Print 48 comment(s) - last by ddf.. on Aug 1 at 8:49 PM

Nuclear Fusion Reactor  (Source: The Institute of Telecommunications Professionals)
Could lead to an endless supply of clean energy

Researchers from Purdue University have found mechanisms that are vital to interactions between surfaces inside a thermonuclear fusion reactor and hot plasma, which could lead to the development of coatings capable of tolerating radiation damage and ultimately, fusion power plants. 

The inner lining of a fusion reactor often faces horrific conditions leading to radiation damage due to the hot plasma. With the use of nanotechnology, nuclear engineers are looking to "define" small features in the coating as a way to understand and develop a new material that can come in contact with plasma and not be harmed. Finding a material durable enough to withstand such harsh conditions has been difficult, until now. 

Along with researchers at Princeton University in the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Purdue researchers are using the National Spherical Torus Experiment to test materials, which is the country's only spherical tokamak reactor. They will also study materials in a special "plasma-materials interface probe," then transfer these materials to an "in situ surface analysis facility laboratory."

"We will bring the samples in and study them right there, and will be able to do the characterization in real time to see what happens to the surfaces," said Jean Paul Allain, an assistant professor of nuclear engineering at Purdue University. "We're also going to use computational modeling to connect the fundamental physics learned in our experiments and what we observe inside the tokamak."

One of the tested linings is lithiated graphite, which consists of lithium being added to the inner graphite wall, and when it diffuses into the reactor wall. Then deuterium atoms and the lithiated graphite bind together in the fuel inside these tokamaks, which are what the fusion reactors are called. A magnetic field inside the tokamaks encloses a circular-shaped plasma of deuterium, which is an isotope of hydrogen. 

When a fusion reaction occurs, deuterium atoms hit the inner lining of the fusion reactor and can be sent back to the core and recycled back to the plasma, or they're "pumped," which causes them to bind with the lithiated graphite. 

"We now have an understanding of how the lithiated graphite controls the recycling of hydrogen," said Allain. "This is the first time anyone has looked systematically at the chemistry and physics of pumping by the lithiated graphite. We are learning, at the atomic level, exactly how it is pumped and what dictates the binding of deuterium in this lithiated graphite. So we now have improved insight on how to recondition the surfaces of the tokamak."

The use of a fusion power plant could cut exhaust completely because the deuterium fuel is in seawater. Also, it could produce 10 times more energy than a nuclear fission reactor. Plants like these would be an endless supply of clean energy.

This study was led by Chase Taylor, a doctoral student, Bryan Heim, a graduate student, and Allain. Two papers have been written on the topic, and one will be presented at the Fusion Nuclear Science and Technology/Plasma Facing Components meeting in August.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fusion Power - Is it really that clean?
By 3DoubleD on 7/28/2010 3:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
Fusion power is often held as the holy grail of energy production. Clearly it is as misunderstood as power from nuclear fission reactors. The waste from a fusion reactor would, in practice, differ only slightly from a traditional nuclear fission reactor. By this I mean that the entire reactor itself becomes radioactive, necessitating the same storage facilities that are required for current fission power plants. Fusion reactions create neutrons, which are not confined by the magnetic field. These neutrons cause nuclear reactions in the surround reactor components, as they do in fission reactors. Furthermore, the fusion reactor, by design and necessity, operates in much more extreme conditions than a fission reactor. Thermal fatigue and radiation damage in a fusion reactor will be more extensive than a fission reactor and will likely result in more frequent refurbishments and repairs (a topic that this article hints to). The removal of radioactive reactor parts is no trivial task.

So separate from the fuel that is required and their byproducts. The two technologies share similar problems: a) radioactive waste, b) long and difficult repairs, and c) high capital costs (~$2-5 Billion for a plant). In regards to the fuel supply, we can run on fission power for thousands of years and there is no immediate need change fuel sources. By then, hopefully we have figured out an alternative fuel source or how to reprocess fission fuel efficiently.

So I guess my point is, why does everyone drool over the "holy grail" of power generation when we already have a tried and tested solution: nuclear fission. It really isn't much different. And to answer the inevitable nuclear weapons proliferation argument before it is brought up - you don't need weapons grade uranium or plutonium to run a fission reactor.

RE: Fusion Power - Is it really that clean?
By bupkus on 7/28/2010 3:42:39 PM , Rating: 3
And to answer the inevitable nuclear weapons proliferation argument before it is brought up - you don't need weapons grade uranium or plutonium to run a fission reactor.
Just playing devil's advocate here.
However, the materials used can be incorporated into a simple dirty bomb.

By Wiggy Mcshades on 7/28/2010 4:30:29 PM , Rating: 3
should we honestly shy away from a clean source of energy (both fission and fusion) just because the by products could possibly be used in a negative way? They wouldn't be selling this stuff at yard sales nor do they leave it unguarded.

RE: Fusion Power - Is it really that clean?
By wiz220 on 7/28/2010 5:21:44 PM , Rating: 5
This quote from the Fusion Programme Evaluation Board report prepared for the European Commission seems to disagree with your comment about fusion waste being only "slightly" different from fission waste:

"Over their lifetimes, fusion reactors would generate, by component replacement and decommissioning, activated material similar in volume to that of fission reactors, but qualitatively different in that the long-term radiotoxicity is considerably lower [no radioactive spent fuel]. The use of advanced low activation materials and recycling could further ease the management of radioactive waste. Overall, the study indicates that fusion waste would not constitute a burden for future generations. ..."

More excerpts from the report can be read here:

By menace on 7/28/2010 5:40:30 PM , Rating: 3
Yes that is what I recall from years ago (probably read in in Popular Science), the differences are in the half-lifes. Makes sense, I believe lighter unstable isotopes tend to decay faster and with fewer transitions to reach a stable isotope.

By 3DoubleD on 7/28/2010 6:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
The "slightly" different classification is certainly valid with intelligent fuel handling. The use of nuclear transmutation and designs such as a traveling wave reactor drastically reduce the amount of nuclear waste. With such technology, nuclear proliferation becomes a concern. However, the traveling wave reactor would rather safely stow such isotopes within the reactor for the duration of the fuel cycle. The length of this fuel cycle would be extremely long (~50-100 years). At the very least until nuclear fusion is a viable option, it would be ridiculous if this type of plant doesn't produce most of the base load power.

To read more: Wald, M. (2009-March/April). 10 Emerging Technologies of 2009: Traveling-Wave Reactor. MIT Technology Review.

In regards to your quote, the same techniques to reduce the radioactivity in fission reactor components are used. The big difference is that material requirements in a fusion reactor are far more extreme. Nuclear fission reactors almost exclusively use zirconium alloys as zirconium has a very small neutron capture cross-section in addition to good resistance to structural degradation by radiation. A small neutron capture cross-section only reduces the rate by which the zirconium atoms become radioactive. Furthermore, these zirconium alloys have serious creep problems under typical fission reactor temperatures, leading to their failure after ~20-30 years. In the case of a fusion reactor, zirconium may not even be a choice. Given the fact that no net power output has been achieved, I'd wager that their choice of reactor materials is mostly determined by "does it benefit the reaction?", not "how hot does this get after 10 years?". To summarize, I think they are really saying "we don't know yet, but we hope it's as good as what current day nuclear reactors achieve - minus the fission products". You already know my opinion on what should be done with fission products. Cheers.

By inighthawki on 7/28/2010 5:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
But even while the reactors themselves suffer from radiation damage, the fusion reactor does not incur the same "byproducts" of the nuclear reaction like fission does. While the fission process can produce large quantities of radioactive materials, the fusion reaction produces stable helium, but lots of radiation.

RE: Fusion Power - Is it really that clean?
By sleepeeg3 on 7/29/2010 2:45:23 AM , Rating: 1
We only have enough estimated fissile material for 80-200 years. That is why fusion is imperative to our future.

From this article, I am not sure what the advantage is of the lithiated graphite. Does it extend the life of the coating? From what I recall, graphite has the advantage of being cheap, but also requires the highest rate of replacement, creating the most low level radioactive waste.

By Fritzr on 7/31/2010 1:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
That limit assumes that only high grade naturally occurring fuel is used.

Breeder reactors convert nuclear "waste" into new fuel that can be used to fuel other reactors. The benefit of breeders is that the waste product of the reaction is a greater amount of usable fuel than is needed to charge the reactor. The "Great Evil" is that the common designs are meant to produce weapons grade plutonium. The designs that produce "poisoned" plutonium unsuitable for weapons were shelved as they could not be used for weapons production, but they do exist and have been tested.

The Traveling Wave reactor mentioned & linked in an earlier post is fueled with "spent" nuclear fuel.

There is also research into recycling nuclear waste to extract the remaining fuel usable for current generation reactors.

Fast Flux Breeder Reactors burn the nuclear waste from other reactor designs and convert long lived isotopes into short lived isotopes. The waste product is then processed to remove the residual usable fuel and the remaining mid grade nuclear waste only needs to be stored for a century or two. This reactor class could be used to burn the high level waste created by the effects of the fusion reaction on the reactor vessel and it's containment.

The difference between fusion and these alternate fission designs is that the alternative fission reactors exist and operate today whereas the fusion reactors for at least the last 40yrs will be producing power "within the next 10yrs".

That is 40 years ago researchers promised fusion power as early as 30yrs ago. 40 years later they are making the same promise..."We're almost there, only 10yrs more!"

A lot of research to boil some water
By mattclary on 7/28/2010 4:15:52 PM , Rating: 4
Do we have the technological means to tap energy directly from a fusion reaction or will we be doing the same thing we are doing with fission, just boiling water?

I would rather see us spend more time and money of fission reactors.

RE: A lot of research to boil some water
By Mjello on 7/28/2010 5:21:31 PM , Rating: 4
Yes the plan is to boil water and drive turbines that drive magnets like in conventional power plant designs. Be it coal or nuclear powered.

There is just no practical alternative when it comes to big scale electricity production. Its simple and its proven.

Fusion reactor however is far from simple. But its a lot safer than fission reactors. A runaway reaction is impossible. A catastrophic error would cause just a local boom and its all over. Some would say thats catastrophic enough but.

No atomic cloud and no chance of ground water being turned to radioactive guysers in your back yard. And any radioactive material from the reactor will be low grade.

This is the one clean energy source, that we know of, that is capable of producing electricity enough to replace the big baseline plants our energy grid is based upon.

And by the way this is all part of a big project started more than 30 years ago. Way before anyone but a few clever guys thought of global warming.

If we ever will control the energy source of the sun for power generation though. I don't know. It seems like a scary complicated science project at the moment. Commercial power generation is still 30 years away like it was 60 years ago when they first started. And don't start with the solar panels thingie, that is not the energy source of the sun :).

RE: A lot of research to boil some water
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2010 8:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
With the safety systems on modern nuclear reactor designs, a runaway reaction is impossible as well. No atomic cloud, no chance of ground water contamination.

And what do you mean commercial power generation is still 30 years away? What do you call the power sold to you now? Or are you referring solely to commercial FUSION power generation?

By NullSubroutine on 7/28/2010 10:35:44 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly, except for the fact that once the fuel is spent, fuel rods are needed to be submerged in cooling ponds otherwise they will catch on fire and burning, throwing radioactive isotopes into the air.

A water shortage could be the most dangerous threat to a nuclear power plant.

By Mogounus on 7/29/2010 2:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, there is no chance of even a local incident. The worst thing that can happen if they lose confinement or some other problem is that the plasma hits the reactor wall, cools down and the reaction stops. Worst case scenario is that the reactor wall is damaged. There is not even enough fusion material in the reactor at one time to cause an explosion.

By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2010 2:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's basically just one huge, friggin cool, tea kettle.

Wait.... let me get this straight...
By Breathless on 7/28/2010 3:30:58 PM , Rating: 1
So Purdue went from plucking and packaging chickens to Nuclear Fusion Reactors? I don't see the correlation.... unless...

RE: Wait.... let me get this straight...
By bupkus on 7/28/2010 3:45:19 PM , Rating: 5
Yes... chicken fusion. Brilliant!

RE: Wait.... let me get this straight...
By solarrocker on 7/28/2010 4:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
I laughed so hard my boss came to see why... then he laughed.. then we all laughed.. then we died...

No seriously though that was really funny

By Breathless on 7/28/2010 5:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
I always knew poppa Purdue and son Purdue were up to no good. There was just something about them on those commercials that screamed "We will soon take over the world, we're just starting with chickens".

Note to self: If you want to take over the world, start with chickens.

One step along the way
By nafhan on 7/28/2010 3:59:40 PM , Rating: 3
Could lead to an endless supply of clean energy
Don't we need to have more energy coming out of a fusion reactor than we are putting in before this even matters? Great science, but even if this works as stated, it's not going to lead to an endless supply of clean energy, unless I missed something and this is more than a coating that keeps fusion reactors from deteriorating.

RE: One step along the way
By wiz220 on 7/28/2010 5:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
This is, hopefully, one piece of the puzzle that will lead us to a net energy gain from a fusion reactor. Something like this could be used in what is slated to be the first net gain reactor, ITER. With Tokamak reactors, the biggest problem right now is exactly what this material could address, damage to the internal surfaces of the reactor during operation. Therefore you could say that your logic is a bit backwards, we need this material BEFORE we CAN get a net gain from a reactor.

RE: One step along the way
By Mjello on 7/28/2010 5:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually they allready made sustainable fusion with more power coming out than in. Just google fusion and you'll stumble upon the ITER site which is the next step. Lots of good reading :).

Right now they are trying to solve the problem of longevity. Making the reactor run day in and day out year in year out. Thats a huge challenge yet to overcome, when dealing with the power of the sun.... Ooh dear that rimed.. sry.

RE: One step along the way
By Mjello on 7/28/2010 5:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Admittedly its heat energy and not the fine grade electricity thats put into it.... Thay have yet to put a steam cycle on a reactor.

By quiksilvr on 7/28/2010 3:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear energy for the win! I've even heard of a special spray they are applying to nuclear waste to make it decompose faster (something like from 10,000 years to 350 years). Here's hoping we see more advances in the near future so we can stop sending coal miners to either death or cancer.

RE: Yay
By karielash on 7/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Yay
By bupkus on 7/28/2010 3:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
Of course that would necessitate sealing up Harry's arse for at least 350 years. Any unauthorized release of radioactive clouds would then be blamed on poor Harry's flatulence.

RE: Yay
By Mogounus on 7/29/2010 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Fusion is not like your run of the mill nuclear plant. It involves combining atoms instead of splitting them. Benefits: no radioactive waste fuel, no nuclear proliferation, no chance of meltdown, virtually inexhastible supply of cheap fuel.

Yeah Prof. JP!
By rcpratt on 7/28/2010 11:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Best professor ever. Keep up the good work.

By GuinnessKMF on 7/29/2010 9:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
"The use of a fusion power plant could cut exhaust completely because the deuterium fuel is in seawater."

Someone doesn't know what exhaust means.

Unobtainium coatings BS
By ddf on 8/1/2010 8:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
The primary issue with all fusion reactors is the simple fact that fusion produces e11 neutrons/joule/sec... This abundance of neutrons flies through all matter in the vicinity of the reaction, including the materials that make the machine. As they plough through metals for example they knock off alpha particles which promptly turn to helium inside the metals. This helium which is scantly mobile forms bubbles in the metal and as the helium continues to accumulate the metals are destroyed by the helium embrittlement. This is an absolute and no element is immune to this effect. In a very brief time the metals turn so brittle as to collapse to dust with the least effort. Hence NO HOT FUSION REACTOR CAN EVER BE OPERATED FOR LONGER THAN A FEW SECONDS, LESS IF THE POWER OUTPUT IS USEFUL.

But will the pork barrel fusion science community ever admit to this... no! Rather they pump and dump their cacophony of phony science as this article so amply illustrates. Snort snort now where is that trough.

By mkrech on 7/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Unfortunately...
By Wiggy Mcshades on 7/28/2010 3:11:33 PM , Rating: 1
clean energy is right in front of us, but it's too complicate for people to understand and thus it won't get the mainstream support crap like solar energy and wind farms do.

RE: Unfortunately...
By tng on 7/28/2010 7:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
No I think that you have something here. All of the initial fusion experiments have taken place here in the US, and even though that continues, the next big step in research into fusion is going to be somewhere in Europe I believe.

Problem is that even the Europeans are having problems funding the development. I think that most of the money that probably would have went to this project went to the LHC instead, the fusion research there got put on hold.

RE: Unfortunately...
By MGSsancho on 7/28/2010 3:14:04 PM , Rating: 5
Oh oh lets make vague assumptions with out backing up facts! We all love politics being injected into science.

If the conservative will stop funding wars and stop cutting taxes for the rich when the country needs the money the most, maybe we will not go bankrupt.

RE: Unfortunately...
By Quadrillity on 7/28/2010 4:08:17 PM , Rating: 1
Oh oh lets make vague assumptions...

If the conservative will stop funding wars and stop cutting taxes for the rich...

Irony at it's best! lol. A true conservative isn't "funding a war" but will probably advocate for it (when necessary) in order to keep this nation safe (which is what the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is about, unless you feel like getting a car bomb at work tomorrow from your good ol' terrorist buddies, I suggest you keep you ignorant mouth shut about the war). It's funny how people like you can totally deject the current war in order to look like a "sophisticated and civilized person" ends up looking like an idiot because of the simple fact that you would NOT be saying such had you been over and TRULY seen what is going on over there. Have you been to the middle east recently? I bet not. Stop letting corrupt/agenda based media spoon feed you their crap filled headlines.

Cutting taxes for the rich? Are you serious? Do you understand micro and macro economics at all? I have not seen one single person calling themselves "conservative" that want to give the rich a free ride. Most "wealthy" pay at least %40 or more in taxes. The middle and lower class do live off the frivolities and investments of the rich any way you want to look at it. Rich is an opportunity in this Nation, not a right or guarantee.

Maybe you meant to use the word Republican? Even that doesn't apply without a stereotype. It's like me saying: "liberal democrat". Sure, it is most often synonymous, but to say that it's an automatic would be stupid.

RE: Unfortunately...
By Paj on 7/28/2010 5:45:14 PM , Rating: 5
Are you kurdish? That must explain how threatened you felt by Iraq.

RE: Unfortunately...
By Quadrillity on 7/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Unfortunately...
By TSS on 7/29/2010 6:40:40 AM , Rating: 3
You can respect the men and women fighting without supporting the actual war itself yknow. I commend them for their bravery but that doesn't mean their orders make sense.

Yes terrorists should be faught. Saddam could've been dangerous if he really had those WMD's. But if i remember correctly i saw bush on an aircraft carrier in 2003 saying "we've won!". Well allrighty then. Still got to find saddam, that i understand.

9 months later, you've found him. Good. Now why are you still staying in Iraq and Afgahnistan? Iraq isn't going to have WMD's now for a long long time, and the taliban where at their weakest after the invasion. Last report i heard, they are as strong now as they where pre-invasion, having taken over half of pakistan where you can't get them (and they've probably been all along).

So what then? Invade Pakistan? They *do* have nukes. This probably won't be a problem since india's dieing to get rid of pakistan anyway, but what then? Iran's likely to harbor the taliban then just to spite the US for invading pakistan, if they don't try and attack US forces directly. Invade Iran then?

This is all still fine and dandy untill you look at what iraq and afgahnistan have cost you, and then consider that both iran and pakistan would be far more costly, drawn out conflicts.

How about you just retreat the armies and let the CIA do what it always does? It's their mess anyway since they trained the taliban to fight the russians.

RE: Unfortunately...
By Quadrillity on 7/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Unfortunately...
By twhittet on 7/28/2010 6:26:12 PM , Rating: 3
Not really sure how some poor Sunni with a crappy car bomb is going to drive 8000 miles to my local market and hit me with a VBIED. And yes, I have been there, but maybe I should "keep my ignorant mouth shut".

Do I think we should still be in Iraq? Somewhat - yes. Am I dumb enough to think it's keeping my family here in the US any safer? Not so much. Tell that to the thousands of families who have lost someone that they're safer - maybe it will dull the pain a bit since they are safer from poor haji's with AK47's and 155 rounds.

RE: Unfortunately...
By Quadrillity on 7/28/2010 8:44:54 PM , Rating: 1
Do I think we should still be in Iraq? Somewhat - yes.

Since you have been there, I sure you saw the overwhelming number of people there that thanked you for helping their country and fighting for their freedom. Did you happen to keep count of the number of people that came up to shake your hand or even try to hug you - just curious. The people of that nation need help from the tyrants in power; and we are basically the only country helping out. We are not "policing"; but more like liberating the people that are damn near slaves to their own country. But first and foremost; we are there do ensure that OUR freedoms are kept safe because that entire region is extremely dangerous to the entire world. So hell yeah, we need to be over there busting some ass.

Tell that to the thousands of families who have lost someone that they're safer - maybe it will dull the pain a bit since they are safer from poor haji's with AK47's and 155 rounds.

wow. Do you realize that we 100% of our armed forces are volunteer? I am VERY glad that those volunteers put their lives on the line; and if those families can't honor the fallen then they need a serious reality check.

Being angry or resentful is NOT going to honor those who died in the line of duty.

maybe it will dull the pain a bit since they are safer from poor haji's with AK47's and 155 rounds.

ROE is a moot point in this conversation.

RE: Unfortunately...
By MGSsancho on 7/28/2010 8:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
I put the space between the sentences to make the irony more obvious :)

RE: Unfortunately...
By Quadrillity on 7/28/2010 8:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
Which is why we need a universal symbol of sarcasm. Some simple squiggly would do just fine.

RE: Unfortunately...
By nafhan on 7/28/2010 4:12:58 PM , Rating: 3
Both major parties in the US are appear to be much more interested in pandering to their constituent demographics than in doing what's best for the country. Not saying I know what's best by any means, but sometimes it almost seems like the Democrats and Republicans are just trying to see who can screw things up the fastest, and sadly neither seems very interested in science.

RE: Unfortunately...
By Quadrillity on 7/28/2010 5:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Both major parties in the US are appear to be much more interested in pandering to their constituent demographics than in doing what's best for the country.

You got that right. Seems like no-one in a public office nowadays did any research on how we (as a nation) came to exist. GW said it best when he gave is farewell speech.

RE: Unfortunately...
By menace on 7/28/2010 5:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
If the conservative will stop funding wars

Congress holds the purse strings. Last time I checked they have quite a liberal majority in each house and have had so for four years. And in last two years, a president on their side to boot.

If they genuinely oppose the war(s) they would have cut funding off a long time ago. Likewise, the Libs can try to raise income taxes any time they want to if they had the guts to try. As it is the only taxes they appear to support are regressive sin taxes that hit the poor hardest. And wheelchair taxes, LOL.

RE: Unfortunately...
By knutjb on 7/29/2010 3:40:51 AM , Rating: 1
If the conservative will stop funding wars and stop cutting taxes for the rich when the country needs the money the most, maybe we will not go bankrupt.
I think you need to do a little homework on the "tax the rich" tripe.
Taxes aren't a simple math problem its all about emotions to what is perceived as fair. The wealthy are hypersensitive, they do have a lot more to lose, and will do all they can to hide THEIR money even when it costs them more money to do so.

When taxes are low the percentage of revenues received by the IRS grows substantially. Before Kennedy dropped the top rate down from 90% the rich paid about 4% of net revenues. Today they pay over 40%. If their rates go up revenues go down and GDP falters, further lowering actual IRS revenues. When the money doesn't show the politicians slam the middle and lower classes to make up the difference. Not knowing your history is a bitch.

Read up on 1921, 1930, 1946, 1978, 1981, 2001, and today to see what politicians did and their impact. Look at what's going on today and where it fits in history, you might even change party if you care about truth in spending.

RE: Unfortunately...
By Quadrillity on 7/29/2010 10:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
100% of what you said is true, but unfortunately most folks out there stuck fingers in their ears and shouted: "LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!"

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki