<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_10_0355200</id>
	<title>Self-Destructing Bacteria Create Better Biofuels</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1260438000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MikeChino writes <i>"Researchers at Arizona State University have <a href="http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/12/09/self-destructing-bacteria-could-be-the-key-to-better-biofuels/">genetically engineered cyanobacteria to dissolve from the inside out</a>, making it easy to access the high-energy fats and biofuel byproducts located within. To do this they combined the bacteria's genes with genes from the bacteriaphage &mdash; a so-called 'mortal enemy' of bacteria that cause it to explode. Cyanobacteria have a higher yield potential than most biofuels currently being used, and this new strain eliminates the need for costly and energy intensive processing steps."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MikeChino writes " Researchers at Arizona State University have genetically engineered cyanobacteria to dissolve from the inside out , making it easy to access the high-energy fats and biofuel byproducts located within .
To do this they combined the bacteria 's genes with genes from the bacteriaphage    a so-called 'mortal enemy ' of bacteria that cause it to explode .
Cyanobacteria have a higher yield potential than most biofuels currently being used , and this new strain eliminates the need for costly and energy intensive processing steps .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MikeChino writes "Researchers at Arizona State University have genetically engineered cyanobacteria to dissolve from the inside out, making it easy to access the high-energy fats and biofuel byproducts located within.
To do this they combined the bacteria's genes with genes from the bacteriaphage — a so-called 'mortal enemy' of bacteria that cause it to explode.
Cyanobacteria have a higher yield potential than most biofuels currently being used, and this new strain eliminates the need for costly and energy intensive processing steps.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30391148</id>
	<title>Re:Human variant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260471420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about one that worked on fats cells?</p><p>It doesn't need to be 100\% effective, but you could advertise it as the latest 'fat busting' solution.</p><p>I guess you'd first have to solve the obese fat-bomber terrorist problem.  Wouldn't want the <a href="http://peopleofwalmart.com/" title="peopleofwalmart.com" rel="nofollow">local Wal-mart</a> [peopleofwalmart.com] to get flattened because someone double up a dose to get thin for the weekend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about one that worked on fats cells ? It does n't need to be 100 \ % effective , but you could advertise it as the latest 'fat busting ' solution.I guess you 'd first have to solve the obese fat-bomber terrorist problem .
Would n't want the local Wal-mart [ peopleofwalmart.com ] to get flattened because someone double up a dose to get thin for the weekend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about one that worked on fats cells?It doesn't need to be 100\% effective, but you could advertise it as the latest 'fat busting' solution.I guess you'd first have to solve the obese fat-bomber terrorist problem.
Wouldn't want the local Wal-mart [peopleofwalmart.com] to get flattened because someone double up a dose to get thin for the weekend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386696</id>
	<title>This seems familiar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260449640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this story remind anyone else of the exploding terrans in Starcraft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this story remind anyone else of the exploding terrans in Starcraft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this story remind anyone else of the exploding terrans in Starcraft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30388330</id>
	<title>Re:Water is a scarce resource</title>
	<author>Penicillus</author>
	<datestamp>1260461940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, using cyanobacteria can get around the scarce resource problem, because cyanobacteria are among the most efficient micro-organisms at growing in hypersaline, warm ocean (and salt flat) environments.  In freshwater pond environments, one sees a progression of algae from diatoms (early in the growing season when the water's cold) to green algae, to cyanobacteria.  Many researchers attribute this progression to the microcrustaceans' eating preferences, literally spitting out the cyanobacteria until everything else is eaten.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , using cyanobacteria can get around the scarce resource problem , because cyanobacteria are among the most efficient micro-organisms at growing in hypersaline , warm ocean ( and salt flat ) environments .
In freshwater pond environments , one sees a progression of algae from diatoms ( early in the growing season when the water 's cold ) to green algae , to cyanobacteria .
Many researchers attribute this progression to the microcrustaceans ' eating preferences , literally spitting out the cyanobacteria until everything else is eaten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, using cyanobacteria can get around the scarce resource problem, because cyanobacteria are among the most efficient micro-organisms at growing in hypersaline, warm ocean (and salt flat) environments.
In freshwater pond environments, one sees a progression of algae from diatoms (early in the growing season when the water's cold) to green algae, to cyanobacteria.
Many researchers attribute this progression to the microcrustaceans' eating preferences, literally spitting out the cyanobacteria until everything else is eaten.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386292</id>
	<title>Water is a scarce resource</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260443640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy. Plants are the most efficient at storing energy as some form of hydrocarbon</p></div></blockquote><p>I agree with you in that, but I don't think cyanobacteria are the only solution for biofuels.</p><p>Pond scum needs ponds, and ponds are filled with water. Granted, waste water can be used, these ponds can be part of a sewage treatment system.</p><p>I think a future biofuel system will be a more diverse system. We will need bacteria in ponds, but also other plants, such as cactuses or other that grow in semi-desert areas, for instance. Or what about the oceans? Imagine biofuel made from kelp, three quarters of the surface area of Earth are available for that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy .
Plants are the most efficient at storing energy as some form of hydrocarbonI agree with you in that , but I do n't think cyanobacteria are the only solution for biofuels.Pond scum needs ponds , and ponds are filled with water .
Granted , waste water can be used , these ponds can be part of a sewage treatment system.I think a future biofuel system will be a more diverse system .
We will need bacteria in ponds , but also other plants , such as cactuses or other that grow in semi-desert areas , for instance .
Or what about the oceans ?
Imagine biofuel made from kelp , three quarters of the surface area of Earth are available for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy.
Plants are the most efficient at storing energy as some form of hydrocarbonI agree with you in that, but I don't think cyanobacteria are the only solution for biofuels.Pond scum needs ponds, and ponds are filled with water.
Granted, waste water can be used, these ponds can be part of a sewage treatment system.I think a future biofuel system will be a more diverse system.
We will need bacteria in ponds, but also other plants, such as cactuses or other that grow in semi-desert areas, for instance.
Or what about the oceans?
Imagine biofuel made from kelp, three quarters of the surface area of Earth are available for that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30396670</id>
	<title>Misses the Infection Problem</title>
	<author>Scouras</author>
	<datestamp>1260449640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>While recovering the maximal amount of biofuel from your algae population is certainly a problem, it's not the reason we're not using biofuels in mass. The reason for that is that when you have a giant tank of food (many football fields for comercial factories), eventually a stray bacteria is going to fall in, find itself at home, and take over and kill everything else.&nbsp; They've been working on biofuel technology for 30 years and most of the best prospects have ended in infection.&nbsp; If they are going to do genetic engineering on these guys, I think the time would be better spent evolving antibacterial production/resistance.&nbsp; Probably this has been tried already, but I didn't run across any papers for it last I checked.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>While recovering the maximal amount of biofuel from your algae population is certainly a problem , it 's not the reason we 're not using biofuels in mass .
The reason for that is that when you have a giant tank of food ( many football fields for comercial factories ) , eventually a stray bacteria is going to fall in , find itself at home , and take over and kill everything else.   They 've been working on biofuel technology for 30 years and most of the best prospects have ended in infection.   If they are going to do genetic engineering on these guys , I think the time would be better spent evolving antibacterial production/resistance.   Probably this has been tried already , but I did n't run across any papers for it last I checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While recovering the maximal amount of biofuel from your algae population is certainly a problem, it's not the reason we're not using biofuels in mass.
The reason for that is that when you have a giant tank of food (many football fields for comercial factories), eventually a stray bacteria is going to fall in, find itself at home, and take over and kill everything else.  They've been working on biofuel technology for 30 years and most of the best prospects have ended in infection.  If they are going to do genetic engineering on these guys, I think the time would be better spent evolving antibacterial production/resistance.  Probably this has been tried already, but I didn't run across any papers for it last I checked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386336</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260444180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"This hydrogen nonsense was a huge waste of money, and should have been invested in biofuels."</i>
<br> <br>
This coal burning nonesense was a huge waste of money and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea\_souper" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">lives</a> [wikipedia.org], we should have invested in unproven technology X.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This hydrogen nonsense was a huge waste of money , and should have been invested in biofuels .
" This coal burning nonesense was a huge waste of money and lives [ wikipedia.org ] , we should have invested in unproven technology X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This hydrogen nonsense was a huge waste of money, and should have been invested in biofuels.
"
 
This coal burning nonesense was a huge waste of money and lives [wikipedia.org], we should have invested in unproven technology X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386312</id>
	<title>Re:What's the worse that can happen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260443880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wait what happens when these genetically modified bacteria leaks to the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait what happens when these genetically modified bacteria leaks to the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait what happens when these genetically modified bacteria leaks to the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387016</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution, suckers....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260453420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were these guys, I would make sure that the killswitch is on their genome, and is activated by some sort of introduced molecule, the equivalent of a Tet On/Off system. Better yet: a sensor for the levels of extracellular oils! That way, there is no selection pressure beforehand for the loss of these genes.</p><p>Also, if things go to plan, you should have no bugs left in your vat at the end anyway... so there's no reason you can't completely sterilize each vat at the end and reintroduce with new, desirable bacteria.</p><p>However, I have no experience with the industrial side of microbiology and have no idea how much of a pain it might be to do these kinds of things large-scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were these guys , I would make sure that the killswitch is on their genome , and is activated by some sort of introduced molecule , the equivalent of a Tet On/Off system .
Better yet : a sensor for the levels of extracellular oils !
That way , there is no selection pressure beforehand for the loss of these genes.Also , if things go to plan , you should have no bugs left in your vat at the end anyway... so there 's no reason you ca n't completely sterilize each vat at the end and reintroduce with new , desirable bacteria.However , I have no experience with the industrial side of microbiology and have no idea how much of a pain it might be to do these kinds of things large-scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were these guys, I would make sure that the killswitch is on their genome, and is activated by some sort of introduced molecule, the equivalent of a Tet On/Off system.
Better yet: a sensor for the levels of extracellular oils!
That way, there is no selection pressure beforehand for the loss of these genes.Also, if things go to plan, you should have no bugs left in your vat at the end anyway... so there's no reason you can't completely sterilize each vat at the end and reintroduce with new, desirable bacteria.However, I have no experience with the industrial side of microbiology and have no idea how much of a pain it might be to do these kinds of things large-scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386228</id>
	<title>Imagine getting ill with these things...</title>
	<author>jamyskis</author>
	<datestamp>1260442920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just imagine getting infected with bacteria of this kind:</p><p>"Good morning, Mr. Phelps. Your illness, should you decide to accept it, will be a nasty flu bug. This bacteria will self-destruct in ten seconds."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just imagine getting infected with bacteria of this kind : " Good morning , Mr. Phelps. Your illness , should you decide to accept it , will be a nasty flu bug .
This bacteria will self-destruct in ten seconds .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just imagine getting infected with bacteria of this kind:"Good morning, Mr. Phelps. Your illness, should you decide to accept it, will be a nasty flu bug.
This bacteria will self-destruct in ten seconds.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387612</id>
	<title>BacteriOphage</title>
	<author>plasmidmap</author>
	<datestamp>1260457860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's properly spelled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">bacteriophage</a> [wikipedia.org]--which are viruses of bacteria.  These viruses make bacteria 'explode' so that newly replicated virions are released into the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's properly spelled bacteriophage [ wikipedia.org ] --which are viruses of bacteria .
These viruses make bacteria 'explode ' so that newly replicated virions are released into the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's properly spelled bacteriophage [wikipedia.org]--which are viruses of bacteria.
These viruses make bacteria 'explode' so that newly replicated virions are released into the environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</id>
	<title>Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260442500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy. Plants are the most efficient at storing energy as some form of hydrocarbon. We already have a huge infrastructure to distribute hydrocarbons. It's such a perfect fit. This hydrogen nonsense was a huge waste of money, and should have been invested in biofuels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy .
Plants are the most efficient at storing energy as some form of hydrocarbon .
We already have a huge infrastructure to distribute hydrocarbons .
It 's such a perfect fit .
This hydrogen nonsense was a huge waste of money , and should have been invested in biofuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy.
Plants are the most efficient at storing energy as some form of hydrocarbon.
We already have a huge infrastructure to distribute hydrocarbons.
It's such a perfect fit.
This hydrogen nonsense was a huge waste of money, and should have been invested in biofuels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386358</id>
	<title>Evolution, suckers....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260444420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as even one or two bacteria manage to throw the phage-genes out again or, even simpler, acquire a loss-of-function mutation they'll have a huge advantage over the self-destructing ones and might eventually eliminate them. The result would be quite nasty for those who run the harvesting plant...<br><br>I'd at least suggest seperated smaller tanks of bacteria that are isolated from one another so that the damage of such an event is kept at a minimum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as even one or two bacteria manage to throw the phage-genes out again or , even simpler , acquire a loss-of-function mutation they 'll have a huge advantage over the self-destructing ones and might eventually eliminate them .
The result would be quite nasty for those who run the harvesting plant...I 'd at least suggest seperated smaller tanks of bacteria that are isolated from one another so that the damage of such an event is kept at a minimum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as even one or two bacteria manage to throw the phage-genes out again or, even simpler, acquire a loss-of-function mutation they'll have a huge advantage over the self-destructing ones and might eventually eliminate them.
The result would be quite nasty for those who run the harvesting plant...I'd at least suggest seperated smaller tanks of bacteria that are isolated from one another so that the damage of such an event is kept at a minimum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387724</id>
	<title>Three words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260458640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>World of Goo</p><p>Am I the only one who has thought about it when reading the story? Breeding bacteria only to make 'em go boom...<br>Next step is trapping everyone in virtual reality and use our bodies as a mass server farm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>World of GooAm I the only one who has thought about it when reading the story ?
Breeding bacteria only to make 'em go boom...Next step is trapping everyone in virtual reality and use our bodies as a mass server farm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World of GooAm I the only one who has thought about it when reading the story?
Breeding bacteria only to make 'em go boom...Next step is trapping everyone in virtual reality and use our bodies as a mass server farm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386212</id>
	<title>Self Destruct from within...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260442560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod Roy Curtiss and Xinyao Liu, +1 Scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod Roy Curtiss and Xinyao Liu , + 1 Scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod Roy Curtiss and Xinyao Liu, +1 Scary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386248</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>f3r</author>
	<datestamp>1260443100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy.</p> </div><p>I would expect in the future some kind of battery cells which directly interface with a massive array of plant-emulating light absorbing complexes which produce a voltage from sunlight.
</p><p>
Though in the Wikipedia I see (see 'photosynthesis') that this process converts light into energy with an efficiency of 3-6\%, while solar panels have 6-20\%, I believe that it might reach a point where mass production of hybrid organo-metallic devices can be achieved
</p><p>
At the end we will have plants at home which instead of producing sugars, will have an electric plug. They part in the plant where electricity is produced will be called iPod.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy .
I would expect in the future some kind of battery cells which directly interface with a massive array of plant-emulating light absorbing complexes which produce a voltage from sunlight .
Though in the Wikipedia I see ( see 'photosynthesis ' ) that this process converts light into energy with an efficiency of 3-6 \ % , while solar panels have 6-20 \ % , I believe that it might reach a point where mass production of hybrid organo-metallic devices can be achieved At the end we will have plants at home which instead of producing sugars , will have an electric plug .
They part in the plant where electricity is produced will be called iPod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy.
I would expect in the future some kind of battery cells which directly interface with a massive array of plant-emulating light absorbing complexes which produce a voltage from sunlight.
Though in the Wikipedia I see (see 'photosynthesis') that this process converts light into energy with an efficiency of 3-6\%, while solar panels have 6-20\%, I believe that it might reach a point where mass production of hybrid organo-metallic devices can be achieved

At the end we will have plants at home which instead of producing sugars, will have an electric plug.
They part in the plant where electricity is produced will be called iPod.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386524</id>
	<title>Re:What's the worse that can happen?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1260447060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, whenever a bacterium gets infected.  Your cells explode if they get infected with a virus too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , whenever a bacterium gets infected .
Your cells explode if they get infected with a virus too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, whenever a bacterium gets infected.
Your cells explode if they get infected with a virus too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230</id>
	<title>What's the worse that can happen?</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1260442920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have we ever had exploding bacteria before?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have we ever had exploding bacteria before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have we ever had exploding bacteria before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386342</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1260444240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not according to this fellow, who won an Ig Nobel award for his work with bacteria from panda poop, who need to process quite a lot of cellulose in their diet. Hydrogen is the biofuel these bacteria produce.</p><p><a href="http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20091124p2a00m0na009000c.html" title="mainichi.jp">http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20091124p2a00m0na009000c.html</a> [mainichi.jp]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not according to this fellow , who won an Ig Nobel award for his work with bacteria from panda poop , who need to process quite a lot of cellulose in their diet .
Hydrogen is the biofuel these bacteria produce.http : //mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20091124p2a00m0na009000c.html [ mainichi.jp ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not according to this fellow, who won an Ig Nobel award for his work with bacteria from panda poop, who need to process quite a lot of cellulose in their diet.
Hydrogen is the biofuel these bacteria produce.http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20091124p2a00m0na009000c.html [mainichi.jp]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30393556</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1260437100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy.</i> <br> <br>The organisms in question are cyanobacteria which are about as closely related to plants as your or I am<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br> <br> <i>Plants are the most efficient at storing energy as some form of hydrocarbon. We already have a huge infrastructure to distribute hydrocarbons.</i> <br> <br>I'm not aware of any plant which uses hydrocarbons for energy storage (or anything else). Plants typically use polysaccharides for this purpose.<br> <br> <i>This hydrogen nonsense was a huge waste of money,</i> <br> <br>Not only does hydrogen require new distribution and storage systems these are likely to be more expensive because of its physical properties. Specially has a very low boiling point and small molecules.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy .
The organisms in question are cyanobacteria which are about as closely related to plants as your or I am : ) Plants are the most efficient at storing energy as some form of hydrocarbon .
We already have a huge infrastructure to distribute hydrocarbons .
I 'm not aware of any plant which uses hydrocarbons for energy storage ( or anything else ) .
Plants typically use polysaccharides for this purpose .
This hydrogen nonsense was a huge waste of money , Not only does hydrogen require new distribution and storage systems these are likely to be more expensive because of its physical properties .
Specially has a very low boiling point and small molecules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plants are the most efficient at collecting solar energy.
The organisms in question are cyanobacteria which are about as closely related to plants as your or I am :)  Plants are the most efficient at storing energy as some form of hydrocarbon.
We already have a huge infrastructure to distribute hydrocarbons.
I'm not aware of any plant which uses hydrocarbons for energy storage (or anything else).
Plants typically use polysaccharides for this purpose.
This hydrogen nonsense was a huge waste of money,  Not only does hydrogen require new distribution and storage systems these are likely to be more expensive because of its physical properties.
Specially has a very low boiling point and small molecules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386888</id>
	<title>Thanks, clearer how it works now</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1260451920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd wondered from the first article, how can a bacteria grow and reproduce
at the same time as dissolving. It doesn't of course, they need to
add a trace of nickel to start the cells dissolving and releasing there
fats. All very good. But 2 more years of research before it even gets
close to testing for commercial purposes. Shame we can't get this
sort of research done quicker, cheap energy is always something
we need, I wonder what the final price and conversion efficiency
will be?
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Bioethanol/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Bioethanol</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd wondered from the first article , how can a bacteria grow and reproduce at the same time as dissolving .
It does n't of course , they need to add a trace of nickel to start the cells dissolving and releasing there fats .
All very good .
But 2 more years of research before it even gets close to testing for commercial purposes .
Shame we ca n't get this sort of research done quicker , cheap energy is always something we need , I wonder what the final price and conversion efficiency will be ?
--- Bioethanol [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd wondered from the first article, how can a bacteria grow and reproduce
at the same time as dissolving.
It doesn't of course, they need to
add a trace of nickel to start the cells dissolving and releasing there
fats.
All very good.
But 2 more years of research before it even gets
close to testing for commercial purposes.
Shame we can't get this
sort of research done quicker, cheap energy is always something
we need, I wonder what the final price and conversion efficiency
will be?
---

Bioethanol [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386436</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260445560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This can lead to other problems, it's not like we have unlimited area to grow plants, so it's bio fuel vs. food vs. environmental damage...<br>Forests are burned down to get farm land, big farmers are using the fields that were formerly used by local people to grow food for themselves and their families, rising food prices etc. You get the picture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This can lead to other problems , it 's not like we have unlimited area to grow plants , so it 's bio fuel vs. food vs. environmental damage...Forests are burned down to get farm land , big farmers are using the fields that were formerly used by local people to grow food for themselves and their families , rising food prices etc .
You get the picture .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can lead to other problems, it's not like we have unlimited area to grow plants, so it's bio fuel vs. food vs. environmental damage...Forests are burned down to get farm land, big farmers are using the fields that were formerly used by local people to grow food for themselves and their families, rising food prices etc.
You get the picture ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386210</id>
	<title>response storm</title>
	<author>f3r</author>
	<datestamp>1260442560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prepare now for the storm of responses mentioning the bacteria jumping out of the fuel vessels and provoking a major global zombie outbreak!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prepare now for the storm of responses mentioning the bacteria jumping out of the fuel vessels and provoking a major global zombie outbreak !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prepare now for the storm of responses mentioning the bacteria jumping out of the fuel vessels and provoking a major global zombie outbreak!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387170</id>
	<title>Human variant</title>
	<author>Alain Williams</author>
	<datestamp>1260454740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could we have a human variant of this please -- I would like to feed it to bankers so that the money contained inside them would come spewing out and available for the rest of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could we have a human variant of this please -- I would like to feed it to bankers so that the money contained inside them would come spewing out and available for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could we have a human variant of this please -- I would like to feed it to bankers so that the money contained inside them would come spewing out and available for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30391916</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260474120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparatively speaking, the hydrogen economy is the unproven tech. Sure, we know fuel cells work well in spacecraft when maintained by an army of techs who don't care about the cost compared to gasoline, but how about when deployed in passenger cars maintained by people who may or may not have a high school diploma?</p><p>Actual production of the hydrogen is a giant hand-wave. Currently we use fossil fuel to produce affordable hydrogen. We have no infrastructure whatsoever that can even be refit to deliver the massive amounts of hydrogen fuel that would be required.</p><p>With biofuels, the existing infrastructure is left in place. The only questions are on the production side and those questions already have better answers than for hydrogen.</p><p>Coal is a poor comparison for you since unlike hydrogen, it has been used successfully for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparatively speaking , the hydrogen economy is the unproven tech .
Sure , we know fuel cells work well in spacecraft when maintained by an army of techs who do n't care about the cost compared to gasoline , but how about when deployed in passenger cars maintained by people who may or may not have a high school diploma ? Actual production of the hydrogen is a giant hand-wave .
Currently we use fossil fuel to produce affordable hydrogen .
We have no infrastructure whatsoever that can even be refit to deliver the massive amounts of hydrogen fuel that would be required.With biofuels , the existing infrastructure is left in place .
The only questions are on the production side and those questions already have better answers than for hydrogen.Coal is a poor comparison for you since unlike hydrogen , it has been used successfully for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparatively speaking, the hydrogen economy is the unproven tech.
Sure, we know fuel cells work well in spacecraft when maintained by an army of techs who don't care about the cost compared to gasoline, but how about when deployed in passenger cars maintained by people who may or may not have a high school diploma?Actual production of the hydrogen is a giant hand-wave.
Currently we use fossil fuel to produce affordable hydrogen.
We have no infrastructure whatsoever that can even be refit to deliver the massive amounts of hydrogen fuel that would be required.With biofuels, the existing infrastructure is left in place.
The only questions are on the production side and those questions already have better answers than for hydrogen.Coal is a poor comparison for you since unlike hydrogen, it has been used successfully for a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386180</id>
	<title>5....4....3....2...1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260442140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This message will self-</htmltext>
<tokenext>This message will self-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This message will self-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386400</id>
	<title>Re:What's the worse that can happen?</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1260444840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microbial biofuels could have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal\_Gear\_2:\_Solid\_Snake#Story" title="wikipedia.org">serious political implications</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microbial biofuels could have serious political implications [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microbial biofuels could have serious political implications [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386676</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>Alphathon</author>
	<datestamp>1260449460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perfect fit eh? It may be easier to transition from oil based fuels to biofuels, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better in the long run. There are two main reasons why oil based fuels are bad - poor sustainability and harmful emissions. While using biofuels solves the first problem it leaves the second. AFAIK biofuels (generally speaking) aren't as harmful as normal petrol (gasoline for the americans) but are about the same or maybe slightly better than diesel (with a slight efficiency hit).

Hydrogen on the other hand has one emission - water. The problems with it at the moment is that we don't have the infrastructure for it and it is expensive to impliment. Also we don't currently have a clean way to produce hydrogen. However, if we solve these problems it is far better in the long run. Hence, it is not a waste of money to invest in hydrogen fuel development. Just because something is expensive to start doing doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Now using electricity to power vehicles is a real waste of money, in its current form anyway. It really doesn't solve any problems in most areas. Emissions - most electricity is generated using fossil fuels, so it doesn't solve that problem. Plus the batteries contain a lot of nasties when they dies (and they will die eventually). Infrastructure - not only do we not have it in a useful form for vehicles (wouldn't be hard to do though), but it would be difficult to do efficiently - it takes hours to charge an electric car, so if you run out of juice you have to stop for a while. Sustainability - again, mostly generated from fossil fuels, so is just shifting the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perfect fit eh ?
It may be easier to transition from oil based fuels to biofuels , but that does n't necessarily mean it 's better in the long run .
There are two main reasons why oil based fuels are bad - poor sustainability and harmful emissions .
While using biofuels solves the first problem it leaves the second .
AFAIK biofuels ( generally speaking ) are n't as harmful as normal petrol ( gasoline for the americans ) but are about the same or maybe slightly better than diesel ( with a slight efficiency hit ) .
Hydrogen on the other hand has one emission - water .
The problems with it at the moment is that we do n't have the infrastructure for it and it is expensive to impliment .
Also we do n't currently have a clean way to produce hydrogen .
However , if we solve these problems it is far better in the long run .
Hence , it is not a waste of money to invest in hydrogen fuel development .
Just because something is expensive to start doing does n't mean it should n't be done .
Now using electricity to power vehicles is a real waste of money , in its current form anyway .
It really does n't solve any problems in most areas .
Emissions - most electricity is generated using fossil fuels , so it does n't solve that problem .
Plus the batteries contain a lot of nasties when they dies ( and they will die eventually ) .
Infrastructure - not only do we not have it in a useful form for vehicles ( would n't be hard to do though ) , but it would be difficult to do efficiently - it takes hours to charge an electric car , so if you run out of juice you have to stop for a while .
Sustainability - again , mostly generated from fossil fuels , so is just shifting the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perfect fit eh?
It may be easier to transition from oil based fuels to biofuels, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better in the long run.
There are two main reasons why oil based fuels are bad - poor sustainability and harmful emissions.
While using biofuels solves the first problem it leaves the second.
AFAIK biofuels (generally speaking) aren't as harmful as normal petrol (gasoline for the americans) but are about the same or maybe slightly better than diesel (with a slight efficiency hit).
Hydrogen on the other hand has one emission - water.
The problems with it at the moment is that we don't have the infrastructure for it and it is expensive to impliment.
Also we don't currently have a clean way to produce hydrogen.
However, if we solve these problems it is far better in the long run.
Hence, it is not a waste of money to invest in hydrogen fuel development.
Just because something is expensive to start doing doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Now using electricity to power vehicles is a real waste of money, in its current form anyway.
It really doesn't solve any problems in most areas.
Emissions - most electricity is generated using fossil fuels, so it doesn't solve that problem.
Plus the batteries contain a lot of nasties when they dies (and they will die eventually).
Infrastructure - not only do we not have it in a useful form for vehicles (wouldn't be hard to do though), but it would be difficult to do efficiently - it takes hours to charge an electric car, so if you run out of juice you have to stop for a while.
Sustainability - again, mostly generated from fossil fuels, so is just shifting the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30389978</id>
	<title>Re:Water is a scarce resource</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1260467760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget plants.  Even at 10 times the lab yields, running 365 days a year, there simply isn't enough land.  (lat along what to do with the biological wastes).</p><p><a href="http://www.dotyenergy./" title="www.dotyenergy.">http://www.dotyenergy./</a> [www.dotyenergy.]  Read everything they have.  This is REAL technology that has been in use making Diesel and jetfuels since WWII.  Modern improvements (over 60 approved aptents recently), combined with wind poewr, and design improvements for mass scale fuel manufacture make this work at about $60-80 per barrel depending on local markets (roughly $3 a gallon by the time it's blended and gets transported to your local gas station for sale, not bad at all).</p><p>A few acres, 20-30 wind turbines (mostly off-peak energy, and only needed a few hours of the day), and waste coal and CO2 sequestered from coal fire plants, as we can make 400 tonnes of liquid fuels per day.  We'de need 3000 - 4000 of these plants to fuel the entire hemeshphre without drilling for another drop of oil.  We have enough wind land area to power it.  We have enough carbon to use.  most of the water is recycled (and we could fuel it using non-drinkable sources, and output some of the recycled clean water and sell that too if it's needed without dramatic cost increases).</p><p>FYI: I an not an accosiate of doty energy, it;s investors, nor do I have a stake in the company, and am compensated in NO WAY for my comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget plants .
Even at 10 times the lab yields , running 365 days a year , there simply is n't enough land .
( lat along what to do with the biological wastes ) .http : //www.dotyenergy./ [ www.dotyenergy .
] Read everything they have .
This is REAL technology that has been in use making Diesel and jetfuels since WWII .
Modern improvements ( over 60 approved aptents recently ) , combined with wind poewr , and design improvements for mass scale fuel manufacture make this work at about $ 60-80 per barrel depending on local markets ( roughly $ 3 a gallon by the time it 's blended and gets transported to your local gas station for sale , not bad at all ) .A few acres , 20-30 wind turbines ( mostly off-peak energy , and only needed a few hours of the day ) , and waste coal and CO2 sequestered from coal fire plants , as we can make 400 tonnes of liquid fuels per day .
We'de need 3000 - 4000 of these plants to fuel the entire hemeshphre without drilling for another drop of oil .
We have enough wind land area to power it .
We have enough carbon to use .
most of the water is recycled ( and we could fuel it using non-drinkable sources , and output some of the recycled clean water and sell that too if it 's needed without dramatic cost increases ) .FYI : I an not an accosiate of doty energy , it ; s investors , nor do I have a stake in the company , and am compensated in NO WAY for my comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget plants.
Even at 10 times the lab yields, running 365 days a year, there simply isn't enough land.
(lat along what to do with the biological wastes).http://www.dotyenergy./ [www.dotyenergy.
]  Read everything they have.
This is REAL technology that has been in use making Diesel and jetfuels since WWII.
Modern improvements (over 60 approved aptents recently), combined with wind poewr, and design improvements for mass scale fuel manufacture make this work at about $60-80 per barrel depending on local markets (roughly $3 a gallon by the time it's blended and gets transported to your local gas station for sale, not bad at all).A few acres, 20-30 wind turbines (mostly off-peak energy, and only needed a few hours of the day), and waste coal and CO2 sequestered from coal fire plants, as we can make 400 tonnes of liquid fuels per day.
We'de need 3000 - 4000 of these plants to fuel the entire hemeshphre without drilling for another drop of oil.
We have enough wind land area to power it.
We have enough carbon to use.
most of the water is recycled (and we could fuel it using non-drinkable sources, and output some of the recycled clean water and sell that too if it's needed without dramatic cost increases).FYI: I an not an accosiate of doty energy, it;s investors, nor do I have a stake in the company, and am compensated in NO WAY for my comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387628</id>
	<title>Using viruses to produce things</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1260458040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is something like using a computer virus to develop software.
</p><p>
Linux software.
By having it infect Windows programs and cause them to self-destruct.
</p><p>
Leaving behind their rich amounts of data...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something like using a computer virus to develop software .
Linux software .
By having it infect Windows programs and cause them to self-destruct .
Leaving behind their rich amounts of data.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is something like using a computer virus to develop software.
Linux software.
By having it infect Windows programs and cause them to self-destruct.
Leaving behind their rich amounts of data...
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386380</id>
	<title>Re:What's the worse that can happen?</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260444600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have we ever had exploding bacteria before?</p></div><p>Yes, but they don't make a loud bang so most people didn't notice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have we ever had exploding bacteria before ? Yes , but they do n't make a loud bang so most people did n't notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have we ever had exploding bacteria before?Yes, but they don't make a loud bang so most people didn't notice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386778</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260450720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope, gotta disagree with you there. The problem with any hydrocarbon is right there in the name, carbon. You burn that stuff and you got carbon dioxide, and the same global warming risk as oil or coal.

That 'hydrogen nonsense' does a straight transition from hydrogen and oxygen to water, no carbon dioxide or any other nasty by products like NOX.

Of course, the hydrogen has to come from somewhere and, imho will just be a 'portable' product of large nuclear and solar plants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , got ta disagree with you there .
The problem with any hydrocarbon is right there in the name , carbon .
You burn that stuff and you got carbon dioxide , and the same global warming risk as oil or coal .
That 'hydrogen nonsense ' does a straight transition from hydrogen and oxygen to water , no carbon dioxide or any other nasty by products like NOX .
Of course , the hydrogen has to come from somewhere and , imho will just be a 'portable ' product of large nuclear and solar plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, gotta disagree with you there.
The problem with any hydrocarbon is right there in the name, carbon.
You burn that stuff and you got carbon dioxide, and the same global warming risk as oil or coal.
That 'hydrogen nonsense' does a straight transition from hydrogen and oxygen to water, no carbon dioxide or any other nasty by products like NOX.
Of course, the hydrogen has to come from somewhere and, imho will just be a 'portable' product of large nuclear and solar plants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30398786</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1260472860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plants also have a drawback: They need room. Incidentally the room where plants can grow. Plants we eat. There are already countries where people are suffering because areas that used to be used for crop planting are now used to create biofuel (mostly for export).</p><p>Hydrogen, being essentially created by electrolytic splitting of water, can be created anywhere where electricity can be produced in quantity and cheaply. Iceland comes to mind, with their geothermal energy they can (and do) create a surplus of electric power. Hell, you could fill the deserts with solar collectors and create energy that way.</p><p>I'm not saying you're wrong, and the approach of biofuel will probably work out for a while, but it's not be-all, end-all solution for all eternity. The arable land is becoming a shortage soon if we keep multiplying like this (hell, even if we don't, it already is). So either we find ways to create fuel without using up arable land for it or we find ways to produce food without it.</p><p>Personally, I'm not too eager to eat meat that grows in a vat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plants also have a drawback : They need room .
Incidentally the room where plants can grow .
Plants we eat .
There are already countries where people are suffering because areas that used to be used for crop planting are now used to create biofuel ( mostly for export ) .Hydrogen , being essentially created by electrolytic splitting of water , can be created anywhere where electricity can be produced in quantity and cheaply .
Iceland comes to mind , with their geothermal energy they can ( and do ) create a surplus of electric power .
Hell , you could fill the deserts with solar collectors and create energy that way.I 'm not saying you 're wrong , and the approach of biofuel will probably work out for a while , but it 's not be-all , end-all solution for all eternity .
The arable land is becoming a shortage soon if we keep multiplying like this ( hell , even if we do n't , it already is ) .
So either we find ways to create fuel without using up arable land for it or we find ways to produce food without it.Personally , I 'm not too eager to eat meat that grows in a vat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plants also have a drawback: They need room.
Incidentally the room where plants can grow.
Plants we eat.
There are already countries where people are suffering because areas that used to be used for crop planting are now used to create biofuel (mostly for export).Hydrogen, being essentially created by electrolytic splitting of water, can be created anywhere where electricity can be produced in quantity and cheaply.
Iceland comes to mind, with their geothermal energy they can (and do) create a surplus of electric power.
Hell, you could fill the deserts with solar collectors and create energy that way.I'm not saying you're wrong, and the approach of biofuel will probably work out for a while, but it's not be-all, end-all solution for all eternity.
The arable land is becoming a shortage soon if we keep multiplying like this (hell, even if we don't, it already is).
So either we find ways to create fuel without using up arable land for it or we find ways to produce food without it.Personally, I'm not too eager to eat meat that grows in a vat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386218</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>SanguineV</author>
	<datestamp>1260442680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one welcome our new exploding combustible bacterial overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our new exploding combustible bacterial overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our new exploding combustible bacterial overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30393700</id>
	<title>Re:What's the worse that can happen?</title>
	<author>TheyCallMeBruce</author>
	<datestamp>1260437640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have we ever had exploding bacteria before?

-- Last night over Norway...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have we ever had exploding bacteria before ?
-- Last night over Norway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have we ever had exploding bacteria before?
-- Last night over Norway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387616</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>TheyCallMeBruce</author>
	<datestamp>1260457860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GIANT KING GRASS -Check out this penny stock about to IPO a spin off...

<a href="http://viaspace.com/docs/Next-Generation\%20Biofuels\%20Feedstocks\%20November\%2016-17,\%202009.pdf" title="viaspace.com" rel="nofollow">http://viaspace.com/docs/Next-Generation\%20Biofuels\%20Feedstocks\%20November\%2016-17,\%202009.pdf</a> [viaspace.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>GIANT KING GRASS -Check out this penny stock about to IPO a spin off.. . http : //viaspace.com/docs/Next-Generation \ % 20Biofuels \ % 20Feedstocks \ % 20November \ % 2016-17 , \ % 202009.pdf [ viaspace.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GIANT KING GRASS -Check out this penny stock about to IPO a spin off...

http://viaspace.com/docs/Next-Generation\%20Biofuels\%20Feedstocks\%20November\%2016-17,\%202009.pdf [viaspace.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30394586</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1260441360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Hydrogen on the other hand has one emission - water. The problems with it at the moment is that we don't have the infrastructure for it and it is expensive to impliment.</i> <br>BR&gt;With existing fuels a fairly simple tank is needed to store liquid fuel at ambient pressure and temperature. Any kind of hydrogen fuel tank is considerably more complex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hydrogen on the other hand has one emission - water .
The problems with it at the moment is that we do n't have the infrastructure for it and it is expensive to impliment .
BR &gt; With existing fuels a fairly simple tank is needed to store liquid fuel at ambient pressure and temperature .
Any kind of hydrogen fuel tank is considerably more complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hydrogen on the other hand has one emission - water.
The problems with it at the moment is that we don't have the infrastructure for it and it is expensive to impliment.
BR&gt;With existing fuels a fairly simple tank is needed to store liquid fuel at ambient pressure and temperature.
Any kind of hydrogen fuel tank is considerably more complex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30388740</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution, suckers....</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260463980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a VERY strong evolutionary pressure against the mutants though, those colonies will be disinfected and re-seeded with the non-mutant form.</p><p>It won't be a problem for the same reason we don't have a big problem with yeasts and yogurt cultures mutating harmfully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a VERY strong evolutionary pressure against the mutants though , those colonies will be disinfected and re-seeded with the non-mutant form.It wo n't be a problem for the same reason we do n't have a big problem with yeasts and yogurt cultures mutating harmfully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a VERY strong evolutionary pressure against the mutants though, those colonies will be disinfected and re-seeded with the non-mutant form.It won't be a problem for the same reason we don't have a big problem with yeasts and yogurt cultures mutating harmfully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386188</id>
	<title>Death to the pond scum!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260442200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;poof&lt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; poof &lt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;poof&lt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387330</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution, suckers....</title>
	<author>DieByWire</author>
	<datestamp>1260456000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As soon as even one or two bacteria manage to throw the phage-genes out again or, even simpler, acquire a loss-of-function mutation they'll have a huge advantage over the self-destructing ones and might eventually eliminate them. The result would be quite nasty for those who run the harvesting plant...</p></div><p>The selective pressure to maintain such a mutation would be in the processing stage where they add the nickel to make them self destruct. You can avoid that by not returning any waste from the processing stage back into the growth tank.</p><p>Of course, it's possible that the bacteria without the mutation may out-reproduce the ones with the mutation in the growth tank, but then you'd just start with a fresh batch of your preferred strain. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as even one or two bacteria manage to throw the phage-genes out again or , even simpler , acquire a loss-of-function mutation they 'll have a huge advantage over the self-destructing ones and might eventually eliminate them .
The result would be quite nasty for those who run the harvesting plant...The selective pressure to maintain such a mutation would be in the processing stage where they add the nickel to make them self destruct .
You can avoid that by not returning any waste from the processing stage back into the growth tank.Of course , it 's possible that the bacteria without the mutation may out-reproduce the ones with the mutation in the growth tank , but then you 'd just start with a fresh batch of your preferred strain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as even one or two bacteria manage to throw the phage-genes out again or, even simpler, acquire a loss-of-function mutation they'll have a huge advantage over the self-destructing ones and might eventually eliminate them.
The result would be quite nasty for those who run the harvesting plant...The selective pressure to maintain such a mutation would be in the processing stage where they add the nickel to make them self destruct.
You can avoid that by not returning any waste from the processing stage back into the growth tank.Of course, it's possible that the bacteria without the mutation may out-reproduce the ones with the mutation in the growth tank, but then you'd just start with a fresh batch of your preferred strain. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30396646</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>Harinezumi</author>
	<datestamp>1260449520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Viscount Leverhulme famously said "Half my advertising money is wasted. The problem is that I don't know which half!" I believe that the same principle applies to funding scientific research.
<br> <br>
You never know which approach is going to have the most commercial potential until you've gone and explored all the available approaches. Funding the ones that don't pan out is not a waste of money. It's part of the process that brings out the ones that do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Viscount Leverhulme famously said " Half my advertising money is wasted .
The problem is that I do n't know which half !
" I believe that the same principle applies to funding scientific research .
You never know which approach is going to have the most commercial potential until you 've gone and explored all the available approaches .
Funding the ones that do n't pan out is not a waste of money .
It 's part of the process that brings out the ones that do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viscount Leverhulme famously said "Half my advertising money is wasted.
The problem is that I don't know which half!
" I believe that the same principle applies to funding scientific research.
You never know which approach is going to have the most commercial potential until you've gone and explored all the available approaches.
Funding the ones that don't pan out is not a waste of money.
It's part of the process that brings out the ones that do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30390168</id>
	<title>Self-Destructing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's "Self-Destroying". You destroy the Star Wars franchise with a bad Holiday Special, you don't destruct it.<br>Self-destroying bacteria self-destruct to make fuel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's " Self-Destroying " .
You destroy the Star Wars franchise with a bad Holiday Special , you do n't destruct it.Self-destroying bacteria self-destruct to make fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's "Self-Destroying".
You destroy the Star Wars franchise with a bad Holiday Special, you don't destruct it.Self-destroying bacteria self-destruct to make fuel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30398800</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are NOT the future.</title>
	<author>cd.rubysocks</author>
	<datestamp>1260473220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've already done estimates which conclude that even if they converted all the land used to grow food for growing fuel, it wouldn't supply enough energy.  And that is a best-case scenario - growing switchgrass and processing the cellulose and lignin using biotech that doesn't yet exist.<br> <br>

 That's because plants (and this would hold true for other biological photosynthetic systems like algae)  aren't very efficient converting solar energy.  Solar panels are more efficient - and the sunlight gets converted directly to electricity.  The problem is storing that electricity - batteries are expensive and they've reached a ceiling on energy density.<br> <br>

That's where hydrogen comes in.  It stores energy based on chemical bonds - not electric charges like a battery - so the energy density is much higher than a battery.  With the discovery of a cheap and efficient water-splitting catalyst by Daniel Nocera in 2008, connecting solar panels to an electrolyzer (and from there to a hydrogen storage/fuel cell) is now much more feasible.  And it doesn't need to be done on a large scale like a solar farm - instead the energy is generated at the point of use.  A distributed system like this means there's no need for a massive infrastructure project and it means that its a viable solution to the energy needs of the developing world.  In addition, combusting the hydrogen (generated from dirty water) in the fuel cell produces pure water as a byproduct, suitable for drinking.<br> <br>

Nocera, named one of Time's 100 most influential people earlier this year, explains all this in an expository article in November's Inorganic Chemistry (http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/ic901328v?cookieSet=1) - The Chemistry of Personalized Solar Energy<br> <br>

Not biofuels.  Not nuclear.  Personalized Solar Energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've already done estimates which conclude that even if they converted all the land used to grow food for growing fuel , it would n't supply enough energy .
And that is a best-case scenario - growing switchgrass and processing the cellulose and lignin using biotech that does n't yet exist .
That 's because plants ( and this would hold true for other biological photosynthetic systems like algae ) are n't very efficient converting solar energy .
Solar panels are more efficient - and the sunlight gets converted directly to electricity .
The problem is storing that electricity - batteries are expensive and they 've reached a ceiling on energy density .
That 's where hydrogen comes in .
It stores energy based on chemical bonds - not electric charges like a battery - so the energy density is much higher than a battery .
With the discovery of a cheap and efficient water-splitting catalyst by Daniel Nocera in 2008 , connecting solar panels to an electrolyzer ( and from there to a hydrogen storage/fuel cell ) is now much more feasible .
And it does n't need to be done on a large scale like a solar farm - instead the energy is generated at the point of use .
A distributed system like this means there 's no need for a massive infrastructure project and it means that its a viable solution to the energy needs of the developing world .
In addition , combusting the hydrogen ( generated from dirty water ) in the fuel cell produces pure water as a byproduct , suitable for drinking .
Nocera , named one of Time 's 100 most influential people earlier this year , explains all this in an expository article in November 's Inorganic Chemistry ( http : //pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/ic901328v ? cookieSet = 1 ) - The Chemistry of Personalized Solar Energy Not biofuels .
Not nuclear .
Personalized Solar Energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've already done estimates which conclude that even if they converted all the land used to grow food for growing fuel, it wouldn't supply enough energy.
And that is a best-case scenario - growing switchgrass and processing the cellulose and lignin using biotech that doesn't yet exist.
That's because plants (and this would hold true for other biological photosynthetic systems like algae)  aren't very efficient converting solar energy.
Solar panels are more efficient - and the sunlight gets converted directly to electricity.
The problem is storing that electricity - batteries are expensive and they've reached a ceiling on energy density.
That's where hydrogen comes in.
It stores energy based on chemical bonds - not electric charges like a battery - so the energy density is much higher than a battery.
With the discovery of a cheap and efficient water-splitting catalyst by Daniel Nocera in 2008, connecting solar panels to an electrolyzer (and from there to a hydrogen storage/fuel cell) is now much more feasible.
And it doesn't need to be done on a large scale like a solar farm - instead the energy is generated at the point of use.
A distributed system like this means there's no need for a massive infrastructure project and it means that its a viable solution to the energy needs of the developing world.
In addition, combusting the hydrogen (generated from dirty water) in the fuel cell produces pure water as a byproduct, suitable for drinking.
Nocera, named one of Time's 100 most influential people earlier this year, explains all this in an expository article in November's Inorganic Chemistry (http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/ic901328v?cookieSet=1) - The Chemistry of Personalized Solar Energy 

Not biofuels.
Not nuclear.
Personalized Solar Energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386216</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>slartibartfastatp</author>
	<datestamp>1260442620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the bacteria explodes, the biofuel will burn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the bacteria explodes , the biofuel will burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the bacteria explodes, the biofuel will burn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386532</id>
	<title>more details</title>
	<author>brokeninside</author>
	<datestamp>1260447120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science Daily has the full press release which is a bit more informative: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091207173624.htm" title="sciencedaily.com" rel="nofollow">Genetic engineering feat could greatly reduce costs</a> [sciencedaily.com] and the full paper is at the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0911953106.full.pdf+html?sid=8c06018b-639c-429d-80b2-e9cfad804862" title="pnas.org" rel="nofollow">Nickel-inducible lysis system in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803</a> [pnas.org] (if you have access that is).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science Daily has the full press release which is a bit more informative : Genetic engineering feat could greatly reduce costs [ sciencedaily.com ] and the full paper is at the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences : Nickel-inducible lysis system in Synechocystis sp .
PCC 6803 [ pnas.org ] ( if you have access that is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science Daily has the full press release which is a bit more informative: Genetic engineering feat could greatly reduce costs [sciencedaily.com] and the full paper is at the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences: Nickel-inducible lysis system in Synechocystis sp.
PCC 6803 [pnas.org] (if you have access that is).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30390190</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels are the future.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many starved baby ribs for a mile with your suv is ok ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many starved baby ribs for a mile with your suv is ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many starved baby ribs for a mile with your suv is ok ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30398800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30393700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30398786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30389978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30393556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30391916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30390190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30388740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30396646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30388330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30391148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30394586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0355200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0355200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30393700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0355200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30391148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0355200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0355200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30388740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0355200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0355200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30398800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30393556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30391916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30396646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30390190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30387616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30398786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30389978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30388330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30394586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0355200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0355200.30386210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
