BackPage 2 of 18Next
World's biggest solar power station
FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
World's biggest solar power station

World's biggest solar power station

(18 pics) The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is a solar thermal power station in the California Mojave Desert, 40 miles (64 km) southwest of Las Vegas, with a planned gross capacity of 392 megawatts. The $2.2 billion facility consists of three power plants with mirrors that focus sunlight on to boilers at the top of the towers, creating steam which drives turbines generating enough electricity to power 140,000 California homes. IvanpahSolar.com

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (1325 days ago)

After suicide, becoming a vegetarian is one of the most environmental things an individual can do.

ReplyVote up (104)down (98)
Original comment

After suicide, becoming a vegetarian is one of the most environmental things an individual can do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1327 days ago)

If you consider that Hurricane Sandy was estimated to cost $70 billion, $2.2 billion seems like a good investment.

ReplyVote up (232)down (229)
Original comment

If you consider that Hurricane Sandy was estimated to cost $70 billion, $2.2 billion seems like a good investment.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1327 days ago)

What does the cost of Hurricane Sandy have to do with this? You could say the cost to manufacture a pen is less than $1.00 so $2.2 billion seems like a lot of money.

ReplyVote up (138)down (140)
Original comment

What does the cost of Hurricane Sandy have to do with this? You could say the cost to manufacture a pen is less than $1.00 so $2.2 billion seems like a lot of money.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1327 days ago)

Do I really need to explain? I'm sure you can figure it out all on your own.

ReplyVote up (149)down (145)
Original comment

Do I really need to explain? I'm sure you can figure it out all on your own.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1327 days ago)

Yes, please do explain. I'd like to hear how you think we could spend 2 billion to save 70 billion in damages.

ReplyVote up (229)down (160)
Original comment

Yes, please do explain. I'd like to hear how you think we could spend 2 billion to save 70 billion in damages.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1327 days ago)

I'll give you a clue. It's something to do with the 35 billion tons of CO2 we will be adding to the atmosphere this year.

ReplyVote up (228)down (161)
Original comment

I'll give you a clue. It's something to do with the 35 billion tons of CO2 we will be adding to the atmosphere this year.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1327 days ago)

Oh, that's good news. You mean to tell me that we can spend 2 billion and all of our cars will suddenly stop producing CO2? Also the manufacturing of concrete will also stop CO2 production. Wow, we should have done this 100 years ago. Unfortunately our energy needs keep increasing so any new solar farms would just supplement the current energy methods we have and not replace them.

Also, is it your opinion that if we spent 2 billion to create that solar farm that hurricane Sandy would not have happened? It seems like you're linking those two in a way that hurricane Sandy was formed because we didn't create that solar farm early enough.

ReplyVote up (136)down (151)
Original comment

Oh, that's good news. You mean to tell me that we can spend 2 billion and all of our cars will suddenly stop producing CO2? Also the manufacturing of concrete will also stop CO2 production. Wow, we should have done this 100 years ago. Unfortunately our energy needs keep increasing so any new solar farms would just supplement the current energy methods we have and not replace them.

Also, is it your opinion that if we spent 2 billion to create that solar farm that hurricane Sandy would not have happened? It seems like you're linking those two in a way that hurricane Sandy was formed because we didn't create that solar farm early enough.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1327 days ago)

I'm impressed. You came to a lot of conclusions from me just saying $2.2 billion for this solar farm was a good investment.

At least this time you're not arguing over CO2's effect on the climate.

ReplyVote up (152)down (227)
Original comment

I'm impressed. You came to a lot of conclusions from me just saying $2.2 billion for this solar farm was a good investment.

At least this time you're not arguing over CO2's effect on the climate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1327 days ago)

You said it was a good investment and put hurricane Sandy's cost in the same sentence. It seemed to me that you were inferring we could have prevented Sandy with that investment.

You never did answer my question,"Is it your opinion that if we spent 2 billion to create that solar farm that hurricane Sandy would not have happened?"

ReplyVote up (146)down (170)
Original comment

You said it was a good investment and put hurricane Sandy's cost in the same sentence. It seemed to me that you were inferring we could have prevented Sandy with that investment.

You never did answer my question,"Is it your opinion that if we spent 2 billion to create that solar farm that hurricane Sandy would not have happened?"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1327 days ago)

I didn't answer your question because it's stupid. It's like asking someone with lung cancer whether the cigarette they had on September 23, 2007 caused the cancer.

ReplyVote up (155)down (279)
Original comment

I didn't answer your question because it's stupid. It's like asking someone with lung cancer whether the cigarette they had on September 23, 2007 caused the cancer.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1327 days ago)

Either you believe that solar farm would have prevented Sandy or not. You said considering Sandy cost 70 billion, the investment of 2.2 billion would have been a good one. That leads me to believe you thought 2.2 billion would have saved 70 billion and therefore Sandy would not have happened.

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say, I'll give you the opportunity to correct your initial statement if you wish.

ReplyVote up (142)down (157)
Original comment

Either you believe that solar farm would have prevented Sandy or not. You said considering Sandy cost 70 billion, the investment of 2.2 billion would have been a good one. That leads me to believe you thought 2.2 billion would have saved 70 billion and therefore Sandy would not have happened.

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say, I'll give you the opportunity to correct your initial statement if you wish.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1327 days ago)

I can only conclude you are more stupid than your questions.

You could ask me a more intelligent question, like "how many solar farms would we need to replace our fossil fuel usage?"

ReplyVote up (132)down (150)
Original comment

I can only conclude you are more stupid than your questions.

You could ask me a more intelligent question, like "how many solar farms would we need to replace our fossil fuel usage?"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1327 days ago)

No, I'm asking you about your initial comment. How is 2.2 billion a good investment BECAUSE of the 70 billion costs of Sandy?

ReplyVote up (243)down (154)
Original comment

No, I'm asking you about your initial comment. How is 2.2 billion a good investment BECAUSE of the 70 billion costs of Sandy?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1327 days ago)

Did you understand my example of the cigarette and lung cancer?

ReplyVote up (164)down (139)
Original comment

Did you understand my example of the cigarette and lung cancer?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1326 days ago)

Never mind. You made a statement that you cannot backup so you're avoiding answering the question because you know you'll look like a fool (more so than usual).

ReplyVote up (233)down (154)
Original comment

Never mind. You made a statement that you cannot backup so you're avoiding answering the question because you know you'll look like a fool (more so than usual).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1326 days ago)

Extreme weather is linked to climate change because of the burning of fossil fuels. It's really not hard to understand. We know there will be an increase of events like Sandy, but you know that one weather event cannot be linked to climate change which is why you're trying so desperately hard to get Walter to say that.

ReplyVote up (158)down (167)
Original comment

Extreme weather is linked to climate change because of the burning of fossil fuels. It's really not hard to understand. We know there will be an increase of events like Sandy, but you know that one weather event cannot be linked to climate change which is why you're trying so desperately hard to get Walter to say that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1326 days ago)

Oh right, like we never had category 5 hurricanes before the alleged CO2 increased global warming. Sandy was a category 3 storm when it hit Cuba and a Category 2 when it hit the USA.

In 1934 (when CO2 levels were much less), the Labor Day hurrican hit the Florida Keys as a Category 5 and Camille hit Mississippi in 1969 as a category 5.

In 1928 a Category 5 hit Puerto Rico. One hit the Bahamas in 1932 and a different one in 1947.

Note that the geostationary satellites were deployed in 1966 so any prior to that time were significantly underestimated.

So it is your professional opinion, being a climate scientists, that the Category 3 hurricane Sandy was due to the increase in temperature in the last 100 years? You still want to stick to that story?

ReplyVote up (243)down (147)
Original comment

Oh right, like we never had category 5 hurricanes before the alleged CO2 increased global warming. Sandy was a category 3 storm when it hit Cuba and a Category 2 when it hit the USA.

In 1934 (when CO2 levels were much less), the Labor Day hurrican hit the Florida Keys as a Category 5 and Camille hit Mississippi in 1969 as a category 5.

In 1928 a Category 5 hit Puerto Rico. One hit the Bahamas in 1932 and a different one in 1947.

Note that the geostationary satellites were deployed in 1966 so any prior to that time were significantly underestimated.

So it is your professional opinion, being a climate scientists, that the Category 3 hurricane Sandy was due to the increase in temperature in the last 100 years? You still want to stick to that story?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1326 days ago)

The funny thing is, that the latest ar5 wg1 ipcc report expliciltly stated that there is no statistical discernable increase in extreme weather events, Weather weirding is just a pure irrational meme for the left to scream about

ReplyVote up (156)down (157)
Original comment

The funny thing is, that the latest ar5 wg1 ipcc report expliciltly stated that there is no statistical discernable increase in extreme weather events, Weather weirding is just a pure irrational meme for the left to scream about

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1326 days ago)

Hurricane Sandy was extreme, not because of its strength, but because of its location. Just as arctic winters are normal in the arctic, but extreme in North Carolina.

ReplyVote up (152)down (233)
Original comment

Hurricane Sandy was extreme, not because of its strength, but because of its location. Just as arctic winters are normal in the arctic, but extreme in North Carolina.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1326 days ago)

the term polar vortex dates from way before the global warming meme was thought of. They must of had a reason to invent the term, why do you think that was walter ?

ReplyVote up (151)down (168)
Original comment

the term polar vortex dates from way before the global warming meme was thought of. They must of had a reason to invent the term, why do you think that was walter ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1326 days ago)

Extreme doesn't mean unique.

ReplyVote up (141)down (162)
Original comment

Extreme doesn't mean unique.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1326 days ago)

let me get this straight. Are you saying co2 has intelligence, that it can craft new unique weather events completely unlike those similar and just as frequent and destructive extreme weather events in the past which cant be blamed on co2 ?

ReplyVote up (151)down (137)
Original comment

let me get this straight. Are you saying co2 has intelligence, that it can craft new unique weather events completely unlike those similar and just as frequent and destructive extreme weather events in the past which cant be blamed on co2 ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1326 days ago)

If I understand you right, I mean the opposite. For example, extreme rainfall is more rain, not something different falling from the sky. So I would expect there to have been polar vortexes in the past.

As I understand it, this polar vortex is due to the warming of the arctic, causing the winds to slow, allowing the jetstream to meander wildly, dipping far south on the eastern side of America, whilst remaining far north on the west side. The result is California in drought and arctic conditions in the east. It's probably more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.

None of these events are unique - we've had plenty of droughts, heatwaves, deluges, arctic winters etc before. But as we add billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, that extra CO2 is trapping extra heat - that's what CO2 does. You'd expect with more trapped heat in the atmosphere, the climate will get more extreme and violent. If you heat water, at room temperature the water molecules are relatively still, but at near boiling point they are jumping about all over the place. That is what heat does, it makes molecules move faster.

The increasing weird and extreme weather we are experiencing globally is totally consistent with what you'd expect on a slowly warming planet. And it will only get worse unless we get off our arses and do something about it. The obvious thing is to let some of that heat out into space by reducing the greenhouse gases that are trapping the heat on Earth.

So we need more solar farms and less Keystone pipelines, more forests and less farting cows.

ReplyVote up (141)down (250)
Original comment

If I understand you right, I mean the opposite. For example, extreme rainfall is more rain, not something different falling from the sky. So I would expect there to have been polar vortexes in the past.

As I understand it, this polar vortex is due to the warming of the arctic, causing the winds to slow, allowing the jetstream to meander wildly, dipping far south on the eastern side of America, whilst remaining far north on the west side. The result is California in drought and arctic conditions in the east. It's probably more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.

None of these events are unique - we've had plenty of droughts, heatwaves, deluges, arctic winters etc before. But as we add billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, that extra CO2 is trapping extra heat - that's what CO2 does. You'd expect with more trapped heat in the atmosphere, the climate will get more extreme and violent. If you heat water, at room temperature the water molecules are relatively still, but at near boiling point they are jumping about all over the place. That is what heat does, it makes molecules move faster.

The increasing weird and extreme weather we are experiencing globally is totally consistent with what you'd expect on a slowly warming planet. And it will only get worse unless we get off our arses and do something about it. The obvious thing is to let some of that heat out into space by reducing the greenhouse gases that are trapping the heat on Earth.

So we need more solar farms and less Keystone pipelines, more forests and less farting cows.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1326 days ago)

But as I pointed out all of these extreme weather events have been observed and studied long before the 1950's, one must assume that extreme weather happened when the co2 levels were below 350 ppm and the Ipcc has admitted there is no discernable increase in frequency of these events . You also sidestepped the comment about "unique " events , you suggested that "co2 warming " somehow targeted a weak hurricane (cat 1/2) on New York which would imply co2 has somehow developed the awareness to achieve such a task. Could you please expand on your co2 deveopinging Inteligence theory, i would certainly like to hear it.

ReplyVote up (163)down (138)
Original comment

But as I pointed out all of these extreme weather events have been observed and studied long before the 1950's, one must assume that extreme weather happened when the co2 levels were below 350 ppm and the Ipcc has admitted there is no discernable increase in frequency of these events . You also sidestepped the comment about "unique " events , you suggested that "co2 warming " somehow targeted a weak hurricane (cat 1/2) on New York which would imply co2 has somehow developed the awareness to achieve such a task. Could you please expand on your co2 deveopinging Inteligence theory, i would certainly like to hear it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1326 days ago)

Walter is right. CO2 is more intelligent than you.

ReplyVote up (154)down (127)
Original comment

Walter is right. CO2 is more intelligent than you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1326 days ago)

How you expect a serious conversation when your comments are so dripping with sarcasm and disrespect, I'm not quite sure. You do want a serious discussion do you?

ReplyVote up (173)down (246)
Original comment

How you expect a serious conversation when your comments are so dripping with sarcasm and disrespect, I'm not quite sure. You do want a serious discussion do you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1326 days ago)

Sorry teach , when faced with a religeous belief masquarading as science logic, one can only point out its flaws. I'm sure you've are aware of how athiests on this site deal with dogmatic religeous belief.

ReplyVote up (160)down (141)
Original comment

Sorry teach , when faced with a religeous belief masquarading as science logic, one can only point out its flaws. I'm sure you've are aware of how athiests on this site deal with dogmatic religeous belief.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1326 days ago)

same can be said for climate change denialists.

ReplyVote up (153)down (161)
Original comment

same can be said for climate change denialists.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1325 days ago)

Its in the naure of religeous cultists to label anyone who disagrees with them deniers. witness Dana nuccitelli's idiot attack on Dr richard Tol. the slur has lost its bite, to use it now is self branding.

ReplyVote up (220)down (139)
Original comment

Its in the naure of religeous cultists to label anyone who disagrees with them deniers. witness Dana nuccitelli's idiot attack on Dr richard Tol. the slur has lost its bite, to use it now is self branding.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat..a.. (1325 days ago)

you said "" when faced with a religeous belief masquarading as science logic, one can only point out its flaws."" then you added ""Its in the naure of religeous cultists to label anyone who disagrees with them deniers.""

First, that's some pretty dumb wordsmithing! you were lookin for ""Its in the naure of religeous cultists to label anyone who disagrees with them"" but you added deniers. What a lame attempt. Now that, we've corrected that, i must quote you again, without the manipulation tactics:

""when faced with a religeous belief masquarading as science logic, one can only point out its flaws"" and ""Its in the naure of religeous cultists to label anyone who disagrees with them deniers.""

Concluion: you're either dumb or a hypocrite.

There, i labled you as dumb. happy now?

ReplyVote up (142)down (263)
Original comment

you said "" when faced with a religeous belief masquarading as science logic, one can only point out its flaws."" then you added ""Its in the naure of religeous cultists to label anyone who disagrees with them deniers.""

First, that's some pretty dumb wordsmithing! you were lookin for ""Its in the naure of religeous cultists to label anyone who disagrees with them"" but you added deniers. What a lame attempt. Now that, we've corrected that, i must quote you again, without the manipulation tactics:

""when faced with a religeous belief masquarading as science logic, one can only point out its flaws"" and ""Its in the naure of religeous cultists to label anyone who disagrees with them deniers.""

Concluion: you're either dumb or a hypocrite.

There, i labled you as dumb. happy now?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1325 days ago)

1) Read the science wg1 ar5 ipcc report note science report (esp chapter 2 section 6) 2) Have degree level education in relevant subject that allows you to understand it . 3) Note what the ipcc official science says about extreme weather ie no discernable trend 4) note cagw cultists linking every bit of weather to co2 (including "record" setting cold !! like DUH) 5) Note gap in reality between what the report said, and cultists are fed to believe is being said. 6) Note also the trend in reporting ie the scientists are starting to hedge their bets. 7) note also the Denier word has religious overtones and has been used down the centuries to denounce heritics 7) Make conclusion..... But its interesting you infered that I was a DENIER whilst all I did was point out the official consensus ipcc view on extreme weather differs from what walter believes....So who is the hypocrite ? you or me

ReplyVote up (147)down (215)
Original comment

1) Read the science wg1 ar5 ipcc report note science report (esp chapter 2 section 6) 2) Have degree level education in relevant subject that allows you to understand it . 3) Note what the ipcc official science says about extreme weather ie no discernable trend 4) note cagw cultists linking every bit of weather to co2 (including "record" setting cold !! like DUH) 5) Note gap in reality between what the report said, and cultists are fed to believe is being said. 6) Note also the trend in reporting ie the scientists are starting to hedge their bets. 7) note also the Denier word has religious overtones and has been used down the centuries to denounce heritics 7) Make conclusion..... But its interesting you infered that I was a DENIER whilst all I did was point out the official consensus ipcc view on extreme weather differs from what walter believes....So who is the hypocrite ? you or me

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1325 days ago)

Didn't realise you had a degree level qualification in a relevant subject..

ReplyVote up (213)down (129)
Original comment

Didn't realise you had a degree level qualification in a relevant subject..

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1324 days ago)

Hard to believe don't you think? It's only a second class physics degree - originalmad has mentioned it before. Not sure it means anything considering there are creationists who have science degrees.

ReplyVote up (164)down (159)
Original comment

Hard to believe don't you think? It's only a second class physics degree - originalmad has mentioned it before. Not sure it means anything considering there are creationists who have science degrees.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1324 days ago)

only idiots deny climate change, but there are those who question the effect that man made technologies have on the climate.

People who are a lot smarter than us have the same type of "passionate" debate going on LINK

Us arguing with originalmad, cengland0 or guest123456789 on this topic is pointless.

Watch the video.

ReplyVote up (219)down (140)
Original comment

only idiots deny climate change, but there are those who question the effect that man made technologies have on the climate.

People who are a lot smarter than us have the same type of "passionate" debate going on LINK

Us arguing with originalmad, cengland0 or guest123456789 on this topic is pointless.

Watch the video.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1323 days ago)

Actually its the sceptics who always point out that climate is always changing, you have to be in a state of extreme delusion to think oherwise, yet its a religious meme of the cagw cultists to scream climate changing and its all our fault.

ReplyVote up (139)down (119)
Original comment

Actually its the sceptics who always point out that climate is always changing, you have to be in a state of extreme delusion to think oherwise, yet its a religious meme of the cagw cultists to scream climate changing and its all our fault.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1323 days ago)

sure man, whatever you say.

just sod off

ReplyVote up (199)down (117)
Original comment

sure man, whatever you say.

just sod off

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1323 days ago)

That was witty

ReplyVote up (104)down (104)
Original comment

That was witty

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1322 days ago)

rhymes with kitty

ReplyVote up (123)down (97)
Original comment

rhymes with kitty

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1322 days ago)

what are you some kind of walter lite?

ReplyVote up (79)down (173)
Original comment

what are you some kind of walter lite?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1322 days ago)

i'm your abusive father

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

i'm your abusive father

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1322 days ago)

You was doing so well there, and then you forgot to take your pill.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

You was doing so well there, and then you forgot to take your pill.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1321 days ago)

when i'll need your approval for my behavior, i'll ask for it.

now choose the belt with which you're gonna get spanked. the narrow brown one or the wide black one?

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

when i'll need your approval for my behavior, i'll ask for it.

now choose the belt with which you're gonna get spanked. the narrow brown one or the wide black one?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1321 days ago)

Actually I'm not a medical doctor, so it's not my approval you need, However if you dont keep taking you meds......

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

Actually I'm not a medical doctor, so it's not my approval you need, However if you dont keep taking you meds......

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1321 days ago)

what happens?

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

what happens?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1321 days ago)

Your tourettes comes to the fore

ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment

Your tourettes comes to the fore

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1321 days ago)
Latest comment:

don't be silly! i don't have tourettes. I am well aware of the way that i behave, it's not something that i can't control. It's a choice that i make, and sometimes i choose gratuitos (or not) insults to express my feelings and my thoughts .

I am touched by your sincere concern for my well-being.

thank you

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
Latest comment:

don't be silly! i don't have tourettes. I am well aware of the way that i behave, it's not something that i can't control. It's a choice that i make, and sometimes i choose gratuitos (or not) insults to express my feelings and my thoughts .

I am touched by your sincere concern for my well-being.

thank you

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: robby (1327 days ago)

I'm with guest123456789 on this one. Buying a pen is clearly cheaper, and as soon as the possitive effects on climate change are proved, he'll be up for a Nobel prize : )

ReplyVote up (102)down (115)
Original comment

I'm with guest123456789 on this one. Buying a pen is clearly cheaper, and as soon as the possitive effects on climate change are proved, he'll be up for a Nobel prize : )

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1327 days ago)

Yup and it is estimated that the UK's Sellafield Nuclear power station will cost £70 billion to decommission and that will probably rise..

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

Yup and it is estimated that the UK's Sellafield Nuclear power station will cost £70 billion to decommission and that will probably rise..

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Firefighting team deploy to wine-country wildfires
Firefighting team deploy to wine-country wildfires
Drone view: Wildfire aftermath, Santa Rosa, California
Drone view: Wildfire aftermath, Santa Rosa, California
TYT - One of the worst wildfires in California history
TYT - One of the worst wildfires in California history
Wildfires rage across Californian wine country
Wildfires rage across Californian wine country
Hey!
Hey!