<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_31_1327238</id>
	<title>Obama Budget To Triple Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264948140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"When President Obama said in his State of the Union address on Wednesday that the country should build 'a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants,' it was one of the few times he got bipartisan applause. Now the NY Times reports that administration officials have confirmed their 2011 federal budget request next week will <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/science/earth/30nuke.html">raise potential loan guarantees for nuclear projects to more than $54 billion</a>, from $18.5 billion, and a new Energy Department panel will examine a vastly expanded list of options for nuclear waste, including a new kind of nuclear reactor that would use some of it. The Energy Department appears to be <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&amp;sid=aC7VY11v6aMw">getting close to offering its first nuclear loan guarantee</a>. Earlier this week, Southern Co. Chief Executive David Ratcliffe said the company expects to finalize an application for a loan guarantee 'within the next couple months,' while Scana Corp., which has also applied, is 'a couple months behind Southern' and is hopeful of receiving a conditional award 'sometime in the next months.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " When President Obama said in his State of the Union address on Wednesday that the country should build 'a new generation of safe , clean nuclear power plants, ' it was one of the few times he got bipartisan applause .
Now the NY Times reports that administration officials have confirmed their 2011 federal budget request next week will raise potential loan guarantees for nuclear projects to more than $ 54 billion , from $ 18.5 billion , and a new Energy Department panel will examine a vastly expanded list of options for nuclear waste , including a new kind of nuclear reactor that would use some of it .
The Energy Department appears to be getting close to offering its first nuclear loan guarantee .
Earlier this week , Southern Co. Chief Executive David Ratcliffe said the company expects to finalize an application for a loan guarantee 'within the next couple months, ' while Scana Corp. , which has also applied , is 'a couple months behind Southern ' and is hopeful of receiving a conditional award 'sometime in the next months .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "When President Obama said in his State of the Union address on Wednesday that the country should build 'a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants,' it was one of the few times he got bipartisan applause.
Now the NY Times reports that administration officials have confirmed their 2011 federal budget request next week will raise potential loan guarantees for nuclear projects to more than $54 billion, from $18.5 billion, and a new Energy Department panel will examine a vastly expanded list of options for nuclear waste, including a new kind of nuclear reactor that would use some of it.
The Energy Department appears to be getting close to offering its first nuclear loan guarantee.
Earlier this week, Southern Co. Chief Executive David Ratcliffe said the company expects to finalize an application for a loan guarantee 'within the next couple months,' while Scana Corp., which has also applied, is 'a couple months behind Southern' and is hopeful of receiving a conditional award 'sometime in the next months.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970376</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>Artraze</author>
	<datestamp>1264953600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somewhat ironically, they probably need the loan guarantees \_because\_ of the federal government.  With all the waffling over things like waste disposal and even simply allowing nuclear power, a power plant is far from guaranteed to go smoothly.  Smoothness is generally what lenders care about because any bumps in the road are a liability.  (What if the government changes its mind about a plant halfway through construction?,  What if it gets shut down halfway through its expected life?)</p><p>Anyway, that's not to say nuclear power is particularly cheap, because it's not always (basically depends on the availability of coal).  However, it's not an inherently bad investment, just a risky one.  And actually, for the same reasons, good luck getting a loan for a coal plant...</p><p>The one other thing is that with all the billions we're spending on the "green" crap and stimulus, can't we give a loan for a nuclear plant?  They need a tremendous amount of workers to build, generate green power, and make money to pay the tax payer back.  God forbid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhat ironically , they probably need the loan guarantees \ _because \ _ of the federal government .
With all the waffling over things like waste disposal and even simply allowing nuclear power , a power plant is far from guaranteed to go smoothly .
Smoothness is generally what lenders care about because any bumps in the road are a liability .
( What if the government changes its mind about a plant halfway through construction ? , What if it gets shut down halfway through its expected life ?
) Anyway , that 's not to say nuclear power is particularly cheap , because it 's not always ( basically depends on the availability of coal ) .
However , it 's not an inherently bad investment , just a risky one .
And actually , for the same reasons , good luck getting a loan for a coal plant...The one other thing is that with all the billions we 're spending on the " green " crap and stimulus , ca n't we give a loan for a nuclear plant ?
They need a tremendous amount of workers to build , generate green power , and make money to pay the tax payer back .
God forbid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhat ironically, they probably need the loan guarantees \_because\_ of the federal government.
With all the waffling over things like waste disposal and even simply allowing nuclear power, a power plant is far from guaranteed to go smoothly.
Smoothness is generally what lenders care about because any bumps in the road are a liability.
(What if the government changes its mind about a plant halfway through construction?,  What if it gets shut down halfway through its expected life?
)Anyway, that's not to say nuclear power is particularly cheap, because it's not always (basically depends on the availability of coal).
However, it's not an inherently bad investment, just a risky one.
And actually, for the same reasons, good luck getting a loan for a coal plant...The one other thing is that with all the billions we're spending on the "green" crap and stimulus, can't we give a loan for a nuclear plant?
They need a tremendous amount of workers to build, generate green power, and make money to pay the tax payer back.
God forbid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970968</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ever since Jimmy Carter's dunderheaded executive order</i></p><p>As a viewer/listener of right wing TV and radio you perhaps didn't get the memo, but there have been FIVE (5) FULL REPUBLICAN Presidential terms since Jimmy Carter left office THIRTY YEARS AGO.</p><p>I realize that some of the nuances can get lost in the daily dose of sarcasm and bile, all delivered with the cocksure tone of "if you disagree with me you're a moron, or worse".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since Jimmy Carter 's dunderheaded executive orderAs a viewer/listener of right wing TV and radio you perhaps did n't get the memo , but there have been FIVE ( 5 ) FULL REPUBLICAN Presidential terms since Jimmy Carter left office THIRTY YEARS AGO.I realize that some of the nuances can get lost in the daily dose of sarcasm and bile , all delivered with the cocksure tone of " if you disagree with me you 're a moron , or worse " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since Jimmy Carter's dunderheaded executive orderAs a viewer/listener of right wing TV and radio you perhaps didn't get the memo, but there have been FIVE (5) FULL REPUBLICAN Presidential terms since Jimmy Carter left office THIRTY YEARS AGO.I realize that some of the nuances can get lost in the daily dose of sarcasm and bile, all delivered with the cocksure tone of "if you disagree with me you're a moron, or worse".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973964</id>
	<title>We also need Traveling Wave Reactors</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1264933800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here are <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/" title="technologyreview.com">some</a> [technologyreview.com] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling\_wave\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org">links</a> [wikipedia.org], and here is a link to <a href="http://www.blip.tv/file/3143664" title="www.blip.tv">a video presentation</a> [www.blip.tv] given to the Department of Nuclear Engineering at Berkeley. TWR is teh bomb (well, not literally).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are some [ technologyreview.com ] links [ wikipedia.org ] , and here is a link to a video presentation [ www.blip.tv ] given to the Department of Nuclear Engineering at Berkeley .
TWR is teh bomb ( well , not literally ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are some [technologyreview.com] links [wikipedia.org], and here is a link to a video presentation [www.blip.tv] given to the Department of Nuclear Engineering at Berkeley.
TWR is teh bomb (well, not literally).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974576</id>
	<title>Re:Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1264937280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I also think the thorium reactors might be cool too. However there are some concerns as to what extracting all that thorium out of seawater might do to the environment.</p></div></blockquote><p>There's no need to extract it from seawater.  Thorium is abundant and easy to mine.  In fact more than we'll need for hundreds of years has already been mined: it's in coal tailings, ironically. (Disclaimer: my uncle wrote the linked post.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also think the thorium reactors might be cool too .
However there are some concerns as to what extracting all that thorium out of seawater might do to the environment.There 's no need to extract it from seawater .
Thorium is abundant and easy to mine .
In fact more than we 'll need for hundreds of years has already been mined : it 's in coal tailings , ironically .
( Disclaimer : my uncle wrote the linked post .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also think the thorium reactors might be cool too.
However there are some concerns as to what extracting all that thorium out of seawater might do to the environment.There's no need to extract it from seawater.
Thorium is abundant and easy to mine.
In fact more than we'll need for hundreds of years has already been mined: it's in coal tailings, ironically.
(Disclaimer: my uncle wrote the linked post.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970710</id>
	<title>Nuclear waste? We know the solution for decades!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuclear waste to the moon! We give both <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/31/0033206/Give-Space-a-Chance-Says-Phil-Plait?from=rss&amp;utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+Slashdot\%2Fslashdot+(Slashdot)" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">space a chance</a> [slashdot.org] and Earth the energy!

And while you are at building the waste storage, please give it a proper name. Since it is going to be the first such base, name it after the first letter of the greek alphabet.

Signed,

John K.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear waste to the moon !
We give both space a chance [ slashdot.org ] and Earth the energy !
And while you are at building the waste storage , please give it a proper name .
Since it is going to be the first such base , name it after the first letter of the greek alphabet .
Signed , John K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear waste to the moon!
We give both space a chance [slashdot.org] and Earth the energy!
And while you are at building the waste storage, please give it a proper name.
Since it is going to be the first such base, name it after the first letter of the greek alphabet.
Signed,

John K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972714</id>
	<title>Re:In the world of energy choices ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You couldn't be more wrong.  Here is why:</p><p>Financial:  The reason no one has built a plant for 30+ years is not a financial one, but a political one.  The accident at Three Mile Island caused the cessation of building plants in the U.S.  Then when Chernobyl happened in '86, it just further rooted the blind fear in nuclear power.</p><p>Enviroment:  Nuclear power is a very clean energy source.  Yes, the nuclear waste has to be buried, but the strict regulations on the waste containers ensures they will not leak.  The leakage in Hanford happened while they were transferring nuclear waste from one container to another.  There has been no recorded event of a waste container in the U.S. actually failing and leaking nuclear waste.</p><p>Health:  There is no documented proof to support that people who work in a nuclear power plant are more susceptible to health risks.  There was an unreported occurrence of a nuclear reactor in the northeast that had a crack in it sometime in the late 80's early 90's.  The reactor was shut down and a man jumped into the reactor to fix the crack.  This crack also caused the whole nuclear power plant to fill up with radioactive gas like a balloon.  To get rid of the gas, they opened all the doors and windows to the plant and there were absolutely no enviroment or health risks with doing this.  I am sure you understand why it was not reported.</p><p>Security:  Security surrounding nuclear power plants is more strict than at the White House.  If you have smoked weed ONCE in your life, you will not get security clearance to work at a nuclear power plant.  There is also no viable threat to having a plane flying into a nuclear power plant.  Any plane would not get through the concrete and steel exterior walls, let alone having any chance of getting to the reactor to cause a meltdown.  As far as companies that distribute nuclear materials, again, the distribution is strictly monitored by a multitude of organizations including our own government.  The chances that someone would be able to successfully steal or get illegally sold nuclear materials is about as remote as the possibility of anyone on these comments getting to hook up with Megan Fox.  It won't happen.  Ever.</p><p>No Alternatives:  There are alternative forms of power, but none of them produce NEARLY the amount of energy produced from nuclear power.</p><p>Providing loan guarantees to nuclear power plants is to ensure that the loans do not get denied for political reasons, nothing more.  People who are anti-nuclear power have absolutely no understanding or viable education into how it works.  I for one applaud Obama for ensuring the growth of nuclear power usage.  Nuclear power is grossly misunderstood and that can only change once people stop believing whatever the hell CNN says about it.  They have no idea what they are talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could n't be more wrong .
Here is why : Financial : The reason no one has built a plant for 30 + years is not a financial one , but a political one .
The accident at Three Mile Island caused the cessation of building plants in the U.S. Then when Chernobyl happened in '86 , it just further rooted the blind fear in nuclear power.Enviroment : Nuclear power is a very clean energy source .
Yes , the nuclear waste has to be buried , but the strict regulations on the waste containers ensures they will not leak .
The leakage in Hanford happened while they were transferring nuclear waste from one container to another .
There has been no recorded event of a waste container in the U.S. actually failing and leaking nuclear waste.Health : There is no documented proof to support that people who work in a nuclear power plant are more susceptible to health risks .
There was an unreported occurrence of a nuclear reactor in the northeast that had a crack in it sometime in the late 80 's early 90 's .
The reactor was shut down and a man jumped into the reactor to fix the crack .
This crack also caused the whole nuclear power plant to fill up with radioactive gas like a balloon .
To get rid of the gas , they opened all the doors and windows to the plant and there were absolutely no enviroment or health risks with doing this .
I am sure you understand why it was not reported.Security : Security surrounding nuclear power plants is more strict than at the White House .
If you have smoked weed ONCE in your life , you will not get security clearance to work at a nuclear power plant .
There is also no viable threat to having a plane flying into a nuclear power plant .
Any plane would not get through the concrete and steel exterior walls , let alone having any chance of getting to the reactor to cause a meltdown .
As far as companies that distribute nuclear materials , again , the distribution is strictly monitored by a multitude of organizations including our own government .
The chances that someone would be able to successfully steal or get illegally sold nuclear materials is about as remote as the possibility of anyone on these comments getting to hook up with Megan Fox .
It wo n't happen .
Ever.No Alternatives : There are alternative forms of power , but none of them produce NEARLY the amount of energy produced from nuclear power.Providing loan guarantees to nuclear power plants is to ensure that the loans do not get denied for political reasons , nothing more .
People who are anti-nuclear power have absolutely no understanding or viable education into how it works .
I for one applaud Obama for ensuring the growth of nuclear power usage .
Nuclear power is grossly misunderstood and that can only change once people stop believing whatever the hell CNN says about it .
They have no idea what they are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You couldn't be more wrong.
Here is why:Financial:  The reason no one has built a plant for 30+ years is not a financial one, but a political one.
The accident at Three Mile Island caused the cessation of building plants in the U.S.  Then when Chernobyl happened in '86, it just further rooted the blind fear in nuclear power.Enviroment:  Nuclear power is a very clean energy source.
Yes, the nuclear waste has to be buried, but the strict regulations on the waste containers ensures they will not leak.
The leakage in Hanford happened while they were transferring nuclear waste from one container to another.
There has been no recorded event of a waste container in the U.S. actually failing and leaking nuclear waste.Health:  There is no documented proof to support that people who work in a nuclear power plant are more susceptible to health risks.
There was an unreported occurrence of a nuclear reactor in the northeast that had a crack in it sometime in the late 80's early 90's.
The reactor was shut down and a man jumped into the reactor to fix the crack.
This crack also caused the whole nuclear power plant to fill up with radioactive gas like a balloon.
To get rid of the gas, they opened all the doors and windows to the plant and there were absolutely no enviroment or health risks with doing this.
I am sure you understand why it was not reported.Security:  Security surrounding nuclear power plants is more strict than at the White House.
If you have smoked weed ONCE in your life, you will not get security clearance to work at a nuclear power plant.
There is also no viable threat to having a plane flying into a nuclear power plant.
Any plane would not get through the concrete and steel exterior walls, let alone having any chance of getting to the reactor to cause a meltdown.
As far as companies that distribute nuclear materials, again, the distribution is strictly monitored by a multitude of organizations including our own government.
The chances that someone would be able to successfully steal or get illegally sold nuclear materials is about as remote as the possibility of anyone on these comments getting to hook up with Megan Fox.
It won't happen.
Ever.No Alternatives:  There are alternative forms of power, but none of them produce NEARLY the amount of energy produced from nuclear power.Providing loan guarantees to nuclear power plants is to ensure that the loans do not get denied for political reasons, nothing more.
People who are anti-nuclear power have absolutely no understanding or viable education into how it works.
I for one applaud Obama for ensuring the growth of nuclear power usage.
Nuclear power is grossly misunderstood and that can only change once people stop believing whatever the hell CNN says about it.
They have no idea what they are talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974940</id>
	<title>State of the Coonion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you mean the State of the Coonion speech? Like or not, you dimwits, you're stuck with this empty-headed africoon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you mean the State of the Coonion speech ?
Like or not , you dimwits , you 're stuck with this empty-headed africoon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you mean the State of the Coonion speech?
Like or not, you dimwits, you're stuck with this empty-headed africoon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973264</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>cekander</author>
	<datestamp>1264930260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"wack job"
</p><p>
Hmm... not too objective. Please point me to a nuclear program in the US that has actually provided a cheaper alternative to THE PEOPLE, net total. The coal, and yes even wood, required support the needs for a comfortable human life are very low. We need to reduce power hungry life-styles and infrastructures. Seriously. You don't need to compromise much. Just ridiculous things like sky-scrapers and other plagues of human ego that have never actually realized a positive benefit for society, and now with internet, are more useless than ever.
</p><p>
Why are we dumping tons of money into this? If it were fiscally sound, I might be on the other side of the fence, but I haven't seen the data, and promise of environmentally clean recycling at all costs just doesn't convince me of the necessity, at least not yet. Right now, the US economy and ENTIRE world are showing signs of unpredictability and stress. It seems maybe we should anticipate hardship and PUT MONEY INTO increasing sustainability and efficiency.
</p><p>
We are stupid, and could have so much more for so much less. This just seems like another ridiculous burden on top of all the others. I suppose... just keep fueling this thing, goddamnit.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" wack job " Hmm... not too objective .
Please point me to a nuclear program in the US that has actually provided a cheaper alternative to THE PEOPLE , net total .
The coal , and yes even wood , required support the needs for a comfortable human life are very low .
We need to reduce power hungry life-styles and infrastructures .
Seriously. You do n't need to compromise much .
Just ridiculous things like sky-scrapers and other plagues of human ego that have never actually realized a positive benefit for society , and now with internet , are more useless than ever .
Why are we dumping tons of money into this ?
If it were fiscally sound , I might be on the other side of the fence , but I have n't seen the data , and promise of environmentally clean recycling at all costs just does n't convince me of the necessity , at least not yet .
Right now , the US economy and ENTIRE world are showing signs of unpredictability and stress .
It seems maybe we should anticipate hardship and PUT MONEY INTO increasing sustainability and efficiency .
We are stupid , and could have so much more for so much less .
This just seems like another ridiculous burden on top of all the others .
I suppose... just keep fueling this thing , goddamnit .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"wack job"

Hmm... not too objective.
Please point me to a nuclear program in the US that has actually provided a cheaper alternative to THE PEOPLE, net total.
The coal, and yes even wood, required support the needs for a comfortable human life are very low.
We need to reduce power hungry life-styles and infrastructures.
Seriously. You don't need to compromise much.
Just ridiculous things like sky-scrapers and other plagues of human ego that have never actually realized a positive benefit for society, and now with internet, are more useless than ever.
Why are we dumping tons of money into this?
If it were fiscally sound, I might be on the other side of the fence, but I haven't seen the data, and promise of environmentally clean recycling at all costs just doesn't convince me of the necessity, at least not yet.
Right now, the US economy and ENTIRE world are showing signs of unpredictability and stress.
It seems maybe we should anticipate hardship and PUT MONEY INTO increasing sustainability and efficiency.
We are stupid, and could have so much more for so much less.
This just seems like another ridiculous burden on top of all the others.
I suppose... just keep fueling this thing, goddamnit.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30983500</id>
	<title>Nuclear Waste and Geothermal Energy</title>
	<author>LUH 3418</author>
	<datestamp>1265049120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see alot of people talking about nuclear waste and how to handle it. Wouldn't it be possible to use some of that to build RTGs or something similar? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope\_thermoelectric\_generator) Those materials are releasing energy, if we could put it to use, then this "waste" would become a useful asset.
<br> <br>
And about geothermal energy becoming our main source of energy someday. It all sounds nice, but, wouldn't it be a bit risky if we used geothermal energy for almost 100\% of our energy needs? I'm not a geologist, but it seems to me like this could accelerate the cooling of the earth's core... And if it ever became solid, our planet could be without a magnetic field. Of course, we're talking about very long term consequences, but it would suck to have the earth lose its atmosphere to space as Mars did... Especially if we never even manage to leave the solar system. Of course, if this possibility is millions of years away, then I suppose it could be acceptable to use geothermal energy until we can find something better (I'm hoping we'll have managed fusion, 1000 years from now).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see alot of people talking about nuclear waste and how to handle it .
Would n't it be possible to use some of that to build RTGs or something similar ?
( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope \ _thermoelectric \ _generator ) Those materials are releasing energy , if we could put it to use , then this " waste " would become a useful asset .
And about geothermal energy becoming our main source of energy someday .
It all sounds nice , but , would n't it be a bit risky if we used geothermal energy for almost 100 \ % of our energy needs ?
I 'm not a geologist , but it seems to me like this could accelerate the cooling of the earth 's core... And if it ever became solid , our planet could be without a magnetic field .
Of course , we 're talking about very long term consequences , but it would suck to have the earth lose its atmosphere to space as Mars did... Especially if we never even manage to leave the solar system .
Of course , if this possibility is millions of years away , then I suppose it could be acceptable to use geothermal energy until we can find something better ( I 'm hoping we 'll have managed fusion , 1000 years from now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see alot of people talking about nuclear waste and how to handle it.
Wouldn't it be possible to use some of that to build RTGs or something similar?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope\_thermoelectric\_generator) Those materials are releasing energy, if we could put it to use, then this "waste" would become a useful asset.
And about geothermal energy becoming our main source of energy someday.
It all sounds nice, but, wouldn't it be a bit risky if we used geothermal energy for almost 100\% of our energy needs?
I'm not a geologist, but it seems to me like this could accelerate the cooling of the earth's core... And if it ever became solid, our planet could be without a magnetic field.
Of course, we're talking about very long term consequences, but it would suck to have the earth lose its atmosphere to space as Mars did... Especially if we never even manage to leave the solar system.
Of course, if this possibility is millions of years away, then I suppose it could be acceptable to use geothermal energy until we can find something better (I'm hoping we'll have managed fusion, 1000 years from now).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971330</id>
	<title>Give 'em all the nukes they want</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1264961520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as they don't blow up the planet before <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Lost\_episodes#Season\_6:\_2010" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">May</a> [wikipedia.org], it's all good. I mean, after that last <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6072513.shtml" title="cbsnews.com" rel="nofollow">scare</a> [cbsnews.com]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they do n't blow up the planet before May [ wikipedia.org ] , it 's all good .
I mean , after that last scare [ cbsnews.com ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they don't blow up the planet before May [wikipedia.org], it's all good.
I mean, after that last scare [cbsnews.com]...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971408</id>
	<title>AWESOME, but, its still politics</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264962240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see, Chicgao based Exelon, which operates one of the larger nuclear fleets in the USA, has a been a big supporter of Obama since even before he ran for Senator, and now look what the payback is.</p><p>Still, it is the hallmark of democracy that often times big political demands make for good policy.</p><p>Let Republicans remember that before we start blasting Obama on this, GEORGE W BUSH the GREAT made the essentially same demands on Congress.  Let's hope that on this one deal, we can get Obama a vote in favor of it because we know the nutty left is not going to go along with nukes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , Chicgao based Exelon , which operates one of the larger nuclear fleets in the USA , has a been a big supporter of Obama since even before he ran for Senator , and now look what the payback is.Still , it is the hallmark of democracy that often times big political demands make for good policy.Let Republicans remember that before we start blasting Obama on this , GEORGE W BUSH the GREAT made the essentially same demands on Congress .
Let 's hope that on this one deal , we can get Obama a vote in favor of it because we know the nutty left is not going to go along with nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, Chicgao based Exelon, which operates one of the larger nuclear fleets in the USA, has a been a big supporter of Obama since even before he ran for Senator, and now look what the payback is.Still, it is the hallmark of democracy that often times big political demands make for good policy.Let Republicans remember that before we start blasting Obama on this, GEORGE W BUSH the GREAT made the essentially same demands on Congress.
Let's hope that on this one deal, we can get Obama a vote in favor of it because we know the nutty left is not going to go along with nukes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30978694</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>MJMullinII</author>
	<datestamp>1265019300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I read somewhere that the guarantees are required due to the extensive plant construction time of about 9 years,</p></div><p>That was certainly a problem with the last generation of Nuclear Power Plants.  They were built like cute playthings, rather than investments actually creating a product to sell.</p><p>Every single plant was different, every single plant was a custom design that had to be thoroughly researched by the NRC (just to ensure the design itself was sound), every single plant needed custom tools built for it.</p><p>However, the hope with the General III reactors (the last were General II designs) is to have them built like any other product, with efficiency in mind.</p><p>The Westinghouse AP1000 model is designed to be built in prefabricated modules in a central location and shipped to the actual building site by road, rail and/or barge.  They hope to have the plant producing electricity 3 years from the time the first slab of concrete is poured.</p><p>Can they do it?  Time will only tell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read somewhere that the guarantees are required due to the extensive plant construction time of about 9 years,That was certainly a problem with the last generation of Nuclear Power Plants .
They were built like cute playthings , rather than investments actually creating a product to sell.Every single plant was different , every single plant was a custom design that had to be thoroughly researched by the NRC ( just to ensure the design itself was sound ) , every single plant needed custom tools built for it.However , the hope with the General III reactors ( the last were General II designs ) is to have them built like any other product , with efficiency in mind.The Westinghouse AP1000 model is designed to be built in prefabricated modules in a central location and shipped to the actual building site by road , rail and/or barge .
They hope to have the plant producing electricity 3 years from the time the first slab of concrete is poured.Can they do it ?
Time will only tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read somewhere that the guarantees are required due to the extensive plant construction time of about 9 years,That was certainly a problem with the last generation of Nuclear Power Plants.
They were built like cute playthings, rather than investments actually creating a product to sell.Every single plant was different, every single plant was a custom design that had to be thoroughly researched by the NRC (just to ensure the design itself was sound), every single plant needed custom tools built for it.However, the hope with the General III reactors (the last were General II designs) is to have them built like any other product, with efficiency in mind.The Westinghouse AP1000 model is designed to be built in prefabricated modules in a central location and shipped to the actual building site by road, rail and/or barge.
They hope to have the plant producing electricity 3 years from the time the first slab of concrete is poured.Can they do it?
Time will only tell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970616</id>
	<title>We need more</title>
	<author>Groggnrath</author>
	<datestamp>1264955940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in Vermont. The reactor here (and the biggest source of power we have other than HydoQuebec) is dead. It's outlived it's lifespan by 10 years, running at 110\% original capacity , it's had a cooling tower collapse, and now it's leaking radioactive materials from pipes nobody knew were there.<br> <br>

We need a new plant. Desperately. My hope is that this will help push more companies (like Entergy) to build rather than to shut down, cut there losses, and run away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Vermont .
The reactor here ( and the biggest source of power we have other than HydoQuebec ) is dead .
It 's outlived it 's lifespan by 10 years , running at 110 \ % original capacity , it 's had a cooling tower collapse , and now it 's leaking radioactive materials from pipes nobody knew were there .
We need a new plant .
Desperately. My hope is that this will help push more companies ( like Entergy ) to build rather than to shut down , cut there losses , and run away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Vermont.
The reactor here (and the biggest source of power we have other than HydoQuebec) is dead.
It's outlived it's lifespan by 10 years, running at 110\% original capacity , it's had a cooling tower collapse, and now it's leaking radioactive materials from pipes nobody knew were there.
We need a new plant.
Desperately. My hope is that this will help push more companies (like Entergy) to build rather than to shut down, cut there losses, and run away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970398</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1264953780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because a nuclear plant has high initial costs. You need an investment of billions of dollars and then you need to wait years for construction before the thing can power itself on and start generating energy. That doesn't mean that nuclear is nonviable - it's very cheap once the plant is built - but it does provide a very high barrier to entry that, without loans, only the rich oil companies (who really don't care for competition) are capable of crossing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because a nuclear plant has high initial costs .
You need an investment of billions of dollars and then you need to wait years for construction before the thing can power itself on and start generating energy .
That does n't mean that nuclear is nonviable - it 's very cheap once the plant is built - but it does provide a very high barrier to entry that , without loans , only the rich oil companies ( who really do n't care for competition ) are capable of crossing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because a nuclear plant has high initial costs.
You need an investment of billions of dollars and then you need to wait years for construction before the thing can power itself on and start generating energy.
That doesn't mean that nuclear is nonviable - it's very cheap once the plant is built - but it does provide a very high barrier to entry that, without loans, only the rich oil companies (who really don't care for competition) are capable of crossing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970670</id>
	<title>Re:Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1264956540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if it's so great and trouble free, then why isn't it being touted as The Great Solution?</p><p>Every time I hear about some New Technology it's always advertised with all its advantages, and any disadvantage is swept under the rug.  I've heard of sodium cooled breeder reactors for a decade.  Has anyone built any of these reactors on a commercial scale anywhere in the world?  If not, why not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if it 's so great and trouble free , then why is n't it being touted as The Great Solution ? Every time I hear about some New Technology it 's always advertised with all its advantages , and any disadvantage is swept under the rug .
I 've heard of sodium cooled breeder reactors for a decade .
Has anyone built any of these reactors on a commercial scale anywhere in the world ?
If not , why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if it's so great and trouble free, then why isn't it being touted as The Great Solution?Every time I hear about some New Technology it's always advertised with all its advantages, and any disadvantage is swept under the rug.
I've heard of sodium cooled breeder reactors for a decade.
Has anyone built any of these reactors on a commercial scale anywhere in the world?
If not, why not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971382</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264962060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation.</p></div><p>A lawyer-powered reactor?  Sounds like the whack-jobs are finally on to something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation.A lawyer-powered reactor ?
Sounds like the whack-jobs are finally on to something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation.A lawyer-powered reactor?
Sounds like the whack-jobs are finally on to something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974672</id>
	<title>Re:Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors</title>
	<author>GrantRobertson</author>
	<datestamp>1264937880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I read that Thorium "could" be extracted from seawater and thought that meant that it "is" extracted from seawater. Perhaps the article I read mentioned that as a supposedly more environmentally friendly way of getting it. However, if you can mine it faster, then guess which way we will get it.</p><p>All in all, it looks as if we are in for some interesting changes. I think we need to work on both Thorium and Fast Breeders. This all does make me wonder if the energy companies have been dragging their feet simply because they want to keep energy prices high. What we need is a "Race to the Moon" level program to get this done as soon as possible. It would mean an end to petroleum dependence and a lot of good jobs that can't be farmed out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I read that Thorium " could " be extracted from seawater and thought that meant that it " is " extracted from seawater .
Perhaps the article I read mentioned that as a supposedly more environmentally friendly way of getting it .
However , if you can mine it faster , then guess which way we will get it.All in all , it looks as if we are in for some interesting changes .
I think we need to work on both Thorium and Fast Breeders .
This all does make me wonder if the energy companies have been dragging their feet simply because they want to keep energy prices high .
What we need is a " Race to the Moon " level program to get this done as soon as possible .
It would mean an end to petroleum dependence and a lot of good jobs that ca n't be farmed out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I read that Thorium "could" be extracted from seawater and thought that meant that it "is" extracted from seawater.
Perhaps the article I read mentioned that as a supposedly more environmentally friendly way of getting it.
However, if you can mine it faster, then guess which way we will get it.All in all, it looks as if we are in for some interesting changes.
I think we need to work on both Thorium and Fast Breeders.
This all does make me wonder if the energy companies have been dragging their feet simply because they want to keep energy prices high.
What we need is a "Race to the Moon" level program to get this done as soon as possible.
It would mean an end to petroleum dependence and a lot of good jobs that can't be farmed out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30979186</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1265026200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another huge problem in the US is the way power plants are billed for waste. They are charged per kWh of *electricity* produced. So there is no financial incentive to reduce waste per unit electricity being generated. Its no surprise that once through PWR are the most popular choice.
<br> <br>
Things would look very different if they were billed per kilogram of waste produced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another huge problem in the US is the way power plants are billed for waste .
They are charged per kWh of * electricity * produced .
So there is no financial incentive to reduce waste per unit electricity being generated .
Its no surprise that once through PWR are the most popular choice .
Things would look very different if they were billed per kilogram of waste produced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another huge problem in the US is the way power plants are billed for waste.
They are charged per kWh of *electricity* produced.
So there is no financial incentive to reduce waste per unit electricity being generated.
Its no surprise that once through PWR are the most popular choice.
Things would look very different if they were billed per kilogram of waste produced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971236</id>
	<title>Fusion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this include funding for nuclear fusion projects in the US? Or just the current fission reactor based technology?
One scientist said there's a 50\% chance of fusion becoming a reality 20 years after it gets serious funding. I agree with him</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this include funding for nuclear fusion projects in the US ?
Or just the current fission reactor based technology ?
One scientist said there 's a 50 \ % chance of fusion becoming a reality 20 years after it gets serious funding .
I agree with him</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this include funding for nuclear fusion projects in the US?
Or just the current fission reactor based technology?
One scientist said there's a 50\% chance of fusion becoming a reality 20 years after it gets serious funding.
I agree with him</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971314</id>
	<title>This is backwards</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264961460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The feds should not be picking winners. They have a long history of doing the wrong thing because of lobbyists. THink of our ethanol debacle. Right now, EACH of the YEARLY fossil fuel subsidies  outweigh all that we have spent on ethanol. In addition, nuke subsidiy is bigger than ethanol. Likewise, the total subsidiy for Ethanol is bigger than the total subsidy for ALL OTHER AE (wind, solar PV, solar thermal, geo-thermal, etc). ALl of this is the wrong way. There is a MUCH simplier and better approach to this.<ol>
<li>kill all subsidies and loans guarantee as currently defined.</li>
<li>Offer up loan guarantee for any clean energy that is a set size and is for American products (no different than any other nation).</li>
<li>Offer up a LIMITED TIME subsidy for ALL CLEAN energies. It should be for limited time of say 10 years. This will include things like Nukes, but also Wind, Solar PV, solar thermal, geo-thermal, ethanol, etc. BUT, it would be the same across the board.</li>
<li>Offer up an ADDITIONAL limited time subsidy for ALL CLEAN ENERGY THAT IS BASE LOAD POWER. This will be items like nukes, geo-thermal, and even ethanol.</li>
<li>Offer up another subsidy for any energy storage. That would be such things as nukes, geo-thermal, salts stored heat, air, hydro, etc. This  would help to flatten  the demand vs. supply issue. Also, it would allow for energy in post disaster times.</li>
</ol><p>
Our problem is that due to lobbyist, we have an INSANE approach to energy. It needs to be changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The feds should not be picking winners .
They have a long history of doing the wrong thing because of lobbyists .
THink of our ethanol debacle .
Right now , EACH of the YEARLY fossil fuel subsidies outweigh all that we have spent on ethanol .
In addition , nuke subsidiy is bigger than ethanol .
Likewise , the total subsidiy for Ethanol is bigger than the total subsidy for ALL OTHER AE ( wind , solar PV , solar thermal , geo-thermal , etc ) .
ALl of this is the wrong way .
There is a MUCH simplier and better approach to this .
kill all subsidies and loans guarantee as currently defined .
Offer up loan guarantee for any clean energy that is a set size and is for American products ( no different than any other nation ) .
Offer up a LIMITED TIME subsidy for ALL CLEAN energies .
It should be for limited time of say 10 years .
This will include things like Nukes , but also Wind , Solar PV , solar thermal , geo-thermal , ethanol , etc .
BUT , it would be the same across the board .
Offer up an ADDITIONAL limited time subsidy for ALL CLEAN ENERGY THAT IS BASE LOAD POWER .
This will be items like nukes , geo-thermal , and even ethanol .
Offer up another subsidy for any energy storage .
That would be such things as nukes , geo-thermal , salts stored heat , air , hydro , etc .
This would help to flatten the demand vs. supply issue .
Also , it would allow for energy in post disaster times .
Our problem is that due to lobbyist , we have an INSANE approach to energy .
It needs to be changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The feds should not be picking winners.
They have a long history of doing the wrong thing because of lobbyists.
THink of our ethanol debacle.
Right now, EACH of the YEARLY fossil fuel subsidies  outweigh all that we have spent on ethanol.
In addition, nuke subsidiy is bigger than ethanol.
Likewise, the total subsidiy for Ethanol is bigger than the total subsidy for ALL OTHER AE (wind, solar PV, solar thermal, geo-thermal, etc).
ALl of this is the wrong way.
There is a MUCH simplier and better approach to this.
kill all subsidies and loans guarantee as currently defined.
Offer up loan guarantee for any clean energy that is a set size and is for American products (no different than any other nation).
Offer up a LIMITED TIME subsidy for ALL CLEAN energies.
It should be for limited time of say 10 years.
This will include things like Nukes, but also Wind, Solar PV, solar thermal, geo-thermal, ethanol, etc.
BUT, it would be the same across the board.
Offer up an ADDITIONAL limited time subsidy for ALL CLEAN ENERGY THAT IS BASE LOAD POWER.
This will be items like nukes, geo-thermal, and even ethanol.
Offer up another subsidy for any energy storage.
That would be such things as nukes, geo-thermal, salts stored heat, air, hydro, etc.
This  would help to flatten  the demand vs. supply issue.
Also, it would allow for energy in post disaster times.
Our problem is that due to lobbyist, we have an INSANE approach to energy.
It needs to be changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971582</id>
	<title>NIMBY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264963440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just one little nuclear accident can ruin your whole day.  Seriously that stuff is ridiculously dangerous.  That's why its so expensive.  Most of the costs are due to all of the safety considerations.  You can't make it cheaper.  How do you safely and cheaply transport the fuel and the waste?  When a coal car derails or a windmill tips over you have a little mess but a nuclear mishap can suck all the paint off your house and give your whole family a permanent orange afro.</p><p>Also, nuclear fuel is not a renewable resource.  It has to be mined and processed.  The sale and production is controlled by global monopolies who like to keep it rather expensive.</p><p>Lots of power companies in the 70s lost money on nuclear because they did not plan for the huge amount of hidden costs.</p><p>Nice idea but a dangerous, expensive, bureaucratic nightmare in practice.</p><p>It makes more sense to me to invest in developing fusion and improving the whole range of renewable energy sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one little nuclear accident can ruin your whole day .
Seriously that stuff is ridiculously dangerous .
That 's why its so expensive .
Most of the costs are due to all of the safety considerations .
You ca n't make it cheaper .
How do you safely and cheaply transport the fuel and the waste ?
When a coal car derails or a windmill tips over you have a little mess but a nuclear mishap can suck all the paint off your house and give your whole family a permanent orange afro.Also , nuclear fuel is not a renewable resource .
It has to be mined and processed .
The sale and production is controlled by global monopolies who like to keep it rather expensive.Lots of power companies in the 70s lost money on nuclear because they did not plan for the huge amount of hidden costs.Nice idea but a dangerous , expensive , bureaucratic nightmare in practice.It makes more sense to me to invest in developing fusion and improving the whole range of renewable energy sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one little nuclear accident can ruin your whole day.
Seriously that stuff is ridiculously dangerous.
That's why its so expensive.
Most of the costs are due to all of the safety considerations.
You can't make it cheaper.
How do you safely and cheaply transport the fuel and the waste?
When a coal car derails or a windmill tips over you have a little mess but a nuclear mishap can suck all the paint off your house and give your whole family a permanent orange afro.Also, nuclear fuel is not a renewable resource.
It has to be mined and processed.
The sale and production is controlled by global monopolies who like to keep it rather expensive.Lots of power companies in the 70s lost money on nuclear because they did not plan for the huge amount of hidden costs.Nice idea but a dangerous, expensive, bureaucratic nightmare in practice.It makes more sense to me to invest in developing fusion and improving the whole range of renewable energy sources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971614</id>
	<title>Loan guarantees</title>
	<author>nawitus</author>
	<datestamp>1264963740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does the government have to give out any kind of loan guarantees? In my country at least the goverment loans nothing, and the private sector builds then. In fact, there's many companies waiting in a line to build new nuclear power plants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the government have to give out any kind of loan guarantees ?
In my country at least the goverment loans nothing , and the private sector builds then .
In fact , there 's many companies waiting in a line to build new nuclear power plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the government have to give out any kind of loan guarantees?
In my country at least the goverment loans nothing, and the private sector builds then.
In fact, there's many companies waiting in a line to build new nuclear power plants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30978300</id>
	<title>Wow, I agree with Obama here</title>
	<author>Celestialwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1265057580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is probably the first time (that I remember anyway) where I agree with Obama on something. Great move IMO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably the first time ( that I remember anyway ) where I agree with Obama on something .
Great move IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably the first time (that I remember anyway) where I agree with Obama on something.
Great move IMO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30980096</id>
	<title>Re:What does France do with their waste?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For small activity waste, we have surface storage (waste is made solid then covered with concrete etc.)</p><p>For high activity waste, and medium activity but long half-life waste, some of it is processed at la Hague and sent to Russia to be "enriched" so that it can be reused in nuclear plants in France (yes.. Russia does a part of the nasty job and gets a part of our waste in the process). The highest activity waste and/or nastiest is kept in water pools or kept in proper storage on the surface.</p><p>There is a plan for storing waste deep in the ground since 1991 but that is still being studied. There is a lot of geological study to carry out to find the best location...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For small activity waste , we have surface storage ( waste is made solid then covered with concrete etc .
) For high activity waste , and medium activity but long half-life waste , some of it is processed at la Hague and sent to Russia to be " enriched " so that it can be reused in nuclear plants in France ( yes.. Russia does a part of the nasty job and gets a part of our waste in the process ) .
The highest activity waste and/or nastiest is kept in water pools or kept in proper storage on the surface.There is a plan for storing waste deep in the ground since 1991 but that is still being studied .
There is a lot of geological study to carry out to find the best location.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For small activity waste, we have surface storage (waste is made solid then covered with concrete etc.
)For high activity waste, and medium activity but long half-life waste, some of it is processed at la Hague and sent to Russia to be "enriched" so that it can be reused in nuclear plants in France (yes.. Russia does a part of the nasty job and gets a part of our waste in the process).
The highest activity waste and/or nastiest is kept in water pools or kept in proper storage on the surface.There is a plan for storing waste deep in the ground since 1991 but that is still being studied.
There is a lot of geological study to carry out to find the best location...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970586</id>
	<title>Re:It's spelled guaranty.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>spelt<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... guarantee</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>spelt ... guarantee</tokentext>
<sentencetext>spelt ... guarantee</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30979062</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, that sounds great, why don't we base all of our actions on these racial principles? Let's do away with any sort of mathematics beyond addition because algebra and even the concept of 0 in the maths was developed by a bunch of nomadic fanatics. Let's stay away from chemistry -- after all, what can a race who rides donkeys tell us about that? We should also rip out all the floor heating in our buildings -- it's just those muslims trying to burn us up! While we're at it, let's just stop using soap and and perfumes, what a waste anyway. Let's give our heads a shake -- what are we doing copying the backwards cultures of nomadic races?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , that sounds great , why do n't we base all of our actions on these racial principles ?
Let 's do away with any sort of mathematics beyond addition because algebra and even the concept of 0 in the maths was developed by a bunch of nomadic fanatics .
Let 's stay away from chemistry -- after all , what can a race who rides donkeys tell us about that ?
We should also rip out all the floor heating in our buildings -- it 's just those muslims trying to burn us up !
While we 're at it , let 's just stop using soap and and perfumes , what a waste anyway .
Let 's give our heads a shake -- what are we doing copying the backwards cultures of nomadic races ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, that sounds great, why don't we base all of our actions on these racial principles?
Let's do away with any sort of mathematics beyond addition because algebra and even the concept of 0 in the maths was developed by a bunch of nomadic fanatics.
Let's stay away from chemistry -- after all, what can a race who rides donkeys tell us about that?
We should also rip out all the floor heating in our buildings -- it's just those muslims trying to burn us up!
While we're at it, let's just stop using soap and and perfumes, what a waste anyway.
Let's give our heads a shake -- what are we doing copying the backwards cultures of nomadic races?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970340</id>
	<title>Old Skool</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264953300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuclear reactors are old school since Steorn had their live working demo of Orbo, an overunity engine just this weekend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear reactors are old school since Steorn had their live working demo of Orbo , an overunity engine just this weekend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear reactors are old school since Steorn had their live working demo of Orbo, an overunity engine just this weekend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208</id>
	<title>And yet the public...</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1264951980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The public's support for that particular snippet of the state of the union was rather low, as CNN reported--so kindly point out to your non-tech friends that nuclear is the best alternative right now and we can't go entirely renewable for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The public 's support for that particular snippet of the state of the union was rather low , as CNN reported--so kindly point out to your non-tech friends that nuclear is the best alternative right now and we ca n't go entirely renewable for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The public's support for that particular snippet of the state of the union was rather low, as CNN reported--so kindly point out to your non-tech friends that nuclear is the best alternative right now and we can't go entirely renewable for a long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973192</id>
	<title>Re:What does France do with their waste?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1264929720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't hear a lot about waste disposal period. And yet it's a big problem. Not enough landfill, huge islands of plastic crap in the oceans, toxics leaking into the water supply, people being made sick by incinerators.</p><p>You've heard the saying, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? On waste issues we don't even have absence of evidence, just indifference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't hear a lot about waste disposal period .
And yet it 's a big problem .
Not enough landfill , huge islands of plastic crap in the oceans , toxics leaking into the water supply , people being made sick by incinerators.You 've heard the saying , absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ?
On waste issues we do n't even have absence of evidence , just indifference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't hear a lot about waste disposal period.
And yet it's a big problem.
Not enough landfill, huge islands of plastic crap in the oceans, toxics leaking into the water supply, people being made sick by incinerators.You've heard the saying, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
On waste issues we don't even have absence of evidence, just indifference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30976448</id>
	<title>Re:We need more</title>
	<author>bersl2</author>
	<datestamp>1264949640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[citation needed]</p><p>I want to believe you, but I'd like a little bit of evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ] I want to believe you , but I 'd like a little bit of evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]I want to believe you, but I'd like a little bit of evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30990770</id>
	<title>Re:If it's so safe...</title>
	<author>tchdab1</author>
	<datestamp>1265037780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One more point:<br>Having a $1M/day charge for not operating a highly toxic machine is actually an incentive to operate it when it might be hazardous to do so.<br>Not a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One more point : Having a $ 1M/day charge for not operating a highly toxic machine is actually an incentive to operate it when it might be hazardous to do so.Not a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more point:Having a $1M/day charge for not operating a highly toxic machine is actually an incentive to operate it when it might be hazardous to do so.Not a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30982340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970294</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264952880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is easy to determine whether nuclear power on a watt for watt basis is cheaper to produce than a similar coal plant, but the total cost must take into account factors such as total pollution, cost and risk of mining unrenewable resources, as well as the geopolitical problems in relaying on such resources.</p><p>If you take only the CO2 output as a single factor, the cost of nuclear energy is far lower than any coal plant could ever be. So yes, it is more expensive to produce the energy, but it is far lower in total cost overall when all factors are taken into account.</p><p>Oil power plants are even worse. They rely on importation of resources from the Middle East, a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races. Nuclear power will break us free of that (to some extent, we still have longstanding obligations to Israel which ought to be rethought, IMO) and will make us instead beholden to Australia and its uranium mines. But I feel much more comfortable dealing with the Aussies as a culture which is similar to our own and a people much like us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is easy to determine whether nuclear power on a watt for watt basis is cheaper to produce than a similar coal plant , but the total cost must take into account factors such as total pollution , cost and risk of mining unrenewable resources , as well as the geopolitical problems in relaying on such resources.If you take only the CO2 output as a single factor , the cost of nuclear energy is far lower than any coal plant could ever be .
So yes , it is more expensive to produce the energy , but it is far lower in total cost overall when all factors are taken into account.Oil power plants are even worse .
They rely on importation of resources from the Middle East , a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races .
Nuclear power will break us free of that ( to some extent , we still have longstanding obligations to Israel which ought to be rethought , IMO ) and will make us instead beholden to Australia and its uranium mines .
But I feel much more comfortable dealing with the Aussies as a culture which is similar to our own and a people much like us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is easy to determine whether nuclear power on a watt for watt basis is cheaper to produce than a similar coal plant, but the total cost must take into account factors such as total pollution, cost and risk of mining unrenewable resources, as well as the geopolitical problems in relaying on such resources.If you take only the CO2 output as a single factor, the cost of nuclear energy is far lower than any coal plant could ever be.
So yes, it is more expensive to produce the energy, but it is far lower in total cost overall when all factors are taken into account.Oil power plants are even worse.
They rely on importation of resources from the Middle East, a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races.
Nuclear power will break us free of that (to some extent, we still have longstanding obligations to Israel which ought to be rethought, IMO) and will make us instead beholden to Australia and its uranium mines.
But I feel much more comfortable dealing with the Aussies as a culture which is similar to our own and a people much like us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970998</id>
	<title>In the world of energy choices ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuclear Power is the worst possible choice - here's why:</p><p>1)  Financial: In 30+ years no one has built a nuclear power plant in the United States.  Isn't the free market saying something?  Nuclear power doesn't make financial sense unless it gets huge loan guarantees from the government. Clearly the developer here is thinking "heads I win, tails you lose."</p><p>2)  Environment: Nuclear power plants produce waste that must be kept cool, dry and secure for hundreds of thousands of years.  Human beings don't have a good record of doing this for periods of even 50 years.  Two hundred years from now it is almost certain that nuclear waste dumps will be leaching radioactive material into the ground water we drink.  This has been the result at Hanford in the State of Washington, and dozens of other sites.</p><p>3)  Health:  Even a perfectly working nuclear power plant is a continuous source of low level radiation that affects its workers, nearby population and workers who mine and process the fuel.  An increase in such exposure--at any level--increases the incidence of cancer and birth defects.</p><p>4)  Security:  We have been hearing for years that individuals hostile to the United States would like to obtain nuclear materials with which they could commit the ultimate act of terrorism.  With all the points of distribution of such materials in a nuclear energy economy, such an event becomes inevitable.</p><p>5)  No Alternatives:  There is a view  held by the American public that for energy to be cheap and have the scale necessary to power our economy, it can't be done primarily with environmentally friendly sources.  This is not true.  Wind power generators distributed across the high wind zones of the United States can easily generate a large percentage of the power required by this country.  This has primarily not been done because the existing electric grid doesn't come from those locations.  The same can be said for high output solar locations.  One can argue that these sources are available only part time, but the wind is always blowing night and day in most of these locations, and the peak energy usage period is during daylight hours.  Dispersion of these power sources decreases the risk of a large portion being offline at any particular time, and coal power will always exist as a backup -- which is what it should be.</p><p>Providing the same loan guarantees to build new transmission lines can make renewable energy sources the primary source of energy to our economy at low risk, low operating cost and high reliability.  More importantly, it will reduce our expenditure of American dollars to buy energy from other nations -- something we urgently need to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear Power is the worst possible choice - here 's why : 1 ) Financial : In 30 + years no one has built a nuclear power plant in the United States .
Is n't the free market saying something ?
Nuclear power does n't make financial sense unless it gets huge loan guarantees from the government .
Clearly the developer here is thinking " heads I win , tails you lose .
" 2 ) Environment : Nuclear power plants produce waste that must be kept cool , dry and secure for hundreds of thousands of years .
Human beings do n't have a good record of doing this for periods of even 50 years .
Two hundred years from now it is almost certain that nuclear waste dumps will be leaching radioactive material into the ground water we drink .
This has been the result at Hanford in the State of Washington , and dozens of other sites.3 ) Health : Even a perfectly working nuclear power plant is a continuous source of low level radiation that affects its workers , nearby population and workers who mine and process the fuel .
An increase in such exposure--at any level--increases the incidence of cancer and birth defects.4 ) Security : We have been hearing for years that individuals hostile to the United States would like to obtain nuclear materials with which they could commit the ultimate act of terrorism .
With all the points of distribution of such materials in a nuclear energy economy , such an event becomes inevitable.5 ) No Alternatives : There is a view held by the American public that for energy to be cheap and have the scale necessary to power our economy , it ca n't be done primarily with environmentally friendly sources .
This is not true .
Wind power generators distributed across the high wind zones of the United States can easily generate a large percentage of the power required by this country .
This has primarily not been done because the existing electric grid does n't come from those locations .
The same can be said for high output solar locations .
One can argue that these sources are available only part time , but the wind is always blowing night and day in most of these locations , and the peak energy usage period is during daylight hours .
Dispersion of these power sources decreases the risk of a large portion being offline at any particular time , and coal power will always exist as a backup -- which is what it should be.Providing the same loan guarantees to build new transmission lines can make renewable energy sources the primary source of energy to our economy at low risk , low operating cost and high reliability .
More importantly , it will reduce our expenditure of American dollars to buy energy from other nations -- something we urgently need to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear Power is the worst possible choice - here's why:1)  Financial: In 30+ years no one has built a nuclear power plant in the United States.
Isn't the free market saying something?
Nuclear power doesn't make financial sense unless it gets huge loan guarantees from the government.
Clearly the developer here is thinking "heads I win, tails you lose.
"2)  Environment: Nuclear power plants produce waste that must be kept cool, dry and secure for hundreds of thousands of years.
Human beings don't have a good record of doing this for periods of even 50 years.
Two hundred years from now it is almost certain that nuclear waste dumps will be leaching radioactive material into the ground water we drink.
This has been the result at Hanford in the State of Washington, and dozens of other sites.3)  Health:  Even a perfectly working nuclear power plant is a continuous source of low level radiation that affects its workers, nearby population and workers who mine and process the fuel.
An increase in such exposure--at any level--increases the incidence of cancer and birth defects.4)  Security:  We have been hearing for years that individuals hostile to the United States would like to obtain nuclear materials with which they could commit the ultimate act of terrorism.
With all the points of distribution of such materials in a nuclear energy economy, such an event becomes inevitable.5)  No Alternatives:  There is a view  held by the American public that for energy to be cheap and have the scale necessary to power our economy, it can't be done primarily with environmentally friendly sources.
This is not true.
Wind power generators distributed across the high wind zones of the United States can easily generate a large percentage of the power required by this country.
This has primarily not been done because the existing electric grid doesn't come from those locations.
The same can be said for high output solar locations.
One can argue that these sources are available only part time, but the wind is always blowing night and day in most of these locations, and the peak energy usage period is during daylight hours.
Dispersion of these power sources decreases the risk of a large portion being offline at any particular time, and coal power will always exist as a backup -- which is what it should be.Providing the same loan guarantees to build new transmission lines can make renewable energy sources the primary source of energy to our economy at low risk, low operating cost and high reliability.
More importantly, it will reduce our expenditure of American dollars to buy energy from other nations -- something we urgently need to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970284</id>
	<title>Appeal to Reason: Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264952760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully we can inject some common sense and get funding to push forward for <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors </a> [youtube.com] (Google Talks). There are so many upsides and so few downsides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully we can inject some common sense and get funding to push forward for Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors [ youtube.com ] ( Google Talks ) .
There are so many upsides and so few downsides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully we can inject some common sense and get funding to push forward for Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors  [youtube.com] (Google Talks).
There are so many upsides and so few downsides.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970542</id>
	<title>Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors</title>
	<author>GrantRobertson</author>
	<datestamp>1264955220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google it before you assume it is just like the nuclear reactors that have caused all the nuclear waste problems.</p><p>They are a "new" technology that has been proven for decades. They are smaller, safer, and tons more efficient than the currently used technology. They don't produce nuclear waste, they consume it. We could take all of what we currently consider "waste" and use it as fuel for hundreds of years. The current technology only uses less than 5\% of the energy that is actually in the fuel. Fast Breeder Reactors use almost all of it. They keep recycling the fuel until there is almost no radioactivity left. They can also use plutonium as fuel so the can be used to actually reduce the weapons stockpiles.</p><p>I also think the thorium reactors might be cool too. However there are some concerns as to what extracting all that thorium out of seawater might do to the environment. Not that the oceans need the thorium, but the processing might not be so kind to everything living in the seawater. On the other hand, the processing could also be done in a way that cleans up the garbage patch at the same time.</p><p>Bottom line. Don't assume everything you think you know about nuclear power is everything there is to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google it before you assume it is just like the nuclear reactors that have caused all the nuclear waste problems.They are a " new " technology that has been proven for decades .
They are smaller , safer , and tons more efficient than the currently used technology .
They do n't produce nuclear waste , they consume it .
We could take all of what we currently consider " waste " and use it as fuel for hundreds of years .
The current technology only uses less than 5 \ % of the energy that is actually in the fuel .
Fast Breeder Reactors use almost all of it .
They keep recycling the fuel until there is almost no radioactivity left .
They can also use plutonium as fuel so the can be used to actually reduce the weapons stockpiles.I also think the thorium reactors might be cool too .
However there are some concerns as to what extracting all that thorium out of seawater might do to the environment .
Not that the oceans need the thorium , but the processing might not be so kind to everything living in the seawater .
On the other hand , the processing could also be done in a way that cleans up the garbage patch at the same time.Bottom line .
Do n't assume everything you think you know about nuclear power is everything there is to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google it before you assume it is just like the nuclear reactors that have caused all the nuclear waste problems.They are a "new" technology that has been proven for decades.
They are smaller, safer, and tons more efficient than the currently used technology.
They don't produce nuclear waste, they consume it.
We could take all of what we currently consider "waste" and use it as fuel for hundreds of years.
The current technology only uses less than 5\% of the energy that is actually in the fuel.
Fast Breeder Reactors use almost all of it.
They keep recycling the fuel until there is almost no radioactivity left.
They can also use plutonium as fuel so the can be used to actually reduce the weapons stockpiles.I also think the thorium reactors might be cool too.
However there are some concerns as to what extracting all that thorium out of seawater might do to the environment.
Not that the oceans need the thorium, but the processing might not be so kind to everything living in the seawater.
On the other hand, the processing could also be done in a way that cleans up the garbage patch at the same time.Bottom line.
Don't assume everything you think you know about nuclear power is everything there is to know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196</id>
	<title>what about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264951860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?</p><p>to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors ? to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels</tokentext>
<sentencetext>research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972978</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>DrJimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1264928400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuclear power in the United States is publicly funded but privately profited from.  One form of this massive public funding is free insurance coverage for what should be a normal cost of doing business.   The rationale for this policy is that the insurance premiums would be so massive, they would make the nuclear energy industry unprofitable.
<br> <br>
There is similar public funding combined with private profit in the fossil fuel industries.  For decades, the only energy segment that missed out on massive publicly funded private windfalls has been development of clean, renewable alternative energies sources.
<br> <br>
If there has been any "dunderheadedness" in our national energy policy, it has been the near universal bipartisan sacrifice of the public good and public resources to support private profits.
IMO the one thing our current econo-political system is best at doing is creating small concentrations of vast ill-gotten gains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power in the United States is publicly funded but privately profited from .
One form of this massive public funding is free insurance coverage for what should be a normal cost of doing business .
The rationale for this policy is that the insurance premiums would be so massive , they would make the nuclear energy industry unprofitable .
There is similar public funding combined with private profit in the fossil fuel industries .
For decades , the only energy segment that missed out on massive publicly funded private windfalls has been development of clean , renewable alternative energies sources .
If there has been any " dunderheadedness " in our national energy policy , it has been the near universal bipartisan sacrifice of the public good and public resources to support private profits .
IMO the one thing our current econo-political system is best at doing is creating small concentrations of vast ill-gotten gains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear power in the United States is publicly funded but privately profited from.
One form of this massive public funding is free insurance coverage for what should be a normal cost of doing business.
The rationale for this policy is that the insurance premiums would be so massive, they would make the nuclear energy industry unprofitable.
There is similar public funding combined with private profit in the fossil fuel industries.
For decades, the only energy segment that missed out on massive publicly funded private windfalls has been development of clean, renewable alternative energies sources.
If there has been any "dunderheadedness" in our national energy policy, it has been the near universal bipartisan sacrifice of the public good and public resources to support private profits.
IMO the one thing our current econo-political system is best at doing is creating small concentrations of vast ill-gotten gains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.31033888</id>
	<title>Re:If it's so safe...</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1265381580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2: Done (see Price-Anderson Act)<br>3: What is full liability? If you define it as being covered for the "worst possible accident" (regardless of whether it is even remotely plausible, like 1 gas truck exploding in a city and burning to the ground because all the firemen were down with flu) then no entity on Earth has full liability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 : Done ( see Price-Anderson Act ) 3 : What is full liability ?
If you define it as being covered for the " worst possible accident " ( regardless of whether it is even remotely plausible , like 1 gas truck exploding in a city and burning to the ground because all the firemen were down with flu ) then no entity on Earth has full liability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2: Done (see Price-Anderson Act)3: What is full liability?
If you define it as being covered for the "worst possible accident" (regardless of whether it is even remotely plausible, like 1 gas truck exploding in a city and burning to the ground because all the firemen were down with flu) then no entity on Earth has full liability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970794</id>
	<title>Re:What does France do with their waste?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_reprocessing" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Reprocess! Reprocess! Reprocess!</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>then<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse/Haute\_Marne\_Underground\_Research\_Laboratory" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Burry it</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reprocess !
Reprocess ! Reprocess !
[ wikipedia.org ] thenBurry it [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reprocess!
Reprocess! Reprocess!
[wikipedia.org]thenBurry it [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973188</id>
	<title>Re:what about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264929720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The concept is that an individual pebble bed module is small, thus allowing standardised manufacturing and economies of scale. Multiple modules would be assembled to produce large power plants as needed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The concept is that an individual pebble bed module is small , thus allowing standardised manufacturing and economies of scale .
Multiple modules would be assembled to produce large power plants as needed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concept is that an individual pebble bed module is small, thus allowing standardised manufacturing and economies of scale.
Multiple modules would be assembled to produce large power plants as needed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971070</id>
	<title>Re:what about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?<br>to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite - how about the damn $2B in loan guarantees for USEC's centrifuge-based enrichment plant... The LG programme dates back to 2005-2007, was promised by Obama on the campaign trail whistle stop in Ohio, and is still in limbo.  If the Rs and Ds want to use pork to sway a swing state like Ohio,  they could do a lot better by, you know, actually <em>handing out the pork</em>.  Even if any reactors get built, without enrichment capabilities, we'll end up having to buy our fuel from the goddamn Iranians.  (Their government is composed of a bunch of psychotic bastards, but at least their psychosis funds the front end of the fuel cycle<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><p>
For that matter, how about the original $18.5B in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, not a dime of which has been given out since 2005 when the programme started.  Sure, 3*$18B = $54B, but it's still zero if none of the LGs - for front-end fuel cycle, reactor construction, or waste disposal - ever get awarded.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors ? to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels Funny , I was thinking the exact opposite - how about the damn $ 2B in loan guarantees for USEC 's centrifuge-based enrichment plant... The LG programme dates back to 2005-2007 , was promised by Obama on the campaign trail whistle stop in Ohio , and is still in limbo .
If the Rs and Ds want to use pork to sway a swing state like Ohio , they could do a lot better by , you know , actually handing out the pork .
Even if any reactors get built , without enrichment capabilities , we 'll end up having to buy our fuel from the goddamn Iranians .
( Their government is composed of a bunch of psychotic bastards , but at least their psychosis funds the front end of the fuel cycle : ) For that matter , how about the original $ 18.5B in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry , not a dime of which has been given out since 2005 when the programme started .
Sure , 3 * $ 18B = $ 54B , but it 's still zero if none of the LGs - for front-end fuel cycle , reactor construction , or waste disposal - ever get awarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels

Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite - how about the damn $2B in loan guarantees for USEC's centrifuge-based enrichment plant... The LG programme dates back to 2005-2007, was promised by Obama on the campaign trail whistle stop in Ohio, and is still in limbo.
If the Rs and Ds want to use pork to sway a swing state like Ohio,  they could do a lot better by, you know, actually handing out the pork.
Even if any reactors get built, without enrichment capabilities, we'll end up having to buy our fuel from the goddamn Iranians.
(Their government is composed of a bunch of psychotic bastards, but at least their psychosis funds the front end of the fuel cycle :)

For that matter, how about the original $18.5B in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, not a dime of which has been given out since 2005 when the programme started.
Sure, 3*$18B = $54B, but it's still zero if none of the LGs - for front-end fuel cycle, reactor construction, or waste disposal - ever get awarded.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30991700</id>
	<title>Will the left kill nuclear power plants?</title>
	<author>ALeader71</author>
	<datestamp>1265047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Loan guarantees are nice.  Really they are.  When I see an actual reactor go online in spite of hundreds of protesters, I'll believe the President's "safe nuclear" campaign promise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loan guarantees are nice .
Really they are .
When I see an actual reactor go online in spite of hundreds of protesters , I 'll believe the President 's " safe nuclear " campaign promise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loan guarantees are nice.
Really they are.
When I see an actual reactor go online in spite of hundreds of protesters, I'll believe the President's "safe nuclear" campaign promise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972384</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1264968240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" because it would set an "example" to other nations not to reprocess anything that could be weapons grade... nincompoop"</p><p>That was actually a good decision at the time.<br>It seems like  bad decision now because hind sight is a bitch.</p><p>You want to talk about presidents that were short sighted in regards to energy, look at Reagan.</p><p>Solar isn't just panels, Industrial solar thermal needs to be part of our national energy program, as well as new generation Nuclear plants.</p><p>Sadly, rescinding the order would be jumped all over by neo-cons who would spread lies, again,  and seriously try to stop all effort so they can paint Obama a failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" because it would set an " example " to other nations not to reprocess anything that could be weapons grade... nincompoop " That was actually a good decision at the time.It seems like bad decision now because hind sight is a bitch.You want to talk about presidents that were short sighted in regards to energy , look at Reagan.Solar is n't just panels , Industrial solar thermal needs to be part of our national energy program , as well as new generation Nuclear plants.Sadly , rescinding the order would be jumped all over by neo-cons who would spread lies , again , and seriously try to stop all effort so they can paint Obama a failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" because it would set an "example" to other nations not to reprocess anything that could be weapons grade... nincompoop"That was actually a good decision at the time.It seems like  bad decision now because hind sight is a bitch.You want to talk about presidents that were short sighted in regards to energy, look at Reagan.Solar isn't just panels, Industrial solar thermal needs to be part of our national energy program, as well as new generation Nuclear plants.Sadly, rescinding the order would be jumped all over by neo-cons who would spread lies, again,  and seriously try to stop all effort so they can paint Obama a failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971414</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264962240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but it does provide a very high barrier to entry that, without loans, only the rich oil companies (who really don't care for competition) are capable of crossing.</p></div><p>There are a number of big electric companies that are capable of crossing this barrier too. And once you get away from electricity, oil, etc there's a large number of potential investors who can fund something like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but it does provide a very high barrier to entry that , without loans , only the rich oil companies ( who really do n't care for competition ) are capable of crossing.There are a number of big electric companies that are capable of crossing this barrier too .
And once you get away from electricity , oil , etc there 's a large number of potential investors who can fund something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it does provide a very high barrier to entry that, without loans, only the rich oil companies (who really don't care for competition) are capable of crossing.There are a number of big electric companies that are capable of crossing this barrier too.
And once you get away from electricity, oil, etc there's a large number of potential investors who can fund something like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972920</id>
	<title>Smacks of easy money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264971240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NEVER, EVER, in the US, forego oversight when it comes to things infratructural.  It just doesn't work. There are too many people around that will see money and nothing else and who don't care who dies so long as it isn't them.  It's a fine country, and an enormous economic catalyst, but some things can't be left to the market alone.  This is one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NEVER , EVER , in the US , forego oversight when it comes to things infratructural .
It just does n't work .
There are too many people around that will see money and nothing else and who do n't care who dies so long as it is n't them .
It 's a fine country , and an enormous economic catalyst , but some things ca n't be left to the market alone .
This is one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NEVER, EVER, in the US, forego oversight when it comes to things infratructural.
It just doesn't work.
There are too many people around that will see money and nothing else and who don't care who dies so long as it isn't them.
It's a fine country, and an enormous economic catalyst, but some things can't be left to the market alone.
This is one of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970856</id>
	<title>Re:Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>environmentalists hate nuclear power, and conservatives don't think there is any need to switch from fossil fuels. So who's left to support nuclear power? only the few people who consider global warming a real problem, and have taken a rational look at nuclear power as a possible solution. And that is very few people.</p><p>This my big problem with environmentalists. Global warming is a big problem. All solutions need to be considered. But instead environmentalists are using it to promote the things they've been promoting all along. This is why people doubt the global warming theories, because it seems really convenient that all of a sudden there's this big global problem and the only solution is to do the things they've been telling us to do for decades. If environmentalists started saying stuff like "I still don't like nuclear power, but global warming is bigger than my dislike for nuclear". Then they'd have a lot more credibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>environmentalists hate nuclear power , and conservatives do n't think there is any need to switch from fossil fuels .
So who 's left to support nuclear power ?
only the few people who consider global warming a real problem , and have taken a rational look at nuclear power as a possible solution .
And that is very few people.This my big problem with environmentalists .
Global warming is a big problem .
All solutions need to be considered .
But instead environmentalists are using it to promote the things they 've been promoting all along .
This is why people doubt the global warming theories , because it seems really convenient that all of a sudden there 's this big global problem and the only solution is to do the things they 've been telling us to do for decades .
If environmentalists started saying stuff like " I still do n't like nuclear power , but global warming is bigger than my dislike for nuclear " .
Then they 'd have a lot more credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>environmentalists hate nuclear power, and conservatives don't think there is any need to switch from fossil fuels.
So who's left to support nuclear power?
only the few people who consider global warming a real problem, and have taken a rational look at nuclear power as a possible solution.
And that is very few people.This my big problem with environmentalists.
Global warming is a big problem.
All solutions need to be considered.
But instead environmentalists are using it to promote the things they've been promoting all along.
This is why people doubt the global warming theories, because it seems really convenient that all of a sudden there's this big global problem and the only solution is to do the things they've been telling us to do for decades.
If environmentalists started saying stuff like "I still don't like nuclear power, but global warming is bigger than my dislike for nuclear".
Then they'd have a lot more credibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971228</id>
	<title>Re:It's spelled guaranty.</title>
	<author>WebManWalking</author>
	<datestamp>1264960800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The banking community still spells it guaranty. As with any jargon, it's a way to recognize novices. If you don't care to know that, no problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The banking community still spells it guaranty .
As with any jargon , it 's a way to recognize novices .
If you do n't care to know that , no problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The banking community still spells it guaranty.
As with any jargon, it's a way to recognize novices.
If you don't care to know that, no problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972028</id>
	<title>They pollute the local water supply</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>French nuclear firm admits uranium leaks at two plants</p><p>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/19/pollution.france</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>French nuclear firm admits uranium leaks at two plantshttp : //www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/19/pollution.france</tokentext>
<sentencetext>French nuclear firm admits uranium leaks at two plantshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/19/pollution.france</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973372</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>dasdrewid</author>
	<datestamp>1264930740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"and evaluate new technologies that could make some use of nuclear waste."

I think that is the recycling/reprocessing part. It sounds like they think it will take a lot more political will, which I think is stupid.  Everyone who opposes things like Yucca mountain (or whatever it's called), who opposes transporting it, who likes recycling, and who dislikes mining will *have* to support it, because it solves so many of those problems. And that takes care of most of the anti-nuclear crowd...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" and evaluate new technologies that could make some use of nuclear waste .
" I think that is the recycling/reprocessing part .
It sounds like they think it will take a lot more political will , which I think is stupid .
Everyone who opposes things like Yucca mountain ( or whatever it 's called ) , who opposes transporting it , who likes recycling , and who dislikes mining will * have * to support it , because it solves so many of those problems .
And that takes care of most of the anti-nuclear crowd.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and evaluate new technologies that could make some use of nuclear waste.
"

I think that is the recycling/reprocessing part.
It sounds like they think it will take a lot more political will, which I think is stupid.
Everyone who opposes things like Yucca mountain (or whatever it's called), who opposes transporting it, who likes recycling, and who dislikes mining will *have* to support it, because it solves so many of those problems.
And that takes care of most of the anti-nuclear crowd...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970564</id>
	<title>Nuc-u-lar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pronounced nuc-u-lar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pronounced nuc-u-lar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pronounced nuc-u-lar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971034</id>
	<title>Common sense?</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1264959360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's put the funding into all the technologies that are already proven and work. The technical problems of running a Th fluoride reactor are horrible - just finding containment materials for a start - a fact that its proponents consistently ignore. History shows that new reactor types are associated with accidents well down the line, because there is only so much you can do with modeling. And thorium is truly nasty stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's put the funding into all the technologies that are already proven and work .
The technical problems of running a Th fluoride reactor are horrible - just finding containment materials for a start - a fact that its proponents consistently ignore .
History shows that new reactor types are associated with accidents well down the line , because there is only so much you can do with modeling .
And thorium is truly nasty stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's put the funding into all the technologies that are already proven and work.
The technical problems of running a Th fluoride reactor are horrible - just finding containment materials for a start - a fact that its proponents consistently ignore.
History shows that new reactor types are associated with accidents well down the line, because there is only so much you can do with modeling.
And thorium is truly nasty stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971420</id>
	<title>If it's so safe...</title>
	<author>tchdab1</author>
	<datestamp>1264962300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...then he should propose:<br>1. to store the waste in Chicago<br>2. to have the owners of the plant fully pay for waste storage costs<br>3. to have the owners of the plant assume full liability for damages from accidents</p><p>While #1 is a bit sarcastic, #2 and #3 are not.<br>We would at times like to believe that there are surmountable technological solutions to every problem. Sometimes there aren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...then he should propose : 1. to store the waste in Chicago2 .
to have the owners of the plant fully pay for waste storage costs3 .
to have the owners of the plant assume full liability for damages from accidentsWhile # 1 is a bit sarcastic , # 2 and # 3 are not.We would at times like to believe that there are surmountable technological solutions to every problem .
Sometimes there are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then he should propose:1. to store the waste in Chicago2.
to have the owners of the plant fully pay for waste storage costs3.
to have the owners of the plant assume full liability for damages from accidentsWhile #1 is a bit sarcastic, #2 and #3 are not.We would at times like to believe that there are surmountable technological solutions to every problem.
Sometimes there aren't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30978658</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>MJMullinII</author>
	<datestamp>1265018820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>...the Middle East, a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races. </p></div><p>Don't forget the destabalising influence of self-interested foreigners...</p></div><p>ZING!!!</p><p><i>Well played young man</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the Middle East , a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races .
Do n't forget the destabalising influence of self-interested foreigners...ZING ! !
! Well played young man : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the Middle East, a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races.
Don't forget the destabalising influence of self-interested foreigners...ZING!!
!Well played young man :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971024</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1264959240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...the Middle East, a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races. </p></div><p>Don't forget the destabalising influence of self-interested foreigners...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the Middle East , a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races .
Do n't forget the destabalising influence of self-interested foreigners.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the Middle East, a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races.
Don't forget the destabalising influence of self-interested foreigners...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970706</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That being said, his bit about loans is only a half measure, if he was really serious he'd rescind Carter's dumbass executive order and get us down the path of recycling to deal with the "nuclear waste" issue.</i></p><p>Minor correction, President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That being said , his bit about loans is only a half measure , if he was really serious he 'd rescind Carter 's dumbass executive order and get us down the path of recycling to deal with the " nuclear waste " issue.Minor correction , President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That being said, his bit about loans is only a half measure, if he was really serious he'd rescind Carter's dumbass executive order and get us down the path of recycling to deal with the "nuclear waste" issue.Minor correction, President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30979392</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Note that even China doesn't build many nuclear reactors. The Chinese aren't exactly ecowarriors...</p></div><p>Check the front page of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. -- the timing is beautiful.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that even China does n't build many nuclear reactors .
The Chinese are n't exactly ecowarriors...Check the front page of / .
-- the timing is beautiful .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that even China doesn't build many nuclear reactors.
The Chinese aren't exactly ecowarriors...Check the front page of /.
-- the timing is beautiful.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972238</id>
	<title>Re:What does France do with their waste?</title>
	<author>cartman</author>
	<datestamp>1264967400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>.France has a large number of reactors, yet I've never heard of them having problems with their radioactive waste products... what are other countries doing about it?</p></div></blockquote><p>France reprocesses its nuclear waste to extract the highly radioactive components. Then, that highly radioactive waste is stored beneath a room, in a building at La Hague. (The volume of highly radioactive waste after reprocessing is very small).</p><p>Rad waste consists mostly (95\%) of Uranium 238, which is benign. The U-238 is less radioactive than the uranium they dug out of the ground originally, so it doesn't require special handling. By removing the U-238 through reprocessing, you have reduced by 95\% the volume of the waste you must store.</p><p>That is how France stores all its waste underneath a floor in a room.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.France has a large number of reactors , yet I 've never heard of them having problems with their radioactive waste products... what are other countries doing about it ? France reprocesses its nuclear waste to extract the highly radioactive components .
Then , that highly radioactive waste is stored beneath a room , in a building at La Hague .
( The volume of highly radioactive waste after reprocessing is very small ) .Rad waste consists mostly ( 95 \ % ) of Uranium 238 , which is benign .
The U-238 is less radioactive than the uranium they dug out of the ground originally , so it does n't require special handling .
By removing the U-238 through reprocessing , you have reduced by 95 \ % the volume of the waste you must store.That is how France stores all its waste underneath a floor in a room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.France has a large number of reactors, yet I've never heard of them having problems with their radioactive waste products... what are other countries doing about it?France reprocesses its nuclear waste to extract the highly radioactive components.
Then, that highly radioactive waste is stored beneath a room, in a building at La Hague.
(The volume of highly radioactive waste after reprocessing is very small).Rad waste consists mostly (95\%) of Uranium 238, which is benign.
The U-238 is less radioactive than the uranium they dug out of the ground originally, so it doesn't require special handling.
By removing the U-238 through reprocessing, you have reduced by 95\% the volume of the waste you must store.That is how France stores all its waste underneath a floor in a room.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974642</id>
	<title>Re:what about</title>
	<author>furbyhater</author>
	<datestamp>1264937640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest efficiency problem in the electric energy supply is transport (dissipates about 50\% of the originally produced energy or so I've heard).
Localization of electric energy production could greatly enhance efficiency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest efficiency problem in the electric energy supply is transport ( dissipates about 50 \ % of the originally produced energy or so I 've heard ) .
Localization of electric energy production could greatly enhance efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest efficiency problem in the electric energy supply is transport (dissipates about 50\% of the originally produced energy or so I've heard).
Localization of electric energy production could greatly enhance efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973320</id>
	<title>Re:What does France do with their waste?</title>
	<author>ScouseMouse</author>
	<datestamp>1264930440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well in the UK, we chuck it all in barrels, take it to Sellafield, then cover our eyes and hope some politician 10 years down the line has the testicles to deal with it.
Sadly, alas, These are in short supply in Westminister,</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well in the UK , we chuck it all in barrels , take it to Sellafield , then cover our eyes and hope some politician 10 years down the line has the testicles to deal with it .
Sadly , alas , These are in short supply in Westminister,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well in the UK, we chuck it all in barrels, take it to Sellafield, then cover our eyes and hope some politician 10 years down the line has the testicles to deal with it.
Sadly, alas, These are in short supply in Westminister,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971276</id>
	<title>FRICKING AWESOME!!!!</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264961160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything any administration does to further nuclear power and alternative energy, I am 100\% in favor of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything any administration does to further nuclear power and alternative energy , I am 100 \ % in favor of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything any administration does to further nuclear power and alternative energy, I am 100\% in favor of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30985064</id>
	<title>Do we really need it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we really need to add any more nuclear or any kind of plants that have to do with that. Obama is spend a whole lot of money to try and get these plants opened up. Seriously he is gonna spend that much money a plant..is this part of the creating jobs idea??? I mean if its not, he could just spend that money on creating the jobs he had talked about once before. It just sounds like he wants to spend money instead improving what he said her wanted to improve. He wants to spend triple the amount he had before and no wonder the person doesn't want to be who said something about the budget change it is a lot of freaking money.  It doesn't since to me and of course the democrats are gonna agree with him since he is one.They are mostly about change and all that other crap but have they even thought about the out come of all these that seem like their really not even needed in the first place. What happens something goes wrong with one or more plants whos gonna have to pay for what happens. The tax payers of course. Has he even thought about that part of his so called "plan". I mean im not a politic and i don't want to become but really, i think they should pull their heads out of their asses and think really clearly on what they are doing. Is he really gonna spend money on nuclear plants and coal???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need to add any more nuclear or any kind of plants that have to do with that .
Obama is spend a whole lot of money to try and get these plants opened up .
Seriously he is gon na spend that much money a plant..is this part of the creating jobs idea ? ? ?
