Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Solar Cells Made From Bioluminescent Jellyfish

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the cnidaria-power dept.

Biotech 82

An anonymous reader writes "Swedish researchers have devised a way to turn bioluminescent jellyfish into solar cells. It works like this: the green fluorescent protein (GFP) that makes the Aequorea victoria glow is simply dripped onto a silicon dioxide substrate between two electrodes. The protein works itself into strands between the electrodes. When ultraviolet light is shined on the circuit, voila, the GFP absorbs photons and emits electrons, generating a current. The GFP-powered cells work like dye-sensitized solar cells, but don't require expensive materials such as titanium dioxide."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Could be worse (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514680)

Jellyfish could be using Human Beings to generate power.

Re:Could be worse (0, Redundant)

xenapan (1012909) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514686)

I for one welcome our Jelly filled overlords!

Re:Could be worse (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514824)

I for one welcome our Jelly filled overlords!

Insert funny Homer Simpson quote here. MMMMMM..jelly filled donuts. Homer they're not jelly filled donuts, they're jellyfish overlords/Marge

Re:Could be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33520400)

I'm still waiting for the funny Homer Simpson quote.

Re:Could be worse (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33516516)

Stop harvesting everything from the ocean for exploitation by humans. In fact, harvesting humans from undesirable countries much be a better use of resources since their reproduction can be efficiently controlled and regulated within the corporate captives easily constructed near the place of work.

Re:Could be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33517144)

Get back to me when humans start generating electron emitting proteins, or better yet have an organ that makes fossil fuels.

Re:Could be worse (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517596)

I have one that produces GAS does that help

Re:Could be worse (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518054)

Yes, If you eat fossil foods you produce fossil methane.

Re:Could be worse (1)

daniorerio (1070048) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518530)

You realize no jellyfish is going to be harmed for this right? This protein will just be made synthetically in the lab in bulk, which is way more efficient than isolating it from actual jellyfish.

Yeah TFS is misleading, what else is new?

Meh... (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516710)

Jellyfish would be spineless overlords. Attack them, and they'll just quiver in fear like, um, jelly.

On the other hand, they'd be a much softer set of leaders than we have today, and they'd provide a more transparent leadership.

Re:Meh... (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517256)

Funny, but if you ever tangle with a jelly fish I promise you won't want to do it again. [google.com] If we are going to start harvesting them, maybe a non-lethal weapon can be made from the venom...
HALT or be really painfully stung!

Re:Could be worse (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514884)

"Solars cells are made from jellyfish! They're jellyfish!" - Ty Thorn

Re:Could be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514968)

Mod -1 for improper form of "In Soviet Russia" joke.

Re:Could be worse (1)

ian_from_brisbane (596121) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516234)

Mod -3 for never having seen The Matrix.

Re:Could be worse (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515444)

Jellyfish could be using Human Beings to generate power.

Its the next Stimulus.

Re:Could be worse (1)

cheezegeezer (1765936) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518092)

the grammar could also be a lot better spot the error (When ultraviolet light is shined on the circuit) not good at all and typical of modern day writings

Re:Could be worse (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518150)

Sorry, but did you just not even use capitals or punctuation in a post that's complaining about grammar? Not to mention using an unnecessary capital in the parenthesis.

Spongebob (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514712)

Looks like that Spongebob eposide (Jellyfish Jelly on Krabby Paddies) was a PETA pre-emptive strick against this research.

Re:Spongebob (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514738)

Gotta watch out for those pre-emptive stricks from PETA. :p

Re:Spongebob (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33558630)

After all, PETA wants us to save Sea Kittens.
http://features.peta.org/PETASeaKittens/index.asp [peta.org]

"Nobody would hurt a Sea Kitten!"

Re:Spongebob (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#33558732)

How they waste their money is between them and their donors.

Re:Spongebob (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515260)

For God's sake, won't someone think of the jellyfish?!?

The Fools! (2, Funny)

CompSci101 (706779) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514744)

Haven't they played any of the Metroid games? We're all doomed!

C

So how many jellyfish would it to power a Tesla? (1)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514778)

np

Re:So how many jellyfish would it to power a Tesla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514952)

7 pounds worth. But the owner would have to prove he's worth the sacrifice.

it's jellylicious (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514822)

They also make a great fruit smoothy! Animals in a blender - for SCIENCE!

Now where's my science blender - I feel another Daiquiri discovery coming on.

This is not as much of a hardhack (1)

Xiph (723935) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514858)

as it is a wethack.

Being made from jellyfish just makes for even more bad jokes about wethacks.

output? (2, Insightful)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514868)

What's the output on these new cells? The article mentioned the efficiency of algae cells but not these bioluminescent cells.

Re:output? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514998)

Also, how long do they last?

Typical solar cells degrade significantly over time and pretty quickly. I'm thinking these would degrade even faster considering the biological nature of them.

Re:output? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515112)

Commercial crystalline solar cells are typically rated to last 20-25 years and are often manufacturer-warrantied as such. Is that what you consider "pretty quickly"?

Re:output? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33517014)

Typical organic solar cells degrade quickly. Some of them have operate for just minutes, as exposure to light breaks them down.

And I didn't bother reading the article, organic solar cells will only be used when the headline says anything about lifetime.

Re:output? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33519690)

Yes, that is in fact what I consider pretty quickly. You have to remember that they are degrading over that entire period. In 5 to 10 years you will be wanting for new cells because they will be outputting 25 to 50 percent of their original power. They "last" 20 years but you won't be getting much power if any by that point. This is written into the warranties as an expectation of power output over time.

In general the cost of the cells is barely a break-even proposition compared to the power you get back. It's that simple.

This changes as we get better technology but it ain't that great at the moment. (and no, subsidies don't count because we're still paying for it)

Re:output? (4, Interesting)

StevenMaurer (115071) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515124)

If you'd RTFA, you would have seen this snippet:

The team has so far used a proof-of-concept device to power a clock. The sunlight-to-electricity efficiency of the device is only 0.1 per cent at present, compared with between 10 and 15 per cent for existing dye-sensitised solar cells, however. Screening different algae species to find the most productive electron donor might be one way to produce more juice.

Eventually, algal cells could float out at sea, generating electricity from sunlight and seawater. "We might end up with less efficiency than [conventional] photovoltaics, but we think we can win on cost, and we don't require space where people want to live," says Bombelli.

Of course, making electricity at sea [wikipedia.org] isn't so nearly hard to do as it is to get the electricity to a place where it can be used.

Re:output? (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515812)

Algaelectricity

Jellyfish are not the only sea creatures that can be exploited to generate energy: algae could power floating devices on the ocean wave. Adrian Fisher and Paolo Bombelli at the University of Cambridge and colleagues are developing biophotovoltaic devices based on algae and photosynthetic bacteria.

The team deposit a film of photosynthetic cells on top of a transparent conductive electrode, which faces a carbon cathode seeded with platinum nanoparticles.

When exposed to sunlight the algal cells begin splitting water and producing oxygen, electrons and protons. These would usually be used by the algae to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds, but instead the device siphons them off to generate electricity, says Fisher. "The algal cells produce electrons very generously," he says.

The team has so far used a proof-of-concept device to power a clock. The sunlight-to-electricity efficiency of the device is only 0.1 per cent at present, compared with between 10 and 15 per cent for existing dye-sensitised solar cells, however. Screening different algae species to find the most productive electron donor might be one way to produce more juice.

Eventually, algal cells could float out at sea, generating electricity from sunlight and seawater. "We might end up with less efficiency than [conventional] photovoltaics, but we think we can win on cost, and we don't require space where people want to live," says Bombelli.

I RTFA. That's what I meant. They only list the algal cells, not the jellyfish protein ones. The jellyfish are only referred to in order to link these two concepts together. The 0.1 percent efficiency is for the algal cells, not the jellyfish protein ones.

Re:output? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33519596)

What's the output on these new cells? The article mentioned the efficiency of algae cells but not these bioluminescent cells.

How about some wicked optical or wireless transistors?

Superfast Jellyfish (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514944)

The sea is radioactive

I'll wait for the vegan alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514994)

It sounds like a sustainable energy source but it's not vegan at all!
Maybe in the future they'll grow giant blobs of it from genetically engineered jellyfish stem cells so you'll have the choice between bio, free range, or GMO solar panels.

What time is it? (0, Offtopic)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515058)

It's Peanutbutter Jellyfish time, peanut butter jellyfish time.

Expensive materials, whaa? (4, Insightful)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515084)

Titanium dioxide is dirt cheap, like $2 USD/kilogram cheap. Now, this might use some higher-purity version, but if they're using a "silicon dioxide substrate" they're already spending as much on reasonable SiO2 and its processing than the TiO2 is going to cost.

I think it's cool research -- self-assembling stuff rocks -- but I'm dubious about their claim of the effectiveness of that particular cost reduction.

Re:Expensive materials, whaa? (1)

Billy the Mountain (225541) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515308)

Yeah, they put this in toothpaste. That's probably why it costs upwards of $1.99 per frickin tube.

Re:Expensive materials, whaa? (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517354)

If memory serves me correctly, there was an article where a organic dye solar cell was Mac Gyvered from toothpaste and some berry juice a while ago.

Re:Expensive materials, whaa? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516022)

Yeah, I noticed that too... "titanium" is still sort of exotic, but titanium dioxide is the ingredient that makes today's paint cover so well, and is used in lots of other stuff [wikipedia.org] too.

Re:Expensive materials, whaa? (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517106)

Titanium's only exotic because it's so hard to get from the oxide to the elemental form. But it's the ninth most common element on the planet: you can hardly move without tripping over the stuff. Yeah, they use it in paint, toothpaste, all sorts of things. Miserable to machine, though, and a little tricky to weld. It's also interesting because as far as I know it's the only element that'll burn in pure nitrogen, as well as oxygen/atmospheric.

Re:Expensive materials, whaa? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#33521132)

as far as I know it's the only element that'll burn in pure nitrogen, as well as oxygen/atmospheric.

Not magnesium [ls1tech.com] ?

Magnesium, as in pure magnesium, is highly flammable and easily ignited when it is in powdered form, and less when in shavings. It corresponds to how much surface area of the metal is exposed to an oxider which is generally the oxygen in air. Magnesium will also burn without oxygen, it can burn in pure nitrogen gas or in carbon dioxide.

Re:Expensive materials, whaa? (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 4 years ago | (#33534370)

I did not know that! Ya learn something new every day. Especially interesting insofar as I've been trying to weld magnesium of late, and there are shielding gas mixes that contain 25% carbon dioxide. I think I'll stick with straight argon.

Re:Expensive materials, whaa? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517752)

TiO2 is a common pigment, I know it for dying plastic resin mainly. It's very cheap, common, very white, and UV resistant. The ideal pigment. So tfs must be wrong in this aspect indeed.

Re:Expensive materials, whaa? (1)

Xantheon (233911) | more than 4 years ago | (#33534604)

On:
http://www.icis.com/v2/chemicals/9076545/titanium-dioxide/pricing.html ...
Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) Prices and Pricing Information ...
Updated to mid-August 2010 ...
Asian titanium dioxide (TiO2) prices increased by 1-4% from $2,535-2,600/tonne CFR (cost and freight) Asia in mid-May to $2,550-2,700/tonne CFR Asia in end-July on the back of tightening supplies in the region. ...

"don't require expensive materials.." (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515090)

"such as titanium dioxide" but requires exotic Chinese cuisine ingredients????

clearly this is the future of energy (1)

curtix7 (1429475) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515092)

Such a fuel cell could be used to power nano-devices embedded in living organisms, says Chiragwandi, for example to diagnose disease.

is it just me or is this quote ridiculously buzzword-esque?

or do they really think they have unlocked the key to nanotechnology and cured cancer?

titanium dioxide, really? (2, Interesting)

Goldsmith (561202) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515132)

Why would you say this? Maybe you meant indium tin oxide, which is expensive... but no, you use that one, but don't mention that in the press release.

It's not likely that someone working with this protein, who has to purchase or make it for several thousand dollars per milligram makes this claim innocently (titanium dioxide is a few cents per gram, and GFP is already one of the most mass produced purified proteins out there, it's not going to get much cheaper anytime soon). Misleading blurbs like this are terrible for science; they propagate falsehoods and direct research funding away from promising sources.

Re:titanium dioxide, really? (5, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515174)

They are referring to expensive nanostructured titanium dioxide used in some solar cell technologies. The reporter, of course, is oblivious to the difference between that and the pigment in white housepaint.

Re:titanium dioxide, really? (1)

BobisOnlyBob (1438553) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515416)

Outta mod points - this should be marked Informative, I was also unaware of the difference between the two, and hence confused by why it would be considered expensive in solar cells.

Re:titanium dioxide, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33516912)

Titania is not expensive, "nanostructured" or not. http://www.advancedmaterials.us/22N-0801A.htm. A typical Dye-Sensitized Solar Cell used a film 12 um thick, so a kilo goes a long way.

Re:titanium dioxide, really? (1)

Goldsmith (561202) | more than 4 years ago | (#33519444)

"Nanostructured?"

Sorry, that's also BS. Spinning on a sol-gel solution is neither expensive nor "nanostructuring," and that can get you an excellent coating. You can also paint on an effective coating. If you've ever seen a self-cleaning window, and you have if you've used a car, you've seen a very cheap and effective photoactive TiO2 layer in action.

The TiO2 in photochemical cells is never the expensive part. Platinum, ITO and the dye are all more expensive. These photoactive coatings are so cheap to produce they coat entire buildings with it in japan. It's a "pre-nanostructured" material. I realize there's a lot of research on nano-TiO2, but that's because people are still trying to figure out how it works, not because you need to use nano-scale material.

Please advise (3, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515138)

I have not yet received my opinion assignment document from those we don't speak of, so I am not really sure what I am supposed to think about this. On one tentacle, anything helping to make photovoltaic material affordable is very good. But the other tentacle, harvesting (and likely destroying) scores of jellyfish to do so seems, well, creepy. I think I will need to wait until cable news tells me what to think.

Re:Please advise (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515232)

I have not yet received my opinion assignment document from those we don't speak of,

Oh, we can speak of them, just not by name.

On one tentacle, anything helping to make photovoltaic material affordable is very good.

He-who-lies-dead-but-dreaming cares little for the affordability of non-fossil-fuel energy sources.

But the other tentacle, harvesting (and likely destroying) scores of jellyfish to do so seems, well, creepy.

Au contraire, mon frere. Jellyfish are but poor representations of Old Ones, and should be scoured from the seas lest we offend those who control the Cosmos.

I think I will need to wait until cable news tells me what to think.

Well that's just circular reasoning. We know that tentacled ones such as yourself control the cable news outlets, why would you need to watch them?

Re:Please advise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33519450)

now that is a great question. don't you have a "nurtural" center of advice? i don't mean your mother (;-)), i mean a form of discourse/a body of people/an organization.

I don't get it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515196)

I don't know why they care if someone burns the unholy quaran... I've been wiping my ass with them for years.

FUCK ALLAH, FUCK MOHAMMAD, FUCK ISLAM!!!!

Re:I don't get it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515540)

You're just some idiot manchild on the internet, who cares what you do

Re:I don't get it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33516510)

If you wern't full of shit you would not need to wipe your ass so often!

Oh silly slashdotters, when will you learn? (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515284)

There is no such thing as new solar cell technology!!!!

Please feel free to refute this fact with an example product.

Re:Oh silly slashdotters, when will you learn? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516128)

It's all new kid! Now get off my lawn and stop your "I don't want to hear about it until I can buy it at Walmart" whining.
It can take years before some really interesting discovery is incorporated into something you can buy at Walmart, or it may not end up there at all but instead have a specialised use.

So... (1)

Eggbloke (1698408) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515318)

Does this mean cheap solar cells for the whole world? I'm guessing not.
Anyone know why not?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515818)

Because only the selected few are patient enough to wait until it is ready for market.

What about photobleaching? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515690)

Fluorescent proteins denature over time as they are exposed to light (photobleaching [wikipedia.org] ). What will the lifetime of these cells be?

Re:What about photobleaching? (1)

Majkow (604785) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515826)

about 5 days after warranty expires typically.

Wrong Section! (2, Funny)

Acetylane_Rain (1894120) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516080)

Hey, editor! This is in the wrong section.

Jellyfish, strictly speaking, are software. (Unless you reinforce them with an exoskeleton.)

To Paraphrase Kermit the Frog... (3, Funny)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516394)

It's not easy being bioluminescent.

Like it wasn't bad enough these poor creatures spend their entire existence as lowly bags of goo. Now they have to spend half their time fleeing from horrific vertebrates that want to squeeze the life-goo right out of them for no discernible reason. Well, not actually fleeing. Trying to flee. Have you ever seen a jellyfish flee? It's sad. Pathetic really. Very slow. You can't even call it fleeing. It's more like moseying. "The jellyfish are moseying for their lives!" See what I mean? Poor things.

Now, how do you make an aquarium in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33516406)

the back seat of a DeLorean?

God I hate Amerikanisms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33516412)

"When ultraviolet light is shined on the circuit"

Is there such a word as "shined"?

The post tense of shine is shone.

Wasting my breath, I know

Re:God I hate Amerikanisms (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516496)

Is there such a word as "shined"?

Yes.

Wasting my breath, I know.

Use fingers.

Re:God I hate Amerikanisms (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517404)

Still sounds bad to me although technically correct, I'd go with
"When the circiut is illuminated with ultraviolet light, ... " instead.

Expensive? (1)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516652)

> expensive materials such as titanium dioxide

Ummm, you mean common white paint?

Maury

TiO2 is not expensive (1)

kumanopuusan (698669) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517676)

Somewhere around half a percent of the Earth itself and 1 percent of soil is titanium, so it isn't exactly rare. There's a large market for titanium dioxide in industrial quantities and it currently costs about $1.50 per pound. [icis.com]

I couldn't find any sources of GFP in industrial quantities (or any industrial uses of it), but looking at the production costs of other recombinant proteins is telling. In 1997, heparinase I production was estimated to cost around $250,000 per pound [mit.edu] with capital costs in the tens of millions of dollars for an annual production of only 3 kg. On the other hand, bovine somatotropin is currently produced, and costs about $6.60 per 500 mg dose, which works out to about $6000 per pound [google.com] .

I'm no expert, but the idea that GFP (a recombinant protein) is cheap and TiO2 (processed dirt) is expensive seems a bit strange to me. Can someone explain?

But are they any good at all (2, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518148)

What is the efficiency of these particular organic solar cells under ordinary solar radiation? What is their lifetime before the organic matter decays?

bioluminescent jelly fish are going to be cheaper? (1)

Uzik2 (679490) | more than 4 years ago | (#33519182)

Man, I gotta get into the titanium dioxide production business if bioluminescent jelly fish are going to be cheaper.
There's gotta be a heck of a profit in there.

Bioluminescent Mushrooms (1)

jlencion (833976) | more than 4 years ago | (#33520062)

I wonder if this could also be done with bioluminescent mushrooms such as the Panellus stipticus [wikipedia.org] .

Sweet! (1)

CeruleanDragon (101334) | more than 4 years ago | (#33520984)

Yet another species to exploit to extinction! Yay!

Extinction unlikely (1)

eyenot (102141) | more than 4 years ago | (#33523018)

You can just cultivate batches of jellyfish cells, you don't need whole, live jellyfish.

In Florida, somebody on a lifeguard staff reached into a cooler and pulled out a coke bottle that looked like it was full of water but was full of water containing a batch of invisible jellyfish stinger cells. He drank it and survived with discomfort.

Anyways you can just grow the shit, you don't need to kill more than probably one jellyfish to get it started, boo hoo if they all die, though. What are you using them for? Biodegradable mosquito nets?

I saw on the Discovery Channel that Jelly Fish (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 4 years ago | (#33524042)

Are actually thriving, to the detriment of other species.

They reproduce so fast, and easily, as well as survive a ton of different conditions.

Not the good way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33523170)

Commercial products should not use kill other species to get materials.

TiO2? Expensive? (1)

sugarmatic (232216) | more than 4 years ago | (#33526168)

At $2000 a ton, I'm left wondering how this incredibly ubiquitous material is considered expensive...perhaps someone can describe this to me. From my understanding, the TiO2 is applied using a caustic wash process, again very straightforward. I'm interested in knowing how this is difficult or expensive.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?