« European Fuel-Cell Bus Projects Extended by One Year | Main | Researchers to Study Outflow of Pollution from Mexico City »
GM Expects to Have Fuel-Cell Vehicles In Showrooms in Next Four to Nine Years
3 March 2006
|
| EIA’s projections for fuel-cell vehicle sales in the US through 2030. Units in thousands. |
General Motors now expects to introduce hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles into dealerships in the next four to nine years, according to a report from Agence France Presse.
GM told AFP that it has made major steps toward developing a commercially-viable fuel cell vehicle, and that it expects it will be able to “equal or better gas engines in terms of cost, durability and performance” once it is able to ramp up volume to at least 500,000 vehicles a year.
That may take awhile even in an optimistic scenario. Projections by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration see a very slow ramp to hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. The agency forecasts FCV sales beginning in 2009 (about 400 units) and increasing to 4,000 units for the year 2030. The agency anticipates a total of about 46,000 fuel-cell vehicles sold over the next 25 years.
In its projections, outlined as part of the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (earlier post), the EIA sees substantial sales of fuel-cell vehicles in only three regions of the country: New England, the Middle Atlantic and the Pacific.
GM had worked with Toyota for a number of years on fuel-cell research and development. In the latest extension of its research partnership, announced Thursday, the two will no longer share fuel-cell research. The companies will continue their collaboration agreement for two more years with a focus on safety and congestion-related technologies, and industry codes and standards.
A GM spokesperson told AFP that “Because of the advances we made that type of technology [fuel cells] is passing from the research phase to development.”
Earlier this year, Honda announced that it would begin series production of a fuel-cell vehicle similar to its FCX Concept within three to four years. (Earlier post.)
March 3, 2006 in Fuel Cells, Hydrogen, Sales | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/4380856
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Expects to Have Fuel-Cell Vehicles In Showrooms in Next Four to Nine Years:
Comments
In their dreams!
Posted by: Lucas | Mar 3, 2006 1:48:44 PM
Nice. By the time Fuel Cell car sales reach 500,000 a year (what about the year 3500?) GM would be long bankrupt for spending their precious research dollars on such folly.
In unrelated news, Toyota is no longer funding such folly, and will no doubt be in an even stronger financial position, as a result.
Posted by: An Engineer | Mar 3, 2006 1:53:11 PM
On the chart in the year 2030 sales are 4,000 units a year. GM has said FC vehicles can match current cars when volume hits 500,000 units a year. This as much admits it's all a smokescreen.
What's fascinating is that, if this were really just a technical failure, the companies would probably just admit it and move on. However, since this is primarily a political failure they keep claiming everything is on track for reaching goals that keep receding into the future.
I agree: automaker fuel cell claims are nonsense. Truely sad and dishonest nonsense.
Posted by: Ron Fischer | Mar 3, 2006 2:00:40 PM
How clueless are you guys? The folly is in the EIA projection. The key is all about codes and standards. Once hydrogen is authorized as a transport fuel in vehicles then the ramp up will come rather quickly.
Particularly with home refuelers like Honda/Plug are developing.
The key is codes and standards, not technology.
The government needs to give consumers choice. Plain and simple. If it's not our government, then it will be someone else's government and we can kiss the jobs created by a hydrogen economy goodbye.
Posted by: Hello McFly | Mar 3, 2006 2:30:03 PM
I'm normally a hydrogen critic, but this acceleration of GM's schedule gives me pause. Hey, if they really do achieve "equal or better gas engines in terms of cost, durability and performance” what's not to like?
And nobody knows the ramp-up rate. Those are just projections based on projected car costs, projected fuel costs, and projected infrastructure build-out rates.
That's projections four levels deep ;-)
Let's see what they can do. Four to nine years isn't long for a wait and see.
Posted by: odograph | Mar 3, 2006 2:34:10 PM
You guys concentrate on the flawed EIA projection.
If hydrogen is authorized as a transport fuel through the development of appropriate codes and standards, then the market will ramp up much much quicker.
Fuel cell vehicles are fundamentally better automobiles.
The Honda FCX Concept delivers 100 KW of continous power...that's enough to power a small neighborhood! It provides 350 miles of range...that is the same as the Honda Accord V6! It gets 70 miles per kilogram in a full size spacious 4-door sedan! It emits zero emissions! You can provide remote off-grid power anywhere...like at a cabin, a picnic, a day at the beach! This offers the ability to fundamentally change the way consumers interact with their vehicles! They are also developing a home refueler that will provide hot water for a home, electricity for a home (great for power outages), and hydrogen fuel for the vehicle...all while saving the consumer 50% on energy costs and dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions and virutally eliminating pollutant emmissions.
Posted by: MakeMeLaugh | Mar 3, 2006 2:38:06 PM
GM is not alone with this timeframe. Here are some other automotives that are also on board with similar timeframes.
GM 2010-2015:
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/03/02/afx2567246.html
DaimlerChrysler 2012-2015 (100,000 per year slide 13):
http://events.onlinebroadcasting.com/ballard/092905/pdfs/kohler_092905.pdf
Honda 2009-2010:
http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060108FCX/
Hyundai 2010:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12/hyundai_plans_t.html
Daewoo 2010:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/gm_daewoo_to_jo.html
SAIC before 2010:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/08/saic_shanghai_a.html
Posted by: H2O | Mar 3, 2006 2:47:58 PM
Ahh...gee...I may need to talk to marketing about the so called "Innovation" campaign we got going on.
Looks like Mary Ann Wright was right. I should have never let her go.
Posted by: Bill Ford | Mar 3, 2006 3:09:18 PM
Unless the hydrogen is made by nuclear power its just not going to happen in the amounts needed. I do like the idea of hydrogen if its not made from fossil fuels but that just dont seem practical today.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Mar 3, 2006 3:11:15 PM
Hampden Wireless,
The Honda Home Energy station would replace a hot water heater that runs on natural gas. Natural gas is primarily methane and methane can come from all kinds of sources. For instance, the hydrogen required to power an average fuel cell vehicle for one day in the united states can be derived by processing the manure of 5 cows through an anaerboic digester. So 5 cows = 1 vehicle...100% renewable energy and clean.
Renewable energy can be achieved, the trick is merely to initiated the power switch.
Posted by: realist | Mar 3, 2006 3:19:22 PM
But why Hydrogen? Why produce something, compress it, ship it, store it, pump it, then use it? Not to mention the infrastructure upgrades obviously required to support the aforementioned compression, shipping, storing and pumping.
Why not take whatever energy you were using to produce the H2 in the first place, create electricity and then transport that via the already existing power grid? I just don't understand why this is even a discussion, really.
Get yourself a nice bio-diesel powered plug-in hybrid, and you're good to go!
Posted by: Joe | Mar 3, 2006 3:28:43 PM
From Honda's web site. Makemelaugh. Where did you get those specs which are much better than shown here.
2005 Honda FCX Specifications
Name Honda FCX with Honda FC Stack
Number of occupants 4
Max. Speed 93 mph
Motor Max. Output 80kW (107 hp)
Max. Drive 272Nm (201 lb-ft)
Type AC synchronous electric motor (manufactured by Honda)
Fuel cell stack Type Honda Fuel Cell Stack PEMFC (Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell)
Output 86kW
Fuel Type Compressed hydrogen gas
Storage High-pressure hydrogen tank (5000 psi)
Capacity 3.75 kg 156.6 liters (change from liters)
Dimensions (L x W x H, mm) 4165 x 1760 x 1645
Energy storage Ultra capacitor (manufactured by Honda)
Vehicle range (EPA rated) 190 miles
The Honda FCX is the world's most advanced FCV in regular daily operation and the first hydrogen-powered FCV to be certified by CARB and the U.S. EPA, as a 2003 model in July 2002. Honda started fuel cell research in the 1980's and has been road testing vehicles in the United States and Japan since 1999.
Posted by: t | Mar 3, 2006 3:31:21 PM
Makemelaugh. Ignore previous post. I just noticed there's a previous Green Car congress post on this subject that tracks with your data. My bad.
Posted by: t | Mar 3, 2006 3:35:03 PM
Like electricity...hydrogen as an energy carrier delivers zero pollution and zero green house gases at it's point of use.
Like electricity...hydrogen as an energy carrier can be produced cleanly and 100% renewably if we choose to do so.
Unlike electricity...hydrogen can be stored in practical ways at low cost and need not be consumed seconds after production. Power plants must be scaled for peak power, meaning most of the time there is incredible amounts of excess wasted capital sitting around doing nothing.
Unlike electricity...sufficient hydrogen can be carried on board a fuel cell vehicle to provide 350 miles of range without sacrificing existing vehicle expectations (size, performance, torque, carrying capacity, heating, air conditioning, etc)...like the Honda FCX Concept.
Posted by: Jim | Mar 3, 2006 3:44:05 PM
Yes Tom (t),
Honda and others have made significant breakthroughs in fuel cell performance, durability, and hydrogen storage.
The new FCX Concept which Honda says will be the basis of the production model they deliver in 2009-2010 can be seen here:
http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060108FCX/
That post also discusses the Home Energy Station (HES) they are developing with Plug Power. It runs off natural gas like many people already have piped to their home and would replace the hot water heater in the home. It would provide hot water, electricity for the home (even during hurricanes and blackouts), and fuel for the vehicle...while saving the consumer 50% on costs and dramatically reducing green house gases and pollution.
Posted by: MakeMeLaugh | Mar 3, 2006 3:50:13 PM
In addition to the HES that runs on natural gas, Honda also is working on a solar power version that works via electrolysis. This link describes both technologies...
http://world.honda.com/news/2003/c031002.html
Honda recently announced plans to produce thin-film solar that would obviously go quite nicely with their solar powered HES initiative.
Posted by: CleanFreak | Mar 3, 2006 3:56:44 PM
"Unlike electricity...hydrogen can be stored in practical ways at low cost and need not be consumed seconds after production. Power plants must be scaled for peak power, meaning most of the time there is incredible amounts of excess wasted capital sitting around doing nothing."
That was a nice dream, wasn't it, Jim?
Tell you what, I know several fuels that are easier to store than hydrogen (and safer), cheaper and easier to transport (and safer): any liquid fuel, actually.
Let's put it this way: If you are going to produce a renewable fuel, would you produce hydrogen (a bitch to handle, transport and store, not to mention unsafe) or some liquid fuel (take your pick: ethanol, biodiesel or F-T diesel).
It's an obvious choice, once you think about it...
Posted by: An Engineer | Mar 3, 2006 5:19:53 PM
GM wont make it four years let alone 9. They are CTD. they will be gone long before fuel cells are viable. GM should not buy green bananas.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | Mar 3, 2006 5:58:36 PM
Yes. Wind, solar and nuclear to power batteries will end up being more practical and efficient then natural gas to hydrogen
The energy required to create hydrogen is just too high. Batteries will continue to get better faster then hydrogen will become 'more compressable'.
Posted by: Hampden Wireless | Mar 3, 2006 6:14:28 PM
So, GM will be marketing a fuel cell vehicle soon. Uh-huh, sure. What other great news has the Easter Bunny brought? Did Santa Claus promise these cars will fly too? Boy oh boy, I can't wait to go joyriding nowhere in a flying fuel cell car!
Posted by: Wells | Mar 3, 2006 6:59:43 PM
" some liquid fuel (take your pick: ethanol, biodiesel or F-T diesel)"
Could you explain to me how you going to convert electricity into ethanol or biodiesel??
For interim solution bio-fuels should be used, but please don't bash on hydrogen, because it doesn't work yet. If they kill hydrogen now, we will never see what is it like not worring about polution.
As far as I know a lot new chemical engineers choose to work on hydrogen reaserch and they will make some breakthrough sooner or later.
Posted by: W2 | Mar 3, 2006 8:53:46 PM
The H2A costing models and case studies have been updated to version 1.0.10. These models have tremendous industry wide input and a very significant and stringent peer review process.
The new case studies can be found here:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_prod_studies.html
Current Forecourt Hydrogen Production from Grid Electrolysis (1,500 kg/day) version 1.0.10
= $5.88/kg
Current Forecourt Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas (1,500 kg/day) version 1.0.10
= $3.49/kg
I'll utilize the forecourt models because it represents the easiest and most straight forward deployment model for a hydrogen economy. It would allow for easy deployment of the "lighthouse" approach proposed by Shell Hydrogen without having to make huge capital outlays. Each new H2 station can be setup individually utilizing existing natural gas and electricity capabilities without any need to create large centralized plants, new underground piping, or long distance transportation scenarios for hydrogen. If large capital investments are made in this infrastructure for centralized production then even better economics can come into play in the long run, but better economics are not necessary...they are just a bonus.
If we utilize Honda's best selling full size sedan, the Honda Accord, and Honda's newest innovative full size fuel cell sedan, the Honda FCX Concept, we can find out some pretty interesting things. The 2 vehicles have very similar dimensions...
Honda Accord V6
- 191.1 L / 57.3 H / 71.6 W
Honda FCX Concept
- 185.8 L / 56.3 H / 73.6 W
The 2 vehicles have very similar ranges...
Honda Accord V6
- 354 miles
Honda FCX Concept
- 350 miles
The 2 vehicles both have some pretty decent power on tap...
Honda Accord V6
- 244 hp
Honda FCX Concept
- 174 hp
The Honda FCX Concept does have less (but still adequate) horsepower, but that will be somewhat offset by quicker off the line acceleration from the near instantaneous peak torque available through the electric drive system versus the internal combustion engine which requires 5000 rpm before reaching peak torque. Additionally the low center of gravity on the Honda FCX Concept and the 4 wheel drive system with individually adjustable in wheel rear motors will provide maximum agility in handling. If this is not enough, then one can factor in the emission free nature of the Honda FCX Concept, the potential convenience of home refueling, the superior cabin volume, and the fact you can provide backup power for a small neighborhood.
Now lets utilize these vehicles and compare the fuel costs.
Fuel Price.............Tank Capacity..........Cost For 350(4) miles
$3.49/kg...............5kg..........................$17.45
$5.88/kg...............5kg..........................$29.40
$1.02/gallon..........17.1 gallons..............$17.44
$1.72/gallon..........17.1 gallons..............$29.41
$2.40/gallon..........17.1 gallons..............$41.04
$3.00/gallon..........17.1 gallons..............$51.30
The price of gas must be $1.02/gallon to be price competitive with hydrogen from H2A forecourt reformed natural gas.
The price of gas must be $1.72/gallon to be price competitive with hydrogen from H2A forecourt electrolysis.
With today's gas prices of $2.40 per gallon, gasoline is 135% more expensive than hydrogen from reformed natural gas and 40% more expensive than hydrogen from electrolysis.
Source for Honda FCX Concept tank size, range, and other information:
http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2005/fcx/index.html
http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2005/fcx/index02.html
Source for Honda Accord V6 tank size and range:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2001cartablef.jsp?id=21962
Posted by: H2O | Mar 4, 2006 1:38:07 AM
In the time fram given, shouldn't battery technology advance as well? Is storing elecricity in a battery more efficient than electrolyzing or reforming hydrogen and then reacting it with oxygen in a fuel cell?
Posted by: cs1992 | Mar 4, 2006 3:21:07 AM
H20 - since you are looking at fuel costs, don't you think you should add the Honda GX with home fueling at $1/gal?
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/107354/article.html
Given that you are talking about reforming from natural gas, I think the cost (and maintenance/longevity) of the GS is a good reference.
Posted by: odograph | Mar 4, 2006 5:23:04 AM
Don't fight! the answer is obvious. Have both,Make the fuel cell with a long cord.Then when your riding down the road and you see a plug-in hybrid you can throw him the cord to plug in while riding down the road.
Posted by: billybob | Mar 4, 2006 6:47:29 AM
I, personally, think all those 'hydrogen engineers' are working on it because it gives them a job and thats IT. They DO know that this is BS, BUT how about losing job and then loking for another one? Same with those who are giving these ideas to investors, they want their money. Investors do it just because of 'keep eggs in different buskets rule', like what if hydrogen works? (lol). Goverment officials who gives taxpayers money on this research don't care, especially, if they (officials)are given some sort of payback under the table. Here u have your feed chain that once created lives on its own, and u can't say where is an egg and where is the chicken in this cirlce
of 'life'. Though I believe those who gives taxpayers (or company's) money seem to be most interested party
to keep circle mooving and idea floating.
Posted by: Alex | Mar 4, 2006 7:21:02 AM
My understanding is that a gallon of gas is equivalent to a kg of hydrogen. So, I believe it would be a fairer analysis to simply compare the gallon costs vs the kg costs. Hydrogen is clearly more expensive than gas. Further, I wonder why one would choose hydrogen over natural gas when natural gas will always be cheaper.
Posted by: t | Mar 4, 2006 7:32:06 AM
That is an interesting comparison of the Accord and the FCX. The biggest problem is you are comparing a state-of-the-art fuel cell vehicle to a mediocre gasoline vehicle. Fairness dictates that you compare a hybrid, diesel, or pure electric vehicle, and see how the FCX stacks up then. Personally i doubt fuel cell cars will ever be as practical as a plug-in diesel hybrid. Now we just need someone to make one.
Aj
Posted by: Aj | Mar 4, 2006 8:16:51 AM
What are the effects of chlorine and flourine on fuel cell performance since most tap water contains at least one of these elements which would be electrolyzed out with the hydrogen. One of the drawbacks of fuel cells is their need for extremely pure hydrogen (99.9999%) The presence of contaminants like chlorine, flourides, lead, copper, iron, sodium, etc. can foul electrolyzers in short order. At least the cost of distilling the input water needs to be added to the economics of the hydrogen economy.
Posted by: tom deplume | Mar 4, 2006 9:17:56 AM
For every watt of power you use to create hydrogen from water you will not get one watt of power back from your fool cell, plus you waste more energy again storing the hydrogen. Batterys are a lot better
www.europositron.com does anyone know if what they say is true
Posted by: anti gravity | Mar 4, 2006 12:23:12 PM
Hydrogen is a an elusive technology used to prolong our oil addiction. We can invest in technologies for replacing petroleum or we can invest in developing hydrogen fuel cells.
Proponents of hydrogen want to send America on this decades-long wild goose chase so we can continue to voraciously consume petroleum. Even if we succeed in creating the technology required to produce hydrogen, store it, transport it, distribute it, sell it, and finally move cars with it, we'll likely still need tremendous amounts of petroleum as a major energy source.
If the goal is truley to invest in renewable energy, then hydrogen will ultimately prove to be a financially and chronologically expensive side trip. If we divert $billions and decades on fuel cell development, we will have undermined and discredited otherwise legitimate alternate energy programs. Imagine what group would most like to see that happen.
Such is the fodder of politics.
Posted by: PorkSmoke | Mar 4, 2006 12:42:48 PM
Although I am skeptical about hydrogen, what evidence is there that storing energy in batteries is more efficient? There is an energy loss associated with transmitting electricity and there is an energy loss storing the electricity in batteries. And while the technology to store and use hydrogen is expensive, batteries are expensive too. Thus far, we have not figured out how to store electricity at a reasonable cost. Look at the high expenses associated with the rather modest PHEV programs.
While I agree that the bulk of the hydrogen program as currently structured is a smoke screen to pretend that we are really doing something about alternatives when we're just using fossil fuels to create hydrogen, I wonder if the variable and uncertain nature of wind generators might be a good way to conduct eletrolysis and be able to produce the hydrogen whenever the wind is blowing. Alternatively, it is very difficult to integrate a large proportion of wind energy into the overall electric grid.
On the other hand, PHEVs might be a good candidate for wind power as they don't need a constant stream of energy to recharge them at night.
Unfortunately, the Federal Hydrogen program is being used a way to avoid the whole problem of fossil fuel addicition and greenhouse gases. Thus far, Bush's mantra has been, "don't worry, better technology in the form of hydrogen will save us". Or is it the case now that ethanol will save us? In any event, there is no talk from the President about giving people real incentives to conserve and a willingness to face what has become a true crisis.
Posted by: t | Mar 4, 2006 4:31:06 PM
Hydrogen gas is the worce imaginable energy carrier, and never will be viable transportational fuel, neither as any compressed gas. Hydrogen carries about 5 times less energy even than natural gas (vol/vol), penetrates any gasket, makes steel fragile, and comressed in cylinder is just a bomb.
Posted by: Andrey | Mar 4, 2006 10:40:54 PM
Your comparison between cars is interesting but consider that by the time the fuel cell car is ready that natural gas will be more expensive than it is today. There are already supply problems in the US during the winter. You could convert to methane but the industry infrastructure doesn't exist in the scale needed. What are you going to make it from? And as someone else pointed out if you're going to create H2 from natural gas or methane then why not use it directly?
-----
Oil companies love hydrogen because they get to keep their expensive investment in gas stations and all of the profits from them (don't forget the convenience store!). They're not in the electricity business.
Car companies love hybrids and hydrogen because it helps ensure decent after sale parts and service (as high as 40% of revenue). Fuel cells gum up and are more complex than the diagrams suggest (surprising amounts of plumbing), hydrogen does bad things to many materials, hybrids are like common cars today with even more parts to break.
Electricity can be delivered just as easily and cheaply to your home as anywhere. Pure electric cars have very few parts that are likely to need replacement or even much service. This kills the financial model car companies depend on. Parts suppliers are even worse off. The car industry hates electric cars.
The above are reasons why we are seeing some techs pushed over others.
Why use electricity to create fuel when you can use it directly? Converting it to an intermediate form and then converting it back will always be an efficiency loser.
Battery tech and power densities are advancing faster than fuel cell tech and is already much, much cheaper.The price is being driven down as we speak. Fuel cells? Eventually.
Once you lose the engine and transmission the cost of batteries is somewhat offset. In the longer run, batteries could wind up cheaper.
If you really want to look at fuel cells then look at the solid oxide type power stations. They make more sense, are more efficient and can be deployed locally.
"Fuel" stations can deliver electricity for longer trips just as easily as hydrogen. Deliver more electricity to the station and use capacitors to buffer between customers.
Posted by: David M | Mar 5, 2006 12:00:05 AM
I'm glad to see more people calling hydrogen the boondoggle it is.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Mar 5, 2006 10:03:45 PM
Howboutit! Clean diesel/PHEV? Do we even need "prototypes"? Hydrogen and ethanol will remain ingredients in more value-added fuels.
Posted by: fred | Mar 6, 2006 2:13:37 AM
Nice post David M.
I agree with most of what you say although I think there is a place for the HFC-BEV hybrid.
My fantasy is that a battery electric vehicle could be supported by an (as yet non-existent) efficient HFC for the occasional longer journey.
I should still be alive to perhaps live this fantasy in about 30 years time but none of us will be driving a HFC vehicle out of a GM showroom within the next decade...
Posted by: Shaun Williams | Mar 6, 2006 3:33:17 AM
Hybrids are not more complex across the board than conventional cars. Many high dollar components such as a clutch and alternator are not present. maintenance costs should be lower too. Fewer oil and brake pad changes. Also, many components, like the electric motors will likely outlast the rest of the car. Bring on the EVs. The solution to transporation problems is so obvious.
Posted by: Tripp Bisop | Mar 6, 2006 10:17:22 AM
I can agree that hybrids are good in the short term. Plug-ins with constant rpm diesels could be around a long time (I'm not arguing that liquid fuels can/should be eliminated totally, there will always be a need for off-grid/so-so grid vehicles).
"Many high dollar components such as a clutch and alternator are not present."
Hadn't thought about that, thanks.
One nice thing about hybrids is that they are funding better, cheaper batteries.
Posted by: David M | Mar 6, 2006 12:49:48 PM
The whole case is that this <> will be produced from the same gas deposits and sold by the same companys . Its just a trick to make as think things are geting better. They are not, they just got a diferent . its like we used to drive a ford and now we drive a mercury .Same car diferent brand . Get it?
Posted by: dim | Mar 7, 2006 6:16:12 AM
The whole case is that this <> will be produced from the same gas deposits and sold by the same companys . Its just a trick to make as think things are geting better. They are not, they just got a diferent . its like we used to drive a ford and now we drive a mercury .Same car diferent brand . Get it?
Posted by: dim | Mar 7, 2006 6:16:15 AM
