<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_08_1911234</id>
	<title>Tech Allows Stable Integration of Wind In the Power Grid</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257669360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>diegocgteleline.es writes <i>"One of the most frequently raised arguments against renewable power sources is that they can only supply a low percentage of the total power because their unpredictability can destabilize the grid. Spain seems to have disproved this assertion. In the last three days, the wind power generation records with respect to the total demand were beaten twice (in special conditions: a very windy weekend, at night): <a href="http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id\_not=2148">45\% on November 5</a> and <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&amp;hl=en&amp;js=y&amp;u=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.evwind.es\%2Fnoticias.php\%3Fid\_not\%3D2155&amp;sl=es&amp;tl=en&amp;history\_state0=">almost 54\% last night</a> (Google translation; <a href="http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id\_not=2155">Spanish original</a>). There was no instability. These milestones were accomplished with the help of a <a href="http://www.ree.es/ingles/operacion/cecre.asp">control center that processes meteorologic data from the whole country</a> and predicts, with high certainty, the wind and solar power that will be generated, allowing a stable integration of all the renewable power. You can see a <a href="https://demanda.ree.es/generacion\_acumulada.html">graphic of the record here</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>diegocgteleline.es writes " One of the most frequently raised arguments against renewable power sources is that they can only supply a low percentage of the total power because their unpredictability can destabilize the grid .
Spain seems to have disproved this assertion .
In the last three days , the wind power generation records with respect to the total demand were beaten twice ( in special conditions : a very windy weekend , at night ) : 45 \ % on November 5 and almost 54 \ % last night ( Google translation ; Spanish original ) .
There was no instability .
These milestones were accomplished with the help of a control center that processes meteorologic data from the whole country and predicts , with high certainty , the wind and solar power that will be generated , allowing a stable integration of all the renewable power .
You can see a graphic of the record here .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>diegocgteleline.es writes "One of the most frequently raised arguments against renewable power sources is that they can only supply a low percentage of the total power because their unpredictability can destabilize the grid.
Spain seems to have disproved this assertion.
In the last three days, the wind power generation records with respect to the total demand were beaten twice (in special conditions: a very windy weekend, at night): 45\% on November 5 and almost 54\% last night (Google translation; Spanish original).
There was no instability.
These milestones were accomplished with the help of a control center that processes meteorologic data from the whole country and predicts, with high certainty, the wind and solar power that will be generated, allowing a stable integration of all the renewable power.
You can see a graphic of the record here.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025594</id>
	<title>Re:Does not change the basics.</title>
	<author>angel'o'sphere</author>
	<datestamp>1257678180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Sometimes the wind does not blow at all, so you need to keep 100\% generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.<br></i><br>In an local area, yes! But not over an area like USA or Kanada or Europe.</p><p>Germany also has a high percentage of wind power meanwhile approaching 30\% of total production. High wind outuput is used to pump up water into the storage sees of water driven generators, general fluctuations in demand and production are equalized by water power plants anyway.</p><p>Gas turbines are only used for energy reserves. If any plant *regardless" weather gas, oil, nuclear, wind, coal fails then gas turbins are in stand by to coer the drop from the grid.</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes the wind does not blow at all , so you need to keep 100 \ % generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.In an local area , yes !
But not over an area like USA or Kanada or Europe.Germany also has a high percentage of wind power meanwhile approaching 30 \ % of total production .
High wind outuput is used to pump up water into the storage sees of water driven generators , general fluctuations in demand and production are equalized by water power plants anyway.Gas turbines are only used for energy reserves .
If any plant * regardless " weather gas , oil , nuclear , wind , coal fails then gas turbins are in stand by to coer the drop from the grid.angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes the wind does not blow at all, so you need to keep 100\% generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.In an local area, yes!
But not over an area like USA or Kanada or Europe.Germany also has a high percentage of wind power meanwhile approaching 30\% of total production.
High wind outuput is used to pump up water into the storage sees of water driven generators, general fluctuations in demand and production are equalized by water power plants anyway.Gas turbines are only used for energy reserves.
If any plant *regardless" weather gas, oil, nuclear, wind, coal fails then gas turbins are in stand by to coer the drop from the grid.angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024912</id>
	<title>So they've almost caught up to 100 years ago.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1257673380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Spain has almost made the advance of electrical power to where GE got it over 100 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Spain has almost made the advance of electrical power to where GE got it over 100 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Spain has almost made the advance of electrical power to where GE got it over 100 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025300</id>
	<title>Re:Solar Wind</title>
	<author>burni2</author>
	<datestamp>1257676200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>irony\_on<br>"Chop of the woods, bomb the mountains<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. they are interfering with the Coriolis effect."<br>irony\_off</p><p>Solar is also volatile depending on the weather situation.</p><p>Have you ever watched a power curve from a PV-Panel over a longer time, you have spikes - here a cloud, there a diode less, which means the way you switch the panels together is important too.</p><p>If bad situation one panel in the black out means<br>the panel groups output is low</p><p>And solar panels are black, even converting ~30\% of the light in energy they do heat up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. so they interfere with the atmosphere.</p><p>All in all, a mix is a good solution, because<br>wind and solar power have their weaknesses</p><p>btw. the wind forecasts are +90\% acurate,<br>that's not what you can say about a checkered sky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>irony \ _on " Chop of the woods , bomb the mountains .. they are interfering with the Coriolis effect .
" irony \ _offSolar is also volatile depending on the weather situation.Have you ever watched a power curve from a PV-Panel over a longer time , you have spikes - here a cloud , there a diode less , which means the way you switch the panels together is important too.If bad situation one panel in the black out meansthe panel groups output is lowAnd solar panels are black , even converting ~ 30 \ % of the light in energy they do heat up .. so they interfere with the atmosphere.All in all , a mix is a good solution , becausewind and solar power have their weaknessesbtw .
the wind forecasts are + 90 \ % acurate,that 's not what you can say about a checkered sky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>irony\_on"Chop of the woods, bomb the mountains .. they are interfering with the Coriolis effect.
"irony\_offSolar is also volatile depending on the weather situation.Have you ever watched a power curve from a PV-Panel over a longer time, you have spikes - here a cloud, there a diode less, which means the way you switch the panels together is important too.If bad situation one panel in the black out meansthe panel groups output is lowAnd solar panels are black, even converting ~30\% of the light in energy they do heat up .. so they interfere with the atmosphere.All in all, a mix is a good solution, becausewind and solar power have their weaknessesbtw.
the wind forecasts are +90\% acurate,that's not what you can say about a checkered sky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025890</id>
	<title>Re:Good, but by no means a complete solution</title>
	<author>internettoughguy</author>
	<datestamp>1257680460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If combined with a massively redundant combination of solar (ie, almost every building has em), hydro and nuclear, we're talking business. Left over power can be spent on hydrolysis plants to produce hydrogen fuel, and we have almost zero emissions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If combined with a massively redundant combination of solar ( ie , almost every building has em ) , hydro and nuclear , we 're talking business .
Left over power can be spent on hydrolysis plants to produce hydrogen fuel , and we have almost zero emissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If combined with a massively redundant combination of solar (ie, almost every building has em), hydro and nuclear, we're talking business.
Left over power can be spent on hydrolysis plants to produce hydrogen fuel, and we have almost zero emissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026322</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1257683160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Subsidies aren't the solution to other subsidies.  A more environmentally friendly solution would be to remove the subsides on the oil and coal.  Let the most efficient technology stand on it's own feet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Subsidies are n't the solution to other subsidies .
A more environmentally friendly solution would be to remove the subsides on the oil and coal .
Let the most efficient technology stand on it 's own feet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subsidies aren't the solution to other subsidies.
A more environmentally friendly solution would be to remove the subsides on the oil and coal.
Let the most efficient technology stand on it's own feet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029084</id>
	<title>Re:There is a solution</title>
	<author>Eclipse-now</author>
	<datestamp>1257704160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree. Apparently 50 thousand cars = 1 gigawatt of stored electricity... so download this 50 minute podcast and check out the claims for this scheme about to be installed in Canberra, Australia. (Only download the audio as the video is just Shai Agassi walking around in front of the audience). <br> <br>

<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/08/14/2656263.htm" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/08/14/2656263.htm</a> [abc.net.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
Apparently 50 thousand cars = 1 gigawatt of stored electricity... so download this 50 minute podcast and check out the claims for this scheme about to be installed in Canberra , Australia .
( Only download the audio as the video is just Shai Agassi walking around in front of the audience ) .
http : //www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/08/14/2656263.htm [ abc.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
Apparently 50 thousand cars = 1 gigawatt of stored electricity... so download this 50 minute podcast and check out the claims for this scheme about to be installed in Canberra, Australia.
(Only download the audio as the video is just Shai Agassi walking around in front of the audience).
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/08/14/2656263.htm [abc.net.au]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30031408</id>
	<title>Reading Slasdot is not healthy</title>
	<author>cyrano.mac</author>
	<datestamp>1257775200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read " Tech Allows Stable Integration of <b>Windows</b> In the Power Grid". Almost gave me a heart-attack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read " Tech Allows Stable Integration of Windows In the Power Grid " .
Almost gave me a heart-attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read " Tech Allows Stable Integration of Windows In the Power Grid".
Almost gave me a heart-attack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027284</id>
	<title>limits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257689100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>note that decentralized power does not mean that the U.S. east coast can really use power generated in Idaho, at best power can be transmitted hundreds of miles, not thousands.</p><p>Those wind turbines better be build fairly close.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>note that decentralized power does not mean that the U.S. east coast can really use power generated in Idaho , at best power can be transmitted hundreds of miles , not thousands.Those wind turbines better be build fairly close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>note that decentralized power does not mean that the U.S. east coast can really use power generated in Idaho, at best power can be transmitted hundreds of miles, not thousands.Those wind turbines better be build fairly close.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025486</id>
	<title>Pump water up a hill?</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1257677520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ten years ago wasn't there talk about using renewable power to pump water up to higher ground and then release the water to generate electricity at a known rate with a known duration, etc. Turns unreliable power into highly reliable power with a little waste added into the process....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten years ago was n't there talk about using renewable power to pump water up to higher ground and then release the water to generate electricity at a known rate with a known duration , etc .
Turns unreliable power into highly reliable power with a little waste added into the process... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten years ago wasn't there talk about using renewable power to pump water up to higher ground and then release the water to generate electricity at a known rate with a known duration, etc.
Turns unreliable power into highly reliable power with a little waste added into the process....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025242</id>
	<title>Re:Does not change the basics.</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1257675840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Whatever happened once in Spain does not change the basic facts.
</p><p>
Sometimes the wind does not blow at all, so you need to keep 100\% generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.</p></div> </blockquote><p>One trend I've seen in recent studies is toward distributed, decentralised power generation.  We're not talking about one technology taking over, but rather a larger number of smaller generators in a variety of formats coming together to augment the primary generators we have.  This is already happening to some degree, and expectations are that it will grow.</p><p>So as your city grows - instead of (say) three coal generators, you might add one new coal generator plus a few hundred wind turbines, a few thousand gas fired microCHP generators (similar to the Whispergen Stirling units being deployed in Spain) and quite a few thousand private photovoltaic arrays (in Perth for example, the applications for PV installations are running at better than 3 thousand per month at the moment).  </p><p>The combination of all these will tend to even out the supply across the grid, but there still needs to be fairly careful power regulation at each end point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened once in Spain does not change the basic facts .
Sometimes the wind does not blow at all , so you need to keep 100 \ % generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes .
One trend I 've seen in recent studies is toward distributed , decentralised power generation .
We 're not talking about one technology taking over , but rather a larger number of smaller generators in a variety of formats coming together to augment the primary generators we have .
This is already happening to some degree , and expectations are that it will grow.So as your city grows - instead of ( say ) three coal generators , you might add one new coal generator plus a few hundred wind turbines , a few thousand gas fired microCHP generators ( similar to the Whispergen Stirling units being deployed in Spain ) and quite a few thousand private photovoltaic arrays ( in Perth for example , the applications for PV installations are running at better than 3 thousand per month at the moment ) .
The combination of all these will tend to even out the supply across the grid , but there still needs to be fairly careful power regulation at each end point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened once in Spain does not change the basic facts.
Sometimes the wind does not blow at all, so you need to keep 100\% generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.
One trend I've seen in recent studies is toward distributed, decentralised power generation.
We're not talking about one technology taking over, but rather a larger number of smaller generators in a variety of formats coming together to augment the primary generators we have.
This is already happening to some degree, and expectations are that it will grow.So as your city grows - instead of (say) three coal generators, you might add one new coal generator plus a few hundred wind turbines, a few thousand gas fired microCHP generators (similar to the Whispergen Stirling units being deployed in Spain) and quite a few thousand private photovoltaic arrays (in Perth for example, the applications for PV installations are running at better than 3 thousand per month at the moment).
The combination of all these will tend to even out the supply across the grid, but there still needs to be fairly careful power regulation at each end point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025534</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257677820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this comment points reveals a consistent flaw with Slashdot - the score from mod points stops at five.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this comment points reveals a consistent flaw with Slashdot - the score from mod points stops at five .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this comment points reveals a consistent flaw with Slashdot - the score from mod points stops at five.
:/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026764</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257685800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't feed the trolls.  Please.  If everyone here just ignored the trolls, then we could spend our time actually having meaningful discussion instead of wading through a huge trough of crap.  So don't feed the trolls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't feed the trolls .
Please. If everyone here just ignored the trolls , then we could spend our time actually having meaningful discussion instead of wading through a huge trough of crap .
So do n't feed the trolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't feed the trolls.
Please.  If everyone here just ignored the trolls, then we could spend our time actually having meaningful discussion instead of wading through a huge trough of crap.
So don't feed the trolls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30038746</id>
	<title>predictibility != stability</title>
	<author>mr\_java66</author>
	<datestamp>1257763440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have some background in NucEng and power making in general. The grids need very stable supplies of power. The mere fact that it changes from day to night or visversa TWICE! a day already makes solar unstable enough to be a problem. Forget clouds and all that other stuff. Wind!?  Gusts, squall lines, yikes! Trying to add these things to what we got won't work.  We need new paradigms to electric power gen, and much broader PHYSICAL distribution of power to really use these sources.  The REAL problem of competing with Coal, Hydro, and Nuke is that those sources can turn on and give you a steady 250MW for three+ months straight without a pimple of variation.  So, we have electric distribution grids built around that kind of source.  We need better grids for real wind and solar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have some background in NucEng and power making in general .
The grids need very stable supplies of power .
The mere fact that it changes from day to night or visversa TWICE !
a day already makes solar unstable enough to be a problem .
Forget clouds and all that other stuff .
Wind ! ? Gusts , squall lines , yikes !
Trying to add these things to what we got wo n't work .
We need new paradigms to electric power gen , and much broader PHYSICAL distribution of power to really use these sources .
The REAL problem of competing with Coal , Hydro , and Nuke is that those sources can turn on and give you a steady 250MW for three + months straight without a pimple of variation .
So , we have electric distribution grids built around that kind of source .
We need better grids for real wind and solar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have some background in NucEng and power making in general.
The grids need very stable supplies of power.
The mere fact that it changes from day to night or visversa TWICE!
a day already makes solar unstable enough to be a problem.
Forget clouds and all that other stuff.
Wind!?  Gusts, squall lines, yikes!
Trying to add these things to what we got won't work.
We need new paradigms to electric power gen, and much broader PHYSICAL distribution of power to really use these sources.
The REAL problem of competing with Coal, Hydro, and Nuke is that those sources can turn on and give you a steady 250MW for three+ months straight without a pimple of variation.
So, we have electric distribution grids built around that kind of source.
We need better grids for real wind and solar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025922</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>bertok</author>
	<datestamp>1257680640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use. Compare this to idiotic technologies like wind and solar that are hugely expensive, unreliable, and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in. And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.</p></div><p>Excuse me, but caring about our planet <i>does not</i> make somebody stupid.<br>Caring only about your pocketbook, however, does make you a <b>greedy asshole.</b><br>And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you <i>does</i> make <i>you</i> stupid.</p></div><p>Also, most wind turbines aren't built in or even near cities, they're usually off-shore or on hilltops somewhere out in the countryside.</p><p>There is one experimental wind turbine in Sydney, which I could see from my University. I used to love staring out the window at it, I found the slow steady movement to be relaxing.</p><p>Not everyone thinks they 'ruin' a view.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coal and oil are plentiful , cheap , and easy to use .
Compare this to idiotic technologies like wind and solar that are hugely expensive , unreliable , and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in .
And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.Excuse me , but caring about our planet does not make somebody stupid.Caring only about your pocketbook , however , does make you a greedy asshole.And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you does make you stupid.Also , most wind turbines are n't built in or even near cities , they 're usually off-shore or on hilltops somewhere out in the countryside.There is one experimental wind turbine in Sydney , which I could see from my University .
I used to love staring out the window at it , I found the slow steady movement to be relaxing.Not everyone thinks they 'ruin ' a view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.
Compare this to idiotic technologies like wind and solar that are hugely expensive, unreliable, and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in.
And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.Excuse me, but caring about our planet does not make somebody stupid.Caring only about your pocketbook, however, does make you a greedy asshole.And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you does make you stupid.Also, most wind turbines aren't built in or even near cities, they're usually off-shore or on hilltops somewhere out in the countryside.There is one experimental wind turbine in Sydney, which I could see from my University.
I used to love staring out the window at it, I found the slow steady movement to be relaxing.Not everyone thinks they 'ruin' a view.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122</id>
	<title>There are two sides in that coin...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257674940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disclaimer: I'm a Spanish citizen, living in Spain.<br>
<br>

First of all, I want to remark the great work of the REE company ("Red El&#233;ctrica Espa&#241;ola" stands for "Spanish Electric Power Network", the monopoly for electric power distribution), they not only do a great work routing and adapting the production to the user energy demand, but also provide a lot of useful information about power consumption, production/consumption balance, etc.<br>
<br>

The dark side of the problem is that although there is a huge amount of "green energy" being generated in Spain (wind and solar), that is, paradoxically, a problem. The problem is because current "green electricity production" is above 20\% of total energy production, which sounds great, yes, the problem comes from nuclear power being dismantled from past 20 years, so the electric bill goes up because of the more expensive production (the solar energy production is specially expensive, which has been subsidized ad nauseam). Now the country faces near 19\% unemployment rates (almost twice the U.S. figures), paying a huge price for energy, with the country in the middle of its worse recession since the post-war era (40's).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I 'm a Spanish citizen , living in Spain .
First of all , I want to remark the great work of the REE company ( " Red El   ctrica Espa   ola " stands for " Spanish Electric Power Network " , the monopoly for electric power distribution ) , they not only do a great work routing and adapting the production to the user energy demand , but also provide a lot of useful information about power consumption , production/consumption balance , etc .
The dark side of the problem is that although there is a huge amount of " green energy " being generated in Spain ( wind and solar ) , that is , paradoxically , a problem .
The problem is because current " green electricity production " is above 20 \ % of total energy production , which sounds great , yes , the problem comes from nuclear power being dismantled from past 20 years , so the electric bill goes up because of the more expensive production ( the solar energy production is specially expensive , which has been subsidized ad nauseam ) .
Now the country faces near 19 \ % unemployment rates ( almost twice the U.S. figures ) , paying a huge price for energy , with the country in the middle of its worse recession since the post-war era ( 40 's ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I'm a Spanish citizen, living in Spain.
First of all, I want to remark the great work of the REE company ("Red Eléctrica Española" stands for "Spanish Electric Power Network", the monopoly for electric power distribution), they not only do a great work routing and adapting the production to the user energy demand, but also provide a lot of useful information about power consumption, production/consumption balance, etc.
The dark side of the problem is that although there is a huge amount of "green energy" being generated in Spain (wind and solar), that is, paradoxically, a problem.
The problem is because current "green electricity production" is above 20\% of total energy production, which sounds great, yes, the problem comes from nuclear power being dismantled from past 20 years, so the electric bill goes up because of the more expensive production (the solar energy production is specially expensive, which has been subsidized ad nauseam).
Now the country faces near 19\% unemployment rates (almost twice the U.S. figures), paying a huge price for energy, with the country in the middle of its worse recession since the post-war era (40's).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029210</id>
	<title>Re:Good, but by no means a complete solution</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1257705780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wind generally changes slowly enough that it doesn't cause massive instability</p></div></blockquote><p>I'll add a bit more.  Since around the 1960s things that change no more rapidly that a large mining dragline scooping out another shovelful shouldn't cause instability.  Also consider that entire large coal fired units drop out without warning at times but the lights stay on.  Control systems can handle fairly large and sudden changes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind generally changes slowly enough that it does n't cause massive instabilityI 'll add a bit more .
Since around the 1960s things that change no more rapidly that a large mining dragline scooping out another shovelful should n't cause instability .
Also consider that entire large coal fired units drop out without warning at times but the lights stay on .
Control systems can handle fairly large and sudden changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind generally changes slowly enough that it doesn't cause massive instabilityI'll add a bit more.
Since around the 1960s things that change no more rapidly that a large mining dragline scooping out another shovelful shouldn't cause instability.
Also consider that entire large coal fired units drop out without warning at times but the lights stay on.
Control systems can handle fairly large and sudden changes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025646</id>
	<title>Fail2ors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257678540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">LizaRd - In ot4er then disappeared</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>LizaRd - In ot4er then disappeared [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LizaRd - In ot4er then disappeared [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30028740</id>
	<title>how much energy</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1257701280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>does that wind prediction system use? Including the manufacture and maintenance of the satellites? Take that value and subtract it from the total energy output.
<p>
Wind has a high Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) but it's not as high as many people think. Similar to nuclear. Sure: X kilos of U generate gobs of power, but building, maintaining, decommissioning, and dismantling the plant and its waste is very energy intensive.
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does that wind prediction system use ?
Including the manufacture and maintenance of the satellites ?
Take that value and subtract it from the total energy output .
Wind has a high Energy Return On Energy Invested ( EROEI ) but it 's not as high as many people think .
Similar to nuclear .
Sure : X kilos of U generate gobs of power , but building , maintaining , decommissioning , and dismantling the plant and its waste is very energy intensive .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does that wind prediction system use?
Including the manufacture and maintenance of the satellites?
Take that value and subtract it from the total energy output.
Wind has a high Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) but it's not as high as many people think.
Similar to nuclear.
Sure: X kilos of U generate gobs of power, but building, maintaining, decommissioning, and dismantling the plant and its waste is very energy intensive.
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029652</id>
	<title>And in other news,</title>
	<author>hyc</author>
	<datestamp>1257797700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this weekend large portions of Spain suffered extended blackouts as a number of the electric company's network routers were overwhelmed by an unexpected surge of traffic. This was apparently the result of an article about Spain's wind-based electrical program being published on slashdot.org, and the ensuing traffic overload from attempts to access the power generation graphs on the public site...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this weekend large portions of Spain suffered extended blackouts as a number of the electric company 's network routers were overwhelmed by an unexpected surge of traffic .
This was apparently the result of an article about Spain 's wind-based electrical program being published on slashdot.org , and the ensuing traffic overload from attempts to access the power generation graphs on the public site.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this weekend large portions of Spain suffered extended blackouts as a number of the electric company's network routers were overwhelmed by an unexpected surge of traffic.
This was apparently the result of an article about Spain's wind-based electrical program being published on slashdot.org, and the ensuing traffic overload from attempts to access the power generation graphs on the public site...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025622</id>
	<title>Misleading article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257678420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way the information is presented clearly shows the lack of understanding by the author. The data actually proves the instability inherent in wind power.</p><p>The figures quoted are once off lasting for hours or days but not months. The next day will be a low wind day and instead of providing 40\% of the energy required you only provide 10\% or less (Spain has had over 100 days this year with no wind power generation, nada none). That is the instability, over a week, month, year not days.</p><p>One other point when wind was "providing" 40\% of the electricity during the low load it actually was NOT. What was actually happening was Spain was producing a lot more wind power on top of typical output from conventional plants. We cannot effectively use and store excess power so the excess was wasted. Therefore the installation of wind has lead to wasteage.</p><p>This is why Denmark the leader in wind relies on interconnections to other countries, when excess is generated it is sold abroad. However for some reason Denmark has by far the highest prices in Europe for electricity even with the ability to sell excess. Also because Denmark has to export so much wind energy its installed capacity is nameplated to deliver 20\% but only delivers approx 10\%.</p><p>Without a viable and cost effective way of storing energy wind will remain too variable to provide cost effective energy that is carbon neutral. As wind has to be backed up in equal capacity (reason for Denmarks high prices) by conventional systems it cannot be said to be carbon neutral.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way the information is presented clearly shows the lack of understanding by the author .
The data actually proves the instability inherent in wind power.The figures quoted are once off lasting for hours or days but not months .
The next day will be a low wind day and instead of providing 40 \ % of the energy required you only provide 10 \ % or less ( Spain has had over 100 days this year with no wind power generation , nada none ) .
That is the instability , over a week , month , year not days.One other point when wind was " providing " 40 \ % of the electricity during the low load it actually was NOT .
What was actually happening was Spain was producing a lot more wind power on top of typical output from conventional plants .
We can not effectively use and store excess power so the excess was wasted .
Therefore the installation of wind has lead to wasteage.This is why Denmark the leader in wind relies on interconnections to other countries , when excess is generated it is sold abroad .
However for some reason Denmark has by far the highest prices in Europe for electricity even with the ability to sell excess .
Also because Denmark has to export so much wind energy its installed capacity is nameplated to deliver 20 \ % but only delivers approx 10 \ % .Without a viable and cost effective way of storing energy wind will remain too variable to provide cost effective energy that is carbon neutral .
As wind has to be backed up in equal capacity ( reason for Denmarks high prices ) by conventional systems it can not be said to be carbon neutral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way the information is presented clearly shows the lack of understanding by the author.
The data actually proves the instability inherent in wind power.The figures quoted are once off lasting for hours or days but not months.
The next day will be a low wind day and instead of providing 40\% of the energy required you only provide 10\% or less (Spain has had over 100 days this year with no wind power generation, nada none).
That is the instability, over a week, month, year not days.One other point when wind was "providing" 40\% of the electricity during the low load it actually was NOT.
What was actually happening was Spain was producing a lot more wind power on top of typical output from conventional plants.
We cannot effectively use and store excess power so the excess was wasted.
Therefore the installation of wind has lead to wasteage.This is why Denmark the leader in wind relies on interconnections to other countries, when excess is generated it is sold abroad.
However for some reason Denmark has by far the highest prices in Europe for electricity even with the ability to sell excess.
Also because Denmark has to export so much wind energy its installed capacity is nameplated to deliver 20\% but only delivers approx 10\%.Without a viable and cost effective way of storing energy wind will remain too variable to provide cost effective energy that is carbon neutral.
As wind has to be backed up in equal capacity (reason for Denmarks high prices) by conventional systems it cannot be said to be carbon neutral.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024868</id>
	<title>This will not be liked...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257673140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and will be fought back by european giants like E.ON etc., who even fight private home owners wanting to put wind mills on their own property by simple denial of request.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and will be fought back by european giants like E.ON etc. , who even fight private home owners wanting to put wind mills on their own property by simple denial of request .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and will be fought back by european giants like E.ON etc., who even fight private home owners wanting to put wind mills on their own property by simple denial of request.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038</id>
	<title>Does not change the basics.</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1257674220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever happened once in Spain does not change the basic facts.</p><p>Sometimes the wind does not blow at all, so you need to keep 100\% generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.</p><p>Now your basic coal plant tends to be large and slow (takes many hours) to warm up.  So you need a whopping amount of gas turbine generating plants,<br>which not only cost a lot but are going to be idle a good part of the time, just sitting around just in case the wind stops.  And it will.</p><p>So you're going to pay up front for the generating capacity, then again paying for expensive and scarce oil and gas when the wind stops.<br>Not an attractive financial proposition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened once in Spain does not change the basic facts.Sometimes the wind does not blow at all , so you need to keep 100 \ % generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.Now your basic coal plant tends to be large and slow ( takes many hours ) to warm up .
So you need a whopping amount of gas turbine generating plants,which not only cost a lot but are going to be idle a good part of the time , just sitting around just in case the wind stops .
And it will.So you 're going to pay up front for the generating capacity , then again paying for expensive and scarce oil and gas when the wind stops.Not an attractive financial proposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened once in Spain does not change the basic facts.Sometimes the wind does not blow at all, so you need to keep 100\% generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.Now your basic coal plant tends to be large and slow (takes many hours) to warm up.
So you need a whopping amount of gas turbine generating plants,which not only cost a lot but are going to be idle a good part of the time, just sitting around just in case the wind stops.
And it will.So you're going to pay up front for the generating capacity, then again paying for expensive and scarce oil and gas when the wind stops.Not an attractive financial proposition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025426</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>spydabyte</author>
	<datestamp>1257677100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love the argument of "hurting the eyelines of the cities". Yeah, now that you can see the mountains right next to your city, instead of just hazy smog, you actually have something to complain about. Me? I think those wind turbines are sexy as hell and show progress in this day and age. Progress is power. Well done gapagos, well done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the argument of " hurting the eyelines of the cities " .
Yeah , now that you can see the mountains right next to your city , instead of just hazy smog , you actually have something to complain about .
Me ? I think those wind turbines are sexy as hell and show progress in this day and age .
Progress is power .
Well done gapagos , well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the argument of "hurting the eyelines of the cities".
Yeah, now that you can see the mountains right next to your city, instead of just hazy smog, you actually have something to complain about.
Me? I think those wind turbines are sexy as hell and show progress in this day and age.
Progress is power.
Well done gapagos, well done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027050</id>
	<title>Re:Pump water up a hill?</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1257687480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what you are describing is known as pumped storage and it has been around for a long time but it isn't cheap and suffers from the same issue as regular dam based hydro (indeed it's usually done in combination with it) which is that there are relatively few sites that are both techincally good and politically acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what you are describing is known as pumped storage and it has been around for a long time but it is n't cheap and suffers from the same issue as regular dam based hydro ( indeed it 's usually done in combination with it ) which is that there are relatively few sites that are both techincally good and politically acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what you are describing is known as pumped storage and it has been around for a long time but it isn't cheap and suffers from the same issue as regular dam based hydro (indeed it's usually done in combination with it) which is that there are relatively few sites that are both techincally good and politically acceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880</id>
	<title>Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257673200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.  Compare this to idiotic technologies like wind and solar that are hugely expensive, unreliable, and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in.  And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coal and oil are plentiful , cheap , and easy to use .
Compare this to idiotic technologies like wind and solar that are hugely expensive , unreliable , and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in .
And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.
Compare this to idiotic technologies like wind and solar that are hugely expensive, unreliable, and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in.
And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025014</id>
	<title>In before the whiners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257674040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing is ever a complete solution, for anything.</p><p>But every single Joule helps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is ever a complete solution , for anything.But every single Joule helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is ever a complete solution, for anything.But every single Joule helps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30034926</id>
	<title>What about reducing our energy INTAKE?!!</title>
	<author>ismism</author>
	<datestamp>1257790740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So many analyses seem to compare the potential output with what is now being used, but just look around - especially at night - and you'll see that HUGE amounts of energy are being wasted on poor insulation, lights left on, heating large, deserted spaces, etc., etc. Renewable energy, YES! but we also need to seriously reduce our usage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So many analyses seem to compare the potential output with what is now being used , but just look around - especially at night - and you 'll see that HUGE amounts of energy are being wasted on poor insulation , lights left on , heating large , deserted spaces , etc. , etc .
Renewable energy , YES !
but we also need to seriously reduce our usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many analyses seem to compare the potential output with what is now being used, but just look around - especially at night - and you'll see that HUGE amounts of energy are being wasted on poor insulation, lights left on, heating large, deserted spaces, etc., etc.
Renewable energy, YES!
but we also need to seriously reduce our usage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025028</id>
	<title>low and high</title>
	<author>polar red</author>
	<datestamp>1257674160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>45\% and 54\% for Spain. If you can upgrade the scale, you can bring those 2 numbers very close together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>45 \ % and 54 \ % for Spain .
If you can upgrade the scale , you can bring those 2 numbers very close together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>45\% and 54\% for Spain.
If you can upgrade the scale, you can bring those 2 numbers very close together.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026740</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257685620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solar and wind are limited by the amount of solar influx, the pressure differentials<br>and ultimately the output of the sun(fusion reactor 93 million miles away). The<br>sun will run out of fuel eventually. Coal and oil are "stored" solar power from<br>prior bio-capture methods(plants, animals,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) + perhaps a little latent<br>kinetic energy from the GBS system we reside in.</p><p>Nuclear fission reactors use stored energy from previous stars!</p><p>Look up the total energy usage by humans and then look at the<br>amount of solar influx reflecting off the earth each day. You will<br>realize we don't have a lot to worry about! Also consider the<br>average temp of the oceans are 4 degree's C. We are basking in<br>a warm spell on the earth!!! Enjoy it.</p><p>George MacDonald</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar and wind are limited by the amount of solar influx , the pressure differentialsand ultimately the output of the sun ( fusion reactor 93 million miles away ) .
Thesun will run out of fuel eventually .
Coal and oil are " stored " solar power fromprior bio-capture methods ( plants , animals , ... ) + perhaps a little latentkinetic energy from the GBS system we reside in.Nuclear fission reactors use stored energy from previous stars ! Look up the total energy usage by humans and then look at theamount of solar influx reflecting off the earth each day .
You willrealize we do n't have a lot to worry about !
Also consider theaverage temp of the oceans are 4 degree 's C. We are basking ina warm spell on the earth ! ! !
Enjoy it.George MacDonald</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar and wind are limited by the amount of solar influx, the pressure differentialsand ultimately the output of the sun(fusion reactor 93 million miles away).
Thesun will run out of fuel eventually.
Coal and oil are "stored" solar power fromprior bio-capture methods(plants, animals, ...) + perhaps a little latentkinetic energy from the GBS system we reside in.Nuclear fission reactors use stored energy from previous stars!Look up the total energy usage by humans and then look at theamount of solar influx reflecting off the earth each day.
You willrealize we don't have a lot to worry about!
Also consider theaverage temp of the oceans are 4 degree's C. We are basking ina warm spell on the earth!!!
Enjoy it.George MacDonald</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025564</id>
	<title>Stupid Way of Thinking</title>
	<author>Das Auge</author>
	<datestamp>1257678000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the problems with environmentalism is common in any charged topic.  You're all or nothing. In this case, your options are:<br>
<br>
You don't believe that man-made global warming hasn't been adequately proven: so you're a greedy, goose stepping, capitalistic pig who doesn't care about the environment one bit.<br>
<br>
or..<br>
<br>
You believe that mankind should take responsibility for its actions on the environment: so pot smoking, brainless, mindless hippy that hates humanity.<br>
<br>
Any people wonder why there's so much strife in today's world...  Oh, and you can thank the media (sensationalism &amp; controversy sales) and politicians (polarize to make them yours).  Of which special interest groups are the bastard stepchild.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the problems with environmentalism is common in any charged topic .
You 're all or nothing .
In this case , your options are : You do n't believe that man-made global warming has n't been adequately proven : so you 're a greedy , goose stepping , capitalistic pig who does n't care about the environment one bit .
or. . You believe that mankind should take responsibility for its actions on the environment : so pot smoking , brainless , mindless hippy that hates humanity .
Any people wonder why there 's so much strife in today 's world... Oh , and you can thank the media ( sensationalism &amp; controversy sales ) and politicians ( polarize to make them yours ) .
Of which special interest groups are the bastard stepchild .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the problems with environmentalism is common in any charged topic.
You're all or nothing.
In this case, your options are:

You don't believe that man-made global warming hasn't been adequately proven: so you're a greedy, goose stepping, capitalistic pig who doesn't care about the environment one bit.
or..

You believe that mankind should take responsibility for its actions on the environment: so pot smoking, brainless, mindless hippy that hates humanity.
Any people wonder why there's so much strife in today's world...  Oh, and you can thank the media (sensationalism &amp; controversy sales) and politicians (polarize to make them yours).
Of which special interest groups are the bastard stepchild.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30035206</id>
	<title>Re:Does not change the basics.</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1257791820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spain has also lost two jobs for every one created by the state-imposed "green energy" economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spain has also lost two jobs for every one created by the state-imposed " green energy " economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spain has also lost two jobs for every one created by the state-imposed "green energy" economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025144</id>
	<title>Solar  Wind</title>
	<author>coolsnowmen</author>
	<datestamp>1257675000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, we shouldn't be using wind for power at all. Solar has more benefits and fewer drawbacks.</p><p>Solar can be put in more places than wind, and doesn't fuck up local weather (and potentially global).  We have to ask ourselves, where does the energy come from?  For Solar it is directly from the sun. For wind, it is much more complex, and much less understood what happens when we pull energy out of that system.  We have the Coriolis effect and indirect effects from the sun, and wind drives other things.  I don't want deserts expanding because less wind isn't getting moisture to the grasses and trees on the edges of the current ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , we should n't be using wind for power at all .
Solar has more benefits and fewer drawbacks.Solar can be put in more places than wind , and does n't fuck up local weather ( and potentially global ) .
We have to ask ourselves , where does the energy come from ?
For Solar it is directly from the sun .
For wind , it is much more complex , and much less understood what happens when we pull energy out of that system .
We have the Coriolis effect and indirect effects from the sun , and wind drives other things .
I do n't want deserts expanding because less wind is n't getting moisture to the grasses and trees on the edges of the current ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, we shouldn't be using wind for power at all.
Solar has more benefits and fewer drawbacks.Solar can be put in more places than wind, and doesn't fuck up local weather (and potentially global).
We have to ask ourselves, where does the energy come from?
For Solar it is directly from the sun.
For wind, it is much more complex, and much less understood what happens when we pull energy out of that system.
We have the Coriolis effect and indirect effects from the sun, and wind drives other things.
I don't want deserts expanding because less wind isn't getting moisture to the grasses and trees on the edges of the current ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027924</id>
	<title>One word:</title>
	<author>robinesque</author>
	<datestamp>1257694140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flywheels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flywheels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flywheels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30028410</id>
	<title>Re:Manzanas and Oranges</title>
	<author>onepoint</author>
	<datestamp>1257698280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your post about grid is very interesting and very true.</p><p>the problem in the USA is the management and maintenance of the power lines</p><p>right now, based on the little knowledge I have, it looks like<br>the power line sharing agreements between NJ and PA are the base line<br>model for the rest of the USA.</p><p>the agreement goes something like this. both states produce electricity for<br>there respective clients, both states help each other in keeping power lines<br>running at the best level possible, both states tell each other when they will<br>bring plants down for repairs, and swap electricity with each other.</p><p>what this does is a) keep power plants running at top performance b) keep<br>power lines running at the best capacity c) keeps the user cost lower due<br>to consistent updating ( money spent on making better energy or keeping the<br>transmission lines at the most productive level )</p><p>what I like about both of those states is that they have power programs for<br>alternative energy IE state sponsored, power company sponsored, and financial<br>programs, last I understood, solar panel financing with state backing were<br>at prime rate +2 under projects that would generate enough capacity to roll<br>back the meter during peak usage hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your post about grid is very interesting and very true.the problem in the USA is the management and maintenance of the power linesright now , based on the little knowledge I have , it looks likethe power line sharing agreements between NJ and PA are the base linemodel for the rest of the USA.the agreement goes something like this .
both states produce electricity forthere respective clients , both states help each other in keeping power linesrunning at the best level possible , both states tell each other when they willbring plants down for repairs , and swap electricity with each other.what this does is a ) keep power plants running at top performance b ) keeppower lines running at the best capacity c ) keeps the user cost lower dueto consistent updating ( money spent on making better energy or keeping thetransmission lines at the most productive level ) what I like about both of those states is that they have power programs foralternative energy IE state sponsored , power company sponsored , and financialprograms , last I understood , solar panel financing with state backing wereat prime rate + 2 under projects that would generate enough capacity to rollback the meter during peak usage hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your post about grid is very interesting and very true.the problem in the USA is the management and maintenance of the power linesright now, based on the little knowledge I have, it looks likethe power line sharing agreements between NJ and PA are the base linemodel for the rest of the USA.the agreement goes something like this.
both states produce electricity forthere respective clients, both states help each other in keeping power linesrunning at the best level possible, both states tell each other when they willbring plants down for repairs, and swap electricity with each other.what this does is a) keep power plants running at top performance b) keeppower lines running at the best capacity c) keeps the user cost lower dueto consistent updating ( money spent on making better energy or keeping thetransmission lines at the most productive level )what I like about both of those states is that they have power programs foralternative energy IE state sponsored, power company sponsored, and financialprograms, last I understood, solar panel financing with state backing wereat prime rate +2 under projects that would generate enough capacity to rollback the meter during peak usage hours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30039024</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257764580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah? This comment goes to eleven!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah ?
This comment goes to eleven !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah?
This comment goes to eleven!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026664</id>
	<title>Simple solution--Kinetic Batteries</title>
	<author>brentonboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257685140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it's really windy, use the energy to lift huge quantities of weight to the top of a deep shaft. Then when electricity is needed, allow the weights to fall down the shaft, with the cables they are suspended from driving generators on the way down. Won't wear out like a chemical battery, plus it's not toxic and can be made out of almost anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it 's really windy , use the energy to lift huge quantities of weight to the top of a deep shaft .
Then when electricity is needed , allow the weights to fall down the shaft , with the cables they are suspended from driving generators on the way down .
Wo n't wear out like a chemical battery , plus it 's not toxic and can be made out of almost anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it's really windy, use the energy to lift huge quantities of weight to the top of a deep shaft.
Then when electricity is needed, allow the weights to fall down the shaft, with the cables they are suspended from driving generators on the way down.
Won't wear out like a chemical battery, plus it's not toxic and can be made out of almost anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30034060</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Way of Thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257787320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just because our brains are first and foremost pattern-matching machines.  I mean<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what's the current best way to quickly tell a human from a computer? Show them a distorted pattern, and the human can recognize it insantly.</p><p>So, as pattern-matching machines, we literally think in patterns. We have "software" on top of that to run logic and analysis, but even those are influenced by the pattern-matching hardware, such that analysis is optimized by matching patterns first.</p><p>So when someone has a stupid prejudice, it may be stupid, but it's human and it's easy enough to see<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this pattern exists, and this part of the pattern is true, therefore the whole pattern match.</p><p>The media latches onto this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and I want to give them some credit, too. Rather than crassly cashing-in, I think it's more likely that viewers find it easier to process simplistic, stereotyped patterns than the more complex layers of patterns that better map to the real world. (Same thing happens in message boards, especially community-moderated ones. Think about it.) Media organizations recognize this pattern -- of simplistic patterns being more mass-consumable and therefore more popular, and bam! You have the media perpetuating simplistic patterns. Which of course creates a feedback loop.</p><p>How to beat this? Start by not playing the simple-pattern game. Recognize and internalize the layers, and bring attention to the anti-patterns that break the simplistic views. Do the hard thinking -- someone has to -- and teach it to others. Even if -- especially if -- it pushes outside of your comfort zone. Complex understanding of the world is uncomfortable, but it is important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just because our brains are first and foremost pattern-matching machines .
I mean ... what 's the current best way to quickly tell a human from a computer ?
Show them a distorted pattern , and the human can recognize it insantly.So , as pattern-matching machines , we literally think in patterns .
We have " software " on top of that to run logic and analysis , but even those are influenced by the pattern-matching hardware , such that analysis is optimized by matching patterns first.So when someone has a stupid prejudice , it may be stupid , but it 's human and it 's easy enough to see ... this pattern exists , and this part of the pattern is true , therefore the whole pattern match.The media latches onto this ... and I want to give them some credit , too .
Rather than crassly cashing-in , I think it 's more likely that viewers find it easier to process simplistic , stereotyped patterns than the more complex layers of patterns that better map to the real world .
( Same thing happens in message boards , especially community-moderated ones .
Think about it .
) Media organizations recognize this pattern -- of simplistic patterns being more mass-consumable and therefore more popular , and bam !
You have the media perpetuating simplistic patterns .
Which of course creates a feedback loop.How to beat this ?
Start by not playing the simple-pattern game .
Recognize and internalize the layers , and bring attention to the anti-patterns that break the simplistic views .
Do the hard thinking -- someone has to -- and teach it to others .
Even if -- especially if -- it pushes outside of your comfort zone .
Complex understanding of the world is uncomfortable , but it is important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just because our brains are first and foremost pattern-matching machines.
I mean ... what's the current best way to quickly tell a human from a computer?
Show them a distorted pattern, and the human can recognize it insantly.So, as pattern-matching machines, we literally think in patterns.
We have "software" on top of that to run logic and analysis, but even those are influenced by the pattern-matching hardware, such that analysis is optimized by matching patterns first.So when someone has a stupid prejudice, it may be stupid, but it's human and it's easy enough to see ... this pattern exists, and this part of the pattern is true, therefore the whole pattern match.The media latches onto this ... and I want to give them some credit, too.
Rather than crassly cashing-in, I think it's more likely that viewers find it easier to process simplistic, stereotyped patterns than the more complex layers of patterns that better map to the real world.
(Same thing happens in message boards, especially community-moderated ones.
Think about it.
) Media organizations recognize this pattern -- of simplistic patterns being more mass-consumable and therefore more popular, and bam!
You have the media perpetuating simplistic patterns.
Which of course creates a feedback loop.How to beat this?
Start by not playing the simple-pattern game.
Recognize and internalize the layers, and bring attention to the anti-patterns that break the simplistic views.
Do the hard thinking -- someone has to -- and teach it to others.
Even if -- especially if -- it pushes outside of your comfort zone.
Complex understanding of the world is uncomfortable, but it is important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30032832</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257782340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use."</p><p>This is true.  Within 50 years (oil) it won't be, and coal will follow eventually.</p><p>What then, Mr. Smarty Pants?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Coal and oil are plentiful , cheap , and easy to use .
" This is true .
Within 50 years ( oil ) it wo n't be , and coal will follow eventually.What then , Mr. Smarty Pants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.
"This is true.
Within 50 years (oil) it won't be, and coal will follow eventually.What then, Mr. Smarty Pants?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30030572</id>
	<title>Re:Pump water up a hill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257765000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is just what we have been doing in Spain, what we do during wind peaks. In the Hidroelectric plants we have reverse pumps that pump water back to the dam for when the wind peak finishes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is just what we have been doing in Spain , what we do during wind peaks .
In the Hidroelectric plants we have reverse pumps that pump water back to the dam for when the wind peak finishes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is just what we have been doing in Spain, what we do during wind peaks.
In the Hidroelectric plants we have reverse pumps that pump water back to the dam for when the wind peak finishes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30036476</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1257797100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh and did I mention that these technologies could one day remove the USA's dependence on foreign oil, reduce medical problems, protect the environment, decentralize the electrical system, reduce power lost during transmission (local power generation), and be better suited to installation in 3rd world countries?</p></div><p>
I thought that's what Chuck Norris was for....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh and did I mention that these technologies could one day remove the USA 's dependence on foreign oil , reduce medical problems , protect the environment , decentralize the electrical system , reduce power lost during transmission ( local power generation ) , and be better suited to installation in 3rd world countries ?
I thought that 's what Chuck Norris was for... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh and did I mention that these technologies could one day remove the USA's dependence on foreign oil, reduce medical problems, protect the environment, decentralize the electrical system, reduce power lost during transmission (local power generation), and be better suited to installation in 3rd world countries?
I thought that's what Chuck Norris was for....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025226</id>
	<title>Sorry, Nothing proved with one 3-day weekend</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1257675660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding is that the destabilization talk isn't about overloading a circuit breaker on one day, it's about massive fluxuation in available power over the entire generation time.<br><br>Just think of this. You've now made something like 80\% of your grid powered by wind. (They all have problems, but let's just look at wind.) You have a doldrum for a day or two, now you've gone for that time period with only 20\% of your normal power, that's destabilizing.<br>What if your windfarms are spead out over vast distances so they tend to have different local conditions. (Something like if you have them all over the USA.) In some ways that will help since no location is expected to be the same as the other, so there is an averaging effect going on. However, that averaging effect is limited by long distance power transmission issues. The grid isn't just a pull &amp; dump system. It uses power to send power, and it needs to maintain what you could think of as electrical pressure, (V.W.A. formulas.) which is why you have all those transformers and sub-stations all over the place, they are one part of that system. So even in the distributed scenario, what if you get a situation like high-wind on the east coast, and calm conditions mid-continent, and dead west coast. Funny thing, the need for power didn't decrease anywhere, but only the east coast is generating enough for their area, some of the mid will be ok, others in brown-outs or black-outs, and the west coast would be mostly black-out conditions, except near the few remaining alternate power sources, assuming the grid demand didn't leach it out completely and blow the circuits. (The entire east coast USA was blacked out by a cascade grid failure, and it might happen again.)<br>Of course having multiple sources of power helps offset this kind of issue. For instance, solar. But that would only help during the hours of light, and again, it needs to be within a reasonable distance of it's market/users.<br><br>All this stuff is why intelligent power managers advocate a number of different generation schemes distributed over the area with clustering (when possible) near high draw locations (like big cities). And no power manager can rationally turn a blind eye to those methods that run 24 hours on demand.<br><br>I agree that we need to expand our renewable resources type power generation, as well as move away from fossil fuels, but it's a tricky balancing act with huge penalties for dropping the ball, so don't trivialize it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that the destabilization talk is n't about overloading a circuit breaker on one day , it 's about massive fluxuation in available power over the entire generation time.Just think of this .
You 've now made something like 80 \ % of your grid powered by wind .
( They all have problems , but let 's just look at wind .
) You have a doldrum for a day or two , now you 've gone for that time period with only 20 \ % of your normal power , that 's destabilizing.What if your windfarms are spead out over vast distances so they tend to have different local conditions .
( Something like if you have them all over the USA .
) In some ways that will help since no location is expected to be the same as the other , so there is an averaging effect going on .
However , that averaging effect is limited by long distance power transmission issues .
The grid is n't just a pull &amp; dump system .
It uses power to send power , and it needs to maintain what you could think of as electrical pressure , ( V.W.A .
formulas. ) which is why you have all those transformers and sub-stations all over the place , they are one part of that system .
So even in the distributed scenario , what if you get a situation like high-wind on the east coast , and calm conditions mid-continent , and dead west coast .
Funny thing , the need for power did n't decrease anywhere , but only the east coast is generating enough for their area , some of the mid will be ok , others in brown-outs or black-outs , and the west coast would be mostly black-out conditions , except near the few remaining alternate power sources , assuming the grid demand did n't leach it out completely and blow the circuits .
( The entire east coast USA was blacked out by a cascade grid failure , and it might happen again .
) Of course having multiple sources of power helps offset this kind of issue .
For instance , solar .
But that would only help during the hours of light , and again , it needs to be within a reasonable distance of it 's market/users.All this stuff is why intelligent power managers advocate a number of different generation schemes distributed over the area with clustering ( when possible ) near high draw locations ( like big cities ) .
And no power manager can rationally turn a blind eye to those methods that run 24 hours on demand.I agree that we need to expand our renewable resources type power generation , as well as move away from fossil fuels , but it 's a tricky balancing act with huge penalties for dropping the ball , so do n't trivialize it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that the destabilization talk isn't about overloading a circuit breaker on one day, it's about massive fluxuation in available power over the entire generation time.Just think of this.
You've now made something like 80\% of your grid powered by wind.
(They all have problems, but let's just look at wind.
) You have a doldrum for a day or two, now you've gone for that time period with only 20\% of your normal power, that's destabilizing.What if your windfarms are spead out over vast distances so they tend to have different local conditions.
(Something like if you have them all over the USA.
) In some ways that will help since no location is expected to be the same as the other, so there is an averaging effect going on.
However, that averaging effect is limited by long distance power transmission issues.
The grid isn't just a pull &amp; dump system.
It uses power to send power, and it needs to maintain what you could think of as electrical pressure, (V.W.A.
formulas.) which is why you have all those transformers and sub-stations all over the place, they are one part of that system.
So even in the distributed scenario, what if you get a situation like high-wind on the east coast, and calm conditions mid-continent, and dead west coast.
Funny thing, the need for power didn't decrease anywhere, but only the east coast is generating enough for their area, some of the mid will be ok, others in brown-outs or black-outs, and the west coast would be mostly black-out conditions, except near the few remaining alternate power sources, assuming the grid demand didn't leach it out completely and blow the circuits.
(The entire east coast USA was blacked out by a cascade grid failure, and it might happen again.
)Of course having multiple sources of power helps offset this kind of issue.
For instance, solar.
But that would only help during the hours of light, and again, it needs to be within a reasonable distance of it's market/users.All this stuff is why intelligent power managers advocate a number of different generation schemes distributed over the area with clustering (when possible) near high draw locations (like big cities).
And no power manager can rationally turn a blind eye to those methods that run 24 hours on demand.I agree that we need to expand our renewable resources type power generation, as well as move away from fossil fuels, but it's a tricky balancing act with huge penalties for dropping the ball, so don't trivialize it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025026</id>
	<title>Clean Coal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257674160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's your god now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's your god now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's your god now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025586</id>
	<title>Re:There are two sides in that coin...</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1257678180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wait, "red" translates to "power network"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wait , " red " translates to " power network " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait, "red" translates to "power network"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257673920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use. Compare this to idiotic technologies like wind and solar that are hugely expensive, unreliable, and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in. And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.</p></div><p>Excuse me, but caring about our planet <i>does not</i> make somebody stupid.<br>Caring only about your pocketbook, however, does make you a <b>greedy asshole.</b><br>And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you <i>does</i> make <i>you</i> stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coal and oil are plentiful , cheap , and easy to use .
Compare this to idiotic technologies like wind and solar that are hugely expensive , unreliable , and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in .
And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.Excuse me , but caring about our planet does not make somebody stupid.Caring only about your pocketbook , however , does make you a greedy asshole.And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you does make you stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.
Compare this to idiotic technologies like wind and solar that are hugely expensive, unreliable, and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in.
And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.Excuse me, but caring about our planet does not make somebody stupid.Caring only about your pocketbook, however, does make you a greedy asshole.And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you does make you stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026920</id>
	<title>Re:So they've almost caught up to 100 years ago.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257686820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  I've seen American engineers suggest brake systems for wind turbines so that they could frequency match power going into the grid.  That has got to be the most stupid thing I've ever heard, but they suggested it (way less than 100 years ago).  Why wouldn't you get all the power you could, turn it into electricity, put it into an energy storage system, and then use a DC to AC converter (don't give me any bull that they don't exist or aren't big enough) and frequency match (phase locked loop circuits have been around for a long time too, and can be applied to power generation circuits),  and precisely add power to the grid (phase difference less than 1/1000000 of a radian).  American engineers were hoping to use brake systems on wind chargers to match phase.  ABSURD!  And what a waste of power!  The Spanish have great wind power systems.  Americans buy Saudi oil (Saudi Arabia then funds Bin Laden).  Spain does not fund Bin Laden.  Say 'backwards' if you want, but not as much in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I 've seen American engineers suggest brake systems for wind turbines so that they could frequency match power going into the grid .
That has got to be the most stupid thing I 've ever heard , but they suggested it ( way less than 100 years ago ) .
Why would n't you get all the power you could , turn it into electricity , put it into an energy storage system , and then use a DC to AC converter ( do n't give me any bull that they do n't exist or are n't big enough ) and frequency match ( phase locked loop circuits have been around for a long time too , and can be applied to power generation circuits ) , and precisely add power to the grid ( phase difference less than 1/1000000 of a radian ) .
American engineers were hoping to use brake systems on wind chargers to match phase .
ABSURD ! And what a waste of power !
The Spanish have great wind power systems .
Americans buy Saudi oil ( Saudi Arabia then funds Bin Laden ) .
Spain does not fund Bin Laden .
Say 'backwards ' if you want , but not as much in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I've seen American engineers suggest brake systems for wind turbines so that they could frequency match power going into the grid.
That has got to be the most stupid thing I've ever heard, but they suggested it (way less than 100 years ago).
Why wouldn't you get all the power you could, turn it into electricity, put it into an energy storage system, and then use a DC to AC converter (don't give me any bull that they don't exist or aren't big enough) and frequency match (phase locked loop circuits have been around for a long time too, and can be applied to power generation circuits),  and precisely add power to the grid (phase difference less than 1/1000000 of a radian).
American engineers were hoping to use brake systems on wind chargers to match phase.
ABSURD!  And what a waste of power!
The Spanish have great wind power systems.
Americans buy Saudi oil (Saudi Arabia then funds Bin Laden).
Spain does not fund Bin Laden.
Say 'backwards' if you want, but not as much in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025530</id>
	<title>its going to end in tears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257677820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how long until everyones favorite superpower starts invading windy countries?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how long until everyones favorite superpower starts invading windy countries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how long until everyones favorite superpower starts invading windy countries?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027164</id>
	<title>Re:Good, but by no means a complete solution</title>
	<author>stewartm0205</author>
	<datestamp>1257688260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need to develop a cheap high density energy storage technology. I think compress air bags make out of high tensile material like kevlar. Maybe located in deep water to help increase the amount of air pressure the bag can contain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to develop a cheap high density energy storage technology .
I think compress air bags make out of high tensile material like kevlar .
Maybe located in deep water to help increase the amount of air pressure the bag can contain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to develop a cheap high density energy storage technology.
I think compress air bags make out of high tensile material like kevlar.
Maybe located in deep water to help increase the amount of air pressure the bag can contain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025356</id>
	<title>Re:Does not change the basics.</title>
	<author>photonic</author>
	<datestamp>1257676680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As already said by others, you can reduce the risk by <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/07/11/24/0048218/Interconnecting-Wind-Farms-To-Smooth-Power-Production?art\_pos=10" title="slashdot.org">connecting large regions</a> [slashdot.org]. The chance that it there is no wind in Spain, France and Germany at the same time is much lower than in a single country. And even if it takes a day to start up a coil plant, some basic weather forecasting will buy you enough time. And don't forget hydro-electric for fast on-demand power supply. I am not an expert, but it seems to me that you can keep accumulating water during the night when there is no need, and open the pipes in just a few minutes instance when there is urgent demand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As already said by others , you can reduce the risk by connecting large regions [ slashdot.org ] .
The chance that it there is no wind in Spain , France and Germany at the same time is much lower than in a single country .
And even if it takes a day to start up a coil plant , some basic weather forecasting will buy you enough time .
And do n't forget hydro-electric for fast on-demand power supply .
I am not an expert , but it seems to me that you can keep accumulating water during the night when there is no need , and open the pipes in just a few minutes instance when there is urgent demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As already said by others, you can reduce the risk by connecting large regions [slashdot.org].
The chance that it there is no wind in Spain, France and Germany at the same time is much lower than in a single country.
And even if it takes a day to start up a coil plant, some basic weather forecasting will buy you enough time.
And don't forget hydro-electric for fast on-demand power supply.
I am not an expert, but it seems to me that you can keep accumulating water during the night when there is no need, and open the pipes in just a few minutes instance when there is urgent demand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026818</id>
	<title>Just need to turn some stuff off</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1257686220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a paper published a couple years ago by dutch researchers that proposed to give discounts for refrigerated warehouses. They would lower their thermostats a couple degrees, but would be given a signal to stop their refrigeration units when the load gets too high. The couple degrees would be enough of a buffer to last a few hours. They calculated it would be enough to handle wind up to 30\% of the total power generation.</p><p>This kind of thing is already done, by the way, but on a limited scale. Large industrial consumers of electricity are already given discounts if they agree to cut their use on demand. The new thing here is to displace electricity use in time even more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a paper published a couple years ago by dutch researchers that proposed to give discounts for refrigerated warehouses .
They would lower their thermostats a couple degrees , but would be given a signal to stop their refrigeration units when the load gets too high .
The couple degrees would be enough of a buffer to last a few hours .
They calculated it would be enough to handle wind up to 30 \ % of the total power generation.This kind of thing is already done , by the way , but on a limited scale .
Large industrial consumers of electricity are already given discounts if they agree to cut their use on demand .
The new thing here is to displace electricity use in time even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a paper published a couple years ago by dutch researchers that proposed to give discounts for refrigerated warehouses.
They would lower their thermostats a couple degrees, but would be given a signal to stop their refrigeration units when the load gets too high.
The couple degrees would be enough of a buffer to last a few hours.
They calculated it would be enough to handle wind up to 30\% of the total power generation.This kind of thing is already done, by the way, but on a limited scale.
Large industrial consumers of electricity are already given discounts if they agree to cut their use on demand.
The new thing here is to displace electricity use in time even more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025490</id>
	<title>Re:There are two sides in that coin...</title>
	<author>burni2</author>
	<datestamp>1257677580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry but I think that view is wrong (90\% wrong),</p><p>With some information from the wikipedia page [1] about spain.</p><p>Which says that only 20\% of the electrical energy<br>comming from nuclear plants, this contrasts<br>to the 16 + 32 (coalfired and combined cycle plants) so this part comming from fossil fuels</p><p>Where last year, we saw a spike in prices<br>and energy is bought on energy stock markets up to one year ahead.</p><p>Also taking into account that spain had<br>a very low price[2] of ~11 &euro;-cent per kWh.</p><p>even lower than the EU average of ~14 &euro;-cent<br>and even lower than france price of ~15 &euro;-cent<br>(france produces a vast amount of their electrical energy in nuclear power plants ~80\%)</p><p>And that the spanish nuclear power exit bill dates from 2006[1] and mandates the exit to 2024 at moment of now, no nuclear power plant was shut down, also they are ment to be.</p><p>So I don't think that, and don't see that these numbers indicate, that the biggest effect on the prices are due to subsidized renewables.</p><p>More looking at big(german) energy firms buying spanish energy producers and using their momentum<br>to increase the prices.</p><p>[1] <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanien#Atomenergie" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanien#Atomenergie</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>[2] <a href="http://www.rp-online.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/energie/Strompreise-in-Europa\_bid\_17861.html" title="rp-online.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.rp-online.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/energie/Strompreise-in-Europa\_bid\_17861.html</a> [rp-online.de]</p><p>[2] use the numbers stop at spain<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>prices are in &euro;-cent</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but I think that view is wrong ( 90 \ % wrong ) ,With some information from the wikipedia page [ 1 ] about spain.Which says that only 20 \ % of the electrical energycomming from nuclear plants , this contraststo the 16 + 32 ( coalfired and combined cycle plants ) so this part comming from fossil fuelsWhere last year , we saw a spike in pricesand energy is bought on energy stock markets up to one year ahead.Also taking into account that spain hada very low price [ 2 ] of ~ 11    -cent per kWh.even lower than the EU average of ~ 14    -centand even lower than france price of ~ 15    -cent ( france produces a vast amount of their electrical energy in nuclear power plants ~ 80 \ % ) And that the spanish nuclear power exit bill dates from 2006 [ 1 ] and mandates the exit to 2024 at moment of now , no nuclear power plant was shut down , also they are ment to be.So I do n't think that , and do n't see that these numbers indicate , that the biggest effect on the prices are due to subsidized renewables.More looking at big ( german ) energy firms buying spanish energy producers and using their momentumto increase the prices .
[ 1 ] http : //de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanien # Atomenergie [ wikipedia.org ] [ 2 ] http : //www.rp-online.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/energie/Strompreise-in-Europa \ _bid \ _17861.html [ rp-online.de ] [ 2 ] use the numbers stop at spain : ) prices are in    -cent</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but I think that view is wrong (90\% wrong),With some information from the wikipedia page [1] about spain.Which says that only 20\% of the electrical energycomming from nuclear plants, this contraststo the 16 + 32 (coalfired and combined cycle plants) so this part comming from fossil fuelsWhere last year, we saw a spike in pricesand energy is bought on energy stock markets up to one year ahead.Also taking into account that spain hada very low price[2] of ~11 €-cent per kWh.even lower than the EU average of ~14 €-centand even lower than france price of ~15 €-cent(france produces a vast amount of their electrical energy in nuclear power plants ~80\%)And that the spanish nuclear power exit bill dates from 2006[1] and mandates the exit to 2024 at moment of now, no nuclear power plant was shut down, also they are ment to be.So I don't think that, and don't see that these numbers indicate, that the biggest effect on the prices are due to subsidized renewables.More looking at big(german) energy firms buying spanish energy producers and using their momentumto increase the prices.
[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanien#Atomenergie [wikipedia.org][2] http://www.rp-online.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/energie/Strompreise-in-Europa\_bid\_17861.html [rp-online.de][2] use the numbers stop at spain :)prices are in €-cent</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30043412</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257847440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I especially liked the really  STUPID part that wind and solar "hugely expensive" relative to coal and oil, while failing to take into account the cost of lung, heart, brain, and kidney cells into the cost.</p><p>With thinking by "accountants" like these, no wonder the spread between the US and other developed countries in terms of life expectancy continues to widen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I especially liked the really STUPID part that wind and solar " hugely expensive " relative to coal and oil , while failing to take into account the cost of lung , heart , brain , and kidney cells into the cost.With thinking by " accountants " like these , no wonder the spread between the US and other developed countries in terms of life expectancy continues to widen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I especially liked the really  STUPID part that wind and solar "hugely expensive" relative to coal and oil, while failing to take into account the cost of lung, heart, brain, and kidney cells into the cost.With thinking by "accountants" like these, no wonder the spread between the US and other developed countries in terms of life expectancy continues to widen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30034810</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>5KVGhost</author>
	<datestamp>1257790260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Excuse me, but caring about our planet does not make somebody stupid."</p><p>"Caring about our planet" doesn't make you smart, either. And there's ample evidence from history to show that people who substitute zealotry for serious thought usually end up causing more harm than good.</p><p>"Caring only about your pocketbook, however, does make you a greedy asshole."</p><p>The original poster made some fairly specific points, all of which are arguably true. Sure, the "eyeline" thing is pretty subjective, but the fact that a certain prominent political family in Mass. has blocked local wind power for that same reason makes it hard to completely dismiss.</p><p>But you respond with an ad hominem argument: He's greedy! He doesn't care about the planet!</p><p>When solar and wind become profitable and efficient then everyone will use them. Until then they're luxury items.</p><p>Frankly we need more greedy people in the environmental movement. I want ultracapacitors to make someone as wealthy as Bill Gates. I want some anonymous engineer toiling at a startup company to invent artificial photosynthesis and never have to work again in his life. I want the Polywell fusion guys to make a breakthrough and be able to buy their own private islands.</p><p>When people get rich is when good things happen.</p><p>"And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you does make you stupid"</p><p>Yeah, because berating folks as "greedy assholes" is always the best way of showing respect for other people's priorities.</p><p>But if you do want to hear another person's priorities, then I think the answer is blindingly obvious: nuclear power. Unfortuantely the nitwits who have infested the environmental movement can't seem to get past their superstitious fear of it. Or maybe they don't really want cheap, affordable and safe energy so much as different kind of power entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Excuse me , but caring about our planet does not make somebody stupid .
" " Caring about our planet " does n't make you smart , either .
And there 's ample evidence from history to show that people who substitute zealotry for serious thought usually end up causing more harm than good .
" Caring only about your pocketbook , however , does make you a greedy asshole .
" The original poster made some fairly specific points , all of which are arguably true .
Sure , the " eyeline " thing is pretty subjective , but the fact that a certain prominent political family in Mass .
has blocked local wind power for that same reason makes it hard to completely dismiss.But you respond with an ad hominem argument : He 's greedy !
He does n't care about the planet ! When solar and wind become profitable and efficient then everyone will use them .
Until then they 're luxury items.Frankly we need more greedy people in the environmental movement .
I want ultracapacitors to make someone as wealthy as Bill Gates .
I want some anonymous engineer toiling at a startup company to invent artificial photosynthesis and never have to work again in his life .
I want the Polywell fusion guys to make a breakthrough and be able to buy their own private islands.When people get rich is when good things happen .
" And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you does make you stupid " Yeah , because berating folks as " greedy assholes " is always the best way of showing respect for other people 's priorities.But if you do want to hear another person 's priorities , then I think the answer is blindingly obvious : nuclear power .
Unfortuantely the nitwits who have infested the environmental movement ca n't seem to get past their superstitious fear of it .
Or maybe they do n't really want cheap , affordable and safe energy so much as different kind of power entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Excuse me, but caring about our planet does not make somebody stupid.
""Caring about our planet" doesn't make you smart, either.
And there's ample evidence from history to show that people who substitute zealotry for serious thought usually end up causing more harm than good.
"Caring only about your pocketbook, however, does make you a greedy asshole.
"The original poster made some fairly specific points, all of which are arguably true.
Sure, the "eyeline" thing is pretty subjective, but the fact that a certain prominent political family in Mass.
has blocked local wind power for that same reason makes it hard to completely dismiss.But you respond with an ad hominem argument: He's greedy!
He doesn't care about the planet!When solar and wind become profitable and efficient then everyone will use them.
Until then they're luxury items.Frankly we need more greedy people in the environmental movement.
I want ultracapacitors to make someone as wealthy as Bill Gates.
I want some anonymous engineer toiling at a startup company to invent artificial photosynthesis and never have to work again in his life.
I want the Polywell fusion guys to make a breakthrough and be able to buy their own private islands.When people get rich is when good things happen.
"And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you does make you stupid"Yeah, because berating folks as "greedy assholes" is always the best way of showing respect for other people's priorities.But if you do want to hear another person's priorities, then I think the answer is blindingly obvious: nuclear power.
Unfortuantely the nitwits who have infested the environmental movement can't seem to get past their superstitious fear of it.
Or maybe they don't really want cheap, affordable and safe energy so much as different kind of power entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30028816</id>
	<title>Re:This will not be liked...</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1257701880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that software I wrote for E-on to let design windfarms is a figment of my imagination?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ... that software I wrote for E-on to let design windfarms is a figment of my imagination ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So ... that software I wrote for E-on to let design windfarms is a figment of my imagination?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027256</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257688920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kinda like how spammers reap enormous profits in spite of the resources they waste for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda like how spammers reap enormous profits in spite of the resources they waste for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda like how spammers reap enormous profits in spite of the resources they waste for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025772</id>
	<title>A lot of gas turbine plants sit idle already.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257679620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most gas turbine plants are already peak plants, so they don't run most of the time. Take Texas for example the summer load is typically twice the winter spring fall load due to air conditioning. so there are already a lot of plants sitting idle. Texas has hit 20\% wind on its grid a couple of times in the last few weeks since a line was energized to circumvent the bottlenecks in the ERCOT grid. Most places have large demand swings with time of day and time of year so there are a lot of idle plants a good bit of the time. Combined cycle gas turbine plants must be economical when run as peak plants or there would not be so many of them. Since a turbine plant can start in 10 mins or so its a good backup. Also the turbine plant is almost 1/4 the emission of CO2 per kwh of a coal plant. (1/2 is because new plants run at about 60\% efficiency , and 1/2 because methane produces 1/2 as much co2 per unit of heat).<br>All it takes is to fix the nimby attitude of folks. (In Texas the most recent big wind farm was build because the land owners wanted the free money from the turbines, which leave most of their land free to farm or graze cattle on).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most gas turbine plants are already peak plants , so they do n't run most of the time .
Take Texas for example the summer load is typically twice the winter spring fall load due to air conditioning .
so there are already a lot of plants sitting idle .
Texas has hit 20 \ % wind on its grid a couple of times in the last few weeks since a line was energized to circumvent the bottlenecks in the ERCOT grid .
Most places have large demand swings with time of day and time of year so there are a lot of idle plants a good bit of the time .
Combined cycle gas turbine plants must be economical when run as peak plants or there would not be so many of them .
Since a turbine plant can start in 10 mins or so its a good backup .
Also the turbine plant is almost 1/4 the emission of CO2 per kwh of a coal plant .
( 1/2 is because new plants run at about 60 \ % efficiency , and 1/2 because methane produces 1/2 as much co2 per unit of heat ) .All it takes is to fix the nimby attitude of folks .
( In Texas the most recent big wind farm was build because the land owners wanted the free money from the turbines , which leave most of their land free to farm or graze cattle on ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most gas turbine plants are already peak plants, so they don't run most of the time.
Take Texas for example the summer load is typically twice the winter spring fall load due to air conditioning.
so there are already a lot of plants sitting idle.
Texas has hit 20\% wind on its grid a couple of times in the last few weeks since a line was energized to circumvent the bottlenecks in the ERCOT grid.
Most places have large demand swings with time of day and time of year so there are a lot of idle plants a good bit of the time.
Combined cycle gas turbine plants must be economical when run as peak plants or there would not be so many of them.
Since a turbine plant can start in 10 mins or so its a good backup.
Also the turbine plant is almost 1/4 the emission of CO2 per kwh of a coal plant.
(1/2 is because new plants run at about 60\% efficiency , and 1/2 because methane produces 1/2 as much co2 per unit of heat).All it takes is to fix the nimby attitude of folks.
(In Texas the most recent big wind farm was build because the land owners wanted the free money from the turbines, which leave most of their land free to farm or graze cattle on).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30031320</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Way of Thinking</title>
	<author>wall0159</author>
	<datestamp>1257774540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you'll find that in the US, most of these social/political topics are a lot more polarised than they are elsewhere in the world.</p><p>I don't know why that is...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find that in the US , most of these social/political topics are a lot more polarised than they are elsewhere in the world.I do n't know why that is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find that in the US, most of these social/political topics are a lot more polarised than they are elsewhere in the world.I don't know why that is...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027620</id>
	<title>whats their plan when the wind stops?</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1257691620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>don't get me wrong i think making efficent use of wind energy is great. but to suggest this has solved the limitations of wind, is the kind of junk science that prevents alternatives to coal fired stations being be taken seriously.<p>
sure it won't be a common occurance that the wind slows down in multuple locations... but thats HOW disasters happen, all the unlikely scenarios line up and you get that perfect storm. and when your talking about the power grid it's an unacceptable risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't get me wrong i think making efficent use of wind energy is great .
but to suggest this has solved the limitations of wind , is the kind of junk science that prevents alternatives to coal fired stations being be taken seriously .
sure it wo n't be a common occurance that the wind slows down in multuple locations... but thats HOW disasters happen , all the unlikely scenarios line up and you get that perfect storm .
and when your talking about the power grid it 's an unacceptable risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't get me wrong i think making efficent use of wind energy is great.
but to suggest this has solved the limitations of wind, is the kind of junk science that prevents alternatives to coal fired stations being be taken seriously.
sure it won't be a common occurance that the wind slows down in multuple locations... but thats HOW disasters happen, all the unlikely scenarios line up and you get that perfect storm.
and when your talking about the power grid it's an unacceptable risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025328</id>
	<title>Re:Good, but by no means a complete solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257676440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well. Just look at the graph linked in the article.</p><p><a href="https://demanda.ree.es/generacion\_acumulada.html" title="demanda.ree.es">https://demanda.ree.es/generacion\_acumulada.html</a> [demanda.ree.es]</p><p>Note that the bottom drops below the zero line every now and then. Just before and after that the net hydroelectric power output drops to zero. I figure that's pumped-storage hydroectric plants filling their storage. Spain has at least 3 gigawatt worth of such plants. It doesn't solve the entire problem at this time, but it will sure help raise your baseline-example of 20GW quite a bit.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage\_hydroelectricity" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage\_hydroelectricity</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well .
Just look at the graph linked in the article.https : //demanda.ree.es/generacion \ _acumulada.html [ demanda.ree.es ] Note that the bottom drops below the zero line every now and then .
Just before and after that the net hydroelectric power output drops to zero .
I figure that 's pumped-storage hydroectric plants filling their storage .
Spain has at least 3 gigawatt worth of such plants .
It does n't solve the entire problem at this time , but it will sure help raise your baseline-example of 20GW quite a bit.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage \ _hydroelectricity [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well.
Just look at the graph linked in the article.https://demanda.ree.es/generacion\_acumulada.html [demanda.ree.es]Note that the bottom drops below the zero line every now and then.
Just before and after that the net hydroelectric power output drops to zero.
I figure that's pumped-storage hydroectric plants filling their storage.
Spain has at least 3 gigawatt worth of such plants.
It doesn't solve the entire problem at this time, but it will sure help raise your baseline-example of 20GW quite a bit.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage\_hydroelectricity [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029522</id>
	<title>Go NUCLEAR !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257710220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind proven has been proven ineffective in Northern Europe where the most electricity is needed in the dead cold of the dark winter. Usually Wind Power is working under 20\% of the time. If we'd have much wind power we'd be sleeping in cold rooms and probably very very dead.</p><p>Go nuclear! (and then fusion when it becomes available)</p><p>Nuclear is GREEN!</p><p>And the typical environmentalist green hippie doesn't understand that Wind Power costs so much more than nuclear that it is insane. To keep the prices near the same for end users the governments invest huge amounts of money to wind power. Without government funding nobody would never ever use it. Its so friggin expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind proven has been proven ineffective in Northern Europe where the most electricity is needed in the dead cold of the dark winter .
Usually Wind Power is working under 20 \ % of the time .
If we 'd have much wind power we 'd be sleeping in cold rooms and probably very very dead.Go nuclear !
( and then fusion when it becomes available ) Nuclear is GREEN ! And the typical environmentalist green hippie does n't understand that Wind Power costs so much more than nuclear that it is insane .
To keep the prices near the same for end users the governments invest huge amounts of money to wind power .
Without government funding nobody would never ever use it .
Its so friggin expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind proven has been proven ineffective in Northern Europe where the most electricity is needed in the dead cold of the dark winter.
Usually Wind Power is working under 20\% of the time.
If we'd have much wind power we'd be sleeping in cold rooms and probably very very dead.Go nuclear!
(and then fusion when it becomes available)Nuclear is GREEN!And the typical environmentalist green hippie doesn't understand that Wind Power costs so much more than nuclear that it is insane.
To keep the prices near the same for end users the governments invest huge amounts of money to wind power.
Without government funding nobody would never ever use it.
Its so friggin expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025552</id>
	<title>Re:There are two sides in that coin...</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1257677940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How's that socialism working out for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that socialism working out for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that socialism working out for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025978</id>
	<title>Look at the Data!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257680940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello,<br>Wind is unpredictable, and cannot supply base load. Item 14 at the following link shows how unpredictable wind is and how it can be essentially zero for many days in a row:<br>http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/default.aspx<br>This site gives information about the wind resources in the Northwest US.</p><p>If coupled with pumped storage, wind works great. The problem is the environmental community fights pumped storage, making precious few projects in the US viable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello,Wind is unpredictable , and can not supply base load .
Item 14 at the following link shows how unpredictable wind is and how it can be essentially zero for many days in a row : http : //www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/default.aspxThis site gives information about the wind resources in the Northwest US.If coupled with pumped storage , wind works great .
The problem is the environmental community fights pumped storage , making precious few projects in the US viable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello,Wind is unpredictable, and cannot supply base load.
Item 14 at the following link shows how unpredictable wind is and how it can be essentially zero for many days in a row:http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/default.aspxThis site gives information about the wind resources in the Northwest US.If coupled with pumped storage, wind works great.
The problem is the environmental community fights pumped storage, making precious few projects in the US viable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025688</id>
	<title>Re:Good, but by no means a complete solution</title>
	<author>Patatoffel</author>
	<datestamp>1257678900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The numbers are <a href="https://demanda.ree.es/eolica.html" title="demanda.ree.es" rel="nofollow">here</a> [demanda.ree.es]. Right now, Spanish wind power is generating ~10400 MW out of 17600 installed MW (59\%, green graph). The yellow graph shows wind power as percentage of total demand (now stands at 38\%). (Select "2009-11-08" as date and click "Consultar otra fecha").

<br> <br>
Wind has been generating between 7-10 GW in Spain during the last week, check it in the other <a href="https://demanda.ree.es/generacion\_acumulada.html" title="demanda.ree.es" rel="nofollow">graphic</a> [demanda.ree.es] (labeled as "E&#243;lica"). "Rest. reg. especial" means other tech (biomass, solar, cogeneration), and "Intercambios int." means imports/exports (to/from France, Portugal or Morocco). When hydro turns dark blue, reversible hydro plants are pumping water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The numbers are here [ demanda.ree.es ] .
Right now , Spanish wind power is generating ~ 10400 MW out of 17600 installed MW ( 59 \ % , green graph ) .
The yellow graph shows wind power as percentage of total demand ( now stands at 38 \ % ) .
( Select " 2009-11-08 " as date and click " Consultar otra fecha " ) .
Wind has been generating between 7-10 GW in Spain during the last week , check it in the other graphic [ demanda.ree.es ] ( labeled as " E   lica " ) .
" Rest. reg .
especial " means other tech ( biomass , solar , cogeneration ) , and " Intercambios int .
" means imports/exports ( to/from France , Portugal or Morocco ) .
When hydro turns dark blue , reversible hydro plants are pumping water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The numbers are here [demanda.ree.es].
Right now, Spanish wind power is generating ~10400 MW out of 17600 installed MW (59\%, green graph).
The yellow graph shows wind power as percentage of total demand (now stands at 38\%).
(Select "2009-11-08" as date and click "Consultar otra fecha").
Wind has been generating between 7-10 GW in Spain during the last week, check it in the other graphic [demanda.ree.es] (labeled as "Eólica").
"Rest. reg.
especial" means other tech (biomass, solar, cogeneration), and "Intercambios int.
" means imports/exports (to/from France, Portugal or Morocco).
When hydro turns dark blue, reversible hydro plants are pumping water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025574</id>
	<title>Re:There are two sides in that coin...</title>
	<author>diegocgteleline.es</author>
	<datestamp>1257678060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the subsidies have been cut (which is why the install rate of solar power stations has plummetted), and the money paid is not all a subsidy (to start with, the government doesn't pays it and the taxpayers money is not touched). In spain solar and wind power is 0 in the "power market", and the power distribution companies have to pay solar and wind energy at a prices the government has set. If there was a free market there wouldn't be any price set by the government, but the owners of solar and wind power stations would ask for a higher price than 0. There would be certainly a difference between the current price and the theorical free-market price, but some people think that the current price is all of it a subsidy, which it isn't (we just don't know how much of it is a subsidy). But that doesn't really matters, renewables are stil progressing. The proof is that despide of the lack of strong subsidies some companies are still planning new installations. Elecnor announced recently 3 new solar stations of 50 MW each one that will cost 900 millions - from their pocket. They wouldn't risk that money if they feared that the pro-nuclear opposition party can ruin it with a policy change.</p><p>Oh, and the nuclear power stations that have been dismantled in the last 20 years weren't really dismantled because of a anti-nuclear policy. The real problem was that those nuclear stations weren't needed (3 of our 8 nuclear power stations are switched off right now, and we are still exporting power to other countries) and some power companys went bankrupt while constructing them. The government had to use taxpayers money (lots of them) to keep those private companies alive, and had to stop the construction of new stations to avoid more losses. The best way the government found to hide all that was to tell the media that they had decided to go green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the subsidies have been cut ( which is why the install rate of solar power stations has plummetted ) , and the money paid is not all a subsidy ( to start with , the government does n't pays it and the taxpayers money is not touched ) .
In spain solar and wind power is 0 in the " power market " , and the power distribution companies have to pay solar and wind energy at a prices the government has set .
If there was a free market there would n't be any price set by the government , but the owners of solar and wind power stations would ask for a higher price than 0 .
There would be certainly a difference between the current price and the theorical free-market price , but some people think that the current price is all of it a subsidy , which it is n't ( we just do n't know how much of it is a subsidy ) .
But that does n't really matters , renewables are stil progressing .
The proof is that despide of the lack of strong subsidies some companies are still planning new installations .
Elecnor announced recently 3 new solar stations of 50 MW each one that will cost 900 millions - from their pocket .
They would n't risk that money if they feared that the pro-nuclear opposition party can ruin it with a policy change.Oh , and the nuclear power stations that have been dismantled in the last 20 years were n't really dismantled because of a anti-nuclear policy .
The real problem was that those nuclear stations were n't needed ( 3 of our 8 nuclear power stations are switched off right now , and we are still exporting power to other countries ) and some power companys went bankrupt while constructing them .
The government had to use taxpayers money ( lots of them ) to keep those private companies alive , and had to stop the construction of new stations to avoid more losses .
The best way the government found to hide all that was to tell the media that they had decided to go green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the subsidies have been cut (which is why the install rate of solar power stations has plummetted), and the money paid is not all a subsidy (to start with, the government doesn't pays it and the taxpayers money is not touched).
In spain solar and wind power is 0 in the "power market", and the power distribution companies have to pay solar and wind energy at a prices the government has set.
If there was a free market there wouldn't be any price set by the government, but the owners of solar and wind power stations would ask for a higher price than 0.
There would be certainly a difference between the current price and the theorical free-market price, but some people think that the current price is all of it a subsidy, which it isn't (we just don't know how much of it is a subsidy).
But that doesn't really matters, renewables are stil progressing.
The proof is that despide of the lack of strong subsidies some companies are still planning new installations.
Elecnor announced recently 3 new solar stations of 50 MW each one that will cost 900 millions - from their pocket.
They wouldn't risk that money if they feared that the pro-nuclear opposition party can ruin it with a policy change.Oh, and the nuclear power stations that have been dismantled in the last 20 years weren't really dismantled because of a anti-nuclear policy.
The real problem was that those nuclear stations weren't needed (3 of our 8 nuclear power stations are switched off right now, and we are still exporting power to other countries) and some power companys went bankrupt while constructing them.
The government had to use taxpayers money (lots of them) to keep those private companies alive, and had to stop the construction of new stations to avoid more losses.
The best way the government found to hide all that was to tell the media that they had decided to go green.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025340</id>
	<title>hydrogen as capacitor for wind/solar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257676500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regarding the grid....  Getting energy from there to here seems a problem.  Isn't the problem with hydrogen fuel cells the fact that you have to have hydrogen in the first place (which takes energy?)  I don't know the efficiencies lost via conversion (which would include the economics of transportation), but if solar or wind power was used to generate hydrogen, couldn't the hydrogen then be delivered to where it is needed, for use when wanted?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding the grid.... Getting energy from there to here seems a problem .
Is n't the problem with hydrogen fuel cells the fact that you have to have hydrogen in the first place ( which takes energy ?
) I do n't know the efficiencies lost via conversion ( which would include the economics of transportation ) , but if solar or wind power was used to generate hydrogen , could n't the hydrogen then be delivered to where it is needed , for use when wanted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding the grid....  Getting energy from there to here seems a problem.
Isn't the problem with hydrogen fuel cells the fact that you have to have hydrogen in the first place (which takes energy?
)  I don't know the efficiencies lost via conversion (which would include the economics of transportation), but if solar or wind power was used to generate hydrogen, couldn't the hydrogen then be delivered to where it is needed, for use when wanted?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027518</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1257690840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oil is also running out, and mainly comes from stragetically dubious sources. Its good to
wind technology has come far enough to be a signicant part of a countries energy supply.
Yes is does remain necessary to get wind power economicly efficientive, this only needs
the price of tubines to half or so, of the other energy sources to double, so its very near,
quite a bit nearer than solar power, which is at least double again the current cost of wind.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/WindPower/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Wind Power</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oil is also running out , and mainly comes from stragetically dubious sources .
Its good to wind technology has come far enough to be a signicant part of a countries energy supply .
Yes is does remain necessary to get wind power economicly efficientive , this only needs the price of tubines to half or so , of the other energy sources to double , so its very near , quite a bit nearer than solar power , which is at least double again the current cost of wind .
--- Wind Power [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oil is also running out, and mainly comes from stragetically dubious sources.
Its good to
wind technology has come far enough to be a signicant part of a countries energy supply.
Yes is does remain necessary to get wind power economicly efficientive, this only needs
the price of tubines to half or so, of the other energy sources to double, so its very near,
quite a bit nearer than solar power, which is at least double again the current cost of wind.
---

Wind Power [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025266</id>
	<title>Jew Lieberman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257676020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad that fucking <b>kike</b> Jew Lieberman  would rather protect insurance company profits than human life.</p><p>This is why the holocaust was such a good idea. It was just one Jew short of enabling real healthcare reform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad that fucking kike Jew Lieberman would rather protect insurance company profits than human life.This is why the holocaust was such a good idea .
It was just one Jew short of enabling real healthcare reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad that fucking kike Jew Lieberman  would rather protect insurance company profits than human life.This is why the holocaust was such a good idea.
It was just one Jew short of enabling real healthcare reform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30043466</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Way of Thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257848100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply put, the US is falling further and further behind in science education.  If you don't know anything, just become arrogant and self-righteous.  Its a lot easier than doing (learning) the math and your more likely to get on Fox News.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply put , the US is falling further and further behind in science education .
If you do n't know anything , just become arrogant and self-righteous .
Its a lot easier than doing ( learning ) the math and your more likely to get on Fox News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply put, the US is falling further and further behind in science education.
If you don't know anything, just become arrogant and self-righteous.
Its a lot easier than doing (learning) the math and your more likely to get on Fox News.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30031320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025452</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Nyall</author>
	<datestamp>1257677280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in</p></div> </blockquote><p>I hope I'm not the only one who thinks giant windmill farms are visually interesting and slightly artistic</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in I hope I 'm not the only one who thinks giant windmill farms are visually interesting and slightly artistic</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in I hope I'm not the only one who thinks giant windmill farms are visually interesting and slightly artistic
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30032454</id>
	<title>Re:So they've almost caught up to 100 years ago.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1257780960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most American generators use natural gas, which exists in great supply in the USA, and we do not need to import anything to run our grid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most American generators use natural gas , which exists in great supply in the USA , and we do not need to import anything to run our grid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most American generators use natural gas, which exists in great supply in the USA, and we do not need to import anything to run our grid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30081106</id>
	<title>Re:Does not change the basics.</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1258028520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Bighorn dam on the North Saskatchewan river is used for peaking power this way.  90+\% of the water is let through the turbines between 5 and 7 p.m.  Most of it is let in 20-60 second bursts.  They go from zero load to nearly max (10 MW) in a couple seconds, while the coal plants pick up the load. Then back down to zero.  While 10 MW is peanuts, using it to shave peak demand means the boilers at the coal plants can be run closer to optimum efficiency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bighorn dam on the North Saskatchewan river is used for peaking power this way .
90 + \ % of the water is let through the turbines between 5 and 7 p.m. Most of it is let in 20-60 second bursts .
They go from zero load to nearly max ( 10 MW ) in a couple seconds , while the coal plants pick up the load .
Then back down to zero .
While 10 MW is peanuts , using it to shave peak demand means the boilers at the coal plants can be run closer to optimum efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bighorn dam on the North Saskatchewan river is used for peaking power this way.
90+\% of the water is let through the turbines between 5 and 7 p.m.  Most of it is let in 20-60 second bursts.
They go from zero load to nearly max (10 MW) in a couple seconds, while the coal plants pick up the load.
Then back down to zero.
While 10 MW is peanuts, using it to shave peak demand means the boilers at the coal plants can be run closer to optimum efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025196</id>
	<title>That's great but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257675420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You still need a source of generation that can react quickly enough to stabilise voltage.  Currently this is accomplished with fossil fuels (gas turbines, fired boilers / steam turbines, etc).  Wind and solar can only supplement other base load sources of generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You still need a source of generation that can react quickly enough to stabilise voltage .
Currently this is accomplished with fossil fuels ( gas turbines , fired boilers / steam turbines , etc ) .
Wind and solar can only supplement other base load sources of generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You still need a source of generation that can react quickly enough to stabilise voltage.
Currently this is accomplished with fossil fuels (gas turbines, fired boilers / steam turbines, etc).
Wind and solar can only supplement other base load sources of generation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30030322</id>
	<title>Re:There are two sides in that coin...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257761880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm Spanish too and I would say that this is a lie.<br>Economic problems don't came from energy price. In truth, electricity in Spain is cheaper than in Frace.<br>The problem in the economy has the origin on the housing bubble, and, on near future, from the bad administration of the stimulus on last years, spending on crap like change roads without need instead of spending on more change on energy like prepare the path for electric cars.<br>In fact, nuclear energy is not cheap when you compute the cost of store the radiactive waste in a stable place for millenia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm Spanish too and I would say that this is a lie.Economic problems do n't came from energy price .
In truth , electricity in Spain is cheaper than in Frace.The problem in the economy has the origin on the housing bubble , and , on near future , from the bad administration of the stimulus on last years , spending on crap like change roads without need instead of spending on more change on energy like prepare the path for electric cars.In fact , nuclear energy is not cheap when you compute the cost of store the radiactive waste in a stable place for millenia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm Spanish too and I would say that this is a lie.Economic problems don't came from energy price.
In truth, electricity in Spain is cheaper than in Frace.The problem in the economy has the origin on the housing bubble, and, on near future, from the bad administration of the stimulus on last years, spending on crap like change roads without need instead of spending on more change on energy like prepare the path for electric cars.In fact, nuclear energy is not cheap when you compute the cost of store the radiactive waste in a stable place for millenia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960</id>
	<title>Good, but by no means a complete solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257673680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind generally changes slowly enough that it doesn't cause massive instability providing you have sufficient backup. However, there are other problems.</p><p>Getting the percentage that high occasionally isn't amazing, especially during a time of low demand such as night. The hard part is generating an average of 50\% wind overall (e.g. over a year).</p><p>Say the baseload demand is 20 GW, then you can have 20 GW of wind power installed without worrying about what to do if too much is produced. So you could even get nearly 100\% wind power occasionally. The problem is for the rest of the time when demand is higher or it isn't windy. The capacity factor of wind is about 30\%, and baseload is typically about 50\% of average load, so that means on average you're only generating 15\% of your total electricity by wind power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind generally changes slowly enough that it does n't cause massive instability providing you have sufficient backup .
However , there are other problems.Getting the percentage that high occasionally is n't amazing , especially during a time of low demand such as night .
The hard part is generating an average of 50 \ % wind overall ( e.g .
over a year ) .Say the baseload demand is 20 GW , then you can have 20 GW of wind power installed without worrying about what to do if too much is produced .
So you could even get nearly 100 \ % wind power occasionally .
The problem is for the rest of the time when demand is higher or it is n't windy .
The capacity factor of wind is about 30 \ % , and baseload is typically about 50 \ % of average load , so that means on average you 're only generating 15 \ % of your total electricity by wind power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind generally changes slowly enough that it doesn't cause massive instability providing you have sufficient backup.
However, there are other problems.Getting the percentage that high occasionally isn't amazing, especially during a time of low demand such as night.
The hard part is generating an average of 50\% wind overall (e.g.
over a year).Say the baseload demand is 20 GW, then you can have 20 GW of wind power installed without worrying about what to do if too much is produced.
So you could even get nearly 100\% wind power occasionally.
The problem is for the rest of the time when demand is higher or it isn't windy.
The capacity factor of wind is about 30\%, and baseload is typically about 50\% of average load, so that means on average you're only generating 15\% of your total electricity by wind power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026624</id>
	<title>Re:Pump water up a hill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is done in some places already to "store" excess nuclear power generated<br>during the night time. One could build enough water storage systems to hold<br>capacity to cover the low yield wind times. So it is definitely possible to be<br>a completely "green" power grid. The cost is the issue. In the long term<br>we could just keep building them. Any time we have a downturn, get the<br>unemployed out building the energy storage systems and putting up<br>more turbines... In the end, we would have green energy for all....</p><p>George MacDonald</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is done in some places already to " store " excess nuclear power generatedduring the night time .
One could build enough water storage systems to holdcapacity to cover the low yield wind times .
So it is definitely possible to bea completely " green " power grid .
The cost is the issue .
In the long termwe could just keep building them .
Any time we have a downturn , get theunemployed out building the energy storage systems and putting upmore turbines... In the end , we would have green energy for all....George MacDonald</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is done in some places already to "store" excess nuclear power generatedduring the night time.
One could build enough water storage systems to holdcapacity to cover the low yield wind times.
So it is definitely possible to bea completely "green" power grid.
The cost is the issue.
In the long termwe could just keep building them.
Any time we have a downturn, get theunemployed out building the energy storage systems and putting upmore turbines... In the end, we would have green energy for all....George MacDonald</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027988</id>
	<title>Re:Manzanas and Oranges</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1257694800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on now. This delusion common in my fellow Americans, that we're still the best in the world at certain things, is preventing us from managing our problems and actually rejoining the rest of the civilized West. Boasting is no substitute for infrastructure building.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on now .
This delusion common in my fellow Americans , that we 're still the best in the world at certain things , is preventing us from managing our problems and actually rejoining the rest of the civilized West .
Boasting is no substitute for infrastructure building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on now.
This delusion common in my fellow Americans, that we're still the best in the world at certain things, is preventing us from managing our problems and actually rejoining the rest of the civilized West.
Boasting is no substitute for infrastructure building.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025662</id>
	<title>Re:There are two sides in that coin...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257678660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Socialism? It isn't. Both current goverment ("socialist") and the previous one ("conservative"), are pretty the same: pseudo free market + corruption. Both allowed the bank to pump the finantial and real estate bubbles, for their own interests (corruption, politic finantiation, etc.). Now we're facing the burst of the bubbles, without the possibility of coin devaluation, so is gonna be painful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Socialism ?
It is n't .
Both current goverment ( " socialist " ) and the previous one ( " conservative " ) , are pretty the same : pseudo free market + corruption .
Both allowed the bank to pump the finantial and real estate bubbles , for their own interests ( corruption , politic finantiation , etc. ) .
Now we 're facing the burst of the bubbles , without the possibility of coin devaluation , so is gon na be painful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Socialism?
It isn't.
Both current goverment ("socialist") and the previous one ("conservative"), are pretty the same: pseudo free market + corruption.
Both allowed the bank to pump the finantial and real estate bubbles, for their own interests (corruption, politic finantiation, etc.).
Now we're facing the burst of the bubbles, without the possibility of coin devaluation, so is gonna be painful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029086</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1257704220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problems  with renewable are not all lies, certainly the coal companies have an agenda but so do the hippies who routinely ignore the economic costs of building solar panels and wind turbines. Our best solution is a combination of Nuclear and renewable. Renewable can't provide the volume of electricity needed on it's own, it also uses allot more resources to produce solar panels and wind turbines than it does to build a nuclear power-plant (for the energy produced).</p><p>Renewable has along way to go before we can use it as our primary power production but Nuclear is a good support for it until it can eventually advance enough that homes may be able to produce their own onsite power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems with renewable are not all lies , certainly the coal companies have an agenda but so do the hippies who routinely ignore the economic costs of building solar panels and wind turbines .
Our best solution is a combination of Nuclear and renewable .
Renewable ca n't provide the volume of electricity needed on it 's own , it also uses allot more resources to produce solar panels and wind turbines than it does to build a nuclear power-plant ( for the energy produced ) .Renewable has along way to go before we can use it as our primary power production but Nuclear is a good support for it until it can eventually advance enough that homes may be able to produce their own onsite power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems  with renewable are not all lies, certainly the coal companies have an agenda but so do the hippies who routinely ignore the economic costs of building solar panels and wind turbines.
Our best solution is a combination of Nuclear and renewable.
Renewable can't provide the volume of electricity needed on it's own, it also uses allot more resources to produce solar panels and wind turbines than it does to build a nuclear power-plant (for the energy produced).Renewable has along way to go before we can use it as our primary power production but Nuclear is a good support for it until it can eventually advance enough that homes may be able to produce their own onsite power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025288</id>
	<title>Getting rid of insects</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1257676140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Butterfly effect could rule too much/few windy/sunny days, and software bugs could put the grid on risk. Maybe that we base our civilization on that energy source is a crockroaches plan to make sure that only them survive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Butterfly effect could rule too much/few windy/sunny days , and software bugs could put the grid on risk .
Maybe that we base our civilization on that energy source is a crockroaches plan to make sure that only them survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Butterfly effect could rule too much/few windy/sunny days, and software bugs could put the grid on risk.
Maybe that we base our civilization on that energy source is a crockroaches plan to make sure that only them survive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025040</id>
	<title>Manzanas and Oranges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257674220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> renewable power sources<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... can only supply a low percentage of the total power because their unpredictability can destabilize the grid.</p></div><p>As much as I'd like to see more renewable energy, this counter-example probably doesn't help.  Spain has a somewhat modern and well maintained power grid.  In this year's "Infrastructure Report Card", The American Society of Civil Engineers rated the USA's power grid "D+". (Unfortunately their website is down; here's <a href="http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/energy" title="74.125.155.132">google's cache</a> [74.125.155.132].  Talk about failing infrastructure...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>renewable power sources ... can only supply a low percentage of the total power because their unpredictability can destabilize the grid.As much as I 'd like to see more renewable energy , this counter-example probably does n't help .
Spain has a somewhat modern and well maintained power grid .
In this year 's " Infrastructure Report Card " , The American Society of Civil Engineers rated the USA 's power grid " D + " .
( Unfortunately their website is down ; here 's google 's cache [ 74.125.155.132 ] .
Talk about failing infrastructure... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> renewable power sources ... can only supply a low percentage of the total power because their unpredictability can destabilize the grid.As much as I'd like to see more renewable energy, this counter-example probably doesn't help.
Spain has a somewhat modern and well maintained power grid.
In this year's "Infrastructure Report Card", The American Society of Civil Engineers rated the USA's power grid "D+".
(Unfortunately their website is down; here's google's cache [74.125.155.132].
Talk about failing infrastructure...)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025086</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Ichijo</author>
	<datestamp>1257674640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.</p></div></blockquote><p>Once you add in coal and oil subsidies and the negative externalities of their use, they are no longer quite so cheap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coal and oil are plentiful , cheap , and easy to use.Once you add in coal and oil subsidies and the negative externalities of their use , they are no longer quite so cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.Once you add in coal and oil subsidies and the negative externalities of their use, they are no longer quite so cheap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027044</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>stewartm0205</author>
	<datestamp>1257687420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Coal and oil is not cheap. The problem is that the largest portion of the cost of coal and oil, the damage to the environment, is not paid for my the people profiting for coal and oil but by everyone. We need to charge the coal and oil industry a useage fee for using our environment as a dumping ground for their toxic poison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coal and oil is not cheap .
The problem is that the largest portion of the cost of coal and oil , the damage to the environment , is not paid for my the people profiting for coal and oil but by everyone .
We need to charge the coal and oil industry a useage fee for using our environment as a dumping ground for their toxic poison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coal and oil is not cheap.
The problem is that the largest portion of the cost of coal and oil, the damage to the environment, is not paid for my the people profiting for coal and oil but by everyone.
We need to charge the coal and oil industry a useage fee for using our environment as a dumping ground for their toxic poison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025464</id>
	<title>Re:Manzanas and Oranges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257677340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You simply cannot throw out comparisons like Spain vs. U.S.  The U.S. power grid is the most complicated controls system in the history of mankind.</p><p>Also, U.S. power usage, grid size, and therefore complexity dwarfs that of Spain.  Just as Manzanas and Oranges implies, it's a totally inadequate comparison. So what country can we compared with?  Therein lies the problem.  NO OTHER COUNTRY experiences half of the issues that the U.S. does.  China may come closest, and they chose to solve the problem with large quatities of cheap generation (coal plants).  Ever been to a major chinese city?  That's not the solution.</p><p>On the other hand, even as much as 20\% of U.S. generation as "green energy" is also not the solution.  Everyone's power bill would double.  Unfortunately, the government has mandated something close to this.  So expect your power bill to double (at least) if the letter of the law is followed.</p><p>The answer (in most major usage capitalist countries) is to let the market determine the power mixture.  All well managed power companies have a diverse selection of power supply fuels, so as not to make the company vulnerable to drastic market shifts in supply and demand.  Gas, Nuclear, Coal, and some "green power" and some oil.  Power companies do not like public outcries, and are not the evil greedy poluters that legislators often make them out to be.  Millions of incredibly intelligent men and women over 120 years have made the power grid what it is today.</p><p>And if you live in the U.S., I don't know where you live, but I know that you have power at least 95\% of the time.  You also take that for granted.</p><p>That being said, way to go Spain.  The second biggest problem with wind power is (more or less) solved.  Now about the incredibly high prices....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You simply can not throw out comparisons like Spain vs. U.S. The U.S. power grid is the most complicated controls system in the history of mankind.Also , U.S. power usage , grid size , and therefore complexity dwarfs that of Spain .
Just as Manzanas and Oranges implies , it 's a totally inadequate comparison .
So what country can we compared with ?
Therein lies the problem .
NO OTHER COUNTRY experiences half of the issues that the U.S. does. China may come closest , and they chose to solve the problem with large quatities of cheap generation ( coal plants ) .
Ever been to a major chinese city ?
That 's not the solution.On the other hand , even as much as 20 \ % of U.S. generation as " green energy " is also not the solution .
Everyone 's power bill would double .
Unfortunately , the government has mandated something close to this .
So expect your power bill to double ( at least ) if the letter of the law is followed.The answer ( in most major usage capitalist countries ) is to let the market determine the power mixture .
All well managed power companies have a diverse selection of power supply fuels , so as not to make the company vulnerable to drastic market shifts in supply and demand .
Gas , Nuclear , Coal , and some " green power " and some oil .
Power companies do not like public outcries , and are not the evil greedy poluters that legislators often make them out to be .
Millions of incredibly intelligent men and women over 120 years have made the power grid what it is today.And if you live in the U.S. , I do n't know where you live , but I know that you have power at least 95 \ % of the time .
You also take that for granted.That being said , way to go Spain .
The second biggest problem with wind power is ( more or less ) solved .
Now about the incredibly high prices... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You simply cannot throw out comparisons like Spain vs. U.S.  The U.S. power grid is the most complicated controls system in the history of mankind.Also, U.S. power usage, grid size, and therefore complexity dwarfs that of Spain.
Just as Manzanas and Oranges implies, it's a totally inadequate comparison.
So what country can we compared with?
Therein lies the problem.
NO OTHER COUNTRY experiences half of the issues that the U.S. does.  China may come closest, and they chose to solve the problem with large quatities of cheap generation (coal plants).
Ever been to a major chinese city?
That's not the solution.On the other hand, even as much as 20\% of U.S. generation as "green energy" is also not the solution.
Everyone's power bill would double.
Unfortunately, the government has mandated something close to this.
So expect your power bill to double (at least) if the letter of the law is followed.The answer (in most major usage capitalist countries) is to let the market determine the power mixture.
All well managed power companies have a diverse selection of power supply fuels, so as not to make the company vulnerable to drastic market shifts in supply and demand.
Gas, Nuclear, Coal, and some "green power" and some oil.
Power companies do not like public outcries, and are not the evil greedy poluters that legislators often make them out to be.
Millions of incredibly intelligent men and women over 120 years have made the power grid what it is today.And if you live in the U.S., I don't know where you live, but I know that you have power at least 95\% of the time.
You also take that for granted.That being said, way to go Spain.
The second biggest problem with wind power is (more or less) solved.
Now about the incredibly high prices....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027404</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257689940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah no kidding.  I was only given 5 mod points and already wasted them modding down some hippies earlier today.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah no kidding .
I was only given 5 mod points and already wasted them modding down some hippies earlier today .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah no kidding.
I was only given 5 mod points and already wasted them modding down some hippies earlier today.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025230</id>
	<title>Re:Does not change the basics.</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1257675720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes the wind does not blow at all, so you need to keep 100\% generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.</p></div><p>20 minutes? More like several days. That's what Spain just demonstrated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes the wind does not blow at all , so you need to keep 100 \ % generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.20 minutes ?
More like several days .
That 's what Spain just demonstrated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes the wind does not blow at all, so you need to keep 100\% generating capacity that can be brought on line within 20 minutes.20 minutes?
More like several days.
That's what Spain just demonstrated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30030232</id>
	<title>Re:In before the whiners</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1257760740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But every single Joule helps.</p></div></blockquote><p>Only if you can <em>stop</em> burning fossil fuels to generate, or be able to generate, a Joule elsewhere.  That's happening in Spain, right?

</p><p>Oh, did we not notice that information was missing from this article?

</p><p>Don't worry: it's missing from every other article on renewable generation as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But every single Joule helps.Only if you can stop burning fossil fuels to generate , or be able to generate , a Joule elsewhere .
That 's happening in Spain , right ?
Oh , did we not notice that information was missing from this article ?
Do n't worry : it 's missing from every other article on renewable generation as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But every single Joule helps.Only if you can stop burning fossil fuels to generate, or be able to generate, a Joule elsewhere.
That's happening in Spain, right?
Oh, did we not notice that information was missing from this article?
Don't worry: it's missing from every other article on renewable generation as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30043380</id>
	<title>Re:Manzanas and Oranges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257846840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So a vitally important question is how far is the US falling behind countries such as Spain in solar and wind power generation?  The Chinese are now taking the lead in Texas, where tapping the US wind corridor was to provide a boost to US competitiveness and US ability to decrease its dependence on foreign oil.</p><p>A second vital question is whether, given its increasing budget deficits and rapidly declining currency will the US be positioned to even keep up?</p><p>Should the US instead be investing in "seismic-mechanical motion" power generation, especially given that it seems to be more interested in increasing its investments in "boots on the ground" in Afganistan and Iraq"?</p><p>So many questions, yet so few answers and so little time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a vitally important question is how far is the US falling behind countries such as Spain in solar and wind power generation ?
The Chinese are now taking the lead in Texas , where tapping the US wind corridor was to provide a boost to US competitiveness and US ability to decrease its dependence on foreign oil.A second vital question is whether , given its increasing budget deficits and rapidly declining currency will the US be positioned to even keep up ? Should the US instead be investing in " seismic-mechanical motion " power generation , especially given that it seems to be more interested in increasing its investments in " boots on the ground " in Afganistan and Iraq " ? So many questions , yet so few answers and so little time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a vitally important question is how far is the US falling behind countries such as Spain in solar and wind power generation?
The Chinese are now taking the lead in Texas, where tapping the US wind corridor was to provide a boost to US competitiveness and US ability to decrease its dependence on foreign oil.A second vital question is whether, given its increasing budget deficits and rapidly declining currency will the US be positioned to even keep up?Should the US instead be investing in "seismic-mechanical motion" power generation, especially given that it seems to be more interested in increasing its investments in "boots on the ground" in Afganistan and Iraq"?So many questions, yet so few answers and so little time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025536</id>
	<title>Re:There are two sides in that coin...</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1257677820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sooner or later everyone on earth is going to have to bite that same bullet. Unfortunately, virtually every society in the world has chosen to squander their energy resources on building convenient, cheaper, but generally and often highly energy inefficient infrastructure. Reconfiguring everything now that it is built is going to be difficult, expensive, and a kludge to boot. That's what we collectively get for being morons who often don't think beyond the next quarter let alone several generations ahead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooner or later everyone on earth is going to have to bite that same bullet .
Unfortunately , virtually every society in the world has chosen to squander their energy resources on building convenient , cheaper , but generally and often highly energy inefficient infrastructure .
Reconfiguring everything now that it is built is going to be difficult , expensive , and a kludge to boot .
That 's what we collectively get for being morons who often do n't think beyond the next quarter let alone several generations ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooner or later everyone on earth is going to have to bite that same bullet.
Unfortunately, virtually every society in the world has chosen to squander their energy resources on building convenient, cheaper, but generally and often highly energy inefficient infrastructure.
Reconfiguring everything now that it is built is going to be difficult, expensive, and a kludge to boot.
That's what we collectively get for being morons who often don't think beyond the next quarter let alone several generations ahead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027520</id>
	<title>Re:There are two sides in that coin...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257690840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So I don't think that, and don't see that these numbers indicate, that the biggest effect on the prices are due to subsidized renewables."</p><p>It's in fact quite the contrary.  Starting on the nuclear ban and up to 2004, Spanish electrical bill was strongly increased by the "non-nuclear" tax (an increase on the bill to compensate for the electrical company loses -less benefits, to be true, due to them not being allowed to produce more nuclear power).  Once the "tax" was taken out the bill did not become cheaper due to people already acustomed to it (and the fact that electric companies could tell they were cheaper than the rest of Europe, which they still are, mainly because the hydroelectric facilities from Franco's era).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So I do n't think that , and do n't see that these numbers indicate , that the biggest effect on the prices are due to subsidized renewables .
" It 's in fact quite the contrary .
Starting on the nuclear ban and up to 2004 , Spanish electrical bill was strongly increased by the " non-nuclear " tax ( an increase on the bill to compensate for the electrical company loses -less benefits , to be true , due to them not being allowed to produce more nuclear power ) .
Once the " tax " was taken out the bill did not become cheaper due to people already acustomed to it ( and the fact that electric companies could tell they were cheaper than the rest of Europe , which they still are , mainly because the hydroelectric facilities from Franco 's era ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So I don't think that, and don't see that these numbers indicate, that the biggest effect on the prices are due to subsidized renewables.
"It's in fact quite the contrary.
Starting on the nuclear ban and up to 2004, Spanish electrical bill was strongly increased by the "non-nuclear" tax (an increase on the bill to compensate for the electrical company loses -less benefits, to be true, due to them not being allowed to produce more nuclear power).
Once the "tax" was taken out the bill did not become cheaper due to people already acustomed to it (and the fact that electric companies could tell they were cheaper than the rest of Europe, which they still are, mainly because the hydroelectric facilities from Franco's era).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025730</id>
	<title>There is a solution</title>
	<author>MikShapi</author>
	<datestamp>1257679320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As Danish Oil and Natural Gas (DONG) utilities clearly figured out - put a <a href="http://www.betterplace.com/" title="betterplace.com">REALLY big (distributed) battery</a> [betterplace.com] on the grid to soak up the power when it's available and re-feed it into the grid when it's scarce. Not only can they produce more of the baseline power generation from renewable sources, they don't have to PAY the Germans to TAKE their excess power at night when they can't consume it. They can store it instead, use it at peak hour when kilowatt price is insane and drastically flatten the curve. Problem. Solution.</p><p>As an OT side-benefit, we get electric cars wrapped around said batteries. For what we already got used to paying for car's fuel, there's enough margin in the operator's plan to subsidize new cars for consumers (think free iPhone on a three-year-plan), we'll get a parallel 1-minute-battery-swap-station infrastructure to petrol stations to enable real (non-golfcart) electric cars to go as far as the stations reach (range limitation is station reach, not battery capacity/petrol tank) without hour-long-charges along the way, remove an entire country's addiction to oil, fix the environment by running every single car in the fleet off renewable, and actually allow everyone in town to plug their car in at 8AM without having the lights in office buildings go down (The 'Everyone owns a Chevy Volt' scenario), while not having to spend tens to hundreds of billions on new power plants to cater to the spike. (But hey, that's just a side benefit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Danish Oil and Natural Gas ( DONG ) utilities clearly figured out - put a REALLY big ( distributed ) battery [ betterplace.com ] on the grid to soak up the power when it 's available and re-feed it into the grid when it 's scarce .
Not only can they produce more of the baseline power generation from renewable sources , they do n't have to PAY the Germans to TAKE their excess power at night when they ca n't consume it .
They can store it instead , use it at peak hour when kilowatt price is insane and drastically flatten the curve .
Problem. Solution.As an OT side-benefit , we get electric cars wrapped around said batteries .
For what we already got used to paying for car 's fuel , there 's enough margin in the operator 's plan to subsidize new cars for consumers ( think free iPhone on a three-year-plan ) , we 'll get a parallel 1-minute-battery-swap-station infrastructure to petrol stations to enable real ( non-golfcart ) electric cars to go as far as the stations reach ( range limitation is station reach , not battery capacity/petrol tank ) without hour-long-charges along the way , remove an entire country 's addiction to oil , fix the environment by running every single car in the fleet off renewable , and actually allow everyone in town to plug their car in at 8AM without having the lights in office buildings go down ( The 'Everyone owns a Chevy Volt ' scenario ) , while not having to spend tens to hundreds of billions on new power plants to cater to the spike .
( But hey , that 's just a side benefit ; ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Danish Oil and Natural Gas (DONG) utilities clearly figured out - put a REALLY big (distributed) battery [betterplace.com] on the grid to soak up the power when it's available and re-feed it into the grid when it's scarce.
Not only can they produce more of the baseline power generation from renewable sources, they don't have to PAY the Germans to TAKE their excess power at night when they can't consume it.
They can store it instead, use it at peak hour when kilowatt price is insane and drastically flatten the curve.
Problem. Solution.As an OT side-benefit, we get electric cars wrapped around said batteries.
For what we already got used to paying for car's fuel, there's enough margin in the operator's plan to subsidize new cars for consumers (think free iPhone on a three-year-plan), we'll get a parallel 1-minute-battery-swap-station infrastructure to petrol stations to enable real (non-golfcart) electric cars to go as far as the stations reach (range limitation is station reach, not battery capacity/petrol tank) without hour-long-charges along the way, remove an entire country's addiction to oil, fix the environment by running every single car in the fleet off renewable, and actually allow everyone in town to plug their car in at 8AM without having the lights in office buildings go down (The 'Everyone owns a Chevy Volt' scenario), while not having to spend tens to hundreds of billions on new power plants to cater to the spike.
(But hey, that's just a side benefit ;))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025124</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid technology</title>
	<author>inhuman\_4</author>
	<datestamp>1257674940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.</p></div><p>Coal and oil are plentiful, but you know whats more plentiful? The solar radiation and wind, both are unlimited.</p><p>Coal and oil are cheap and easy to use because we have spent massive amount of money improving them over the last 100 years. Given enough research it is entirely possible that solar and wind will be as cheap as oil (coal would be tough to beat though). Solar power however will likely end up being easier to use, no fuel, no exhaust, and no moving parts.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in.</p></div><p>Ever heard of smog? I would much rather see a bunch of solar panels and windmills, than a giant brown haze of asthma attack and carcinogens.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.</p></div><p>They are called stupid because what they are promoting is bad for business. Switching to these technologies is not efficient yet, but as this article proves they are getting closer. Big businesses and their propaganda machines (eg. Fox News) want to cast these technologies in negative light to avoid having to switch to them, which would cut into profit margins.</p><p>Oh and did I mention that these technologies could one day remove the USA's dependence on foreign oil, reduce medical problems, protect the environment, decentralize the electrical system, reduce power lost during transmission (local power generation), and be better suited to installation in 3rd world countries?</p><p>Or of course, we could just keep using the current system until our resources run out and then start looking for the solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coal and oil are plentiful , cheap , and easy to use.Coal and oil are plentiful , but you know whats more plentiful ?
The solar radiation and wind , both are unlimited.Coal and oil are cheap and easy to use because we have spent massive amount of money improving them over the last 100 years .
Given enough research it is entirely possible that solar and wind will be as cheap as oil ( coal would be tough to beat though ) .
Solar power however will likely end up being easier to use , no fuel , no exhaust , and no moving parts .
... and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in.Ever heard of smog ?
I would much rather see a bunch of solar panels and windmills , than a giant brown haze of asthma attack and carcinogens .
And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.They are called stupid because what they are promoting is bad for business .
Switching to these technologies is not efficient yet , but as this article proves they are getting closer .
Big businesses and their propaganda machines ( eg .
Fox News ) want to cast these technologies in negative light to avoid having to switch to them , which would cut into profit margins.Oh and did I mention that these technologies could one day remove the USA 's dependence on foreign oil , reduce medical problems , protect the environment , decentralize the electrical system , reduce power lost during transmission ( local power generation ) , and be better suited to installation in 3rd world countries ? Or of course , we could just keep using the current system until our resources run out and then start looking for the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.Coal and oil are plentiful, but you know whats more plentiful?
The solar radiation and wind, both are unlimited.Coal and oil are cheap and easy to use because we have spent massive amount of money improving them over the last 100 years.
Given enough research it is entirely possible that solar and wind will be as cheap as oil (coal would be tough to beat though).
Solar power however will likely end up being easier to use, no fuel, no exhaust, and no moving parts.
... and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in.Ever heard of smog?
I would much rather see a bunch of solar panels and windmills, than a giant brown haze of asthma attack and carcinogens.
And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.They are called stupid because what they are promoting is bad for business.
Switching to these technologies is not efficient yet, but as this article proves they are getting closer.
Big businesses and their propaganda machines (eg.
Fox News) want to cast these technologies in negative light to avoid having to switch to them, which would cut into profit margins.Oh and did I mention that these technologies could one day remove the USA's dependence on foreign oil, reduce medical problems, protect the environment, decentralize the electrical system, reduce power lost during transmission (local power generation), and be better suited to installation in 3rd world countries?Or of course, we could just keep using the current system until our resources run out and then start looking for the solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027146</id>
	<title>Re:There are two sides in that coin...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257688080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are some long traditions of state ownership in the infrastructure sector, particularly in the field of electric distribution and production in some of the EU countries. Recently, there have been consistent efforts by the EU commission to enhance the working of the electric markets in the form of the directives aiming to separate the ownership between the production and the distribution to wholly separate legal persons. I believe the progress have been so slow until now in some countries is because the networks and the power plants have been seen as strategic assets which are vital for the security of the particular nations. It has probably something to with the cold war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some long traditions of state ownership in the infrastructure sector , particularly in the field of electric distribution and production in some of the EU countries .
Recently , there have been consistent efforts by the EU commission to enhance the working of the electric markets in the form of the directives aiming to separate the ownership between the production and the distribution to wholly separate legal persons .
I believe the progress have been so slow until now in some countries is because the networks and the power plants have been seen as strategic assets which are vital for the security of the particular nations .
It has probably something to with the cold war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some long traditions of state ownership in the infrastructure sector, particularly in the field of electric distribution and production in some of the EU countries.
Recently, there have been consistent efforts by the EU commission to enhance the working of the electric markets in the form of the directives aiming to separate the ownership between the production and the distribution to wholly separate legal persons.
I believe the progress have been so slow until now in some countries is because the networks and the power plants have been seen as strategic assets which are vital for the security of the particular nations.
It has probably something to with the cold war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025552</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30035206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30039024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30028816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30034060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30034810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30030572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30043412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30032832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30043466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30031320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30030322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30036476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30030232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30032454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30043380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30028410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30081106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1911234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30032454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30028816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025564
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30034060
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30031320
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30043466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30039024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30034810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025426
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30043412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30032832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30036476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30030322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30028740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30028410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30043380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30030572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30030232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30081106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30035206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30024960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30027164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30026818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30029084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1911234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1911234.30025340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
