Just Grounds Community
For Like minded people who like to see-
CO2 and coal fired power
This is an article by T.L. Cardwell. I think it is very interesting and am sure that, as he had it plublished in a newspaper and passed around on the net, that he won't mind it being published here :
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and re-heaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and re-heaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
Views: 67
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Colin J Ely on -
Where are our Nuclear Powerstations? Our 'beloved; government wants to drastically increase our population. As you say we have coal coming out our ears. Also why are we letting storm and recycled water flow out to sea. Why can't we inject these into our aquifers, to be pumped out when needed! We could save all the money we needed for this if we just grounded our globe trotting Prime Minister.
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Jamieson on -
The Kevin Rudd Travel Agency needs shutting down, so he can get back to his part time job as caretaker prime minister. Maybe then we could get him to look at some of these things - or failing that - vote him out and start again with a resident PM!
Coal doesn't have to be a dirty energy - as long as you get rid of the stupidity of thinking that CO2 is a pollutant! We are a Carbon Based Planet and every organism on the planet is a carbon based life form! With the technology we now have, little real pollution escapes from a "modern" coal fired power plant, although it wasn't always that way. With the cost base for our coal - with us sitting on thousands of years supply of it, we can have the cheapest and cleanest energy available on the planet, the envy of all!
Our greatest risk might be that if we don't develop it, or allow other countries to either buy it or invest in it, they'll just come and get it! Since most of it is above the old "Brisbane Line", they would probably end up getting and keeping it! Sorry Beverley - you might end up being a neighbour! Our depleted and sadly run down peacekeeping army might have trouble keeping them out, as it is, they can't afford decent flak jackets, so I'm not sure they'd be up to the task of defending the country! Let's hope common sense wins the day and we can export the energy resources we have to the world and increase the standard of living globally, so that doesn't ever occur!
Ray Jamieson
-
Permalink Reply by John Paul McKerral on -
Ruth if you believe that, you will believe anything. Would you like to buy the Sydney Harbor bridge, I can get you a good price on it ? The Treasury analysis results are dependent on what is input to the model. Often public servants are told to write a report and told the required conclusion before the work has begun. That sounds like what has happened with this report. They wish to calm our apprehension
How can they come to any conclusions when they don't even know the percentage reductions in CO2 emissions required, 5% or 25% or something in between ?
The cost of everything will go up with the CPRS as electricity is used in all production, services and business in general, in fact in everything. With the cost of electricity being an overhead in all cases, the costs have to rise. Judging from that report on the use of renewables in Spain, the 20% renewables will most likely drive the price of power up to about 300% of the present rate. This report was not at the government's behest, in fact they wish it had not been written and published and have criticized it. However, much of that rise could be hidden by subsidies, tax brakes etc. It will still have to be paid for by taxpayers.
On top of this, the price of fuel may go up and everything we buy has a transport component.
The CPRS and 20% renewables will not affect the climate in the slightest but has the capacity to devastate our economy, destroy our prosperity, throw tens of thousands of our citizens work. That will be the monument to the present government, a monument to stupidity and gullibility.
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Jamieson on
-
Agree John - the lessons of Spain, once thought to be the model of the future, have indeed shown us what the future could become! How much more graphic does it need to be for this ETS garbage to be recognized for what it really is?
Ray Jamieson
-
Permalink Reply by Colin J Ely on
-
Ruth
What I want to know is how the government will find the money for the compensation? Less money for Health, Education and Transport? Maybe extra Taxation?
-
Permalink Reply by Norm Martin on -
Hi All !
I confess my ignorance of the CO2 affair, I learned in Biology it was a plant food that fed plants and oxygen was the by product. This seems a good thread to pose a series of questions . I admit I am further confused by matters I have gleaned since joining this forum. Here goes ;
Coal fired power stations emit approx 92% of CO2 to the atmosphere
Specific Gravity of CO2 is 1.5. Air has an SD of 1.0
If newtons Law is still operative should not CO2 fall to earth?
Does the vegetation in the carbon sinks extract the carbon from the CO2?
If the vegetation extracts the carbon, why does Govt retain mineral rights to carbon sinks?
If the vegetation does not extract the carbon, does it just lay on the forest floor.
as a future fuel?
If carbon sink forests are destroyed by fire, how are these matters treated as emission
reductions or decreases
Tf all/any of the above are correct how does CO2 affect the atmosphere?
This is the sum total of my knowledge and reasoning. I know it doesn't make sense. so what's wrong?
-
Permalink Reply by Norm Martin on
-
Hi All !
I believe this may be a good thread to clarify my understanding of CO2 pollution. I admit to being carbon illiterate in this context. Maybe a kind reader will set me right. My total knowledge of Carbon and the questions I pose are set out below:
I have learned in Biology that CO2 is a plant food. Plants absorb CO2 and Oxygen is the by product.
Coal Power Stations emit about 95% CO2 into the atmosphere.
CO2 has a specufic gravity of 1.5. Air has an SG of 1
Therefore if Newton's Law still works, CO2 should fall to Earth, presumably not too far from the Power Station, depending on wind.
If this is so, then CO2 cannot be blamed for polluting the atmosphere.
Next, we have all these pesky Carbon Sinks.
How does emission from a given power station find an appropriate carbon sink?
If the CO2 is attracted to a carbon sink, is it absorbed by the vegetation?
If the above is true, then there must be loads of beneficial Oxygen in the atmosphere. If it is not true how does the carbon sink work
Does the carbon sink leave trace carbon on the carbon sink floor to act as fuel in a future forest fire?
How does this affect the National emissions accounts? Do they make a deduction for the losses caused by forest fires and further emission increases caused by the emission from fires?
Why does the Govt retain the mineral rights to the properties acting as carbon sinks?
What happens if the CO2 doesn;t fall near a carbon sink?
Sorry guys, this is all I know or can deduce, and it doesn't seem plausible, no matter how I arrange it.
Any help to determine this would be appreciated. I am also in the throes of the same sort of exercise for motor vehicle emission which is largely CO.
Regards
Norm
-
Permalink Reply by Allan Maurice Taylor on -
Hi Norm
You have a lot of intelligent questions there.
I am sure an aggregate response from Agmates will come up with some answers.
I shall try and do my little bit.
Firstly, beware of distorted terminology , or semantics, used by global warmers. eg "pollutant", "carbon" , "clean coal" etc. This is deliberate in order to confuse the populace. They change the meaning of words and will make black equal white if necessary to support their religion.
You are using one of their favorites with "sink" or "carbon sink".
The normal person understands that when you throw a stone, or lump of coal, into a pond of water it will sink to the bottom, because of it being a solid and denser than liquid water. All very straight forward. But this phenomenon does not happen in an all gaseous system, such as the atmosphere, although the global warmers may like to think so.
Different gases (H2O, CO2, O2, N2, etc) mix quite rapidly by several processes, mainly by molecular diffusion along concentration gradients, thermal gradients and by mass convection (winds).
For example, the average CO2 content of the atmosphere is quoted at 385 ppm (measured at the station on top of Moana Loa, Hawaii, but you get the same value in Tasmania or Timbuctoo. The atmosphere is in a constant state of convection, with it being much hotter in the tropics than the temperate or polar regions thus causing convection cells, strong trade winds and cyclones etc.
However, at the micro regional level you can measure appreciable variations in atmospheric gas composition. For example, in a field of canola on a hot calm day when the plants are growing vigorously. You would find the atmosphere at ground level depleted in CO2 (being absorbed by the plants) and normal CO2 values at maybe 20 metres above the crop. The CO2 molecules move by diffusion along the concentration gradient, which is not like a stone sinking.
It would be a good idea to plant your canola in fields down wind of a coal-fired power station, or build you power station in the middle of a pine forest, and somehow deflect the cooled CO2 emissions to disperse near ground level, for beneficial plant growing results. Hardly any research has been done on such matters. This is what the CSIRO should be doing instead of blindly supporting Rudd's global warming fantasies.
I'll leave other points for other Agmates to explain.
Cheers
Allano
-
Permalink Reply by John Paul McKerral on
-
Right Jeff, this CPRS legislation must be blocked. As you say the 5% is just the beginning. It is entirely unnecessary as CO2 is not a pollutant but the essential of life and does not alter the climate in a noticeable way. Anyone who takes the time to look into this scam will see that this is the case. Only those who are content to accept the propaganda that appears in the news media and those who intend making a fortune out of it believe that CPRS is necessary.
The 20% renewables will cause problems and needs to be got rid of as well.
John P.
-
Permalink Reply by Carol Petith on -
Hi Jeff
Good reasoning. I am also concerned that when parliament resumes that a dirty deal will take place with the help of the green party.
I am afraid that if they drum up the numbers to pass the ETS in either the current form or some other form then we will be at the mercy of the New World Government.
We will need to really pound once again our politicians to knock this ETS out.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Burston on -
Thanks for the discussion John and respondents. What a relief there are well informed people out there because the quality of our democracy depends on the information we have. There is nothing worse hearing of someone weeping for their grandchildren after enduring a screening of "Inconvenient Truth" or sitting through a climate propaganda presentation where the "science is in". People with a rational view of climate have to contend with a largely delinquent media and a whole edifice of interests eager to start trading in certificates of hot air. Contacted recently by a telephone survey firm on behalf of a govt dept I was told the passage of the ETS through the senate was "a certainty" then advising me of never to be repeated offers for virtuous carbon initiatives on my farm. Surveys have identified increasing numbers of climate rationalists in the community.
Best wishes to all for a prosperous and safe New Year to all but don't relax just yet - keep up those letters to the editor and try radio talk back or the ETS will indeed be a reality.
-
Permalink Reply by lorraine hogan on
-
WOW for two years i have been questioning myself because such has been the absolute (garbage)on Laimstream media this amongst other sites are so refreshing,so selfsatisfying that we all know there trying to dupe us in so many ways,and this site along with others are a sigh of relief that NO the world couldnt be moving in this crooked direction,thanks for the web,thanks to freedom,thanks to AUSTRALIANS,lorraine
Honest Government, Fair Rights to property and compensation, Australia and our people strong and proud, reinstatement of values and respect
Forum
GREENPEACE USE SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER MEANS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY: NOW I AM OUTRAGED! 929 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 19 minutes ago.
Playground, Juke Box and Notepad 923 Replies
Started by Geoff Hutchesson in Entertainment, Books, Movies, Music. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 32 minutes ago.
PM and the ALP = Past - Current - Future = 2013 337 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 1 hour ago.
HOMELESSNESS: THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS 53 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 1 hour ago.
ODDS AND ENDS AND OTHER THINGS 831 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in General. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 2 hours ago.
MIGRANTS, ASYLUM-SEEKERS, AND SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS (cont.) 1861 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 2 hours ago.
TASMANIA AT THE CROSSROADS? 223 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in General. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 2 hours ago.
THE BIKIE GANG THREAT TO THE AUSTRALIAN WAY OF LIFE 87 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Law & Legal. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 2 hours ago.
Local Government and Agenda 21 is this the reason for the upcoming slated referendum at the Election in 2014 209 Replies
Started by Stephen Cox in Activism. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 3 hours ago.
IS AUSTRALIA ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC INVASION ? 1237 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 5 hours ago.
BUDGET 2013 11 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in Politics. Last reply by Barbara lee 6 hours ago.
Islamia Anyone? 524 Replies
Started by Bob Stewart in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 10 hours ago.
Katter's Australian Party - is there merit? 543 Replies
Started by Yodie Batzke in Politics. Last reply by Barbara lee 10 hours ago.
MILOVAN WILL NOT GIVE UP? 2 Replies
Started by Nicholas N Chin in Activism. Last reply by Nicholas N Chin 19 hours ago.
WWF to Tell Australian Cattlemen How to be “Sustainable” 634 Replies
Started by Joanne Rea in Agriculture. Last reply by Rob Moore yesterday.
Economic Direction 11 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in Politics. Last reply by Barbara lee yesterday.
NEWS BY PETER OLNEY ON SHIRE RATES 7 Replies
Started by Nicholas N Chin in Activism. Last reply by Nicholas N Chin yesterday.
MENTORING IN THE WORKPLACE AND BEYOND 98 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Education. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright yesterday.
NBN ROLLOUT UPDATE AS IT IS OCCURRING IN TASMANIA 303 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Stephen Cox on Wednesday.
THE ILLUSION OF THE LEFT - RIGHT PARADIGM 25 Replies
Started by Norm Finkelstein in General. Last reply by Stephen Cox on Wednesday.
Blog Posts
Restore Australia petition
Posted by kate wade on April 12, 2013 at 9:12pm — 4 Comments
PEOPLES SOVEREIGNTY VS PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY
Posted by alex and sonja kraskov on March 25, 2013 at 4:30pm — 49 Comments
THE SHEEPLE OF HUMANITY
Posted by Colin Uebergang on March 2, 2013 at 4:36am — 1 Comment
AUSTRALIA MAD-COW COUNTRIES CAN SELL US THEIR BEEF NOW
Posted by Terry S. Singeltary Sr. on February 14, 2013 at 4:10am — 5 Comments
Knowledge of this fact may save you having an accident
Posted by Geoff Hutchesson on February 8, 2013 at 9:11am — 6 Comments
© 2013 Created by Rob Moore.
Powered by
