backtop

Print 40 comment(s) - last by .. on Sep 1 at 9:41 AM

A USDA research laboratory examined watermelons' viability as a biofuel feedstock. Their results indicate watermelons to be a promising alternative to corn for ethanol production. Just from waste melons, their estimates indicate that as much as 1 million liters of ethanol per year could be produced.  (Source: Team Sugar)
A USDA lab claims watermelon juice may be a hot source of future fuel

Watermelons may be the perfect food for a lazy summer afternoon, but do they also hold what your engine needs to get it running?  The USDA's South Central Agricultural Research Lab believes so.  The research lab just wrapped up a new study, published in the journal Biotechnology for Biofuels, which examined the viability of watermelon as a biofuel feedstock.

According to the researchers, watermelons are a near perfect biofuel crop for temperate climates.  At the bottom of the USDA researchers' plan is harvesting waste melons.  According to the research, "About 20% of each annual watermelon crop is left in the field because of surface blemishes or because they are misshapen; currently these are lost to growers as a source of revenue."

The USDA instead proposes to harvest these malformed melons and put them to good use as a biofuel feedstock.  The USDA researchers believe a waste stream of 500 L/t (liters per ton) could be feasible in the near future.  With typical yields at about 20,000 to 40,000 pounds per acre on successful farms, this equates to roughly 10 to 20 liters per acre.  With 57,186 hectares devoted to watermelon growing in 2004, this equates to roughly 1.4-2.8 million liters annually.

The USDA researchers believe that growing production of the fruit will lead to increasing yields of waste melons.  Packed with so-called "neutraceuticals" (healthful compounds from natural sources) -- lycopene (also found in tomatoes) and L-citrulline -- demand for the melons is growing.  The USDA believes that the combination of extracting financially valuable nutrients from the melons, selling them for food, and using the leftovers for fuel feedstock, will both help farmers and the biofuel industry.

The melons themselves have approximately 7-10 percent directly fermentable sugars by weight/volume.  They also have 15 to 35 umol/ml of free amino acids, which could also be used to produce biofuels.  By using yeast and controlling the pH, researchers were able to raise the fermentation rates to 35 percent of the w/v.  Returning to our original estimates of the liters per year, give the USDA's statements, this would make for approximately 500,000 to 1 million liters of ethanol per year.

The study looked at producing ethanol from the melons.  In the U.S. most ethanol is produced from corn grown specifically for that purpose (not waste).  The melon juice could also prove an ample feedstock for other types of biofuels, such as biodiesel, or biogasoline.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Never eat your fuel
By bohrd on 8/31/2009 9:34:33 AM , Rating: 5
I think one of the biggest problems in the entire biofuel race is that many of the sources, like corn and now watermelons, can also be used as a food source. It then comes down to farmers producing the crop for feed or for fuel. Farmers love the idea of using corn as a biofuel because they will/do get huge subsidies for growing. But, the corn will then not go to livestock or the dinner table.

Of course the argument can be made that if a farmer grows a crop like switchgrass for biofuel, the farmer is still taking away food. However, in both cases of watermelon and corn the idea is to use the "waste" which leads to be a lot of a "wasted" corn/watermelon. Since no one eats switchgrass, you don't have to grow extra large amounts to get enough "waste" and enough food.

Go nuclear!




RE: Never eat your fuel
By Digimonkey on 8/31/2009 9:45:14 AM , Rating: 3
It'd be fine if the farmers got less for selling their stock for biofuel production vs selling it for food. Then it would limit the "waste" crop that went to biofuel producers. However when gas prices go up again I don't think this will be the case.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By invidious on 8/31/2009 10:06:39 AM , Rating: 4
I would rather use the left over waste food to feed those ecoli that poop oil than turn it into ethanol.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2009 9:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
Cars aren't nuclear powered. And I'm far more interested in finding a suitable alternative to oil than electric cars. But we do need more nuclear power for electricity.

I do agree with your premise of don't burn what you eat though. However I think there's one main group that will be against using watermelons for food though...... ;)


RE: Never eat your fuel
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/31/2009 10:17:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Cars aren't nuclear powered.


They can be according to Fallout! Corvega, ftw. ;)

On a more serious note, though there's a variety of potential solutions for transportation energy dilemma. One is nuclear + EV's, but this one is inherently limited by the amount of extractable lithium deposits, and how well we can reuse/recycle batteries in junked vehicles or come up with batteries based on more common elements.

A second route is biogasoline, made from bacteria or algae. This route (to me) seems to make more sense, as it doesn't rely on exotic chemistry.

Either approach, though, could be supplemented by waste-driven biofuels, like this. Despite the goofy sounding nature of using watermelons for biofuel I'm all for it if it works. As long as they only use waste melons that is -- if they start growing extra to produce ethanol/biodiesel, that could become very problematic, just like the corn ethanol industry.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By FishTankX on 8/31/2009 10:39:36 AM , Rating: 3
There's another way to use nuclear for liquid fuels.

4th gen nukes + sulfur iodine cycle = hydrogen

Hydrogen + carbondioxide = liquid hydrocarbons + oxygen

Operating at about 50% efficency, it would take about 2000 nuke plants at 6 billion a piece to completely displace oil. That's about equivalent to ~35 years of oil imports.

This is not counting the infrastructure needed to perform the cracking, however those would be all american jobs and would allow us to keep our SUV's and be carbon neutral. And the best I can guess for costs, would be around $2.5/gallon plus taxes and the like. That's assuming 3 cents per killowatt hour (remember, this isn't comercial rates, this is the raw cost of generation, for a plant that's going to be operating 24/7 at max output)


RE: Never eat your fuel
By h0kiez on 8/31/2009 10:19:29 AM , Rating: 3
"And I'm far more interested in finding a suitable alternative to oil than electric cars."

Despite the fact that this sentence sounds like it was written by a DT writer, I think I understand it. Nonetheless, I'm glad you're personally not interested in electric cars, but I think for many of us, electric cards + more nuclear power + a better grid seems like the best possible long-term solution to power the future. Care to elaborate on why you're so quick to dismiss it? Sure as hell seems simpler than trying to grow a few billion watermelons every year.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2009 10:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
Because its far easier to replace oil with a biofuel than it is to figure out a way to make several billion batteries. Lithium is an extremely rare resource and there are no new technologies on the horizon that I'm aware of to replace lithium ion batteries. Not to mention batteries are extremely toxic.

And I said I am for more nuclear power. Nor am I against a better grid. But I don't see why we need electric cars to get either of those things. There are ways of producing fuel in an environmentally friendly way that will be clean when burned (it might emit CO2, but its net output is 0 and who cares anyway). We just need to expand on them.

But yes my love for performance cars and tinkering with them drives my desire for just a replacement of oil. There's not going to be a whole lot you can do to make your battery powered car faster. Short of changing the electric motors out for more powerful ones anyway but who wants to do that?


RE: Never eat your fuel
By JPForums on 8/31/2009 2:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
In answer to both your performance needs and the rare resource issue, I present: Ag-Zn batteries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver-oxide_battery

OK, so it's not really new, but silver isn't as rare as lithium if I recall correctly. It also doesn't have the extremely hazardous thermal runaway issues of lithium based batteries. On top of that, it provides more power and typically has a longer life due having a more stable chemistry. The big downside is the cost. If we could somehow reign in the artificially high cost of silver, these would be much more viable. (Though I still think we'd run into some huge issues)

However, I still agree that the electric car is not the perfect answer. The news agencies still oppose nuclear. I say news agencies, because you don't really know how many people are opposed to it. You only see the tens or hundreds of people they show on TV (Consider the size of our nation). Others often opposed based on the words of these few.

The only other electric sources currently of merit are fossil fuel based. The push to electric was supposed to be, at least in part, about the carbon footprint. However, with the majority of plants use fossil fuels, there won't be a significant change in carbon emissions. There certainly won't be the kind of change necessary to warrant the cost of supporting electric cars. What's worse is that the carbon emissions would be much more concentrated in the areas of production and diffuse to much the same levels in the other areas. The only real benefits would be in big cities where carbon emissions would likely be lower due to less local emissions.

A better grid and gradual move to cleaner power (I.E. Nuclear) would be great, but if it is really worth the cost, the market will transition without intervention (assuming it's not restricted as in the case of nuclear). For instance, a better grid has benefits for suppliers as well as consumers. When the grid is unstable, costly repairs must be made and angry customers dealt with. When the grid is unreliable, power isn't being sold that otherwise would have been sold. When the grid isn't efficient, more power must be spent to supply a given amount to a customer. When a power generation method is dirty and/or unsafe, they must generate power farther away from people and thus use longer lines that loose more power. Supplying power becomes more inefficient the farther you are from your customers and thus incurs more cost. When the cost difference of cleaner/safer sources of power becomes less than the cost of inefficient distribution, the companies will transition to them. Nuclear power plants were a good example of this until the perception became that nuclear power is horribly dangerous.

As for the performance of electric cars, DC brushless motors (as found in solar cars) are as easy to replace as wheels. So upgrading it isn't so much a hassle as a huge expense. The electric engines that will be put into commercial electric cars won't be as efficient and will likely be more of a hassle to work with, but will probably be current starved by the battery pack. Upping performance of electric cars will likely be focused on getting battery packs that can source a lot of current and tinkering with the programing of the motor. Of course, I'll be waiting until electric cars can provide a similar experience (performance, range, and ease of fill up) to gas cars for a similar price. So I'll be waiting a good long while.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By Starcub on 8/31/2009 2:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
Lithium isn't rare. Outside of Austrilia, Lithium is found primarily in countries that we have poor relations with, so it would probably be expensive. However, with the electrification of the transportation sector, economies of scale will bring prices down. Futhermore, batteries are highly re-cycleable, just like the nuclear waste in new tech nuke plants being used in some other countries. As I've mentioned before nuclear waste is likely to remain an issue in the US for the next decade at least, and the plant designs that are capable of producing highly re-cycleable waste likely won't reach maturity to the point where they will be buildable in the US for at least the same amount of time.

Given that the electrification of the transportation sector is probably a given, and that the US will likely want to remain in control of the future in a global industry, I think clean renewables + electric + better grid is more likely in the US.

quote:

A better grid and gradual move to cleaner power (I.E. Nuclear) would be great, but if it is really worth the cost, the market will transition without intervention...

No, 'the market' (read, not really the consumer) will wait for someone else to demonstrate the concept and then buy it out if it looks to be profitable. But for electric cars and clean renewable power to catch on in the US, 'the market' will want the government, already a prime stakeholder, to kick in more subsidies.

quote:
Of course, I'll be waiting until electric cars can provide a similar experience (performance, range, and ease of fill up) to gas cars for a similar price. So I'll be waiting a good long while.

Form a perfomance stand point, electric just as good as gas right now, and potentially better. Tesla motors has all electric sports cars that are just as fast as performance gasoline driven cars. However, electric cars like that won't be selling like hotcakes in the consumer market. As the recent EV's coming from GM and Nissan illustrate, all electric isn't far from being an acceptable substitute for traditional cars for everyday driving. In fact, it's currently only the long distance out of town commuter that will prefer to keep their gas car. That problem could be solved by implementing charging stations that also had he capability of swapping out battery packs for long distance travelers.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By JediJeb on 8/31/2009 12:30:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sure as hell seems simpler than trying to grow a few billion watermelons every year.


I believe it would be more simple to grow watermellons than to upgrade the power grid or build nuclear power plants. Also what else are they going to do with the waste mellons, right now they just rot in the fields which produces CO2 with no benefit to anyone, if turned into fuel they would produce CO2 but with some benefit to the public. We have become a society of disposable everything, from razors to diapers, it's about time we started making use of some of our waste in a good way.

Someone above mentioned they would start growing watermellons for fuel use instead of food, but if they sell in the store now for even $1 each, then gasoline would probably have to hit $20/gallon before it would make sense to use non rejected watermellons for this purpose because you are definately not going to get 1 gallon of ethanol from each mellon. And on the subject of using corn to make ethanol as a waste of food, some of the biggest pork and beef operations are near distilleries because the waste corn mash is a good cheap source of feed, protein is still there only the sugars have been removed. It is not the totaly wasteful process some make it out to be.

As for farmers selling their crop in the market that makes them the most profit, well isn't that what business is all about? Or are farmer only slaves to the rest of us so we can have the cheapest food in the world? When you figure that a farmer has to spend nearly $500k on a combine now days to harvest that corn and $40k or more for the tractor to plant it, they really don't make much money in the end. And when corn was $8 per bushel last summer, not many farmers had any on hand to sell at that price, and by the time of harvest the price was back down to less than $4 per bushel. The only ones who made out good on that were the middle men traders.

I think if this idea solves the problem with waste in the fields and gives farmers a little extra money and helps reduce our use of crude oil then it is a win all around.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By KC7SWH on 8/31/2009 10:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
Go Mr. Fusion!


RE: Never eat your fuel
By mattclary on 8/31/2009 1:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Really, Fit? I was about to rate you up til that last sentence.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2009 3:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
Learn to take a joke. You'll live longer.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By TomZ on 8/31/2009 10:14:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since no one eats switchgrass, you don't have to grow extra large amounts to get enough "waste" and enough food.
I think you're forgetting about the land use issue - if more acres are planted with switchgrass, that will displace acres currently used for food production. The net result will be the same as now - less food produced and higher costs.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By h0kiez on 8/31/2009 10:21:40 AM , Rating: 2
I think you missed this sentence:

"Of course the argument can be made that if a farmer grows a crop like switchgrass for biofuel, the farmer is still taking away food."


RE: Never eat your fuel
By Starcub on 8/31/2009 3:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you need farmland to grow switchgrass? Even if we used only surplus farmland to grow switchgrass (assuming even that were needed) it could displace oil in the US. The problem is that it is currently too expensive to produce cellulosic biofuel. Reference section 10: http://fora.tv/2007/09/13/Steve_Chu_A_New_Energy_P...

However, something like switchgrass could still be used as a fuel source for electric power plants, and be used more effiiciently that way as well.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By michael2k on 8/31/2009 12:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
Except you aren't taking land away from corn/food. Switchgrass grows on marginal land that can't support corn. If more acres are planted for switchgrass, no food-acres get displaced. The net result is increased food (as corn isn't being turned into ethanol) and increased ethanol (as marginal land that previously was left unused is now used).

The only competition may be for farmers, water, and equipment... but not land.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By JediJeb on 8/31/2009 3:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you're forgetting about the land use issue - if more acres are planted with switchgrass, that will displace acres currently used for food production. The net result will be the same as now - less food produced and higher costs.


Not really, if the government will turn loose the ground that has been set aside to reduce the amount of crops grown to keep prices up. There are millions of acres across the U.S. that are sitting idle right now that farmers could be using but more money is made by having the government pay "farmers" to not produce on them. I say "farmers" because instead of farmers owning this land, most of it is owned by land speculators that bought it up then farmed it for the required amount of time then placed it into the CRP program to draw money from it.

We are no where near running out of land to grow enough crops on to feed not only the US but the world. The government is even trying to set aside several million more acres just east of the Rocky Mountains for nothing more than giving more room for wild horses to roam on. Saying we are running out of farm land is really nothing more than scare tactics.

But if we really are running out of land then why don't they put a ban on cities expanding outward and taking up more land for houses, make them build taller apartment complexes instead of single houses. You don't see that because the government knows we are not running short of farmland.


RE: Never eat your fuel
By mars2k on 8/31/2009 10:51:39 AM , Rating: 1
Wow, nuclear? really? Our goal should be reducing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by reducing the amount of hydrocarbons we extrract from the Earth and pump into the air. Certainly nuclear has a place in this. It will however, take every technology we can bring to bear on the problem to make it work. This isn't and either or proposition

Nuclear has a particular set of problems no one ever seems to talk about. How do you protect the lethal waste for thousands of years after? This includes of course the spent fuel but what about the radioactive plant site after decomissioning?


RE: Never eat your fuel
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2009 11:05:03 AM , Rating: 2
By reprocessing it back into fuel. As far as the plant site, there's nothing there that has to be guarded really. Other than keeping people away so they're not injured. But the sites are sealed with concrete and only extremely low amounts of radiation get through. My college had a decommissioned nuclear reactor underneath one of the buildings. You can walk down the stairs to the doorway which lead to it. There are no health effects people suffer from it.

Which do you think has a bigger impact on CO2 levels, the massive California wildfires or cars? Not to mention every other NATURAL source of CO2 emissions in the world. Even with everything we do, we only account for less than half world of CO2 emissions every year. And even then, CO2 is 3-4 parts per million of particles that make up the atmosphere. And current CO2 levels are far lower than they have been in the past. Yet life somehow survived....


RE: Never eat your fuel
By TA152H on 8/31/2009 2:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
The main flaw with this is that it implies that this would not increase production, and would simply be using existing production for different purposes.

The reality is different. If farming becomes more profitable, you have more farmers. You increase production, and more people get jobs doing it.

If corn and watermelon go up, or food in general, maybe lazy asses will actually plant their own gardens to save some money and enjoy some fresh fruit. Maybe they will actually plant a fruit tree.

There's a lot of growing potential in this country that's just not being used. Sending money to people that hate us, and making them rich because it's easier right now, isn't a great long term solution. I'd rather see efforts, even if they are sometimes misguided, spent on becoming more energy independent, getting better efficiencies out of the resources this country has, and getting people to grow more food. Growing food is good karma. You get good food and save money. Grow a garden, and lets expanding farming. It's better than the alternative of keep extracting an essentially non-renewable resource and hoping it holds out indefinitely. Oh, with the added bonus it gives people that hate us money, and power. Yes, that's a great policy.


Let's put this into a little perspective
By FishTankX on 8/31/2009 10:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
So this yields 1 million liters of ethanol per year. That's 250,000 gallons of ethanol.

In 2007 America consumed 147 billion galons of gasoline. This would constitute roughly 0.0000017% of america's gasoline consumption.

Or about the same amount of additional fuel avaliable as increasing americas cars average gas mileage by 0.00004MPG.

I'm pretty sure making sure your tires are properly inflated would give you atleast 3000x that much.




By FishTankX on 8/31/2009 10:15:07 AM , Rating: 2
On a side note, couldn't you get a better yield out of those watermellons by using them for crop feed to displace corn and such?


RE: Let's put this into a little perspective
By christojojo on 8/31/2009 10:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
For me many of my local gas stations now sell ethanol added gasoline (10%) without a choice at no discount from the other stations that sell "pure" gasoline. Since the energy from ethanol is less, 80% of gasoline (I will verify at lunch)I really don't want this alternative forced on me anyway.


RE: Let's put this into a little perspective
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2009 11:06:43 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not aware of any stations that still sell pure gasoline. Ethanol content is a federally mandated nightmare. Not a choice.


By mcnabney on 8/31/2009 11:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
A little bit of ethanol is needed to increase the octane and to enhance combustion. I would prefer it over MTBE any day.

Also, I am going to guess that it will take more energy in diesel to get all that watermellon from the field to the distiller than it will return in ethanol.


By christojojo on 8/31/2009 12:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
With as powerful of a petro lobby Washington has I doubt the mandate was anything but a choice from the producers.


By Chernobyl68 on 8/31/2009 1:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, when I saw the 2.8 Million liters I was like "WOW! That's....not that much."

According to http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc...

The June 2009 automitive gasoline consumption of the united states was about 9.2 million barrels, or 386.4 million gallons of gasoline.

Even 2.8 million liters of this bio-fuel is about 740,000 gallons of ethanol, which has less energy than gas per gallon.

So, the annual crop of watermellon waste would add less than 1/500th of a day's worth of gasoline to the united states. Good job!


Watermelon and Fuel
By WoWCow on 8/31/2009 10:05:16 AM , Rating: 3
I have a hard time seeing this being feasible at all.

Right now, a tasty melon costs about 6~12 USD in a super market and I bet even 1 of those suckers can't beat a 3$ per gallon gasoline in terms of efficiency. Of course, if someone thinks its economically feasible to pay 600$+ for a barrel of watermelon fuel compared to 100$ for a barrel of oil for the peasants, they must be from another plane of existence.

Also, these are only in LITERS compared to the millions of barrels of oil we consume in our cars.

1 barrel of petroleum = 159 liters

quote:
With typical yields at about 20,000 to 40,000 pounds per acre on successful farms, this equates to roughly 10 to 20 liters per acre.


Honestly, the biofuel idea has to die, the resources invested to raise the fuel is simply not cost effective.

I personally believe its better to figure out more effective ways to burn the trash you have now stockpiled in your basement or garage as fuel.

Also, with these watermelons they seem to grow for free, its probably better to convince that fat kid to eat the melon then dropping by some McD's again; these greases and fat from the deep fryer could be more effective as fuel.




RE: Watermelon and Fuel
By Ripvanwinkle on 8/31/2009 11:26:47 AM , Rating: 2
I always keep a dozen melons in my trunk for emergencies. It's a mad, mad world of bio-nuts!


RE: Watermelon and Fuel
By MadMan007 on 9/1/2009 3:24:11 AM , Rating: 2
What part of 'waste watermelons that rot in the field' don't you understand?


Juicy Melons... Hmmmm...
By MrWho on 8/31/2009 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one reading these two words on the same titles and thinking of Baywatch-related scenes?

Man, I'm sick!




RE: Juicy Melons... Hmmmm...
By Regs on 8/31/2009 12:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I was thinking about the time machine in back to the future. A car that runs on trash.


Nat Gas
By pityme on 8/31/2009 11:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
The clear choice and most sensible answer is Nat Gas. QED




RE: Nat Gas
By acase on 8/31/2009 1:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you Mr. Pickens.


Maths?
By teldar on 8/31/2009 7:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
The USDA researchers believe a waste stream of 500 L/t (liters per ton) could be feasible in the near future. With typical yields at about 20,000 to 40,000 pounds per acre on successful farms, this equates to roughly 10 to 20 liters per acre. With 57,186 hectares devoted to watermelon growing in 2004, this equates to roughly 1.4-2.8 million liters annually.

500L/t.
10-20t/acre.
.2*(10-20)= 2-4
500l/t*(2-4tons/acre)= 1000-2000L/acre?
This is NOT the same as 10-20L/acre.

Maths?
the Imperial measurement acre, which equals 0.404686 ha.
57,186/0.404686=141310 acres
141310*1000-2000=141M-282M

Am I wrong?
But I don't see how they get almost 35% R-OH out of the melons that are 7-10% sugars. The AA content does not account for this disparity. Unless they are doing something with the rinds as well.

Regardless, even lowballing at 7% this is something more along the lines of 10M-20M liters.




RE: Maths?
By teldar on 8/31/2009 7:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
Cannot edit. Rather than saying there were 10-20 tons/acre, it was stated that there were 10-20L/ac. This is obviously terribly incorrect. Anyone with jr. high level algebra skillz should have seen the significant disparity in numbers.


watermelons
By drnk on 8/31/2009 3:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather use whale oil than juicy,sweet,refreshing and tasty watermelons!!
I know, it's a crappy sarcasm but it's also crappy to come out and say every day a different food that can be used to fuel our cars.
Let's take the best out from already available gasoline and diesel engine while reserchers study a really new, clean and efficient way to power cars.




By on 9/1/2009 9:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.crispstyle.com

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

http://www.crispstyle.com




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki