<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_2332219</id>
	<title>First Floating Wind Turbine Buoyed Off Norway</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244828160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:jlynch2000@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">MonkeyClicker</a> writes to tell us that the world's first <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128\_3-10263462-54.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1\_3-0-5">large-scale floating turbine</a> has been installed off the coast of Norway.  A combined effort between Siemens and StatoiHydro, this marks the first foray into deeper waters due to restrictions in place that require offshore turbines to be attached to the sea bed.  <i>"The turbine in Norway will be 7.4 miles offshore where the water is 721 feet deep. It will be utility-size turbine, with a hub height of about 100 feet, capable of generating 2.3 megawatts of electricity.  To address the conditions of the deep sea, the turbine will have a specially designed control system that will seek to dampen the motion from waves."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MonkeyClicker writes to tell us that the world 's first large-scale floating turbine has been installed off the coast of Norway .
A combined effort between Siemens and StatoiHydro , this marks the first foray into deeper waters due to restrictions in place that require offshore turbines to be attached to the sea bed .
" The turbine in Norway will be 7.4 miles offshore where the water is 721 feet deep .
It will be utility-size turbine , with a hub height of about 100 feet , capable of generating 2.3 megawatts of electricity .
To address the conditions of the deep sea , the turbine will have a specially designed control system that will seek to dampen the motion from waves .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MonkeyClicker writes to tell us that the world's first large-scale floating turbine has been installed off the coast of Norway.
A combined effort between Siemens and StatoiHydro, this marks the first foray into deeper waters due to restrictions in place that require offshore turbines to be attached to the sea bed.
"The turbine in Norway will be 7.4 miles offshore where the water is 721 feet deep.
It will be utility-size turbine, with a hub height of about 100 feet, capable of generating 2.3 megawatts of electricity.
To address the conditions of the deep sea, the turbine will have a specially designed control system that will seek to dampen the motion from waves.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318149</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1244926320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological responsible power.</p></div><p>Yeah, accidentally drop some nuclear waste in your water supply and see how affordable and responsible it is then.</p><p>Or better yet, let a terrorist get his hands on some and do it for you.  </p><p>With history as my witness, humans are <b>not</b> responsible.  We mean well, but we have very short memories and radioactive material has a very long life. </p><p> Widespread nuclear power would be a fucking catastrophe.  You think third world countries run by dictators are going to be "careful" with their reactors or their waste? </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological responsible power.Yeah , accidentally drop some nuclear waste in your water supply and see how affordable and responsible it is then.Or better yet , let a terrorist get his hands on some and do it for you .
With history as my witness , humans are not responsible .
We mean well , but we have very short memories and radioactive material has a very long life .
Widespread nuclear power would be a fucking catastrophe .
You think third world countries run by dictators are going to be " careful " with their reactors or their waste ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological responsible power.Yeah, accidentally drop some nuclear waste in your water supply and see how affordable and responsible it is then.Or better yet, let a terrorist get his hands on some and do it for you.
With history as my witness, humans are not responsible.
We mean well, but we have very short memories and radioactive material has a very long life.
Widespread nuclear power would be a fucking catastrophe.
You think third world countries run by dictators are going to be "careful" with their reactors or their waste? 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319193</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244901300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy. That reason is overpopulation.</p></div><p>Wrong, that reason is overconsumption. I'm not talking about "taking more than your share"... WTF is your share? I'm talking about needless economic activity which causes the consumption of energy (i.e. purchasing of manufactured goods.) People buy all manner of shit they don't want, don't need, don't use. They leave lights on when they're not in the room. The biggest culprit, in fact, is our throwaway society. It can actually be cheaper to replace a two year old car that has light collision damage than to repair it. If you don't think a lot of energy went into making the steel and the glass, think again.</p><p>Every time we throw away an appliance with a bad switch instead of replacing the switch, mother nature dies a little more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy .
That reason is overpopulation.Wrong , that reason is overconsumption .
I 'm not talking about " taking more than your share " ... WTF is your share ?
I 'm talking about needless economic activity which causes the consumption of energy ( i.e .
purchasing of manufactured goods .
) People buy all manner of shit they do n't want , do n't need , do n't use .
They leave lights on when they 're not in the room .
The biggest culprit , in fact , is our throwaway society .
It can actually be cheaper to replace a two year old car that has light collision damage than to repair it .
If you do n't think a lot of energy went into making the steel and the glass , think again.Every time we throw away an appliance with a bad switch instead of replacing the switch , mother nature dies a little more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy.
That reason is overpopulation.Wrong, that reason is overconsumption.
I'm not talking about "taking more than your share"... WTF is your share?
I'm talking about needless economic activity which causes the consumption of energy (i.e.
purchasing of manufactured goods.
) People buy all manner of shit they don't want, don't need, don't use.
They leave lights on when they're not in the room.
The biggest culprit, in fact, is our throwaway society.
It can actually be cheaper to replace a two year old car that has light collision damage than to repair it.
If you don't think a lot of energy went into making the steel and the glass, think again.Every time we throw away an appliance with a bad switch instead of replacing the switch, mother nature dies a little more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319351</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244903160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy. That reason is overpopulation. However, no American politician has the guts to touch that topic. It is too closely tied to illegal immigration. When a faction  [nytimes.com] in the Sierra Club tried to address that issue, the members of that faction were accused of being "racist".</p></div></blockquote><p>The reason charges of racism were thrown around are two-fold:<br>- the faction advocating control of overpopulation was basically a set of very fresh faces with no historic connection to the Sierra Club. They did, however, have a historic connection to nativism and opposition to illegal immigration.<br>- overpopulation,as others have already pointed out, has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Unless, of course, you argue that Americans have more rights to resources than illegal immigrants, or that those illegal immigrants use more natural resources than legal immigrants - which is nonsense, of course.</p><p>The reason that this is a touchy issue in the Sierra Club is because the faction against illegal immigration was using fairly strong methods to take over the group. There is no grass roots support in the Sierra Club for that issue, nor has there been any historic connection between the Sierra Club and illegal immigration. The only conclusion left is that a group of people who feel strongly about illegal immigration tried to highjack a fairly weak but generally well regarded organization for their own purposes. Your NYT articles actually hints at all these issues... for a complete picture though,you'd have to have followed the election process in the Sierra Club, or listened to KQED. I can't find anything specific about this in the general news channels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy .
That reason is overpopulation .
However , no American politician has the guts to touch that topic .
It is too closely tied to illegal immigration .
When a faction [ nytimes.com ] in the Sierra Club tried to address that issue , the members of that faction were accused of being " racist " .The reason charges of racism were thrown around are two-fold : - the faction advocating control of overpopulation was basically a set of very fresh faces with no historic connection to the Sierra Club .
They did , however , have a historic connection to nativism and opposition to illegal immigration.- overpopulation,as others have already pointed out , has nothing to do with illegal immigration .
Unless , of course , you argue that Americans have more rights to resources than illegal immigrants , or that those illegal immigrants use more natural resources than legal immigrants - which is nonsense , of course.The reason that this is a touchy issue in the Sierra Club is because the faction against illegal immigration was using fairly strong methods to take over the group .
There is no grass roots support in the Sierra Club for that issue , nor has there been any historic connection between the Sierra Club and illegal immigration .
The only conclusion left is that a group of people who feel strongly about illegal immigration tried to highjack a fairly weak but generally well regarded organization for their own purposes .
Your NYT articles actually hints at all these issues... for a complete picture though,you 'd have to have followed the election process in the Sierra Club , or listened to KQED .
I ca n't find anything specific about this in the general news channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy.
That reason is overpopulation.
However, no American politician has the guts to touch that topic.
It is too closely tied to illegal immigration.
When a faction  [nytimes.com] in the Sierra Club tried to address that issue, the members of that faction were accused of being "racist".The reason charges of racism were thrown around are two-fold:- the faction advocating control of overpopulation was basically a set of very fresh faces with no historic connection to the Sierra Club.
They did, however, have a historic connection to nativism and opposition to illegal immigration.- overpopulation,as others have already pointed out, has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
Unless, of course, you argue that Americans have more rights to resources than illegal immigrants, or that those illegal immigrants use more natural resources than legal immigrants - which is nonsense, of course.The reason that this is a touchy issue in the Sierra Club is because the faction against illegal immigration was using fairly strong methods to take over the group.
There is no grass roots support in the Sierra Club for that issue, nor has there been any historic connection between the Sierra Club and illegal immigration.
The only conclusion left is that a group of people who feel strongly about illegal immigration tried to highjack a fairly weak but generally well regarded organization for their own purposes.
Your NYT articles actually hints at all these issues... for a complete picture though,you'd have to have followed the election process in the Sierra Club, or listened to KQED.
I can't find anything specific about this in the general news channels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319297</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244902560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"3. nuclear power: more than 3 cents/kwh, more than 3 cents/kwh "</p><p>and where did he get this number from? The major <a href="http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/" title="mit.edu" rel="nofollow">MIT study</a> [mit.edu]  has nuclear power at 8.4 cents/kwh. I know which value I trust more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 3. nuclear power : more than 3 cents/kwh , more than 3 cents/kwh " and where did he get this number from ?
The major MIT study [ mit.edu ] has nuclear power at 8.4 cents/kwh .
I know which value I trust more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"3. nuclear power: more than 3 cents/kwh, more than 3 cents/kwh "and where did he get this number from?
The major MIT study [mit.edu]  has nuclear power at 8.4 cents/kwh.
I know which value I trust more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669</id>
	<title>Why not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone provide me with a credible reason why we shouldn't stack these things on every coast in the world to provide nations with clean electricity? Or is nuclear power still too sexy to give up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone provide me with a credible reason why we should n't stack these things on every coast in the world to provide nations with clean electricity ?
Or is nuclear power still too sexy to give up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone provide me with a credible reason why we shouldn't stack these things on every coast in the world to provide nations with clean electricity?
Or is nuclear power still too sexy to give up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322045</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1244883960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, nuclear waste isn't all that bad.  It's just concentrated.  There's less radiation remaining in the waste than there was in it when it was fuel, and the fuel is just concentrated rock.  (Special kind of rock, but people lived around it for mega-years without problems.  And their ancestors before them.)</p><p>So if you dispersed the waste evenly over the planet there'd be less radiation now than there was before the nuclear plants were build.  Breeder reactors are different, but there are designs that will essentially burn all the fuel to inactive materials.  But there are political problems with building them.  Intractable ones.  (The core is Plutonium.)</p><p>Renewables should be preferred, but there's a place for nuclear reactors.  Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that our current approach is a good on.  To me it seems that breeder reactors are the only reasonable long term approach, and the current designs for such are very crude.  More unfortunately, all the breeder reactors that I consider plausible require a stable political environment to be safe.  Whoops!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , nuclear waste is n't all that bad .
It 's just concentrated .
There 's less radiation remaining in the waste than there was in it when it was fuel , and the fuel is just concentrated rock .
( Special kind of rock , but people lived around it for mega-years without problems .
And their ancestors before them .
) So if you dispersed the waste evenly over the planet there 'd be less radiation now than there was before the nuclear plants were build .
Breeder reactors are different , but there are designs that will essentially burn all the fuel to inactive materials .
But there are political problems with building them .
Intractable ones .
( The core is Plutonium .
) Renewables should be preferred , but there 's a place for nuclear reactors .
Unfortunately , I 'm not convinced that our current approach is a good on .
To me it seems that breeder reactors are the only reasonable long term approach , and the current designs for such are very crude .
More unfortunately , all the breeder reactors that I consider plausible require a stable political environment to be safe .
Whoops !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, nuclear waste isn't all that bad.
It's just concentrated.
There's less radiation remaining in the waste than there was in it when it was fuel, and the fuel is just concentrated rock.
(Special kind of rock, but people lived around it for mega-years without problems.
And their ancestors before them.
)So if you dispersed the waste evenly over the planet there'd be less radiation now than there was before the nuclear plants were build.
Breeder reactors are different, but there are designs that will essentially burn all the fuel to inactive materials.
But there are political problems with building them.
Intractable ones.
(The core is Plutonium.
)Renewables should be preferred, but there's a place for nuclear reactors.
Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that our current approach is a good on.
To me it seems that breeder reactors are the only reasonable long term approach, and the current designs for such are very crude.
More unfortunately, all the breeder reactors that I consider plausible require a stable political environment to be safe.
Whoops!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318055</id>
	<title>Re:navigation maps</title>
	<author>Plunky</author>
	<datestamp>1244925000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I hope they will put it on new navigation maps. But how to update existing maps?</p></div></blockquote><p>This problem was solved a long time ago, chart updates are made available regularly and large vessels will be obliged to subscribe to the service. In these modern times of electronic charts (most ships use them though they are still required to carry paper charts) updates are easily applied.</p><p>Also ships have RADAR so they can see obstructions (other vessels are not marked on charts) plus another more modern invention called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic\_Identification\_System" title="wikipedia.org">AIS</a> [wikipedia.org] which allows vessels to broadcast their position, heading, course and speed and have it overlayed onto the radar plot (and the charts). You can be sure that massive floating platforms will have lights, radar reflectors and an AIS transmitter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they will put it on new navigation maps .
But how to update existing maps ? This problem was solved a long time ago , chart updates are made available regularly and large vessels will be obliged to subscribe to the service .
In these modern times of electronic charts ( most ships use them though they are still required to carry paper charts ) updates are easily applied.Also ships have RADAR so they can see obstructions ( other vessels are not marked on charts ) plus another more modern invention called AIS [ wikipedia.org ] which allows vessels to broadcast their position , heading , course and speed and have it overlayed onto the radar plot ( and the charts ) .
You can be sure that massive floating platforms will have lights , radar reflectors and an AIS transmitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they will put it on new navigation maps.
But how to update existing maps?This problem was solved a long time ago, chart updates are made available regularly and large vessels will be obliged to subscribe to the service.
In these modern times of electronic charts (most ships use them though they are still required to carry paper charts) updates are easily applied.Also ships have RADAR so they can see obstructions (other vessels are not marked on charts) plus another more modern invention called AIS [wikipedia.org] which allows vessels to broadcast their position, heading, course and speed and have it overlayed onto the radar plot (and the charts).
You can be sure that massive floating platforms will have lights, radar reflectors and an AIS transmitter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319089</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244899920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other worse, nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power.</p></div><p>You are forgetting one thing... there is simply not enough capacity to produce all the nuclear reactor cores to play any big role in whatever solution you are thinking of. Wind turbines and solar panels power are the only energy plants that can be mass produced like - say cars - because the technology is relatively simple (and wind turbines are easier to make than solar panels). For this reason - mass production - and this reason alone, Nuclear Technology can never significantly contribute to the solution. This is also the reason why Nuclear Fusion isn't going to happen anytime soon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other worse , nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power.You are forgetting one thing... there is simply not enough capacity to produce all the nuclear reactor cores to play any big role in whatever solution you are thinking of .
Wind turbines and solar panels power are the only energy plants that can be mass produced like - say cars - because the technology is relatively simple ( and wind turbines are easier to make than solar panels ) .
For this reason - mass production - and this reason alone , Nuclear Technology can never significantly contribute to the solution .
This is also the reason why Nuclear Fusion is n't going to happen anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other worse, nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power.You are forgetting one thing... there is simply not enough capacity to produce all the nuclear reactor cores to play any big role in whatever solution you are thinking of.
Wind turbines and solar panels power are the only energy plants that can be mass produced like - say cars - because the technology is relatively simple (and wind turbines are easier to make than solar panels).
For this reason - mass production - and this reason alone, Nuclear Technology can never significantly contribute to the solution.
This is also the reason why Nuclear Fusion isn't going to happen anytime soon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851</id>
	<title>navigation maps</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1244835420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope they will put it on new navigation maps. But how to update existing maps?
<br> <br>
I would be a nightmare for a captain to meet such things in high seas. As far as navigation is concerned it is a new island.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they will put it on new navigation maps .
But how to update existing maps ?
I would be a nightmare for a captain to meet such things in high seas .
As far as navigation is concerned it is a new island .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they will put it on new navigation maps.
But how to update existing maps?
I would be a nightmare for a captain to meet such things in high seas.
As far as navigation is concerned it is a new island.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318133</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>chefren</author>
	<datestamp>1244926140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Still another point to make is the efficiency of distribution. Not many of those watts produced at the power plants actually make it to your wall outlet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still another point to make is the efficiency of distribution .
Not many of those watts produced at the power plants actually make it to your wall outlet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still another point to make is the efficiency of distribution.
Not many of those watts produced at the power plants actually make it to your wall outlet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322419</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1244887560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What is exactly the cost of a Chernobyl scale accident? Unless the possibility of such an event is reduced to zero, we should really define this figure, and be prepared to spend it if the need arises.</p></div></blockquote><p>Chernobyl happened over two decades ago, in a soviet nuclear facility that used old reactor technology (even for the time), had practically no safety features, and whose operators were both untrained and under-experienced.</p><p>The combination of modern reactor designs and stringent regulations make a Chernobyl-style meltdown utterly impossible. Chernobyl should not be compared to modern nuclear power any more than DOS 1.0 should be compared to Windows 7. Also, most people tend to forget that the U.S. already has 52 operating nuclear plants that chug along just fine every day, almost all without a single solitary incident in their entire history. Nuclear power generation does have its risks but so do all forms of electricity generation. I'd gladly wager that there have been a lot more deaths from the procurement and burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil than there ever will from the generation of nuclear power. If your criteria for "safe" power is a risk of zero, then you probably should disconnect yourself from the grid right now because there is no such thing as zero-risk power generation and there never will be.</p><p>Any other straw men you'd like to try and bat down?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is exactly the cost of a Chernobyl scale accident ?
Unless the possibility of such an event is reduced to zero , we should really define this figure , and be prepared to spend it if the need arises.Chernobyl happened over two decades ago , in a soviet nuclear facility that used old reactor technology ( even for the time ) , had practically no safety features , and whose operators were both untrained and under-experienced.The combination of modern reactor designs and stringent regulations make a Chernobyl-style meltdown utterly impossible .
Chernobyl should not be compared to modern nuclear power any more than DOS 1.0 should be compared to Windows 7 .
Also , most people tend to forget that the U.S. already has 52 operating nuclear plants that chug along just fine every day , almost all without a single solitary incident in their entire history .
Nuclear power generation does have its risks but so do all forms of electricity generation .
I 'd gladly wager that there have been a lot more deaths from the procurement and burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil than there ever will from the generation of nuclear power .
If your criteria for " safe " power is a risk of zero , then you probably should disconnect yourself from the grid right now because there is no such thing as zero-risk power generation and there never will be.Any other straw men you 'd like to try and bat down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is exactly the cost of a Chernobyl scale accident?
Unless the possibility of such an event is reduced to zero, we should really define this figure, and be prepared to spend it if the need arises.Chernobyl happened over two decades ago, in a soviet nuclear facility that used old reactor technology (even for the time), had practically no safety features, and whose operators were both untrained and under-experienced.The combination of modern reactor designs and stringent regulations make a Chernobyl-style meltdown utterly impossible.
Chernobyl should not be compared to modern nuclear power any more than DOS 1.0 should be compared to Windows 7.
Also, most people tend to forget that the U.S. already has 52 operating nuclear plants that chug along just fine every day, almost all without a single solitary incident in their entire history.
Nuclear power generation does have its risks but so do all forms of electricity generation.
I'd gladly wager that there have been a lot more deaths from the procurement and burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil than there ever will from the generation of nuclear power.
If your criteria for "safe" power is a risk of zero, then you probably should disconnect yourself from the grid right now because there is no such thing as zero-risk power generation and there never will be.Any other straw men you'd like to try and bat down?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321035</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>juancnuno</author>
	<datestamp>1244918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy. That reason is overpopulation. However, no American politician has the guts to touch that topic.</p></div></blockquote><p> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7865332.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Population: The elephant in the room</a> [bbc.co.uk] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy .
That reason is overpopulation .
However , no American politician has the guts to touch that topic .
Population : The elephant in the room [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy.
That reason is overpopulation.
However, no American politician has the guts to touch that topic.
Population: The elephant in the room [bbc.co.uk] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317865</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>RsG</author>
	<datestamp>1244835660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see what immigration has to do with overpopulation.  Or rather, I do see, but what I see is only shortsightedness.</p><p>A person moving from place A to place B does not increase the net population of AB, but does make their negative impact on the environment B's problem.  So the attitude of "if we curb immigration, we reduce pollution" omits the reality that pollution does not obey national borders.  It's the attitude of "somebody else's problem", which I could frankly do without.</p><p>Of course, you could argue that immigrants moving from a poor country to a rich one will use more resources once there.  That is technically correct.  But the counterpoint is that richer populations have fewer children, and in the long run that immigrant is going to assimilate.  If not them, then their children.  And part of that assimilation is the reduction in birthrate that comes from living in the developed world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see what immigration has to do with overpopulation .
Or rather , I do see , but what I see is only shortsightedness.A person moving from place A to place B does not increase the net population of AB , but does make their negative impact on the environment B 's problem .
So the attitude of " if we curb immigration , we reduce pollution " omits the reality that pollution does not obey national borders .
It 's the attitude of " somebody else 's problem " , which I could frankly do without.Of course , you could argue that immigrants moving from a poor country to a rich one will use more resources once there .
That is technically correct .
But the counterpoint is that richer populations have fewer children , and in the long run that immigrant is going to assimilate .
If not them , then their children .
And part of that assimilation is the reduction in birthrate that comes from living in the developed world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see what immigration has to do with overpopulation.
Or rather, I do see, but what I see is only shortsightedness.A person moving from place A to place B does not increase the net population of AB, but does make their negative impact on the environment B's problem.
So the attitude of "if we curb immigration, we reduce pollution" omits the reality that pollution does not obey national borders.
It's the attitude of "somebody else's problem", which I could frankly do without.Of course, you could argue that immigrants moving from a poor country to a rich one will use more resources once there.
That is technically correct.
But the counterpoint is that richer populations have fewer children, and in the long run that immigrant is going to assimilate.
If not them, then their children.
And part of that assimilation is the reduction in birthrate that comes from living in the developed world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318147</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Zumbs</author>
	<datestamp>1244926260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy.  That reason is overpopulation.  However, no American politician has the guts to touch that topic. It is too closely tied to illegal immigration.</p> </div><p>Overpopulation in North-East US, Western Europe and Japan is not due to immigration. Most of the people living there are breed and born there. The major reason for growing demand for energy is not overpopulation - it is technological development. In the West as well as in the developing world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy .
That reason is overpopulation .
However , no American politician has the guts to touch that topic .
It is too closely tied to illegal immigration .
Overpopulation in North-East US , Western Europe and Japan is not due to immigration .
Most of the people living there are breed and born there .
The major reason for growing demand for energy is not overpopulation - it is technological development .
In the West as well as in the developing world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy.
That reason is overpopulation.
However, no American politician has the guts to touch that topic.
It is too closely tied to illegal immigration.
Overpopulation in North-East US, Western Europe and Japan is not due to immigration.
Most of the people living there are breed and born there.
The major reason for growing demand for energy is not overpopulation - it is technological development.
In the West as well as in the developing world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320065</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244910540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[QUOTE]But we are guarunteed that the cost of wind power plants and solar plants will get cheaper. Its an economic fact.[/QUOTE]</p><p>Er, do you have a source for this "fact"? Yes, generally with more production things will get cheaper, but usually not indefinitely. Moore's law is an exception, not the typical case. It's entirely possible that costs will level out at a value that's still too high to be economically viable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ QUOTE ] But we are guarunteed that the cost of wind power plants and solar plants will get cheaper .
Its an economic fact .
[ /QUOTE ] Er , do you have a source for this " fact " ?
Yes , generally with more production things will get cheaper , but usually not indefinitely .
Moore 's law is an exception , not the typical case .
It 's entirely possible that costs will level out at a value that 's still too high to be economically viable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[QUOTE]But we are guarunteed that the cost of wind power plants and solar plants will get cheaper.
Its an economic fact.
[/QUOTE]Er, do you have a source for this "fact"?
Yes, generally with more production things will get cheaper, but usually not indefinitely.
Moore's law is an exception, not the typical case.
It's entirely possible that costs will level out at a value that's still too high to be economically viable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319097</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1244900040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is exactly the cost of a Chernobyl scale accident? Unless the possibility of such an event is reduced to zero, we should really define this figure, and be prepared to spend it if the need arises.</p></div><p>Yeah, totally. Also, we should calculate the cost of a 100 tom meteorite hitting California. The possibility of that isn't zero, either, so by your wonderful logic, "we should really define this figure, and be prepared to spend it if the need arises."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is exactly the cost of a Chernobyl scale accident ?
Unless the possibility of such an event is reduced to zero , we should really define this figure , and be prepared to spend it if the need arises.Yeah , totally .
Also , we should calculate the cost of a 100 tom meteorite hitting California .
The possibility of that is n't zero , either , so by your wonderful logic , " we should really define this figure , and be prepared to spend it if the need arises .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is exactly the cost of a Chernobyl scale accident?
Unless the possibility of such an event is reduced to zero, we should really define this figure, and be prepared to spend it if the need arises.Yeah, totally.
Also, we should calculate the cost of a 100 tom meteorite hitting California.
The possibility of that isn't zero, either, so by your wonderful logic, "we should really define this figure, and be prepared to spend it if the need arises.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318447</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Jartan</author>
	<datestamp>1244888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But we are guarunteed that the cost of wind power plants and solar plants will get cheaper. Its an economic fact.</p></div></blockquote><p>The cheaper they get the more it will cost to put them somewhere.   There are only so many spots where you can harness natural energy.  Offshore is a good idea but somehow I doubt miles upon miles of turbine wind farm buoys are going to do wonders for marine ecology.</p><p>If you want to convince people these things can work you need to explain where we'll put them all.   Show numbers explaining how we can supply 3x our current power needs 40 years from now without choking the surface of our planet with alternative power generation methods.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But we are guarunteed that the cost of wind power plants and solar plants will get cheaper .
Its an economic fact.The cheaper they get the more it will cost to put them somewhere .
There are only so many spots where you can harness natural energy .
Offshore is a good idea but somehow I doubt miles upon miles of turbine wind farm buoys are going to do wonders for marine ecology.If you want to convince people these things can work you need to explain where we 'll put them all .
Show numbers explaining how we can supply 3x our current power needs 40 years from now without choking the surface of our planet with alternative power generation methods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But we are guarunteed that the cost of wind power plants and solar plants will get cheaper.
Its an economic fact.The cheaper they get the more it will cost to put them somewhere.
There are only so many spots where you can harness natural energy.
Offshore is a good idea but somehow I doubt miles upon miles of turbine wind farm buoys are going to do wonders for marine ecology.If you want to convince people these things can work you need to explain where we'll put them all.
Show numbers explaining how we can supply 3x our current power needs 40 years from now without choking the surface of our planet with alternative power generation methods.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320591</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>alexandre\_ganso</author>
	<datestamp>1244914740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way less than beach buildings as we see in every coast currently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way less than beach buildings as we see in every coast currently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way less than beach buildings as we see in every coast currently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320335</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244912760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy. That reason is overpopulation."</p><p>And the evidence for that is?</p><p>I can understand how a growing population causes growing demand for energy, but there can be overpopulation without a growing population and without growing demand for energy, and there can be a growing population and growing demand for energy without there being overpopulation.</p><p>The point being: it is not self-evident that growing demand for energy is caused by overpopulation, nor is it self-evident that there is overpopulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy .
That reason is overpopulation .
" And the evidence for that is ? I can understand how a growing population causes growing demand for energy , but there can be overpopulation without a growing population and without growing demand for energy , and there can be a growing population and growing demand for energy without there being overpopulation.The point being : it is not self-evident that growing demand for energy is caused by overpopulation , nor is it self-evident that there is overpopulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy.
That reason is overpopulation.
"And the evidence for that is?I can understand how a growing population causes growing demand for energy, but there can be overpopulation without a growing population and without growing demand for energy, and there can be a growing population and growing demand for energy without there being overpopulation.The point being: it is not self-evident that growing demand for energy is caused by overpopulation, nor is it self-evident that there is overpopulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318647</id>
	<title>Re:navigation maps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244892180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Norway. One of the  largest oil exporter in the world.</p><p>All the oil production in Norway done on offshore oil rigs. Objects in the sea is nothing new. You will find Norwegian oil, oil technology, oil tankers, oil supply vessels, and oil related workers all over the world.</p><p>Norway has also been one of the leading shipping nations of the world for hundreds of years or more.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_merchant\_marine\_capacity\_by\_country</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Norway .
One of the largest oil exporter in the world.All the oil production in Norway done on offshore oil rigs .
Objects in the sea is nothing new .
You will find Norwegian oil , oil technology , oil tankers , oil supply vessels , and oil related workers all over the world.Norway has also been one of the leading shipping nations of the world for hundreds of years or more.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _merchant \ _marine \ _capacity \ _by \ _country</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Norway.
One of the  largest oil exporter in the world.All the oil production in Norway done on offshore oil rigs.
Objects in the sea is nothing new.
You will find Norwegian oil, oil technology, oil tankers, oil supply vessels, and oil related workers all over the world.Norway has also been one of the leading shipping nations of the world for hundreds of years or more.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_merchant\_marine\_capacity\_by\_country</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</id>
	<title>Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to a <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/11/opinion/op-chart11" title="latimes.com" rel="nofollow">researcher</a> [latimes.com] at the University of California, solar power, wind power, and nuclear power have the following costs in 2006 and 2016.  The first cost is for 2006.  The second cost is projected for 2016.
<p>
1.  solar power:  more than 20 cents/kwh, 10 to 14 cents/kwh
</p><p>
2.  wind power: 5 to 7 cents/kwh, 3 to 6 cents/kwh
</p><p>
3.  nuclear power:  more than 3 cents/kwh, more than 3 cents/kwh
</p><p>
Here, "wind power" refers to wind turbines on land.  A wind turbine at sea would surely cost more than a land-based one.
</p><p>
In other worse, nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power.
</p><p>
We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy.  That reason is overpopulation.  However, no American politician has the guts to touch that topic.  It is too closely tied to illegal immigration.  When a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/us/bitter-division-for-sierra-club-on-immigration.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">faction </a> [nytimes.com] in the Sierra Club tried to address that issue, the members of that faction were accused of being "racist".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to a researcher [ latimes.com ] at the University of California , solar power , wind power , and nuclear power have the following costs in 2006 and 2016 .
The first cost is for 2006 .
The second cost is projected for 2016 .
1. solar power : more than 20 cents/kwh , 10 to 14 cents/kwh 2. wind power : 5 to 7 cents/kwh , 3 to 6 cents/kwh 3. nuclear power : more than 3 cents/kwh , more than 3 cents/kwh Here , " wind power " refers to wind turbines on land .
A wind turbine at sea would surely cost more than a land-based one .
In other worse , nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power .
We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy .
That reason is overpopulation .
However , no American politician has the guts to touch that topic .
It is too closely tied to illegal immigration .
When a faction [ nytimes.com ] in the Sierra Club tried to address that issue , the members of that faction were accused of being " racist " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to a researcher [latimes.com] at the University of California, solar power, wind power, and nuclear power have the following costs in 2006 and 2016.
The first cost is for 2006.
The second cost is projected for 2016.
1.  solar power:  more than 20 cents/kwh, 10 to 14 cents/kwh

2.  wind power: 5 to 7 cents/kwh, 3 to 6 cents/kwh

3.  nuclear power:  more than 3 cents/kwh, more than 3 cents/kwh

Here, "wind power" refers to wind turbines on land.
A wind turbine at sea would surely cost more than a land-based one.
In other worse, nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power.
We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy.
That reason is overpopulation.
However, no American politician has the guts to touch that topic.
It is too closely tied to illegal immigration.
When a faction  [nytimes.com] in the Sierra Club tried to address that issue, the members of that faction were accused of being "racist".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318991</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244898240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to sound cruel.</p><p>Letting poor people into your rich country is like ordering more poor people to be made.</p><p>Mothers who think that their children will get into a rich country, and send checks back home, will have more children than mothers who know that their children will have to make it in their poor domestic economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to sound cruel.Letting poor people into your rich country is like ordering more poor people to be made.Mothers who think that their children will get into a rich country , and send checks back home , will have more children than mothers who know that their children will have to make it in their poor domestic economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to sound cruel.Letting poor people into your rich country is like ordering more poor people to be made.Mothers who think that their children will get into a rich country, and send checks back home, will have more children than mothers who know that their children will have to make it in their poor domestic economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318281</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>johannesg</author>
	<datestamp>1244885580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other worse, nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power.</p></div><p>The word "best" is not solely defined by price. When you buy a new car, do you always get the cheapest pile of shit you can get your hands on? Or do you look for something with a certain range, speed, capacity, and maintainability, in addition to it being in your budget?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy.  That reason is overpopulation.  However, no American politician has the guts to touch that topic.  It is too closely tied to illegal immigration.  When a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/us/bitter-division-for-sierra-club-on-immigration.html" title="nytimes.com">faction </a> [nytimes.com] in the Sierra Club tried to address that issue, the members of that faction were accused of being "racist".</p></div><p>Sending all the immigrants back just moves the problem of energy generation to another place in the world - but it will still be there, and the ecosystem is a global one.</p><p>Of course, americans use more energy per head of the population than everybody else. Scaling that back a little would be trivial, and wouldn't have any impact on your quality of life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other worse , nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power.The word " best " is not solely defined by price .
When you buy a new car , do you always get the cheapest pile of shit you can get your hands on ?
Or do you look for something with a certain range , speed , capacity , and maintainability , in addition to it being in your budget ? We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy .
That reason is overpopulation .
However , no American politician has the guts to touch that topic .
It is too closely tied to illegal immigration .
When a faction [ nytimes.com ] in the Sierra Club tried to address that issue , the members of that faction were accused of being " racist " .Sending all the immigrants back just moves the problem of energy generation to another place in the world - but it will still be there , and the ecosystem is a global one.Of course , americans use more energy per head of the population than everybody else .
Scaling that back a little would be trivial , and would n't have any impact on your quality of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other worse, nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power.The word "best" is not solely defined by price.
When you buy a new car, do you always get the cheapest pile of shit you can get your hands on?
Or do you look for something with a certain range, speed, capacity, and maintainability, in addition to it being in your budget?We should also address the major reason for the growing demand for energy.
That reason is overpopulation.
However, no American politician has the guts to touch that topic.
It is too closely tied to illegal immigration.
When a faction  [nytimes.com] in the Sierra Club tried to address that issue, the members of that faction were accused of being "racist".Sending all the immigrants back just moves the problem of energy generation to another place in the world - but it will still be there, and the ecosystem is a global one.Of course, americans use more energy per head of the population than everybody else.
Scaling that back a little would be trivial, and wouldn't have any impact on your quality of life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320725</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1244915940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>does that cost include<br>The security cost at the nuclear power plant (zero for wind and solar)<br>The waste disposal costs for nuclear (collosal vs zero for wind and solar)<br>The cleanup and decommissioning costs for nuclear (very very low for wind and solar,, collosal and unknown for nuclear).</p><p>People love to omit those costs, in a blatant attempt to make nuclear look cheap.<br>It isn't.<br>If nuclear was cheap, why did the UK govt have to bail out our nuclear industry with 400 million pounds of tax payer cash a few years ago?<br>Surely those efficient nukes should be rolling in cash right?</p><p>(and that's DESPITE the fact that the UK govt pays all the security, waste and decommissioning costs anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does that cost includeThe security cost at the nuclear power plant ( zero for wind and solar ) The waste disposal costs for nuclear ( collosal vs zero for wind and solar ) The cleanup and decommissioning costs for nuclear ( very very low for wind and solar, , collosal and unknown for nuclear ) .People love to omit those costs , in a blatant attempt to make nuclear look cheap.It is n't.If nuclear was cheap , why did the UK govt have to bail out our nuclear industry with 400 million pounds of tax payer cash a few years ago ? Surely those efficient nukes should be rolling in cash right ?
( and that 's DESPITE the fact that the UK govt pays all the security , waste and decommissioning costs anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does that cost includeThe security cost at the nuclear power plant (zero for wind and solar)The waste disposal costs for nuclear (collosal vs zero for wind and solar)The cleanup and decommissioning costs for nuclear (very very low for wind and solar,, collosal and unknown for nuclear).People love to omit those costs, in a blatant attempt to make nuclear look cheap.It isn't.If nuclear was cheap, why did the UK govt have to bail out our nuclear industry with 400 million pounds of tax payer cash a few years ago?Surely those efficient nukes should be rolling in cash right?
(and that's DESPITE the fact that the UK govt pays all the security, waste and decommissioning costs anyway).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317863</id>
	<title>Always good to see third world getting cheap power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can only help them in one day becoming a citizen on the EU which I hear it is trying to do but have yet to be accepted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can only help them in one day becoming a citizen on the EU which I hear it is trying to do but have yet to be accepted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can only help them in one day becoming a citizen on the EU which I hear it is trying to do but have yet to be accepted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318199</id>
	<title>Cheapest does not equate to 'best'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244883960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you are correct about overpopulation. There is no point reducing consumption per person by 10\% if the population increases by 50\%.</p><p>The scale of nearly every environmental problem we face is directly proportional to the size of the population. Politicians think that the slice of the cake that they will be left with after the profits, driven by those extra workers, have been disproportionately distributed, will be large enough for them to live a good life. They don't care what effect it has on those who will be less well off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you are correct about overpopulation .
There is no point reducing consumption per person by 10 \ % if the population increases by 50 \ % .The scale of nearly every environmental problem we face is directly proportional to the size of the population .
Politicians think that the slice of the cake that they will be left with after the profits , driven by those extra workers , have been disproportionately distributed , will be large enough for them to live a good life .
They do n't care what effect it has on those who will be less well off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you are correct about overpopulation.
There is no point reducing consumption per person by 10\% if the population increases by 50\%.The scale of nearly every environmental problem we face is directly proportional to the size of the population.
Politicians think that the slice of the cake that they will be left with after the profits, driven by those extra workers, have been disproportionately distributed, will be large enough for them to live a good life.
They don't care what effect it has on those who will be less well off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28334317</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>shplorb</author>
	<datestamp>1245076140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nevermind the premier of SA Mike Rann, who took the Commonwealth to court over the decision to site the repository in SA and won... it was all the fault of John Howard!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nevermind the premier of SA Mike Rann , who took the Commonwealth to court over the decision to site the repository in SA and won... it was all the fault of John Howard !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nevermind the premier of SA Mike Rann, who took the Commonwealth to court over the decision to site the repository in SA and won... it was all the fault of John Howard!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28325385</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244973900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>In what way does illegal immigration have anything to do with overpopulation?<br><br>In case you didn't notice, the *world* population stays exactly the same when an illegal immigrant comes here.&nbsp; And it is the *world* population that is causing the environmental damage, which no matter where it happens, affects the whole world.<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>In what way does illegal immigration have anything to do with overpopulation ? In case you did n't notice , the * world * population stays exactly the same when an illegal immigrant comes here.   And it is the * world * population that is causing the environmental damage , which no matter where it happens , affects the whole world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what way does illegal immigration have anything to do with overpopulation?In case you didn't notice, the *world* population stays exactly the same when an illegal immigrant comes here.  And it is the *world* population that is causing the environmental damage, which no matter where it happens, affects the whole world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318703</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1244893200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why haven't we found a way to capture energy from the radioactive waste and convert it to power?</p><p>Also: I'm going to keep saying it - combine wind and solar. We have technology available that could be adapted into a hybrid wind/solar installation, a wind turbine coated with thin-film solar panels would harness loads more energy in pretty much the same footprint. In Southern California, there's a wind farm just down the I-10 that would benefit greatly from this idea because of the location, up high with no obstructions, and lots and lots of sunlight. So much potential energy gathering capability gone totally unused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why have n't we found a way to capture energy from the radioactive waste and convert it to power ? Also : I 'm going to keep saying it - combine wind and solar .
We have technology available that could be adapted into a hybrid wind/solar installation , a wind turbine coated with thin-film solar panels would harness loads more energy in pretty much the same footprint .
In Southern California , there 's a wind farm just down the I-10 that would benefit greatly from this idea because of the location , up high with no obstructions , and lots and lots of sunlight .
So much potential energy gathering capability gone totally unused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why haven't we found a way to capture energy from the radioactive waste and convert it to power?Also: I'm going to keep saying it - combine wind and solar.
We have technology available that could be adapted into a hybrid wind/solar installation, a wind turbine coated with thin-film solar panels would harness loads more energy in pretty much the same footprint.
In Southern California, there's a wind farm just down the I-10 that would benefit greatly from this idea because of the location, up high with no obstructions, and lots and lots of sunlight.
So much potential energy gathering capability gone totally unused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319037</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>cca93014</author>
	<datestamp>1244899020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In other worse, nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power.</p></div> </blockquote><p>We don't necessarily need to improve the efficiency of wind or solar, we can improve the cost instead...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other worse , nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power .
We do n't necessarily need to improve the efficiency of wind or solar , we can improve the cost instead.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other worse, nuclear power is still the best solution until we can significantly improve the efficiency of generating solar power and wind power.
We don't necessarily need to improve the efficiency of wind or solar, we can improve the cost instead...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28326235</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244991120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Craploads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... A backpack of Uranium is equivalent to a tanker load of oil. (The floating kind)<br>All the radioactive waste ever created in the US could fit in one football field waist high.<br><br>Flyash one of the resultants of burning coal is toxic now, and will be for ever. There is no half life.<br>yet we produce it, and dump it. We create MEGAtonnes of it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 1KG of Coal produced 2KG of CO2 and 0.7KG of flyash.<br>Can you imagine replacing 500 tonnes of coal that you will use in a lifetime with a cup of uranium ?<br>(If we are allowed to reprocess, make that a thimble)<br><br>Then there is CO2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... aaaa, don't worry about that.<br><br>Basically there is a theory that most cancers are because of our dirty energy.<br>There's scaremongering for you.<br><br>I could keep going, but nuclear is the only technological solution that works now.<br><br>It produces "NO" emissions. A tiny amount of radioactive polutant which is less than the radioactive<br>pollutants coal burning produces but we store that in the atmosphere and hide it amongst the flyash,<br>and the other heavy metals.<br><br>Ignorant greenies are the second worst enemy of the environment. The worst are the corrporations who are laughting their heads off for getting the greenies to do their dirty work<br><br>Anyway, let's stop actual solutions  and make us feel warm an fuzzy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<br><br>To think that nuclear power could green every desert and eradicate world hunger.<br><br>The reality is that it is happening now, so there is no stopping it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Craploads ... A backpack of Uranium is equivalent to a tanker load of oil .
( The floating kind ) All the radioactive waste ever created in the US could fit in one football field waist high.Flyash one of the resultants of burning coal is toxic now , and will be for ever .
There is no half life.yet we produce it , and dump it .
We create MEGAtonnes of it ... 1KG of Coal produced 2KG of CO2 and 0.7KG of flyash.Can you imagine replacing 500 tonnes of coal that you will use in a lifetime with a cup of uranium ?
( If we are allowed to reprocess , make that a thimble ) Then there is CO2 ... aaaa , do n't worry about that.Basically there is a theory that most cancers are because of our dirty energy.There 's scaremongering for you.I could keep going , but nuclear is the only technological solution that works now.It produces " NO " emissions .
A tiny amount of radioactive polutant which is less than the radioactivepollutants coal burning produces but we store that in the atmosphere and hide it amongst the flyash,and the other heavy metals.Ignorant greenies are the second worst enemy of the environment .
The worst are the corrporations who are laughting their heads off for getting the greenies to do their dirty workAnyway , let 's stop actual solutions and make us feel warm an fuzzy ..To think that nuclear power could green every desert and eradicate world hunger.The reality is that it is happening now , so there is no stopping it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Craploads ... A backpack of Uranium is equivalent to a tanker load of oil.
(The floating kind)All the radioactive waste ever created in the US could fit in one football field waist high.Flyash one of the resultants of burning coal is toxic now, and will be for ever.
There is no half life.yet we produce it, and dump it.
We create MEGAtonnes of it ... 1KG of Coal produced 2KG of CO2 and 0.7KG of flyash.Can you imagine replacing 500 tonnes of coal that you will use in a lifetime with a cup of uranium ?
(If we are allowed to reprocess, make that a thimble)Then there is CO2 ... aaaa, don't worry about that.Basically there is a theory that most cancers are because of our dirty energy.There's scaremongering for you.I could keep going, but nuclear is the only technological solution that works now.It produces "NO" emissions.
A tiny amount of radioactive polutant which is less than the radioactivepollutants coal burning produces but we store that in the atmosphere and hide it amongst the flyash,and the other heavy metals.Ignorant greenies are the second worst enemy of the environment.
The worst are the corrporations who are laughting their heads off for getting the greenies to do their dirty workAnyway, let's stop actual solutions  and make us feel warm an fuzzy ..To think that nuclear power could green every desert and eradicate world hunger.The reality is that it is happening now, so there is no stopping it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321785</id>
	<title>Re:navigation maps</title>
	<author>meyekul</author>
	<datestamp>1244924400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would be a nightmare for a captain to meet such things in high seas.</p></div><p>Someone had better warn Capt. Don Quixote immediately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be a nightmare for a captain to meet such things in high seas.Someone had better warn Capt .
Don Quixote immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be a nightmare for a captain to meet such things in high seas.Someone had better warn Capt.
Don Quixote immediately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320009</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244910000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A person moving from place A to place B does not increase the net population of AB, but does make their negative impact on the environment B's problem. So the attitude of "if we curb immigration, we reduce pollution" omits the reality that pollution does not obey national borders.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Except that if B's way of living is much more polluting per person than A's, then moving from A to B <i>does</i> increase pollution. Perhaps people dimly recognize that other countries manage to produce less pollution per person than the USA?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A person moving from place A to place B does not increase the net population of AB , but does make their negative impact on the environment B 's problem .
So the attitude of " if we curb immigration , we reduce pollution " omits the reality that pollution does not obey national borders .
Except that if B 's way of living is much more polluting per person than A 's , then moving from A to B does increase pollution .
Perhaps people dimly recognize that other countries manage to produce less pollution per person than the USA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A person moving from place A to place B does not increase the net population of AB, but does make their negative impact on the environment B's problem.
So the attitude of "if we curb immigration, we reduce pollution" omits the reality that pollution does not obey national borders.
Except that if B's way of living is much more polluting per person than A's, then moving from A to B does increase pollution.
Perhaps people dimly recognize that other countries manage to produce less pollution per person than the USA?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean other than the fact that they're like 100x more expensive than nuclear?</p><p>I'm an Australian.. we have <a href="http://www.ansto.gov.au/discovering\_ansto/anstos\_research\_reactor" title="ansto.gov.au">one experimental nuclear reactor</a> [ansto.gov.au], 20 MW.  It uses about 30 kg of uranium a year.  It's used for research.. but not into power reactors.  The majority of Australians are afraid of nuclear power.  If you ask people on the street why they don't want nuclear power, they'll all say the same, we don't want to have to deal with the nuclear waste.  Of course, this doesn't stop us from selling shitloads of uranium.  The international community has threatened to prohibit the sale of Australian uranium because we don't store the spent rods, but we do reprocess them.  This has non-proliferation consequences.  That threat prompted the <a href="http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/radioactive\_waste/waste\_mgt\_in\_aust/Pages/NationalStoreProject.aspx" title="ret.gov.au">National Repository/Store Project</a> [ret.gov.au].. but in 2004 Scrooge McJohnny Howard killed that as he did to every other infrastructure project.</p><p>Nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological responsible power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean other than the fact that they 're like 100x more expensive than nuclear ? I 'm an Australian.. we have one experimental nuclear reactor [ ansto.gov.au ] , 20 MW .
It uses about 30 kg of uranium a year .
It 's used for research.. but not into power reactors .
The majority of Australians are afraid of nuclear power .
If you ask people on the street why they do n't want nuclear power , they 'll all say the same , we do n't want to have to deal with the nuclear waste .
Of course , this does n't stop us from selling shitloads of uranium .
The international community has threatened to prohibit the sale of Australian uranium because we do n't store the spent rods , but we do reprocess them .
This has non-proliferation consequences .
That threat prompted the National Repository/Store Project [ ret.gov.au ] .. but in 2004 Scrooge McJohnny Howard killed that as he did to every other infrastructure project.Nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological responsible power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean other than the fact that they're like 100x more expensive than nuclear?I'm an Australian.. we have one experimental nuclear reactor [ansto.gov.au], 20 MW.
It uses about 30 kg of uranium a year.
It's used for research.. but not into power reactors.
The majority of Australians are afraid of nuclear power.
If you ask people on the street why they don't want nuclear power, they'll all say the same, we don't want to have to deal with the nuclear waste.
Of course, this doesn't stop us from selling shitloads of uranium.
The international community has threatened to prohibit the sale of Australian uranium because we don't store the spent rods, but we do reprocess them.
This has non-proliferation consequences.
That threat prompted the National Repository/Store Project [ret.gov.au].. but in 2004 Scrooge McJohnny Howard killed that as he did to every other infrastructure project.Nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological responsible power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317709</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>RsG</author>
	<datestamp>1244832960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, too many could be a hazard to navigation, plus there's the whole cost-benefit business, and the high maintenance costs associated with anything left in saltwater.  But I'm inclined to think such an energy solution is probably worth using where available - it certainly offers an answer to the question of where we're going to fit enough windmills to be useful. This is a problem that all forms of passive energy collection suffer from to some degree.</p><p>That being said, I could put your question back at you.  Can you give me a credible reason not to build nuclear power plants?  And don't just trot out Chernobyl or waste issues without elaborating - show some depth in your reasoning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , too many could be a hazard to navigation , plus there 's the whole cost-benefit business , and the high maintenance costs associated with anything left in saltwater .
But I 'm inclined to think such an energy solution is probably worth using where available - it certainly offers an answer to the question of where we 're going to fit enough windmills to be useful .
This is a problem that all forms of passive energy collection suffer from to some degree.That being said , I could put your question back at you .
Can you give me a credible reason not to build nuclear power plants ?
And do n't just trot out Chernobyl or waste issues without elaborating - show some depth in your reasoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, too many could be a hazard to navigation, plus there's the whole cost-benefit business, and the high maintenance costs associated with anything left in saltwater.
But I'm inclined to think such an energy solution is probably worth using where available - it certainly offers an answer to the question of where we're going to fit enough windmills to be useful.
This is a problem that all forms of passive energy collection suffer from to some degree.That being said, I could put your question back at you.
Can you give me a credible reason not to build nuclear power plants?
And don't just trot out Chernobyl or waste issues without elaborating - show some depth in your reasoning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317805</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Quothz</author>
	<datestamp>1244834280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can someone provide me with a credible reason why we shouldn't stack these things on every coast in the world to provide nations with clean electricity? Or is nuclear power still too sexy to give up?</p></div><p>Because we don't yet fully understand our atmosphere. How will this impact air currents? Will that alter climates? We don't know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone provide me with a credible reason why we should n't stack these things on every coast in the world to provide nations with clean electricity ?
Or is nuclear power still too sexy to give up ? Because we do n't yet fully understand our atmosphere .
How will this impact air currents ?
Will that alter climates ?
We do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone provide me with a credible reason why we shouldn't stack these things on every coast in the world to provide nations with clean electricity?
Or is nuclear power still too sexy to give up?Because we don't yet fully understand our atmosphere.
How will this impact air currents?
Will that alter climates?
We don't know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28331153</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Jartan</author>
	<datestamp>1244993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That looks like a slide-show showing how we can augment our current power generation methods with solar power?</p><p>The map on page 15 is interesting though.  The problem is it looks pretty optimistic.  How much of the real spots chosen would be farmland?  How much farmland do we already need to return to wilderness by moving to hydroponic farming?</p><p>How much more energy will we need when we have to power the lights for those hydroponic farms?  The greenhouse effect isn't the ONLY problem we need to solve here.  That kind of thinking will just lead to a new ecological disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That looks like a slide-show showing how we can augment our current power generation methods with solar power ? The map on page 15 is interesting though .
The problem is it looks pretty optimistic .
How much of the real spots chosen would be farmland ?
How much farmland do we already need to return to wilderness by moving to hydroponic farming ? How much more energy will we need when we have to power the lights for those hydroponic farms ?
The greenhouse effect is n't the ONLY problem we need to solve here .
That kind of thinking will just lead to a new ecological disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That looks like a slide-show showing how we can augment our current power generation methods with solar power?The map on page 15 is interesting though.
The problem is it looks pretty optimistic.
How much of the real spots chosen would be farmland?
How much farmland do we already need to return to wilderness by moving to hydroponic farming?How much more energy will we need when we have to power the lights for those hydroponic farms?
The greenhouse effect isn't the ONLY problem we need to solve here.
That kind of thinking will just lead to a new ecological disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319245</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1244901960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A wind turbine at sea would surely cost more than a land-based one.</p> </div><p>Is that true per kilowatt-hour?  Seems to me that ones on sea should get more wind, more consistently.  Is that not enough to offset the increased costs?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A wind turbine at sea would surely cost more than a land-based one .
Is that true per kilowatt-hour ?
Seems to me that ones on sea should get more wind , more consistently .
Is that not enough to offset the increased costs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A wind turbine at sea would surely cost more than a land-based one.
Is that true per kilowatt-hour?
Seems to me that ones on sea should get more wind, more consistently.
Is that not enough to offset the increased costs?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319129</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1244900460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/2962283/Richard-Smalleys-energy-talk" title="scribd.com">Here</a> [scribd.com] in page 15. You can see the amount of land area solar power would require for generating our requirements for the next couple of decades. Only problem is, it is still too expensive to build it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ scribd.com ] in page 15 .
You can see the amount of land area solar power would require for generating our requirements for the next couple of decades .
Only problem is , it is still too expensive to build it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here [scribd.com] in page 15.
You can see the amount of land area solar power would require for generating our requirements for the next couple of decades.
Only problem is, it is still too expensive to build it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319509</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Fian</author>
	<datestamp>1244904780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>interesting that you consider the price of the produced electricity as the measure of what is best...do these figures include the impact on the environment? the exposure to the public to potentially dangerous wastes? please don't use money as the *only* metric to measure by thats how we end up in energy and environmental crisis</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>interesting that you consider the price of the produced electricity as the measure of what is best...do these figures include the impact on the environment ?
the exposure to the public to potentially dangerous wastes ?
please do n't use money as the * only * metric to measure by thats how we end up in energy and environmental crisis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>interesting that you consider the price of the produced electricity as the measure of what is best...do these figures include the impact on the environment?
the exposure to the public to potentially dangerous wastes?
please don't use money as the *only* metric to measure by thats how we end up in energy and environmental crisis</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317857</id>
	<title>Consequences for long-term Earth settlement</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1244835480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the very long-term (barring global catastrophes) humanity will have to start to settle the oceans, and this experiment will give us information as to how we might be able to do that in the far future.</p><p>I've always been fascinated if it might be practical to build a floating ocean settlement which could also submerge to a relatively shallow depth for relatively short periods to avoid the dangers of ocean storms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the very long-term ( barring global catastrophes ) humanity will have to start to settle the oceans , and this experiment will give us information as to how we might be able to do that in the far future.I 've always been fascinated if it might be practical to build a floating ocean settlement which could also submerge to a relatively shallow depth for relatively short periods to avoid the dangers of ocean storms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the very long-term (barring global catastrophes) humanity will have to start to settle the oceans, and this experiment will give us information as to how we might be able to do that in the far future.I've always been fascinated if it might be practical to build a floating ocean settlement which could also submerge to a relatively shallow depth for relatively short periods to avoid the dangers of ocean storms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319365</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244903400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>More modern reactor designs are not only safer than the old designs currently in use, they can actually burn up older "waste", meaning that new reactors could possibly help <i>solve</i> the waste problem we already have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More modern reactor designs are not only safer than the old designs currently in use , they can actually burn up older " waste " , meaning that new reactors could possibly help solve the waste problem we already have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More modern reactor designs are not only safer than the old designs currently in use, they can actually burn up older "waste", meaning that new reactors could possibly help solve the waste problem we already have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322147</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1244884860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to be considering that cost is the *only* criteria for judging the desirability of a power source.  You've made an argument that nuclear power is probably going to be slightly cheaper.  (Not grossly cheaper.)  To me it's close enough that other considerations are quite able to decide the issue.</p><p>OTOH, I'm not certain that this will be as expensive as you claim.  And yet again, it comes with the problem of how to have a power storage facility for when the wind isn't blowing.  How much do you need?  How much would it cost?  Etc.  And what happens to the transmission costs?  Nuclear plants are located a long way from most of the potential users of the power.  That means long transmission lines, and extensive line losses.  How about off-shore wind turbines?  They can be located relatively close to most of their users, but the transmission is via cables that run through or over sea water.  What losses does that cause?  ("Purchasing the site", however, should be almost cost free, once the government straightens out the handling of the paperwork.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be considering that cost is the * only * criteria for judging the desirability of a power source .
You 've made an argument that nuclear power is probably going to be slightly cheaper .
( Not grossly cheaper .
) To me it 's close enough that other considerations are quite able to decide the issue.OTOH , I 'm not certain that this will be as expensive as you claim .
And yet again , it comes with the problem of how to have a power storage facility for when the wind is n't blowing .
How much do you need ?
How much would it cost ?
Etc. And what happens to the transmission costs ?
Nuclear plants are located a long way from most of the potential users of the power .
That means long transmission lines , and extensive line losses .
How about off-shore wind turbines ?
They can be located relatively close to most of their users , but the transmission is via cables that run through or over sea water .
What losses does that cause ?
( " Purchasing the site " , however , should be almost cost free , once the government straightens out the handling of the paperwork .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be considering that cost is the *only* criteria for judging the desirability of a power source.
You've made an argument that nuclear power is probably going to be slightly cheaper.
(Not grossly cheaper.
)  To me it's close enough that other considerations are quite able to decide the issue.OTOH, I'm not certain that this will be as expensive as you claim.
And yet again, it comes with the problem of how to have a power storage facility for when the wind isn't blowing.
How much do you need?
How much would it cost?
Etc.  And what happens to the transmission costs?
Nuclear plants are located a long way from most of the potential users of the power.
That means long transmission lines, and extensive line losses.
How about off-shore wind turbines?
They can be located relatively close to most of their users, but the transmission is via cables that run through or over sea water.
What losses does that cause?
("Purchasing the site", however, should be almost cost free, once the government straightens out the handling of the paperwork.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317915</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me...</title>
	<author>davidphogan74</author>
	<datestamp>1244836680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But if Sweden did it they'd be copying something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if Sweden did it they 'd be copying something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if Sweden did it they'd be copying something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317847</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Sundo</author>
	<datestamp>1244835360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You mean other than the fact that they're like 100x more expensive than nuclear?</p></div><p>Building a single windmill prototype like that and sticking it alone in the ocean (with a 10 kilometer power cable) is bound to be lot more expensive per MW than building a whole farm of them. The original article also does not specify how much of that money went into development and how much went to actually building the turbine. The cost should come down quite significantly if that thing actually works as advertized and they start building them by dozens.</p><p>Your claim that nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological power is either pure trolling or rather incredible stupidity and ignorance. I agree that it's propably the best current short term option, but it definitely isn't the only or best one in long term.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean other than the fact that they 're like 100x more expensive than nuclear ? Building a single windmill prototype like that and sticking it alone in the ocean ( with a 10 kilometer power cable ) is bound to be lot more expensive per MW than building a whole farm of them .
The original article also does not specify how much of that money went into development and how much went to actually building the turbine .
The cost should come down quite significantly if that thing actually works as advertized and they start building them by dozens.Your claim that nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological power is either pure trolling or rather incredible stupidity and ignorance .
I agree that it 's propably the best current short term option , but it definitely is n't the only or best one in long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean other than the fact that they're like 100x more expensive than nuclear?Building a single windmill prototype like that and sticking it alone in the ocean (with a 10 kilometer power cable) is bound to be lot more expensive per MW than building a whole farm of them.
The original article also does not specify how much of that money went into development and how much went to actually building the turbine.
The cost should come down quite significantly if that thing actually works as advertized and they start building them by dozens.Your claim that nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological power is either pure trolling or rather incredible stupidity and ignorance.
I agree that it's propably the best current short term option, but it definitely isn't the only or best one in long term.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1244924760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Nuclear power is the only option for affordable and ecologically responsible power</p></div><p>The only reason nuclear power is cheap is the bajillions the governments poured into researching the best way to make fuel for bombs. If a tenth of that had been spent researching solar power, then solar power would be cheap.
</p><p>
Nuclear waste, btw, really isn't all that eco-friendly. The waste is only one problem, and today this particular problem is not solved, but the solution has been postponed. Maybe someday we will be able to safely turn nuclear waste into car tires or something. Or maybe we'll never come up with a better idea than burying it. No one can say. But we are guarunteed that the cost of wind power plants and solar plants will get cheaper. Its an economic fact. But only if we embrace and develop and use the technology.  This is how nuclear power got cheap (ignoring the expensive educations needed for nuclear engineers... those costs only go up over time).
</p><p>No, the only ecologically responsible choice is just about anything but nuclear. And "affordable" is always a relative term. What made nuclear power affordable can be applied to any new energy technology. Take your pick, and pour equal resources into developing it and costs will look better for most of the alternatives because they're all much simpler, easier to understand, and will be to build and maintain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power is the only option for affordable and ecologically responsible powerThe only reason nuclear power is cheap is the bajillions the governments poured into researching the best way to make fuel for bombs .
If a tenth of that had been spent researching solar power , then solar power would be cheap .
Nuclear waste , btw , really is n't all that eco-friendly .
The waste is only one problem , and today this particular problem is not solved , but the solution has been postponed .
Maybe someday we will be able to safely turn nuclear waste into car tires or something .
Or maybe we 'll never come up with a better idea than burying it .
No one can say .
But we are guarunteed that the cost of wind power plants and solar plants will get cheaper .
Its an economic fact .
But only if we embrace and develop and use the technology .
This is how nuclear power got cheap ( ignoring the expensive educations needed for nuclear engineers... those costs only go up over time ) .
No , the only ecologically responsible choice is just about anything but nuclear .
And " affordable " is always a relative term .
What made nuclear power affordable can be applied to any new energy technology .
Take your pick , and pour equal resources into developing it and costs will look better for most of the alternatives because they 're all much simpler , easier to understand , and will be to build and maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Nuclear power is the only option for affordable and ecologically responsible powerThe only reason nuclear power is cheap is the bajillions the governments poured into researching the best way to make fuel for bombs.
If a tenth of that had been spent researching solar power, then solar power would be cheap.
Nuclear waste, btw, really isn't all that eco-friendly.
The waste is only one problem, and today this particular problem is not solved, but the solution has been postponed.
Maybe someday we will be able to safely turn nuclear waste into car tires or something.
Or maybe we'll never come up with a better idea than burying it.
No one can say.
But we are guarunteed that the cost of wind power plants and solar plants will get cheaper.
Its an economic fact.
But only if we embrace and develop and use the technology.
This is how nuclear power got cheap (ignoring the expensive educations needed for nuclear engineers... those costs only go up over time).
No, the only ecologically responsible choice is just about anything but nuclear.
And "affordable" is always a relative term.
What made nuclear power affordable can be applied to any new energy technology.
Take your pick, and pour equal resources into developing it and costs will look better for most of the alternatives because they're all much simpler, easier to understand, and will be to build and maintain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317995</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244924220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's used for research.."</p><p>It's major role is for the production of short half-life medical isotopes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's used for research.. " It 's major role is for the production of short half-life medical isotopes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's used for research.."It's major role is for the production of short half-life medical isotopes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321755</id>
	<title>Re:navigation maps</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1244924160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm a retard, but aren't there these things in the oceans called "ships?" Since ships are currently well-capable of avoiding collisions with other (moving) ships, I'd imagine that ships would avoid collisions with this stationary platform in a similar manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm a retard , but are n't there these things in the oceans called " ships ?
" Since ships are currently well-capable of avoiding collisions with other ( moving ) ships , I 'd imagine that ships would avoid collisions with this stationary platform in a similar manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm a retard, but aren't there these things in the oceans called "ships?
" Since ships are currently well-capable of avoiding collisions with other (moving) ships, I'd imagine that ships would avoid collisions with this stationary platform in a similar manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320911</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1244917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tsjernobyl happened because they didn't follow the specs. It was never made to last as long as it did before the accident happened.</p><p>Always RTFM!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tsjernobyl happened because they did n't follow the specs .
It was never made to last as long as it did before the accident happened.Always RTFM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tsjernobyl happened because they didn't follow the specs.
It was never made to last as long as it did before the accident happened.Always RTFM!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321791</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244924460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now here's an idea, why not build the nuclear powerplants out at sea? Nuclear submarines are a proven technology to some degree. Why not get rid of the weapons and propulsion stuff, moor them to the bottom of the sea, and then put generators in there and run power lines from them?</p><p>The extra room from getting rid of the weapons/propulsion could be for more maintenance stuff and things like food for the crew. By staying below water, they avoid all the bad weather and potential security risk, and would only need to surface for crew turnover or resupplying of stores. Also by staying underwater, you limit the risk of any accidents and that the water itself is a form of natural nuclear shielding. (Provided there's no debis field floating around, the radiation won't be able to get very far.)</p><p>Staffing shouldn't be too hard either. Everything that was needed for the engineering side of navy nuclear subs would apply. I'm sure there's a certain population of navy vets that would have no problems operating such constructs by using everything they already know. Just make the pay good enough, and the living conditions a little better, from being on subs they're already used to being away for months - so getting people to take up that job shouldn't be a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now here 's an idea , why not build the nuclear powerplants out at sea ?
Nuclear submarines are a proven technology to some degree .
Why not get rid of the weapons and propulsion stuff , moor them to the bottom of the sea , and then put generators in there and run power lines from them ? The extra room from getting rid of the weapons/propulsion could be for more maintenance stuff and things like food for the crew .
By staying below water , they avoid all the bad weather and potential security risk , and would only need to surface for crew turnover or resupplying of stores .
Also by staying underwater , you limit the risk of any accidents and that the water itself is a form of natural nuclear shielding .
( Provided there 's no debis field floating around , the radiation wo n't be able to get very far .
) Staffing should n't be too hard either .
Everything that was needed for the engineering side of navy nuclear subs would apply .
I 'm sure there 's a certain population of navy vets that would have no problems operating such constructs by using everything they already know .
Just make the pay good enough , and the living conditions a little better , from being on subs they 're already used to being away for months - so getting people to take up that job should n't be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now here's an idea, why not build the nuclear powerplants out at sea?
Nuclear submarines are a proven technology to some degree.
Why not get rid of the weapons and propulsion stuff, moor them to the bottom of the sea, and then put generators in there and run power lines from them?The extra room from getting rid of the weapons/propulsion could be for more maintenance stuff and things like food for the crew.
By staying below water, they avoid all the bad weather and potential security risk, and would only need to surface for crew turnover or resupplying of stores.
Also by staying underwater, you limit the risk of any accidents and that the water itself is a form of natural nuclear shielding.
(Provided there's no debis field floating around, the radiation won't be able to get very far.
)Staffing shouldn't be too hard either.
Everything that was needed for the engineering side of navy nuclear subs would apply.
I'm sure there's a certain population of navy vets that would have no problems operating such constructs by using everything they already know.
Just make the pay good enough, and the living conditions a little better, from being on subs they're already used to being away for months - so getting people to take up that job shouldn't be a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321133</id>
	<title>Terrestrial nuclear - higher risk to reward ?</title>
	<author>mrflash818</author>
	<datestamp>1244919000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we disregard that terrestrial nuclear fuel is a finite resource, like petrol based fuel, there is also the risk/reward.</p><p>Already had "Three Mile Island" and "Chernobyl".</p><p>Lets see for solar: hm, perhaps some eyestrain from getting reflected sunlight in the eye?<br>Lets see for wind: being struck by a fan blade if one self-destructs?</p><p>And actually, I am quite the advocate of nuclear power: Fusion power. Big 'ol billions of years reliable nuclear fusion power plant running 100\% output safely, and we orbit it constantly. Free for the harvesting, once we create enough solar panels, wind turbines, and such to capture its output.</p><p>I think the argument on financial costs is a fair one, but society also once decided that removing lead from gasoline was worth the higher cost, as well as putting catalytic converters on cars. Maybe not the greatest analogy, but seems to fit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we disregard that terrestrial nuclear fuel is a finite resource , like petrol based fuel , there is also the risk/reward.Already had " Three Mile Island " and " Chernobyl " .Lets see for solar : hm , perhaps some eyestrain from getting reflected sunlight in the eye ? Lets see for wind : being struck by a fan blade if one self-destructs ? And actually , I am quite the advocate of nuclear power : Fusion power .
Big 'ol billions of years reliable nuclear fusion power plant running 100 \ % output safely , and we orbit it constantly .
Free for the harvesting , once we create enough solar panels , wind turbines , and such to capture its output.I think the argument on financial costs is a fair one , but society also once decided that removing lead from gasoline was worth the higher cost , as well as putting catalytic converters on cars .
Maybe not the greatest analogy , but seems to fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we disregard that terrestrial nuclear fuel is a finite resource, like petrol based fuel, there is also the risk/reward.Already had "Three Mile Island" and "Chernobyl".Lets see for solar: hm, perhaps some eyestrain from getting reflected sunlight in the eye?Lets see for wind: being struck by a fan blade if one self-destructs?And actually, I am quite the advocate of nuclear power: Fusion power.
Big 'ol billions of years reliable nuclear fusion power plant running 100\% output safely, and we orbit it constantly.
Free for the harvesting, once we create enough solar panels, wind turbines, and such to capture its output.I think the argument on financial costs is a fair one, but society also once decided that removing lead from gasoline was worth the higher cost, as well as putting catalytic converters on cars.
Maybe not the greatest analogy, but seems to fit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322261</id>
	<title>Re:navigation maps</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1244885880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder about the power transmission line.  It would be a lot less visible than the turbine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder about the power transmission line .
It would be a lot less visible than the turbine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder about the power transmission line.
It would be a lot less visible than the turbine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318071</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1244925300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is exactly the cost of a Chernobyl scale accident? Unless the possibility of such an event is reduced to zero, we should really define this figure, and be prepared to spend it if the need arises.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is exactly the cost of a Chernobyl scale accident ?
Unless the possibility of such an event is reduced to zero , we should really define this figure , and be prepared to spend it if the need arises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is exactly the cost of a Chernobyl scale accident?
Unless the possibility of such an event is reduced to zero, we should really define this figure, and be prepared to spend it if the need arises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318301</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Björn</author>
	<datestamp>1244886000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but it definitely isn't the only or best one in long term.</p></div><p>Unless we go with breeder reactors, I don't even think you can call it a long term option since there is a limited amount of uranium.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but it definitely is n't the only or best one in long term.Unless we go with breeder reactors , I do n't even think you can call it a long term option since there is a limited amount of uranium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it definitely isn't the only or best one in long term.Unless we go with breeder reactors, I don't even think you can call it a long term option since there is a limited amount of uranium.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28325541</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244977200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sending all the immigrants back just moves the problem of energy generation to another place in the world - but it will still be there, and the ecosystem is a global one.</p></div><p>You missed the point; which is that immigrants from poor nations tend to have as many children as they would have had if they remained in the poor nation, but they live much closer to the standard of living (and thus energy consumption) of the new nation they reside in.  This is often driven by religion, the idea of having a large number of offspring who can send money back to the remaining family in the original country, or a simple lack of education.  This is obvious to anyone living near immigrant populations from many less-developed countries, yet bringing it up is super-taboo.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, americans use more energy per head of the population than everybody else.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_energy\_consumption\_per\_capita" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Ninth</a> [wikipedia.org].  Not that that is something to be proud of, but it's hard to trust what you say when you either willfully exaggerate or fail to look up simple facts.  <a href="http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-668.html" title="wri.org" rel="nofollow">Energy per GDP</a> [wri.org] is another way of looking at things that rewards productivity and wealth creation rather than the number of near-starving people a state can maintain.</p><p>I'd also like to point out that your last two points are contradictory.  You claim that sending immigrants back to a country moves the same problem somewhere else, yet you then claim that people living in different countries use different amounts of energy.  Both cannot be true.</p><p>Finally, we're not trying to exterminate people, send them back, or ban them from the country.  All we want is education and empowerment of women, reform of religious doctrines that are decidedly "viral" in nature, and an end to government bonuses that *encourage* having too many children.  As soon as women no longer feel obligated to have 4+ children, or that they must guarantee male heirs, then we'll be in much better shape.</p><p>Once the population is stabilized, *then* consumption will be the most important thing to tackle.  The most efficient large developed nations are no better than 50\% less energy than the US per capita or GDP; While that may seem like a lot, if the population keeps doubling every generation you've only staved off calamity by about 30 years.  If the population is stable however, that 50\% is something you get to keep indefinitely.  Eventually both problems need to be addressed (along with power generation), but it is pure folly to think that percentage adjustments to consumption alone are enough to solve the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sending all the immigrants back just moves the problem of energy generation to another place in the world - but it will still be there , and the ecosystem is a global one.You missed the point ; which is that immigrants from poor nations tend to have as many children as they would have had if they remained in the poor nation , but they live much closer to the standard of living ( and thus energy consumption ) of the new nation they reside in .
This is often driven by religion , the idea of having a large number of offspring who can send money back to the remaining family in the original country , or a simple lack of education .
This is obvious to anyone living near immigrant populations from many less-developed countries , yet bringing it up is super-taboo.Of course , americans use more energy per head of the population than everybody else .
Ninth [ wikipedia.org ] .
Not that that is something to be proud of , but it 's hard to trust what you say when you either willfully exaggerate or fail to look up simple facts .
Energy per GDP [ wri.org ] is another way of looking at things that rewards productivity and wealth creation rather than the number of near-starving people a state can maintain.I 'd also like to point out that your last two points are contradictory .
You claim that sending immigrants back to a country moves the same problem somewhere else , yet you then claim that people living in different countries use different amounts of energy .
Both can not be true.Finally , we 're not trying to exterminate people , send them back , or ban them from the country .
All we want is education and empowerment of women , reform of religious doctrines that are decidedly " viral " in nature , and an end to government bonuses that * encourage * having too many children .
As soon as women no longer feel obligated to have 4 + children , or that they must guarantee male heirs , then we 'll be in much better shape.Once the population is stabilized , * then * consumption will be the most important thing to tackle .
The most efficient large developed nations are no better than 50 \ % less energy than the US per capita or GDP ; While that may seem like a lot , if the population keeps doubling every generation you 've only staved off calamity by about 30 years .
If the population is stable however , that 50 \ % is something you get to keep indefinitely .
Eventually both problems need to be addressed ( along with power generation ) , but it is pure folly to think that percentage adjustments to consumption alone are enough to solve the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sending all the immigrants back just moves the problem of energy generation to another place in the world - but it will still be there, and the ecosystem is a global one.You missed the point; which is that immigrants from poor nations tend to have as many children as they would have had if they remained in the poor nation, but they live much closer to the standard of living (and thus energy consumption) of the new nation they reside in.
This is often driven by religion, the idea of having a large number of offspring who can send money back to the remaining family in the original country, or a simple lack of education.
This is obvious to anyone living near immigrant populations from many less-developed countries, yet bringing it up is super-taboo.Of course, americans use more energy per head of the population than everybody else.
Ninth [wikipedia.org].
Not that that is something to be proud of, but it's hard to trust what you say when you either willfully exaggerate or fail to look up simple facts.
Energy per GDP [wri.org] is another way of looking at things that rewards productivity and wealth creation rather than the number of near-starving people a state can maintain.I'd also like to point out that your last two points are contradictory.
You claim that sending immigrants back to a country moves the same problem somewhere else, yet you then claim that people living in different countries use different amounts of energy.
Both cannot be true.Finally, we're not trying to exterminate people, send them back, or ban them from the country.
All we want is education and empowerment of women, reform of religious doctrines that are decidedly "viral" in nature, and an end to government bonuses that *encourage* having too many children.
As soon as women no longer feel obligated to have 4+ children, or that they must guarantee male heirs, then we'll be in much better shape.Once the population is stabilized, *then* consumption will be the most important thing to tackle.
The most efficient large developed nations are no better than 50\% less energy than the US per capita or GDP; While that may seem like a lot, if the population keeps doubling every generation you've only staved off calamity by about 30 years.
If the population is stable however, that 50\% is something you get to keep indefinitely.
Eventually both problems need to be addressed (along with power generation), but it is pure folly to think that percentage adjustments to consumption alone are enough to solve the problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322589</id>
	<title>Re:navigation maps</title>
	<author>BovineSpirit</author>
	<datestamp>1244889240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This may surprise you, but the problem of updating charts has been encountered before.  And solved.  In the early nineteenth century by Admiral Beaufort.  The Hydrographic Office issues weekly '<a href="http://defence.ukho.gov.uk/amd/weeklyNms.asp" title="ukho.gov.uk" rel="nofollow">Notices to Mariners</a> [ukho.gov.uk]' which list the changes to be made to charts.  These include shifting sandbanks, new navigational bouys, new survey data and yes, new wind turbines.  As far as navigation is concerned it's not a new island it's a new wind turbine.  If the captain was unsure of his position the sight of one (and it would be visible at some distance) would give a clue as to his position.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This may surprise you , but the problem of updating charts has been encountered before .
And solved .
In the early nineteenth century by Admiral Beaufort .
The Hydrographic Office issues weekly 'Notices to Mariners [ ukho.gov.uk ] ' which list the changes to be made to charts .
These include shifting sandbanks , new navigational bouys , new survey data and yes , new wind turbines .
As far as navigation is concerned it 's not a new island it 's a new wind turbine .
If the captain was unsure of his position the sight of one ( and it would be visible at some distance ) would give a clue as to his position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may surprise you, but the problem of updating charts has been encountered before.
And solved.
In the early nineteenth century by Admiral Beaufort.
The Hydrographic Office issues weekly 'Notices to Mariners [ukho.gov.uk]' which list the changes to be made to charts.
These include shifting sandbanks, new navigational bouys, new survey data and yes, new wind turbines.
As far as navigation is concerned it's not a new island it's a new wind turbine.
If the captain was unsure of his position the sight of one (and it would be visible at some distance) would give a clue as to his position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319081</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1244899860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only reason nuclear power is cheap is the bajillions the governments poured into researching the best way to make fuel for bombs. If a tenth of that had been spent researching solar power, then solar power would be cheap.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Large-scale solar power production would and does use mirrors to concentrate sunlight to boil water and drive turbines. This technology doesn't need any research; it's low-tech, efficient and frankly, pretty obvious.</p><p>The problem with solar is the same as with almost all renewable energy sources: energy storage. Sun doesn't always shine, so you need to store energy when it does so you'll have light and heat when it doesn't. Make storing energy cheap and efficient and sun and wind become competitive. Another problem is that sunlight is only available in some locales. For example, here in Finland, during winter when energy is most needed the Sun only shines a few hours a day, and even then near the horizon, which means that the atmosphere will absorb most of the energy.</p><p>Of course, we could coat Sahara with sunlight power stations and produce more than enough power to run the whole world, but that would be costly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason nuclear power is cheap is the bajillions the governments poured into researching the best way to make fuel for bombs .
If a tenth of that had been spent researching solar power , then solar power would be cheap .
Large-scale solar power production would and does use mirrors to concentrate sunlight to boil water and drive turbines .
This technology does n't need any research ; it 's low-tech , efficient and frankly , pretty obvious.The problem with solar is the same as with almost all renewable energy sources : energy storage .
Sun does n't always shine , so you need to store energy when it does so you 'll have light and heat when it does n't .
Make storing energy cheap and efficient and sun and wind become competitive .
Another problem is that sunlight is only available in some locales .
For example , here in Finland , during winter when energy is most needed the Sun only shines a few hours a day , and even then near the horizon , which means that the atmosphere will absorb most of the energy.Of course , we could coat Sahara with sunlight power stations and produce more than enough power to run the whole world , but that would be costly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason nuclear power is cheap is the bajillions the governments poured into researching the best way to make fuel for bombs.
If a tenth of that had been spent researching solar power, then solar power would be cheap.
Large-scale solar power production would and does use mirrors to concentrate sunlight to boil water and drive turbines.
This technology doesn't need any research; it's low-tech, efficient and frankly, pretty obvious.The problem with solar is the same as with almost all renewable energy sources: energy storage.
Sun doesn't always shine, so you need to store energy when it does so you'll have light and heat when it doesn't.
Make storing energy cheap and efficient and sun and wind become competitive.
Another problem is that sunlight is only available in some locales.
For example, here in Finland, during winter when energy is most needed the Sun only shines a few hours a day, and even then near the horizon, which means that the atmosphere will absorb most of the energy.Of course, we could coat Sahara with sunlight power stations and produce more than enough power to run the whole world, but that would be costly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317635</id>
	<title>Reminds me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of an old saying...

"There's power in the motion of the ocean".

Though I think that quote referred to something completely different.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of an old saying.. . " There 's power in the motion of the ocean " .
Though I think that quote referred to something completely different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of an old saying...

"There's power in the motion of the ocean".
Though I think that quote referred to something completely different.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318037</id>
	<title>marinelife greater threat than saltwater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244924760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>marinelife greater threat than saltwater</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>marinelife greater threat than saltwater</tokentext>
<sentencetext>marinelife greater threat than saltwater</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321731</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244923980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chernobyl type event in the western world is near impossible as is. Currently the older generation nuclear reactors are already being phased that could have produce something even quarter the event that happened in the Soviet Union. The reactor design that the Soviets used has not been used in the west for the very reason that it could melt down easily. Todays reactors and especially the newest ones being built are easy to control and the chances of a even a melt down are nigh impossible due to the very nature of the design. I'm not discounting incompetence, you can't factor out idiots but to fearmonger about a event that happened once is like fearmongering that your car might exploded if the gas tank is punctured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chernobyl type event in the western world is near impossible as is .
Currently the older generation nuclear reactors are already being phased that could have produce something even quarter the event that happened in the Soviet Union .
The reactor design that the Soviets used has not been used in the west for the very reason that it could melt down easily .
Todays reactors and especially the newest ones being built are easy to control and the chances of a even a melt down are nigh impossible due to the very nature of the design .
I 'm not discounting incompetence , you ca n't factor out idiots but to fearmonger about a event that happened once is like fearmongering that your car might exploded if the gas tank is punctured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chernobyl type event in the western world is near impossible as is.
Currently the older generation nuclear reactors are already being phased that could have produce something even quarter the event that happened in the Soviet Union.
The reactor design that the Soviets used has not been used in the west for the very reason that it could melt down easily.
Todays reactors and especially the newest ones being built are easy to control and the chances of a even a melt down are nigh impossible due to the very nature of the design.
I'm not discounting incompetence, you can't factor out idiots but to fearmonger about a event that happened once is like fearmongering that your car might exploded if the gas tank is punctured.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319149</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1244900640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, let me say that I am a big proponent of nuclear energy, and in particular fast-breeder reactors.</p><p>That said, those figures look silly: you do realize that 34 cents/KWh is also more than 3 cents/KWh, don't you? I even read that "article" you linked to, and it's very poorly written. I am pretty sure this is not a peer-reviewed article, because its quality is severely lacking and no scientist would give approval to its publication in this form.</p><p>In any case, the way it is written, it does NOT support the thesis that nuclear energy is necessarily the best solution - though I know it is. There are no citations, no original research done, no methodology.</p><p>So, while both of us know that nuclear is the best solution, for the near future, for our energy needs, this article is a piss-poor argument for that position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , let me say that I am a big proponent of nuclear energy , and in particular fast-breeder reactors.That said , those figures look silly : you do realize that 34 cents/KWh is also more than 3 cents/KWh , do n't you ?
I even read that " article " you linked to , and it 's very poorly written .
I am pretty sure this is not a peer-reviewed article , because its quality is severely lacking and no scientist would give approval to its publication in this form.In any case , the way it is written , it does NOT support the thesis that nuclear energy is necessarily the best solution - though I know it is .
There are no citations , no original research done , no methodology.So , while both of us know that nuclear is the best solution , for the near future , for our energy needs , this article is a piss-poor argument for that position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, let me say that I am a big proponent of nuclear energy, and in particular fast-breeder reactors.That said, those figures look silly: you do realize that 34 cents/KWh is also more than 3 cents/KWh, don't you?
I even read that "article" you linked to, and it's very poorly written.
I am pretty sure this is not a peer-reviewed article, because its quality is severely lacking and no scientist would give approval to its publication in this form.In any case, the way it is written, it does NOT support the thesis that nuclear energy is necessarily the best solution - though I know it is.
There are no citations, no original research done, no methodology.So, while both of us know that nuclear is the best solution, for the near future, for our energy needs, this article is a piss-poor argument for that position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322911</id>
	<title>Re:Costs of Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Power</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1244892060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind power at sea is less expensive than land wind power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind power at sea is less expensive than land wind power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind power at sea is less expensive than land wind power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318347</id>
	<title>Re:Why not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244887020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The majority of Australians should not be afraid of nuclear power, it can be safe if engineered properly, long-term waste-disposal is planned in from the start and included as part of the cost.  Most importantly good quality MANAGERIAL expertise needs to be put in place at all stages of the construction and running process to ensure safety standards are maintained over time spans of decades to 100s of years.  This is NOT trivial in any industry let alone big engineering projects, to suggest people are just afraid of nuclear is ingenious, what they are afraid of is poor planning, lack of experience, incompetence, or over-emphasis on profits leading to shortcuts in safety standards that can have real effects.</p><p>Australians should therefore be afraid of power plants if they were built right now by the current Australian nuclear organizations - they still need to prove themselves competent for the task.  The HIFAR and OPAL reactors Australia has built are both simple open-pool research reactors that are mainly teaching aids and producers of radioisotopes.  Compared to a nuclear power plant they are the equivalent of a tricycle teaching a child how to ride his father's Harley Davidson.  Australia's handling of the most recent OPAL reactor was poor at all stages: there were multiple rounds of planning and bidding before the final design and company were decided upon; when the Argentinian company INVAP  finally got the job it was because their bigger competitors had gotten sick of being jerked around so were no longer putting in reasonable bids.   INVAP then did a mediocre job of construction, loose fuel plates caused the newly commissioned OPAL reactor to be shut-down immediately for a year.  The solution was to REDESIGN the fuel plates after the reactors construction -  that is still simply staggering no matter how you spin it.</p><p>Australian companies will someday be capable of large scale, high-technology engineering projects.  If we didn't have first-world expectations of safety we could  build such reactors right now.  However, for comparison look at the construction of the Collin's class submarines or the Boomerang synchrotron - they both sort of work but lots of mistakes were made in project planning, contracting and construction.  The results are projects that have a slightly unplanned and inexperienced feel about them, as long as we learn the correct lessons and resolve to do better next time then fine.  Once we achieve this, we can think about contracting the construction of nuclear power plants to *competent* foreign firms and put in place the incentives that ensure they build them correctly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of Australians should not be afraid of nuclear power , it can be safe if engineered properly , long-term waste-disposal is planned in from the start and included as part of the cost .
Most importantly good quality MANAGERIAL expertise needs to be put in place at all stages of the construction and running process to ensure safety standards are maintained over time spans of decades to 100s of years .
This is NOT trivial in any industry let alone big engineering projects , to suggest people are just afraid of nuclear is ingenious , what they are afraid of is poor planning , lack of experience , incompetence , or over-emphasis on profits leading to shortcuts in safety standards that can have real effects.Australians should therefore be afraid of power plants if they were built right now by the current Australian nuclear organizations - they still need to prove themselves competent for the task .
The HIFAR and OPAL reactors Australia has built are both simple open-pool research reactors that are mainly teaching aids and producers of radioisotopes .
Compared to a nuclear power plant they are the equivalent of a tricycle teaching a child how to ride his father 's Harley Davidson .
Australia 's handling of the most recent OPAL reactor was poor at all stages : there were multiple rounds of planning and bidding before the final design and company were decided upon ; when the Argentinian company INVAP finally got the job it was because their bigger competitors had gotten sick of being jerked around so were no longer putting in reasonable bids .
INVAP then did a mediocre job of construction , loose fuel plates caused the newly commissioned OPAL reactor to be shut-down immediately for a year .
The solution was to REDESIGN the fuel plates after the reactors construction - that is still simply staggering no matter how you spin it.Australian companies will someday be capable of large scale , high-technology engineering projects .
If we did n't have first-world expectations of safety we could build such reactors right now .
However , for comparison look at the construction of the Collin 's class submarines or the Boomerang synchrotron - they both sort of work but lots of mistakes were made in project planning , contracting and construction .
The results are projects that have a slightly unplanned and inexperienced feel about them , as long as we learn the correct lessons and resolve to do better next time then fine .
Once we achieve this , we can think about contracting the construction of nuclear power plants to * competent * foreign firms and put in place the incentives that ensure they build them correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of Australians should not be afraid of nuclear power, it can be safe if engineered properly, long-term waste-disposal is planned in from the start and included as part of the cost.
Most importantly good quality MANAGERIAL expertise needs to be put in place at all stages of the construction and running process to ensure safety standards are maintained over time spans of decades to 100s of years.
This is NOT trivial in any industry let alone big engineering projects, to suggest people are just afraid of nuclear is ingenious, what they are afraid of is poor planning, lack of experience, incompetence, or over-emphasis on profits leading to shortcuts in safety standards that can have real effects.Australians should therefore be afraid of power plants if they were built right now by the current Australian nuclear organizations - they still need to prove themselves competent for the task.
The HIFAR and OPAL reactors Australia has built are both simple open-pool research reactors that are mainly teaching aids and producers of radioisotopes.
Compared to a nuclear power plant they are the equivalent of a tricycle teaching a child how to ride his father's Harley Davidson.
Australia's handling of the most recent OPAL reactor was poor at all stages: there were multiple rounds of planning and bidding before the final design and company were decided upon; when the Argentinian company INVAP  finally got the job it was because their bigger competitors had gotten sick of being jerked around so were no longer putting in reasonable bids.
INVAP then did a mediocre job of construction, loose fuel plates caused the newly commissioned OPAL reactor to be shut-down immediately for a year.
The solution was to REDESIGN the fuel plates after the reactors construction -  that is still simply staggering no matter how you spin it.Australian companies will someday be capable of large scale, high-technology engineering projects.
If we didn't have first-world expectations of safety we could  build such reactors right now.
However, for comparison look at the construction of the Collin's class submarines or the Boomerang synchrotron - they both sort of work but lots of mistakes were made in project planning, contracting and construction.
The results are projects that have a slightly unplanned and inexperienced feel about them, as long as we learn the correct lessons and resolve to do better next time then fine.
Once we achieve this, we can think about contracting the construction of nuclear power plants to *competent* foreign firms and put in place the incentives that ensure they build them correctly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28325385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28334317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28331153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28326235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28325541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2332219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2332219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2332219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317847
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318039
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318703
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319081
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322045
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318447
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319129
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28331153
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28326235
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319365
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28334317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2332219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2332219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28325541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28325385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28320725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28319089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2332219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28318055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28322589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28321755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2332219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2332219.28317915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
