digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

New Energy-Efficient Process Turns Sugar to Actual Gasoline

gas2.org — Using microscopic metal particles, scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison have found that plant-based sugar can be converted to gasoline to be used in current engines. The substance is cleaner-burning than petroleum-based gasoline and more stable than ethanol.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • philodygmn, on 09/22/2008, -4/+18New clean lithium batteries are even better.
    http://digg.com/environment/Breakthrough_For_Elect ...
    Sugar has a long history of oppression in its production, and this would just make it exponentially worse.
    • TunaFishGangsta, on 09/22/2008, -5/+26I wouldn't mind if we could turn babies into gasoline. Anything to make it cheaper and let me continue my way of life.
      • Elizle, on 09/22/2008, -0/+9Me an my boss actually had a long discussion about that. Babies are a renewable resource. And it's fun making them!
      • armakaryk, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1is your boss jonathan swift?
    • TunaFishGangsta, on 09/22/2008, -13/+2I wouldn't care if we could turn baby's into gasoline. Anything to make it cheaper and let me continue my way of life.
      • mshea093, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1I can see why you were buried, but I still laughed ><

        Ummm...

        GO Badgers!
    • wlk125, on 09/22/2008, -3/+2Yeah, but it's our main export down here, so imagine what would happen if suddendly all our sugar turns into oil?

      Bush would invade us too that what!
    • jfreeman, on 09/22/2008, -0/+7History trumps science? Why not just take the oppression out of sugar production?

      And is there a reason these two technologies are mutually exclusive?
    • 1smartguy, on 09/22/2008, -2/+0I'm not for growing a crop for conversion to fuel, but in temperate climates, sugar beets are a common source of sugar. I often see railcar after railcar of sugar beets going through my California town to processing. It's exactly the same as cane sugar.
    • curtisag, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Oh no, not a history of oppression. Take your head out of your ass please. Tobacco also has a history of oppression, but things change.
  • scythe33, on 09/22/2008, -1/+7Still, this is good news. It might not be the best option overall, but it could ease our current oil woes.
    • DigitAl56K, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1It's not necessarily good news, although it's good to have more solutions to the energy problem to consider. Now there could be a shortage of sugar as the energy industry tries to convert it to fuel.
    • curtisag, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3A sugar shortage is a blessing in disguise for our fat ass country. Fat asses will just have to convert to the alternative fuel called 'artificial sweeteners'.
    • Berkana, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4This is for sure not the best option overall: direct utilization of solar power is more efficient that the use of biofuels. The plant that is the most efficient at converting solar energy into biomass is the miscanthus grass, but it's efficiency is about 1%:
      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/miscanthus ...
      Conventional solar panels have an efficiency of between 12-15%, and modern multi-junction photovoltaics have an efficiency of about 40%. New solar concentrating methods permit an 80% reduction in the amount of the photovoltaic material needed:
      http://soliant-energy.com/products.php
      A comparison between even the most optimistic biofuel (algae) and direct utilization of solar energy shows that there's no competition; biofuels are not a long term solution if you want to get the most useful energy out of an acre of land. And unlike most biofuels, solar panels don't consume water as they produce usable energy:
      http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1454/70/
      Algae based biodiesel is projected to produce enough energy to drive 370,000 miles per acre of land used per year of sun exposure, which is many times more efficient than corn or soy based biodiesel, but direct utilization of solar energy using conventional technologies yields 2,250,000 miles per acre per year. There's really no competition. The future is not about biofuels; it's about the "electron economy". And no, the "hydrogen economy" is NOT the answer. Here's why:
      http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
  • AFelsinger, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4Yeah -- we're already using sugar to make ethanol, so this might make more sense instead.
  • DestroyFascism, on 09/22/2008, -2/+10Batteries can almost hold more energy per gram than Fuels so why bother? This only reduces habitat, food production and increases deforestation. Its a really bad bad bad idea..
    • univers3man, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3Yes, but what happens to those batteries when they die? Right into a garbage can.
      • Whaines, on 09/22/2008, -2/+4Yeah, someone should invent some sort of battery that can recharge!
      • directrix13, on 09/22/2008, -2/+2Yeah, we should invent a battery that can recharge.... But not from the grid, because then we'd be back to the original problem. Lets invent a battery that can store the suns energy. I don't like the term battery though, because it has connotations of inefficient charging. So lets call it a solar collecting energy store. And lets find a way to make this stuff in large quantities, but without some large energy inefficient production facility. I know lets find a way to grow it..... wait a minute.....

        Joking aside if the processing and production of this plant based energy storage is minimal enough (i.e. high yield & low impact) then I'm all for it. Algae for the win, imo. Triple threat: high yield, takes Carbon from the air, takes Nitrogen out of the water supply.
      • positron, on 09/22/2008, -2/+4Not even rechargeables last forever.
      • sardion2000, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Batteries can be recycled dumbass. Gasoline can't, no matter where its from.
      • directrix13, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1@sardion2000:
        Well, that's almost an intelligent reply. Want a banana? Batteries can be recycled..... and so can carbon in the air. It's amazing what plants can do. Batteries being recycled require you to transport them back, require energy to actually recycle, and it probably involves using other processes to do the recycling that have even more unwanted byproducts. Don't get me wrong I'm all about progressing battery tech, but you should look at the complete picture. How much energy and resources does it take to make either one relative to the energy density and capacity? That is the right question, but its also fairly unanswered.
    • xaos12, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2almost more... is that similar to less?
    • curtisag, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Our electric infrastructure is not going to go green overnight, especially given the red tape involved in nuclear power plant construction. Carbon emissions are a greater danger right now than any increased deforestation due to sugar production.
    • qwertydvorak, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1if affordable / non-laboratory batteries could hold almost as much energy per gram as gasoline we would already be switching to electric cars that could go 300 miles on a charge. most gas powered cars can go around 300 miles on a fill up.
    • Gordianus, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, your statement is nonsense:

      Energy density of Li ion batteries: around 0.72 MJ/Kg
      Energy density of Gasoline: around 44 MJ/kg

      So the energy density of batteries is around 1/60 of gasoline.

      If the energy density of batteries was anywhere near that of liquid hydrocarbon fuels, we would all be driving electric cars and discussing battery powered jet airliners.
  • GumGuts, on 09/22/2008, -10/+4Drill Drill Drill
  • shagg187, on 09/22/2008, -1/+32nononononono! I don't want the price of sugar to go to $40 a bag :/
    • Harbinger67, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2Why not? Take 200$ you would normally spend on other stuff now, spend it on sugar instead, sell it later, make mad profits.

      ...or maybe I've watched the new Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode about gasoline too many times...
      • EggNogIceCream, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Their plan would of never worked it turns to varnish after a while.
      • Harbinger67, on 09/22/2008, -0/+11. Sta-Bil
        2. ???
        3. Profit!!!
  • schnitzelnoodle, on 09/22/2008, -4/+1This will be great for our dental health. Unless we keep using Splenda...
    • OrangeTide, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Pretty sure sucrolose does not provide cavities.
    • salter84, on 09/25/2008, -0/+0Splenda wasn't that deemed a cause of brain cancer ???? I might be wrong. We/I need (a) car(s) that runs on baked bean farts and baby kittens.
  • D14BL0, on 09/22/2008, -5/+20While this really is a breakthrough, it's only going to end up making the cost of sugar go up. You'll see the price of Hershey bars skyrocketing as corner stores compete to keep a penny lower than the others while still turning a profit.

    /sarcasm

    I really don't understand why people are focusing this energy on gasoline. Let's make a step in the right direction and sever ourselves from gasoline entirely. We should be focusing on cleaner and more efficient means than fossil fuels.
    • Khast, on 09/22/2008, -2/+2good luck there....there is money in fossil fuels...and the ones who are making the money are going to stop at nothing to make sure we "can't" find another efficient replacement.
      • AFelsinger, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4Think about how many cars are on the road right now from 20 years ago. A lot.

        Gasoline-powered cars aren't going anywhere, even when electric/hydrogen vehicles are mainstream, we'll still have some gas being used. A cleaner-burning alternative could be amazing for this purpose.
      • curtisag, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1I can't believe someone is ignorant enough to digg you down AFelsinger. We need to pursue all avenues of alternative energy. This sugar conversion breakthrough is excellent news.
    • tomz17, on 09/22/2008, -0/+13Seriously? You REALLY don't understand?

      People focus their energy on gasoline because of the infrastructure!

      The infrastructure to produce, refine, distribute, transport, pump, etc. etc. etc. gasoline is ALL in place and can be used TODAY. Not to mention the HUNDREDS of millions of perfectly good internal combustion engine currently in service.

      Severing ourselves entirely from gasoline is a pipe dream right now, contemplated seriously only around bong circles. It will happen, but not tomorrow! Until then, we need to look at realistic ways to mitigate our dependency on crude oil. (btw... I do believe that using crop feedstock, especially SUBSIDIZED feedstock, is a stop gap measure that will have very little real effect on supply and has a HUGE potential to emtpy our natural aquifers)
      • univers3man, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Plus, gasoline engines sound so much better than an electric car would.
      • kevlar21, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2We have an infrastructure for electricity...
      • tomz17, on 09/24/2008, -0/+1@kevlar21....

        Actually we don't... Many metropolitan areas max out in the summer with just the AC running. Some even have frequent rolling blackouts.

        --and-- in this country most of the energy running through that infrastructure comes from coal power plants. NOT COOL (strip mining + carbon emission wise)

        IMHO, we desperately need to start sinking money into the power grid today, and begin building breeder nuclear reactors like crazy!
    • KyleDantarin, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Sorry man I think that's just short sighted. Think how many gasoline powered cars and other equipment already exists. To solve the environment/energy crises we need to be realistic- i.e. look for solutions that don't involve scrapping as many cars as the populations of most major nations.

      if someone could find a way to synthetically create petroleum cheaply without major issues that would be a huge help in transitioning without damaging an already faltering economy.

      I agree that in the long run it would be better to go completely emission free, but like I said, realism first.
      • tomz17, on 09/24/2008, -0/+1The upshot here is that the emission is probably carbon netural (or almost neutral depending on the processing required for the sugar)...

        The BIG BIG BIG downside is that you are using water to grow the sugar... sounds trivial, but that is actually a HUGE deal! (do some reading)
    • amy31415, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Umm, yeah. It's no longer a "fossil fuel" it it's produced from sugar.
  • Iipalbanjary, on 09/22/2008, -3/+0Seems good news for us!
  • DonnyBahama, on 09/22/2008, -5/+1A whole new take on the old Coke in the gas tank prank!
  • DonnyBahama, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1Now if they'd just publish a simple DIY method...
    • OrangeTide, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1There is a simple DIY method. Take sugar or malt (carbohydrates + enzymes to break them down into sugars). Ferment it for a while. and distill it. You can DIY, but it's not cost effective on the small scale. (the distillation process it energy intensive, as we all know)
  • SilverBlade2k, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3Hey, this might make candies and pop more expensive then healthy drinks and healthy food.
    • OrangeTide, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1The price of healthy food will just go up with demand. Either way you'll get screwed.
  • ZombieFrog, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5Clearly we need to take the next step... People consume sugar, sugar makes people fat, people burn fat to fuel cars. Win!
  • TacitusBen, on 09/22/2008, -2/+44Welcome to Digg, where each day we cure cancer, end hunger, defeat AIDS, and stop global warming.
    • twiztidsinz, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6Clearly we need to stop all these experiments which could lead to a breakthrough and spend that time improving our LOLCat tecmonology.
      • BriscoeJr, on 09/22/2008, -1/+0who are you people?
      • askantik, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2rofl at twiz's comment. I'm glad not everyone is a cynic like Tacitus :)

        As for the article. I think it's a good start. If we could make something cleaner burning that fit our existing infrastructure (i.e. our vehicles), that'd be good. However, we keep trying to come up with some awesome technology that's going to fix everything-- when, in reality, no matter what happens, we need to start using less. It's that simply.
    • itsthebrod, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1And when we're done with that, we Digg images of fat people eating cookies to the front page.
    • taketheleap, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1that was the first thing I thought when I saw this on my RSS feed.
  • dotjones, on 09/22/2008, -1/+0That guy on the far right of the Capella University advert. looks like Obama.
  • porkman385, on 09/22/2008, -7/+0What the ***** has this world come to? We're powering cars with sugar, algae, and corn?!?! what the *****!?!?! Lets stick to electric its the most practical.
    • intranets, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Um.. where does your magic "electric" come from exactly? Being that electric is the "most practical" do you mean that we carry it around in magic wands?

      The plug in your wall may seem like some clean magic energy source, but believe it or not, it does come from somewhere. Either coal, oil, some hydro, some wind, very little solar. Right now gasoline is one of the most efficient ways to transport high density energy. The weight and cost per energy released beats just about everything except LNG and H2, but the costs there are staggering.
      • kevlar21, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1we need a greater quantity and more efficient solar plants.
  • KDeTo, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Sounds good but I'm sure that there will be more problems along the way besides increasing sugar prices and increasing energy demands to heat the sugar. This is a step in the right direction or in any direction for that matter, just hope not backwards to where we are now.
  • Sp0rAdiC, on 09/22/2008, -2/+2woohoo i'm gonna go buy a hummer!
    • Halsfield, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4your mother is giving them out for free !

      ba-zing !
    • slayerab, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1sweet! no pun intended, of course
  • MonoDede, on 09/22/2008, -3/+3Perhaps the price of sugar will go up and we'll stop producing so much corn. Then maybe we'll stop using so much sugar and HFCS and curb all this obesity in the US.



    Yeah right.
    • atact88, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1If we don't produce it, we'll import it, and American farmers will lose out.
      • MonoDede, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1That's a pretty mercantilistic idea... If the demand for corn goes down, farmers aren't losing out by switching crops. And even if they don't farm as much corn, if they switch to an equally profitable and sustainable crop they'll make money. Importing stuff isn't always bad.

        You're right though that simply because we stop producing doesn't mean the demand will go down. If anything, if the price of sugar goes up, corn syrup and HFCS will be the more common alternative.

        I was just dreaming I guess, one can only wish... :-/
  • mrzeero, on 09/22/2008, -5/+1This is good, but if they could figure out how to make gasoline from the blood of non-christians, ***** and brown people they would be on to something that might get traction. We need to move away from petroleum products, not figure out new ways to produce them.

    /walks away in disgust
    • WhoDoneIt, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1Good job on being politcally correct with "Brown people", but you still managed to call them *****.

      This "white" non-christian needs those petroleum products because your entire family is a tight-ass.
    • benitojuarez, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2So you're the ***** who keeps stealing my blood.

      KNOCK IT OFF dickcheese.
    • itsthebrod, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Extreme post is extremely unfunny.
  • Halsfield, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1have you ever seen a sugar junkie coming down off a sugar binge because he cant afford his next snickers ? its not pretty...
  • tavisjohn, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4Do not use sugar for this!
    Use Corn Syrup instead! They put that crap in EVERYTHING, and in most of the stuff it has no business being there!

    The maybe Coke and other foods (that actually need sweetening) will be forced to use real sugar instead! And everything else will just stop!
    • ramenite, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1What's wrong with High Fructose Corn Syrup? It's all natural and made from corn.
      • oveedrx, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2fat people get fatter off it
      • tavisjohn, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Than tell me what the hell is it doing in Spaghetti Sauce?
      • askantik, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2ramenite: lmao, I don't think most people got the ***** commercial reference. I hope no one actually falls for a commercial praising HFCS that at the bottom says "Corn Refiner's Association." But then again, some people fall for the commercials that talk about how Exxon Mobil, Shell, and BP actually care about the natural world and want to preserve it for our children-- and they'd NEVER, EVER be interested in drilling for more oil in places like ANWR...
    • whatever01, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Costco sells Mexican Coke now. Made with cane sugar.

      Mexi-coke, FTW!
  • DonCreech, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1Sounds delicious. I'll give Kool-Aid brand a chance.
  • andyd273, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3Hmm, will this work for non food sugars?
    Actually, are there any non food sugars?
    Corn based ethanol is a horrible idea because we need the corn for food.
    Are there any sources of sugar available that won't take away from the food supply?
    I'm not saying not to research it, since you never know what you'll learn along the way.
    I'm just saying that we need to think more than 5 minutes ahead.
    • OrangeTide, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2If you can turn cellulose into sugar it would likely not be palatable, but you could use it for industrial processes. I think the idea (if you RTFA) is to figure out how the simple process works on sorbitol and figure out how to apply it to other sugars and maybe cellulose.

      The vast majority of corn grown in the US is *NOT* used for human consumption. Although many countries depend on US corn for animal feed.

      The reason corn based ethanol is a horrible idea is because it is expensive to grow, and the interest in it is based entirely on the corn lobby. The expense is because the way we grow it on an industrial scale requires a great deal of fertilizers and water.
  • ultralights, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1lets see, drill for oil... plenty of land for food growth, or use sugar! with resultant massive deforestation... i chose drilling
    • AFelsinger, on 09/22/2008, -0/+0right... like those are the only two choices.
    • OrangeTide, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1I'll stick with nuclear energy, thanks.
    • FairDinkumMate, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Where exactly is the "massive deforestation" going to happen?

      (And please, do a little research before you make a fool of yourself & say the Amazon!)
  • Jareth86, on 09/22/2008, -3/+1So now we go from drilling, to mass deforestation?
    The difficulty of getting petroleum and the resulting price we had to pay for it was our number one incentive to switch over to alternative, clean energy. All this will do is make our destructive dependency on gasoline a permanent one.
  • jasoninoakland, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1Now if they could just use high fructose corn syrup instead...that ***** is cheap and really readily available.
  • Mohdoo, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3As opposed to figurative gas?
  • intranets, on 09/22/2008, -3/+1All these dumb comments about corn and corn syrup. Anyone in the midwest already realizes they take sugar and turn in into ethanol and the gov't uses your tax dollars to do this so that midwesterners have to pay for mandatory ethanol added to the gasoline (makes gas more expensive) and tax dollars to pay farmers to use corn for the horribly inefficient ethanol conversion.

    It would be a welcome change if it was more efficient conversion than ethanol. But if we end up using more energy and raw cost of corn than pumping it out of the ground it is a loser, just like ethanol.
  • kevlar21, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Why must we focus on these biofuel advancements??? I want my electric car!
  • speakafreaka, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3Isnt this just methonol?

    like stuff that already burns?

    A+ FOR DISCOVERING ALCOHOL GUYS
  • RyeBrye, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1There is already a product on the market that converts sugar into gas.

    You can even buy it at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/BWacky-Fart-Candy/dp/B0006GK ...
  • mcbowler, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Sweet.
  • YodaJones, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1***** all your turning food stuffs into gasoline plans assholes.
  • nowhereelse, on 09/22/2008, -1/+0Can't we just have affordable food instead of loads of assholes driving around?
  • TheMachine1, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1I've dreamed of inventing a catalysis to make glucose under go a Cannizzaro reaction forming an equal mixture of sorbitiol(the artical says they are using it to make the gasoline) and gluconic acid.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannizzaro_reaction
  • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Stop creating new middle men!! Electric vehicles already have the power grid infrastructure and we can add new sources of power to the grid effortlessly. We don't need to replace oil with another low efficiency, high complication, high priced fluid to burn so that Big Oil can keep charging us daily for energy.

    Ethanol, sugar, etc. etc. are all just conversions of solar into something we then have to burn. Skip the middle man. Energy to energy. Solar, wind, nuclear, existing power plants...all fed into a grid we already have.
    • atact88, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Down with Big Oil! Up with Big Electrical!

      Same people, different sector.
  • Theycallmetak, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Normally sugar in your gas just ***** up your engine so in a way this is good.

    Also, I've figured out an easy way to turn table sugar (with the addition of milk and hot coffee) into a tasty morning beverage!
  • atact88, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Many scientists are moving into the realm of using algae to produce fuels. These fuels vary from oil-based petroleum to hydrogen gas. It's really quite remarkable. The September 1, 2008 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has a short article on one line of research investigating using algae for the production of hydrocarbon biofuels. Just like corn, they use sunlight and CO2. They're more efficient than soil crops cause they have no roots, stems, or leaves which suck up resources.
    Other chemical research focuses on developing new organometallic catalysts that make for more efficient photon transfers. When applied to using solar energy for fuel production, it means that you don't require the same intensity of light as you get from the sun to drive the necessary chemical reactions; even a fluorescent light will do the trick.

    In an ideal world, we'd have solar powered energy for end-use applications with no emissions. However, the power of chemical energy (i.e. oil) is still far more portable and practical at this time. And, let's be honest, there'll always be a place in my heart for a V8 engine with a big displacement and a rumbling exhaust. At the very least, however, we can attempt to achieve zero net emissions.
  • supergreengirl2, on 09/22/2008, -0/+0Cool. Good news!
  • trollick, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Another day another breakthrough in converting stuff into gasoline. That we'll never hear about again.
  • Mactrekr, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1You know, One thing all of us need LESS of is sugar. Frankly, I'd love to see the cost of sugar go up. Obeseity in this country is damn near as big a problem as the cost of gasoline. I like candy, cake, ice cream and ketchup as much as the next guy, but if sugar went WAY up in price, it's entirely possible our food supply would contain less sugar, and in turn our health would improve.

    Save the planet, Go on a DIET!!!
  • Agracuta, on 09/22/2008, -0/+0Fantastic! Now hurry up and release all these new methods, and lower the f***ing gas prices already!
  • nicko68, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.
  • Ricemanstm, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Wow! Another "alternative" to gasoline! Sugar=gas, plants=gas, trash=gas, pubic hair=gas, sweat=gas, urine=gas, animal *****=gas, everything = gas! Holee sheeeite! With all these ideas on digg we should all be able drive Hummers at 1.2 MPG and fill them up for .12 cents a gallon! It's the same old "green" problem. Sure everything is "cost effective" and "cleaner than oil" on paper, but the development, transition, production creation and etc...IS costly! Duh! The fact is we need, and will continue to for the near and midterm future, oil. There is NO reason not to drill. We drill now and keep prices from going higher in the future, we buy time to fully test and develop these "ideas" and see which ones work and which ones are BS. (which will probably end up on digg as a gas alternative story).
  • KingGorilla, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women
  • jojopumpkin, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1That would increase the price of candy. I don't think I could handle that!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.