The problem with this plan and others...
After a person learns a certain amount, they tend to think they know enough to have the answers. It is rare and beautiful thing when you come across someone that knows that we really don't know anything and the only thing that is certain is it is more important to ask the right questions than to think you have the answer. Rest assured, if you are sure you know the answer, you are wrong.
The Pickens Plan sounds great, and I applaud the fact that he is doing something. However, I think that if you start asking questions about what you hear there is much to be desired.
What will happen if we replace >20% of our power generation capabilites with a source that we cannot control? (A gas turbine can be turned on when needed in a relatively short period of time. If the wind isn't blowing, 20% of the country is without power.)
What will the impact of using natural gas in a machine that has an average efficency of 20% (and a maximum of around 40%...automobiles) instead of a machine that averages 40% (gas turbine for electricity generation) and has already acheived 60% efficiency (combined cycle gas turbines) and has not yet reached its limit? (This seems to be contrary to the generally accepted practice of "increasing" efficiency and using resources more wisely.)
How will home utility prices be affected by replacing a cheaper source of power (natural gas) with a more expensive one (wind)? Wind is free, (technically it isn't because land owners have "wind rights" and must be paid for them) but the turbines and service contracts are not.
Why will it take so long for nuclear power to be a player? The technology is 50+ years old and relies on technology that exists today and materials that are readily available. (If you discount nuclear power because it is an unsafe, not well understood technology, consider yourself uneducated because that is not true.)
If you think the solution to the energy crisis is to use a more expensive alternative when a cheaper fuel is available (regardless of the environmental impact) you are either rich or have your head in the clouds.
If you think there is no energy crisis and this is all a government/corporate scheme to get our money, you are under-educated and should rememdy that.
The only way we will shift from fossil fuels (foreign or domestic) is to have a cheaper, as reliable, as available energy source. The way to get there is to penalize people that use energy irresponsibly (in the form of a luxury/wasted resource tax) and use the money to finance whatever improvements are necessary to make other solutions cheaper, as reliable, and as available as fossil fuels.
For example, any retailer that has an open air refrigerator should have to pay a wasted resource tax for cooling their merchandise/the air while using a heating system to keep the air inside the store warm. All that revenue can go to solar engineers to increase efficiency/reduce manufacturing costs of panels.
Any wireless device (that is not for medical use) should have a luxury tax. All the revenue generated can be given to hydrogen fuel research to replace gasoline as automobile fuel. (The technology exists today to make hydrogen for automobiles at $2/gallon and internal combustion engines can operate on hydrogen. The problem is there is not a good way to store hydrogen. That problem could more than likely be solved if funding were available. I am fully aware of the hydrogen debate but don't care. Gasoline engines weren't that great when they were put into use. Improvements are made over time after a product is introduced.)
I don't claim to know everything (or anything). I do know that being rich doesn't make you smart and being smart doesn't mean people will listen to you.
T. Boone has a plan, a lot of money, and should be challenged, not blindly followed. What good will any of this do us if his plan is flawed?
The Pickens Plan sounds great, and I applaud the fact that he is doing something. However, I think that if you start asking questions about what you hear there is much to be desired.
What will happen if we replace >20% of our power generation capabilites with a source that we cannot control? (A gas turbine can be turned on when needed in a relatively short period of time. If the wind isn't blowing, 20% of the country is without power.)
What will the impact of using natural gas in a machine that has an average efficency of 20% (and a maximum of around 40%...automobiles) instead of a machine that averages 40% (gas turbine for electricity generation) and has already acheived 60% efficiency (combined cycle gas turbines) and has not yet reached its limit? (This seems to be contrary to the generally accepted practice of "increasing" efficiency and using resources more wisely.)
How will home utility prices be affected by replacing a cheaper source of power (natural gas) with a more expensive one (wind)? Wind is free, (technically it isn't because land owners have "wind rights" and must be paid for them) but the turbines and service contracts are not.
Why will it take so long for nuclear power to be a player? The technology is 50+ years old and relies on technology that exists today and materials that are readily available. (If you discount nuclear power because it is an unsafe, not well understood technology, consider yourself uneducated because that is not true.)
If you think the solution to the energy crisis is to use a more expensive alternative when a cheaper fuel is available (regardless of the environmental impact) you are either rich or have your head in the clouds.
If you think there is no energy crisis and this is all a government/corporate scheme to get our money, you are under-educated and should rememdy that.
The only way we will shift from fossil fuels (foreign or domestic) is to have a cheaper, as reliable, as available energy source. The way to get there is to penalize people that use energy irresponsibly (in the form of a luxury/wasted resource tax) and use the money to finance whatever improvements are necessary to make other solutions cheaper, as reliable, and as available as fossil fuels.
For example, any retailer that has an open air refrigerator should have to pay a wasted resource tax for cooling their merchandise/the air while using a heating system to keep the air inside the store warm. All that revenue can go to solar engineers to increase efficiency/reduce manufacturing costs of panels.
Any wireless device (that is not for medical use) should have a luxury tax. All the revenue generated can be given to hydrogen fuel research to replace gasoline as automobile fuel. (The technology exists today to make hydrogen for automobiles at $2/gallon and internal combustion engines can operate on hydrogen. The problem is there is not a good way to store hydrogen. That problem could more than likely be solved if funding were available. I am fully aware of the hydrogen debate but don't care. Gasoline engines weren't that great when they were put into use. Improvements are made over time after a product is introduced.)
I don't claim to know everything (or anything). I do know that being rich doesn't make you smart and being smart doesn't mean people will listen to you.
T. Boone has a plan, a lot of money, and should be challenged, not blindly followed. What good will any of this do us if his plan is flawed?
Views: 2
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Bergman on -
That's cool. It's just that you had said that it was too technical for the rest of us to understand enough times that it piqued my curiosity. When you do respond, don't be afraid of being too technical. It won't bother me at all. There was a fair amount of physics involved back when I was studying Mech E.
I'd been holding off on commenting about Yucca Mountain's chances until I'd heard your "technical" argument. Because what I have to say is not very hopeful for that very long delayed and essentially stalemated project which even McCain is backing off from now.
Waiting patiently,
Steve -
-
Permalink Reply by Debra Goldenberg on -
Possibly, which leads to the unanswered question, how does Pickens guarantee that NG home use is transferred to vehicle use?
-
Permalink Reply by b. bullard on -
HELLO BEBRA,
HEY, I HAVE JUMPED IN HIP DEEP INTO THIS PICKEN'S PLAN, HAVE VOICED MY OWN VIEW, AND PROBABLY MADE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAD.
BUT THAT IS OK, AS I LIKE DEBATE.
WHAT I DISLIKE IS NONRESPECT. EVEN THOUGH I HAVE SHOT MY MOUTH OFF.
THERE ARE NO GAURANTEES. LISTEN TO ALL, LISTEN TO YOUR INNER VOICE, AND DECIDE. AND THINK AND RESEARCH.
BE WARY OF PEOPLE WHO COME HERE CLAIMING THIS AND THAT, BUT CAN NOT BACK THERE COMMENTS.
I AM NOT THAT SMART, REALLY. BUT THE COOL PEOPLE ON THIS SITE TALK, DEBATE, AND RESPECT THE OTHERS.
BUT SOME TEND TO FORCE VIEWS, UNDERLINE SENTENCES, USE ASTERICKS, AS IF THAT PROVES THEY ARE EXPERTS.
BLOW IT OFF, FORGET IT.
WHEN YOU READ A LENGTHY, VERY WELL EDUCATED AND WORDED LETTER, BUT WITH NO REFERENCES, SITES FOR FACTS, BLOW IT OFF.
OF THE 98% OF THE PEOPLE I HAVE TALKED TO DO VOICE THERE VIEW. SOME VERY HIGHLY CONTREVERSIBLE, BUT WITH RESPECT, AND THEY LIST WHERE THEY GOT THERE FACTS.
THEY DID NOT JUST STATE SOMETHING AS FACT. THEY BACKED IT.
FOR FUN, A JOKE, DOES ANYONE OUT THERE NO WHAT AN INUENDO IS? IT IS AN ITALIAN SUPPOSITORY. HEY, THAT IS FOR A COUPLE OF DISRESPECTFUL PEOPLE.
I AM JUST ME, THAT IS IT.
BB
-
Permalink Reply by Questions on -
I am all about being respectful and collaborative. It might not come across that way on the internet. I'll work on that.
At risk of sounding petty, when one sighs at anothers statements, one invites snippy childishness. I will attempt to refrain from further childishness until I sense it being directed my way.
About costs: Do your research on wind economics. Wind can be expensive to get into. Not in small part due to the low volume of production of wind turbines. But after the initial investment, each KWH is cheaper.
I could say the same about nuclear. Or any other power source. Or any other machine. Once you build it, it is cheaper to run. The machines still require maintenance and upkeep like any other machine. Service contracts several hundred feet above ground will tend to be more expensive than service contracts at sea level and on dry ground. The technology in a wind turbine is very similar to that found in any other turbine anywhere on earth. How can a machine that employs similar technology with low volume production (and low power density) be cheaper?
I understand the concept of "free" fuel. But the power density can't be ignored, either. Taxes are paid on property, including all the land that has wind turbines on it.
What specfically about wind economics should I research? (I am not being snippy, that is a legitimate question.) If wind were able to result in a higher profit margin for power companies, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Wind generation would have already happened on its own.
Here is one thing I know (or at least think I know) about economics. A company's bottom line is basically the ratio of [profit-taxes]/[capital cost]. Right now, the major benefit of wind (and solar, for companies) is that the taxes have been significantly reduced. Get rid of tax breaks and wind is less desirable.
When is the last time you saw a commerical advertising gasoline? You don't have to because the economics usually take care of themselves.
==
OG&E, so far, has not "made money" on wind power, in the sense that they are selling surplus production. They have "saved money" on production costs with wind power. I personally don't care whether they make money or not. It's not mine. I do care that, as a utility, they have found wind to be cost effective. That is the point, in case you missed it the first time.
I don't think there is such a thing as surplus production in electricity. If you produce it, it has to go somewhere. If they are producing it at a low demand time, they get paid less than they would during high demands. If the prices is too low to allow them to generate enough revenue to pay for the service of their machines, they will shut them down.
In an ISO market, the consumer is protected from artifically inflated prices during low demands. If you are serviced by a utility, they can fix the lowest price to make sure their turbines are serviced.
I would disagree that it isn't your money that they are making. Who pays your utility bill? Where do these companies get the money to sustain power production if it isn't from people like you and me? Personally, I am glad companies make money or they wouldn't be in business.
===
About nuclear:
I probably understand the physics of the fission reactions involved better than you do. Not that I really see that those details are really pertinent to the situation. It's the products and their potential dangers and uses that are relevant here. And yes, I understand the difference between RBMK and PWR reactors very well, thank you very much. PWRs are pretty safe from accidents. Regarding "intentionally produced disasters" (the 'T' word again), your best bet at convincing me that's not an issue would be to show me that pebble-bed reactors are ready to go into service and be competitive. Last I looked they weren't quite there.
With all due respect, you don't know a thing about me or my background, so saying you kn
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Bergman on
-
About surplus electricity:
Power generation, whether it involves wind and solar or not, is always a delicate balancing act. The generators (usually more than one) have be continuously balanced against the load. In this case, the majority of the power is coming from NG generators and being supplemented with wind. The more wind, the less gas. If there *were* enough wind all by itself to exceed local demand, they would sell it. (I'm not exactly certain how those exchanges work.)
About "not my money":
You had pointed out that my city was making money off of wind. I was merely pointing out that it was OG&E that would make any money that *was* made, but that at this point they were only *saving* on fuel costs. Of course, that's good for profit, too. What I was saying was that any money they made is theirs and not mine, and thus I have no direct financial interest in OG&E's wind program. If they are making more money because of wind power, I'm glad though.
Nuclear:
I just want to make a few general comments about nuclear that might make my position on it a bit more clear, because I suspect that you might, understandably, be misjudging it. If it were not for how promising wind is looking these days, nuclear would be my next choice. If a new nuclear plant was constructed in or around my town, I would be pleased, even though I prefer wind. (Almost *anything* is preferable to burning fossil fuels unnecessarily.) I would feel as safe around it as I would around any other type of power plant. I still have not heard a plan for dealing with the products of all those reactors that I am completely comfortable with. But I've been far more uncomfortable with fossil fuel products for a very long time. BTW, a coal plant actually releases more radiation into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant. Coal contains small quantities of uranium which gets released into the air with the flue gasses. It's a small amount. But still more radiation than nuclear plants release.
-
Permalink Reply by Questions on
-
The current power distribution system determines who will generate power for tomorrow today. (The machines that have will power your house tomorrow have already been approved. The only variation to the plan would be if someone were unable to deliver promised power or if an unforseen demand occurs, like a heatwave.)
There are two types of power distribution companies, ISO and Utility. The ISO takes orders based on the cost of the next MW. Competition keeps prices low in this case. Company "A" can deliver x MW for Y dollars. Company "B" can deliver .5x MW for .95Y dollars. The ISO takes all of Company B's MW and some of Company A's. (In a utility, the utility decides how it can deliver the MW the cheapest out of all of its power generation machines.) Operational costs tend to keep prices low in this case, but a utility can set its prices to do what it wants.
Wind power usually loses to other sources in an ISO. A utility would have the flexibility to use wind energy as it is created. It isn't as simple as that, though, since varying the load on gas turbines reduces the useful life (assuming the load variation is significant enough.) The fact that wind turbines can't be predicted to reliably provide a given amount of power tomorrow makes it a difficult sell in an ISO or anyone outside of that specific utility since the power coming from wind could disappear any given moment. (I know, we have a lot of wind. I am speaking in terms of a major corporation mitigating risk to their clients.)
We will have to agree to disagree on how promising wind is.
Are you familiar with Yucca Mountain, other than what the media propogates that it is too expensive, doesn't address all the concerns, etc.? Do you know what flaws there are in the plan for Yucca Mountain? I submit that there aren't any significant problems with the plan. The problem is people don't understand nuclear waste so they don't know what is a suitable plan to deal with it. How can nuclear physicists be expected to come up with a solution to a problem that isn't defined?
Again, the answer to the nuclear waste problem is a physics based discussion I would gladly go through but people don't really care enough to sit through it.
Uranium is not the only source for radiation. There is more Thorium in
the coal exhaust than uranium and results in higher radiaiton dose. "It's a small amount" is a relative term. The radiation in coal exhaust results in radiation exposure to the public that is 100 times greater than radiation exposure to the public from nuke plants. Another "fun fact" is there is more nuclear energy in the waste fumes of a coal plant than there is in the actual coal plant.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Bergman on
-
"""
We will have to agree to disagree on how promising wind is.
"""
One thing seems clear. Over half the people I meet here seem to be here to hawk their own pet technologies. I have one guy hammering me that his algae based pond scum is the answer to everything and that wind is bad. I have you hammering nuclear, saying that wind is bad. Some people just want to argue that "wind is bad" without proposing an alternative. I'm waiting for the GW Bush "we just need to use more coal" contingent to show up. I strongly suspect that most of them are really here to attack the rich guy, though. Otherwise they would be discussing positive actions within their own groups instead of crashing this party. To their credit, some people don't even bother to hide their motives and actually show their pirranha teeth.
"""
Again, the answer to the nuclear waste problem is a physics based discussion I would gladly go through but people don't really care enough to sit through it.
"""
Be my guest. I'm insterested in how the physics involved in the *practical aspects* of this issue can really go terribly far beyond simple concepts like half-life. At least give me a hint of just what physics you would invoke.
-
Permalink Reply by b. bullard on
-
HEY, I REALLY AGREE WITH YOU. SOME OF MY POSTS SEEM TO INDICATE OTHERWISE. BUT I WANT PEOPLE TO THINK, TO TALK, AND RESPEST THE OTHER'S VIEW.
I CAN NOT DEBATE YOU AS I AM NOT AN EXPERT.
BUT I BELIEVE YOU ARE SINCERE.
I NEED A BREAK.
BEV BULLARD
-
Permalink Reply by NKYCarbon on -
Did someone say coal?
I can't speak for the future of every region by my region's future will be coal. In our region we have very little resources so everything is an import. Coal is close and it is and has been barged and trained in since the time of wood. We use 90+% coal. Is that a preference? No. It's just praticality.
Alternatives:
Conservation: Works anywhere but there is a limit to people willingness.
Wind: There is some good wind within 100 or so miles. Wind is hard to get to do baseline and when it does it will probally replace the coal that is used closer to where the wind is and not here.
Solar: Not a great place for solar either for electric but that is by far the most realistic thing to implement in are area. Again won't help with baseline coal. Solar heating if used in mass could reduce some baseline coal electric and direct home natural gas use.
Geo: The earth is so thick here that the east coast will have geo before we do. Using geo-HVAC in mass could reduce some baseline coal electric and direct home (in winter) natural gas use.
Combined Heat Power: Fairly expensive but a way to reduce coal for natural gas if used in mass.
Nuclear: Unpopular here. Possible sub-crtial reactors or Hyperion modules could be accepted by the populace.
Bio/Hydrogen transportation fuel: You ship it we will sip it. Ok gulp it.
Electric transporation: More effecient but will mean more COAL.
Natural Gas transportation: We have it shipped in now so it's a matter of making it useful.
So....
"When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Cincinnati because it's always 20 years behind the times." – Mark Twain
By that measure we will be using coal 20 years after everyone else has stopped.
The present federal adminstration spent way to much money on "clean coal" but some of those lessons will be put to use.
IGCC - Our utility has already expressed an interest in putting in at least one IGCC. It doesn't fix everything but makes capture coal mess a little easier and give the option to burn biowhatever in it if it becomes available.
Algea: I didn't list this above since it is tied to our coal need. Already algea is being used on one coal plant's output here as a trial.
So our future is "Clean Coal" with Algea taking the CO2 and using it for fuel (but we have no local refining ... yet).
Thanks for the way too much money that was spent on the "clean coal" concept.
-
Permalink Reply by b. bullard on
-
HI,
KNOW YOU SEEM TO MAKE SENSE. EVEN THOUGHT I HAVE THROWN SOME CARDS ON THE TABLE. BUT THAT IS DUE TO MY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.
YOU ARE POLITE AND RESPECTFUL, I CAN HANDLE THAT.
COULD YOU PLEASE EMAIL ME SOME SITES TO SEE SOME FACTS PLEASE?
I READ AN INTEREST LETTER AWHILE AGO. SOMEONE'S HUNTING AREA WAS OR WOULD BE DESTROYED BY THE ROARING MILLS, THE CONSTRUCTION CREWS, ETC.
THE SAME THING HAPPENS IN ANY DEVELOPEMENT, HOUSING, NEW ROADS, NEW FACTORIES FOR JOBS.
I HAVE WORKED ON DRILLING RIGS AND I HAVE SAW AND HAVE SHOT DEER. THOUGHT ABOUT SHOOTING THE DRILLER!
BUT ONCE THE MISSION WAS DONE, ALL RETURNED TO NORMAL.. THE DEER DID NOT DISAPPEAR, THE TURKEYS RETURNED, AND THE FISH KEPT SWIMMING.
ANYWAY, THANKS FOR HEARING MY THOUGHTS.
IF I HAD A CHOICE, ENERGY RELIEF, OR MY HUNTING, I WOULD TAKE THE ENERGY FOR MY FAMILY. THE WILDLIFE ALWAYS COMES BACK. SOME OF THOSE LETTERS MAKE ME THINK THEY HAVE NOT SUFFERED ENERGY LOSS AS I HAVE.
RIGHT HERE IN NASHVILLE NOW, YOU CAN NOT FIND GAS. YOU HAVE TO DRIVE ABOUT 40 MILES TO A RURAL STATION. THERE IS NO GAS HERE IN FRANKLIN, BRENTWOOD,ETC.
I NEED GAS TO GET TO WORK. I CAN FIND A DEER, A SQUIRELL, A RABBIT LATER.
IT SEEMS THAT ONES WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR HUNTING BEING DISRUPTED HAVE MONEY. I DO NOT. I HAVE TO WORK. BUT I CAN FIND GAME TO SHOOT.
BEV BULLARD
-
Permalink Reply by b. bullard on
-
WHEW, I GOT LOST,
BUT I DID PERCIEVE SOMETHING, SOMEONE WHO CAN THINK!
I AM NOT AN EXPERT AT ANYTHING, BUT I AM OLD ENOUGHT TO SEE A SNIPE. I LOVED YOUR LETTER, BUT I GOT LOST. I REPLIED TO A LOT, MAINLY OUT OF WANTING KNOW, AND 2 THAT IRRITATED ME.
YOU MADE SOME SENSE. COMMON SENSE.
ACTUALLY, YOU HAVE EMPHASIZED A LOT OF MY INSIGNIFICICANT THOUGHTS.
