webfarmer: (Default)
Finally a full migration to Dreamwidth from LiveJournal. Only have comments migration to complete before pulling the plug on LJ for good. May inspire me to start posting here again. Time will tell. I'll need to figure out all the levers and switches again.

Best wishes to old friends who have also made the trip over here.
webfarmer: (Default)
Moment of something struck and decided to sign up for NaMoWriMo as the webfarmer. If you are also on that system and would be willing to be a writing buddy, please feel free to buddy up with me. I'm sure I could use all the support I can get in this as a newbie.
webfarmer: (Default)
Also some of the fun "pre-paid" nuclear financing at work again.

Economist Files Opposition to Progress Energy Nuclear Reactors - St. Petersburg Times - 16 Jul 09

"Cooper told the Florida Public Service Commission that it is 'not prudent' to proceed with plans for building new Progress Energy nuclear reactors in Levy County and a similar Florida Power & Light project near Miami. Cooper estimated it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables."

Separately, the business-affiliated group Associated Industries of Florida intervened for the first time on a rate case, backing Florida Power and Light's base rate increase. Associated Industries did not take a stance 'at this time' on Progress Energy's filings. Progress is seeking to raise its base rates 30 percent and wants to add roughly $3 to the average monthly bill to help pay for its planned nuclear plant."


Clean Energy Group: 2 Leading Experts Argue New Nuclear Reactors in Florida Should Stop Now - Stockhouse.com - 16 Jun 09

"A leading national expert on the financing of nuclear power reactors filed testimony Wednesday with the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) in which he warns that it is "not prudent" to proceed with plans for building new nuclear reactors at Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point nuclear plant near Miami and the proposed Progress Energy of Florida's Levy County site. Economist Dr. Mark Cooper filed testimony along with Mr. Arnie Gundersen on behalf of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, an organization that has intervened in the case."

"Cooper's testimony states, 'The decision by the utilities to build nuclear reactors was based on several important assumptions that have been called into question in the past year and a half.' Some of these assumptions included that the utilities assumed a high rate of demand growth; they downplayed the contribution that efficiency and renewables can make to meet the need for electricity; and they used a low estimate of the cost of new nuclear reactors."

"Mr. Gundersen's testimony stated that it is likely that the proposed projects will experience construction delays and cost overruns in the future that will negatively impact Floridians, if these reactors are ever built. He also argued that these delays were not properly accounted for by either utility. Mr. Gundersen highlighted that these extra costs and scheduling slippages will be due to licensing delays, worldwide material shortages, a worldwide shortage of skilled personnel, and the fact that these nuclear reactors are extraordinarily complex to build.

He has a BS and ME cum laude in Nuclear Engineering from Rensselaer (RPI), and was formerly licensed as a nuclear reactor operator. He was a Senior Vice President of a nuclear licensee before becoming an independent engineering consultant and now works with Fairewinds Associates in Vermont."
webfarmer: (Default)
Also some of the fun "pre-paid" nuclear financing at work again.

Economist Files Opposition to Progress Energy Nuclear Reactors - St. Petersburg Times - 16 Jul 09

"Cooper told the Florida Public Service Commission that it is 'not prudent' to proceed with plans for building new Progress Energy nuclear reactors in Levy County and a similar Florida Power & Light project near Miami. Cooper estimated it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables."

Separately, the business-affiliated group Associated Industries of Florida intervened for the first time on a rate case, backing Florida Power and Light's base rate increase. Associated Industries did not take a stance 'at this time' on Progress Energy's filings. Progress is seeking to raise its base rates 30 percent and wants to add roughly $3 to the average monthly bill to help pay for its planned nuclear plant."


Clean Energy Group: 2 Leading Experts Argue New Nuclear Reactors in Florida Should Stop Now - Stockhouse.com - 16 Jun 09

"A leading national expert on the financing of nuclear power reactors filed testimony Wednesday with the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) in which he warns that it is "not prudent" to proceed with plans for building new nuclear reactors at Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point nuclear plant near Miami and the proposed Progress Energy of Florida's Levy County site. Economist Dr. Mark Cooper filed testimony along with Mr. Arnie Gundersen on behalf of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, an organization that has intervened in the case."

"Cooper's testimony states, 'The decision by the utilities to build nuclear reactors was based on several important assumptions that have been called into question in the past year and a half.' Some of these assumptions included that the utilities assumed a high rate of demand growth; they downplayed the contribution that efficiency and renewables can make to meet the need for electricity; and they used a low estimate of the cost of new nuclear reactors."

"Mr. Gundersen's testimony stated that it is likely that the proposed projects will experience construction delays and cost overruns in the future that will negatively impact Floridians, if these reactors are ever built. He also argued that these delays were not properly accounted for by either utility. Mr. Gundersen highlighted that these extra costs and scheduling slippages will be due to licensing delays, worldwide material shortages, a worldwide shortage of skilled personnel, and the fact that these nuclear reactors are extraordinarily complex to build.

He has a BS and ME cum laude in Nuclear Engineering from Rensselaer (RPI), and was formerly licensed as a nuclear reactor operator. He was a Senior Vice President of a nuclear licensee before becoming an independent engineering consultant and now works with Fairewinds Associates in Vermont."
webfarmer: (Default)
Two really good reports recently in the news. First the Washington Monthly article on the dodgy economics of new nuclear.

Bad Reactors. Rethinking Your Opposition to Nuclear power? Rethink Again. - Washington Monthly - January/February 2009

"Initially, the industry had hoped to limit the number of reactor models to two or three. Instead, there are eight on offer, half of them certified, the rest awaiting approval (a process that takes years). What’s more, all but one of the seventeen companies that are planning to build new reactors have chosen designs that are either not yet certified or that will need to be recertified because they have been substantially redesigned. Even the one company that has picked a fully certified model, NRG of New Jersey, isn’t sticking to the original blueprints.

Rather than working with ready-made plans and a series of simple, modular components, engineers and designers working on Finland’s new reactor are scrambling to finish plans even as construction is under way. During my visit to Olkiluoto, I met Jouni Silvennoinen, the construction manager on the plant for the Finnish utility TVO. He told me that, in his view, projects as large and complex as reactors simply don’t lend themselves to cookie-cutter solutions. 'The basic design can be planned in advance,' he explained. 'But you still have to do the detailed design. Where exactly is the rebar? How thick are the walls? Where is the pinning for pipes? Those details have to be tailored to the individual project, and it takes a tremendous amount of work.'"


Here's a new report from Mark Cooper Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at the Vermont Law School. The key findings of the study are noted. None of it is pretty.

The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse? - June 2009 [PDF]

"1. The initial cost projections put out early in today’s so-called 'nuclear renaissance' were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s.

2. The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial 'nuclear renaissance' projections.

3. There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society.

4. The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors.

5. Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh.

6. The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors."
webfarmer: (Default)
Two really good reports recently in the news. First the Washington Monthly article on the dodgy economics of new nuclear.

Bad Reactors. Rethinking Your Opposition to Nuclear power? Rethink Again. - Washington Monthly - January/February 2009

"Initially, the industry had hoped to limit the number of reactor models to two or three. Instead, there are eight on offer, half of them certified, the rest awaiting approval (a process that takes years). What’s more, all but one of the seventeen companies that are planning to build new reactors have chosen designs that are either not yet certified or that will need to be recertified because they have been substantially redesigned. Even the one company that has picked a fully certified model, NRG of New Jersey, isn’t sticking to the original blueprints.

Rather than working with ready-made plans and a series of simple, modular components, engineers and designers working on Finland’s new reactor are scrambling to finish plans even as construction is under way. During my visit to Olkiluoto, I met Jouni Silvennoinen, the construction manager on the plant for the Finnish utility TVO. He told me that, in his view, projects as large and complex as reactors simply don’t lend themselves to cookie-cutter solutions. 'The basic design can be planned in advance,' he explained. 'But you still have to do the detailed design. Where exactly is the rebar? How thick are the walls? Where is the pinning for pipes? Those details have to be tailored to the individual project, and it takes a tremendous amount of work.'"


Here's a new report from Mark Cooper Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at the Vermont Law School. The key findings of the study are noted. None of it is pretty.

The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse? - June 2009 [PDF]

"1. The initial cost projections put out early in today’s so-called 'nuclear renaissance' were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s.

2. The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial 'nuclear renaissance' projections.

3. There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society.

4. The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors.

5. Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh.

6. The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors."
webfarmer: (Default)
I'm still not sure what I think of this. Some of it is an attack by linking a position to one's enemies which is neither here nor there on the question itself and a bit dodgy in terms of style points. He dances around the EPA item in this way. Sounds to me that it's a lack of (political) will on the Obama EPA part rather than a lack of ability to implement things independently of congressional oversight.

That's certainly what many of the proponents of the "cap-and-trade" are saying to spur it's passage among non-believers and skeptics. "Don't let the evil scientific based EPA call the shots!"

He may be right that it's better than nothing but I'm still not completely convinced of that.

NASA's James Hansen Recycles Myths in His Pointless Attack on U.S. Climate Change - Huffington Post - 10 Jul 09

"The global economy is indeed a Ponzi scheme, but this is the first piece of legislation by any major country that makes a serious effort to end that Ponzi scheme. Hansen then lists 'a few of the bill's egregious flaws':

* It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

No. The EPA doesn't have the 'ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.' EPA might well use its recent endangerment finding to get that ability (partially and eventually), but it hasn't asserted that regulatory capability yet.

More importantly, the CAA authority is most readily translated into regulating emissions from new power plants. Regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants would take a long time, engendering a great deal of litigation. As John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said, 'it would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation.'

Moreover, for a man who wants to 'phase out coal emissions over the next two decades,' as Hansen does, this is a pretty pointless complaint. The Obama EPA was certainly never going to use the endangerment finding to do anything like that.

This 'EPA can solve the problem on its own' myth is so commonplace that I will do separate post next week addressing it. I certainly agree with NRDC that the bill should be changed to allow EPA to retain its CAA authority, but I wouldn't list this among the bill's top 4 flaws, let alone put it first."
webfarmer: (Default)
I'm still not sure what I think of this. Some of it is an attack by linking a position to one's enemies which is neither here nor there on the question itself and a bit dodgy in terms of style points. He dances around the EPA item in this way. Sounds to me that it's a lack of (political) will on the Obama EPA part rather than a lack of ability to implement things independently of congressional oversight.

That's certainly what many of the proponents of the "cap-and-trade" are saying to spur it's passage among non-believers and skeptics. "Don't let the evil scientific based EPA call the shots!"

He may be right that it's better than nothing but I'm still not completely convinced of that.

NASA's James Hansen Recycles Myths in His Pointless Attack on U.S. Climate Change - Huffington Post - 10 Jul 09

"The global economy is indeed a Ponzi scheme, but this is the first piece of legislation by any major country that makes a serious effort to end that Ponzi scheme. Hansen then lists 'a few of the bill's egregious flaws':

* It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

No. The EPA doesn't have the 'ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.' EPA might well use its recent endangerment finding to get that ability (partially and eventually), but it hasn't asserted that regulatory capability yet.

More importantly, the CAA authority is most readily translated into regulating emissions from new power plants. Regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants would take a long time, engendering a great deal of litigation. As John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said, 'it would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation.'

Moreover, for a man who wants to 'phase out coal emissions over the next two decades,' as Hansen does, this is a pretty pointless complaint. The Obama EPA was certainly never going to use the endangerment finding to do anything like that.

This 'EPA can solve the problem on its own' myth is so commonplace that I will do separate post next week addressing it. I certainly agree with NRDC that the bill should be changed to allow EPA to retain its CAA authority, but I wouldn't list this among the bill's top 4 flaws, let alone put it first."
webfarmer: (Default)
This from the latest BBC report on the Finnish nuclear fiasco. More fun from France too. EDF the wonder utility that ate the universe is in debt? Imagine that. AREVA is trying to sell of chunks of itself too.

Nuclear Dawn Delayed in Finland - BBC News - 08 Jul 09

"The two sides are now fighting over compensation for the delays.

TVO is trying to claim back $3.3bn (2.4bn euros) from Areva for the soaring costs, not least to cover having to buy-in electricity to plug the gap until the plant is finished. On the other side Areva is claiming $1.4bn (1bn euros) from the Finns and the relationship on the Baltic has shown signs of icing.

'If Greenpeace had said at the start that after four years of construction its going to be three and a half years late and 60% over budget everybody would have laughed at them,' says Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University in the UK who has been monitoring the project. 'But that's what has happened. It's hard to think of it going more wrong than it has.'"


EDF Presses Govt to Hike Power Price - The Peninsula On-Line (Qatar) - 10 Jul 09

"The group's chief executive Pierre Gadonneix revealed in a magazine interview on Wednesday that EDF was seeking permission from the government to raise the price of household electricity by 20 percent over three years, or slightly longer, so that the group could stop going deeper into debt."
webfarmer: (Default)
This from the latest BBC report on the Finnish nuclear fiasco. More fun from France too. EDF the wonder utility that ate the universe is in debt? Imagine that. AREVA is trying to sell of chunks of itself too.

Nuclear Dawn Delayed in Finland - BBC News - 08 Jul 09

"The two sides are now fighting over compensation for the delays.

TVO is trying to claim back $3.3bn (2.4bn euros) from Areva for the soaring costs, not least to cover having to buy-in electricity to plug the gap until the plant is finished. On the other side Areva is claiming $1.4bn (1bn euros) from the Finns and the relationship on the Baltic has shown signs of icing.

'If Greenpeace had said at the start that after four years of construction its going to be three and a half years late and 60% over budget everybody would have laughed at them,' says Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University in the UK who has been monitoring the project. 'But that's what has happened. It's hard to think of it going more wrong than it has.'"


EDF Presses Govt to Hike Power Price - The Peninsula On-Line (Qatar) - 10 Jul 09

"The group's chief executive Pierre Gadonneix revealed in a magazine interview on Wednesday that EDF was seeking permission from the government to raise the price of household electricity by 20 percent over three years, or slightly longer, so that the group could stop going deeper into debt."
webfarmer: (Default)
Nuclear trouble is brewing in Germany. Too bad the same can't be said for in the United States. The Obama people are looking to sell out to nuclear to get a climate deal that may not be worth having frankly.

Vattenfall's Nuclear Plants in Hot Water - Deutsche Welle - 09 Jul 09

"Sweden's government-owned electric utility, Vattenfall, has admitted that fuel rods may have been damaged when one of its German nuclear power plants underwent an emergency shutdown last Saturday. The company said it discovered that 'possibly a few' of the 80,000 uranium fuel rods inside the reactor were 'defective.' Vattenfall has blamed the plant manager for failing to install discharge detectors on a transformer as promised to German authorities."

Vattenfall Says Kruemmel’s Halt Was 'Bitter Setback' (Update2) - Bloomberg - 09 Jul 09

"Vattenfall will lose about 1 million euros ($1.4 million) of operating income a day from the halt of its two reactors in the country, Hatakka said today in an interview. 'It’s also a hit for nuclear power in Germany,' said Christian Kleindienst, a Munich-based analyst with Unicredit SpA who has a 'market weight' rating on the company’s senior notes. Kleindienst said 10 percent of Vattenfall’s operating income may be affected by the outages."

Obama Makes Nuclear Compromise to Pass Clean Energy Bill - Guardian (UK) - 08 Jul 09

"The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America's nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate. The seal of approval for nuclear power – a cause embraced by Republican senators – came on day one of a full-on lobbying effort by the White House for one of Obama's signature issues."

G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change by Dr. James Hansen - Huffington Post - 09 Jul 09

"With a workable climate bill in his pocket, President Obama might have been able to begin building that global consensus in Italy. Instead, it looks as if the delegates from other nations may have done what 219 U.S. House members who voted up Waxman-Markey last month did not: critically read the 1,400-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and deduce that it's no more fit to rescue our climate than a V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon."

"For all its 'green' aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like 'cap-and-trade' scheme. Here are a few of the bill's egregious flaws:

* It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

* It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious 'offsets,' by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.

* Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, 'has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives.'

* It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, 'businesses and households won't be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense,' thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.

There is an alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source (mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the 'fee-and-dividend' version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead."
webfarmer: (Default)
Nuclear trouble is brewing in Germany. Too bad the same can't be said for in the United States. The Obama people are looking to sell out to nuclear to get a climate deal that may not be worth having frankly.

Vattenfall's Nuclear Plants in Hot Water - Deutsche Welle - 09 Jul 09

"Sweden's government-owned electric utility, Vattenfall, has admitted that fuel rods may have been damaged when one of its German nuclear power plants underwent an emergency shutdown last Saturday. The company said it discovered that 'possibly a few' of the 80,000 uranium fuel rods inside the reactor were 'defective.' Vattenfall has blamed the plant manager for failing to install discharge detectors on a transformer as promised to German authorities."

Vattenfall Says Kruemmel’s Halt Was 'Bitter Setback' (Update2) - Bloomberg - 09 Jul 09

"Vattenfall will lose about 1 million euros ($1.4 million) of operating income a day from the halt of its two reactors in the country, Hatakka said today in an interview. 'It’s also a hit for nuclear power in Germany,' said Christian Kleindienst, a Munich-based analyst with Unicredit SpA who has a 'market weight' rating on the company’s senior notes. Kleindienst said 10 percent of Vattenfall’s operating income may be affected by the outages."

Obama Makes Nuclear Compromise to Pass Clean Energy Bill - Guardian (UK) - 08 Jul 09

"The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America's nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate. The seal of approval for nuclear power – a cause embraced by Republican senators – came on day one of a full-on lobbying effort by the White House for one of Obama's signature issues."

G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change by Dr. James Hansen - Huffington Post - 09 Jul 09

"With a workable climate bill in his pocket, President Obama might have been able to begin building that global consensus in Italy. Instead, it looks as if the delegates from other nations may have done what 219 U.S. House members who voted up Waxman-Markey last month did not: critically read the 1,400-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and deduce that it's no more fit to rescue our climate than a V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon."

"For all its 'green' aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like 'cap-and-trade' scheme. Here are a few of the bill's egregious flaws:

* It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

* It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious 'offsets,' by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.

* Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, 'has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives.'

* It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, 'businesses and households won't be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense,' thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.

There is an alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source (mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the 'fee-and-dividend' version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead."
webfarmer: (Default)
With thanks to [livejournal.com profile] gordonzola.

I forgot how funny Roseanne Barr could be on occasion. Jenna Elfman plays the riot grrrl hitcher.

YouTube clip ahead... )
webfarmer: (Default)
With thanks to [personal profile] gordonzola.

I forgot how funny Roseanne Barr could be on occasion. Jenna Elfman plays the riot grrrl hitcher.

YouTube clip ahead... )
webfarmer: (Default)

I've been a bit slack on posting things here on LJ and have been posting most things on Facebook.   Since I like having them in an archivable form and I know some folks like reading them here on LJ, I decided to do some cut-and-paste business to sync the two sites a bit.  It's a long list so I've put it all behind a cut for those who might not be so interested.

And away we go.... )

webfarmer: (Default)

I've been a bit slack on posting things here on LJ and have been posting most things on Facebook.   Since I like having them in an archivable form and I know some folks like reading them here on LJ, I decided to do some cut-and-paste business to sync the two sites a bit.  It's a long list so I've put it all behind a cut for those who might not be so interested.

And away we go.... )

Too Funny

Jun. 26th, 2009 11:19 am
webfarmer: (Default)
Puking and Babbling Babies.

I almost lost my breath laughing on the puking one.

Too Funny

Jun. 26th, 2009 11:19 am
webfarmer: (Default)
Puking and Babbling Babies.

I almost lost my breath laughing on the puking one.
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2017 06:37 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios