If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   New technology could stop global warming by turning CO2 into booze   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 133
    More: Hero, global warming, carbon dioxide, CO2 into booze, free electrons, Panasonic, greenhouse gases, Earth, artificial photosynthesis  
•       •       •

9173 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 10:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 02:46:14 PM

StoPPeRmobile: thermodynamic throughput favors = clean = disingenous or fraudulant


This conversation boggles my mind. I've had another one like it this week. No, coal-fired power plants are not "clean". But neither are gasoline-powered internal combustion engines. If the pollution you mitigate by removing ICEs from the road is greater than the pollution emitted by the electricity generated to power EVs, then you have a net increase in "cleanliness". Also, as I mentioned before, a coal-fired power plant is a point source of pollution, which is far, far easier to clean and control than 10,000 diffused gasoline engine exhausts. And don't forget, you need to use Diesel trucks to ship the gasoline to your fueling stations. Electricity just needs wires.

We could probably remove all the mercury and sulfur compounds from coal emissions and sequester the carbon to boot and *still* be more efficient than the present transportation regime using ICEs.
 
2013-01-25 02:46:35 PM

The One True TheDavid: madgonad: ecor1: Well that escalated quickly.

Nuking chinese cities? Wouldn't do much to world population in the long term. Besides being horrific and totally unnecessary.

I know. India is growing at a much higher rate.

India is far less militarily ands economically powerful than China, as well as using fewer natural resources and producing less CO2, so they're not the main target. One goal is to reduce competition from current global powers: India simply does not qualify. Neither does Nigeria or Brazil, for that matter.


Well at least your honest and admitting its about competition for resources and not just overpopulation!

Still, its better to reduce population from the supply side (ie, fewer births/woman) than from the "kill all humans" angle. You might as well advocate for building a robot army to kill all humans. At least that would be cool.
 
2013-01-25 02:48:43 PM

theorellior: StoPPeRmobile: thermodynamic throughput favors = clean = disingenous or fraudulant

This conversation boggles my mind. I've had another one like it this week. No, coal-fired power plants are not "clean". But neither are gasoline-powered internal combustion engines. If the pollution you mitigate by removing ICEs from the road is greater than the pollution emitted by the electricity generated to power EVs, then you have a net increase in "cleanliness". Also, as I mentioned before, a coal-fired power plant is a point source of pollution, which is far, far easier to clean and control than 10,000 diffused gasoline engine exhausts. And don't forget, you need to use Diesel trucks to ship the gasoline to your fueling stations. Electricity just needs wires.

We could probably remove all the mercury and sulfur compounds from coal emissions and sequester the carbon to boot and *still* be more efficient than the present transportation regime using ICEs.


You are probably right but the term "clean" is my problem. Why is that so hard to understand? Why get so defensive about it.

I am not suggesting cigarettes style warning labels, just some honesty.
 
2013-01-25 02:54:32 PM

StoPPeRmobile: You are probably right but the term "clean" is my problem. Why is that so hard to understand? Why get so defensive about it.


Okay, it's a terminology thing. Fair enough. I'd be the last person to claim that coal is "clean". I'd prefer to replace every single coal-fired power plants with nukes if we could, even with the radioactive waste problem. Or molten-salt thermosolar plants in New Mexico, with a concomitant upgrade of the electric grid.

I guess it's annoying that people freak out about EVs powered by coal being "dirty" when the present gasoline alternative is nothing but.
 
2013-01-25 02:56:20 PM

Jim_Callahan: Apparently they're already making mostly industrial precursors, but even if it was just ethanol it's not rocket science to make EtOH into a polymer like HDPE and then bury it somewhere, sequestering it essentially forever.


Rigid PVC plastic might be an even better choice for long-term sequestration, because it lets you store carbon as well as the chlorine that's left over when you produce sodium hydroxide from salt water. Some of the proposed carbon-capture schemes rely on NaOH to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere so you need a way to generate it without dumping a lot of hydrochloric acid into the environment.
 
2013-01-25 03:02:01 PM
smartautocar.com
 
2013-01-25 03:03:39 PM

Ivo Shandor: Rigid PVC plastic might be an even better choice for long-term sequestration, because it lets you store carbon as well as the chlorine that's left over when you produce sodium hydroxide from salt water. Some of the proposed carbon-capture schemes rely on NaOH to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere so you need a way to generate it without dumping a lot of hydrochloric acid into the environment.


So in the future people might visit giant PVC caves where workers are busy storing the latest shipment of sequestered material.

Then, millions of years later, when humanity has left for the stars and the raccoons achieve sapience, they will mine the PVC as a ready source of energy. Having triggered another round of global warming, they will hit on a plan of sequestering the carbon through turning it into long-chain hydrocarbons and storing them in the same caves.
 
2013-01-25 03:23:33 PM

madgonad: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Yeah, I played SimEarth when I was a kid, too. Our climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. Life will adapt. But I'd rather not have to adapt to food riots and other consequences of a sudden (on a geological scale) climate change if we can make machines that pull CO2 out of the air and turn it into a decent scotch. Then, we'd only have to worry about Cuban cigar riots :-)

Yeah, I don't think making ethanol is an ideal sequestration product. Too flammable and eghm, useful.

Now making carbon nanotube girders would be ideal. Carbon-dense. Useful and recyclable (or at least stackable) and unlikely to re-enter the carbon cycle anytime soon. Besides, I like my Scotch just the way it is - made from a single malt and cask aged.


Fair enough. How about a good vodka vodak instead? The run on olives could cripple the economy, though.
 
2013-01-25 03:30:03 PM

The One True TheDavid: Vegetative reproduction:

You will notice that there is no arrow pointing towards roots.

Have you noticed that 3/5 underground arrows point to microbes? What effect do soil microbes have on global warming?


A lot. That is why soil temperature, nitrogen fertilization, tilling soil etc. have a large effect on soil carbon cycling.
 
2013-01-25 03:36:45 PM
That'd be great, except that human activities have nothing to do with climate change.
 
2013-01-25 03:41:40 PM

ecor1: The One True TheDavid: madgonad: ecor1: Well that escalated quickly.

Nuking chinese cities? Wouldn't do much to world population in the long term. Besides being horrific and totally unnecessary.

I know. India is growing at a much higher rate.

India is far less militarily ands economically powerful than China, as well as using fewer natural resources and producing less CO2, so they're not the main target. One goal is to reduce competition from current global powers: India simply does not qualify. Neither does Nigeria or Brazil, for that matter.

Well at least your honest and admitting its about competition for resources and not just overpopulation!


Fewer people means less competition for the Good Stuff and less harm from the Bad Stuff. If you can't make the pie bigger you can at least reduce the eaters. And with far fewer eaters we can make do with a smaller and less resource-using pie.


Still, its better to reduce population from the supply side (ie, fewer births/woman) than from the "kill all humans" angle.

That would take too long, unless we put massive quantities of fertility-reducing and/or fetus-killing chemicals in the water or the food in a very short time.

Is that morally better than simply poisoning a lot of people to death? If not, perhaps we could find a way to produce a huge sudden fog of Sarin and Zyklon-B in the air in Calcutta. But we couldn't hit China, our biggest competitor for the world's resources and the fastest growing producer of CO2, because they might be able to retaliate. And India competes also with China: what good would it do to make Asia easier for China to exploit?

We need one good solid WHAP: instant global cooling AND far fewer resource-consumers to warm the globe back up. Again, can you think of a more effective, more efficient and quicker idea?


You might as well advocate for building a robot army to kill all humans. At least that would be cool.

We already have hundreds of nuclear missiles rusting away: there's no need to increase the drain on the world's resources and make more CO2 by creating another killing force.
 
2013-01-25 03:48:47 PM

ecor1: Well that escalated quickly.

Nuking chinese cities? Wouldn't do much to world population in the long term. Besides being horrific and totally unnecessary.


I think that's going to be a pretty hard sell to even the most jaded soldier.

/though any plan involving reducing human dependency on fossil fuels will have to go there eventually
//after all, China has not only refused to meet any climate targets, they have actually threatened mass releases of greenhouse gas to blackmail trade concessions out of the UN
///I'd rather wage war on terror than war on weather, myself
 
2013-01-25 04:03:29 PM

Tatterdemalian: glass_ibis: So it would be sequestered out of the biosphere for what, 18 hours?

Yep, like biofuels.

/don't question the science, denier, or we will sacrifice you to the gods of atheism next
//if there was an afterlife, we could generate unlimited clean energy by harnessing Darwin's spinning corpse


I'm not sure if you are trolling or just don't understand, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to explain why this could be a huge help.

About 1/4 of the energy used in the US goes to transportation, and nearly all of that is petroleum. It's very hard to sequester CO2 from transportation because the emission sources are tiny and mobile.

Slightly over 1/2 of the energy in the US is coal, natural gas and petroleum used by industry and electrical generation -- that is, consumed in large quantities in ways that make sequestration conceivable if we can find practical methods to do it.

The remaining 1/4 of energy in the US is either from renewable sources that don't increase CO2, or (1/10th) are used at a residential or commercial source and so would be tougher to sequester.

So if we can create a nice liquid fuel (like biofuels or alcohol) to meet our transportation needs, we can stop using petroleum for that. It doesn't really matter if that petroleum replacement comes from distilling plants or from CO2 extracted directly from the atmosphere, as long as it is not adding new CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere.

So if this works, we could potentially cut the rate at which we are adding CO2 to our atmosphere by 1/3, even while continuing to use coal and natural gas. And if the technique could work to just pull CO2 from the atmosphere anywhere to generate alcohol, then it could be used to replace coal and natural gas for use in electric generation and as a heating fuel, essentially eliminating our need for fossil fuels.

Of course, all that presumes that the process isn't incredibly expensive or hard to scale up for some reason.
 
2013-01-25 04:04:23 PM
Is there profit to be made? If it doesn't make money it's not worth doing because there is no global warming since god gave us the earth to do whatever we want to it and Jebus is going to show up any day now anyway.
 
2013-01-25 04:14:07 PM

The One True TheDavid: ecor1: The One True TheDavid: madgonad: ecor1: Well that escalated quickly.

Nuking chinese cities? Wouldn't do much to world population in the long term. Besides being horrific and totally unnecessary.

I know. India is growing at a much higher rate.

India is far less militarily ands economically powerful than China, as well as using fewer natural resources and producing less CO2, so they're not the main target. One goal is to reduce competition from current global powers: India simply does not qualify. Neither does Nigeria or Brazil, for that matter.

Well at least your honest and admitting its about competition for resources and not just overpopulation!

Fewer people means less competition for the Good Stuff and less harm from the Bad Stuff. If you can't make the pie bigger you can at least reduce the eaters. And with far fewer eaters we can make do with a smaller and less resource-using pie.


Still, its better to reduce population from the supply side (ie, fewer births/woman) than from the "kill all humans" angle.

That would take too long, unless we put massive quantities of fertility-reducing and/or fetus-killing chemicals in the water or the food in a very short time.

Is that morally better than simply poisoning a lot of people to death? If not, perhaps we could find a way to produce a huge sudden fog of Sarin and Zyklon-B in the air in Calcutta. But we couldn't hit China, our biggest competitor for the world's resources and the fastest growing producer of CO2, because they might be able to retaliate. And India competes also with China: what good would it do to make Asia easier for China to exploit?

We need one good solid WHAP: instant global cooling AND far fewer resource-consumers to warm the globe back up. Again, can you think of a more effective, more efficient and quicker idea?


You might as well advocate for building a robot army to kill all humans. At least that would be cool.

We already have hundreds of nuclear missiles rusting away: there's n ...


This is a great idea! Here's how I suggest we implement it: We plant nuclear bombs under every population center worldwide. Then everyone travels to closet population center and we ask everyone to vote on whether to execute the plan or not. If it gets at least 50% of the vote, the we do it. We blow up enough of the population centers to make it happen, starting with the ones that had the highest percentage of yes votes and working down from there until we are done.

/or we could just send all the supporters of this plan to One True David's house and nuke it.
 
2013-01-25 04:17:28 PM
 
2013-01-25 04:56:13 PM

Zasteva: Tatterdemalian: glass_ibis: So it would be sequestered out of the biosphere for what, 18 hours?

Yep, like biofuels.

/don't question the science, denier, or we will sacrifice you to the gods of atheism next
//if there was an afterlife, we could generate unlimited clean energy by harnessing Darwin's spinning corpse

I'm not sure if you are trolling or just don't understand, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to explain why this could be a huge help.

About 1/4 of the energy used in the US goes to transportation, and nearly all of that is petroleum. It's very hard to sequester CO2 from transportation because the emission sources are tiny and mobile.

Slightly over 1/2 of the energy in the US is coal, natural gas and petroleum used by industry and electrical generation -- that is, consumed in large quantities in ways that make sequestration conceivable if we can find practical methods to do it.

The remaining 1/4 of energy in the US is either from renewable sources that don't increase CO2, or (1/10th) are used at a residential or commercial source and so would be tougher to sequester.

So if we can create a nice liquid fuel (like biofuels or alcohol) to meet our transportation needs, we can stop using petroleum for that. It doesn't really matter if that petroleum replacement comes from distilling plants or from CO2 extracted directly from the atmosphere, as long as it is not adding new CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere.

So if this works, we could potentially cut the rate at which we are adding CO2 to our atmosphere by 1/3, even while continuing to use coal and natural gas. And if the technique could work to just pull CO2 from the atmosphere anywhere to generate alcohol, then it could be used to replace coal and natural gas for use in electric generation and as a heating fuel, essentially eliminating our need for fossil fuels.

Of course, all that presumes that the process isn't incredibly expensive or hard to scale up for some reason.


Seems like a perfectly reasonable presumption.
 
2013-01-25 05:54:43 PM

Zasteva: Of course, all that presumes that the process isn't incredibly expensive or hard to scale up for some reason.


It also presumes that petroleum is a mystical polymorphic substance that can be loaded into an internal combustion engine, an oil powered electrical generator, or a spool of plastic wrap, depending on which magic machine you pour it into at the refinery.

This is not how it works. Turning off the magic gasoline and oil machines does not mean we have more petroleum to put into the magic plastic wrap machine. What it does mean is that, thanks to biofuels, gasoline becomes a toxic by-product of the refining process instead of a tradable commodity, and gets "flared off" (converted directly into greenhouse gas) with all the other toxic by-products of petroleum refining that are too corrosive and voliatile to cheaply store for long periods of time.

/currently the maintenance costs of those underground gasoline tanks at every service station are paid for with the sale of the gasoline they contain
//hope you have a plan to subsidize the cost of refitting them to hold biofuel
///and the greenhouse gas will be generated anyway, because the hospitals need their disposable gloves, masks, and syringes if nothing else
 
2013-01-25 05:54:48 PM

FLMountainMan: Zasteva: Tatterdemalian: glass_ibis: So it would be sequestered out of the biosphere for what, 18 hours?

Yep, like biofuels.

/don't question the science, denier, or we will sacrifice you to the gods of atheism next
//if there was an afterlife, we could generate unlimited clean energy by harnessing Darwin's spinning corpse

I'm not sure if you are trolling or just don't understand, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to explain why this could be a huge help.

About 1/4 of the energy used in the US goes to transportation, and nearly all of that is petroleum. It's very hard to sequester CO2 from transportation because the emission sources are tiny and mobile.

Slightly over 1/2 of the energy in the US is coal, natural gas and petroleum used by industry and electrical generation -- that is, consumed in large quantities in ways that make sequestration conceivable if we can find practical methods to do it.

The remaining 1/4 of energy in the US is either from renewable sources that don't increase CO2, or (1/10th) are used at a residential or commercial source and so would be tougher to sequester.

So if we can create a nice liquid fuel (like biofuels or alcohol) to meet our transportation needs, we can stop using petroleum for that. It doesn't really matter if that petroleum replacement comes from distilling plants or from CO2 extracted directly from the atmosphere, as long as it is not adding new CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere.

So if this works, we could potentially cut the rate at which we are adding CO2 to our atmosphere by 1/3, even while continuing to use coal and natural gas. And if the technique could work to just pull CO2 from the atmosphere anywhere to generate alcohol, then it could be used to replace coal and natural gas for use in electric generation and as a heating fuel, essentially eliminating our need for fossil fuels.

Of course, all that presumes that the process isn't incredibly expensive or hard to scale up for some ...


Have they scaled up algae bio fuel?
 
2013-01-25 06:14:48 PM

Tatterdemalian: Zasteva: Of course, all that presumes that the process isn't incredibly expensive or hard to scale up for some reason.

It also presumes that petroleum is a mystical polymorphic substance that can be loaded into an internal combustion engine, an oil powered electrical generator, or a spool of plastic wrap, depending on which magic machine you pour it into at the refinery.

This is not how it works. Turning off the magic gasoline and oil machines does not mean we have more petroleum to put into the magic plastic wrap machine. What it does mean is that, thanks to biofuels, gasoline becomes a toxic by-product of the refining process instead of a tradable commodity, and gets "flared off" (converted directly into greenhouse gas) with all the other toxic by-products of petroleum refining that are too corrosive and voliatile to cheaply store for long periods of time.

/currently the maintenance costs of those underground gasoline tanks at every service station are paid for with the sale of the gasoline they contain
//hope you have a plan to subsidize the cost of refitting them to hold biofuel
///and the greenhouse gas will be generated anyway, because the hospitals need their disposable gloves, masks, and syringes if nothing else


Yeah, plastic syringes! You can't sterilize them with heat so junkies die and spread AIDS. Yeah!
 
2013-01-25 06:39:46 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Yeah, plastic syringes! You can't sterilize them with heat so junkies die and spread AIDS. Yeah!


PROTIP: You can't prevent the spread of infections with sterilized glass syringes either. A full disassembly and run through a quality autoclave only reduces the risk, and prions aren't bothered by it. The only way to effectively eliminate the risk of spreading infection is to use sealed single use disposable syringes.
 
2013-01-25 07:00:30 PM

FLMountainMan: Of course, all that presumes that the process isn't incredibly expensive or hard to scale up for some reason.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable presumption.


Actually I'd say it's a terrible presumption, but who knows. They don't even have it to the point of producing alcohol yet.
 
2013-01-25 07:08:57 PM

Tatterdemalian: Zasteva: Of course, all that presumes that the process isn't incredibly expensive or hard to scale up for some reason.

It also presumes that petroleum is a mystical polymorphic substance that can be loaded into an internal combustion engine, an oil powered electrical generator, or a spool of plastic wrap, depending on which magic machine you pour it into at the refinery.

This is not how it works. Turning off the magic gasoline and oil machines does not mean we have more petroleum to put into the magic plastic wrap machine. What it does mean is that, thanks to biofuels, gasoline becomes a toxic by-product of the refining process instead of a tradable commodity, and gets "flared off" (converted directly into greenhouse gas) with all the other toxic by-products of petroleum refining that are too corrosive and voliatile to cheaply store for long periods of time.


Interesting. I wasn't aware that Liquid Petroleum Gases used for plastic production were a natural byproduct of gasoline production.

Sounds like without that cheap source of LPG, plastics would become much more expensive. I'm not terribly concerned about that, to be honest.

/currently the maintenance costs of those underground gasoline tanks at every service station are paid for with the sale of the gasoline they contain
//hope you have a plan to subsidize the cost of refitting them to hold biofuel


What would that retrofitting entail, exactly? And besides, wouldn't they need to be retrofitted to hold alcohol rather than gasoline, since we are talking about a process that produces alcohol?

///and the greenhouse gas will be generated anyway, because the hospitals need their disposable gloves, masks, and syringes if nothing else

I'm pretty sure there are other sources of feedstocks for plastics that gasoline byproducts. I could swear I've seen plastics produced from corn, for example. But that's okay, I'm sure those people just lied about their feedstock and it really was LPG produced from gasoline refining despite what was on the label.
 
2013-01-25 07:46:06 PM

Tatterdemalian: StoPPeRmobile: Yeah, plastic syringes! You can't sterilize them with heat so junkies die and spread AIDS. Yeah!

PROTIP: You can't prevent the spread of infections with sterilized glass syringes either. A full disassembly and run through a quality autoclave only reduces the risk, and prions aren't bothered by it. The only way to effectively eliminate the risk of spreading infection is to use sealed single use disposable syringes.


Elimination? Never called for that. It's simply a realistic flaw of the plastic syringe. Never saw glass syringes wash up on the shore.
 
2013-01-25 08:52:13 PM

Zasteva: I'm pretty sure there are other sources of feedstocks for plastics that gasoline byproducts. I could swear I've seen plastics produced from corn, for example. But that's okay, I'm sure those people just lied about their feedstock and it really was LPG produced from gasoline refining despite what was on the label.


I'm sure the laws of physics will be very impressed by your ability to substitute "LPG" for "petroleum" and pretend it's what you were saying all along.
 
2013-01-25 09:15:31 PM
I think the Register is the only chav site on the Internet that insists on referring to every scientist as a "boffin" and all science as "boffinry"
 
2013-01-25 10:49:32 PM
Im getting drunk and watching Ken Burns Prohibition, this seems appropriate.
 
2013-01-25 11:42:44 PM

Tatterdemalian: Zasteva: I'm pretty sure there are other sources of feedstocks for plastics that gasoline byproducts. I could swear I've seen plastics produced from corn, for example. But that's okay, I'm sure those people just lied about their feedstock and it really was LPG produced from gasoline refining despite what was on the label.

I'm sure the laws of physics will be very impressed by your ability to substitute "LPG" for "petroleum" and pretend it's what you were saying all along.


I think you misunderstood me. When I said "Interesting. I wasn't aware that Liquid Petroleum Gases used for plastic production were a natural byproduct of gasoline production" I wasn't being sarcastic. My intent was to thank you for informing me of something I wasn't aware of before.

Of course then I incorporated that new knowledge into my next post, with no intention of pretending that was what I said before.

In case that's not clear enough, before I did not know that LPG was a byproduct of gasoline production. Now that I know that, thanks to the information you provided, I am pointing out that nevertheless there are other sources of plastic feedstock.

Is it your intention to deny that or accept it? Or perhaps you would prefer to just misrepresent me completely in the futile hope of scoring internet points for the few random people who happen to still be reading this thread?
 
2013-01-26 02:15:42 AM
BANG...Burt Rutan posted an article last week that shows we've cooled by 0.5°F in the last ten years.
BANG...NOAA has discovered that the 1-to-5 ranking system for accuracy by location of weather stations is FAR too trusting... UHI can affect equipment placed more than two miles outside the city's circulation.
BANG...Models that do NOT include CO2 are TWELVE TIMES more accurate at predicting weather than those that do.
BANG...You can make alcohol out of crude oil but if you do it wrong you'll go blind.
BANG... I still haven't found the alt code for bullet points, cope... its funny.
BANG...LPG is a petroleum, so is Vaseline, Coal Tar, Kerosene. These all exist within the rock. Parafin is technically a petroleum. The word does not refer ONLY to liquid crude oil.
 
2013-01-26 04:40:27 AM
img441.imageshack.us

What global warming?

This new technology must have been introduced some 140+ months ago, according to the NASA data.
 
2013-01-26 06:33:21 AM
So we have something to DRINK! when the Derp Brigade brings up AAAAAAALLLLLLL GOOOOOOOORRRRRRRE!
 
2013-01-26 01:48:51 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Fair enough. How about a good vodka vodak instead? The run on olives could cripple the economy, though.


What heathens use vodka for their martinis?

I'm not a big fan of olives though, so I use a twist, or most anything that amuses me. I once made a friend a "chocolate martini". Gin, vermouth, and a Hershey's kiss. Last one I made, I wanted the salty pungency of an olive, but I since I can't stand the taste of actual olives, I cut off an olive sized chunk of a sour pickle. A cross between the people who use a cucumber and the people who use olives! Pretty damn good, IMO.
 
2013-01-27 09:29:11 AM

whatsupchuck: I can't speak with any great authority on this, but unless you're farting CO2 I can't think of how it would return as a gas to the atmosphere.


Alcohol in the body is eventually converted back into water and carbon dioxide, which is then removed from the body by the lungs.
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report