KEEP ON. I HAVE A LOT OF HATE MAILS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE THE EXPERTS, BUT REALLY JUST TALK. NO FACTS WITH REFERENCES.
I AIN'T SMART, BUT I DO THINK.
BEV BULLARD
-
Permalink Reply by b. bullard on
-
WELL, NOW I GUESS I CAN GET NASTY MAILS.
THIS IS A GENERAL REPLY TO ALL RE: NUKES.
LET'S BUILD A NUKE PLANT. THEN YOU BUILD YOUR HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO THE RESTRICTED LINE. THEN TAL TO RESIDENTS OF 3 MILE.
ME, I PREFER TO BE FAR AWAY, EVEN THOUGH I SUPPORT NUCLEAR.
WHAT I HAVE SEEN IS NARROW VISIONED PEOPLE (ME TOO).
THERE IS NOTHING SAFE IN THIS WORLD. WE CAN KEEP IT AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE.
WE HAVE MANY EMEMIES, NO NEED TO GIVE THEM THE BEST TARGETS.
IF THEY CAN HIT THE TRADE TOWERS, THEN THEY CAN HIT A NUKE PLANT. THE MORE, THE MERRIER.
ONE MORE GENERAL NOTE: THERE ARE VERY WELL INTENTIONED PEOPLE HERE. AND THEY ARE TALKING AND WANT TO LEARN.
UNDERLING EVERY SENTENCE REMINDS ME OF THE PERSON WHO TRIES TO GET A POINT ACROSS. RAISING ONE'S VOICE IS INEFFECTIVE. WORDS DO BETTER. AND NOT ALL OF US ARE SMART- AND THAT IS ME!
I RESPECT OTHER'S VIEWS. I DO NOT CONDEMN THEM AND UNDERLINE EVERY SENTENCE AS IF THAT ENHANCES MY CREDENTIALS, MY EXTREME KNOWLEDGE.
I JUST SIMPLY STATE MY OPINION, MY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IN ALL AREAS OF THIS PLAN, AND I LISTEN: I DO NOT CONDEMN.
IT IS PRONOUNCED, "SIGH". ASTERICKS ARE USED IN SCI-FI NOVELS.
OK, I AM DUMB, BUT MY COMMENTS, MY QUESTIONS ARE HONEST. NO CUT DOWNS.
MY NAME IS:
BEV BULLARD
EMAIL: bevbullard20022000@yahoo.com
I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTS AND YOUR WAY OF EXPRESSION. NOW LET US DEBATE, WITH FACTS, WITH REFERENCES, WITH CITATIONS, WITH CREDENTIALS, ETC.
I SEE A LOT OF TALK HERE TOO, WELL, IT IS JUST A LOT OF US, ESP. ME, WHO WANT TO LEARN AND EXPRESS THOUGHTS.
I HAVE NOT THOUGHT LONG EITHER. HOW DO YOU USE THAT UNDERLINE THING SO WELL?
I DO NOT RAISE MY VOICE TO LEND VALIDITY TO MY VIEW, I JUST SAY WHATEVER. IN WRITING, THAT UNDERLINING THING IS THE SAME AS RAISING ONE'S VOICE TO PROVE THEIR POINT, OR WHATEVER.
I AM STANDING UP FOR THE PEOPLE HERE. AS WE ARE NOT SMART! I AM NOT. IT ALSO SEEMS A VERY FEW WHO JOIN THE FORUMS ARE THE EXPERTS BUT FAIL TO PROCLAIM THE TITLES, THEIR DEGREES, THEIR EXPERIENCE, THEIR RESEARCH, AND THEN BACK IT.
HEY, HAVING BEEN A TECHNICAL WRITER, EXPLAIN THAT ASTERICK THING TO ME. BETTER, EXPLAIN HOW TO PURSUADE.
ALRIGHTY, YOU HAVE MY EMAIL, MY THOUGHTS. BUT PLEASE DO NOT CUT DOWN ANYONE ON THIS SITE FOR THERE VIEWS. WE ARE NOT ALL AS SMART AS YOU, AND I THINK WE ALL HAVE A COMMON GOAL.
PLEASE RESPECT THE OTHERS.
WHAT YOU THINK OF ME, YOU HAVE MY EMAIL.
BEVLEY BULLARD, JR.
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
