<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_27_0010206</id>
	<title>The World's First Osmotic Power Plant</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1259335080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ElectricSteve writes <i>"Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway officially opened the <a href="http://www.gizmag.com/statkraft-osmotic-power/13451/">world's first osmotic power plant</a> prototype on November 24. The prototype has a limited production capacity and will be used primarily for testing and data validation, leading to the construction of a commercial power plant in a few years time. Statkraft claims that the technology has the global potential to generate clean, renewable energy equivalent to China's total electricity consumption in 2002 or half of the EU's total power production"</i> What's osmotic power? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmotic\_power">Wikipedia to the rescue!</a></htmltext>
<tokenext>ElectricSteve writes " Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway officially opened the world 's first osmotic power plant prototype on November 24 .
The prototype has a limited production capacity and will be used primarily for testing and data validation , leading to the construction of a commercial power plant in a few years time .
Statkraft claims that the technology has the global potential to generate clean , renewable energy equivalent to China 's total electricity consumption in 2002 or half of the EU 's total power production " What 's osmotic power ?
Wikipedia to the rescue !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ElectricSteve writes "Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway officially opened the world's first osmotic power plant prototype on November 24.
The prototype has a limited production capacity and will be used primarily for testing and data validation, leading to the construction of a commercial power plant in a few years time.
Statkraft claims that the technology has the global potential to generate clean, renewable energy equivalent to China's total electricity consumption in 2002 or half of the EU's total power production" What's osmotic power?
Wikipedia to the rescue!</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242380</id>
	<title>Re:Desalination</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259254740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the sun evaporates the salt water, which rains freshwater on the riverbeds. you build these powerplants on the deltas, where the fresh water mixes with the salt water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the sun evaporates the salt water , which rains freshwater on the riverbeds .
you build these powerplants on the deltas , where the fresh water mixes with the salt water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the sun evaporates the salt water, which rains freshwater on the riverbeds.
you build these powerplants on the deltas, where the fresh water mixes with the salt water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245688</id>
	<title>No, really.</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1259338980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's actually a valid point: the osmotic pressure is not something that will exist in a closed system. It's created by the water cycle, which is driven by the sun, and thus regenerates itself. It's solar-by-proxy, like almost everything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's actually a valid point : the osmotic pressure is not something that will exist in a closed system .
It 's created by the water cycle , which is driven by the sun , and thus regenerates itself .
It 's solar-by-proxy , like almost everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's actually a valid point: the osmotic pressure is not something that will exist in a closed system.
It's created by the water cycle, which is driven by the sun, and thus regenerates itself.
It's solar-by-proxy, like almost everything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242324</id>
	<title>Wikipedia to the rescue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259254140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Osmotic power is synonymous to butt power.  The more one farts, the more power is generated."</p><p>Somehow, I don't think that is 100\% correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Osmotic power is synonymous to butt power .
The more one farts , the more power is generated .
" Somehow , I do n't think that is 100 \ % correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Osmotic power is synonymous to butt power.
The more one farts, the more power is generated.
"Somehow, I don't think that is 100\% correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243046</id>
	<title>Look</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259263200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am fan of Nukes, BUT, the mistake that nations make is when they depend on 1 type of power. For example, France is CURRENTLY an electricity importer BECAUSE they depended so heavily on nukes. Likewise, America is in trouble because we depend on Coal for 50\% of our power. Instead, nations need to have a matrix of power so that when you run intro problems (say, emergency change needed at your nuke power plant, or under pressure from the world to drop your CO2 emissions, caused in no small part by your heavy use of coal power), then you can drop your usage.  So yes, I want to see America's use of nukes increase to 33\%, and go no further. Likewise, I would like to see us increase our AE to heavy percentages, but no more than 33\% on any one tech. In fact, I would argue that Wind and Solar pv should not be more than 10\%. The reason is that they are not base load power.  OTH, The Mississippi is capable of generating a LOT of power. The same is true of other rivers around the world. Likewise, geo-thermal will no doubt be a major input to the world's matrix if Potter drilling gets done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am fan of Nukes , BUT , the mistake that nations make is when they depend on 1 type of power .
For example , France is CURRENTLY an electricity importer BECAUSE they depended so heavily on nukes .
Likewise , America is in trouble because we depend on Coal for 50 \ % of our power .
Instead , nations need to have a matrix of power so that when you run intro problems ( say , emergency change needed at your nuke power plant , or under pressure from the world to drop your CO2 emissions , caused in no small part by your heavy use of coal power ) , then you can drop your usage .
So yes , I want to see America 's use of nukes increase to 33 \ % , and go no further .
Likewise , I would like to see us increase our AE to heavy percentages , but no more than 33 \ % on any one tech .
In fact , I would argue that Wind and Solar pv should not be more than 10 \ % .
The reason is that they are not base load power .
OTH , The Mississippi is capable of generating a LOT of power .
The same is true of other rivers around the world .
Likewise , geo-thermal will no doubt be a major input to the world 's matrix if Potter drilling gets done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am fan of Nukes, BUT, the mistake that nations make is when they depend on 1 type of power.
For example, France is CURRENTLY an electricity importer BECAUSE they depended so heavily on nukes.
Likewise, America is in trouble because we depend on Coal for 50\% of our power.
Instead, nations need to have a matrix of power so that when you run intro problems (say, emergency change needed at your nuke power plant, or under pressure from the world to drop your CO2 emissions, caused in no small part by your heavy use of coal power), then you can drop your usage.
So yes, I want to see America's use of nukes increase to 33\%, and go no further.
Likewise, I would like to see us increase our AE to heavy percentages, but no more than 33\% on any one tech.
In fact, I would argue that Wind and Solar pv should not be more than 10\%.
The reason is that they are not base load power.
OTH, The Mississippi is capable of generating a LOT of power.
The same is true of other rivers around the world.
Likewise, geo-thermal will no doubt be a major input to the world's matrix if Potter drilling gets done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242284</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259253780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Although I like this idea. Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water?</p><p>If we're constantly running our fresh water through a membrane into salt water, won't our "fuel" of fresh water run out?<br>Unlike oil, we need fresh water to live.</p><p>Unless there is a reverse osmosis process that energy can be harnessed from, which I doubt.</p></div><p>No this is strictly for the mouth of rivers that empty into the ocean anyway. You'd only be able to divert a percentage of the water without major environmental issues. The real problem is I've read about the concept before but it's a really low pressure system so I'm not convinced you can get significant amounts of electricity from the system. I'm betting the numbers they are quoting are based on damning every river mouth which would be a disaster. It's cheaper and safer to use tidal turbines and there's drastically more power available. The approach my be new but it's not going to replace fossil fuels or even wind power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I like this idea .
Wo n't it just deplete our supply of fresh water ? If we 're constantly running our fresh water through a membrane into salt water , wo n't our " fuel " of fresh water run out ? Unlike oil , we need fresh water to live.Unless there is a reverse osmosis process that energy can be harnessed from , which I doubt.No this is strictly for the mouth of rivers that empty into the ocean anyway .
You 'd only be able to divert a percentage of the water without major environmental issues .
The real problem is I 've read about the concept before but it 's a really low pressure system so I 'm not convinced you can get significant amounts of electricity from the system .
I 'm betting the numbers they are quoting are based on damning every river mouth which would be a disaster .
It 's cheaper and safer to use tidal turbines and there 's drastically more power available .
The approach my be new but it 's not going to replace fossil fuels or even wind power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I like this idea.
Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water?If we're constantly running our fresh water through a membrane into salt water, won't our "fuel" of fresh water run out?Unlike oil, we need fresh water to live.Unless there is a reverse osmosis process that energy can be harnessed from, which I doubt.No this is strictly for the mouth of rivers that empty into the ocean anyway.
You'd only be able to divert a percentage of the water without major environmental issues.
The real problem is I've read about the concept before but it's a really low pressure system so I'm not convinced you can get significant amounts of electricity from the system.
I'm betting the numbers they are quoting are based on damning every river mouth which would be a disaster.
It's cheaper and safer to use tidal turbines and there's drastically more power available.
The approach my be new but it's not going to replace fossil fuels or even wind power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160</id>
	<title>Impact</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259252580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder what environmental impacts this has, and if they will prevent these things from going into real use?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what environmental impacts this has , and if they will prevent these things from going into real use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what environmental impacts this has, and if they will prevent these things from going into real use?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242382</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1259254740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, we'll use the power produced to run desalination plants.</p><p>What? thermody-whati-namics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , we 'll use the power produced to run desalination plants.What ?
thermody-whati-namics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, we'll use the power produced to run desalination plants.What?
thermody-whati-namics?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242314</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>tehdaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1259254080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea is to use fresh water in a river just before it flows into the ocean. No fresh water lost that wasn't already lost.<p>T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is to use fresh water in a river just before it flows into the ocean .
No fresh water lost that was n't already lost.T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea is to use fresh water in a river just before it flows into the ocean.
No fresh water lost that wasn't already lost.T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242846</id>
	<title>Radioactive waste?</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1259260080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense. There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.<br>Nuclear power is the way to go! The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they've done more harm than good, in lobbying against nuclear power.</i></p><p>What's with the love affair between geeks and nuclear power?  Is it because its science is somehow more "exciting" and "spacey" than other areas of exploration?</p><p>There are two main problems with nuclear. . .</p><p>1. It creates very, very toxic shit which never goes away and is a huge pain in the ass to store.</p><p>2. While in theory it can be run safely, human stupidity results in toxic spills and catastrophic failures.  --A friend of mine lived in a town with a big honking nuclear reactor.  Radioactive water was leaching into the ground water.  Nice.  Incompetence and corruption were to blame for the failure to implement proper maintenance on an aging reactor.  Basically Homer Simpson and Mr. Burns were (and remain) at the helm.</p><p>There's nothing actually wrong with clean power.  It works well and it doesn't create toxic waste.  We live in a world where we can create power without also creating poison.  That's awesome!  <i>That</i> is the Star Trek future we could be living right now, and in many cases we already are.  So I don't understand why this is even a debate unless it's purely about aesthetics; nuclear power is a fashion accessory which goes well with some people's preferred mode of reality. Or something.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense .
There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.Nuclear power is the way to go !
The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they 've done more harm than good , in lobbying against nuclear power.What 's with the love affair between geeks and nuclear power ?
Is it because its science is somehow more " exciting " and " spacey " than other areas of exploration ? There are two main problems with nuclear .
. .1 .
It creates very , very toxic shit which never goes away and is a huge pain in the ass to store.2 .
While in theory it can be run safely , human stupidity results in toxic spills and catastrophic failures .
--A friend of mine lived in a town with a big honking nuclear reactor .
Radioactive water was leaching into the ground water .
Nice. Incompetence and corruption were to blame for the failure to implement proper maintenance on an aging reactor .
Basically Homer Simpson and Mr. Burns were ( and remain ) at the helm.There 's nothing actually wrong with clean power .
It works well and it does n't create toxic waste .
We live in a world where we can create power without also creating poison .
That 's awesome !
That is the Star Trek future we could be living right now , and in many cases we already are .
So I do n't understand why this is even a debate unless it 's purely about aesthetics ; nuclear power is a fashion accessory which goes well with some people 's preferred mode of reality .
Or something.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense.
There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.Nuclear power is the way to go!
The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they've done more harm than good, in lobbying against nuclear power.What's with the love affair between geeks and nuclear power?
Is it because its science is somehow more "exciting" and "spacey" than other areas of exploration?There are two main problems with nuclear.
. .1.
It creates very, very toxic shit which never goes away and is a huge pain in the ass to store.2.
While in theory it can be run safely, human stupidity results in toxic spills and catastrophic failures.
--A friend of mine lived in a town with a big honking nuclear reactor.
Radioactive water was leaching into the ground water.
Nice.  Incompetence and corruption were to blame for the failure to implement proper maintenance on an aging reactor.
Basically Homer Simpson and Mr. Burns were (and remain) at the helm.There's nothing actually wrong with clean power.
It works well and it doesn't create toxic waste.
We live in a world where we can create power without also creating poison.
That's awesome!
That is the Star Trek future we could be living right now, and in many cases we already are.
So I don't understand why this is even a debate unless it's purely about aesthetics; nuclear power is a fashion accessory which goes well with some people's preferred mode of reality.
Or something.-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30276426</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>skelly33</author>
	<datestamp>1259581920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it means I can finally order my flying car, then sign me up!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it means I can finally order my flying car , then sign me up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it means I can finally order my flying car, then sign me up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242780</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power plants</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1259259000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not even interested in being pro-environment at all. Everyone's wasting their time and they know it.
<br>All I'm worried about is the fusion power and nanobots that will provide virtually unlimited power and a completely restored environment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not even interested in being pro-environment at all .
Everyone 's wasting their time and they know it .
All I 'm worried about is the fusion power and nanobots that will provide virtually unlimited power and a completely restored environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not even interested in being pro-environment at all.
Everyone's wasting their time and they know it.
All I'm worried about is the fusion power and nanobots that will provide virtually unlimited power and a completely restored environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243342</id>
	<title>Re:Some numbers... I think it might work!</title>
	<author>plague911</author>
	<datestamp>1259353680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Filtering water is something man has been doing for hundreds of years. Id wager we have some good technology for that already. Even still if what you say is true the particulate will likely cause a drop in efficiency which will hurt profit margins but considering the efficiency of the system as is, is 0\% any improvement will be significant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Filtering water is something man has been doing for hundreds of years .
Id wager we have some good technology for that already .
Even still if what you say is true the particulate will likely cause a drop in efficiency which will hurt profit margins but considering the efficiency of the system as is , is 0 \ % any improvement will be significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filtering water is something man has been doing for hundreds of years.
Id wager we have some good technology for that already.
Even still if what you say is true the particulate will likely cause a drop in efficiency which will hurt profit margins but considering the efficiency of the system as is, is 0\% any improvement will be significant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244496</id>
	<title>Re:Impact</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1259326200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It appears that you may not have actually read the article.</p><p>It's to be built where rivers run into the sea. Rivers usually run with fresh water. It takes input from the river, puts it in an osmosis chamber with water from the sea, and spits the result out into the area where that river water was going to mix with the sea water anyway. There's zero net loss of fresh potable water as compared to what was going to happen anyway (as part of the natural water cycle), and as they're dumping the result into an area where the brackish water was going to form anyway, there's zero net polllution.</p><p>The real question is whether it's efficient enough to run large scale. It's all well and good that you can produce 1.7TW of energy, but if it costs you 1.5TW to do it, then it's not worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that you may not have actually read the article.It 's to be built where rivers run into the sea .
Rivers usually run with fresh water .
It takes input from the river , puts it in an osmosis chamber with water from the sea , and spits the result out into the area where that river water was going to mix with the sea water anyway .
There 's zero net loss of fresh potable water as compared to what was going to happen anyway ( as part of the natural water cycle ) , and as they 're dumping the result into an area where the brackish water was going to form anyway , there 's zero net polllution.The real question is whether it 's efficient enough to run large scale .
It 's all well and good that you can produce 1.7TW of energy , but if it costs you 1.5TW to do it , then it 's not worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that you may not have actually read the article.It's to be built where rivers run into the sea.
Rivers usually run with fresh water.
It takes input from the river, puts it in an osmosis chamber with water from the sea, and spits the result out into the area where that river water was going to mix with the sea water anyway.
There's zero net loss of fresh potable water as compared to what was going to happen anyway (as part of the natural water cycle), and as they're dumping the result into an area where the brackish water was going to form anyway, there's zero net polllution.The real question is whether it's efficient enough to run large scale.
It's all well and good that you can produce 1.7TW of energy, but if it costs you 1.5TW to do it, then it's not worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245868</id>
	<title>Re:Some numbers... I think it might work!</title>
	<author>Beezlebub33</author>
	<datestamp>1259339940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the energy appears to be there, you would have to completely destroy the ecology of the Mississippi river delta to do it.
<br> <br>
The water does not just flow straight from 'river' to 'ocean'.  There is a complicated ecological system that depends on the interactions of the river dumping it's silt into the delta, an enormous (mostly-fresh water) marsh, and slowly becoming brackish.  There's a lot of plants and animals living there, and a lot of humans using that area both directly and indirectly, since it's a vital fish breeding ground.  It's not as if you can divert the river to a power plant, suck in large amounts of seawater from the Gulf of Mexico, mix them in your osmosis system, and then dump it into the ocean;  you would be bypassing the delta entirely.
<br> <br>
So, yes, the power is there, but you can't use most of it.  That said, you could divert <i>some</i> of the river and create a power plant for New Orleans.  The hard part is determining how much, and what the consequences are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the energy appears to be there , you would have to completely destroy the ecology of the Mississippi river delta to do it .
The water does not just flow straight from 'river ' to 'ocean' .
There is a complicated ecological system that depends on the interactions of the river dumping it 's silt into the delta , an enormous ( mostly-fresh water ) marsh , and slowly becoming brackish .
There 's a lot of plants and animals living there , and a lot of humans using that area both directly and indirectly , since it 's a vital fish breeding ground .
It 's not as if you can divert the river to a power plant , suck in large amounts of seawater from the Gulf of Mexico , mix them in your osmosis system , and then dump it into the ocean ; you would be bypassing the delta entirely .
So , yes , the power is there , but you ca n't use most of it .
That said , you could divert some of the river and create a power plant for New Orleans .
The hard part is determining how much , and what the consequences are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the energy appears to be there, you would have to completely destroy the ecology of the Mississippi river delta to do it.
The water does not just flow straight from 'river' to 'ocean'.
There is a complicated ecological system that depends on the interactions of the river dumping it's silt into the delta, an enormous (mostly-fresh water) marsh, and slowly becoming brackish.
There's a lot of plants and animals living there, and a lot of humans using that area both directly and indirectly, since it's a vital fish breeding ground.
It's not as if you can divert the river to a power plant, suck in large amounts of seawater from the Gulf of Mexico, mix them in your osmosis system, and then dump it into the ocean;  you would be bypassing the delta entirely.
So, yes, the power is there, but you can't use most of it.
That said, you could divert some of the river and create a power plant for New Orleans.
The hard part is determining how much, and what the consequences are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242714</id>
	<title>Oh man, Starcraft?!</title>
	<author>InvisibleClergy</author>
	<datestamp>1259258040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wait, Statkraft? Gosh, I thought they were talking about something important for a moment there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait , Statkraft ?
Gosh , I thought they were talking about something important for a moment there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait, Statkraft?
Gosh, I thought they were talking about something important for a moment there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242200</id>
	<title>Yes, but does it run under Ninnle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259253120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ninnle Linux for the win!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ninnle Linux for the win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ninnle Linux for the win!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244216</id>
	<title>Re:Radioactive waste?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259322060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make that three main problems with nuclear...</p><p>3. It's bloody expensive. Adding ALL costs involved (thus also the costs of acquiring and prepping fuel in a time when we cannot recycle old nukes any more, and hidden subsidies) it's usually the more expensive option when compared to most other ways to create and transport electrical energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make that three main problems with nuclear...3 .
It 's bloody expensive .
Adding ALL costs involved ( thus also the costs of acquiring and prepping fuel in a time when we can not recycle old nukes any more , and hidden subsidies ) it 's usually the more expensive option when compared to most other ways to create and transport electrical energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make that three main problems with nuclear...3.
It's bloody expensive.
Adding ALL costs involved (thus also the costs of acquiring and prepping fuel in a time when we cannot recycle old nukes any more, and hidden subsidies) it's usually the more expensive option when compared to most other ways to create and transport electrical energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242822</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>matzahboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259259660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not think that these plants would redirect a fresh water supply to feed into a salt water one. It said that these plants could be placed at the mouth of a river (where the fresh water mixes with the salt water, regardless of whether the plant exists).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not think that these plants would redirect a fresh water supply to feed into a salt water one .
It said that these plants could be placed at the mouth of a river ( where the fresh water mixes with the salt water , regardless of whether the plant exists ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not think that these plants would redirect a fresh water supply to feed into a salt water one.
It said that these plants could be placed at the mouth of a river (where the fresh water mixes with the salt water, regardless of whether the plant exists).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244184</id>
	<title>Re:Impact</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1259321460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It appears that it requires fresh water, and outputs salty water.</p><p>Fresh water is in short supply in many parts of the world, and one of the ways people deal with this is to use electricity to desalinate salty water.  For that reason, I don't think this is going to be very popular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that it requires fresh water , and outputs salty water.Fresh water is in short supply in many parts of the world , and one of the ways people deal with this is to use electricity to desalinate salty water .
For that reason , I do n't think this is going to be very popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that it requires fresh water, and outputs salty water.Fresh water is in short supply in many parts of the world, and one of the ways people deal with this is to use electricity to desalinate salty water.
For that reason, I don't think this is going to be very popular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1259254200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Although I like this idea. Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water?</p></div></blockquote><p>The power plant is at the ocean next to a river.</p><p>The river's fresh water runs into the ocean as it is. That's just how nature works. All this is doing is diverting some of the water into the power plant and mixing the water there. What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I like this idea .
Wo n't it just deplete our supply of fresh water ? The power plant is at the ocean next to a river.The river 's fresh water runs into the ocean as it is .
That 's just how nature works .
All this is doing is diverting some of the water into the power plant and mixing the water there .
What they 're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure , and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I like this idea.
Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water?The power plant is at the ocean next to a river.The river's fresh water runs into the ocean as it is.
That's just how nature works.
All this is doing is diverting some of the water into the power plant and mixing the water there.
What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244896</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>PybusJ</author>
	<datestamp>1259332380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called pumped storage, and is indeed a natural fit with renewable energy.</p><p>In the UK we have approx. 2GW of capacity from pumped energy storage.  Mostly at Dinorwig in Snowdonia, where the turbines can go from zero to 1800MW in seconds with the capacity for several hours at that load.  While this would be useful for smoothing out variation in renewable energy, it's main use in the UK is to absorb the spike in demand when millions of TV viewers switch on electric kettles to make a cup of tea at the end of a popular soap opera.</p><p>The storage and recover of energy involves some losses (it's maybe 75\% efficient) but is ideal for absorbing excess renewable energy at low demand periods.  While it could help deal with changes in supply in the short term its relatively small capacity means it wouldn't be useful if you had a low wind spell lasting a day or two.</p><p>Of course you need to find/construct two lakes near each other but separated in height by hundreds of m, so it only works in certain places, and these may not be the same as the places you could site osmotic power plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called pumped storage , and is indeed a natural fit with renewable energy.In the UK we have approx .
2GW of capacity from pumped energy storage .
Mostly at Dinorwig in Snowdonia , where the turbines can go from zero to 1800MW in seconds with the capacity for several hours at that load .
While this would be useful for smoothing out variation in renewable energy , it 's main use in the UK is to absorb the spike in demand when millions of TV viewers switch on electric kettles to make a cup of tea at the end of a popular soap opera.The storage and recover of energy involves some losses ( it 's maybe 75 \ % efficient ) but is ideal for absorbing excess renewable energy at low demand periods .
While it could help deal with changes in supply in the short term its relatively small capacity means it would n't be useful if you had a low wind spell lasting a day or two.Of course you need to find/construct two lakes near each other but separated in height by hundreds of m , so it only works in certain places , and these may not be the same as the places you could site osmotic power plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called pumped storage, and is indeed a natural fit with renewable energy.In the UK we have approx.
2GW of capacity from pumped energy storage.
Mostly at Dinorwig in Snowdonia, where the turbines can go from zero to 1800MW in seconds with the capacity for several hours at that load.
While this would be useful for smoothing out variation in renewable energy, it's main use in the UK is to absorb the spike in demand when millions of TV viewers switch on electric kettles to make a cup of tea at the end of a popular soap opera.The storage and recover of energy involves some losses (it's maybe 75\% efficient) but is ideal for absorbing excess renewable energy at low demand periods.
While it could help deal with changes in supply in the short term its relatively small capacity means it wouldn't be useful if you had a low wind spell lasting a day or two.Of course you need to find/construct two lakes near each other but separated in height by hundreds of m, so it only works in certain places, and these may not be the same as the places you could site osmotic power plants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243132</id>
	<title>Re:Radioactive waste?</title>
	<author>paul248</author>
	<datestamp>1259264640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We live in a world where we can create power without also creating poison. That's awesome! That is the Star Trek future we could be living right now.</p></div><p>For what it's worth, they used nuclear power in Star Trek.  Solar power doesn't work when you're traveling to other stars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We live in a world where we can create power without also creating poison .
That 's awesome !
That is the Star Trek future we could be living right now.For what it 's worth , they used nuclear power in Star Trek .
Solar power does n't work when you 're traveling to other stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We live in a world where we can create power without also creating poison.
That's awesome!
That is the Star Trek future we could be living right now.For what it's worth, they used nuclear power in Star Trek.
Solar power doesn't work when you're traveling to other stars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242270</id>
	<title>Thats a lot of tea...</title>
	<author>bintech</author>
	<datestamp>1259253720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> The very first power generated by the prototype was used to boil a kettle to provide the guests with hot water for refreshments at the opening ceremony.
      The prototype has a limited production capacity and will be used primarily for testing and data validation. </i>
<br>
<br>

"Ok Everyone listen up, we gotta test this thing for the next 2 years, so start drinking up"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The very first power generated by the prototype was used to boil a kettle to provide the guests with hot water for refreshments at the opening ceremony .
The prototype has a limited production capacity and will be used primarily for testing and data validation .
" Ok Everyone listen up , we got ta test this thing for the next 2 years , so start drinking up "</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The very first power generated by the prototype was used to boil a kettle to provide the guests with hot water for refreshments at the opening ceremony.
The prototype has a limited production capacity and will be used primarily for testing and data validation.
"Ok Everyone listen up, we gotta test this thing for the next 2 years, so start drinking up"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30246944</id>
	<title>Re:Oh man, Starcraft?!</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259347200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, someone should photoshop in a marine coming out of that 'bunker'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , someone should photoshop in a marine coming out of that 'bunker'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, someone should photoshop in a marine coming out of that 'bunker'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242466</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power plants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259255400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No way?</p><p>About as likely as you giving a worthwhile and constructive comment?</p><p>Think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No way ? About as likely as you giving a worthwhile and constructive comment ? Think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No way?About as likely as you giving a worthwhile and constructive comment?Think about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242532</id>
	<title>Re:Impact</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259256120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the swill US rivers dump into oceans, perhaps combining this process with pollutant separation would improve the outflow while generating power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the swill US rivers dump into oceans , perhaps combining this process with pollutant separation would improve the outflow while generating power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the swill US rivers dump into oceans, perhaps combining this process with pollutant separation would improve the outflow while generating power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242278</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>jelizondo</author>
	<datestamp>1259253780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really, but it depends on volume.</p><p>The sun evaporates salt water in the sea and it falls as fresh water into the land, thus replenishing the "fuel".</p><p>Again, if the volume of rain is <i>less </i> than the volume used then yes, one would run out. But this happens in a natural fashion all the time, rivers run dry because of drought or overflow because of rain higher than usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , but it depends on volume.The sun evaporates salt water in the sea and it falls as fresh water into the land , thus replenishing the " fuel " .Again , if the volume of rain is less than the volume used then yes , one would run out .
But this happens in a natural fashion all the time , rivers run dry because of drought or overflow because of rain higher than usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, but it depends on volume.The sun evaporates salt water in the sea and it falls as fresh water into the land, thus replenishing the "fuel".Again, if the volume of rain is less  than the volume used then yes, one would run out.
But this happens in a natural fashion all the time, rivers run dry because of drought or overflow because of rain higher than usual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245356</id>
	<title>Re:Impact</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1259336700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a river flowing into an ocean, I don't think you're going to be extracting your drinking water from the ocean.  Why not try taking some more of the fresh river water.</p><p>Places with desalination plants <i>don't</i> have rivers nearby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a river flowing into an ocean , I do n't think you 're going to be extracting your drinking water from the ocean .
Why not try taking some more of the fresh river water.Places with desalination plants do n't have rivers nearby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a river flowing into an ocean, I don't think you're going to be extracting your drinking water from the ocean.
Why not try taking some more of the fresh river water.Places with desalination plants don't have rivers nearby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</id>
	<title>Nuclear power plants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259252700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense. There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.<br>Nuclear power is the way to go! The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they've done more harm than good, in lobbying against nuclear power.</p><p>Luddites the lot of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense .
There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.Nuclear power is the way to go !
The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they 've done more harm than good , in lobbying against nuclear power.Luddites the lot of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense.
There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.Nuclear power is the way to go!
The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they've done more harm than good, in lobbying against nuclear power.Luddites the lot of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</id>
	<title>Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259252820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although I like this idea. Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water?

If we're constantly running our fresh water through a membrane into salt water, won't our "fuel" of fresh water run out?
Unlike oil, we need fresh water to live.

Unless there is a reverse osmosis process that energy can be harnessed from, which I doubt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I like this idea .
Wo n't it just deplete our supply of fresh water ?
If we 're constantly running our fresh water through a membrane into salt water , wo n't our " fuel " of fresh water run out ?
Unlike oil , we need fresh water to live .
Unless there is a reverse osmosis process that energy can be harnessed from , which I doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I like this idea.
Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water?
If we're constantly running our fresh water through a membrane into salt water, won't our "fuel" of fresh water run out?
Unlike oil, we need fresh water to live.
Unless there is a reverse osmosis process that energy can be harnessed from, which I doubt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30247480</id>
	<title>Re:Some numbers... I think it might work!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259350800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>I don&rsquo;t see any obvious efficiency-loss factors here: it should be possible to do this pretty efficiently.</i></p></div></blockquote><p>Inefficiencies:</p><p>First-time Materials costs: miles of osmotic membrane, as you said.  Concrete, wiring and pipe for any needed infrastructure.<br>Ongoing Materials costs: (replacing or rinsing/sparging that osmotic filter regularly)<br>Prep costs (filtering the water to get it clean enough to use osmotic filtering)<br>Remediation costs: alterations to miles and/or thousands of acres of eliminated ecosystems.<br>Engine inefficiencies: the obvious slip up here is thinking that the engines are just generically 100\% efficient or close to that.  There'll be friction losses involving water flow in confined space, etc.  The unobvious one is that you say you've gauged how much energy a magic reversal could get by using real-world forward numbers to get the reversal.  If a real desalination engine gets 80\% of the efficiency of a theoretical desalination engine, and the OPP engine has a similar 80\% efficiency, the net number's going to be 64\%.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, subject matter experts did your analysis and said Eureka, too.  But the whole idea of pilot plants are to do the task in a scaled-down fashion to see what the real technical challenges and net efficiency values are.  Handwavium needs a much steeper caveat than you gave.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I don    t see any obvious efficiency-loss factors here : it should be possible to do this pretty efficiently.Inefficiencies : First-time Materials costs : miles of osmotic membrane , as you said .
Concrete , wiring and pipe for any needed infrastructure.Ongoing Materials costs : ( replacing or rinsing/sparging that osmotic filter regularly ) Prep costs ( filtering the water to get it clean enough to use osmotic filtering ) Remediation costs : alterations to miles and/or thousands of acres of eliminated ecosystems.Engine inefficiencies : the obvious slip up here is thinking that the engines are just generically 100 \ % efficient or close to that .
There 'll be friction losses involving water flow in confined space , etc .
The unobvious one is that you say you 've gauged how much energy a magic reversal could get by using real-world forward numbers to get the reversal .
If a real desalination engine gets 80 \ % of the efficiency of a theoretical desalination engine , and the OPP engine has a similar 80 \ % efficiency , the net number 's going to be 64 \ % .Do n't get me wrong , subject matter experts did your analysis and said Eureka , too .
But the whole idea of pilot plants are to do the task in a scaled-down fashion to see what the real technical challenges and net efficiency values are .
Handwavium needs a much steeper caveat than you gave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I don’t see any obvious efficiency-loss factors here: it should be possible to do this pretty efficiently.Inefficiencies:First-time Materials costs: miles of osmotic membrane, as you said.
Concrete, wiring and pipe for any needed infrastructure.Ongoing Materials costs: (replacing or rinsing/sparging that osmotic filter regularly)Prep costs (filtering the water to get it clean enough to use osmotic filtering)Remediation costs: alterations to miles and/or thousands of acres of eliminated ecosystems.Engine inefficiencies: the obvious slip up here is thinking that the engines are just generically 100\% efficient or close to that.
There'll be friction losses involving water flow in confined space, etc.
The unobvious one is that you say you've gauged how much energy a magic reversal could get by using real-world forward numbers to get the reversal.
If a real desalination engine gets 80\% of the efficiency of a theoretical desalination engine, and the OPP engine has a similar 80\% efficiency, the net number's going to be 64\%.Don't get me wrong, subject matter experts did your analysis and said Eureka, too.
But the whole idea of pilot plants are to do the task in a scaled-down fashion to see what the real technical challenges and net efficiency values are.
Handwavium needs a much steeper caveat than you gave.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243154</id>
	<title>Re:Some numbers... I think it might work!</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259264820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever looked at the water coming down the Mississippi?  I wonder what the silt content per liter of water is?</p><p>Now I am not a RO expert, not by a long shot, but I know that the water coming to the membrane has to be fairly particulate free.</p><p>I really cannot fathom what kind of pre-filtering would have to be done to make this work in such a river basin.  Perhaps in am area where there is a huge glacier run off that is pretty clean to begin with. &lt;shrug&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever looked at the water coming down the Mississippi ?
I wonder what the silt content per liter of water is ? Now I am not a RO expert , not by a long shot , but I know that the water coming to the membrane has to be fairly particulate free.I really can not fathom what kind of pre-filtering would have to be done to make this work in such a river basin .
Perhaps in am area where there is a huge glacier run off that is pretty clean to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever looked at the water coming down the Mississippi?
I wonder what the silt content per liter of water is?Now I am not a RO expert, not by a long shot, but I know that the water coming to the membrane has to be fairly particulate free.I really cannot fathom what kind of pre-filtering would have to be done to make this work in such a river basin.
Perhaps in am area where there is a huge glacier run off that is pretty clean to begin with. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242292</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259253900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you pumped the spent water into a lake (either artificial or man-made), then the sun will do the work in retrieving fresh water from brackish water. Since the water has to essentially be isolated from other water sources to prevent ecological damage, one way you could make use of this otherwise-useless lake (whilst you're waiting for it to evaporate) is to use it as an energy reservoir. I'm not sure of the proper name, but the idea is that you store power by pumping water from the lower lake to the higher one, and then retrieve it by running it back through a turbine. Then, you use a non-base-load power source like solar/wind/etc, and hey presto, it's transformed into base-load! Of course, the problem is that this requires two adjacent lakes - plus, a whole slew of other engineering, geographic and/or financial challenges. But I'm an armchair speculator, what do I care for reality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you pumped the spent water into a lake ( either artificial or man-made ) , then the sun will do the work in retrieving fresh water from brackish water .
Since the water has to essentially be isolated from other water sources to prevent ecological damage , one way you could make use of this otherwise-useless lake ( whilst you 're waiting for it to evaporate ) is to use it as an energy reservoir .
I 'm not sure of the proper name , but the idea is that you store power by pumping water from the lower lake to the higher one , and then retrieve it by running it back through a turbine .
Then , you use a non-base-load power source like solar/wind/etc , and hey presto , it 's transformed into base-load !
Of course , the problem is that this requires two adjacent lakes - plus , a whole slew of other engineering , geographic and/or financial challenges .
But I 'm an armchair speculator , what do I care for reality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you pumped the spent water into a lake (either artificial or man-made), then the sun will do the work in retrieving fresh water from brackish water.
Since the water has to essentially be isolated from other water sources to prevent ecological damage, one way you could make use of this otherwise-useless lake (whilst you're waiting for it to evaporate) is to use it as an energy reservoir.
I'm not sure of the proper name, but the idea is that you store power by pumping water from the lower lake to the higher one, and then retrieve it by running it back through a turbine.
Then, you use a non-base-load power source like solar/wind/etc, and hey presto, it's transformed into base-load!
Of course, the problem is that this requires two adjacent lakes - plus, a whole slew of other engineering, geographic and/or financial challenges.
But I'm an armchair speculator, what do I care for reality?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243290</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power plants</title>
	<author>WegianWarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1259352960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense. There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.
Nuclear power is the way to go! The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they've done more harm than good, in lobbying against nuclear power.</p><p>Luddites the lot of them.</p></div><p>We're bothering, as you put it, due to several reasons:<br>

- First off, this is taking place in Norway. Norway has plenty of rivers which delivers lots of fresh water to areas where there is lots of salt water. Norway also decided many years ago to NOT build any nuclear power plants.<br>

- Secondly, there is this idea that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. Reactors are nice and all, but what do you do with them when you run out of fuel? Uranium is a finite resource, but the water cycle goes on forever.<br>

- Thirdly, what about nuclear waste? Should we store it in your back yard?<br>

And for the record, this is about as destructive to the environment as letting rivers flow into the sea... and you don't see Greenpeace protesting rivers, do you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense .
There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment .
Nuclear power is the way to go !
The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they 've done more harm than good , in lobbying against nuclear power.Luddites the lot of them.We 're bothering , as you put it , due to several reasons : - First off , this is taking place in Norway .
Norway has plenty of rivers which delivers lots of fresh water to areas where there is lots of salt water .
Norway also decided many years ago to NOT build any nuclear power plants .
- Secondly , there is this idea that you should n't put all your eggs in one basket .
Reactors are nice and all , but what do you do with them when you run out of fuel ?
Uranium is a finite resource , but the water cycle goes on forever .
- Thirdly , what about nuclear waste ?
Should we store it in your back yard ?
And for the record , this is about as destructive to the environment as letting rivers flow into the sea... and you do n't see Greenpeace protesting rivers , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense.
There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.
Nuclear power is the way to go!
The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they've done more harm than good, in lobbying against nuclear power.Luddites the lot of them.We're bothering, as you put it, due to several reasons:

- First off, this is taking place in Norway.
Norway has plenty of rivers which delivers lots of fresh water to areas where there is lots of salt water.
Norway also decided many years ago to NOT build any nuclear power plants.
- Secondly, there is this idea that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.
Reactors are nice and all, but what do you do with them when you run out of fuel?
Uranium is a finite resource, but the water cycle goes on forever.
- Thirdly, what about nuclear waste?
Should we store it in your back yard?
And for the record, this is about as destructive to the environment as letting rivers flow into the sea... and you don't see Greenpeace protesting rivers, do you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245902</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>Toze</author>
	<datestamp>1259340060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.</p></div><p>Tsk, environmentalist panic-mongering. The loss of gravity from natural processes far outweighs Man's draw on those resources. Now, gravity-powered Hummers, <i>there's</i> the real danger! Gravity would build up in our cities and eventually collapse them into black holes. We must stop gravity pollution before it starts! I suggest a yearly tax on gravity-users, the funds going to an international panel for the study of the effects of gravity on the environment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they 're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure , and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.Tsk , environmentalist panic-mongering .
The loss of gravity from natural processes far outweighs Man 's draw on those resources .
Now , gravity-powered Hummers , there 's the real danger !
Gravity would build up in our cities and eventually collapse them into black holes .
We must stop gravity pollution before it starts !
I suggest a yearly tax on gravity-users , the funds going to an international panel for the study of the effects of gravity on the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.Tsk, environmentalist panic-mongering.
The loss of gravity from natural processes far outweighs Man's draw on those resources.
Now, gravity-powered Hummers, there's the real danger!
Gravity would build up in our cities and eventually collapse them into black holes.
We must stop gravity pollution before it starts!
I suggest a yearly tax on gravity-users, the funds going to an international panel for the study of the effects of gravity on the environment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708</id>
	<title>Some numbers... I think it might work!</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1259257980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was skeptical of the numbers, so I looked around to figure out how much energy we're talking about here.  <a href="http://urila.tripod.com/desalination.htm" title="tripod.com">This link</a> [tripod.com] discussing desalinization is pretty useful... what we're talking about here is a desalinization plant run in reverse.</p><p>The short answer: 0.66 kcal (2760 joules) per liter of salt water converted to fresh water, so you'd get the same order of magnitude of energy *back* with an osmosis plant.  The Mississippi river flow rate is 17 million liters per second at New Orleans, so the maximum possible energy output is 47 GW!</p><p>I don't see any obvious efficiency-loss factors here: it should be possible to do this pretty efficiently.</p><p>Another way of looking at the problem: the osmotic pressure difference between fresh water and seawater is 28 bar, which is equivalent to 280 meters of hydraulic head.  That's roughly the same pressure gradient as is found across the Hoover Dam.</p><p>Now, the technical challenge of building miles and miles of carefully-folded osmotic membrane, and keeping it clean, is a bit daunting.  But in theory, it should work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was skeptical of the numbers , so I looked around to figure out how much energy we 're talking about here .
This link [ tripod.com ] discussing desalinization is pretty useful... what we 're talking about here is a desalinization plant run in reverse.The short answer : 0.66 kcal ( 2760 joules ) per liter of salt water converted to fresh water , so you 'd get the same order of magnitude of energy * back * with an osmosis plant .
The Mississippi river flow rate is 17 million liters per second at New Orleans , so the maximum possible energy output is 47 GW ! I do n't see any obvious efficiency-loss factors here : it should be possible to do this pretty efficiently.Another way of looking at the problem : the osmotic pressure difference between fresh water and seawater is 28 bar , which is equivalent to 280 meters of hydraulic head .
That 's roughly the same pressure gradient as is found across the Hoover Dam.Now , the technical challenge of building miles and miles of carefully-folded osmotic membrane , and keeping it clean , is a bit daunting .
But in theory , it should work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was skeptical of the numbers, so I looked around to figure out how much energy we're talking about here.
This link [tripod.com] discussing desalinization is pretty useful... what we're talking about here is a desalinization plant run in reverse.The short answer: 0.66 kcal (2760 joules) per liter of salt water converted to fresh water, so you'd get the same order of magnitude of energy *back* with an osmosis plant.
The Mississippi river flow rate is 17 million liters per second at New Orleans, so the maximum possible energy output is 47 GW!I don't see any obvious efficiency-loss factors here: it should be possible to do this pretty efficiently.Another way of looking at the problem: the osmotic pressure difference between fresh water and seawater is 28 bar, which is equivalent to 280 meters of hydraulic head.
That's roughly the same pressure gradient as is found across the Hoover Dam.Now, the technical challenge of building miles and miles of carefully-folded osmotic membrane, and keeping it clean, is a bit daunting.
But in theory, it should work!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244376</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power plants</title>
	<author>kvezach</author>
	<datestamp>1259324400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Breeder. Reactors.<br> <br>

If that fails, Energy Amplifier (it <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page\_166.shtml" title="cam.ac.uk">uses Thorium</a> [cam.ac.uk], and you can even burn waste with it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Breeder .
Reactors . If that fails , Energy Amplifier ( it uses Thorium [ cam.ac.uk ] , and you can even burn waste with it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breeder.
Reactors. 

If that fails, Energy Amplifier (it uses Thorium [cam.ac.uk], and you can even burn waste with it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242670</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power plants</title>
	<author>Captain Segfault</author>
	<datestamp>1259257500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We will not run out of salt ocean any time soon.</p></div><p>There is a nontrivial amount of uranium in that salt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We will not run out of salt ocean any time soon.There is a nontrivial amount of uranium in that salt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We will not run out of salt ocean any time soon.There is a nontrivial amount of uranium in that salt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242960</id>
	<title>Re:Impact</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1259261700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's completely environmentally positive, as are the magic beans I have.  If you plant them, they'll grow into wind driven dynamos that will provide power for free.
</p><p>Unfortunately the R&amp;D on my magic beans was quite extensive so I have to charge quite a bit for them.  I'm sure you understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's completely environmentally positive , as are the magic beans I have .
If you plant them , they 'll grow into wind driven dynamos that will provide power for free .
Unfortunately the R&amp;D on my magic beans was quite extensive so I have to charge quite a bit for them .
I 'm sure you understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's completely environmentally positive, as are the magic beans I have.
If you plant them, they'll grow into wind driven dynamos that will provide power for free.
Unfortunately the R&amp;D on my magic beans was quite extensive so I have to charge quite a bit for them.
I'm sure you understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242306</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>Temkin</author>
	<datestamp>1259253960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  The discharge of every coastal sewage plant and every storm drain is your fuel. Then there's these things called "rivers".  I understand something like 0.01\% of all water on the planet flows through them every year. As small as that sounds, it's a substantial number in terms of solar kJ's sequestered in its distillation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
The discharge of every coastal sewage plant and every storm drain is your fuel .
Then there 's these things called " rivers " .
I understand something like 0.01 \ % of all water on the planet flows through them every year .
As small as that sounds , it 's a substantial number in terms of solar kJ 's sequestered in its distillation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
The discharge of every coastal sewage plant and every storm drain is your fuel.
Then there's these things called "rivers".
I understand something like 0.01\% of all water on the planet flows through them every year.
As small as that sounds, it's a substantial number in terms of solar kJ's sequestered in its distillation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245930</id>
	<title>Like to get excited but ...</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1259340240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like to get excited about this, but there are some unanswered questions.</p><p>1) how much energy will be required to clean, maintain, and replace osmotic filters (these are largely built, maintained and replaced, using existing energy sources) (need to subtract this off of output.  Notice no figures provided in article.</p><p>2) article says generated enough energy to boil water in a pot for the party (article doesn't explain just how much energy was utilized just getting people to and from the grand opening).  Venture a guess that it was vastly  larger than that required<br>to boil the water in the pot.  Subtract off the cost of all the other activities associated with this (keeping employees fed, warm, lights on, energy for tanks plumbing, etc and it would appear that the entire venture so far is net energy negative, so question arises how long until energy positive.  Simply extrapolating the amount of water mixing from all the world's rivers is hardly equivalenet to saying that all that energy is harnessed.</p><p>3) although mixing does occur naturally, as one scales the output water must ultimately eenter environment, how will biologic hazzards due to altering natural salinity gradients be mitigated.   Probably more of a problem for fishes and invertebrates is the volume of water diverted and the risk due to entrapment, particularly for larval stages (intakes may need to be shut down periodically to reduce risk).</p><p>Often new energy technologies are clever ways to get taxpayers to part with their money.  We need to provide more incentives for clean energy technologies, we must insist that subsidies diminish rapidly and that ALL COSTS are taken into the equation so that only the truly workable merit much assistance.</p><p>As for those who don't seem to think the natural environment is worth saving, try living without it.  Love mother earth or leave it needs to be the rallying cry for the truly moral among us.  If you don't like the ecosystem here, move to outer space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like to get excited about this , but there are some unanswered questions.1 ) how much energy will be required to clean , maintain , and replace osmotic filters ( these are largely built , maintained and replaced , using existing energy sources ) ( need to subtract this off of output .
Notice no figures provided in article.2 ) article says generated enough energy to boil water in a pot for the party ( article does n't explain just how much energy was utilized just getting people to and from the grand opening ) .
Venture a guess that it was vastly larger than that requiredto boil the water in the pot .
Subtract off the cost of all the other activities associated with this ( keeping employees fed , warm , lights on , energy for tanks plumbing , etc and it would appear that the entire venture so far is net energy negative , so question arises how long until energy positive .
Simply extrapolating the amount of water mixing from all the world 's rivers is hardly equivalenet to saying that all that energy is harnessed.3 ) although mixing does occur naturally , as one scales the output water must ultimately eenter environment , how will biologic hazzards due to altering natural salinity gradients be mitigated .
Probably more of a problem for fishes and invertebrates is the volume of water diverted and the risk due to entrapment , particularly for larval stages ( intakes may need to be shut down periodically to reduce risk ) .Often new energy technologies are clever ways to get taxpayers to part with their money .
We need to provide more incentives for clean energy technologies , we must insist that subsidies diminish rapidly and that ALL COSTS are taken into the equation so that only the truly workable merit much assistance.As for those who do n't seem to think the natural environment is worth saving , try living without it .
Love mother earth or leave it needs to be the rallying cry for the truly moral among us .
If you do n't like the ecosystem here , move to outer space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like to get excited about this, but there are some unanswered questions.1) how much energy will be required to clean, maintain, and replace osmotic filters (these are largely built, maintained and replaced, using existing energy sources) (need to subtract this off of output.
Notice no figures provided in article.2) article says generated enough energy to boil water in a pot for the party (article doesn't explain just how much energy was utilized just getting people to and from the grand opening).
Venture a guess that it was vastly  larger than that requiredto boil the water in the pot.
Subtract off the cost of all the other activities associated with this (keeping employees fed, warm, lights on, energy for tanks plumbing, etc and it would appear that the entire venture so far is net energy negative, so question arises how long until energy positive.
Simply extrapolating the amount of water mixing from all the world's rivers is hardly equivalenet to saying that all that energy is harnessed.3) although mixing does occur naturally, as one scales the output water must ultimately eenter environment, how will biologic hazzards due to altering natural salinity gradients be mitigated.
Probably more of a problem for fishes and invertebrates is the volume of water diverted and the risk due to entrapment, particularly for larval stages (intakes may need to be shut down periodically to reduce risk).Often new energy technologies are clever ways to get taxpayers to part with their money.
We need to provide more incentives for clean energy technologies, we must insist that subsidies diminish rapidly and that ALL COSTS are taken into the equation so that only the truly workable merit much assistance.As for those who don't seem to think the natural environment is worth saving, try living without it.
Love mother earth or leave it needs to be the rallying cry for the truly moral among us.
If you don't like the ecosystem here, move to outer space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244908</id>
	<title>Re:Impact</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1259332440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what's your proposal? Instead of building these plants, reroute all rivers towards the Sahara?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's your proposal ?
Instead of building these plants , reroute all rivers towards the Sahara ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's your proposal?
Instead of building these plants, reroute all rivers towards the Sahara?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242242</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259253540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An interesting aspect mentioned in TFA is the fact that you need two water sources, i.e., a  river of fresh water that empties into a salt sea.  So it would seem that they are just doing preemptively what nature would have done anyway. It actually seems like a pretty non-destructive method to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An interesting aspect mentioned in TFA is the fact that you need two water sources , i.e. , a river of fresh water that empties into a salt sea .
So it would seem that they are just doing preemptively what nature would have done anyway .
It actually seems like a pretty non-destructive method to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An interesting aspect mentioned in TFA is the fact that you need two water sources, i.e., a  river of fresh water that empties into a salt sea.
So it would seem that they are just doing preemptively what nature would have done anyway.
It actually seems like a pretty non-destructive method to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243324</id>
	<title>Re:Some numbers... I think it might work!</title>
	<author>plague911</author>
	<datestamp>1259353440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The good part is that you can do a good crapy job and it still will be a major positive Considering the efficiency right now of the system is 0\% a quick dirty and CHEAP solution can do nothing but provide a massive amounts of virtually free energy. This is one of these things like geothermal/solar energy. The ability to do them right requires the right land/environmental structure. In a lot of areas this will not make sense. However in the right area the profit margins are nice and high. Im not sure if people are being serious when they worry about depleting the fresh water supply or just have dry sense of humor or are drunk out of their minds(Happy Thanksgiving) . But this will not deplete the fresh water supply of the world. As far as i know there are NO technologies which can make  a river flow faster into the ocean..... The environment impacts of this will be similar but less than that of traditional hydopower plants. The reason why it will be less than is that there likely will be no need for turbines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The good part is that you can do a good crapy job and it still will be a major positive Considering the efficiency right now of the system is 0 \ % a quick dirty and CHEAP solution can do nothing but provide a massive amounts of virtually free energy .
This is one of these things like geothermal/solar energy .
The ability to do them right requires the right land/environmental structure .
In a lot of areas this will not make sense .
However in the right area the profit margins are nice and high .
Im not sure if people are being serious when they worry about depleting the fresh water supply or just have dry sense of humor or are drunk out of their minds ( Happy Thanksgiving ) .
But this will not deplete the fresh water supply of the world .
As far as i know there are NO technologies which can make a river flow faster into the ocean..... The environment impacts of this will be similar but less than that of traditional hydopower plants .
The reason why it will be less than is that there likely will be no need for turbines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good part is that you can do a good crapy job and it still will be a major positive Considering the efficiency right now of the system is 0\% a quick dirty and CHEAP solution can do nothing but provide a massive amounts of virtually free energy.
This is one of these things like geothermal/solar energy.
The ability to do them right requires the right land/environmental structure.
In a lot of areas this will not make sense.
However in the right area the profit margins are nice and high.
Im not sure if people are being serious when they worry about depleting the fresh water supply or just have dry sense of humor or are drunk out of their minds(Happy Thanksgiving) .
But this will not deplete the fresh water supply of the world.
As far as i know there are NO technologies which can make  a river flow faster into the ocean..... The environment impacts of this will be similar but less than that of traditional hydopower plants.
The reason why it will be less than is that there likely will be no need for turbines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243392</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power plants</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1259354280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense. There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.</p></div><p>Whoa..  What destruction?</p><p>These plants are located where fresh water meets salt water, at the mouth of rivers.</p><p>There is no destruction.</p><p>As for capacity, "the technology has the global potential to generate clean, renewable energy equivalent to China's total electricity consumption in 2002 or half of the EU's total power production (some 1600 to 1700 Twh)"</p><p>So, wrong on both counts.</p><p>Now DO GO BACK AND READ TFA before you climb on you high horse...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense .
There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.Whoa.. What destruction ? These plants are located where fresh water meets salt water , at the mouth of rivers.There is no destruction.As for capacity , " the technology has the global potential to generate clean , renewable energy equivalent to China 's total electricity consumption in 2002 or half of the EU 's total power production ( some 1600 to 1700 Twh ) " So , wrong on both counts.Now DO GO BACK AND READ TFA before you climb on you high horse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense.
There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.Whoa..  What destruction?These plants are located where fresh water meets salt water, at the mouth of rivers.There is no destruction.As for capacity, "the technology has the global potential to generate clean, renewable energy equivalent to China's total electricity consumption in 2002 or half of the EU's total power production (some 1600 to 1700 Twh)"So, wrong on both counts.Now DO GO BACK AND READ TFA before you climb on you high horse...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244072</id>
	<title>Polyethalene = oil doesn't it</title>
	<author>footnmouth</author>
	<datestamp>1259319420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I think it's a massive issue as I'm sure it'll cut down on usage, but isn't Polyethalene an oil product so we'll therefore still need some black stuff to be processed to get there.
<br> <br>
My biggest worry about oil reserves running out is the rising cost of plastics.  Having said that, I last did chemistry 25 years ago, so I'm assuming things have changed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I think it 's a massive issue as I 'm sure it 'll cut down on usage , but is n't Polyethalene an oil product so we 'll therefore still need some black stuff to be processed to get there .
My biggest worry about oil reserves running out is the rising cost of plastics .
Having said that , I last did chemistry 25 years ago , so I 'm assuming things have changed : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I think it's a massive issue as I'm sure it'll cut down on usage, but isn't Polyethalene an oil product so we'll therefore still need some black stuff to be processed to get there.
My biggest worry about oil reserves running out is the rising cost of plastics.
Having said that, I last did chemistry 25 years ago, so I'm assuming things have changed :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242298</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1259253960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like all energy sources, there are places good enough to use it and places where it doesn't make sense at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like all energy sources , there are places good enough to use it and places where it does n't make sense at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like all energy sources, there are places good enough to use it and places where it doesn't make sense at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30247060</id>
	<title>Re:Desalination- homework problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259347980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tonight's  homework assignment is to calculate the ratio of size of a desalination plant powered by a Osmotic power plant, Transmission resistance cost can be assumed to be 0\% as far as we do not know the distance between plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tonight 's homework assignment is to calculate the ratio of size of a desalination plant powered by a Osmotic power plant , Transmission resistance cost can be assumed to be 0 \ % as far as we do not know the distance between plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tonight's  homework assignment is to calculate the ratio of size of a desalination plant powered by a Osmotic power plant, Transmission resistance cost can be assumed to be 0\% as far as we do not know the distance between plants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243194</id>
	<title>to stupid logic</title>
	<author>Odinlake</author>
	<datestamp>1259265180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense. There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.
Nuclear power is the way to go! The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they've done more harm than good, in lobbying against nuclear power.</p><p>Luddites the lot of them.</p></div><p>Obviously nuclear power hasn't solved the worlds energy problems yet and weather it will remains to be seen. Until then I'm all for researching all conceivable options - with the future uncertain few thigs are sure, but knowledge being power is pretty damn close. Oh, and I tire of fools who reject an idea just because that idea alone doesn't solve everything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense .
There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment .
Nuclear power is the way to go !
The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they 've done more harm than good , in lobbying against nuclear power.Luddites the lot of them.Obviously nuclear power has n't solved the worlds energy problems yet and weather it will remains to be seen .
Until then I 'm all for researching all conceivable options - with the future uncertain few thigs are sure , but knowledge being power is pretty damn close .
Oh , and I tire of fools who reject an idea just because that idea alone does n't solve everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... Why are we bothering with this nonsense.
There is no way this system can produce that much power and it seems ridiculously destructive to the environment.
Nuclear power is the way to go!
The Greenpeace crowd needs to acknowledge that they've done more harm than good, in lobbying against nuclear power.Luddites the lot of them.Obviously nuclear power hasn't solved the worlds energy problems yet and weather it will remains to be seen.
Until then I'm all for researching all conceivable options - with the future uncertain few thigs are sure, but knowledge being power is pretty damn close.
Oh, and I tire of fools who reject an idea just because that idea alone doesn't solve everything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242192</id>
	<title>Desalination</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259252940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if you could use the energy to power a desalination plant and then use the fresh water to power the.. hang on... I've gone cross eyed...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if you could use the energy to power a desalination plant and then use the fresh water to power the.. hang on... I 've gone cross eyed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if you could use the energy to power a desalination plant and then use the fresh water to power the.. hang on... I've gone cross eyed...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243356</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1259353860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead. </p><p>Gravity is a vital resource we can deplete it? Ummmm, nope. See: physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they 're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure , and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead .
Gravity is a vital resource we can deplete it ?
Ummmm , nope .
See : physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.
Gravity is a vital resource we can deplete it?
Ummmm, nope.
See: physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30246048</id>
	<title>Statkraft confirms it</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259340960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh wait, Statkraft? Gosh, I thought they were talking about something important for a moment there.</p></div><p>Statkraft confirms it: Fossil fuels are dying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait , Statkraft ?
Gosh , I thought they were talking about something important for a moment there.Statkraft confirms it : Fossil fuels are dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait, Statkraft?
Gosh, I thought they were talking about something important for a moment there.Statkraft confirms it: Fossil fuels are dying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242902</id>
	<title>Re:Some numbers... I think it might work!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259260860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so you're going to take fresh water "A" and salt water "A", turn it into brackish water "A", use the resulting energy to take salt water "B" and turn it into fresh water "B" and other remains? ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so you 're going to take fresh water " A " and salt water " A " , turn it into brackish water " A " , use the resulting energy to take salt water " B " and turn it into fresh water " B " and other remains ?
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so you're going to take fresh water "A" and salt water "A", turn it into brackish water "A", use the resulting energy to take salt water "B" and turn it into fresh water "B" and other remains?
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242458</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1259255340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Although I like this idea. Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water?</p></div><p>Mmm, nope, don't think so.  This isn't a case where you're diverting fresh water to the task.  You're simply borrowing the energy those rivers would normally dissipate when they hit the sea anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I like this idea .
Wo n't it just deplete our supply of fresh water ? Mmm , nope , do n't think so .
This is n't a case where you 're diverting fresh water to the task .
You 're simply borrowing the energy those rivers would normally dissipate when they hit the sea anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I like this idea.
Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water?Mmm, nope, don't think so.
This isn't a case where you're diverting fresh water to the task.
You're simply borrowing the energy those rivers would normally dissipate when they hit the sea anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244248</id>
	<title>two words</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1259322480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thorium Fluoride</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thorium Fluoride</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thorium Fluoride</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242560</id>
	<title>just hook a desalt plant to it and reuse it out pu</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259256600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just hook a desalt plant to it and reuse it out put</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just hook a desalt plant to it and reuse it out put</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just hook a desalt plant to it and reuse it out put</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242434</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power plants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259255160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuclear power is fine, until we run out of uranium.  We will not run out of salt ocean any time soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power is fine , until we run out of uranium .
We will not run out of salt ocean any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear power is fine, until we run out of uranium.
We will not run out of salt ocean any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243250</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>purpledinoz</author>
	<datestamp>1259352360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up as funny. He's clearly joking, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up as funny .
He 's clearly joking , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up as funny.
He's clearly joking, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242574</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power plants</title>
	<author>Rostin</author>
	<datestamp>1259256720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does it seem destructive to the environment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does it seem destructive to the environment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does it seem destructive to the environment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242606</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259256960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.</p></div><p>What ever will we do if we deplete the world's supply of gravity. Sure, this scheme might solve problems now, but in thirty years our children will have to deal with global floating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they 're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure , and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.What ever will we do if we deplete the world 's supply of gravity .
Sure , this scheme might solve problems now , but in thirty years our children will have to deal with global floating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.What ever will we do if we deplete the world's supply of gravity.
Sure, this scheme might solve problems now, but in thirty years our children will have to deal with global floating.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243604</id>
	<title>combine desalination and osmotic plant</title>
	<author>Moabz</author>
	<datestamp>1259313900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you could pipe the brine waste of a desalination plant to the osmotic plant the osmotic pressure would be higher, thus more energy could be produced. <br> <br>
However a desalination plant will not likely be in the same location as a osmotic plant. You would need a brine pipe line to hook them up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you could pipe the brine waste of a desalination plant to the osmotic plant the osmotic pressure would be higher , thus more energy could be produced .
However a desalination plant will not likely be in the same location as a osmotic plant .
You would need a brine pipe line to hook them up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you could pipe the brine waste of a desalination plant to the osmotic plant the osmotic pressure would be higher, thus more energy could be produced.
However a desalination plant will not likely be in the same location as a osmotic plant.
You would need a brine pipe line to hook them up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242812</id>
	<title>Re:Desalination</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1259259540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, that could work, not in the perpetual energy sense obviously, but certainly you could take the concentrated salt product from your desalinization process and recoup some of the energy by using it for osmotic fuel in this process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that could work , not in the perpetual energy sense obviously , but certainly you could take the concentrated salt product from your desalinization process and recoup some of the energy by using it for osmotic fuel in this process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that could work, not in the perpetual energy sense obviously, but certainly you could take the concentrated salt product from your desalinization process and recoup some of the energy by using it for osmotic fuel in this process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242302</id>
	<title>Re:Impact</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1259253960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wiki article has a pretty good paragraph on this.  The main worry is introducing brackish water into the environment.  FT(W)A: <i>"Marine and river environments have obvious differences in water quality, namely salinity. Each species of aquatic plant and animal is adapted to survive in either marine, brackish, or freshwater environments. There are species that can tolerate both, but these species usually thrive best in a specific water environment."</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wiki article has a pretty good paragraph on this .
The main worry is introducing brackish water into the environment .
FT ( W ) A : " Marine and river environments have obvious differences in water quality , namely salinity .
Each species of aquatic plant and animal is adapted to survive in either marine , brackish , or freshwater environments .
There are species that can tolerate both , but these species usually thrive best in a specific water environment .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wiki article has a pretty good paragraph on this.
The main worry is introducing brackish water into the environment.
FT(W)A: "Marine and river environments have obvious differences in water quality, namely salinity.
Each species of aquatic plant and animal is adapted to survive in either marine, brackish, or freshwater environments.
There are species that can tolerate both, but these species usually thrive best in a specific water environment.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243232</id>
	<title>Destructive?</title>
	<author>Pinky's Brain</author>
	<datestamp>1259352120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It just changes the salinity gradient of the river mouth a bit (which already shifts based on the river flow which is hardly static year round).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just changes the salinity gradient of the river mouth a bit ( which already shifts based on the river flow which is hardly static year round ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just changes the salinity gradient of the river mouth a bit (which already shifts based on the river flow which is hardly static year round).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242546</id>
	<title>Osmosis?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259256360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I though this was a way to get smarter by sleeping on books.... huh</p><p>haha seriously... why hasn't this method been talked about in the top 5 ish ideas of renewable energy sources?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I though this was a way to get smarter by sleeping on books.... huhhaha seriously... why has n't this method been talked about in the top 5 ish ideas of renewable energy sources ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I though this was a way to get smarter by sleeping on books.... huhhaha seriously... why hasn't this method been talked about in the top 5 ish ideas of renewable energy sources?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243186</id>
	<title>Re:Oh man, Starcraft?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259265180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Starcraft was not the first Starcraft:<br><a href="http://www.utopiasales.ca/assets/rv\%20trailers/DSC00168.JPG" title="utopiasales.ca">http://www.utopiasales.ca/assets/rv\%20trailers/DSC00168.JPG</a> [utopiasales.ca]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Starcraft was not the first Starcraft : http : //www.utopiasales.ca/assets/rv \ % 20trailers/DSC00168.JPG [ utopiasales.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starcraft was not the first Starcraft:http://www.utopiasales.ca/assets/rv\%20trailers/DSC00168.JPG [utopiasales.ca]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30248490</id>
	<title>Re:Desalination</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1259314080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, that could work, not in the perpetual energy sense obviously, but certainly you could take the concentrated salt product from your desalinization process and recoup some of the energy by using it for osmotic fuel in this process.</p></div><p>Yes, certainly, but it might make more sense to convert the desalination plant into water filtration plant, considering that you'll be needing this river of fresh water running past the osmotic power plant anyway...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that could work , not in the perpetual energy sense obviously , but certainly you could take the concentrated salt product from your desalinization process and recoup some of the energy by using it for osmotic fuel in this process.Yes , certainly , but it might make more sense to convert the desalination plant into water filtration plant , considering that you 'll be needing this river of fresh water running past the osmotic power plant anyway... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that could work, not in the perpetual energy sense obviously, but certainly you could take the concentrated salt product from your desalinization process and recoup some of the energy by using it for osmotic fuel in this process.Yes, certainly, but it might make more sense to convert the desalination plant into water filtration plant, considering that you'll be needing this river of fresh water running past the osmotic power plant anyway... ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243636</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>idji</author>
	<datestamp>1259314380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they are also extracting ENERGY from the system, so the resulting water will be COLDER, and that WILL have an impact (maybe miniscule) on sealife in the immediate area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they are also extracting ENERGY from the system , so the resulting water will be COLDER , and that WILL have an impact ( maybe miniscule ) on sealife in the immediate area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they are also extracting ENERGY from the system, so the resulting water will be COLDER, and that WILL have an impact (maybe miniscule) on sealife in the immediate area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242852</id>
	<title>Re:Deplete our Fresh Water supply?</title>
	<author>Jeremi</author>
	<datestamp>1259260200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Although I like this idea. Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water? If we're constantly running our fresh water through a membrane into salt water, won't our "fuel" of fresh water run out?</i></p><p>Really, this is what passes for insightful these days?</p><p>Every time it rains, the rain is composed fresh water that was evaporated from the ocean and desalinated in the process.  That process has occurred for millions of years, and will continue for the foreseeable future, no matter what we do.  All the fresh water that gets salinated on its way through this plant would have been salinated anyway, when it entered the ocean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I like this idea .
Wo n't it just deplete our supply of fresh water ?
If we 're constantly running our fresh water through a membrane into salt water , wo n't our " fuel " of fresh water run out ? Really , this is what passes for insightful these days ? Every time it rains , the rain is composed fresh water that was evaporated from the ocean and desalinated in the process .
That process has occurred for millions of years , and will continue for the foreseeable future , no matter what we do .
All the fresh water that gets salinated on its way through this plant would have been salinated anyway , when it entered the ocean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I like this idea.
Won't it just deplete our supply of fresh water?
If we're constantly running our fresh water through a membrane into salt water, won't our "fuel" of fresh water run out?Really, this is what passes for insightful these days?Every time it rains, the rain is composed fresh water that was evaporated from the ocean and desalinated in the process.
That process has occurred for millions of years, and will continue for the foreseeable future, no matter what we do.
All the fresh water that gets salinated on its way through this plant would have been salinated anyway, when it entered the ocean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30246944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30247060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30246048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30276426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30247480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30248490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_0010206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_0010206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_0010206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30247060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30248490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_0010206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_0010206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30247480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_0010206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_0010206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_0010206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30246048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30246944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_0010206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30244896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242606
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30276426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30245688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30243250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_0010206.30242284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
