Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

Mixed Greens: How the New Nuclear Splits Environmentalists

There's an empty pit about a hundred miles southwest of Washington where two nuclear power plants were planned but never built. The pit became a symbol of the success of the antinuclear movement, the activists who a quarter-century ago forced utilities to scrap plans for dozens of reactors across the country.

But today, the hill above that pit at Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna station offers a great view of Virginia's nuclear future. Here, you can see the two (out of four originally planned) reactors that were built in the 1970s, and you can see the spot where Dominion wants to build the first new reactor in the country in 30 years.

This time, power companies are positioning nuclear power as a boon to the environment, a clean alternative to the carbon-emitting power plants that contribute so mightily to global warming. The green movement that coalesced in the battle against nukes in the 1970s and '80s is not exactly embracing nuclear this time but is very much split on the question. Although Mr. Global Warming himself, Al Gore, has not warmed to nuclear, other politicians who once recoiled at the idea of more nukes -- such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ("I have a different view on nuclear than I did 20 years ago. . . . It has to be on the table") -- are pronouncing themselves open to the concept.

"The problem of global warming is so serious that we must thoroughly consider every low-carbon option for generating power," says a statement from Environmental Defense, a green group that remains concerned about the security of nuclear plants but calls the industry's safety record "impressive."

"The potential for disaster scares the pants off me," says Scott Howson, chairman of the Rappahannock Group of the Sierra Club, whose national organization still strongly opposes building nuclear plants. "But speaking just for myself, I see a solution ultimately in nuclear energy. It's non-polluting, and that's what we're all looking for."

Virginia gets more of its energy from nuclear power than almost any other state -- about 35 percent, almost twice the national average. But Dominion engineers warn that the state's existing nuclear generating capacity is woefully insufficient.

About 70 percent of U.S. energy sources -- oil, natural gas and coal plants -- burn carbon. To merely maintain a 30 percent level of sources that do not emit carbon, and even assuming a big increase in the use of wind and solar power, the country would need to build more than 40 nuclear plants by 2020, says Dominion's vice president for nuclear support services, Gene Grecheck.

He's the first to say that's not going to happen. But the rest of the world is leaping into nuclear expansion, with 30 reactors planned in China alone. And the U.S. government has made it easier for utilities to seek new plants, compressing the permitting timetable, providing tax credits for companies that apply for a license by the end of next year and insuring utilities against delays caused by lawsuits. Still, opening a new reactor remains a decade-long process.

Dominion started moving back toward nuclear in 2002. The company picked North Anna because the site was originally designed for four reactors. This spring, federal regulators held a public hearing on the proposal, which drew surprisingly little opposition. The feds are expected to issue a final decision on a new reactor this year. A new plant could be built by 2015.

Dug in the 1970s out of thousands of acres of farmland to provide the water needed to cool the nuclear plant, Lake Anna, a 45-minute drive from Fredericksburg, has blossomed into a retirement and vacation community where some waterfront lots sell for a half-million dollars. Houses top $1 million, even on the warmer side of the lake, where water that has churned through the power plant is discharged into lagoons, raising the water temperature in some areas to 100 degrees in summer.

After some Lake Anna residents bristled at a possible increase in the lake's temperature, Dominion redesigned the new facility to pump hot water into $200 million, 150-foot-high cooling towers before the water is returned to the lake.

"The nuclear issue has hardly even come up" in the local debate over expanding North Anna, says the Dominion executive who runs the plant, Dan Stoddard. "The only real issue was the impact on the lake. People who live here often say, 'We're not opposed to the plant as long as we can't see it, hear it or smell it.' "

There is still great concern about the nation's failure to figure out what to do with the spent fuel rods that emerge from nuclear plants. But the path toward the new reactors seems relatively smooth. For now, all of the spent fuel ever produced at Lake Anna sits in rows of 14-foot-high concrete and steel canisters on an open-air concrete pad behind a barbed-wire fence near the power plant.

That's just too obvious an environmental problem -- and too easy a terrorism target -- for many people. But as I walk through the North Anna facility with Dominion executives, watched constantly by black-clad men toting machine guns, I hear something the nuclear power industry has been short on for decades: confidence.

"If you're going to do something about CO2," Grecheck says, "and it's pretty clear that the politics of the situation are heading in that direction, you're going to have to look at nuclear."

By Marc Fisher |  June 3, 2007; 9:02 AM ET
Previous: Random Friday Question: Why Doesn't D.C. Have a Bottle Bill? | Next: The Shooter Prevails: Protecting Seung-Hui Cho's Privacy

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



This is all so silly - we're literally bathed in solar energy (clean, safe, limitless) - we just need to solve that pesky economics problem preventing it's widespread use for electricity and transportation.

Posted by: jhorstma | June 3, 2007 12:48 PM

Re: jhorstma... thats just the problem. Solar Power could bottom out the energy market. That's why they don't want you to use it. They'd rather you keep paying out the nose for their power.

Posted by: Fred | June 3, 2007 3:39 PM

Fred -- I really wish "they" were as smart as all you conspiracy theorists think "they" are. Do you really think the various, chemical, plastics, and fabricating corporations that would manufacture cheap reliable solar power cells are keeping them off the market out of love and affection for their brethern in the utility companies? Servicing the solar power generation grid would be a multi billion dollar indiustry if the technical barriers could be overcome. Dupont, Dow and GE would be all over it and never shed a tear for the executives of Dominion, PPG etc. H---, they would probably short the utility company stocks just to add insult to injury. The sad fact is that all of these companies and more have poured millions into research over the past 40 years and come up empty.

If you want a more believable conspiracy theory, try looking into how much money the coal companies have funneled into the environmental movement to prevent the development of nuclear energy.

Posted by: Woodbridge | June 3, 2007 4:42 PM

http://www.usibelli.com/coal.html

Maybe you can apply for a grant, mealymouth. At least I use my name.

Posted by: Fred | June 3, 2007 8:24 PM

The unsolved problems with nuclear power remain: (1) inadequate quality assurance in the design, construction and operation of plants; and (2) federal delays in providing spent fuel disposal facilities. While a few stellar-performing utilities have emerged for running nukes, the industry as a whole has not learned the lessons of TMI, in my opinion. And DOE has yet to convince me it can accept fuel for safe storage over many thousands of years until it decays naturally.

Posted by: JTSpangler | June 3, 2007 10:13 PM

Lots of safe clean alternatives which are not economical now will become so the day we make fossil fuels illegal. It's inevitable; the longer we wait, the more global warming will disrupt the human and natural worlds, and parts of each will be lost forever.

How much do you suppose it would cost to build a 30 foot seawall around D.C.? And would you live within such a thing after Katrina and New Orleans? I would much rather live next to a nuke plant, thank you.

Posted by: richard schumacher | June 3, 2007 10:30 PM

Re: Fred and jhortsma - Sadly, I am not "bathed" in solar energy at the moment. I will not even see the sun for several more hours. Once it begins to rise, the energy available will only be a small fraction of what it will be at noon. You have to multiply the maximum "insolation" value by the sine of the elevation angle to get the actual power coming from the sun for a particular location at any time during the day.

Even once you make that correction, you need to realize that the most efficient solar cells available on the market today only capture about 17% of the energy that hits them - if they are designed with a rather costly tracking mechanism that ensures they are always pointing at the sun and if they have a clear path to the sun (no buildings or trees in the way at any time during the day.) Many of the advances that make the press today - like thin film solar or dyesolar paint that can be applied directly to surfaces like roofing material are designed to produce large scale, cheaper panels. Their specific efficiency is often sacrificed to reduce the cost; the products coming on the market today often convert less than 10% of the incident energy to beneficial use.

You also need to understand that the absolute maximum value of "insolation" at noon on a clear day near the equator is still not enough to provide much POWER per unit area. If you had a clean collector that was the size of a mini-van perfectly oriented to the sun, it would only be collecting the equivalent of about 5 horsepower - ASSUMING it was 100% efficient. It would have to collect energy for several days and store it up in order to drive that mini-van for a single charge, especially once you factor in the efficiency, the pointing aspects, and allow for a bird poop or two because the panel is not always going to be completely clean.

No - there is no conspiracy - there are simply intractable engineering problems that make solar power unreliable (night and clouds) costly (even if the materials are really cheap), inefficient (even if the materials are really advanced) and insufficient (according to Tim Flannery's "Weather Makers" our current use of fossil fuels allows humans to consume the equivalent of about 440 years worth of anciently collected and stored solar energy every single year).

BTW - Fred, not only did I sign my name, but I included my last name. You can look me up and see if you think I have the technical background to be able to run a number or two.

Posted by: Rod Adams | June 4, 2007 1:25 AM

To all conspirator theorists: You accuse "dirty capitalist swine" of thwarting use of solar and other "alternatives" for energy. Have you wondered why Israel, with all its sunshine, is using solar for heating water and other minor application, but to less than 1/2% for electricity? This, despite the endless push by its own greens for solar electricity - a push that continues to this day.

Note that neither China, nor Vietnam or Cuba, totalitarian nations so many of you greens admire, opted for the alternatives you push, but have chosen nuclear and/or fossil fuels instead. Are they all run by dirty US capitalist swine, as you claim our own country as being run?

At the top, you geeens, are controlled by hate America elitists, twisted professors, plus the gang of Hollywood and other "entertainers" who use 10 to 100 times more energy per capita than average Americans; fly in jets consuming more energy within a 2-hour flight than average Americans consume within a year; then have the gall to tell us to conserve, and hang our laundry out to dry in the sun instead of using driers. They are sickos who wish to enfeeble the U.S., thinking that it will be turned into a dictatorship run by them. The joke is on them.

The real beneficiaries of their activities are the red and Islamo fascists who may indeed destroy our country. Lincoln was right when he said that no outside nation could defeat the US, but that it can be destroyed by inside enemies. Yet the joke is on the greens and all their helpers they will be amongst the first to be destroyed in such an event.

Posted by: Moses Olitzki | June 4, 2007 4:03 AM

To all conspirator theorists: You accuse "dirty capitalist swine" of thwarting use of solar and other "alternatives" for energy. Have you wondered why Israel, with all its sunshine, is using solar for heating water and other minor application, but to less than 1/2% for electricity? This, despite the endless push by its own greens for solar electricity - a push that continues to this day.

Note that neither China, nor Vietnam or Cuba, totalitarian nations so many of you greens admire, opted for the alternatives you push, but have chosen nuclear and/or fossil fuels instead. Are they all run by dirty US capitalist swine, as you claim our own country as being run?

At the top, you geeens, are controlled by hate America elitists, twisted professors, plus the gang of Hollywood and other "entertainers" who use 10 to 100 times more energy per capita than average Americans; fly in jets consuming more energy within a 2-hour flight than average Americans consume within a year; then have the gall to tell us to conserve, and hang our laundry out to dry in the sun instead of using driers. They are sickos who wish to enfeeble the U.S., thinking that it will be turned into a dictatorship run by them. The joke is on them.

The real beneficiaries of their activities are the red and Islamo fascists who may indeed destroy our country. Lincoln was right when he said that no outside nation could defeat the US, but that it can be destroyed by inside enemies. Yet the joke is on the greens and all their helpers they will be amongst the first to be destroyed in such an event.

Posted by: Moses Olitzki | June 4, 2007 4:04 AM

Don't let the perfect stand in the way of the perfectl good.

Posted by: Stick | June 4, 2007 8:46 AM

When you talk about security of the Nuclear power plants, try and include discussion for security of the alternative fuels: Be sure and ask the folks in New York who have jet fuel pipes under their homes how secure they feel this week, what with the exposure of the plot top blow up the JFK fuel depot.

Or course, some of the previous bloggers will claim that plot was initiated by the power companies. Or maybe the Bush administration.

I bet it was the space aliens ... oops, I meant space immigrants. ;)

Posted by: SoMD | June 4, 2007 9:47 AM

Note that neither China, nor Vietnam or Cuba, totalitarian nations so many of you greens admire
-----

are you out of your mind? None of those countries have even remotely positive environmental records. You live in a fantasy land if you think environmentalists give Cuba a free pass on the sugar cane mono-crop. Did you pretend not to see the liberal outrage against the Three Gorges Dam in China? There was a world bank protest where a huge group of crunchy liberal hippies held a big protest in front of the Chinese embassy over the dam. Are you living in a world that exists only in your head or talk radio? Liberals hate the ultra-conservative Chinese government for many reasons.

Posted by: DCer | June 4, 2007 10:04 AM

Wow, personal attacks. Too bad, given how serious climate change is to people who will be alive in 2020. Actually, World Health Organization says it's already serious, and there is ample evidence out of Alaska, Bangladesh, and other areas of change dangerous and expensive to both people and ecosystems. My part of the US moved into a permanent drought in 1999; ecosystems are already suffering.

I frequently see among the arguments for solar and wind that the fuel is free. But the collector costs money and energy to build. We will have to subsidize both solar and wind for a while longer, invest heavily in R&D -- those of us who will be around to use electricity in the future hope this is done, as it will decrease the problems of future climate change and lower our electricity bills. Pay now or pay considerably more later.

It would be good for the US to settle the nuclear waste question. However, Sweden at least has chosen to leave spent rods until after the hot fission products have decayed, then plan some time in the future to bury the remaining. The same as we are doing, but for the Swedish, it's a plan.

I guess I don't see the same lack of attention to safety in the nuclear industry as you do. I am helped to see the relative dangers of nuclear power as less in part because of all those refinery deaths in my neighborhood.

The question is how do the health and environmental dangers of using nuclear power compare to the health and environmental dangers of failing to use nuclear power. The answer seems pretty one-sided to me.

A Musing Environment

Posted by: Karen Street | June 4, 2007 10:51 AM

Please note that anyone can call himself an environmentalist. Real environmentalists have always favored nuclear energy. Phony environmentalists opposed nuclear energy because it interfered with their vision of the future, which was a low-tech crafts-based society supervised by an elite made up of--guess who.

To the extent anti-nukes have been successful, they can take credit for pollution that kills thousands of Americans every month, irreversible damage to the environment, and even a change in the climate.

But look what nuclear energy gets us:

(1) An electricity source that doesn't depend on wind or sunlight or the limited amount of energy storage available, and emits virtually no greenhouse gases. It could reduce CO2 emissions by 40%.

(2) An energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen, which could be used directly in automobiles and trucks or added to biofuels to make their production higher by a factor of three. Presently, transportation accounts for about 33% of CO2 emissions; all of that could be eliminated through conservation, electrification, and alternate fuels.

(3) A huge reduction in air pollution, lowered trade deficits, and freedom from Middle-East involvements.

From the facts it's clear that in order to solve global warming nuclear has to be given the maximum opportunity to grow.

Posted by: RobC | June 4, 2007 11:32 AM

As someone old enough to remember the Three Mile Island emergency (and the devastation at Chernobyl), I have always been reflexively anti-nuke. But the fact is, the nuclear power plant at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland has functioned without incident for nearly 40 years. And France now gets virtually all its electricity from nuclear plants, and other European nations are largely nuclear as well. The fact is, in the short term, nuclear power is the only proven way to reduce our fossil fuel use while generating enough energy to supply our needs.

Posted by: Jack | June 4, 2007 11:44 AM

The "waste" is largely unburnt fuel, including the large fraction of the uranium that wasn't fissionable, and some additional fuel bred by the neutron flux. It should be reprocessed and reused, leaving only the fission products as waste. This reduces the amount of waste by a factor of 10. It should also be noted that the "fuel" portion of what's currently considered waste is what gives the very long half-lives often quoted for nuclear waste, and that this material is not very radioactive. In contrast, the fission products are highly radioactive, but also have comparatively short half-lives. Every other major country with a nuclear program reprocesses fuel.

Re. solar power, there is no conspiracy keeping the technology down, just as there was no conspiracy to kill electric cars. There are serious technical and cost challenges standing in the way of widespread adoption of them. Huge progress has been made in solar technology in the decades since the first oil shock, but there are still hurdles to overcome. 70s era PV panels has relatively short lifespans and barely paid back the energy required to make them. Widespread deployment of the technology before it was ready would not have solved our energy problems, but might have bankrupted us. With today's vastly improved technology, solar PV still costs about 10x coal. Moreover, there is no good way to bank the power for when it's not sunny. Existing power storage solutions rely on site-specific features (like pumping water up to a lake) that won't scale up. Research continues, and there is reason to be hopeful that the problems will eventually be at least partially solved. (Solar thermal plants may be able to store energy as heat in molten salts, for example.) No one mentioned wind, but it, too, has come a long way from 70s era technologies, which cost 10x what wind does today per kwh. Wind also has an unresolved intermittency problem.

So, meantime, what do we do? During the last 30 years that all this progress was made in solar, wind, and battery technology, we burned coal, instead of running nuclear plants. Was that really a good idea? More to the point, is that something we should continue to do in the next (say) 20 years while the renewable technologies mature to the point where they make more than a token contribution to our energy needs? We need to employ proven low-carbon technologies now, not continue to wait for breakthroughs that might take longer than people think, or never occur. (Just look at how long fusion power has been "20 years away".)

Posted by: Doug | June 4, 2007 11:55 AM

Isn't nuclear the only energy solution that can inventory (nearly) all of its waste?

I would much rather deal with spent fuel pellets that don't burn or explode, than inhale airborne mercury, sulphur, CO2 etc. from coal-fired plants.

Store it in a mountain, not in my lungs, please.

It's hard to view the "no-solution crowd" with credibility. Do they favor a world without electricity? Or perhaps a world with significantly LESS electricity?

Who are we to impose this world on China, India, or other developing nations-- where electricity so clearly contributes to better hospitals, standards of living... and the Internet, for crying out loud?

If I mis-characterize this, please correct me.

Posted by: Fred D. | June 4, 2007 1:17 PM

I would be for nuclear power if only one issue could be solved. Build all the plants you want BUT have someone agree to take the nuclear waste. Would ANY congressperson be able to accept the waste in their district? NO.

I mean really, no one will even accept LOW level radioactive waste. Unfortunately, too many people build the plants and then only years later will they even try to deal with the waste products only to find we don't know what to do with it.

(Dumping it in another country is not acceptable either.)

This is the issue that needs to be resolved before anyone can even think of before building more plants.

Posted by: charlie | June 4, 2007 3:02 PM

I'm glad to see (mostly) fact-based discussion here. I believe that if we evaluate each energy technology by the same set of objective criteria, and truly calculate the "cost of doing nothing," that we will find we must thoughtfully deploy them all and that nuclear must contribute at least the same, if not a greater, proportion of energy that it does today.

For instance, Fred D made a good point about used fuel. I'd go even further and point out that no other industry accounts for, stores, monitors, and plans (including paying up front) for the disposition of its hazardous waste like the nuclear industry does.

As an example, why doesn't anyone ever talk about the toxic waste from solar panels and their production? The amount of waste generated per kilowatt-hr produced is about the same as nuclear and it NEVER decays or becomes less hazardous. I'm not against further development of solar power but lets treat all technologies equally.

Posted by: Lisa S. | June 4, 2007 3:08 PM

Charlie, your comment deserves a serious response. Wastes haven't been got the attention they deserve, but it isn't a technological issue but rather a budget-politics issue. I think that whenever the subject is raised in budget hearings, someone asks, "What harm are the wastes causing?"

The truthful answer is that they aren't causing any harm and it's not plausible that they could. Therefore, the subject is dropped. Curiously, the utilities have been paying for waste disposal right along; the feds spend the money for other things and stuff IOUs into the waste fund's piggy bank.

What makes nuclear wastes different from other wastes is that they are immensely valuable. They can be recycled to yield over twenty times as much energy as otherwise, and the amount of dangerous waste is made even smaller.

Up until now, we've pursued the strategy of somehow isolating the wastes for hundreds of thousands of years, a task that many people believe can never be proved safe. But the thing is, even the non-fissile wastes can be converted through irradiation into other substances. This can be done with existing technology; no breakthroughs are needed. In fact, the process could be done in a special-purpose reactor that yields more energy.

All that's required for this to happen is political will. And it's not an emergency; where we should apply our political activism is getting our elected officials to make steady, determined progress in establishing a temporary repository something like Yucca Mountain and building a waste-transmutation reactor.

This isn't something that has to be done in a decade, but in a century or so. It's quite within our ability.

Posted by: RobC | June 4, 2007 3:43 PM

Sticking to the actual facts (and the historical record) the comparison between nuclear and fossil fuels couldn't be more clear. Fossil power plant pollution causes ~25,000 deaths every single year in the US alone. Fossil power plants are also responsible for ~40% of US CO2 emissions. In stark contrast, nuclear plants have never had any measurable impact on public health over their entire ~30-40 year history, and they have a negligible impact on global warming.

Over the longer term, the (buried) waste products from fossil fuels will present a far greater overall health risk to distant generations (living thousands to millions of years from now) than nuclear waste ever will. This is due to the vastly greater volume of fossil fuel wastes, their much more dispersible form, their much less careful burial, and the fact that some toxins in those wastes never decay away. On top of that is the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the waste will even still be there 1000+ years from now (as we will have found ways to process/eliminate it long before then). The notion that nuclear waste is unique in terms of very-long-term risk is a myth.

Given nuclear plants' essentially perfect safety record over the last several decades, I find JTSpangler's comment about insufficient quality assurance difficult to comprehend. And charlie's comment about resolving the waste problem before "even thinking about" building new plants should apply to fossil fuels, not nuclear power.

It is utterly clear that it is fossil fuels that have the unsolved waste problem, and that nuclear has "solved" the problem to an infinitely greater extent. Even if we had full sequestration of all CO2 (as well as all other pollutants), the waste problem will still not be nearly as "solved" for fossil fuels, as the probability of leakage for sequestered fossil plant wastes/CO2 is infinitely larger than that for Yucca Mtn.

Posted by: Jim Hopf | June 5, 2007 1:42 AM

I also believe that the nuclear waste issue deserves a serious response. A geologic repository is technically feasible and a national imperative. Our old military and government research waste ends up in the WIPP facility in New Mexico, which is 1/2 a mile underground. Its been up and running for the last 8 years, but gets little attention because the civil nuclear program is not legally allowed to use it. It also suffered from the tactics of abusive litigation and was delayed for 20 years, but reason prevailed. Yucca Mt. is equally feasible.

The overriding concern to mankind is avoiding global meltdown via continued fossil fuel use. The nuclear option has become indispensable. The other fallacious argument I keep hearing concerns renewables. Renewable energy doesn't compete with nuclear, renewables and nuclear compete with coal.

Posted by: Bill V | June 5, 2007 9:24 PM

I like to bathe in nuclear-fused water, it gives me a nice, unearthly glow to lobby politicians and gullible columnmists like Marcky Marc.

Posted by: SMITHERS | June 6, 2007 1:22 PM

The spent fuel from American reactors can be used to operated Canadian CANDU reactors. So for a small fee we Canadians could take the USA spent fuel and we could have free energy forever.

This will not happen. The anti-nuke fanatics will go beserk if anyone tries to carry out this sensible solution.

Posted by: Randal Leavitt | June 6, 2007 2:30 PM

uixnk exiwotcqy kdczyswg gvjx mlok knxyfzltb oxkyvh

Posted by: yrlcfwh jwphlbfa | June 21, 2007 4:53 AM

jfbxiye hlod kcdbsr vmituh ehqkdmca yqvncfji hcuwtno http://www.qunp.riozkext.com

Posted by: asncquvg qnfeyb | June 21, 2007 4:54 AM

jfbxiye hlod kcdbsr vmituh ehqkdmca yqvncfji hcuwtno http://www.qunp.riozkext.com

Posted by: asncquvg qnfeyb | June 21, 2007 4:55 AM

jfbxiye hlod kcdbsr vmituh ehqkdmca yqvncfji hcuwtno http://www.qunp.riozkext.com

Posted by: asncquvg qnfeyb | June 21, 2007 4:57 AM

yhlzsk wjdbx vywbfx qmloep azeys adph hfmn nrcjiylbg gvoleix

Posted by: wqmgeba kqdzhaex | June 21, 2007 4:58 AM

yhlzsk wjdbx vywbfx qmloep azeys adph hfmn nrcjiylbg gvoleix

Posted by: wqmgeba kqdzhaex | June 21, 2007 4:59 AM

tbfopeayr kqbtilnwr idzlojy klgzs wusnf hkoqtf fhtyks [URL=http://www.vfunytojw.hxky.com]vtbol jdlou[/URL]

Posted by: idflb asrnj | June 21, 2007 5:00 AM

tbfopeayr kqbtilnwr idzlojy klgzs wusnf hkoqtf fhtyks [URL=http://www.vfunytojw.hxky.com]vtbol jdlou[/URL]

Posted by: idflb asrnj | June 21, 2007 5:01 AM

tbfopeayr kqbtilnwr idzlojy klgzs wusnf hkoqtf fhtyks [URL=http://www.vfunytojw.hxky.com]vtbol jdlou[/URL]

Posted by: idflb asrnj | June 21, 2007 5:03 AM

tbfopeayr kqbtilnwr idzlojy klgzs wusnf hkoqtf fhtyks [URL=http://www.vfunytojw.hxky.com]vtbol jdlou[/URL]

Posted by: idflb asrnj | June 21, 2007 5:03 AM

ucmgsavq lvmhrd qaybxnmwg ixslc vxizbw ogbkx ndwzfmhax [URL]http://www.kxubwar.rfyjnzgas.com[/URL] tiembkzru jbidcnyr

Posted by: zhvercnt epvnxzjbl | June 21, 2007 5:05 AM

ucmgsavq lvmhrd qaybxnmwg ixslc vxizbw ogbkx ndwzfmhax [URL]http://www.kxubwar.rfyjnzgas.com[/URL] tiembkzru jbidcnyr

Posted by: zhvercnt epvnxzjbl | June 21, 2007 5:06 AM

ucmgsavq lvmhrd qaybxnmwg ixslc vxizbw ogbkx ndwzfmhax [URL]http://www.kxubwar.rfyjnzgas.com[/URL] tiembkzru jbidcnyr

Posted by: zhvercnt epvnxzjbl | June 21, 2007 5:07 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company