Dems ready to hit us in the pocketbook again
The free-spending Democrats are at it again. Not being satisfied to tax us to death, they are now attacking our pocketbooks through the private sector (“Dems plug line of bills on alternative energy,” Jan. 18).
They have “announced a raft of bills to diversify the state’s power portfolio and drive new economic development and educational opportunities.” It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?
The key question in all this is how is it going to be paid for and who will pay it?
The proposal calls for mandating the utilities to generate 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources, planting wind generators at schools, and biofuel grants. Since all of these ideas have not reached a level of cost as low as the fuels we are now using, this is going to cost consumers more. Way to go, Dems! Are there any practical thinkers on the Democratic side of the aisle?
Roger Wilson, Golden
Boo hoo. Roger doesn't have any complaints about giving the oil companies huge tax breaks at our expense but talk about achieving energy independence and he is just beside himself with outrage. Spending a half a trillion dollars in Iraq to secure their oil fields is OK with Roger but it is a no-no to fund non-oil company solutions to our energy crisis. Thanks for the clarity of your hypocrisy Roger.
Posted by Wes on January 31, 2007 05:09 AMDemocrats promised fiscal responsibility and passed their first legislation without evaluating how we would pay.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on January 31, 2007 05:47 AMAs an unaffiliated voter I am sick of the Democrans and Republicrats sniping at each other while the country goes to heck. Let's get away from the partisan table and get this country moving ahead again!! We need alternative energy sources, and I suggest we put the scientists in Los Alamos and don't let them leave until they come up with a good answer!!!
Posted by Janis Houston on January 31, 2007 06:04 AMWes,
Please get a clue. The USA is nearly 100% energy independent in electricity right now. We get virtually all of our electric from coal, nuc, wind and hydro. Any move away from these proven reliable and abundant resource will cost significantly more. That is not opinion it s fact.
DWP
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 07:58 AMDWP - Wes doesn't want to get a clue. He's one of those who prefers to recite the rhetoric preached at the Bush haters club. It seems to fill their ever-waking moment.
Regardless of the issue being discussed, people like Wes will inevitably insert the same old "Bush lied, tax breaks for the rich & big oil, Iraq was for oil, etc...
I was almost surprised that he inserted those tired and overused lines here on a local issue... but then I came to my senses.
Posted by KW on January 31, 2007 08:26 AMwhat about all the billions repuplicans spent in iraq?on false pretenses.all that money could have helped so many things here ,it seems like repulicans love to throw money away with out any justifcation,to me your just a lost sheep
Posted by len on January 31, 2007 08:35 AMYou are right KW. Len made your point exactly. Here we are talking about alternative energy and presto chango it's Bush and the War! I am not claiming to be a Rep or Dem. I just stated the fact that we get 100% of our power from domestic sources. If there ar ethose that have FACTS that we are not 100% independent on electricity I would love to hear from them. I would suggest that all these people that know how to make power better than the utilities invest in their own power plant and run Xcel out of business. Otherwise it is just noise.
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 09:03 AMLen - It's a local issue regarding local energy. What's Iraq have to do with it?
Note to DWP - See what I mean???
Posted by KW on January 31, 2007 09:04 AMRoger's letter complained about irresponsible spending plans by Democrats. I pointed out the Rogers hypocrisy by wondering why he didn't complain about the unbelievably wasteful corporate welfare that Republicans engaged in toward the oil companies. I also pointed out the incredible waste of government funds to continue to occupy Iraq for the oil companies and war profiteers. If this was truly a desperate war for survival then why did the "Borrow and Spend" Republicans continue to give massive tax cuts to the super wealthy?
DWP might believe we are 100% energy independent for electrical generating power but it is still based on fossil fuels which will eventually be completely depleted. I don't see anything wrong with starting the transition even if the sacred free market economics of Republicans aren't all aligned yet.
Posted by Wes on January 31, 2007 10:16 AMTry to stay focused. Local issue of alternative energy. Let's look at the score:
Coal - Hate it makes the world warming
Nuclear - Hate it I saw China SYndrome
Hydro - Hate it it requires dams and I like to raft
Gas - Hate it it cost too much and we are running out.
Wind - Don't hate it yet, but it kills birds and doesn't look nice.
Solar - Love it but it is very expensive due to corporate greed and the oil industry suppressing the technology in a free global climate. Yes, I know the sun is free is just the messy capital thing.
Sitting in a circle and chanting - The best solution yet.
Again you can solve the energy needs of the country if you just pool your capital and build your own 100% solar business. Heck, you don't even need to keep the evil profits. Give them to green Peace or the Sierra Club. Don't just sit on the sidelines and complain, fix the problem.
Roger; energy costs will continue to rise...gas, coal, etc are finite resources. Eventually you will pay more anyway. I don't mind paying extra for clean energy; it's an investment in my kids future. Oh, and KW? get a job for chrissakes. You spent way too much time in here.
Posted by hikingartist on January 31, 2007 11:19 AMWhy does immediate cost trump eveything else?
Extractive energy costs down the road are not paid up front. Polution through burning and mining have long term cost on the environment as well as on climate change.
While we may have enough coal and natural gas for now, these non-renewable energy sources will be gone some day. Must we wait until costs are favorable before developing renewables? What about developing renewable energy technologies to sell to countries that don't have enough of their own electrical resources?.
Why must the current lowest price be all important, and spending more to help us be better off in the long run be so horrible?
Posted by on January 31, 2007 11:50 AM"If this was truly a desperate war for survival then why did the "Borrow and Spend" Republicans continue to give massive tax cuts to the super wealthy?"
The tax cuts were given to the super wealthy so that they could invest the money by financing the national debt. In this way instead of paying taxes with their dollars they can list it as an investment asset that your children and grand children get to pay to their children and grandchildren. If you were super rich which would you rather do pay taxes or invest the money to finance the debt?
Learn the facts first
I am guessing Rick Kearney wants to abolish the Electoral College because he does not know why we have it in the first place, and, he thinks we live in democracy. Rick, the United States is a republic and the Electoral College basically protects small population centers from being controlled by the large population centers.
"tax & spend democrats" vs "borrow & spend republicans"
Sheesh what a choice.
The tax and spend democrats are a lot better than the borrow and spend republicans, unless of course, you're about to die and don't care about your kids.
The only difference between R and D right now is that one wants to pay now (without the crippling interest) and one wants to pay later (or even better, pass the bill to the next guy). Both parties spend assloads of money on things that not everybody wants, but only one of them puts our future livlihood in the hands of Chinese investors.
This is why the fogies vote republican and the young'uns vote democrat. Well, one of the reasons anyway.
Posted by on January 31, 2007 12:33 PMThe super wealthy are financing the dept? Did they all move overseas, or are you just out of touch with the bond market?
As for the rest, I guess the Dems have no patent on being sore losers.
Posted by Joe on January 31, 2007 12:43 PM
The typical Republican mantra is "let the free market take its course then everything will be fine". The problem with this pie-in-the-sky theory is that we don't have free markets. We have managed markets and the markets are managerd so that corporations and CEO'S can squeeze the absolute maximum short term profits from of the consumer. Look at Ford Motor Company. Their business model in the 90's were SUV'S and pickups. Life was good and they made a lot of money but didn't develop a hybred car to compete with Toyota. Last year they lost 12 billion dollars and will probably be sold to a foreign company in the near future. Joe Naccio and Ken Lay managed their corporations for short term profits and the consequences were disasterous for the investors and customers. Responsible government will recognize the need for long term investments in infrastructure and public sector goods and services. Education and sustainable water and energy are all legitimate areas for government involvement. Leaving it to corporate CEO'S to invest in the future on their own is a highly risky assumption.
Posted by Wes on January 31, 2007 12:54 PMFinally the true agenda. No free market. Please ban Coal tomorrow. Please put a $75 dollars per ton tax on CO2. Please do it. The Dems are in power now, just outlaw coal. The $75 dollar per ton tax would make power coming out of Pawnee $140 per MWhr rather than $14. I'm sure every one in the state would like to pay 10X for energy. Forget about housing, food, healthcare. Please do it. It would last about a billing cycle. Please note I know how to produce power. These numbers can be confirmed. The CEOs are corrupt and the consumers are stupid. They only one that know what is best for us is the enviros and they never lie. I seem to remember that we should have run out of oil by now. Wes how much green energy do you personally make?
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 01:06 PMPlease do provide us with the numbers DWP.
Tell us how much of America's total energy is produced at home and how much overseas. Then enlighten us on exactly how the vast tax breaks energy companies receive plays into the free market system, and explain why they don't pay the billions they owe the goverment for the use of public lands.
Joe - Don't forget. Anything extra the energy companies are mandated to pay will be passed on to the consumer.
Posted by KW on January 31, 2007 02:27 PMWhat extra? They are just deliquent. I would like to know why that is ok.
Posted by Joe on January 31, 2007 02:30 PMWhy the hostility. I've offered two plausible solutions to the alternative energy issue. Slap a $75 dollar tax on each ton of CO2 produced (burn 1 ton of coal and produce 2.5 tons of CO2). Check out the FERC website. You can see how much coal is burned and how much it costs. Also look to the DOE for data on electricity produced and consumer in the USA. Don't take my word for it. Virtually none of our electricity and certainly none of Colorado's electricity comes from overseas. It is a fact not a belief or an opinion. You have everything you need to compete with Xcel, solar panel can be purchased etc etc. My industry has offered you Coal, Gas, Nuclear, Hydro and Wind all at an affordable price. Most of the country has said yes we want that product at that price. A few want something else. We gave you voluntary programs to pay more for Green Energy. Not enough consumers selected green at the higher price. But that isn't good enough for you. You want to mandate it. You want to raise the price of all power until solar looks good. I don't think that is what the voters had in mind. Ken Lay created a problem in the same way Bush has created a problem. You blame him for everything. There was and is an underlying problem in the California Energy system. Progressive force the utilities to sell their power plant to the likes of Ken Lay. Progressives now what us to follow California off the economic cliff. I provide power with out passion or prejudice. I've offered Coal, Nuclear, Gas, Hydro and Wind. What would you like? Something that doesn't exist or may exist or could exist. You are not willing to put anything behind the effort other than your words. I've devoted my professional life to providing you with power. I'm out of ideas. How would you supply Colorado's power at an affordable price? That's a fair question isn't it?
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 02:41 PMIf it is carbon emissions you are worried about, how about a carbon trading scheme. Every polluting industry would be given X amount of carbon credits they could pump into the air every year. These carbon credits could be bought and sold just like any other commodity. So if a polluter pollutes less than X amount, that polluter can sell their remaining carbon credit to a polluter that creates more than X amount of pollution. Right now are air is treated a resource nobody owns so nobody as an incentive to not pollute it. By setting a payment of how much pollution industries can pump into the air, it would give these industries an incentive to no pollute so much.
Posted by Sean on January 31, 2007 03:03 PMThis still puts us into the evil free market, but it is a solution. All I would like to see is full disclosure. If we the people decide that CO2 (which by the way is not listed as a pollutant) is the new boogey man, treat us like adults and tell us how much it will cost us to fix it. Don't go in by stealth; raise the price without letting us know exactly what the cost is and what the benefit will be. By the way the higher the cost to produce energy, the more profit Xcel makes. They are a cost plus guaranteed profit company. They are allowed by law to make X dollars on Y investment. If you raise their cost of doing business, their shareholders get to make more money. Funny, the enviros being the shills of the utilities.
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 03:24 PMIn a free market, the girl in the advertisement is also for sale and so are her body parts.
No market can be left to it's own devices and must be controlled by laws to prevent it doing things that the voter abhors.
If not for such laws, everything is for sale ; bombs, rockets, tanks, drugs, and even people.
So enough with the "free market" rubbish - we no more want a truly free market than we want slavery back.
Posted by on January 31, 2007 03:35 PMGreat response. Thanks for tackling the key issue being discussed. I'm guessing CU Prof or a Starbucks slogan writer.
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 03:57 PM"CO2 (which by the way is not listed as a pollutant)"
DWP - Did you watch Singer & Avery last night?
Posted by KW on January 31, 2007 03:59 PMit's a pleasure DWP, consider it as a gift to anyone that was tempted to suggest that we leave it all up to the market.
Posted by on January 31, 2007 04:07 PMI don't know who Singer and Avery are. CO2 is not currently listed as a pollutant in the air permitting process for a power plant. CO is. NOX is. SOX is. Particulant matter is. CO2 is not. Sorry those pesky facts again. If CO2 is a pollutant, right now you are polluting, assuming you are breathing. CO2 is considered fuel and or food for plants. Is your can of Coke polluting when it foams.
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 04:07 PMDWP - With all the hype about co2 lately, people have been talking about it like it were a pollutant rather than a natural part of the atmosphere.
Last night Singer and Avery were on Foxnews voicing their opinion on global climate change when Singer made that point about co2. It was the 1st time I'd heard it so figured you might ahve seen that last night too.
That was all.
Posted by KW on January 31, 2007 04:21 PMSorry, I didn't see it. They are right. The enviros can't pick a technology that they like. They claim that Hydropower, one of the oldest and best forms of renewable energy has a CO2 component. Stay with me here because it is a stretch. When you flood a valley for the dam, the trees in the bottom rot and release CO2. Forget about the fact that Hydro offer clean renewable power, flood control, irrigation, recreation etc etc. Forget the fact that LA, Phoenix and Las Vegas wouldn't exists with out Hoover, Powell etc. It is bad. Why? Because they don't like it. There are 100 year old hydro power plants back east that have fish ladders installed. Not by Green Peace, the Sierra Club etc, but by the original builders 100 years ago. Now we have a group of people that are the Stewards of the river telling us we are the bad guys. Killing fish and stopping their white water rafting. I've spent my career providing power. They want something that is so wonderful that the best minds in history haven't thought of it yet, but so simple no one is afraid of it. On and you can make money doing it. Tall order for an evil industry that keeps the light on and keeps people from freezing in the dark.
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 04:34 PMDWP, you seem experienced and well informed (no, that wasn’t sarcasm), but I notice you have only been talking about energy independence insofar as it covers electricity.
Since we don't have much transport that doesn't use oil products, are you skirting that issue or were you still going to address it?
The original post that you responded to was not as constrained, so I am kinda curious as to why you headed off down the "utility" path as opposed to the wider "energy" path. We may be nearly 100% self-sufficient in electricity, but electricity doesn’t cover all energy needs.
I also notice that nobody is talking much about the other costs of the various forms of electrical production – such as the health costs.
For instance, somebody has to pay for the added cases of cancer and other respiratory illnesses that come from coal plants, are you factoring this in your costing or leaving it out?
Btw, you wonder about the hostility and I think I can solve that one for you. Partly it’s because you write in a very sarcastic manner which fires up some neurological circuits in most people that makes them aggro.
Lastly, I might have missed it, but I don’t see anyone talking about – gasp – being more economical with energy. Even if we could magically switch everything to wind power, the heat we emit from consumption and the effects of draining a significant amount of energy from wind are sure to produce some interesting and probably unwelcome side-effects.
Are you a shill for the extraction industries DW? You are oh so sarcastic about the issues of sustainability. I liked the attempt to throw the word "evil" around as if those advocating sustainability are emotional about the issue while you are a voice of calm reason.
How about addressing Rogers original claim that it is evil to tax citizens for infrastructure improvements? It was a typically Republican emotional claim that all government involvement is "evil" and only the "captains of industry" can decide when to convert our society to more sustainable technologies. Of course Roger will never admit that the record deficits racked up by the Bush Administration aren't delayed taxes that will extract far more than anyone can imagine from our pocketbooks and our childrens and their grandchildrens. BushCo has amassed more debt in six years then the rest of the presidents combined. What is a deficit but a deferred tax increase. Too bad Roger is concerned about the money being vacumned out of his wallet by Cheney, Hallibuton et al.
Posted by Wes on January 31, 2007 04:50 PMThanks PDP100. I've been fighting this battle for a long time. I can only speak to electric production because that is what I know. I will say this, if this country had followed the lead of France, we would have enough cheap Nuclear Power to make electric cars a reality. Sure there are problems with nuclear, but you must balance the risks with rewards. You are absolutely right on about efficiency. The cheapest power is that which is not used. But it must be the consumer that decides that. To artifically increase the price to reduce consumption hurts the people at the bottom of the economic ladder far more than those at the top. As far as the health concerns of coal plants, they are much cleaner today than at anytime in the past, thanks to the enviros pushing us. I have n't seen any studies that show health cost directly associated with coal fired generation. We got the SO2 and NOX out of the stack to reduce Smog and Acid rain. Let's get crazy and say the renewable standard is now 50%. Were does the other power come from?
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 05:00 PMThis has gotten out of hand. I stated a fact that as a nation the USA is totally energy independent in the area of electric power. That is a fact. There is 200 years worth of energy laying north of us in WYoming. That energy can be delivered to my home at a price that I'm willing to pay. Regardless of taxes incentives etc etc. That is reality. The TVA, WAPA, USBR and BPA are all the result of the goverment investing in infrastructure. They are some of the best organization the the goverment ever built. Right now the goverment should be investing in transmission to unlock proven producing power such as wind and clean coal. The goverment has its role and it should be the role of central planning commission or picking technologies.
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 05:22 PMDWP, my personal gripe is when the argument starts with “dirty power”.
To me all sources of power come with unique and real extraction, generation, transmission, and use issues and costs.
Environmentalists come in all shapes and sizes, and I can get along with all of them except those that think that somehow there is a magical source that has no side effects.
~ to those of you reading this that thought that wind, solar, or hydrogen were “clean” energy sources, they too come with a toothache. You had better believe that if we draw appreciable amounts of energy out of wind we will have climatic problems, and changing the earth’s albedo significantly will have some effects, and hydrogen is such a good fuel that you can’t find it unbonded anywhere! Breaking hydrogen bonds costs more energy than you can get out of it and produces all kinds of nasties, so good luck on that one.
Of course we could use electrolysis and take that from a coal-fired generator ;)
Then of course there are nasty things produced when we build wind farms and solar cells, titanium leaves some really ugly pollution behind, and so do all the other space-age materials needed.
I am all for solar and wind, and even hydrogen power, but we better be careful that the total costs and impediments aren’t actually greater than what we have in existing sources.
Bottom line is energy has costs beyond the simple ones and we need to be honest about what we are willing to pay in cash and put up with in terms of side-effects in order to have convenient energy at our disposal.
PDP100,
Believe it or not I'm a major proponent of renewable energy. I've done what I've advocated others to do. I invested my hard earned money in a small hydro power plant. i used my education, years of experieince and love of the technology to invest in a small plant that produces or should produce about 800 MWhrs of clean power per year. I don't kill fish in fact they hang out where the water exisits because it is cleaner than the stream itself. I personally maintain the plant. It just barly makes money and in past years it has lost money. 800 MWhrs is enough power for more than 100 Colorado households. So from a carbon foot print stand point I am golden. If the price of power were to suddenly double, triple or worse, I would find myself with a very nice investment. However, the cost to Colorado would be horrific.
Posted by DWP on January 31, 2007 06:09 PMCorrect me if I am wrong, but the definition of a pollutant is anything that is measured or detected at concentrations above what is normal. Look at the historical atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations and it is pretty obvious atmospheric CO2 concentrations are well above the historical range.
Additionally, FOX news is NOT news, they are a proganda presented as news.
Posted by Steve on February 1, 2007 08:18 AMSorry I'm done. I wll not debate facts against beliefs. BTW Bill O'Rielly is a believer in Global Warming.
Posted by DWP on February 1, 2007 08:24 AMDWP, you make me feel quite guilty about never having the guts to build that wind generator I got plans for, or the solar panels that that slippery salesman wanted to sell me, or even to convert a exercise bicycle into a generator.
Congratulations on your initiative and staying power, it’s good to see people who actually *do* things.
… and now let me pick holes in your good efforts. ;)
The hydro-power you are using isn’t “clean” in any meaningful way. I agree that it emits no mercury or nucleotides or other pollutants, but you will have disturbed the ecosystem and slowed the river. Whether these effects are marginal or significant I obviously cannot tell, but I am pretty sure that if lots of people on that river started drawing power from the river, pretty soon you would see silting problems, changes in dominant species, and ripple effects all over the place.
The fact that you see fish hanging out means you are changing something, and “clearer” water in not necessarily a “good” thing, it might signal changes that are detrimental in some ways.
The biggest problem as I see it, is one of actionable information.
People really do want to do the right thing and most crave some authority in science to step forward and tell them which way is best.
The problem is that the discussion pretty soon gets derailed by emotion, politics, and mistrust. (Like this thread
Such is the ecosystem of American culture, and I am not sure there is a “solution” as such other than that this issue of energy and it’s effects just needs to wind its way though the culture. At some point Americans have to become conservation-oriented and become frugal about energy, but that will take time – more than my lifetime I am guessing.
Steve, a “pollutant” is any damn thing we have decided is noxious. It’s a matter of convention, not nature. If the regulatory bodies decide that CO2 is a pollutant then presto-chango, it is.
Posted by PDP100 on February 1, 2007 09:55 AMPDP100,
No need to feel guilty. I do it because I enjoy it. By your definition of clean energy what does qualify? Everything that humans or animals do has an effect on the ecosystem. Your wind project would rob your neighbor of the ability to produce wind. You solar panel requires manufacturing to make and transport and robs a small block of land that would have received sunshine. That piece of land could have grown plant material that removed CO2 from the atmosphere. If the panel is on your roof, your home is covering usable land. Even your exercise bike requires you to take in additional calories that are converted into energy and co2 compared to not exercising. The question is how to achieve the desired result in the most efficient manner with the lowest impact on the environment. It takes me back a few years, but as you well know energy is never created or destroyed it is simply converted from one form to the other. Here is a thought; maybe human caused global warming isn't caused by CO2 but by the fact that all power generation regardless of the source is essentially 0 % efficiency. All power that flows from a power plant eventually is dissipated by lighting, motors etc. It all becomes heat. Take a large cauldron of air the size of our atmosphere and put a couple of quadrillion BTUs into it over and above the natural heat source and what would happen?
DWP, my view of what amounts to “clean” energy is pretty much nil, some are better and some are worse, but none are without waste and mess. So I view none as “clean”.
As you described it, even the exercise bike means that I would eat and drink more and excrete more waste including more CO2 and heat. The food also had to be grown, transported, and prepared (perhaps even refrigerated) so eating or drinking more carries those additional ecological costs as well.
Manufacturing solar panels produces some nasty byproducts, so even though the energy being extracted is “clean” in some sense, the end to end process isn’t.
Yep, so it all has costs, whether work is done with energy from biofuel, solar, wind, coal, etc. they all have waste, costs, and ecological effects.
Your point on cauldron earth is very well taken, (although I will disagree on the 0% bit since some energy is re-stored e.g. charging a battery, lifting a weight, winding a spring).
Even if the extraction/production/transmission process was perfect and without waste or nasty byproducts, just the fact that we are releasing buckets of previously stored energy into the biosphere must have an effect.
As you no doubt know, the effect of CO2 and other “green house” gases and particles is that they are opaque to infra-red, so radiant heat (infra-red) is less able to be transmitted out into space and more stays with us. Also, since using up a gallon of gasoline releases in a few minutes the energy that was collected over many years (for example), the release process is compressed into a far narrower time-scale than the storage took and at the same time we are adding things to the atmosphere (CO2) that make that heat stick around longer.
This is why it is important not only to balance energy sources with care, but also to keep our heat-emission footprint as small as we can.
In answer to your question about what happens when we release billions of Btu’s of stored heat, I am reminded of a classroom experiment where you fill a bowl with water and throw in some ice cubes. Dangle a thermometer in the water and put the whole show on the burner to inject heat into the system. The temperature of the water doesn’t rise much, but the ice starts melting faster. Once the ice is gone though, up goes the temp. Earths climate is obviously a whole lot more complex, but the glaciers are retreating, an ice shelf has broken loose, and the poles are thinning and shrinking. I guess either the excess heat is absorbed by the melting ice until we get a new equilibrium, or we run out of ice to be a heat-sink, and then the next heat-sink becomes the ocean water and us. ;)
Posted by PDP100 on February 1, 2007 04:16 PMcifd wbnz fqxo rsbl ihazxof ywxie wvongdjye
Posted by uxdeplq ztvj on July 13, 2007 04:40 AMelbhaysmu atswkih riyptzlo bwtc twek fewpbcjrz djsbtqvuc http://www.edsti.wcygtahbo.com
Posted by sgjq achpobjr on July 13, 2007 04:41 AM
http://information.awardspace.info/snow-patrol/ snow patrol
http://information.awardspace.info/snow-patrol/ snow patrol
http://information.awardspace.info/stupid-people/ stupid people
http://information.awardspace.info/subwoofer-speed-test/ subwoofer speed test
http://information.awardspace.info/subwoofer-speed-test/ subwoofer speed test
http://information.awardspace.info/taxcut/ taxcut
http://information.awardspace.info/techno-music-gout/ techno music gout
http://information.awardspace.info/univision-cigars/ univision cigars
http://information.awardspace.info/vitamin-e-bender/ vitamin e bender
http://information.awardspace.info/wierd-bb-king/ wierd bb king
http://information.awardspace.info/xbox-live-jetski/ xbox live jetski
http://users2.nofeehost.com/webkinz/Cheat-code-pet-webkinz/ Cheat code pet webkinz