Assuming nuclear-generated power for New Zealand is a non-issue, what should be our stance on it globally?

Keith Locke says:

Japan, the only country to be attacked with nuclear bombs, with huge loss of life, is now in the midst of another nuclear disaster which puts in question the whole future of the nuclear industry. It may sound the death knell of nuclear power, not only in Japan, but world-wide.

And:

New Zealand could be using its nuclear-free status to take on the nuclear industry. We are well placed to be at the forefront of the international campaign to phase-out of nuclear power plants and promote the renewable energy alternatives. Green Parties all around the world are taking up this cause …

The Greens recently called for a ban on yellowcake transit through New Zealand. Despite Australian assurances that under their policy and safeguards, the shipments could only be used for non-violent civilian purposes, they undermined New Zealand's "proud nuclear-free history and the blood, sweat and tears of activists in the `80s who fought to entrench our nuclear-free status on the world stage," said Gareth Hughes.

But here is George Monbiot:

The nuclear disaster unfolding in Japan is bad enough; the nuclear disaster unfolding in China could be even worse. “What disaster?”, you ask. The decision today by the Chinese government to suspend approval of new atomic power plants. If this suspension were to become permanent, the power those plants would have produced is likely to be replaced by burning coal. While nuclear causes calamities when it goes wrong, coal causes calamities when it goes right, and coal goes right a lot more often than nuclear goes wrong …

I despise and fear the nuclear industry as much as any other green … But, sound as the roots of the anti-nuclear movement are, we cannot allow historical sentiment to shield us from the bigger picture. Even when nuclear power plants go horribly wrong, they do less damage to the planet and its people than coal-burning stations operating normally.

Coal, the most carbon-dense of fossil fuels, is the primary driver of manmade climate change. If its combustion is not curtailed, it could kill millions of times more people than nuclear power plants have done so far …

Coal also causes plenty of other environmental damage, far worse than the side-effects of nuclear power production: from mountaintop removal to acid rain and heavy metal pollution. An article in Scientific American points out that the fly ash produced by a coal-burning power plant

“carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.”

Of course it’s not a straight fight between coal and nuclear ... But we’ll still need to generate electricity, and not all renewable sources are appropriate everywhere. While producing solar power makes perfect sense in North Africa, in the UK, by comparison to both wind and nuclear, it’s a waste of money and resources. Abandoning nuclear power as an option narrows our choices just when we need to be thinking as broadly as possible.

David Suzuki says nuclear energy is not renewable, therefore by definition not sustainable.

James Lovelock -- despite dire consequences of an accident, the problem of waste, and industry links with nuclear armament -- says it is the only green solution: “I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy”.

I want to know:

  1. What’s the alternative?
  2. Is Keith just 'being the change' between a long-term aspirational global view and the medium-term pragmatic one?
  3. In other words, if he doesn't know the answer to 1, above, does it matter? 
  4. What does 'nuclear free New Zealand' mean? Do we want it to mean something different from what it used to mean -- disarmament?

Here is some other useful stuff about global nuclear energy reliance.

Discuss.

Comments (33)

by nommopilot on March 21, 2011
nommopilot

My issue is that while i think nuclear is a preferable energy to fossil fuel, any pro-nuclear policies implemented in our current fossil fuel controlled world will not serve to reduce fossil fuel generation.  Instead of decreasing one in favour of the other - both will just grow.

If I could see a clear policy to replace coal with nuclear (that is large scale reduction in coal generation to offset any increase in nuclear generation) I would be happy to see nuclear power increase, but I don't think it will play out this way given the money involved:

The only viable course for our planet is to reduce the degree to which polluting energy sources are used and this is not going to happen with or without nuclear energy.

by Claire Browning on March 21, 2011
Claire Browning

But on that logic, Mic, you wouldn't support renewables, either. Everything pollutes, to a greater or lesser extent - so of course yes, you have to tackle growth too, but I don't think that saves you from needing to decide how to build your energy portfolio. 

by Todd on March 21, 2011
Todd

If the World doubles its production and deployment of renewables each year, we will not need nuclear or un-sustainable energy sources by 2022. Investment in renewables is currently growing at around 20% each year.

The equivalency of nuclear energy makes wind power just over seven times less polluting, this calculation does not take into account the true cost of accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima etc. It is not a choice between coal (around 120 times as polluting as wind power) and nuclear. Wind creates around 9g of greenhouse gas emmisions per KWh.

Renewables do not need large investment into fuel sources so become even cheaper over time. Life expectancy of coal and nuclear powered plants is around the same as wind powered turbines. You can overhaul a turbine but a nuclear reactor needs to be decommissioned with huge overheads. Solar panels have a warranty of around 25 years. Recent developments will make renewables even more cost effective because of longevity.

Some countries are better suited to certain types of renewables, which provide much better security of energy than their polluting counterparts. Fukushima and the wars for oil are shifting investment capital into renewables and coal.

Being nuclear free means we do not have irradiating plants, nuclear power or weapons or visits from such devises. It means we still use safe radiation sources for medicine etc. It should mean we don't have shipments through our ports of radioactive substances as this is a breach of current New Zealand law. Being Nuclear free means we do not have to barricade ourselves in our houses when an “accident” occurs or find ways to dispose of nuclear waste that is dangeous for thousands of years.

There is no harm in New Zealand expressing its wish for worldwide disarmament and sustainable forms of energy. In fact if we could catch the wave and produce renewable sources of energy, we would make a lot of money.

 

by Claire Browning on March 21, 2011
Claire Browning

It should mean we don't have shipments through our ports of radioactive substances as this is a breach of current New Zealand law.

No, it isn't, provided they get the proper consents. (Responses to OIA requests by myself and Graeme Edgeler suggests that they aren't doing that - but the law's a bit vague, and it's arguable.)

Here is today's edition of The Climate Show, with Barry Brook (from 29.30):

The fundamental question you've got to ask, and as a climate scientist the one I will continue to ask, is: if you don't want to go down the nuclear power route, you have not currently got a lot of other alternatives for generating low carbon electricity, and that's what fundamentally concerns me ...

I suppose what bothers me is whether you can discuss it sensibly, at all, in the abstract, as opposed to per country -- which should be a domestic discussion, that we could butt out of.

by nommopilot on March 21, 2011
nommopilot

"I don't think that saves you from needing to decide how to build your energy portfolio. "

Given the state of our environment and climate:

Priority 1 should be seeking to minimise our energy consumption, Priority 2 should be minimising our use of non renewable energy sources, Priority 3 should be encouraging renewable sources.

Where looking at issues of substitution nuclear beats coal hands down because, although the waste is arguably more toxic (and lasts a lot longer), there is less of it (per kWh) and it is contained, rather than just belched into the atmosphere, but I don't want it if it's not going to considerably reduce the amount of coal and gas that gets burned.

like you say, it's country specific and I don't think it's a great option for NZ...

by Todd on March 21, 2011
Todd

Claire

"No, it isn't, provided they get the proper consents."

I was aware that you could get a consent to overide an Act. The only arguable angle is whether the substance is utilised for weapons manufacture or not. As New Zealand cannot specifically be sure of this, it is a breach of the Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987, which states:

Prohibition on acquisition of nuclear explosive devices
  • (1) No person, who is a New Zealand citizen or a person ordinarily resident in New Zealand, shall, within the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone,—

    • (a) Manufacture, acquire, or possess, or have control over, any nuclear explosive device; or

    • (b) Aid, abet, or procure any person to manufacture, acquire, possess, or have control over any nuclear explosive device.

    (2) No person, who is a New Zealand citizen or a person ordinarily resident in New Zealand, and who is a servant or agent of the Crown, shall, beyond the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone,—

    • (a) Manufacture, acquire, or possess, or have control over, any nuclear explosive device; or

    • (b) Aid, abet, or procure any person to manufacture, acquire, possess, or have control over any nuclear explosive device.

It's not really open to interpretation as this and Permits were repealed.

Mic, could you define "contained?"

The issue is not country specific, it applies to every country developed or not depending on their energy sources. The effects of climate change cannot be mitigated by building nuclear reactors to the degree that is required. WInd and solar beats nuclear and coal power hands down.

 

 

by nommopilot on March 21, 2011
nommopilot

"Mic, could you define "contained?""

I meant in the sense that the pollution from fossil fuels is released directly into the atmosphere, whereas nuclear waste is at least captured and can be stored.  of course, mankind's ability to manage that waste over a period that is far longer than our modern civilisation has been around is questionable.  A lot of people I discuss this with are more confident than I about our ability to keep nuclear waste out of the ecosphere for the thousands of years it is dangerous.

My main objection to nuclear energy is that we don't have the right to impose this waste on future generations, but we don't have the right to impose climate change on them either so ...

Trouble with wind and solar is that it requires a large shift in the way we utilise energy as a species and this needs to be accompanied by very fundamental economic change (that I'd like to believe will come in time.

by Todd on March 21, 2011
Todd

The responsibility for containment that is imposed on future generations is not acceptable. However my question really related to how contained nuclear power and waste is in reality, not a principled ideal. The answer is that it is not well contained or managed and there are serious consequences and costs to this.

“Trouble with wind and solar is that it requires a large shift in the way we utilise energy as a species and this needs to be accompanied by very fundamental economic change (that I'd like to believe will come in time.”

I have to disagree with you there. Renewables allow for just as much usage and flexibility as their polluting counterparts. The issue is with the time frame that renewables can be implemented. The economic shift towards a sustainable future is indeed required, we as a species currently spend more on war than in securing our future.

 

by Deborah Coddington on March 21, 2011
Deborah Coddington

Can you please define "renewables". I've been having this discussion on another network with another member of the Greens and it seems to differ.

by Luc Hansen on March 21, 2011
Luc Hansen
by Luc Hansen on March 21, 2011
Luc Hansen

Claire, our global stance should be that it is for each nation to take its own decision, and, personally, and in the absence of credible renewable energy plans that can replace fossil and nuclear sources, I agree with George Monbiot.

by nommopilot on March 22, 2011
nommopilot

"Renewables allow for just as much usage and flexibility as their polluting counterparts."

If that were true they would already have displaced the current paradigm.  Do you think the US would be spending trillions on war if they could get the same thing from their own natural resources?

Fossil fuels are condensed sunlight concentrated by millions of years of biological activity and compressed by geological pressures.  It is much more highly concentrated than the energy in the sunlight reaching the earth each day or the winds driven by it.  If you want to use that energy to power a car for instance you'll need to store many hours of wind from a large area into a battery small enough to fit in the car:  you need to concentrate that energy.  With fossil fuels nature's done that for us already, in large (yet absolutely finite) quantities.

I believe renewables have a big part in our future (as they have throughout mankind's history, long before we started burning oil and coal) but I don't think they'll replace the way we use fossil fuels now.

The first part of this is also worth a read.

by Claire Browning on March 22, 2011
Claire Browning

The only arguable angle is whether the substance is utilised for weapons manufacture or not. As New Zealand cannot specifically be sure of this, it is a breach of the Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 ...

No, it isn't.

Among the many matters of which you seem to be unaware is the Atomic Energy Act, under which uranium (including yellowcake) is a prescribed substance, which can however be imported, by prior written consent of the Minister.

Although it is a bugger's muddle of a post (for which I apologise) following the link I gave you might have helped.

Your faith in the Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act is touching, but mistaken. Legally, you won't prove aiding, abetting or procurement, or anything else under that Act, on the facts of what is happening with yellowcake. Trust me - or Gareth, if you'd rather:

Green MP and oceans spokesman Gareth Hughes is to draft a member's bill in an effort to have uranium shipment bans covered by the New Zealand Nuclear-Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987.

by Todd on March 22, 2011
Todd

Mic

“If that were true they would already have displaced the current paradigm. Do you think the US would be spending trillions on war if they could get the same thing from their own natural resources?”

There are many factors involved. The political and economic considerations currently outweigh the ecological considerations. This is changing. The US can meet all its energy needs by building solar panels on 3% of Arizona.

 

Claire,

“Among the many matters of which you seem to be unaware is the Atomic Energy Act, under which uranium (including yellowcake) is a prescribed substance, which can however be imported, by prior written consent of the Minister.”

I’m not aware that the New Zealand Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 has reference to the Atomic Energy Act 1945 in that it’s law is made irrelivent by an earlier act. Could you please clarify?

The Atomic Energy Act states:

14, Restriction on trading in fissionable substances

No person shall, without the prior written consent of the Minister of Research, Science, and Technology, export or sell or otherwise dispose of any isotope of uranium, or any plutonium or other substance from which atomic energy may be more readily obtained than from uranium of natural isotope composition, except to the Crown.

And

6 Granting of consents, etc

In granting any consent or approval or imposing any requirement under this Act, the Minister or the Minister of Research, Science, and Technology, as the case may be, may impose such conditions as he or she thinks fit.

If no consent was administered, the shipments are illegal under the Atomic Energy Act 1945. The shipments are still illegal under the Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987.

“Legally, you won't prove aiding, abetting or procurement, or anything else under that Act, on the facts of what is happening with yellowcake.”

There is not a requirement to prove that the yellowcake is used in nuclear weapons development. There is a requirement to prove that it is not. As this has not occurred, it appears that the shipments under current New Zealand law are illegal.

 

by Claire Browning on March 22, 2011
Claire Browning

Sorry, Todd. Wishing will not make it so, I'm afraid - but best of luck with your endeavours.

by nommopilot on March 22, 2011
nommopilot

"The US can meet all its energy needs by building solar panels on 3% of Arizona"

And yet it is somehow more economic to rack up a massive foreign debt and fight two massive, unwinnable wars costing untold billions of dollars than to cover 3% of Arizona with solar panels.

Adoption of renewables in the way that you think it will happen never will.  The price of oil will need to rise significantly to drive the infrastructural change required (which will have significant environmenal impacts - large scale battery and solar panel manufacture are NOT environmentally friendly or sustainable and require pretty significant energy inputs) and by the time this happens it will be too expensive (How many solar panels will be needed to run the solar panel factories, let alone the diggers to mine the minerals for solar panel manufacture).

As Claire said "Wishing will not make it so".

by Claire Browning on March 23, 2011
Claire Browning

Mr Monbiot just keeps on making trouble:

The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power they supply, as the need for both storage and redundancy increases. It may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a certain grid penetration – 50 or 70% perhaps? – renewables have smaller carbon impacts than nukes, while beyond that point, nukes have smaller impacts than renewables.

Like others, I have called for renewable power to be used both to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to expand the total supply, displacing the oil used for transport and the gas used for heating fuel. Are we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear capacity? The more work we expect renewables to do, the greater the impacts on the landscape will be, and the tougher the task of public persuasion.

But expanding the grid to connect people and industry to rich, distant sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most of the greens who complained about the blog post I wrote last week. What they want, they tell me, is something quite different: we should power down and produce our energy locally. Some have even called for the abandonment of the grid. Their bucolic vision sounds lovely, until you read the small print ...

by Todd on March 23, 2011
Todd

You’re both being rather condescending. Wishful thinking does not apply to the law. Make a case for why the act should not apply? Otherwise your argument is irrelevant.

Likewise Mic, I am not just “wishing” that renewables can replace non-renewables including nuclear, I am saying that it can be done. I’m saying that it should be done as fast as possible. For places like New Zealand, it will help to remove our reliance on imports of fossil fuels. This alone can be highly profitable.

Monbiots argument is defunct. Nukes do not have smaller impacts than renewables when you consider decommissioning, toxic sites, waste disposal and accidents. Nukes release just over seven times as much CO2 as wind turbines, including manufacturing and transportation. The cost of storage and redundancy applies infinitely more to nuclear power.

 

by Claire Browning on March 23, 2011
Claire Browning

Okay Todd. Words of one syllable. If that's condescending, so be it; in this instance, it also appears to be necessary, because you are being obtuse.

My case is not that the "Act should not apply". It is that it does not apply. Both Acts are still the law. But there is simply nothing in the 1987 Act applicable to yellowcake transit. (The 1945 Act is another matter.)

Here is the Act. It is about nuclear propulsion, and "nuclear explosive devices". Yellowcake is not, as I understand it, itself in its present state "capable of releasing nuclear energy". It is not a "device". It is, as Nick Smith put it, one step up from Aussie dirt. Therefore, the best you have got is aiding, abetting and procurement of manufacture, acquisition, etc: section 5. That flies in the face of the Australian assurances, that I am sure would be backed by evidence in the event of a dispute. Even if the assurances turned out to be false, the mental elements that you need to prove aiding, abetting or procurement would be missing.

You might better spend your time listening to Barry Brook, who answers all your remaining concerns. Or by all means, take it up in court, where I will watch your progress with interest. This correspondence is over.

by Todd on March 23, 2011
Todd

Tecnically yellowcake can be used to create nuclear weapons. You need to procure yellowcake to make a nuclear weapon. There is a dispute, the assurance needs to be backed by evidence. As there is no evidence to show that the yellowcake is not being used in the prescribed manner outlined in the act, it is illegal. An assumption is not applicable to an act.

I don't think that requiring you to have an argument instead of just saying I'm wrong is obtuse. Perhaps you felt the need to exchange insults?

by Claire Browning on March 23, 2011
Claire Browning

Yes. Self-evidently.

In other news: there seems to be a good correlation, between the total baselessness of the legal opinion, and the vigour with which it gets expressed - but hey, you're not alone. There's a lot of that about.

by Todd on March 23, 2011
Todd

Claire

If my opinion is baseless, then please present an argument that shows why you believe this? I have outlined my argument by presenting the relevent excerpt from the Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987. Your argument was that another Act applies to the dynamic... But when asked to clarify, you ignor the request and fall back to insults.

It is your assumption that it is legal that is baseless. I'm not aware of anybody else who has said that such activity is illegal under current New Zealand law. However I'm sure that is just because you're far superior in your intellect and acquaintances.

by Claire Browning on March 23, 2011
Claire Browning

Todd. I have. Your failure to grasp and/or inability to accept it is not my problem. 

by tussock on March 23, 2011
tussock

  1. What’s the alternative?

More wind power in the roaring 40's, a battery lake above Roxborough (estimated capacity over 6 months supply for the whole country, so no problems with daily variation), with some big new HVDC to transport it all the way to Auckland. More wind farms and geothermal up north too, and possibly some solar concentrators in the few particularly sunny regions (not economic vs wind in NZ, but generates well during long H summer phases).

More micro-hydro all over the place, run of the river stuff for local baseload generation, elevated dams only for pumped storage. Off shore wind near the big cities. Geothermal and stored hydro covers your demand fluctuation, low population density in NZ makes them easily viable).

Nuclear is far more expensive, and uranium's limited anyway. The problems with wind and solar are storing the occasional excess, so we just have to build the storage first, and some HVDC to shift the energy around as we start to generate it.

by Claire Browning on March 23, 2011
Claire Browning
Those are options for New Zealand, yes. The post wasn't about nukes for New Zealand, though.
by Todd on March 23, 2011
Todd

Tussock,

I whole-heartedly agree. Although there is one thing; Uranium isn't all that limited, as they‘ve just decommissioned heaps of nuclear warheads, so there's heaps of fissionable material around.

Claire, saying that I don't understand/accept your non-existent argument is rather silly!

by Rich on March 24, 2011
Rich

Just for the belated benefit of Todd, the Non-Proliferation Treaty prevents the use of "civilian" nuclear material for weapons by signatory states. Such material is under physical safeguard by the IAEA to ensure this doesn't happen (see http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/safeguards/glossary.htm).

This presumably satisfies the legal requirement for material transferred through NZ not to be used for weapons (I assume the NZ government would not license such material to a non-NPT signatory such as India, Israel or Pakistan).

 

by Claire Browning on April 05, 2011
Claire Browning

"The consort of the devil" offers some more thoughts on nukes, vs other energy generation options.

by Claire Browning on April 07, 2011
Claire Browning

Starting today, The Economist is hosting a live online debate (+ background). Proposition: "This house believes that the world would be better off without nuclear power".

by on September 17, 2011
Anonymous

Canada Goose A parliamentary secretary Canada Goose Jacket to Foreign Affairs Minister John Canada Goose Parka Baird was told to Canada Goose Coats account for things Canada Goose Store he said to a friend who works for China's state-controlled news agency, a government source says.

by on September 23, 2011
Anonymous
Demarcus Ware Jersey Demarcus Ware Authentic Jersey Miles Austin Jersey Miles Austin Authentic Jersey Dez Bryant Authentic Jersey Dez Bryant Jersey Jason Witten Jersey Jason Witten Authentic Jersey Marion Barber Jersey Marion Barber Authentic Jersey Adam Jones Jersey Bill Bates Jersey DeMarco Murray Jersey Emmitt Smith Jersey Felix Jones Jersey Jay Novacek Jersey Jay Ratliff Jersey Michael Irvin Jersey Mike Jenkins Jersey Roger Staubach Jersey Roy L. Williams Jersey Roy Williams Jersey Tashard Choice Jersey Terence Newman Jersey Terry Glenn Jersey Tony Dorsett Jersey Tony Romo Jersey Troy Aikman Jersey Tyron Smith Jersey Zach Thomas Jersey Cheap Cowboys Jersey Dallas Cowboys Jersey Clay Matthews Jersey Clay Matthews Authentic Jersey Aaron Rodgers Jersey Aaron Rodgers Authentic Jersey A.j.hawk Jersey Aaron Kampman Jersey Al Harris Jersey B.j.Raji Jersey Brett Jersey Charles Woodson Jersey Donald Driver Jersey Greg Jennings Jersey Jermichael Finley Jersey Michael Crabtree Jersey Paul Hornung Jersey Reggie White Jersey Ryan Grant Jersey William Henderson Jersey Matthew Stafford Jersey Jahvid Best Jersey Barry Sanders Jersey Ndamukong Suh Jersey Nick Fairley Jersey Tory Burch Heels Tory Burch Outlet Tory Burch Boots Table Lamp Birkenstock Arizona Birkenstock Sandals Men Birkenstock Sandal Birkenstock Sandals Women Birkenstock Shoes Men Birkenstock nursing shoes Birkenstock Clogs Women Birkenstock clogs birkenstock kitchen clogs Birkenstock Clogs Mens Birkenstock Shoes For Women Birkenstock kitchen shoes
by on September 23, 2011
Anonymous
Michael Vick Jersey Desean Jackson Authentic Jersey Desean Jackson Jersey Michael Vick Authentic Jersey Nnamdi Asomugha jersey Nnamdi Asomugha Authentic jersey Asante Samuel Jersey Jeremy Maclin Jersey Ronnie Brown Jersey Nathanel Alen Jersey Lesean Mccoy Jersey Brandon Graham Jersey Brent Celek Jersey Donovan Mcnabb Jersey Brandon Graham Jersey Jeremy Maclin Jersey Stewart Bradley Jersey Ray Lewis Jersey Michael Oher Jersey ed reed jersey anquan boldin Jersey Ray Rice Jersey Willis Mcgahee Jersey Ray Lewis Authentic Jersey ed reed Authentic jersey anquan boldin Authentic Jersey Ray Rice Authentic Jersey Willis Mcgahee Authentic Jersey Terrell Suggs Jersey Joe flacco jersey Todd Heap Jersey Derrick Mason Authentic Jersey Chaussure Nike Air Max Air Max Air Max pas cher nike air noir Air Max 2010 Air Max 95 Air Max 90 Air Max LTD Air Max LTD II Air Max TN Air Max Skyline Air Max Classic BW Nike Air Structure Triax 91 Air Max 24/7 Air Max 2009 Air Max 2003 Ahmad Bradshaw Jersey Brandon Jacobs Jersey Eli Manning Jersey Hakeem Nicks Jersey Justin Tuck Jersey Kevin Boss Jersey Osi Umenyiora Jersey Harry Carson Jersey Danny Clark Jersey Kenny Phillips Jersey Mario Manningham Jersey Mark Bavaro Jersey Michael Strahan Jersey Phil Simms Jersey Plaxico Burress Jersey Steve Smith Jersey Tiki Barber Jersey Cheap Tiffany Jewelry Cheap Chanel Jewelry Cheap Pandora Jewelry Cheap Bvlgari Jewelry Cheap Cartier Jewelry Wholesale Tiffany Jewelry wholesale tiffany necklace Wholesale Chanel Jewelry Wholesale Pandora Jewelry Wholesale Links Jewelry Wholesale Bvlgari Jewelry Wholesale Cartier Jewelry Wholesale LV Jewelry Cheap Fashion jewelry Cheap Coach Jewelry Cheap Louis Vuitton Jewelry Patrick Kane Jersey Antti Niemi Jersey Bobby Hull Jersey Brian Campbell Jersey Jonathan Toews Jersey Patrick Sharp Jersey Stan Mikita Jersey Adam Burish Jersey

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.