cost of solar is dropping too. Bear that in mind.

My son and I were just talking about wind farms and whether there was any way to have them gather solar energy at the same time. I haven't found much yet - this looks very interesting, but the conspiracy-theory page design scares me. Anybody know whether this is being tried and/or whether the physics preclude gathering both forms of energy at once? Or even through the same unit? What I mean is, does a change in design to enhance the gathering of one come at a reduction in efficiency in gathering the other? Anybody?
posted by soyjoy at 10:36 AM on September 24, 2003


studies on wind show that the peaks and troughs of wind turbine electricity production correspond rather well with current electricity usage. The wind is strongest during the two big peaks of electricity use on the average day and so the whole storage problem may be less of a issue than we are making it out to be

This can be true, but is dependent on the major demand characteristics of a network. It is more likely to be true in colder places where the major demand is for heating applications (eg N.Europe), less likely to be true where the major demand is for air conditioning (eg Texas).

The intermittency issue is a problem with regard to network planning and the balancing of electricity supply and demand and internittency is generally punished in most market based regulatory systems.
posted by biffa at 10:41 AM on September 24, 2003


Bear in mind that we're talking about taking a trivial amount of energy out of the entire atmosphere.

I have no idea of the total amount of energy contained in wind; it's entirely possible that you could power the world with it, even when everyone in China and India has a/c too.

Then again, maybe it ain't. It's not like I'm saying that we're going to make all the wind go away, but how much energy can we remove from a big, complex dynamic system like global windflows before it does something weird and chaotic, like shoots over to some new attractor?

Would you care to expand upon what you mean by choke points?

Wind farms won't extract a little bit of energy from everywhere. AFAICT, there are fairly well-defined "rivers" of air that windfarms tap into. How much energy can you suck from a particular river before it does something undesirable? Think of it in water terms -- if we're tapping the Gulf Stream for energy, how much can we safely suck out before it turns off or takes a different route or whatever?

It's not a big deal, but just one of those things I think about WRT a few hundred years from now when there are, say, 8--10 billion people each with per-capita energy consumption well beyond current developed-world levels.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:04 AM on September 24, 2003


ROU_Xenophobe - I'm sure others understand the science better than me, but we aren't in a closed system. The sun is constantly pumping all kinds of energy into our weather. A lot of that probably gets bled off through erosion. I'm not sure what the impact of removing some of that from the system is, but we may as well move electrons as dust around.
posted by willnot at 11:09 AM on September 24, 2003


One of my projects in school was to design a wind turbine, there are a lot of interesting factors that go into designing one. There are two major types of windmills, the horizontal axis wind turbine (the ones that look like propellers that you see most of the time) and the vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT).

Some of the issues with a horizontal axis turbines are that most are fixed orientation, so they can only be used in areas where the wind direction is relatively fixed. This is usually not a problem in canyons and passes, but obviously limits the options as to where you can put them. Also, since the wind velocity gets higher the farther you get from the ground, because of laminar effects, you want the turbine to be as high as possible. Simple task, you might think, but in fact there are some big challenges there as well. First of all, you have to simply support the weight of the propeller and the generator (you want the generator at the top of the tower so that you don't have mechanical transmission losses down to the base of the tower). The weight of the assembly can be significant, a generator is just an electric motor in reverse, and many of you know how heavy those can be since they are basically just magnets and coils of wires. You also want the propeller itself to be as large as possible since the amount of energy you can capture relates directly to the size. In addition to supporting all of this weight, the tower also has to be able to withstand the vibration caused by the rotating propeller, any unbalance in the blades can cause significant vibration (ever driven a car with an unbalanced tire). Vibration causes fatigue failures and the taller the tower is, the more likely it is that you will hit a resonant frequency which can amplify the loads on the tower and cause stress cracks.

The advantages of going to a vertical axis wind turbine are that you can catch wind from any direction and also that the bulk of the weight is located at the base of the machine (pictures here). They are not without problems though, and you don't see too many of them. As I said above, the highest winds are farther off the ground and it is difficult to mount the VAWTs on tall towers. Even the smaller ones are usually held by guy wires and the resonant frequency issues I talked about with the tower can be even worse with the tall blades. Since the generator is on the ground though, and it spins in an axis perpendicular to the ground, you can use mechanical energy storage methods, like flywheels pretty easily. High speed, composite flywheels are proving to be very efficient mechanisms to store power from varying sources.

All wind turbines have some major drawbacks. They must be located in windy areas to be economical, and very windy areas tend to be far from population centers, so transmission losses take a bite. Also, turbines are loud and not suited to be near residences even if they are in windy areas. Maintenance is a big issue. Bearings get hot and seize up if they are not properly taken care of. Maintaining thousands of individual wind turbines is costly, particularly when you have to travel across fairly rugged terrain and climb towers to service each one.

Another problem with wind turbines is that it often takes some energy to get the started, to overcome the effects of static friction. You have to build in some sensors to detect if there is enough wind to make economical energy (ie you can sell the watts for more than it cost in wear and tear on your turbine) and then you have to limit the speed of your turbine in high winds to prevent mechanical failure. It would be nice to think that you could harness a hurricane, but the loads on the bearings and the blades themselves would tear the device apart.

I've rambled on long enough, just thought I'd add some details about the joys of wind turbines.
posted by jonah at 11:13 AM on September 24, 2003


horizontal axis turbines are that most are fixed orientation

That's not true any more, though it may once have been, the big turbines manufactured today are all capable of turning themselves. Also, they tend not to be very noisy these days either.

Interestingly enough though, there is quite a lot of evidence that the standard three blade turbine generally used for large scale generation these days is less efficient than the two bladed version, and may be less efficient than the vertical axis turbine (ie one where the blades sit on the horizontal plain). The reason that this is the case (in simple terms) is that the three bladed horizontal turbines were the first to be commercially successful and no-one has been prepared to make the necessary investment to catch the others up.

Xenophobe: I'll try and dig up some stats showing the energy in the atmospheric system, but it won't be tonight. Pretty much what willnot said. You may be able to find something here if you're interested.
posted by biffa at 11:28 AM on September 24, 2003


Regarding land use for wind power: using this as an assumption, then to generate 20% of the total US demand would need about 16,000 square miles spread over the whole US. That's a square about 125 miles on a side. That's not that bad really, when you consider that windmills can be placed in farmlands, much as farmers in the west rent space to the oil companies for their iron horses. The real stumbling block looks like the capital required.
posted by bonehead at 11:38 AM on September 24, 2003


If global warming is a problem, what if we extract the heat from our atmosphere? Two birds, one stone?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:50 AM on September 24, 2003


I still think I like the solar tower better. It's such an elegant solution to the problem of wind availability.
posted by Cerebus at 1:59 PM on September 24, 2003


fff: You need a temperature differential to make it work; that's thermodynamics. Unfortunately, air is not a good way to conduct heat through a pump. Seawater, however, might work better.
posted by Cerebus at 2:05 PM on September 24, 2003


More on electric hybrids: Purolator courier is scheduled to buy two thousand hybrid vehicles.
posted by philfromhavelock at 2:11 PM on September 24, 2003


Combine the wind turbines with the space elevatorltower thing recently linked here and put some turbines up in the jet stream.
posted by kindall at 2:13 PM on September 24, 2003


Kindall, someone has already suggested having turbines on kites, to take them up to higher speed windflow. (PDF - scroll to page 5 of document)
posted by biffa at 2:59 PM on September 24, 2003


Speaking of storing energy from wind turbines, what about pumping water? Can't we just pump water into dams when there is a surplus and then let it loose when the wind dies down at night?

I believe there's a plant in Wales that does just this. Pumps water up during periods of excess power, and uses it to turn turbines during excess load.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:06 PM on September 24, 2003


The US land surface receives on the order to 10 million TWh of solar energy per year, which drives the wind. You can safely assume that tapping a few hundred of that would be hardly noticed. It is not going to change the local weather or the climate.
posted by JackFlash at 4:07 PM on September 24, 2003


Of course to generate anything near to usable levels of power (ie to power say a medium sized city) you'd have to pave the country side with hundreds of thousands of giant windmills which would destroy more natural wildlife habitat and kill more birds than coal has ever done...

Bullshit. Pure, utter, bullshit. Read the articles next time, and do a little research. And visit western PA, or West VA sometime.
posted by Cerebus at 1:14 PM on September 24


Exlon is the company that owns windfarms near me in Somerset, PA. From Exlon's own website:

9-megawatts – total output

Located in Somerset, PA.
Began Operation in October 2001.
Somerset Wind Farm consists of six 1.5-megawatt turbines that will produce about 25,000 megawatt-hours of electricity or enough electricity annually to supply about 3,400 homes.


Not bad for just six windmills. That comes pretty close to covering the needs of that town's electrical supply. Plus I don't think there has ever been a time I haven't seen the windmills going, even in the summer.
posted by whirlwind29 at 4:21 PM on September 24, 2003


Speaking of storing energy from wind turbines, what about pumping water? Can't we just pump water into dams when there is a surplus and then let it loose when the wind dies down at night? ... I believe there's a plant in Wales that does just this.

No need to go all the way to Wales, there's one in Michigan.
posted by kindall at 9:25 PM on September 24, 2003


whirlwind29: Are these what you're talking about? From the photo the windmills look no more obstrusive than transmission towers.
posted by philfromhavelock at 9:52 PM on September 24, 2003


philfromhavelock, yep. :) I was also reading where they go in winds starting around 8 mph and run at maximum efficiency at 20 mph. And no they don't look all that obtrusive. There are a few more farms in the works that will be much larger than this one. When you think about it, farms like this don't take up much more space than your standard coal fired plant(I have one of those about 1 mile away). Plus you don't have to see the steam and smoke coming out of a wind farm from miles away like you do with a coal fired plant.
posted by whirlwind29 at 11:59 AM on September 25, 2003


"Combine the wind turbines with the space elevatorltower thing recently linked here and put some turbines up in the jet stream." ( Kindall)

"...someone has already suggested having turbines on kites, to take them up to higher speed windflow." (biffa)

Kindall, Biffa - No: We'll get the turbines up there in automated blimps which will beam the juice down Tesla style!
posted by troutfishing at 2:49 PM on September 25, 2003


« Older Psychedelic Flash...  |  Massachusetts governor has new... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments