<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_21_2024202</id>
	<title>Researchers Pooh-Pooh Algae-Based Biofuel</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264064160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Julie188 writes <i>"Researchers from the University of Virginia have found that current algae biofuel production methods <a href="http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/uva-engineers-find-significant-environmental-impacts-algae-based-biofuel.html">consume more energy, have higher greenhouse gas emissions and use more water</a> than other biofuel sources, such as switchgrass, canola and corn. The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen &mdash; essential algae nutrients that otherwise need to come from petroleum."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Julie188 writes " Researchers from the University of Virginia have found that current algae biofuel production methods consume more energy , have higher greenhouse gas emissions and use more water than other biofuel sources , such as switchgrass , canola and corn .
The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen    essential algae nutrients that otherwise need to come from petroleum .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Julie188 writes "Researchers from the University of Virginia have found that current algae biofuel production methods consume more energy, have higher greenhouse gas emissions and use more water than other biofuel sources, such as switchgrass, canola and corn.
The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen — essential algae nutrients that otherwise need to come from petroleum.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851530</id>
	<title>pooh-pooh?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1264069020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that's one way to add nutrients back into the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's one way to add nutrients back into the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's one way to add nutrients back into the system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851274</id>
	<title>Pooh vs Poo</title>
	<author>igadget78</author>
	<datestamp>1264068180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least they didn't poo-poo the algae.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least they did n't poo-poo the algae .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least they didn't poo-poo the algae.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192</id>
	<title>Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny thing about trying to power our cars and computers... the energy has got to from something somewhere. Electrons must come from mass... so even if electricity seems clean, it's coming from a power plant somewhere, and nobody wants to be next to nuclear or coal plants.</p><p>Hydrogen or plug-in systems seem clean, but those aren't energy sources, they're energy transport mechanisms. If we're going to stop using gas and oil, we're going to have to get more power from somewhere... again, who wants the plants to do that in their town?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing about trying to power our cars and computers... the energy has got to from something somewhere .
Electrons must come from mass... so even if electricity seems clean , it 's coming from a power plant somewhere , and nobody wants to be next to nuclear or coal plants.Hydrogen or plug-in systems seem clean , but those are n't energy sources , they 're energy transport mechanisms .
If we 're going to stop using gas and oil , we 're going to have to get more power from somewhere... again , who wants the plants to do that in their town ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing about trying to power our cars and computers... the energy has got to from something somewhere.
Electrons must come from mass... so even if electricity seems clean, it's coming from a power plant somewhere, and nobody wants to be next to nuclear or coal plants.Hydrogen or plug-in systems seem clean, but those aren't energy sources, they're energy transport mechanisms.
If we're going to stop using gas and oil, we're going to have to get more power from somewhere... again, who wants the plants to do that in their town?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852388</id>
	<title>Diesel, ftw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264071540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Diesel fuel can be made from a huge variety of sources. Algae fed on shit, or the left over grease from your local restaurants, or even your lawn clippings. We could produce diesel from garbage turning all that piled up waste into something useful. Obviously some methods of production are more efficient than others, but the point is that it can be done. Diesel fuel isn't difficult to make and it's a renewable resource. It's cheapest for oil refineries to produce from crude oil right now, but unlike gasoline it can be produced from other sources efficiently enough to be economically useful.<br>Diesel engines inherently are more efficient than gasoline engines. Mile for mile a diesel car can deliver the same performance as a gasoline engine while getting significantly better mpg.<br>I get 45 to 50 miles per gallon without even trying.<br>Until this decade one of the major problems with diesel engines is the perception that they were "dirty" compared to a gasoline engine. You could see the exhaust easier, so despite the fact that diesels put out less greenhouse gases than gasoline engines they appeared to be "bad for the environment". Diesel is around 50\% of the car market in the EU so they do a lot of R&amp;D, the days of "dirty diesel" are long gone.<br>The environmental damage of a Prius or any other hyrbid or electric vehicle available compared to that of a modern diesel car is no contest. In every way, the diesel car wins by a land slide.<br>Why the fuck don't we have more diesel cars available in the US?!?<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Diesel fuel can be made from a huge variety of sources .
Algae fed on shit , or the left over grease from your local restaurants , or even your lawn clippings .
We could produce diesel from garbage turning all that piled up waste into something useful .
Obviously some methods of production are more efficient than others , but the point is that it can be done .
Diesel fuel is n't difficult to make and it 's a renewable resource .
It 's cheapest for oil refineries to produce from crude oil right now , but unlike gasoline it can be produced from other sources efficiently enough to be economically useful.Diesel engines inherently are more efficient than gasoline engines .
Mile for mile a diesel car can deliver the same performance as a gasoline engine while getting significantly better mpg.I get 45 to 50 miles per gallon without even trying.Until this decade one of the major problems with diesel engines is the perception that they were " dirty " compared to a gasoline engine .
You could see the exhaust easier , so despite the fact that diesels put out less greenhouse gases than gasoline engines they appeared to be " bad for the environment " .
Diesel is around 50 \ % of the car market in the EU so they do a lot of R&amp;D , the days of " dirty diesel " are long gone.The environmental damage of a Prius or any other hyrbid or electric vehicle available compared to that of a modern diesel car is no contest .
In every way , the diesel car wins by a land slide.Why the fuck do n't we have more diesel cars available in the US ? ! ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diesel fuel can be made from a huge variety of sources.
Algae fed on shit, or the left over grease from your local restaurants, or even your lawn clippings.
We could produce diesel from garbage turning all that piled up waste into something useful.
Obviously some methods of production are more efficient than others, but the point is that it can be done.
Diesel fuel isn't difficult to make and it's a renewable resource.
It's cheapest for oil refineries to produce from crude oil right now, but unlike gasoline it can be produced from other sources efficiently enough to be economically useful.Diesel engines inherently are more efficient than gasoline engines.
Mile for mile a diesel car can deliver the same performance as a gasoline engine while getting significantly better mpg.I get 45 to 50 miles per gallon without even trying.Until this decade one of the major problems with diesel engines is the perception that they were "dirty" compared to a gasoline engine.
You could see the exhaust easier, so despite the fact that diesels put out less greenhouse gases than gasoline engines they appeared to be "bad for the environment".
Diesel is around 50\% of the car market in the EU so they do a lot of R&amp;D, the days of "dirty diesel" are long gone.The environmental damage of a Prius or any other hyrbid or electric vehicle available compared to that of a modern diesel car is no contest.
In every way, the diesel car wins by a land slide.Why the fuck don't we have more diesel cars available in the US?!?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853014</id>
	<title>Haven't you seen the BP ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264073640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's not the only one that failed chemistry. BP is now selling gasoline that is "fortified with the power of Nitrogen". Seriously. I hear it has what plants crave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not the only one that failed chemistry .
BP is now selling gasoline that is " fortified with the power of Nitrogen " .
Seriously. I hear it has what plants crave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not the only one that failed chemistry.
BP is now selling gasoline that is "fortified with the power of Nitrogen".
Seriously. I hear it has what plants crave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851684</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1264069440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Citation Needed]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; \O/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; / \</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Citation Needed ]             \ O/               |             / \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Citation Needed]
            \O/
              |
            / \</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852070</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody failed high school chemistry.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nitrogen fertilizer (ammonia) is made from natural gas through the Haber Bosch process. Phosphorus is produced in a relatively small number of huge mines and shipped around the world by a supply chain powered by oil</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nitrogen fertilizer ( ammonia ) is made from natural gas through the Haber Bosch process .
Phosphorus is produced in a relatively small number of huge mines and shipped around the world by a supply chain powered by oil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nitrogen fertilizer (ammonia) is made from natural gas through the Haber Bosch process.
Phosphorus is produced in a relatively small number of huge mines and shipped around the world by a supply chain powered by oil</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857584</id>
	<title>forget algea, duckweed ethanol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264156140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it eats wastewater to grow really fast, produces significantly more starch per acre than corn <a href="http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/magazine/fall2009/duckweed.php" title="ncsu.edu" rel="nofollow">Engineering News at NC State, Fall 2009 Online Magazine</a> [ncsu.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it eats wastewater to grow really fast , produces significantly more starch per acre than corn Engineering News at NC State , Fall 2009 Online Magazine [ ncsu.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it eats wastewater to grow really fast, produces significantly more starch per acre than corn Engineering News at NC State, Fall 2009 Online Magazine [ncsu.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30862280</id>
	<title>Re:Land values</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1264191000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But how much could you save in the cost to transport fuel TO the metro area? Cuz most places, fuel all comes in by truck, rail, or pipeline. Why not produce it as close to the major demand as possible, thus reducing the necessary waste of using fuel to transport fuel? As a bonus, you may be able to stave off having to expand the waste treatment plant, since the algae would do part of the work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how much could you save in the cost to transport fuel TO the metro area ?
Cuz most places , fuel all comes in by truck , rail , or pipeline .
Why not produce it as close to the major demand as possible , thus reducing the necessary waste of using fuel to transport fuel ?
As a bonus , you may be able to stave off having to expand the waste treatment plant , since the algae would do part of the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how much could you save in the cost to transport fuel TO the metro area?
Cuz most places, fuel all comes in by truck, rail, or pipeline.
Why not produce it as close to the major demand as possible, thus reducing the necessary waste of using fuel to transport fuel?
As a bonus, you may be able to stave off having to expand the waste treatment plant, since the algae would do part of the work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852570</id>
	<title>Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1264072140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll add my voice to the chorus - I wouldn't mind living next to or near a nuclear power plant either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll add my voice to the chorus - I would n't mind living next to or near a nuclear power plant either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll add my voice to the chorus - I wouldn't mind living next to or near a nuclear power plant either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854844</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1264081860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>inedible or undesirable bodyparts like bone.</p></div><p>That's not a problem. Just grind up those undesirable bodyparts and feed them back to the cows and sheep again. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>inedible or undesirable bodyparts like bone.That 's not a problem .
Just grind up those undesirable bodyparts and feed them back to the cows and sheep again .
Whatcouldpossiblygowrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inedible or undesirable bodyparts like bone.That's not a problem.
Just grind up those undesirable bodyparts and feed them back to the cows and sheep again.
Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853334</id>
	<title>Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable!</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264074780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the current production level.</p><p>That's the problem with simplistic cost analyses; they ignore the fact that if a lot of something is produced, it tends to get cheaper.   On the other hand the demand for algae for biodiesel would tend to drive costs up.</p><p>The secret is that competition tends to drive costs down to "normal profit" levels.  If you could sell algae cheap enough to replace diesel, sooner or later somebody will undercut the algae as feed prices, unless one company has the exclusive rights to the magic process that makes cheap algae possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the current production level.That 's the problem with simplistic cost analyses ; they ignore the fact that if a lot of something is produced , it tends to get cheaper .
On the other hand the demand for algae for biodiesel would tend to drive costs up.The secret is that competition tends to drive costs down to " normal profit " levels .
If you could sell algae cheap enough to replace diesel , sooner or later somebody will undercut the algae as feed prices , unless one company has the exclusive rights to the magic process that makes cheap algae possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the current production level.That's the problem with simplistic cost analyses; they ignore the fact that if a lot of something is produced, it tends to get cheaper.
On the other hand the demand for algae for biodiesel would tend to drive costs up.The secret is that competition tends to drive costs down to "normal profit" levels.
If you could sell algae cheap enough to replace diesel, sooner or later somebody will undercut the algae as feed prices, unless one company has the exclusive rights to the magic process that makes cheap algae possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851608</id>
	<title>Re:Poo-poo ?</title>
	<author>mackil</author>
	<datestamp>1264069200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad to know that I wasn't the only one who thought of the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0526711/" title="imdb.com">Blackadder</a> [imdb.com] when I saw this headline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad to know that I was n't the only one who thought of the Blackadder [ imdb.com ] when I saw this headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad to know that I wasn't the only one who thought of the Blackadder [imdb.com] when I saw this headline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855180</id>
	<title>Oh Damn</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1264084680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RSS headline said " Researchers Pooh-Pooh Algae-Based Biofuel" and the first thing I thought was "It's bad enough being on a motorcycle behind a normal diesel car at a stop, if they start putting pooh in the fuel I'm going to be making a lot of sudden right turns".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RSS headline said " Researchers Pooh-Pooh Algae-Based Biofuel " and the first thing I thought was " It 's bad enough being on a motorcycle behind a normal diesel car at a stop , if they start putting pooh in the fuel I 'm going to be making a lot of sudden right turns " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RSS headline said " Researchers Pooh-Pooh Algae-Based Biofuel" and the first thing I thought was "It's bad enough being on a motorcycle behind a normal diesel car at a stop, if they start putting pooh in the fuel I'm going to be making a lot of sudden right turns".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852338</id>
	<title>Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264071420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  Animal feed is itself a wasteful use of resources (admittedly looking at solely cost-per-calorie).<br>2.  The demand for feed and supplements is dwarfed by the demand for energy.</p><p>Longish-term, the demand for algae-energy (by snooty rich liberals willing to pay $2/lb) should increase production, thus lowering the price of algae.  Or as another poster explained: volume.</p><p>Hmm... it's almost as though those snooty rich liberals are smarter than we give them credit for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Animal feed is itself a wasteful use of resources ( admittedly looking at solely cost-per-calorie ) .2 .
The demand for feed and supplements is dwarfed by the demand for energy.Longish-term , the demand for algae-energy ( by snooty rich liberals willing to pay $ 2/lb ) should increase production , thus lowering the price of algae .
Or as another poster explained : volume.Hmm... it 's almost as though those snooty rich liberals are smarter than we give them credit for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Animal feed is itself a wasteful use of resources (admittedly looking at solely cost-per-calorie).2.
The demand for feed and supplements is dwarfed by the demand for energy.Longish-term, the demand for algae-energy (by snooty rich liberals willing to pay $2/lb) should increase production, thus lowering the price of algae.
Or as another poster explained: volume.Hmm... it's almost as though those snooty rich liberals are smarter than we give them credit for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852468</id>
	<title>Pooh-Pooh?</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1264071840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that the researchers didn't like the idea of algae biofuel, they were just preoccupied with their plan for a helium lifter system to help them get hunny for their rumbly tummies...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that the researchers did n't like the idea of algae biofuel , they were just preoccupied with their plan for a helium lifter system to help them get hunny for their rumbly tummies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that the researchers didn't like the idea of algae biofuel, they were just preoccupied with their plan for a helium lifter system to help them get hunny for their rumbly tummies...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853366</id>
	<title>Re:EVERY biofuel is stupid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264074960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Biofuels from cellulose like switchgrass does not come with this problem.  The stuff grows <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum\_virgatum#Establishment\_and\_management" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">in places</a> [wikipedia.org] where you really can't grow food anyway.  The reason the industry was associated with corn is because of the screwed-up corn grower lobby and their pawns in government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Biofuels from cellulose like switchgrass does not come with this problem .
The stuff grows in places [ wikipedia.org ] where you really ca n't grow food anyway .
The reason the industry was associated with corn is because of the screwed-up corn grower lobby and their pawns in government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biofuels from cellulose like switchgrass does not come with this problem.
The stuff grows in places [wikipedia.org] where you really can't grow food anyway.
The reason the industry was associated with corn is because of the screwed-up corn grower lobby and their pawns in government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852018</id>
	<title>Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable!</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264070400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>volume.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>volume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>volume.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853244</id>
	<title>Re:Give the green monster a chance!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264074420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ethanol when burned produces 30\% energy by weight than petroleum, and requires at least as much petroleum to produce as it displaces.</p></div></blockquote><p>Bollocks, the Irish were producing it long before petroleum was even invented.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethanol when burned produces 30 \ % energy by weight than petroleum , and requires at least as much petroleum to produce as it displaces.Bollocks , the Irish were producing it long before petroleum was even invented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethanol when burned produces 30\% energy by weight than petroleum, and requires at least as much petroleum to produce as it displaces.Bollocks, the Irish were producing it long before petroleum was even invented.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857228</id>
	<title>Re:That's interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264193100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does your spell checker also want to change synthetic to synthesis?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does your spell checker also want to change synthetic to synthesis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does your spell checker also want to change synthetic to synthesis?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851794</id>
	<title>Can't we all get along</title>
	<author>Yergle143</author>
	<datestamp>1264069740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a keen interest in algae biofuels and have been attending some of the communal events in San Diego. I just read this paper and it is pretty interesting...note leaders in algae biofuels since the 60's have the same reservations so this is not all "news". Nor are they deal breakers, there is no law of thermodynamics that says that some of these problems cannot be overcome. For example, one of the main energy "costs"(the paper says 40\%) for algae is harvesting them. Grown in a pond, unless the algae flocculate they must be harvested by centrifugation -- very expensive. There may be ways to improve this part of the balance for example. Also note, intellectual honesty suggests that algae are not a cure all for CO2 emission, rather a possibly carbon neutral source of portable fuel, but with important long-term sustainability that our crops and fossil fuels do no offer. Finally some of what is propelling algae is the idea of energy independence for the good old USA. However to me this is very short sighted, as a long term part of the energy equation, many developing countries would be better sites for massive algae facilities. It would be good for the field if it would stop including the cost of land in CA and start considering the Baja.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a keen interest in algae biofuels and have been attending some of the communal events in San Diego .
I just read this paper and it is pretty interesting...note leaders in algae biofuels since the 60 's have the same reservations so this is not all " news " .
Nor are they deal breakers , there is no law of thermodynamics that says that some of these problems can not be overcome .
For example , one of the main energy " costs " ( the paper says 40 \ % ) for algae is harvesting them .
Grown in a pond , unless the algae flocculate they must be harvested by centrifugation -- very expensive .
There may be ways to improve this part of the balance for example .
Also note , intellectual honesty suggests that algae are not a cure all for CO2 emission , rather a possibly carbon neutral source of portable fuel , but with important long-term sustainability that our crops and fossil fuels do no offer .
Finally some of what is propelling algae is the idea of energy independence for the good old USA .
However to me this is very short sighted , as a long term part of the energy equation , many developing countries would be better sites for massive algae facilities .
It would be good for the field if it would stop including the cost of land in CA and start considering the Baja .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a keen interest in algae biofuels and have been attending some of the communal events in San Diego.
I just read this paper and it is pretty interesting...note leaders in algae biofuels since the 60's have the same reservations so this is not all "news".
Nor are they deal breakers, there is no law of thermodynamics that says that some of these problems cannot be overcome.
For example, one of the main energy "costs"(the paper says 40\%) for algae is harvesting them.
Grown in a pond, unless the algae flocculate they must be harvested by centrifugation -- very expensive.
There may be ways to improve this part of the balance for example.
Also note, intellectual honesty suggests that algae are not a cure all for CO2 emission, rather a possibly carbon neutral source of portable fuel, but with important long-term sustainability that our crops and fossil fuels do no offer.
Finally some of what is propelling algae is the idea of energy independence for the good old USA.
However to me this is very short sighted, as a long term part of the energy equation, many developing countries would be better sites for massive algae facilities.
It would be good for the field if it would stop including the cost of land in CA and start considering the Baja.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856112</id>
	<title>Re:And ecologically dangerous too</title>
	<author>scottv67</author>
	<datestamp>1264092900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>&gt;Financial pressure would inevitably produce a nice robust algae that produced biofuel that needed minimal or no refinement. In other words, you'd have an organic self-replicating oil producing machine.<br> <br>

Take this, accidentally let samples escape into ocean. See ocean die. Die. Die. Die.<br> <br> </i>
I have a simple solution that involves algae-eating lizards, Chinese needle snakes and gorillas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Financial pressure would inevitably produce a nice robust algae that produced biofuel that needed minimal or no refinement .
In other words , you 'd have an organic self-replicating oil producing machine .
Take this , accidentally let samples escape into ocean .
See ocean die .
Die. Die .
Die . I have a simple solution that involves algae-eating lizards , Chinese needle snakes and gorillas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Financial pressure would inevitably produce a nice robust algae that produced biofuel that needed minimal or no refinement.
In other words, you'd have an organic self-replicating oil producing machine.
Take this, accidentally let samples escape into ocean.
See ocean die.
Die. Die.
Die.  
I have a simple solution that involves algae-eating lizards, Chinese needle snakes and gorillas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851164</id>
	<title>Reserachers?</title>
	<author>azav</author>
	<datestamp>1264067940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Timothy, please spell check your title.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Timothy , please spell check your title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Timothy, please spell check your title.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856466</id>
	<title>Well, given that you can't even read the paper...</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1264096620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gotta love the scientific publishing industry; I wonder if the authors see a thin dime from the publication of their research. . ?</p><p>Anyway, given what I've read regarding the fledgling 'Algae as Fuel' industry, I'm inclined to agree with the reported conclusions of the pooh pooh paper.  One company I looked at last year, (after one dug through their shiny spin and investor brochure fluff), was that they used wood chips to feed their algae.  Biofuels don't just come from thin air; they needed sugars.</p><p>Now, when you're running a demonstration model plant with a very small output, then woodchips are great; there's plenty of waste biomass available.  But when you scale up for mass production, suddenly you're having to make some pretty severe choices.  The point of the paper was that nobody had come up yet with a sensible solution to Algae-based fuel production which would not place a bigger energy 'footprint' on the land than other forms of biofuel production.  And that's saying something given that other biofuels are kind of insane at the moment.</p><p>But it sure would be nice to be able to read the paper myself.  So long as we're going to stay stuck in a burning-stuff-to-make-wheels-go-round culture, then Algae seems to offer some significant benefits if you can get it up and running efficiently.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta love the scientific publishing industry ; I wonder if the authors see a thin dime from the publication of their research .
. ? Anyway , given what I 've read regarding the fledgling 'Algae as Fuel ' industry , I 'm inclined to agree with the reported conclusions of the pooh pooh paper .
One company I looked at last year , ( after one dug through their shiny spin and investor brochure fluff ) , was that they used wood chips to feed their algae .
Biofuels do n't just come from thin air ; they needed sugars.Now , when you 're running a demonstration model plant with a very small output , then woodchips are great ; there 's plenty of waste biomass available .
But when you scale up for mass production , suddenly you 're having to make some pretty severe choices .
The point of the paper was that nobody had come up yet with a sensible solution to Algae-based fuel production which would not place a bigger energy 'footprint ' on the land than other forms of biofuel production .
And that 's saying something given that other biofuels are kind of insane at the moment.But it sure would be nice to be able to read the paper myself .
So long as we 're going to stay stuck in a burning-stuff-to-make-wheels-go-round culture , then Algae seems to offer some significant benefits if you can get it up and running efficiently.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta love the scientific publishing industry; I wonder if the authors see a thin dime from the publication of their research.
. ?Anyway, given what I've read regarding the fledgling 'Algae as Fuel' industry, I'm inclined to agree with the reported conclusions of the pooh pooh paper.
One company I looked at last year, (after one dug through their shiny spin and investor brochure fluff), was that they used wood chips to feed their algae.
Biofuels don't just come from thin air; they needed sugars.Now, when you're running a demonstration model plant with a very small output, then woodchips are great; there's plenty of waste biomass available.
But when you scale up for mass production, suddenly you're having to make some pretty severe choices.
The point of the paper was that nobody had come up yet with a sensible solution to Algae-based fuel production which would not place a bigger energy 'footprint' on the land than other forms of biofuel production.
And that's saying something given that other biofuels are kind of insane at the moment.But it sure would be nice to be able to read the paper myself.
So long as we're going to stay stuck in a burning-stuff-to-make-wheels-go-round culture, then Algae seems to offer some significant benefits if you can get it up and running efficiently.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852886</id>
	<title>Salt Water Biofuel</title>
	<author>EEPROMS</author>
	<datestamp>1264073160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I notice a few people commenting on using fresh water. Well according to CSIRO (Australia) you can <a href="http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/03/25/australian-researchers-say-saltwater-algae-biodiesel-production-is-at-parity-with-petroleum-diesel-costs-commercial-scaling-is-all-that-is-needed/" title="biofuelsdigest.com"> happily use salt water </a> [biofuelsdigest.com] There is even a prototype plant that <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/13/2742178.htm" title="abc.net.au">has been commissioned </a> [abc.net.au] to look at making this more cost effective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I notice a few people commenting on using fresh water .
Well according to CSIRO ( Australia ) you can happily use salt water [ biofuelsdigest.com ] There is even a prototype plant that has been commissioned [ abc.net.au ] to look at making this more cost effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I notice a few people commenting on using fresh water.
Well according to CSIRO (Australia) you can  happily use salt water  [biofuelsdigest.com] There is even a prototype plant that has been commissioned  [abc.net.au] to look at making this more cost effective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853972</id>
	<title>Why do you have to design it on these limitations?</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1264077240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd heard a coworker describe an Algae plant his dad was developing round Texas. I uses waste water from some factory, and warm water off of a nuclear plant.</p><p>To conserve space and optimize for algae, it's all in clear vertical tubes -- so light gets to the top layer where the algae grows.</p><p>The water doesn't get used up because it's a closed system -- but it's waste water anyway.</p><p>Air bubbles up into it.</p><p>I would figure it would be pretty carbon neutral, except that you would avoid NEW carbon being introduced from burning fossil fuels. Any ORGANIC process is merely going to be recycling existing carbon for the most part.</p><p>And scientists "poo-pooing" organic energy is kind of an ironic statement -- I'm sure I'm not the first to notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd heard a coworker describe an Algae plant his dad was developing round Texas .
I uses waste water from some factory , and warm water off of a nuclear plant.To conserve space and optimize for algae , it 's all in clear vertical tubes -- so light gets to the top layer where the algae grows.The water does n't get used up because it 's a closed system -- but it 's waste water anyway.Air bubbles up into it.I would figure it would be pretty carbon neutral , except that you would avoid NEW carbon being introduced from burning fossil fuels .
Any ORGANIC process is merely going to be recycling existing carbon for the most part.And scientists " poo-pooing " organic energy is kind of an ironic statement -- I 'm sure I 'm not the first to notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd heard a coworker describe an Algae plant his dad was developing round Texas.
I uses waste water from some factory, and warm water off of a nuclear plant.To conserve space and optimize for algae, it's all in clear vertical tubes -- so light gets to the top layer where the algae grows.The water doesn't get used up because it's a closed system -- but it's waste water anyway.Air bubbles up into it.I would figure it would be pretty carbon neutral, except that you would avoid NEW carbon being introduced from burning fossil fuels.
Any ORGANIC process is merely going to be recycling existing carbon for the most part.And scientists "poo-pooing" organic energy is kind of an ironic statement -- I'm sure I'm not the first to notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851418</id>
	<title>Re:Reserachers?</title>
	<author>Stavr0</author>
	<datestamp>1264068660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Timothy, please spell check your title.</p></div><p>Oh, bother.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Timothy , please spell check your title.Oh , bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Timothy, please spell check your title.Oh, bother.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855324</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>davidbofinger</author>
	<datestamp>1264085700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the entire population of the world went vegan, we'd survive for about a decade.</p></div><p>
If we all went vegan, and were very careless about securing a supply of B12, we might survive for only a few years.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the entire population of the world went vegan , we 'd survive for about a decade .
If we all went vegan , and were very careless about securing a supply of B12 , we might survive for only a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the entire population of the world went vegan, we'd survive for about a decade.
If we all went vegan, and were very careless about securing a supply of B12, we might survive for only a few years.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856554</id>
	<title>Oh dear, not a good start ...</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1264097700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that otherwise need to come from petroleum</p></div></blockquote><p>Someone, somewhere, doesn't have a clue about basic chemistry. Most likely the reporter/ PR flack who wrote this story up and then failed to get his version checked by the original specialists for the science (not the <b>English</b>, nor the <b>style</b>, but the <i>science</i>).</p><p>Nitrogen and phosphorus are both essential elements in the diet of anything (including nitrogen-fixing bacteria and archaea ; they just happen to be able to take their N2 neat), but neither of them are found in petroleum, except in the most trivial of amounts.</p><p>What the reporter meant to say, I suspect, is that nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients which are often produced or made into a metabolisable form using energy from petroleum (and in the case of nitrogen, also hydrogen from petroleum). And I'm sure that's what the researchers actually said. But the reporter fluffed it.</p><p>That said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... using "waste" water to supply these nutrients kills several birds (OK, dinosaurs) with one stone (of unspecified type ; trust me, I'm a geologist : the type of stone doesn't matter in this case. I know it's not normal to hear a geologist say that, but this time, it doesn't matter!)</p><p>Where is this "away" place that such wastes were sent to before. I've looked on a map, and I've looked on Google Maps, and I've not found "away". It must be a popular place : "put it away", "throw it away", "just go away and never darken my doorstep again" ; but I can't find it on a map.</p><p>Oh, Bowdlerisation! Google maps have <a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&amp;q=away&amp;sourceid=navclient-ff&amp;rlz=1B3GGGL\_enIL303US304&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;sa=N&amp;tab=wl" title="google.co.uk">spoiled my joke</a> [google.co.uk].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that otherwise need to come from petroleumSomeone , somewhere , does n't have a clue about basic chemistry .
Most likely the reporter/ PR flack who wrote this story up and then failed to get his version checked by the original specialists for the science ( not the English , nor the style , but the science ) .Nitrogen and phosphorus are both essential elements in the diet of anything ( including nitrogen-fixing bacteria and archaea ; they just happen to be able to take their N2 neat ) , but neither of them are found in petroleum , except in the most trivial of amounts.What the reporter meant to say , I suspect , is that nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients which are often produced or made into a metabolisable form using energy from petroleum ( and in the case of nitrogen , also hydrogen from petroleum ) .
And I 'm sure that 's what the researchers actually said .
But the reporter fluffed it.That said ... using " waste " water to supply these nutrients kills several birds ( OK , dinosaurs ) with one stone ( of unspecified type ; trust me , I 'm a geologist : the type of stone does n't matter in this case .
I know it 's not normal to hear a geologist say that , but this time , it does n't matter !
) Where is this " away " place that such wastes were sent to before .
I 've looked on a map , and I 've looked on Google Maps , and I 've not found " away " .
It must be a popular place : " put it away " , " throw it away " , " just go away and never darken my doorstep again " ; but I ca n't find it on a map.Oh , Bowdlerisation !
Google maps have spoiled my joke [ google.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that otherwise need to come from petroleumSomeone, somewhere, doesn't have a clue about basic chemistry.
Most likely the reporter/ PR flack who wrote this story up and then failed to get his version checked by the original specialists for the science (not the English, nor the style, but the science).Nitrogen and phosphorus are both essential elements in the diet of anything (including nitrogen-fixing bacteria and archaea ; they just happen to be able to take their N2 neat), but neither of them are found in petroleum, except in the most trivial of amounts.What the reporter meant to say, I suspect, is that nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients which are often produced or made into a metabolisable form using energy from petroleum (and in the case of nitrogen, also hydrogen from petroleum).
And I'm sure that's what the researchers actually said.
But the reporter fluffed it.That said ... using "waste" water to supply these nutrients kills several birds (OK, dinosaurs) with one stone (of unspecified type ; trust me, I'm a geologist : the type of stone doesn't matter in this case.
I know it's not normal to hear a geologist say that, but this time, it doesn't matter!
)Where is this "away" place that such wastes were sent to before.
I've looked on a map, and I've looked on Google Maps, and I've not found "away".
It must be a popular place : "put it away", "throw it away", "just go away and never darken my doorstep again" ; but I can't find it on a map.Oh, Bowdlerisation!
Google maps have spoiled my joke [google.co.uk].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853562</id>
	<title>Agree re Biofilm and Switchgrass</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1264075620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the UW in Seattle we've had a number of patents (available via UW Tech) for biofuel from switchgrass, as well as biofilm approaches.</p><p>The algae methods have proven less promising, unless you're looking for specific oils that are otherwise derived from petroleum distillation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the UW in Seattle we 've had a number of patents ( available via UW Tech ) for biofuel from switchgrass , as well as biofilm approaches.The algae methods have proven less promising , unless you 're looking for specific oils that are otherwise derived from petroleum distillation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the UW in Seattle we've had a number of patents (available via UW Tech) for biofuel from switchgrass, as well as biofilm approaches.The algae methods have proven less promising, unless you're looking for specific oils that are otherwise derived from petroleum distillation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853804</id>
	<title>Re:EVERY biofuel is stupid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264076580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Because it&rsquo;s taking the space that is needed for OUR own food"<br>The point about using Algae was that we could grow it where we couldn't grow food.</p><p>"We should primarily pursue direct sunlight/energy-storage conversions."<br>That's essentially what Algae is doing isn't it?</p><p>"We could use more solar panels than there is space on earth. Simply by putting them on satellites or dead planets."<br>What exactly is simple about getting a satellite with enough solar panels up into orbit then beaming the power back down or very carefully landing solar panels on other planets and then arranging some other way of transferring that energy from those planets?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Because it    s taking the space that is needed for OUR own food " The point about using Algae was that we could grow it where we could n't grow food .
" We should primarily pursue direct sunlight/energy-storage conversions .
" That 's essentially what Algae is doing is n't it ?
" We could use more solar panels than there is space on earth .
Simply by putting them on satellites or dead planets .
" What exactly is simple about getting a satellite with enough solar panels up into orbit then beaming the power back down or very carefully landing solar panels on other planets and then arranging some other way of transferring that energy from those planets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Because it’s taking the space that is needed for OUR own food"The point about using Algae was that we could grow it where we couldn't grow food.
"We should primarily pursue direct sunlight/energy-storage conversions.
"That's essentially what Algae is doing isn't it?
"We could use more solar panels than there is space on earth.
Simply by putting them on satellites or dead planets.
"What exactly is simple about getting a satellite with enough solar panels up into orbit then beaming the power back down or very carefully landing solar panels on other planets and then arranging some other way of transferring that energy from those planets?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851234</id>
	<title>Poo-poo ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Melchett: Is this true Blackadder? Did Capt. Darling poo-poo you?<br>Blackadder: Well, perhaps a little.<br>Melchett: Well then damn it all what more evidence do you need? The poo-pooing alone is a court martial offense!<br>Blackadder: I can assure you, sir, that the poo-pooing was purely circumstantial.<br>Melchett: Well I hope so,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Blackadder, you know, if there's one thing I've learned from being in the army, it's never ignore a poo-poo. I knew a major, got poo-pood made the mistake of ignoring the poo-poo. He poo-pood it: Fatal error. Becuase it turned out all along that the soldier who poo-pood him had been poo-pooing alot of other officers who poo-pood their poo-poos. In the end we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed.....................by poo-poo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Melchett : Is this true Blackadder ?
Did Capt .
Darling poo-poo you ? Blackadder : Well , perhaps a little.Melchett : Well then damn it all what more evidence do you need ?
The poo-pooing alone is a court martial offense ! Blackadder : I can assure you , sir , that the poo-pooing was purely circumstantial.Melchett : Well I hope so , ...Blackadder , you know , if there 's one thing I 've learned from being in the army , it 's never ignore a poo-poo .
I knew a major , got poo-pood made the mistake of ignoring the poo-poo .
He poo-pood it : Fatal error .
Becuase it turned out all along that the soldier who poo-pood him had been poo-pooing alot of other officers who poo-pood their poo-poos .
In the end we had to disband the regiment .
Morale totally destroyed.....................by poo-poo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Melchett: Is this true Blackadder?
Did Capt.
Darling poo-poo you?Blackadder: Well, perhaps a little.Melchett: Well then damn it all what more evidence do you need?
The poo-pooing alone is a court martial offense!Blackadder: I can assure you, sir, that the poo-pooing was purely circumstantial.Melchett: Well I hope so, ...Blackadder, you know, if there's one thing I've learned from being in the army, it's never ignore a poo-poo.
I knew a major, got poo-pood made the mistake of ignoring the poo-poo.
He poo-pood it: Fatal error.
Becuase it turned out all along that the soldier who poo-pood him had been poo-pooing alot of other officers who poo-pood their poo-poos.
In the end we had to disband the regiment.
Morale totally destroyed.....................by poo-poo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856256</id>
	<title>Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable!</title>
	<author>FishTankX</author>
	<datestamp>1264094340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because once you squish the algae for use in diesel fuel you can use the left overs as animal feed.

If we produced enough petrochemicals from biodiesel to run all of america's cars, trucks trains and ships, which is about 147 trillion liters, then we would have an equivalent amount of animal feed (oil algae is only half oil.)

Assuming that this weighs HALF as much as the oil does, this provides us with roughly 16,000,000,000 tons of animal feed, which i'm sure can make a NOTICEABLE dent in the fuel supply, and free up more corn for hungry people in the best case scenario, or ethanol in the worst case.

Disclaimer: Math in the feed calculations may be off by up to an order of magnitude if I goofed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because once you squish the algae for use in diesel fuel you can use the left overs as animal feed .
If we produced enough petrochemicals from biodiesel to run all of america 's cars , trucks trains and ships , which is about 147 trillion liters , then we would have an equivalent amount of animal feed ( oil algae is only half oil .
) Assuming that this weighs HALF as much as the oil does , this provides us with roughly 16,000,000,000 tons of animal feed , which i 'm sure can make a NOTICEABLE dent in the fuel supply , and free up more corn for hungry people in the best case scenario , or ethanol in the worst case .
Disclaimer : Math in the feed calculations may be off by up to an order of magnitude if I goofed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because once you squish the algae for use in diesel fuel you can use the left overs as animal feed.
If we produced enough petrochemicals from biodiesel to run all of america's cars, trucks trains and ships, which is about 147 trillion liters, then we would have an equivalent amount of animal feed (oil algae is only half oil.
)

Assuming that this weighs HALF as much as the oil does, this provides us with roughly 16,000,000,000 tons of animal feed, which i'm sure can make a NOTICEABLE dent in the fuel supply, and free up more corn for hungry people in the best case scenario, or ethanol in the worst case.
Disclaimer: Math in the feed calculations may be off by up to an order of magnitude if I goofed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853010</id>
	<title>Rehash</title>
	<author>tngaijin</author>
	<datestamp>1264073640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like the University of Virgina is just regurgitating information published by Michael Briggs of the University of New Hampshire.

<a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2364" title="energybulletin.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2364</a> [energybulletin.net]

This isn't really a new idea nor a new recommendation.  It is sad that it is at least 6 years old and it is being treated as new information though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like the University of Virgina is just regurgitating information published by Michael Briggs of the University of New Hampshire .
http : //www.energybulletin.net/node/2364 [ energybulletin.net ] This is n't really a new idea nor a new recommendation .
It is sad that it is at least 6 years old and it is being treated as new information though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like the University of Virgina is just regurgitating information published by Michael Briggs of the University of New Hampshire.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2364 [energybulletin.net]

This isn't really a new idea nor a new recommendation.
It is sad that it is at least 6 years old and it is being treated as new information though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852506</id>
	<title>OBSimpsons</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1264071960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We need someone who doesn't immediately poo-poo everything he eats."</p><p>"Well no, it usually takes a couple of hours."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We need someone who does n't immediately poo-poo everything he eats .
" " Well no , it usually takes a couple of hours .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We need someone who doesn't immediately poo-poo everything he eats.
""Well no, it usually takes a couple of hours.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857646</id>
	<title>Let me guess...</title>
	<author>iggie</author>
	<datestamp>1264157340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Virginia researchers promptly suggested "clean coal" as the answer to our woes?</p><p>Meanwhile, I kept dumping bleach into the kiddie pool all summer to keep the algae from growing.  The neighbor must have been throwing in the fertilizer.<br>Most algae is perfectly happy fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere all on their own (phosporus, not so much).  Of course, that costs the algae energy to do, energy better spent fixing carbon from CO2.</p><p>The important point is, there is no nitrogen or phosphorus in algae-derived oil or ethanol (only carbon, oxygen and hydrogen).  If you're throwing in nitrogen and phosphorus to grow the algae, you are leaving it behind when you make the biofuel, so the net cost of petroleum for this is 0 assuming you find something to do with what's left (like, I dunno, use it for fertilizer)?</p><p>Hopefully this kind of brain-death is attributable to whatever "science writer" coughed out this gem, and not the hapless researchers.  Either way, IANRTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Virginia researchers promptly suggested " clean coal " as the answer to our woes ? Meanwhile , I kept dumping bleach into the kiddie pool all summer to keep the algae from growing .
The neighbor must have been throwing in the fertilizer.Most algae is perfectly happy fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere all on their own ( phosporus , not so much ) .
Of course , that costs the algae energy to do , energy better spent fixing carbon from CO2.The important point is , there is no nitrogen or phosphorus in algae-derived oil or ethanol ( only carbon , oxygen and hydrogen ) .
If you 're throwing in nitrogen and phosphorus to grow the algae , you are leaving it behind when you make the biofuel , so the net cost of petroleum for this is 0 assuming you find something to do with what 's left ( like , I dunno , use it for fertilizer ) ? Hopefully this kind of brain-death is attributable to whatever " science writer " coughed out this gem , and not the hapless researchers .
Either way , IANRTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Virginia researchers promptly suggested "clean coal" as the answer to our woes?Meanwhile, I kept dumping bleach into the kiddie pool all summer to keep the algae from growing.
The neighbor must have been throwing in the fertilizer.Most algae is perfectly happy fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere all on their own (phosporus, not so much).
Of course, that costs the algae energy to do, energy better spent fixing carbon from CO2.The important point is, there is no nitrogen or phosphorus in algae-derived oil or ethanol (only carbon, oxygen and hydrogen).
If you're throwing in nitrogen and phosphorus to grow the algae, you are leaving it behind when you make the biofuel, so the net cost of petroleum for this is 0 assuming you find something to do with what's left (like, I dunno, use it for fertilizer)?Hopefully this kind of brain-death is attributable to whatever "science writer" coughed out this gem, and not the hapless researchers.
Either way, IANRTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852646</id>
	<title>Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264072440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. there are both yeasts and algae that literally -output- diesel as a byproduct of their metabolic processes.   The researchers in this article focused on the conversion of algae to biofuels using heat and industrial processes, but this is not the technique currently in favor amongst the algae biofuel startups.   Most have strains of yeasts (and algae) that were discovered around the world that have low yields of diesel fuel byproduct, and are working via rapid natural selection and genetic engineering techniques to increase the yield to commercially viable levels.</p><p>So, you get the valuable algae<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. AND<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. you get the diesel byproducts.  It costs sunlight, and fertilizer plus some post processing and captures more carbon than is emitted by burning the fuel.   Sounds pretty good to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually .. there are both yeasts and algae that literally -output- diesel as a byproduct of their metabolic processes .
The researchers in this article focused on the conversion of algae to biofuels using heat and industrial processes , but this is not the technique currently in favor amongst the algae biofuel startups .
Most have strains of yeasts ( and algae ) that were discovered around the world that have low yields of diesel fuel byproduct , and are working via rapid natural selection and genetic engineering techniques to increase the yield to commercially viable levels.So , you get the valuable algae .. AND .. you get the diesel byproducts .
It costs sunlight , and fertilizer plus some post processing and captures more carbon than is emitted by burning the fuel .
Sounds pretty good to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually .. there are both yeasts and algae that literally -output- diesel as a byproduct of their metabolic processes.
The researchers in this article focused on the conversion of algae to biofuels using heat and industrial processes, but this is not the technique currently in favor amongst the algae biofuel startups.
Most have strains of yeasts (and algae) that were discovered around the world that have low yields of diesel fuel byproduct, and are working via rapid natural selection and genetic engineering techniques to increase the yield to commercially viable levels.So, you get the valuable algae .. AND .. you get the diesel byproducts.
It costs sunlight, and fertilizer plus some post processing and captures more carbon than is emitted by burning the fuel.
Sounds pretty good to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856602</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264098300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If God did n't want us to eat animals , why did he make them out of meat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851770</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody failed high school chemistry.</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1264069680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:<blockquote><div><p>As an environmentally sustainable alternative to current algae production methods, the researchers propose situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential nutrients for growing algae that would otherwise need to be produced from petroleum. Those same nutrients are discharged to local waterways, damaging the Chesapeake Bay and other water bodies, and current technology to remove them is prohibitively expensive.</p></div></blockquote><p>So here's the logic:  Algae requires nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen.  Where does that come from?  Normally in the wild, algae live off nutrients in water.  In artificial environments, they are given these nutrients.  The source of these nutrients is synthetic fertilizer.  Ammonia based fertilizers are often created by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber\_process" title="wikipedia.org">Haber process</a> [wikipedia.org].  Artificial fertilizer requires petroleum to produce.  Normally runoff is very high in these nutrients as they come from artificial fertilizers used on lawns and crops.  Runoff enters wastewater and this high nutrient content creates all sorts of problems when discharged into the wild.  Red Tide is caused by high nutrient runoff from the Mississippi.  So kill two birds with one stone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : As an environmentally sustainable alternative to current algae production methods , the researchers propose situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential nutrients for growing algae that would otherwise need to be produced from petroleum .
Those same nutrients are discharged to local waterways , damaging the Chesapeake Bay and other water bodies , and current technology to remove them is prohibitively expensive.So here 's the logic : Algae requires nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen .
Where does that come from ?
Normally in the wild , algae live off nutrients in water .
In artificial environments , they are given these nutrients .
The source of these nutrients is synthetic fertilizer .
Ammonia based fertilizers are often created by the Haber process [ wikipedia.org ] .
Artificial fertilizer requires petroleum to produce .
Normally runoff is very high in these nutrients as they come from artificial fertilizers used on lawns and crops .
Runoff enters wastewater and this high nutrient content creates all sorts of problems when discharged into the wild .
Red Tide is caused by high nutrient runoff from the Mississippi .
So kill two birds with one stone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:As an environmentally sustainable alternative to current algae production methods, the researchers propose situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential nutrients for growing algae that would otherwise need to be produced from petroleum.
Those same nutrients are discharged to local waterways, damaging the Chesapeake Bay and other water bodies, and current technology to remove them is prohibitively expensive.So here's the logic:  Algae requires nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen.
Where does that come from?
Normally in the wild, algae live off nutrients in water.
In artificial environments, they are given these nutrients.
The source of these nutrients is synthetic fertilizer.
Ammonia based fertilizers are often created by the Haber process [wikipedia.org].
Artificial fertilizer requires petroleum to produce.
Normally runoff is very high in these nutrients as they come from artificial fertilizers used on lawns and crops.
Runoff enters wastewater and this high nutrient content creates all sorts of problems when discharged into the wild.
Red Tide is caused by high nutrient runoff from the Mississippi.
So kill two birds with one stone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857280</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1264193940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Going vegan would actually decrease the amount of land needed, since it's more efficient to just make wheat/corn, instead of making wheat/corn and then (inefficiently) converting it to steak.</i> </p><p>You're really not getting this.  Cows don't eat corn, they eat grass.  This is why in most of the world, cows are fed on grass or grass-like feed (hay, silage etc) with relatively small amounts of things like oats and wheat.  Over here, we make a lot of use of "draff" which is spent distillery mash - malt that's been boiled up for the sugar to be used in brewing.  The other important thing that you're missing is that a lot of the "undesirable" stuff that your cow food gets turned into is actually cow *shit*.  You let this compost for a while (it helps to mix it with straw and burn it, but that smells awful) and yay, free fertiliser *without* petrochemicals.  All this stuff about livestock farming "using up all the water" is just nonsense - cows don't magically make mass disappear. They are not nuclear reactors.  They drink water - quite a lot of water - and either pee it out (yay, nitrogen compounds, just what nitrate-poor grassland needs) or sweat it out (okay, water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas, I'll give you that).  Either way nothing is lost for the water cycle.  Eventually more fresh water just falls from the sky.  Oh, here comes some now!</p><p>Even better than cows are sheep, which can eat tough heathery plants and tough grasses that not much else can eat.  We hardly have to feed sheep at all over the winter (maybe a little bit of draff mixed with shredded sugar beet - yes, technically something you could feed humans.  You get enough sugar already, fatso).  The good bit about that is you can make use of farmland that isn't really suitable for arable farming.  Go and have a look at pretty much any country that has hills (ie. not rolling cornfields like the middle states of the US), and work out how you're going to plant it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Going vegan would actually decrease the amount of land needed , since it 's more efficient to just make wheat/corn , instead of making wheat/corn and then ( inefficiently ) converting it to steak .
You 're really not getting this .
Cows do n't eat corn , they eat grass .
This is why in most of the world , cows are fed on grass or grass-like feed ( hay , silage etc ) with relatively small amounts of things like oats and wheat .
Over here , we make a lot of use of " draff " which is spent distillery mash - malt that 's been boiled up for the sugar to be used in brewing .
The other important thing that you 're missing is that a lot of the " undesirable " stuff that your cow food gets turned into is actually cow * shit * .
You let this compost for a while ( it helps to mix it with straw and burn it , but that smells awful ) and yay , free fertiliser * without * petrochemicals .
All this stuff about livestock farming " using up all the water " is just nonsense - cows do n't magically make mass disappear .
They are not nuclear reactors .
They drink water - quite a lot of water - and either pee it out ( yay , nitrogen compounds , just what nitrate-poor grassland needs ) or sweat it out ( okay , water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas , I 'll give you that ) .
Either way nothing is lost for the water cycle .
Eventually more fresh water just falls from the sky .
Oh , here comes some now ! Even better than cows are sheep , which can eat tough heathery plants and tough grasses that not much else can eat .
We hardly have to feed sheep at all over the winter ( maybe a little bit of draff mixed with shredded sugar beet - yes , technically something you could feed humans .
You get enough sugar already , fatso ) .
The good bit about that is you can make use of farmland that is n't really suitable for arable farming .
Go and have a look at pretty much any country that has hills ( ie .
not rolling cornfields like the middle states of the US ) , and work out how you 're going to plant it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Going vegan would actually decrease the amount of land needed, since it's more efficient to just make wheat/corn, instead of making wheat/corn and then (inefficiently) converting it to steak.
You're really not getting this.
Cows don't eat corn, they eat grass.
This is why in most of the world, cows are fed on grass or grass-like feed (hay, silage etc) with relatively small amounts of things like oats and wheat.
Over here, we make a lot of use of "draff" which is spent distillery mash - malt that's been boiled up for the sugar to be used in brewing.
The other important thing that you're missing is that a lot of the "undesirable" stuff that your cow food gets turned into is actually cow *shit*.
You let this compost for a while (it helps to mix it with straw and burn it, but that smells awful) and yay, free fertiliser *without* petrochemicals.
All this stuff about livestock farming "using up all the water" is just nonsense - cows don't magically make mass disappear.
They are not nuclear reactors.
They drink water - quite a lot of water - and either pee it out (yay, nitrogen compounds, just what nitrate-poor grassland needs) or sweat it out (okay, water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas, I'll give you that).
Either way nothing is lost for the water cycle.
Eventually more fresh water just falls from the sky.
Oh, here comes some now!Even better than cows are sheep, which can eat tough heathery plants and tough grasses that not much else can eat.
We hardly have to feed sheep at all over the winter (maybe a little bit of draff mixed with shredded sugar beet - yes, technically something you could feed humans.
You get enough sugar already, fatso).
The good bit about that is you can make use of farmland that isn't really suitable for arable farming.
Go and have a look at pretty much any country that has hills (ie.
not rolling cornfields like the middle states of the US), and work out how you're going to plant it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853182</id>
	<title>Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264074240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is America.  We already produce more food than we could ever need.  You're right, we should probably continue to do so, and to export that food to the rest of the world in exchange for their energy resources.  But at any point that becomes unprofitable, we need large-scale, clean, renewable primary energy sources to fall back on.  Luckily the same infrastructure can be used for both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is America .
We already produce more food than we could ever need .
You 're right , we should probably continue to do so , and to export that food to the rest of the world in exchange for their energy resources .
But at any point that becomes unprofitable , we need large-scale , clean , renewable primary energy sources to fall back on .
Luckily the same infrastructure can be used for both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is America.
We already produce more food than we could ever need.
You're right, we should probably continue to do so, and to export that food to the rest of the world in exchange for their energy resources.
But at any point that becomes unprofitable, we need large-scale, clean, renewable primary energy sources to fall back on.
Luckily the same infrastructure can be used for both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851638</id>
	<title>Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1264069320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't mind living next to nuclear power plants.  As a matter of fact I did.  In fact it was the primary employer for my town.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mind living next to nuclear power plants .
As a matter of fact I did .
In fact it was the primary employer for my town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mind living next to nuclear power plants.
As a matter of fact I did.
In fact it was the primary employer for my town.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852590</id>
	<title>Re:EVERY biofuel is stupid!</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1264072200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because that resource is, at least for a looong time, virtually endless. </i></p><p>Another way to put it:<br>Solar energy will literally last until the end of the Earth (and then some).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because that resource is , at least for a looong time , virtually endless .
Another way to put it : Solar energy will literally last until the end of the Earth ( and then some ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because that resource is, at least for a looong time, virtually endless.
Another way to put it:Solar energy will literally last until the end of the Earth (and then some).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857712</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody failed high school chemistry.</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1264158420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``But it is true that fertilizer (both phosphates and nitrogen) require a lot of fossil fuel to produce -- usually natural gas.''</p><p>And here I thought that</p><p>1. Algae grow just fine without us going out of our ways to add fertilizer to them</p><p>2. There are plenty of ways to produce fertilizer that don't involve fossil fuels</p><p>Your turn again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` But it is true that fertilizer ( both phosphates and nitrogen ) require a lot of fossil fuel to produce -- usually natural gas .
''And here I thought that1 .
Algae grow just fine without us going out of our ways to add fertilizer to them2 .
There are plenty of ways to produce fertilizer that do n't involve fossil fuelsYour turn again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``But it is true that fertilizer (both phosphates and nitrogen) require a lot of fossil fuel to produce -- usually natural gas.
''And here I thought that1.
Algae grow just fine without us going out of our ways to add fertilizer to them2.
There are plenty of ways to produce fertilizer that don't involve fossil fuelsYour turn again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853318</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264074720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"If the entire population of the world went vegan, we'd survive for about a decade."</i></p><p>Nonsense.  If the world went vegan, we'd be able to use far less land to feed the same number of people, because we wouldn't be feeding crops to farm animals.  Less than 30\% of the crops we feed to farm animals is returned to us as an edible product; 60-95\% of what we feed them is burned off as calories or turned into inedible or undesirable bodyparts like bone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If the entire population of the world went vegan , we 'd survive for about a decade. " Nonsense .
If the world went vegan , we 'd be able to use far less land to feed the same number of people , because we would n't be feeding crops to farm animals .
Less than 30 \ % of the crops we feed to farm animals is returned to us as an edible product ; 60-95 \ % of what we feed them is burned off as calories or turned into inedible or undesirable bodyparts like bone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If the entire population of the world went vegan, we'd survive for about a decade."Nonsense.
If the world went vegan, we'd be able to use far less land to feed the same number of people, because we wouldn't be feeding crops to farm animals.
Less than 30\% of the crops we feed to farm animals is returned to us as an edible product; 60-95\% of what we feed them is burned off as calories or turned into inedible or undesirable bodyparts like bone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856212</id>
	<title>Re:Haven't you seen the BP ads?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1264093800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear crazy street racers put nitrous in their cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear crazy street racers put nitrous in their cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear crazy street racers put nitrous in their cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851372</id>
	<title>Also</title>
	<author>killmenow</author>
	<datestamp>1264068540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Christopher Robin was unavailable for comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Christopher Robin was unavailable for comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christopher Robin was unavailable for comment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854286</id>
	<title>Re:Hydroelectric</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264078860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, how about the functioning nuclear power plant in Pickering, ON, a suburb of Toronto?<br>http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&amp;ll=43.814061,-79.078388&amp;spn=0.021987,0.055747&amp;t=h&amp;z=15</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , how about the functioning nuclear power plant in Pickering , ON , a suburb of Toronto ? http : //maps.google.com/ ? ie = UTF8&amp;ll = 43.814061,-79.078388&amp;spn = 0.021987,0.055747&amp;t = h&amp;z = 15</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, how about the functioning nuclear power plant in Pickering, ON, a suburb of Toronto?http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&amp;ll=43.814061,-79.078388&amp;spn=0.021987,0.055747&amp;t=h&amp;z=15</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854376</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody failed high school chemistry.</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1264079340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes yes YES! We can turn our waste into something that benefits us, and get rid of the destruction of the Gulf at the same time!</p><p>I just wonder how well algae does on a diet of lead, mercury, and other heavy metals?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes yes YES !
We can turn our waste into something that benefits us , and get rid of the destruction of the Gulf at the same time ! I just wonder how well algae does on a diet of lead , mercury , and other heavy metals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes yes YES!
We can turn our waste into something that benefits us, and get rid of the destruction of the Gulf at the same time!I just wonder how well algae does on a diet of lead, mercury, and other heavy metals?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851708</id>
	<title>Give the green monster a chance!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264069500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Algae has great potential and should not be ignored; the process just needs to be refined.  It has much greater yield than other biofuels crops, and can be more easily turned into fuel oil of various types than other sources.  Ethanol should be avoided; because it is plain inefficient no matter how well you develop the process.  Ethanol when burned produces 30\% energy by weight than petroleum, and requires at least as much petroleum to produce as it displaces.  Furthermore, it cannot be transported like petroleum-based fuels due to it propensity to mix with water.  That means even more petroleum transporting this crap around in tanker trucks.  Algae on waste water ponds and treatment systems not only produce fuel, but naturally help clean the water.  Growth tanks can also be setup at industrial sites with CO2 emissions being piped into the tanks.  There is a lot to do with these wondrous little plants; we just need to give them a chance.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..and John Hasler, look up the Haber Bosch Process.  It&rsquo;s called nitrogen fixing that requires lots of fossil fuels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Algae has great potential and should not be ignored ; the process just needs to be refined .
It has much greater yield than other biofuels crops , and can be more easily turned into fuel oil of various types than other sources .
Ethanol should be avoided ; because it is plain inefficient no matter how well you develop the process .
Ethanol when burned produces 30 \ % energy by weight than petroleum , and requires at least as much petroleum to produce as it displaces .
Furthermore , it can not be transported like petroleum-based fuels due to it propensity to mix with water .
That means even more petroleum transporting this crap around in tanker trucks .
Algae on waste water ponds and treatment systems not only produce fuel , but naturally help clean the water .
Growth tanks can also be setup at industrial sites with CO2 emissions being piped into the tanks .
There is a lot to do with these wondrous little plants ; we just need to give them a chance .
..and John Hasler , look up the Haber Bosch Process .
It    s called nitrogen fixing that requires lots of fossil fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Algae has great potential and should not be ignored; the process just needs to be refined.
It has much greater yield than other biofuels crops, and can be more easily turned into fuel oil of various types than other sources.
Ethanol should be avoided; because it is plain inefficient no matter how well you develop the process.
Ethanol when burned produces 30\% energy by weight than petroleum, and requires at least as much petroleum to produce as it displaces.
Furthermore, it cannot be transported like petroleum-based fuels due to it propensity to mix with water.
That means even more petroleum transporting this crap around in tanker trucks.
Algae on waste water ponds and treatment systems not only produce fuel, but naturally help clean the water.
Growth tanks can also be setup at industrial sites with CO2 emissions being piped into the tanks.
There is a lot to do with these wondrous little plants; we just need to give them a chance.
..and John Hasler, look up the Haber Bosch Process.
It’s called nitrogen fixing that requires lots of fossil fuels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851256</id>
	<title>Re:Reserachers?</title>
	<author>GrosTuba</author>
	<datestamp>1264068180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reserachers?<br>I bet they are <a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/2003/7/4/#1057334765" title="penny-arcade.com">craptacualr</a> [penny-arcade.com]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reserachers ? I bet they are craptacualr [ penny-arcade.com ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reserachers?I bet they are craptacualr [penny-arcade.com]...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852310</id>
	<title>Lucky it's not made from shit</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1264071360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lucky it's not made from shit, or they'd have to pooh-pooh poo-poo based biofuel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lucky it 's not made from shit , or they 'd have to pooh-pooh poo-poo based biofuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lucky it's not made from shit, or they'd have to pooh-pooh poo-poo based biofuel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30860172</id>
	<title>Range fed vs feedlot</title>
	<author>geek2k5</author>
	<datestamp>1264179540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Range fed cattle, the ones that are marketed that way, eat grass or grass-like feed.</p><p>Feedlot cattle are the ones that get corn, soy or other items as part of the fattening up process.  In some instances range fed cattle go to the stock yards for a few weeks for 'finishing'.</p><p>The ideal situation is as you describe, letting the various types of livestock graze on marginal land like hills and flood plains.  You do have to worry about overgrazing though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Range fed cattle , the ones that are marketed that way , eat grass or grass-like feed.Feedlot cattle are the ones that get corn , soy or other items as part of the fattening up process .
In some instances range fed cattle go to the stock yards for a few weeks for 'finishing'.The ideal situation is as you describe , letting the various types of livestock graze on marginal land like hills and flood plains .
You do have to worry about overgrazing though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Range fed cattle, the ones that are marketed that way, eat grass or grass-like feed.Feedlot cattle are the ones that get corn, soy or other items as part of the fattening up process.
In some instances range fed cattle go to the stock yards for a few weeks for 'finishing'.The ideal situation is as you describe, letting the various types of livestock graze on marginal land like hills and flood plains.
You do have to worry about overgrazing though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855312</id>
	<title>Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264085580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is actually not true. In most cases the algae are harvested (i.e. killed) to get the biodiesel out of them, because they are unable to secrete them. Even in cases where they are secreting them, there are other problems. Sun light exposure requirement means large ponds or expensive transparent reactor technologies maximizing surface area. There are 1-2 companies which are not using sunlight but using dark reactors and giving the algae food (glucose or other sugars and nutrients). That is, they use the algae for their oil producing property. So overall, it is a lot complicated than the simplistic pitches that go like 'they capture sunlight and CO2 and produce diesel'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually not true .
In most cases the algae are harvested ( i.e .
killed ) to get the biodiesel out of them , because they are unable to secrete them .
Even in cases where they are secreting them , there are other problems .
Sun light exposure requirement means large ponds or expensive transparent reactor technologies maximizing surface area .
There are 1-2 companies which are not using sunlight but using dark reactors and giving the algae food ( glucose or other sugars and nutrients ) .
That is , they use the algae for their oil producing property .
So overall , it is a lot complicated than the simplistic pitches that go like 'they capture sunlight and CO2 and produce diesel' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually not true.
In most cases the algae are harvested (i.e.
killed) to get the biodiesel out of them, because they are unable to secrete them.
Even in cases where they are secreting them, there are other problems.
Sun light exposure requirement means large ponds or expensive transparent reactor technologies maximizing surface area.
There are 1-2 companies which are not using sunlight but using dark reactors and giving the algae food (glucose or other sugars and nutrients).
That is, they use the algae for their oil producing property.
So overall, it is a lot complicated than the simplistic pitches that go like 'they capture sunlight and CO2 and produce diesel'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853386</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>puroresu</author>
	<datestamp>1264075020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Researchers Pooh-Pooh Algae-Based Biofuel</i>
<br> <br>
Well that should help with production!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Researchers Pooh-Pooh Algae-Based Biofuel Well that should help with production !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Researchers Pooh-Pooh Algae-Based Biofuel
 
Well that should help with production!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854056</id>
	<title>A bit unrelated, but--</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264077600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have often considered the prospects of mass cultivating regular pondscum style algae, then using a solar accumulator furnace and a hermetically sealed crucible to reduce the garbage algae (very different from high quality algae used for feed, nutritional suppliments, etc, and thust not a valuable commodity at all really) into very high purity reduced carbon.</p><p>Should some absurd tax sheltering scheme for big business that revolves around "Carbon credits" comes into vouge, it might actually be a profitable enterprise to extract atmospheric carbon in such a manner.  Elemental carbon is much easier to sequester than CO2 (being stable over geological time, as long as you dont burn it), and can be directly weighed.</p><p>Failing that, you could transform the elemental carbon produced into coal gas by injecting water into the crucible, then putting it back into the solar accumulator.  Any resulting ash (calcium, sodium, potassium salts, and other non-volatile minerals) could be returned to the cultivation tank, and recycled.</p><p>It could be possible to run pretty much the entire operation on solar energy as well.  I wonder if you could get a government subsidy for such a project?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have often considered the prospects of mass cultivating regular pondscum style algae , then using a solar accumulator furnace and a hermetically sealed crucible to reduce the garbage algae ( very different from high quality algae used for feed , nutritional suppliments , etc , and thust not a valuable commodity at all really ) into very high purity reduced carbon.Should some absurd tax sheltering scheme for big business that revolves around " Carbon credits " comes into vouge , it might actually be a profitable enterprise to extract atmospheric carbon in such a manner .
Elemental carbon is much easier to sequester than CO2 ( being stable over geological time , as long as you dont burn it ) , and can be directly weighed.Failing that , you could transform the elemental carbon produced into coal gas by injecting water into the crucible , then putting it back into the solar accumulator .
Any resulting ash ( calcium , sodium , potassium salts , and other non-volatile minerals ) could be returned to the cultivation tank , and recycled.It could be possible to run pretty much the entire operation on solar energy as well .
I wonder if you could get a government subsidy for such a project ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have often considered the prospects of mass cultivating regular pondscum style algae, then using a solar accumulator furnace and a hermetically sealed crucible to reduce the garbage algae (very different from high quality algae used for feed, nutritional suppliments, etc, and thust not a valuable commodity at all really) into very high purity reduced carbon.Should some absurd tax sheltering scheme for big business that revolves around "Carbon credits" comes into vouge, it might actually be a profitable enterprise to extract atmospheric carbon in such a manner.
Elemental carbon is much easier to sequester than CO2 (being stable over geological time, as long as you dont burn it), and can be directly weighed.Failing that, you could transform the elemental carbon produced into coal gas by injecting water into the crucible, then putting it back into the solar accumulator.
Any resulting ash (calcium, sodium, potassium salts, and other non-volatile minerals) could be returned to the cultivation tank, and recycled.It could be possible to run pretty much the entire operation on solar energy as well.
I wonder if you could get a government subsidy for such a project?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30862640</id>
	<title>The Vegan Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264193040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, someone did the math on that, and in a vegan system, the world population would have to *shrink* by at least 2/3rds to be sustainable on the available level of food production. The reason is twofold:</p><p>1) Crop agriculture largely depends on animal ag (which is to say, manure) for *fixed nitrogen* to fertilize crops. Most crop plants are NOT nitrogen fixers and rely entirely on fertilizer or on existing nitrogen compounds in the soil (which are rapidly depleted if not replaced; this nitrogen goes into making the proteins in the crop). This is actually the most important limiting factor in crop yields. -- Without manure, you have to rely on industrial ammonia, as several posters detail above -- a fairly costly process in terms of energy use. The only reason our crop yields are as good as they are today is because manure, never in sufficient supply, is being supplemented by industrial ammonia. To get off that dependency on industrial ammonia for fertilizer, we'd need to approximately DOUBLE manure production (which is to say, animal ag).</p><p>2) Getting rid of animal agriculture actually pulls a lot of land OUT of food production, since only about a quarter of the ag-utilized land is suitable for crops. Livestock are grazed mainly on land that CANNOT grow food crops, either for soil being too poor or terrain being unsuitable (thin, rocky, steep) or for not having enough evenly-distributed water (e.g. most of the American west, most of central Asia, etc.) Cattle can drink at a trough; plants need water distributed to their roots, and irrigation uses a lot of fuel, since most irrigation water needs to be pumped. (And irrigation pipe is hideously expensive, presently over $100 for a 20 foot piece of 4" pipe. That's right, it's over 5 bucks per FOOT.) With population growth using more and more water for urban survival, or water being pulled away from crop use (like the debacle in central California) water itself is rapidly becoming another limiting factor, and in some areas is actually too expensive to use on crops at all.</p><p>Crop-producing plants, especially those that produce a lot of protein, need a LOT of nitrogen and water, compared to graze and fodder useful for feeding animals. This animal fodder is not at all useful for feeding humans. (Unless you can figure out how to grow multiple stomachs or another 20 yards of intestine, so you can digest grass.) Animals serve as a very efficient means of converting NON-FOOD CROPS (mostly grass) from NON-ARABLE LAND (ie. pasture) into HUMAN-USABLE PROTEIN.</p><p>The other problem is that strict veganism is actually a recipe for human extinction, since it is not possible to raise healthy children on a vegan diet. It is catastrophically deficient in vit.B-12 (which leads to a variety of problems in children, from retardation to death), plus you need to eat about 3x the calories to get the required level and balance of animo acids, and even then it will be deficient in some of them.</p><p>Soy is actually not a very good or efficient protein, is processing-intensive to get it to the point where it is human-digestible, and has some other negative impacts; there is a lot of good research (with citations) compiled at <a href="http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/" title="soyonlineservice.co.nz">http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/</a> [soyonlineservice.co.nz]</p><p>[BTW my background is biochemistry, and I'm from farm and ranch country, so I actually do know what I'm talking about. Unlike the average urbanite  who has no real idea what it takes to produce the food he eats.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , someone did the math on that , and in a vegan system , the world population would have to * shrink * by at least 2/3rds to be sustainable on the available level of food production .
The reason is twofold : 1 ) Crop agriculture largely depends on animal ag ( which is to say , manure ) for * fixed nitrogen * to fertilize crops .
Most crop plants are NOT nitrogen fixers and rely entirely on fertilizer or on existing nitrogen compounds in the soil ( which are rapidly depleted if not replaced ; this nitrogen goes into making the proteins in the crop ) .
This is actually the most important limiting factor in crop yields .
-- Without manure , you have to rely on industrial ammonia , as several posters detail above -- a fairly costly process in terms of energy use .
The only reason our crop yields are as good as they are today is because manure , never in sufficient supply , is being supplemented by industrial ammonia .
To get off that dependency on industrial ammonia for fertilizer , we 'd need to approximately DOUBLE manure production ( which is to say , animal ag ) .2 ) Getting rid of animal agriculture actually pulls a lot of land OUT of food production , since only about a quarter of the ag-utilized land is suitable for crops .
Livestock are grazed mainly on land that CAN NOT grow food crops , either for soil being too poor or terrain being unsuitable ( thin , rocky , steep ) or for not having enough evenly-distributed water ( e.g .
most of the American west , most of central Asia , etc .
) Cattle can drink at a trough ; plants need water distributed to their roots , and irrigation uses a lot of fuel , since most irrigation water needs to be pumped .
( And irrigation pipe is hideously expensive , presently over $ 100 for a 20 foot piece of 4 " pipe .
That 's right , it 's over 5 bucks per FOOT .
) With population growth using more and more water for urban survival , or water being pulled away from crop use ( like the debacle in central California ) water itself is rapidly becoming another limiting factor , and in some areas is actually too expensive to use on crops at all.Crop-producing plants , especially those that produce a lot of protein , need a LOT of nitrogen and water , compared to graze and fodder useful for feeding animals .
This animal fodder is not at all useful for feeding humans .
( Unless you can figure out how to grow multiple stomachs or another 20 yards of intestine , so you can digest grass .
) Animals serve as a very efficient means of converting NON-FOOD CROPS ( mostly grass ) from NON-ARABLE LAND ( ie .
pasture ) into HUMAN-USABLE PROTEIN.The other problem is that strict veganism is actually a recipe for human extinction , since it is not possible to raise healthy children on a vegan diet .
It is catastrophically deficient in vit.B-12 ( which leads to a variety of problems in children , from retardation to death ) , plus you need to eat about 3x the calories to get the required level and balance of animo acids , and even then it will be deficient in some of them.Soy is actually not a very good or efficient protein , is processing-intensive to get it to the point where it is human-digestible , and has some other negative impacts ; there is a lot of good research ( with citations ) compiled at http : //www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/ [ soyonlineservice.co.nz ] [ BTW my background is biochemistry , and I 'm from farm and ranch country , so I actually do know what I 'm talking about .
Unlike the average urbanite who has no real idea what it takes to produce the food he eats .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, someone did the math on that, and in a vegan system, the world population would have to *shrink* by at least 2/3rds to be sustainable on the available level of food production.
The reason is twofold:1) Crop agriculture largely depends on animal ag (which is to say, manure) for *fixed nitrogen* to fertilize crops.
Most crop plants are NOT nitrogen fixers and rely entirely on fertilizer or on existing nitrogen compounds in the soil (which are rapidly depleted if not replaced; this nitrogen goes into making the proteins in the crop).
This is actually the most important limiting factor in crop yields.
-- Without manure, you have to rely on industrial ammonia, as several posters detail above -- a fairly costly process in terms of energy use.
The only reason our crop yields are as good as they are today is because manure, never in sufficient supply, is being supplemented by industrial ammonia.
To get off that dependency on industrial ammonia for fertilizer, we'd need to approximately DOUBLE manure production (which is to say, animal ag).2) Getting rid of animal agriculture actually pulls a lot of land OUT of food production, since only about a quarter of the ag-utilized land is suitable for crops.
Livestock are grazed mainly on land that CANNOT grow food crops, either for soil being too poor or terrain being unsuitable (thin, rocky, steep) or for not having enough evenly-distributed water (e.g.
most of the American west, most of central Asia, etc.
) Cattle can drink at a trough; plants need water distributed to their roots, and irrigation uses a lot of fuel, since most irrigation water needs to be pumped.
(And irrigation pipe is hideously expensive, presently over $100 for a 20 foot piece of 4" pipe.
That's right, it's over 5 bucks per FOOT.
) With population growth using more and more water for urban survival, or water being pulled away from crop use (like the debacle in central California) water itself is rapidly becoming another limiting factor, and in some areas is actually too expensive to use on crops at all.Crop-producing plants, especially those that produce a lot of protein, need a LOT of nitrogen and water, compared to graze and fodder useful for feeding animals.
This animal fodder is not at all useful for feeding humans.
(Unless you can figure out how to grow multiple stomachs or another 20 yards of intestine, so you can digest grass.
) Animals serve as a very efficient means of converting NON-FOOD CROPS (mostly grass) from NON-ARABLE LAND (ie.
pasture) into HUMAN-USABLE PROTEIN.The other problem is that strict veganism is actually a recipe for human extinction, since it is not possible to raise healthy children on a vegan diet.
It is catastrophically deficient in vit.B-12 (which leads to a variety of problems in children, from retardation to death), plus you need to eat about 3x the calories to get the required level and balance of animo acids, and even then it will be deficient in some of them.Soy is actually not a very good or efficient protein, is processing-intensive to get it to the point where it is human-digestible, and has some other negative impacts; there is a lot of good research (with citations) compiled at http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/ [soyonlineservice.co.nz][BTW my background is biochemistry, and I'm from farm and ranch country, so I actually do know what I'm talking about.
Unlike the average urbanite  who has no real idea what it takes to produce the food he eats.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856624</id>
	<title>Re:Hydroelectric</title>
	<author>KermodeBear</author>
	<datestamp>1264098600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the one in <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s\_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=perry+nuclear+power+plant&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=40.681389,93.076172&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=perry+nuclear+power+plant&amp;hnear=&amp;ll=41.805054,-81.141737&amp;spn=0.009373,0.022724&amp;z=16&amp;iwloc=A" title="google.com">Perry, Ohio</a> [google.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the one in Perry , Ohio [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the one in Perry, Ohio [google.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852000</id>
	<title>EVERY biofuel is stupid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it&rsquo;s taking the space that is needed for OUR own food, the food for our animals, and the food for other animals.<br>It just takes away too much space for what it delivers.</p><p>We should primarily pursue direct sunlight/energy-storage conversions. Electrochemical (batteries), or chemical (fuel), or in another way. But based on the sun. Because that resource is, at least for a looong time, virtually endless. We could use more solar panels than there is space on earth. Simply by putting them on satellites or dead planets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it    s taking the space that is needed for OUR own food , the food for our animals , and the food for other animals.It just takes away too much space for what it delivers.We should primarily pursue direct sunlight/energy-storage conversions .
Electrochemical ( batteries ) , or chemical ( fuel ) , or in another way .
But based on the sun .
Because that resource is , at least for a looong time , virtually endless .
We could use more solar panels than there is space on earth .
Simply by putting them on satellites or dead planets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it’s taking the space that is needed for OUR own food, the food for our animals, and the food for other animals.It just takes away too much space for what it delivers.We should primarily pursue direct sunlight/energy-storage conversions.
Electrochemical (batteries), or chemical (fuel), or in another way.
But based on the sun.
Because that resource is, at least for a looong time, virtually endless.
We could use more solar panels than there is space on earth.
Simply by putting them on satellites or dead planets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853678</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264076100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think so, since the animals the non-vegans eat consume mountains of plants while being raised. Going vegan should reduce the number of crops overall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so , since the animals the non-vegans eat consume mountains of plants while being raised .
Going vegan should reduce the number of crops overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so, since the animals the non-vegans eat consume mountains of plants while being raised.
Going vegan should reduce the number of crops overall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851746</id>
	<title>That's interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264069620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The company that I worked for commissioned a few studies on algae based biofuels. It turns out that the most efficient way of handling the material was to collect the algae in cakes and burn it in a reactor to make synthesis gas. Synthesis gas is a mixture of CO and Hydrogen. If you add steam, you could then perform a shift reaction to get methane or methanol. The main value of the process was not in producing fuel, or generating electricity. The main thing you could use it for was as a chemical feedstock. Methanol is a good starting point for many plastics.</p><p>(final comment, my spell checker wants to change biofuels to befouled)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company that I worked for commissioned a few studies on algae based biofuels .
It turns out that the most efficient way of handling the material was to collect the algae in cakes and burn it in a reactor to make synthesis gas .
Synthesis gas is a mixture of CO and Hydrogen .
If you add steam , you could then perform a shift reaction to get methane or methanol .
The main value of the process was not in producing fuel , or generating electricity .
The main thing you could use it for was as a chemical feedstock .
Methanol is a good starting point for many plastics .
( final comment , my spell checker wants to change biofuels to befouled )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company that I worked for commissioned a few studies on algae based biofuels.
It turns out that the most efficient way of handling the material was to collect the algae in cakes and burn it in a reactor to make synthesis gas.
Synthesis gas is a mixture of CO and Hydrogen.
If you add steam, you could then perform a shift reaction to get methane or methanol.
The main value of the process was not in producing fuel, or generating electricity.
The main thing you could use it for was as a chemical feedstock.
Methanol is a good starting point for many plastics.
(final comment, my spell checker wants to change biofuels to befouled)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30868188</id>
	<title>Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1264243380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...nobody wants to be next to nuclear or coal plants.</p></div><p>Or solar plants, or wind farms... Even the Luddites want to have and do have an energy foot print as large as what it is today, and yet protest every from of energy expenditure and generation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...nobody wants to be next to nuclear or coal plants.Or solar plants , or wind farms... Even the Luddites want to have and do have an energy foot print as large as what it is today , and yet protest every from of energy expenditure and generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...nobody wants to be next to nuclear or coal plants.Or solar plants, or wind farms... Even the Luddites want to have and do have an energy foot print as large as what it is today, and yet protest every from of energy expenditure and generation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854032</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>DMUTPeregrine</author>
	<datestamp>1264077480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cows eat a lot more food than humans do. Going vegan would actually decrease the amount of land needed, since it's more efficient to just make wheat/corn, instead of making wheat/corn and then (inefficiently) converting it to steak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cows eat a lot more food than humans do .
Going vegan would actually decrease the amount of land needed , since it 's more efficient to just make wheat/corn , instead of making wheat/corn and then ( inefficiently ) converting it to steak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cows eat a lot more food than humans do.
Going vegan would actually decrease the amount of land needed, since it's more efficient to just make wheat/corn, instead of making wheat/corn and then (inefficiently) converting it to steak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853240</id>
	<title>Re:EVERY biofuel is stupid!</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1264074420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of our food doesn't need space.  It needs fertilizer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of our food does n't need space .
It needs fertilizer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of our food doesn't need space.
It needs fertilizer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851380</id>
	<title>Land values</title>
	<author>PetiePooo</author>
	<datestamp>1264068540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, in other words, the algae ponds should be located close to the waste water treatment plants, which are located next to large population centers. And how much more does land cost in urban/suburban areas than in rural or even desert areas?

<br> <br>I think there's a production flaw here somewhere; I just can't put my finger on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in other words , the algae ponds should be located close to the waste water treatment plants , which are located next to large population centers .
And how much more does land cost in urban/suburban areas than in rural or even desert areas ?
I think there 's a production flaw here somewhere ; I just ca n't put my finger on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in other words, the algae ponds should be located close to the waste water treatment plants, which are located next to large population centers.
And how much more does land cost in urban/suburban areas than in rural or even desert areas?
I think there's a production flaw here somewhere; I just can't put my finger on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852430</id>
	<title>Pond vs Bioreactor</title>
	<author>geek2k5</author>
	<datestamp>1264071720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article seems to be focusing on pond based algae biofuels as opposed to the bioreactor based ones that have been getting recent media attention.</p><p>They do mention the bioreactor based algae biofuels, but claim that the photo bioreactors are unlikely to scale efficiently and that unlined ponds are the most reasonable configuration.  Of course, the paper they are using for this claim dates back to 1996.  They really need to update their economic analysis reference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seems to be focusing on pond based algae biofuels as opposed to the bioreactor based ones that have been getting recent media attention.They do mention the bioreactor based algae biofuels , but claim that the photo bioreactors are unlikely to scale efficiently and that unlined ponds are the most reasonable configuration .
Of course , the paper they are using for this claim dates back to 1996 .
They really need to update their economic analysis reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seems to be focusing on pond based algae biofuels as opposed to the bioreactor based ones that have been getting recent media attention.They do mention the bioreactor based algae biofuels, but claim that the photo bioreactors are unlikely to scale efficiently and that unlined ponds are the most reasonable configuration.
Of course, the paper they are using for this claim dates back to 1996.
They really need to update their economic analysis reference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851094</id>
	<title>In a related development...</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1264067760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The George W. Bush administration has declared a war on algae citing possible links to 9/11, Al Queda, and weapons of mass destruction. Critics seem to think it's because "essential algae nutrients.... come from petroleum."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The George W. Bush administration has declared a war on algae citing possible links to 9/11 , Al Queda , and weapons of mass destruction .
Critics seem to think it 's because " essential algae nutrients.... come from petroleum .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The George W. Bush administration has declared a war on algae citing possible links to 9/11, Al Queda, and weapons of mass destruction.
Critics seem to think it's because "essential algae nutrients.... come from petroleum.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852162</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean organic? Going vegan would probably let us double the world population considering the huge amount of grain and soy that's fed to animals.</p><p>Oil and natural gas won't last forever. The most optimistic estimates says 30 years before peak production rate, and we hit shortages on a growing planet. What's the plan to feed ourselves after that? Grow bigger and crash harder?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean organic ?
Going vegan would probably let us double the world population considering the huge amount of grain and soy that 's fed to animals.Oil and natural gas wo n't last forever .
The most optimistic estimates says 30 years before peak production rate , and we hit shortages on a growing planet .
What 's the plan to feed ourselves after that ?
Grow bigger and crash harder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean organic?
Going vegan would probably let us double the world population considering the huge amount of grain and soy that's fed to animals.Oil and natural gas won't last forever.
The most optimistic estimates says 30 years before peak production rate, and we hit shortages on a growing planet.
What's the plan to feed ourselves after that?
Grow bigger and crash harder?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855268</id>
	<title>Re:Reserachers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264085220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, bother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855068</id>
	<title>Aorist rods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264083780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oh Zarquon, oh heavens," he mumbled pathetically to himself, "I've<br>been found. I've been rescued..."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Well," said one of the officials, briskly, "you've been found at<br>least." He strode over to the main computer bank in the middle of the<br>chamber and started checking quickly through the ship's main monitor<br>circuits for damage reports.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "The aorist rod chambers are intact," he said.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Holy dingo's dos," snarled Zaphod, "there are aorist rods on<br>board...!"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Aorist rods were devices used in a now happily abandoned form of<br>energy production. When the hunt for new sources of energy had at one<br>point got particularly frantic, one bright young chap suddenly spotted<br>that one place which had never used up all its available energy was -<br>the past. And with the sudden rush of blood to the head that such<br>insights tend to induce, he invented a way of mining it that very same<br>night, and within a year huge tracts of the past were being drained of<br>all their energy and simply wasting away. Those who claimed that the<br>past should be left unspoilt were accused of indulging in an extremely<br>expensive form of sentimentality. The past provided a very cheap,<br>plentiful and clean source of energy, there could always be a few<br>Natural Past Reserves set up if anyone wanted to pay for their upkeep,<br>and as for the claim that draining the past impoverished the present,<br>well, maybe it did, slightly, but the effects were immeasurable and you<br>really had to keep a sense of proportion.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It was only when it was realised that the present really was being<br>impoverished, and that the reason for it was that those selfish<br>plundering wastrel bastards up in the future were doing exactly the same<br>thing, that everyone realised that every single aorist rod, and the<br>terrible secret of how they were made would have to be utterly and<br>forever destroyed. They claimed it was for the sake of their<br>grandparents and grandchildren, but it was of course for the sake of<br>their grandparent's grandchildren, and their grandchildren's<br>grandparents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh Zarquon , oh heavens , " he mumbled pathetically to himself , " I'vebeen found .
I 've been rescued... "       " Well , " said one of the officials , briskly , " you 've been found atleast .
" He strode over to the main computer bank in the middle of thechamber and started checking quickly through the ship 's main monitorcircuits for damage reports .
      " The aorist rod chambers are intact , " he said .
      " Holy dingo 's dos , " snarled Zaphod , " there are aorist rods onboard... !
"       Aorist rods were devices used in a now happily abandoned form ofenergy production .
When the hunt for new sources of energy had at onepoint got particularly frantic , one bright young chap suddenly spottedthat one place which had never used up all its available energy was -the past .
And with the sudden rush of blood to the head that suchinsights tend to induce , he invented a way of mining it that very samenight , and within a year huge tracts of the past were being drained ofall their energy and simply wasting away .
Those who claimed that thepast should be left unspoilt were accused of indulging in an extremelyexpensive form of sentimentality .
The past provided a very cheap,plentiful and clean source of energy , there could always be a fewNatural Past Reserves set up if anyone wanted to pay for their upkeep,and as for the claim that draining the past impoverished the present,well , maybe it did , slightly , but the effects were immeasurable and youreally had to keep a sense of proportion .
      It was only when it was realised that the present really was beingimpoverished , and that the reason for it was that those selfishplundering wastrel bastards up in the future were doing exactly the samething , that everyone realised that every single aorist rod , and theterrible secret of how they were made would have to be utterly andforever destroyed .
They claimed it was for the sake of theirgrandparents and grandchildren , but it was of course for the sake oftheir grandparent 's grandchildren , and their grandchildren'sgrandparents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh Zarquon, oh heavens," he mumbled pathetically to himself, "I'vebeen found.
I've been rescued..."
      "Well," said one of the officials, briskly, "you've been found atleast.
" He strode over to the main computer bank in the middle of thechamber and started checking quickly through the ship's main monitorcircuits for damage reports.
      "The aorist rod chambers are intact," he said.
      "Holy dingo's dos," snarled Zaphod, "there are aorist rods onboard...!
"
      Aorist rods were devices used in a now happily abandoned form ofenergy production.
When the hunt for new sources of energy had at onepoint got particularly frantic, one bright young chap suddenly spottedthat one place which had never used up all its available energy was -the past.
And with the sudden rush of blood to the head that suchinsights tend to induce, he invented a way of mining it that very samenight, and within a year huge tracts of the past were being drained ofall their energy and simply wasting away.
Those who claimed that thepast should be left unspoilt were accused of indulging in an extremelyexpensive form of sentimentality.
The past provided a very cheap,plentiful and clean source of energy, there could always be a fewNatural Past Reserves set up if anyone wanted to pay for their upkeep,and as for the claim that draining the past impoverished the present,well, maybe it did, slightly, but the effects were immeasurable and youreally had to keep a sense of proportion.
      It was only when it was realised that the present really was beingimpoverished, and that the reason for it was that those selfishplundering wastrel bastards up in the future were doing exactly the samething, that everyone realised that every single aorist rod, and theterrible secret of how they were made would have to be utterly andforever destroyed.
They claimed it was for the sake of theirgrandparents and grandchildren, but it was of course for the sake oftheir grandparent's grandchildren, and their grandchildren'sgrandparents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853446</id>
	<title>Never Mind the Typo.  "Pooh Pooh" ?!?!!</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1264075260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always been more of an Eeyore man myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always been more of an Eeyore man myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always been more of an Eeyore man myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851678</id>
	<title>Re:Land values</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1264069440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could also put them downstream from chicken farms.  I believe one of the biggest problems with the Chesapeake bay water shed is to much nitrogen in the water.  If this could be used to produce fuel and clean up all the nitrogen run off from industrial agriculture it would be a double win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could also put them downstream from chicken farms .
I believe one of the biggest problems with the Chesapeake bay water shed is to much nitrogen in the water .
If this could be used to produce fuel and clean up all the nitrogen run off from industrial agriculture it would be a double win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could also put them downstream from chicken farms.
I believe one of the biggest problems with the Chesapeake bay water shed is to much nitrogen in the water.
If this could be used to produce fuel and clean up all the nitrogen run off from industrial agriculture it would be a double win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851768</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody failed high school chemistry.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264069680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, so whoever wrote that wasn't thinking straight.  But it is true that fertilizer (both phosphates and nitrogen) require a lot of fossil fuel to produce -- usually natural gas.<br> <br>Phosphate fertilizer (ortho- or poly-phosphates) is synthesized in an energy-intensive process.  Organic phosphates, like those from manure (or waste treatment plant effluent), help solve this problem.<br> <br>For nitrate fertilizer, it's even more extreme.  Please read about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber\_process" title="wikipedia.org">Haber Process</a> [wikipedia.org].<br> <br>Yes, John, most fertilizer does come from fossil fuels.<br> <br>So, yes, whoever wrote that made a mistake.  However, it's no lie to say that fertilizer production uses a huge amount of fossil fuel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so whoever wrote that was n't thinking straight .
But it is true that fertilizer ( both phosphates and nitrogen ) require a lot of fossil fuel to produce -- usually natural gas .
Phosphate fertilizer ( ortho- or poly-phosphates ) is synthesized in an energy-intensive process .
Organic phosphates , like those from manure ( or waste treatment plant effluent ) , help solve this problem .
For nitrate fertilizer , it 's even more extreme .
Please read about the Haber Process [ wikipedia.org ] .
Yes , John , most fertilizer does come from fossil fuels .
So , yes , whoever wrote that made a mistake .
However , it 's no lie to say that fertilizer production uses a huge amount of fossil fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so whoever wrote that wasn't thinking straight.
But it is true that fertilizer (both phosphates and nitrogen) require a lot of fossil fuel to produce -- usually natural gas.
Phosphate fertilizer (ortho- or poly-phosphates) is synthesized in an energy-intensive process.
Organic phosphates, like those from manure (or waste treatment plant effluent), help solve this problem.
For nitrate fertilizer, it's even more extreme.
Please read about the Haber Process [wikipedia.org].
Yes, John, most fertilizer does come from fossil fuels.
So, yes, whoever wrote that made a mistake.
However, it's no lie to say that fertilizer production uses a huge amount of fossil fuel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851646</id>
	<title>Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1264069320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should be modded +10: Fucking Prophetic.</p><p>Disclaimer: I'm biased, because I've been saying the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should be modded + 10 : Fucking Prophetic.Disclaimer : I 'm biased , because I 've been saying the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should be modded +10: Fucking Prophetic.Disclaimer: I'm biased, because I've been saying the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851280</id>
	<title>Hydroelectric</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1264068240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And besides, they don't build nuclear plants in the city, they build them out in the middle of nowhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And besides , they do n't build nuclear plants in the city , they build them out in the middle of nowhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And besides, they don't build nuclear plants in the city, they build them out in the middle of nowhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668</id>
	<title>One other reason, Algae is more valuable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264069440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Diesel, wholesale, is a couple bucks a gallon.  Which means it is far FAR less than a dollar a pound.</p><p>A good algae is worth far MORE than that per pound as animal feed, dietary suppliments, etc.  So why turn something that you can sell for $2/lb into something you can only sell for less than $.5/lb?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Diesel , wholesale , is a couple bucks a gallon .
Which means it is far FAR less than a dollar a pound.A good algae is worth far MORE than that per pound as animal feed , dietary suppliments , etc .
So why turn something that you can sell for $ 2/lb into something you can only sell for less than $ .5/lb ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diesel, wholesale, is a couple bucks a gallon.
Which means it is far FAR less than a dollar a pound.A good algae is worth far MORE than that per pound as animal feed, dietary suppliments, etc.
So why turn something that you can sell for $2/lb into something you can only sell for less than $.5/lb?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854120</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody failed high school chemistry.</title>
	<author>nietsch</author>
	<datestamp>1264077960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phosphorous is mined, not produced. Sewage treatment plants can collect phosphorous too (stuvite IIRC). If cattle wastes were treated too, more phophorour could be recylced. Unlike Nitrogen, phophorous itself is not removed from the cycle in great amounts. Unless it runs off into the sea...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phosphorous is mined , not produced .
Sewage treatment plants can collect phosphorous too ( stuvite IIRC ) .
If cattle wastes were treated too , more phophorour could be recylced .
Unlike Nitrogen , phophorous itself is not removed from the cycle in great amounts .
Unless it runs off into the sea.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phosphorous is mined, not produced.
Sewage treatment plants can collect phosphorous too (stuvite IIRC).
If cattle wastes were treated too, more phophorour could be recylced.
Unlike Nitrogen, phophorous itself is not removed from the cycle in great amounts.
Unless it runs off into the sea...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855136</id>
	<title>Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>i\_liek\_turtles</author>
	<datestamp>1264084320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when does gasoline production not require plants? I've been near them, and oh boy, you do not want to live by them at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does gasoline production not require plants ?
I 've been near them , and oh boy , you do not want to live by them at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does gasoline production not require plants?
I've been near them, and oh boy, you do not want to live by them at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356</id>
	<title>People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but arable farming uses an unholy amount of petrochemicals.  If the entire population of the world went vegan, we'd survive for about a decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but arable farming uses an unholy amount of petrochemicals .
If the entire population of the world went vegan , we 'd survive for about a decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but arable farming uses an unholy amount of petrochemicals.
If the entire population of the world went vegan, we'd survive for about a decade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853716</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1264076220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but arable farming uses an unholy amount of petrochemicals. "</p><p>Begging the question of what is a "holy" amount of petrochemicals....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but arable farming uses an unholy amount of petrochemicals .
" Begging the question of what is a " holy " amount of petrochemicals... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but arable farming uses an unholy amount of petrochemicals.
"Begging the question of what is a "holy" amount of petrochemicals....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853296</id>
	<title>And ecologically dangerous too</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1264074660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Financial pressure would inevitably produce a nice robust algae that produced biofuel that needed minimal or no refinement. In other words, you'd have an organic self-replicating oil producing machine.</p><p>Take this, accidentally let samples escape into ocean. See ocean die. Die. Die. Die.</p><p>All through the miracle of capitalism!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Financial pressure would inevitably produce a nice robust algae that produced biofuel that needed minimal or no refinement .
In other words , you 'd have an organic self-replicating oil producing machine.Take this , accidentally let samples escape into ocean .
See ocean die .
Die. Die .
Die.All through the miracle of capitalism !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Financial pressure would inevitably produce a nice robust algae that produced biofuel that needed minimal or no refinement.
In other words, you'd have an organic self-replicating oil producing machine.Take this, accidentally let samples escape into ocean.
See ocean die.
Die. Die.
Die.All through the miracle of capitalism!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30863874</id>
	<title>Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1264156800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I lived within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant most of my life.  Don't really see what the big deal is.  Now coal I'd have a problem with, you know, actually releasing the radation into the air, unlike a properly maintained nuclear plant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I lived within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant most of my life .
Do n't really see what the big deal is .
Now coal I 'd have a problem with , you know , actually releasing the radation into the air , unlike a properly maintained nuclear plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I lived within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant most of my life.
Don't really see what the big deal is.
Now coal I'd have a problem with, you know, actually releasing the radation into the air, unlike a properly maintained nuclear plant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852768</id>
	<title>Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264072740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right now farm runoff containing nutrients is creating vast dead zones in places like the gulf of Mexico.  If we could channel farm runoff through algae growing operations we might be able to help with the dead zone thing which would help the fishing industry.<br>
<br>
Reducing corn subsidies for biofuel, which we should do anyway, could drop the value of feed algae because we wouldn't be be turning so much corn into ethanol (assuming you could replace algae-based feed with corn).<br>
<br>
The cost of petroleum is not just the wholesale price + taxes + mark ups.  The cost also comes in the form of dependence on foreign oil and the security problems that causes, maintaining a military that can help ensure our access that oil, and the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
If ultimately they can't make the economics of algae growing work then clearly they shouldn't do it but there are other factors than the wholesale price of these commodities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now farm runoff containing nutrients is creating vast dead zones in places like the gulf of Mexico .
If we could channel farm runoff through algae growing operations we might be able to help with the dead zone thing which would help the fishing industry .
Reducing corn subsidies for biofuel , which we should do anyway , could drop the value of feed algae because we would n't be be turning so much corn into ethanol ( assuming you could replace algae-based feed with corn ) .
The cost of petroleum is not just the wholesale price + taxes + mark ups .
The cost also comes in the form of dependence on foreign oil and the security problems that causes , maintaining a military that can help ensure our access that oil , and the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels .
If ultimately they ca n't make the economics of algae growing work then clearly they should n't do it but there are other factors than the wholesale price of these commodities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now farm runoff containing nutrients is creating vast dead zones in places like the gulf of Mexico.
If we could channel farm runoff through algae growing operations we might be able to help with the dead zone thing which would help the fishing industry.
Reducing corn subsidies for biofuel, which we should do anyway, could drop the value of feed algae because we wouldn't be be turning so much corn into ethanol (assuming you could replace algae-based feed with corn).
The cost of petroleum is not just the wholesale price + taxes + mark ups.
The cost also comes in the form of dependence on foreign oil and the security problems that causes, maintaining a military that can help ensure our access that oil, and the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels.
If ultimately they can't make the economics of algae growing work then clearly they shouldn't do it but there are other factors than the wholesale price of these commodities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856514</id>
	<title>Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>scottv67</author>
	<datestamp>1264097220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>&gt;But the nice thing about power plants, as opposed to internal combustion engines in your cars, is that they're centralized. One big chimney, instead of hundreds or thousands of them. A single chimney to inspect, regulate, filter, clean, whatever.</i> <br> <br>
<b>Chimney?</b>  What kind of nuclear plant did you live next to?  Nuclear plants don't have chimneys.  Are you thinking of the cooling towers?  That isn't smoke coming out of the top of a cooling tower, that's water vapor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But the nice thing about power plants , as opposed to internal combustion engines in your cars , is that they 're centralized .
One big chimney , instead of hundreds or thousands of them .
A single chimney to inspect , regulate , filter , clean , whatever .
Chimney ? What kind of nuclear plant did you live next to ?
Nuclear plants do n't have chimneys .
Are you thinking of the cooling towers ?
That is n't smoke coming out of the top of a cooling tower , that 's water vapor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;But the nice thing about power plants, as opposed to internal combustion engines in your cars, is that they're centralized.
One big chimney, instead of hundreds or thousands of them.
A single chimney to inspect, regulate, filter, clean, whatever.
Chimney?  What kind of nuclear plant did you live next to?
Nuclear plants don't have chimneys.
Are you thinking of the cooling towers?
That isn't smoke coming out of the top of a cooling tower, that's water vapor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855770</id>
	<title>while siting algae biofuel facilities</title>
	<author>alizard</author>
	<datestamp>1264089600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>next to sewage treatment plants is a good idea,<blockquote><div><p>The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that <b>otherwise need to come from petroleum</b>."</p></div></blockquote><p>
<b>WTF?</b> I suspect that biofuel researchers aren't going to flock to read a paper written by researchers who appear unaware that the atmosphere is <b>78\% nitrogen</b>. If any of the researchers read this, I recommend googling on just what is in our atmosphere and follow up by googling on "nitrogen fixation".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>next to sewage treatment plants is a good idea,The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that otherwise need to come from petroleum .
" WTF ?
I suspect that biofuel researchers are n't going to flock to read a paper written by researchers who appear unaware that the atmosphere is 78 \ % nitrogen .
If any of the researchers read this , I recommend googling on just what is in our atmosphere and follow up by googling on " nitrogen fixation " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>next to sewage treatment plants is a good idea,The researchers suggest these problems can be overcome by situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities to capture phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that otherwise need to come from petroleum.
"
WTF?
I suspect that biofuel researchers aren't going to flock to read a paper written by researchers who appear unaware that the atmosphere is 78\% nitrogen.
If any of the researchers read this, I recommend googling on just what is in our atmosphere and follow up by googling on "nitrogen fixation".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852240</id>
	<title>How about reusing the leftover N and P?</title>
	<author>thue</author>
	<datestamp>1264071120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about reusing the N and P from the harvested algae? We only want the C-H chains for fuel, so it might be possible to separate the P and N from the harvested algea, and reuse it for algae fertilizer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about reusing the N and P from the harvested algae ?
We only want the C-H chains for fuel , so it might be possible to separate the P and N from the harvested algea , and reuse it for algae fertilizer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about reusing the N and P from the harvested algae?
We only want the C-H chains for fuel, so it might be possible to separate the P and N from the harvested algea, and reuse it for algae fertilizer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851326</id>
	<title>Somebody failed high school chemistry.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that otherwise need<br>&gt; to come from petroleum.</p><p>Phosphorus and nitrogen from petroleum.  Uh huh.  Right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that otherwise need &gt; to come from petroleum.Phosphorus and nitrogen from petroleum .
Uh huh .
Right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...phosphorous and nitrogen -- essential algae nutrients that otherwise need&gt; to come from petroleum.Phosphorus and nitrogen from petroleum.
Uh huh.
Right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854018</id>
	<title>Phosphorous and NItrogen...</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1264077480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... do NOT come from petroleum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... do NOT come from petroleum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... do NOT come from petroleum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853262</id>
	<title>Uh,</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1264074480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"essential algae nutrients.... come from petroleum."</p><p>FAIL</p><p>This should be tagged 'dontgetit'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" essential algae nutrients.... come from petroleum .
" FAILThis should be tagged 'dontgetit'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"essential algae nutrients.... come from petroleum.
"FAILThis should be tagged 'dontgetit'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856540</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264097520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incorrect. Peak production for oil was reached in 2007. Even when oil passed $120-$140/bbl production rates dropped.</p><p>There will never be shortages per say in a free market economy. Only artificial price controls result in shortages for such ubiquitous commodity. But how much are you willing to pay for oil? $500/bbl? $2000l? $10,000?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incorrect .
Peak production for oil was reached in 2007 .
Even when oil passed $ 120- $ 140/bbl production rates dropped.There will never be shortages per say in a free market economy .
Only artificial price controls result in shortages for such ubiquitous commodity .
But how much are you willing to pay for oil ?
$ 500/bbl ? $ 2000l ?
$ 10,000 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incorrect.
Peak production for oil was reached in 2007.
Even when oil passed $120-$140/bbl production rates dropped.There will never be shortages per say in a free market economy.
Only artificial price controls result in shortages for such ubiquitous commodity.
But how much are you willing to pay for oil?
$500/bbl? $2000l?
$10,000?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852058</id>
	<title>Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1264070520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not worried about living next to a nuclear power plant.  I grew up right near one...  Just a mile or two outside of town.  Of course I'm not the average American, so I can see your point...</p><p>But the nice thing about power plants, as opposed to internal combustion engines in your cars, is that they're centralized.  One big chimney, instead of hundreds or thousands of them.  A single chimney to inspect, regulate, filter, clean, whatever.</p><p>Sure, you've got to get the power to your cars...  So there's transmission and storage losses to worry about...  But I suspect we could cut down on emissions somewhat just by centralizing our power generation, even if we didn't move to a clean fuel source.</p><p>And if we were to standardize on electric cars, we're no longer quite so reliant on fossil fuels.  Sure, for now, a lot of our electricity comes from fossil fuels...  But electricity is electricity.  Your electric car really doesn't care where that electricity comes from.  It could be wind power, or solar, or nuclear, or whatever...  And your car will work just the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not worried about living next to a nuclear power plant .
I grew up right near one... Just a mile or two outside of town .
Of course I 'm not the average American , so I can see your point...But the nice thing about power plants , as opposed to internal combustion engines in your cars , is that they 're centralized .
One big chimney , instead of hundreds or thousands of them .
A single chimney to inspect , regulate , filter , clean , whatever.Sure , you 've got to get the power to your cars... So there 's transmission and storage losses to worry about... But I suspect we could cut down on emissions somewhat just by centralizing our power generation , even if we did n't move to a clean fuel source.And if we were to standardize on electric cars , we 're no longer quite so reliant on fossil fuels .
Sure , for now , a lot of our electricity comes from fossil fuels... But electricity is electricity .
Your electric car really does n't care where that electricity comes from .
It could be wind power , or solar , or nuclear , or whatever... And your car will work just the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not worried about living next to a nuclear power plant.
I grew up right near one...  Just a mile or two outside of town.
Of course I'm not the average American, so I can see your point...But the nice thing about power plants, as opposed to internal combustion engines in your cars, is that they're centralized.
One big chimney, instead of hundreds or thousands of them.
A single chimney to inspect, regulate, filter, clean, whatever.Sure, you've got to get the power to your cars...  So there's transmission and storage losses to worry about...  But I suspect we could cut down on emissions somewhat just by centralizing our power generation, even if we didn't move to a clean fuel source.And if we were to standardize on electric cars, we're no longer quite so reliant on fossil fuels.
Sure, for now, a lot of our electricity comes from fossil fuels...  But electricity is electricity.
Your electric car really doesn't care where that electricity comes from.
It could be wind power, or solar, or nuclear, or whatever...  And your car will work just the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853188</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1264074300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And other people don't realize that with simple crop rotation the same results as industrial fertilization can be achieved. In fact a US university has had a running crop rotation experiment going for over 100 years that has demonstrated yields equivalent to industrial farming.</p><p>You may not realize it but the only reason we have to use fertilizers is farmers don't rotate crops anymore. We could re-institute crop rotation with little impact to food production and eliminate the use of fertilizers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And other people do n't realize that with simple crop rotation the same results as industrial fertilization can be achieved .
In fact a US university has had a running crop rotation experiment going for over 100 years that has demonstrated yields equivalent to industrial farming.You may not realize it but the only reason we have to use fertilizers is farmers do n't rotate crops anymore .
We could re-institute crop rotation with little impact to food production and eliminate the use of fertilizers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And other people don't realize that with simple crop rotation the same results as industrial fertilization can be achieved.
In fact a US university has had a running crop rotation experiment going for over 100 years that has demonstrated yields equivalent to industrial farming.You may not realize it but the only reason we have to use fertilizers is farmers don't rotate crops anymore.
We could re-institute crop rotation with little impact to food production and eliminate the use of fertilizers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851266</id>
	<title>Reserachers Pooh-Pooh Algae-Based Biofuel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, but what about researchers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , but what about researchers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, but what about researchers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852818</id>
	<title>Re:Pooh vs Poo</title>
	<author>Megahard</author>
	<datestamp>1264072920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But they did!
"...situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities"</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they did !
" ...situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they did!
"...situating algae production ponds behind wastewater treatment facilities"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853372</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel, ftw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264074960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Until this decade one of the major problems with diesel engines is the perception that they were "dirty" compared to a gasoline engine. You could see the exhaust easier, so despite the fact that diesels put out less greenhouse gases than gasoline engines they appeared to be "bad for the environment".</p></div><p>That's funny because truth matched perception. Who'd have thought that? As it turns out, there's a good case for the particulate matter, nitrous oxides, etc, stuff that diesel engines produce a bunch of today, to be pollutants. There isn't a good case for "greenhouse" gasses being pollutants.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until this decade one of the major problems with diesel engines is the perception that they were " dirty " compared to a gasoline engine .
You could see the exhaust easier , so despite the fact that diesels put out less greenhouse gases than gasoline engines they appeared to be " bad for the environment " .That 's funny because truth matched perception .
Who 'd have thought that ?
As it turns out , there 's a good case for the particulate matter , nitrous oxides , etc , stuff that diesel engines produce a bunch of today , to be pollutants .
There is n't a good case for " greenhouse " gasses being pollutants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until this decade one of the major problems with diesel engines is the perception that they were "dirty" compared to a gasoline engine.
You could see the exhaust easier, so despite the fact that diesels put out less greenhouse gases than gasoline engines they appeared to be "bad for the environment".That's funny because truth matched perception.
Who'd have thought that?
As it turns out, there's a good case for the particulate matter, nitrous oxides, etc, stuff that diesel engines produce a bunch of today, to be pollutants.
There isn't a good case for "greenhouse" gasses being pollutants.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30860672</id>
	<title>Re:People don't realise this...</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1264181940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're really not getting this. Cows don't eat corn, they eat grass. This is why in most of the world, cows are fed on grass or grass-like feed (hay, silage etc)</p></div><p>Really how do you explain this? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle\_feeding#Grazing\_systems" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"About 60\% of the world's pasture land is covered by grazing systems.Grazing systems supply approximately 9 percent of the world's production of beef, according to Food and Agriculture Organization FAO statistics."</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..with relatively small amounts of things like oats and wheat.</p> </div><p>
Well corn is the usual feed used to fatten the cows in a short time, <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food\_and\_agriculture/greener-pastures-exec-sum.pdf" title="ucsusa.org" rel="nofollow">60\% of the corn in the US is used to feed livestock</a> [ucsusa.org].
<br> <br>
A lot of the world's livestock is not on marginal land which can not be used for crop production, this is especially true for cattle as they do not fare well in mountainous or boggy ground.
<br> <br>
If all the food waste which was unfit for human consumption was used to make compost it would be even more efficient that feeding it to livestock. According to this <a href="http://www.beeffrompasturetoplate.org/mythmeatproductioniswasteful.aspx#Sixteen\%20pounds\%20of\%20grain" title="beeffrompa...oplate.org" rel="nofollow">pro beef site</a> [beeffrompa...oplate.org] it takes 2.6 lbs of grain for one pound of beef. So even taken propaganda from the other side crops are at least twice as efficient. This figure assumes most of the diet is from grass. Looking at land usage it says one acre can produce 9250 lbs of corn or 3661 lbs of beef. The acreage figure does not include the amount used to grow the grain to feed the cow though.
<br> <br>
It is beyond doubt that we have such a love for milk, eggs and meat that we greatly reduce our farming efficiency. Of course the most efficient system does include animals but at a much lower intensity that we have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're really not getting this .
Cows do n't eat corn , they eat grass .
This is why in most of the world , cows are fed on grass or grass-like feed ( hay , silage etc ) Really how do you explain this ?
" About 60 \ % of the world 's pasture land is covered by grazing systems.Grazing systems supply approximately 9 percent of the world 's production of beef , according to Food and Agriculture Organization FAO statistics .
" [ wikipedia.org ] ..with relatively small amounts of things like oats and wheat .
Well corn is the usual feed used to fatten the cows in a short time , 60 \ % of the corn in the US is used to feed livestock [ ucsusa.org ] .
A lot of the world 's livestock is not on marginal land which can not be used for crop production , this is especially true for cattle as they do not fare well in mountainous or boggy ground .
If all the food waste which was unfit for human consumption was used to make compost it would be even more efficient that feeding it to livestock .
According to this pro beef site [ beeffrompa...oplate.org ] it takes 2.6 lbs of grain for one pound of beef .
So even taken propaganda from the other side crops are at least twice as efficient .
This figure assumes most of the diet is from grass .
Looking at land usage it says one acre can produce 9250 lbs of corn or 3661 lbs of beef .
The acreage figure does not include the amount used to grow the grain to feed the cow though .
It is beyond doubt that we have such a love for milk , eggs and meat that we greatly reduce our farming efficiency .
Of course the most efficient system does include animals but at a much lower intensity that we have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're really not getting this.
Cows don't eat corn, they eat grass.
This is why in most of the world, cows are fed on grass or grass-like feed (hay, silage etc)Really how do you explain this?
"About 60\% of the world's pasture land is covered by grazing systems.Grazing systems supply approximately 9 percent of the world's production of beef, according to Food and Agriculture Organization FAO statistics.
" [wikipedia.org] ..with relatively small amounts of things like oats and wheat.
Well corn is the usual feed used to fatten the cows in a short time, 60\% of the corn in the US is used to feed livestock [ucsusa.org].
A lot of the world's livestock is not on marginal land which can not be used for crop production, this is especially true for cattle as they do not fare well in mountainous or boggy ground.
If all the food waste which was unfit for human consumption was used to make compost it would be even more efficient that feeding it to livestock.
According to this pro beef site [beeffrompa...oplate.org] it takes 2.6 lbs of grain for one pound of beef.
So even taken propaganda from the other side crops are at least twice as efficient.
This figure assumes most of the diet is from grass.
Looking at land usage it says one acre can produce 9250 lbs of corn or 3661 lbs of beef.
The acreage figure does not include the amount used to grow the grain to feed the cow though.
It is beyond doubt that we have such a love for milk, eggs and meat that we greatly reduce our farming efficiency.
Of course the most efficient system does include animals but at a much lower intensity that we have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857752</id>
	<title>Re:One other reason, Algae is more valuable!</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1264159140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the problems concerning biofuels is that there is so much misinformation, half-truths, and FUD going around.</p><p>A lot of it is actually overgeneralization. E.g. a study finds that producing ethanol from corn using a specific process in the US is not energy efficient, and then people conclude that producing ethanol from any source anywhere in the world is not energy efficient.</p><p>Another common claim is "step X of the process uses fossil fuel, therefore, the process is not carbon neutral". This is usually based on the mistaken assumption that the step \_necessarily\_ uses fossil fuel. In this thread, many people are assuming that we feed fertilizer to the algae and that the fertilizer is produced from or using fossil fuel.</p><p>All this makes it very difficult to have a sensible discussion, because many people (on both sides, I'm sure) make assumptions that often turn out to be unnecessary or false. Perhaps we could use something like the <a href="http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt" title="craphound.com">spam solutions form</a> [craphound.com] to capture some of the common pitfalls, so that we don't have to waste a lot of time countering the mistaken assumptions that keep cropping up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the problems concerning biofuels is that there is so much misinformation , half-truths , and FUD going around.A lot of it is actually overgeneralization .
E.g. a study finds that producing ethanol from corn using a specific process in the US is not energy efficient , and then people conclude that producing ethanol from any source anywhere in the world is not energy efficient.Another common claim is " step X of the process uses fossil fuel , therefore , the process is not carbon neutral " .
This is usually based on the mistaken assumption that the step \ _necessarily \ _ uses fossil fuel .
In this thread , many people are assuming that we feed fertilizer to the algae and that the fertilizer is produced from or using fossil fuel.All this makes it very difficult to have a sensible discussion , because many people ( on both sides , I 'm sure ) make assumptions that often turn out to be unnecessary or false .
Perhaps we could use something like the spam solutions form [ craphound.com ] to capture some of the common pitfalls , so that we do n't have to waste a lot of time countering the mistaken assumptions that keep cropping up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the problems concerning biofuels is that there is so much misinformation, half-truths, and FUD going around.A lot of it is actually overgeneralization.
E.g. a study finds that producing ethanol from corn using a specific process in the US is not energy efficient, and then people conclude that producing ethanol from any source anywhere in the world is not energy efficient.Another common claim is "step X of the process uses fossil fuel, therefore, the process is not carbon neutral".
This is usually based on the mistaken assumption that the step \_necessarily\_ uses fossil fuel.
In this thread, many people are assuming that we feed fertilizer to the algae and that the fertilizer is produced from or using fossil fuel.All this makes it very difficult to have a sensible discussion, because many people (on both sides, I'm sure) make assumptions that often turn out to be unnecessary or false.
Perhaps we could use something like the spam solutions form [craphound.com] to capture some of the common pitfalls, so that we don't have to waste a lot of time countering the mistaken assumptions that keep cropping up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855182</id>
	<title>Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1264084680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The vast majority of energy life uses comes from the Sun. Oil and Coal are just massive buried forests like the Amazon (call it a project in carbon sequestering!) Geothermal is useful, but lends to people living near earthquake zones. Wind is good but nobody wants the "eyesore". Hydro is super efficient, but requires flooding land.  (interestingly both Wind and Hydro are "solar" powered too)</p><p>Frankly Algae is probably the very best idea. The oceans cover 75\% of the Earth and life in the Deep Deep ocean is very sparse.  You could build hundreds of square miles of algae farms in the ocean and harvest them like crops. The main problem is dealing with storms in remote ocean locations where you're 1000 miles from land and 5000+ feet from the bottom. "Solar Power" via plants is the most viable option for the long term, there's plenty of ocean to cover and done correctly could even promote live in the lower layers like fishes that feed on stuff dropped from the higher levels. If we want to go to planets, building new ecology in the deep ocean would be a good start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of energy life uses comes from the Sun .
Oil and Coal are just massive buried forests like the Amazon ( call it a project in carbon sequestering !
) Geothermal is useful , but lends to people living near earthquake zones .
Wind is good but nobody wants the " eyesore " .
Hydro is super efficient , but requires flooding land .
( interestingly both Wind and Hydro are " solar " powered too ) Frankly Algae is probably the very best idea .
The oceans cover 75 \ % of the Earth and life in the Deep Deep ocean is very sparse .
You could build hundreds of square miles of algae farms in the ocean and harvest them like crops .
The main problem is dealing with storms in remote ocean locations where you 're 1000 miles from land and 5000 + feet from the bottom .
" Solar Power " via plants is the most viable option for the long term , there 's plenty of ocean to cover and done correctly could even promote live in the lower layers like fishes that feed on stuff dropped from the higher levels .
If we want to go to planets , building new ecology in the deep ocean would be a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of energy life uses comes from the Sun.
Oil and Coal are just massive buried forests like the Amazon (call it a project in carbon sequestering!
) Geothermal is useful, but lends to people living near earthquake zones.
Wind is good but nobody wants the "eyesore".
Hydro is super efficient, but requires flooding land.
(interestingly both Wind and Hydro are "solar" powered too)Frankly Algae is probably the very best idea.
The oceans cover 75\% of the Earth and life in the Deep Deep ocean is very sparse.
You could build hundreds of square miles of algae farms in the ocean and harvest them like crops.
The main problem is dealing with storms in remote ocean locations where you're 1000 miles from land and 5000+ feet from the bottom.
"Solar Power" via plants is the most viable option for the long term, there's plenty of ocean to cover and done correctly could even promote live in the lower layers like fishes that feed on stuff dropped from the higher levels.
If we want to go to planets, building new ecology in the deep ocean would be a good start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851882</id>
	<title>Re:Energy is conserved by law of physics</title>
	<author>BigSlowTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1264070040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some true some false there.  Electrons aren't created during power generation, but they are moved around.  They don't come from mass. There does have to be a power plant and saying 'use hydrogen and there won't be any pollution' is definitely missing the issue.</p><p>Algae biofuel = solar power harvesting via photosynthesis.  The algae contain more energy once grown, but it might not be worthwhile to do all the extra work to get that energy into a useful form.  It is theoretically possible, but so are highly efficient solar cells.  Only time will actually tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some true some false there .
Electrons are n't created during power generation , but they are moved around .
They do n't come from mass .
There does have to be a power plant and saying 'use hydrogen and there wo n't be any pollution ' is definitely missing the issue.Algae biofuel = solar power harvesting via photosynthesis .
The algae contain more energy once grown , but it might not be worthwhile to do all the extra work to get that energy into a useful form .
It is theoretically possible , but so are highly efficient solar cells .
Only time will actually tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some true some false there.
Electrons aren't created during power generation, but they are moved around.
They don't come from mass.
There does have to be a power plant and saying 'use hydrogen and there won't be any pollution' is definitely missing the issue.Algae biofuel = solar power harvesting via photosynthesis.
The algae contain more energy once grown, but it might not be worthwhile to do all the extra work to get that energy into a useful form.
It is theoretically possible, but so are highly efficient solar cells.
Only time will actually tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30863874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30862640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30860672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30868188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30860172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30862280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_2024202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30862640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857280
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30860672
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30860172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30862280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30868188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30863874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30856212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30854376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30857712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30852506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_2024202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30851418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30853446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_2024202.30855268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