I mean if its not , he could just spend that money on creating the jobs he had talked about once before .
It just sounds like he wants to spend money instead improving what he said her wanted to improve .
He wants to spend triple the amount he had before and no wonder the person does n't want to be who said something about the budget change it is a lot of freaking money .
It does n't since to me and of course the democrats are gon na agree with him since he is one.They are mostly about change and all that other crap but have they even thought about the out come of all these that seem like their really not even needed in the first place .
What happens something goes wrong with one or more plants whos gon na have to pay for what happens .
The tax payers of course .
Has he even thought about that part of his so called " plan " .
I mean im not a politic and i do n't want to become but really , i think they should pull their heads out of their asses and think really clearly on what they are doing .
Is he really gon na spend money on nuclear plants and coal ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need to add any more nuclear or any kind of plants that have to do with that.
Obama is spend a whole lot of money to try and get these plants opened up.
Seriously he is gonna spend that much money a plant..is this part of the creating jobs idea???
I mean if its not, he could just spend that money on creating the jobs he had talked about once before.
It just sounds like he wants to spend money instead improving what he said her wanted to improve.
He wants to spend triple the amount he had before and no wonder the person doesn't want to be who said something about the budget change it is a lot of freaking money.
It doesn't since to me and of course the democrats are gonna agree with him since he is one.They are mostly about change and all that other crap but have they even thought about the out come of all these that seem like their really not even needed in the first place.
What happens something goes wrong with one or more plants whos gonna have to pay for what happens.
The tax payers of course.
Has he even thought about that part of his so called "plan".
I mean im not a politic and i don't want to become but really, i think they should pull their heads out of their asses and think really clearly on what they are doing.
Is he really gonna spend money on nuclear plants and coal??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971686</id>
	<title>Presidential directives banning reprocessing</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1264964220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>"Ever since Jimmy Carter's dunderheaded executive order (in which he said the US will not reprocess spent nuclear fuel back into usable fuel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "</em> </p><p>Credit where it's due: the initial President directive (a specific variety of Executive order) regarding suspension of reprocessing was issued by President Gerald Ford:</p><p>"In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel." - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_reprocessing" title="wikipedia.org">Source</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ever since Jimmy Carter 's dunderheaded executive order ( in which he said the US will not reprocess spent nuclear fuel back into usable fuel ... " Credit where it 's due : the initial President directive ( a specific variety of Executive order ) regarding suspension of reprocessing was issued by President Gerald Ford : " In October 1976 , fear of nuclear weapons proliferation ( especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology ) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On April 7 , 1977 , President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel .
" - Source [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Ever since Jimmy Carter's dunderheaded executive order (in which he said the US will not reprocess spent nuclear fuel back into usable fuel ... " Credit where it's due: the initial President directive (a specific variety of Executive order) regarding suspension of reprocessing was issued by President Gerald Ford:"In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel.
" - Source [wikipedia.org] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620</id>
	<title>What does France do with their waste?</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1264956000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, I could google it, but it's more of a talking point than a question.  France has a large number of reactors, yet I've never heard of them having problems with their radioactive waste products (then again, I don't read the French press, either).</p><p>Sure, we <i>could</i> build reactors which reuse more of their own waste, but presuming we will have some waste - what are other countries doing about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , I could google it , but it 's more of a talking point than a question .
France has a large number of reactors , yet I 've never heard of them having problems with their radioactive waste products ( then again , I do n't read the French press , either ) .Sure , we could build reactors which reuse more of their own waste , but presuming we will have some waste - what are other countries doing about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, I could google it, but it's more of a talking point than a question.
France has a large number of reactors, yet I've never heard of them having problems with their radioactive waste products (then again, I don't read the French press, either).Sure, we could build reactors which reuse more of their own waste, but presuming we will have some waste - what are other countries doing about it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30975962</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1264946220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Executive Orders can be overturned simply by issuing a subsequent Executive Order. For example, overturning notorious Bush EO#13233 by issuing EO #13489 was something Obama did on his first day in office. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive\_Order\_13233" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive\_Order\_13233</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>We've had many clearly pro-nuclear presidents since Carter, particularly Bush Sr. Since anyone of them could have easily overturned Carter's EO --and since North Korea was able to get nukes by reprocessing its own spent fuel rods-- you might want to reconsider your assessment of that particular EO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Executive Orders can be overturned simply by issuing a subsequent Executive Order .
For example , overturning notorious Bush EO # 13233 by issuing EO # 13489 was something Obama did on his first day in office .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive \ _Order \ _13233 [ wikipedia.org ] We 've had many clearly pro-nuclear presidents since Carter , particularly Bush Sr. Since anyone of them could have easily overturned Carter 's EO --and since North Korea was able to get nukes by reprocessing its own spent fuel rods-- you might want to reconsider your assessment of that particular EO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Executive Orders can be overturned simply by issuing a subsequent Executive Order.
For example, overturning notorious Bush EO#13233 by issuing EO #13489 was something Obama did on his first day in office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive\_Order\_13233 [wikipedia.org]We've had many clearly pro-nuclear presidents since Carter, particularly Bush Sr. Since anyone of them could have easily overturned Carter's EO --and since North Korea was able to get nukes by reprocessing its own spent fuel rods-- you might want to reconsider your assessment of that particular EO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218</id>
	<title>Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264952100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do nuclear energy corporations get loan guarantees? Is the energy not as cheap as proponents say? Is it not profitable enough for private ventures to fund it?</p><p>The nuclear power industries worldwide already get very preferential treatment by not having to insure powerplants or paying for their waste disposal, but that apparently isn't enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do nuclear energy corporations get loan guarantees ?
Is the energy not as cheap as proponents say ?
Is it not profitable enough for private ventures to fund it ? The nuclear power industries worldwide already get very preferential treatment by not having to insure powerplants or paying for their waste disposal , but that apparently is n't enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do nuclear energy corporations get loan guarantees?
Is the energy not as cheap as proponents say?
Is it not profitable enough for private ventures to fund it?The nuclear power industries worldwide already get very preferential treatment by not having to insure powerplants or paying for their waste disposal, but that apparently isn't enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30976744</id>
	<title>Re:what about</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1264952880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?</i></p><p><i>to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels</i></p><p>How about funding geothermal, solar, tidal, wind and other energy sources just as much?  Give each one $54 Billion?  Doesn't sound so good does it?  How about not picking winners and losers at all?  Instead let the market pick them.</p><p>Because as CATO, Forbes, and others say nuclear power is <a href="http://www.cato.org/pub\_display.php?pub\_id=8792" title="cato.org">Hooked on Subsidies</a> [cato.org].  The market would not support nuclear power without them.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors ? to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuelsHow about funding geothermal , solar , tidal , wind and other energy sources just as much ?
Give each one $ 54 Billion ?
Does n't sound so good does it ?
How about not picking winners and losers at all ?
Instead let the market pick them.Because as CATO , Forbes , and others say nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies [ cato.org ] .
The market would not support nuclear power without them .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuelsHow about funding geothermal, solar, tidal, wind and other energy sources just as much?
Give each one $54 Billion?
Doesn't sound so good does it?
How about not picking winners and losers at all?
Instead let the market pick them.Because as CATO, Forbes, and others say nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies [cato.org].
The market would not support nuclear power without them.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30978244</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there are huge potential mines in colorado right now.<br>the only reason it hasn't been done yet is because shale oil is the belle of the american mining world right now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are huge potential mines in colorado right now.the only reason it has n't been done yet is because shale oil is the belle of the american mining world right now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are huge potential mines in colorado right now.the only reason it hasn't been done yet is because shale oil is the belle of the american mining world right now</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970280</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264952760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does coal get a free pass on pollution? Isn't energy generation profitable enough for private ventures to contain all the mercury, thorium, lead, uranium and other heavy metals from escaping and polluting? Why aren't coal power plants financially responsible for all the mercury warnings in majority of the lakes?</p><p>The coal power industry gets worldwide free pass by polluting all of our ecosystems (and hence our food supplies), but apparently that isn't enough.</p><p>http://illinois.sierraclub.org/conservation/cleanair/pages/coal-burning/peabody.htm</p><p>"Peabody seeks millions in state subsidies to build this dirty-coal power plant. If the permit is granted, Illinois residents will pay to have their air polluted"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does coal get a free pass on pollution ?
Is n't energy generation profitable enough for private ventures to contain all the mercury , thorium , lead , uranium and other heavy metals from escaping and polluting ?
Why are n't coal power plants financially responsible for all the mercury warnings in majority of the lakes ? The coal power industry gets worldwide free pass by polluting all of our ecosystems ( and hence our food supplies ) , but apparently that is n't enough.http : //illinois.sierraclub.org/conservation/cleanair/pages/coal-burning/peabody.htm " Peabody seeks millions in state subsidies to build this dirty-coal power plant .
If the permit is granted , Illinois residents will pay to have their air polluted "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does coal get a free pass on pollution?
Isn't energy generation profitable enough for private ventures to contain all the mercury, thorium, lead, uranium and other heavy metals from escaping and polluting?
Why aren't coal power plants financially responsible for all the mercury warnings in majority of the lakes?The coal power industry gets worldwide free pass by polluting all of our ecosystems (and hence our food supplies), but apparently that isn't enough.http://illinois.sierraclub.org/conservation/cleanair/pages/coal-burning/peabody.htm"Peabody seeks millions in state subsidies to build this dirty-coal power plant.
If the permit is granted, Illinois residents will pay to have their air polluted"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30982340</id>
	<title>Re:If it's so safe...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regarding your non sarcastic points:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. to have the owners of the plant fully pay for waste storage costs</p></div><p>It already works like that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. to have the owners of the plant assume full liability for damages from accidents</p></div><p>The NRC gives out some pretty hefty fines for events that have a chance of causing issues.  Despite this, the bigger whammy is when the plants are forced to shut down and fix those issues.  They lose something close to $1,000,000/day when they aren't generating electricity, so having that suddenly happen is a decent incentive for said owners to avoid accidents.</p><p>If you want evidence of this being a good incentive, perhaps you should look at the <a href="http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uscapacityfactorsbyfueltype/" title="nei.org" rel="nofollow">capacity factor of different types of power generation facilities</a> [nei.org].  For your reference, nuclear's capacity factor in 2008 was 91.5\%, versus the other baseload technology (coal) which ran at 70.8\%.</p><p>Guess which industry takes safety and reliability more seriously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding your non sarcastic points : 2. to have the owners of the plant fully pay for waste storage costsIt already works like that.3 .
to have the owners of the plant assume full liability for damages from accidentsThe NRC gives out some pretty hefty fines for events that have a chance of causing issues .
Despite this , the bigger whammy is when the plants are forced to shut down and fix those issues .
They lose something close to $ 1,000,000/day when they are n't generating electricity , so having that suddenly happen is a decent incentive for said owners to avoid accidents.If you want evidence of this being a good incentive , perhaps you should look at the capacity factor of different types of power generation facilities [ nei.org ] .
For your reference , nuclear 's capacity factor in 2008 was 91.5 \ % , versus the other baseload technology ( coal ) which ran at 70.8 \ % .Guess which industry takes safety and reliability more seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding your non sarcastic points:2. to have the owners of the plant fully pay for waste storage costsIt already works like that.3.
to have the owners of the plant assume full liability for damages from accidentsThe NRC gives out some pretty hefty fines for events that have a chance of causing issues.
Despite this, the bigger whammy is when the plants are forced to shut down and fix those issues.
They lose something close to $1,000,000/day when they aren't generating electricity, so having that suddenly happen is a decent incentive for said owners to avoid accidents.If you want evidence of this being a good incentive, perhaps you should look at the capacity factor of different types of power generation facilities [nei.org].
For your reference, nuclear's capacity factor in 2008 was 91.5\%, versus the other baseload technology (coal) which ran at 70.8\%.Guess which industry takes safety and reliability more seriously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970926</id>
	<title>Re:Old Skool</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264958520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nuclear reactors are old school since Steorn had their live working demo of Orbo, an overunity engine just this weekend.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Oh man, we had <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterno" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this stuff</a> [wikipedia.org] when I was a kid. "Canned heat" they called it. Looked like purple Jell-O, but was flammable. I didn't know it had overunity properties, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear reactors are old school since Steorn had their live working demo of Orbo , an overunity engine just this weekend .
Oh man , we had this stuff [ wikipedia.org ] when I was a kid .
" Canned heat " they called it .
Looked like purple Jell-O , but was flammable .
I did n't know it had overunity properties , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear reactors are old school since Steorn had their live working demo of Orbo, an overunity engine just this weekend.
Oh man, we had this stuff [wikipedia.org] when I was a kid.
"Canned heat" they called it.
Looked like purple Jell-O, but was flammable.
I didn't know it had overunity properties, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972882</id>
	<title>Zombie Reactors</title>
	<author>Tailhook</author>
	<datestamp>1264971060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your 'dead' characterization in interesting, if confusing.  For other readers I'll point out that Vermont Yankee, the 'dead' reactor the parent is discussing, is operating today.  By 'dead' I suppose the parent means zombie-like.</p><p>Vermont isn't likely to get a replacement reactor under any circumstances.  The state is very hostile toward industry generally, and nuclear power in particular. Vermont's governor can't wipe his ass without the resident enviros investigating it.</p><p>The license extensions + uprates of these old reactors is a huge failure waiting to happen.  Whatever renaissance nuclear power is experiencing is going to end abruptly when one of these uprated, license extended reactors takes a TMI style dump and evacuates some part of a state.</p><p>Shut Vermont Yankee down and buy your power from other states/countries.  Or sit in the dark and shiver.  Whatever.  Just stop running your decaying old zombie reactor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your 'dead ' characterization in interesting , if confusing .
For other readers I 'll point out that Vermont Yankee , the 'dead ' reactor the parent is discussing , is operating today .
By 'dead ' I suppose the parent means zombie-like.Vermont is n't likely to get a replacement reactor under any circumstances .
The state is very hostile toward industry generally , and nuclear power in particular .
Vermont 's governor ca n't wipe his ass without the resident enviros investigating it.The license extensions + uprates of these old reactors is a huge failure waiting to happen .
Whatever renaissance nuclear power is experiencing is going to end abruptly when one of these uprated , license extended reactors takes a TMI style dump and evacuates some part of a state.Shut Vermont Yankee down and buy your power from other states/countries .
Or sit in the dark and shiver .
Whatever. Just stop running your decaying old zombie reactor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your 'dead' characterization in interesting, if confusing.
For other readers I'll point out that Vermont Yankee, the 'dead' reactor the parent is discussing, is operating today.
By 'dead' I suppose the parent means zombie-like.Vermont isn't likely to get a replacement reactor under any circumstances.
The state is very hostile toward industry generally, and nuclear power in particular.
Vermont's governor can't wipe his ass without the resident enviros investigating it.The license extensions + uprates of these old reactors is a huge failure waiting to happen.
Whatever renaissance nuclear power is experiencing is going to end abruptly when one of these uprated, license extended reactors takes a TMI style dump and evacuates some part of a state.Shut Vermont Yankee down and buy your power from other states/countries.
Or sit in the dark and shiver.
Whatever.  Just stop running your decaying old zombie reactor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970424</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264954080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that's mostly the fact that they were getting a lot of their feedback off of twitter and facebook: not exactly the hotbed of intellect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's mostly the fact that they were getting a lot of their feedback off of twitter and facebook : not exactly the hotbed of intellect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's mostly the fact that they were getting a lot of their feedback off of twitter and facebook: not exactly the hotbed of intellect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30980646</id>
	<title>Southern Company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea when Southern Company built Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant the cost over runs made our electric bills jump by 3X and NEVER came back down as promised.  It was the biggest rip-off job ever pulled in Georgia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea when Southern Company built Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant the cost over runs made our electric bills jump by 3X and NEVER came back down as promised .
It was the biggest rip-off job ever pulled in Georgia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea when Southern Company built Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant the cost over runs made our electric bills jump by 3X and NEVER came back down as promised.
It was the biggest rip-off job ever pulled in Georgia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971540</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1264963140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't there that international atomic agency that does things like inspections of reactors? If we had them doing inspections and certifying that weapons-grade material wasn't being made, what would the huge problem be?</p><p>If inventory tracking is tightly controlled, it would be difficult for the CIA or something to sneak away with a few dozen barrels of unrefined nuclear waste for nefarious purposes. We are way more careful with accounting things way less dangerous than nuclear waste; I don't see why we couldn't have something like this set up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there that international atomic agency that does things like inspections of reactors ?
If we had them doing inspections and certifying that weapons-grade material was n't being made , what would the huge problem be ? If inventory tracking is tightly controlled , it would be difficult for the CIA or something to sneak away with a few dozen barrels of unrefined nuclear waste for nefarious purposes .
We are way more careful with accounting things way less dangerous than nuclear waste ; I do n't see why we could n't have something like this set up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there that international atomic agency that does things like inspections of reactors?
If we had them doing inspections and certifying that weapons-grade material wasn't being made, what would the huge problem be?If inventory tracking is tightly controlled, it would be difficult for the CIA or something to sneak away with a few dozen barrels of unrefined nuclear waste for nefarious purposes.
We are way more careful with accounting things way less dangerous than nuclear waste; I don't see why we couldn't have something like this set up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971320</id>
	<title>Re:What does France do with their waste?</title>
	<author>CyberDragon777</author>
	<datestamp>1264961460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well according to Wikipedia they reprocess it, and the waste of several other countries too.<br>The not reusable stuff gets sent back to the originating countries, the domestic stuff will go to underground storage when it is completed.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA\_La\_Hague\_site" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA\_La\_Hague\_site</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power\_in\_France#Fuel\_cycle" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power\_in\_France#Fuel\_cycle</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>(Or if you believe some crazy solar energy maniacs, all the waste is shipped to the US and stored in South Carolina...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well according to Wikipedia they reprocess it , and the waste of several other countries too.The not reusable stuff gets sent back to the originating countries , the domestic stuff will go to underground storage when it is completed.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA \ _La \ _Hague \ _site [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear \ _power \ _in \ _France # Fuel \ _cycle [ wikipedia.org ] ( Or if you believe some crazy solar energy maniacs , all the waste is shipped to the US and stored in South Carolina... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well according to Wikipedia they reprocess it, and the waste of several other countries too.The not reusable stuff gets sent back to the originating countries, the domestic stuff will go to underground storage when it is completed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA\_La\_Hague\_site [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power\_in\_France#Fuel\_cycle [wikipedia.org](Or if you believe some crazy solar energy maniacs, all the waste is shipped to the US and stored in South Carolina...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970382</id>
	<title>It's spelled guaranty.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this context, the spellings are: guaranty, guaranties, guarantied.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this context , the spellings are : guaranty , guaranties , guarantied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this context, the spellings are: guaranty, guaranties, guarantied.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>Moryath</author>
	<datestamp>1264954080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't have more of a nuclear program for two reasons right now:</p><p>#1 - Every time someone starts trying to get the permits together to build a new reactor, the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation.<br>#2 - Ever since Jimmy Carter's dunderheaded executive order (in which he said the US will not reprocess spent nuclear fuel back into usable fuel, because it would set an "example" to other nations not to reprocess anything that could be weapons grade... nincompoop), we haven't refined our spent fuel. As a result, we have a "nuclear waste problem", despite the fact that with proper recycling methods, greater than 95\% of our stock of "nuclear waste" could be turned back into usable fuel.</p><p>Probably the only thing I agree with Obama on is that we need a serious conversion of our energy supply to use as much Nuclear as possible (solar/wind/geothermal too but they have severe limitations and can't meet our needs by themselves... solar, for instance, produces immense amounts of toxic waste and currently requires polysilicon substrates as a base for the panels, plus the most common silica sources are currently strip-mined). That being said, his bit about loans is only a half measure, if he was really serious he'd rescind Carter's dumbass executive order and get us down the path of recycling to deal with the "nuclear waste" issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't have more of a nuclear program for two reasons right now : # 1 - Every time someone starts trying to get the permits together to build a new reactor , the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation. # 2 - Ever since Jimmy Carter 's dunderheaded executive order ( in which he said the US will not reprocess spent nuclear fuel back into usable fuel , because it would set an " example " to other nations not to reprocess anything that could be weapons grade... nincompoop ) , we have n't refined our spent fuel .
As a result , we have a " nuclear waste problem " , despite the fact that with proper recycling methods , greater than 95 \ % of our stock of " nuclear waste " could be turned back into usable fuel.Probably the only thing I agree with Obama on is that we need a serious conversion of our energy supply to use as much Nuclear as possible ( solar/wind/geothermal too but they have severe limitations and ca n't meet our needs by themselves... solar , for instance , produces immense amounts of toxic waste and currently requires polysilicon substrates as a base for the panels , plus the most common silica sources are currently strip-mined ) .
That being said , his bit about loans is only a half measure , if he was really serious he 'd rescind Carter 's dumbass executive order and get us down the path of recycling to deal with the " nuclear waste " issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't have more of a nuclear program for two reasons right now:#1 - Every time someone starts trying to get the permits together to build a new reactor, the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation.#2 - Ever since Jimmy Carter's dunderheaded executive order (in which he said the US will not reprocess spent nuclear fuel back into usable fuel, because it would set an "example" to other nations not to reprocess anything that could be weapons grade... nincompoop), we haven't refined our spent fuel.
As a result, we have a "nuclear waste problem", despite the fact that with proper recycling methods, greater than 95\% of our stock of "nuclear waste" could be turned back into usable fuel.Probably the only thing I agree with Obama on is that we need a serious conversion of our energy supply to use as much Nuclear as possible (solar/wind/geothermal too but they have severe limitations and can't meet our needs by themselves... solar, for instance, produces immense amounts of toxic waste and currently requires polysilicon substrates as a base for the panels, plus the most common silica sources are currently strip-mined).
That being said, his bit about loans is only a half measure, if he was really serious he'd rescind Carter's dumbass executive order and get us down the path of recycling to deal with the "nuclear waste" issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30976312</id>
	<title>Re:State of the Coonion?</title>
	<author>raind</author>
	<datestamp>1264948740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's empty headed? I would say you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's empty headed ?
I would say you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's empty headed?
I would say you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973058</id>
	<title>Re:And yet the public...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264928880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>#1 - Every time someone starts trying to get the permits together to build a new reactor, the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation.</p></div><p>Yeah, I threw a lawyer IN A CHAIR at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey\_Shore\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">the situation</a> [wikipedia.org], but the fucker recovered because the lawyer had a well padded wallet that broke the fall. Either that or an iPad. I don't know whom I hate more, Mike Sorrentino or lawyers in general.</p><p>You may now call me Mr. Ballmerio.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># 1 - Every time someone starts trying to get the permits together to build a new reactor , the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation.Yeah , I threw a lawyer IN A CHAIR at the situation [ wikipedia.org ] , but the fucker recovered because the lawyer had a well padded wallet that broke the fall .
Either that or an iPad .
I do n't know whom I hate more , Mike Sorrentino or lawyers in general.You may now call me Mr. Ballmerio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#1 - Every time someone starts trying to get the permits together to build a new reactor, the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation.Yeah, I threw a lawyer IN A CHAIR at the situation [wikipedia.org], but the fucker recovered because the lawyer had a well padded wallet that broke the fall.
Either that or an iPad.
I don't know whom I hate more, Mike Sorrentino or lawyers in general.You may now call me Mr. Ballmerio.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971342</id>
	<title>Re:what about</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264961700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reactor that will use burn waste, is expected to be the thorium reactor. We can re-start the project fairly quickly. In addition, it is known for great low costs and safety.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reactor that will use burn waste , is expected to be the thorium reactor .
We can re-start the project fairly quickly .
In addition , it is known for great low costs and safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reactor that will use burn waste, is expected to be the thorium reactor.
We can re-start the project fairly quickly.
In addition, it is known for great low costs and safety.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974034</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1264934100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would refer to it as an empowering influence.  Those peoples have been unstable and squabbling for centuries.  We just give them bigger sticks to fight with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would refer to it as an empowering influence .
Those peoples have been unstable and squabbling for centuries .
We just give them bigger sticks to fight with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would refer to it as an empowering influence.
Those peoples have been unstable and squabbling for centuries.
We just give them bigger sticks to fight with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974530</id>
	<title>Re:what about</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1264936920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do pebble bed reactors still need research? It's 1960's tech...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do pebble bed reactors still need research ?
It 's 1960 's tech.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do pebble bed reactors still need research?
It's 1960's tech...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971802</id>
	<title>Careful . . . this is Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . where we don't let facts get in the way of dishonest conservative rhetoric. You will be modded down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
where we do n't let facts get in the way of dishonest conservative rhetoric .
You will be modded down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
where we don't let facts get in the way of dishonest conservative rhetoric.
You will be modded down!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970380</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read somewhere that the guarantees are required due to the extensive plant construction time of about 9 years,</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read somewhere that the guarantees are required due to the extensive plant construction time of about 9 years,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read somewhere that the guarantees are required due to the extensive plant construction time of about 9 years,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971492</id>
	<title>Re:what about</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1264962840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may be wrong, but from what I've read about pebble bed reactors they tend to be quite small. I recall reading in (I think) Popular Science that pebble beds were idea for places like Africa where one pebble bed reactor could be placed at a central point to power a few dozen villages.</p><p>For us, though, the economy of scale and whatnot... it just makes more sense to build larger size reactors. We wouldn't have as much problem stowing away all the nuclear waste and whatnot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be wrong , but from what I 've read about pebble bed reactors they tend to be quite small .
I recall reading in ( I think ) Popular Science that pebble beds were idea for places like Africa where one pebble bed reactor could be placed at a central point to power a few dozen villages.For us , though , the economy of scale and whatnot... it just makes more sense to build larger size reactors .
We would n't have as much problem stowing away all the nuclear waste and whatnot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be wrong, but from what I've read about pebble bed reactors they tend to be quite small.
I recall reading in (I think) Popular Science that pebble beds were idea for places like Africa where one pebble bed reactor could be placed at a central point to power a few dozen villages.For us, though, the economy of scale and whatnot... it just makes more sense to build larger size reactors.
We wouldn't have as much problem stowing away all the nuclear waste and whatnot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973994</id>
	<title>Re:Old Skool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This device is known as a perpetual motion machine and is in violation of the first law of thermodynamics.  Also, the panel of scientists convened to discuss it determined that it didn't produce any energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This device is known as a perpetual motion machine and is in violation of the first law of thermodynamics .
Also , the panel of scientists convened to discuss it determined that it did n't produce any energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This device is known as a perpetual motion machine and is in violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
Also, the panel of scientists convened to discuss it determined that it didn't produce any energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972900</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>trenien</author>
	<datestamp>1264971120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the cost you state, do you take into account the dismantlement of the power plant at the end of its life cycle?
<p>
I ask that because that's the very point that keeps being swept under the rug when doing a cost evaluation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the cost you state , do you take into account the dismantlement of the power plant at the end of its life cycle ?
I ask that because that 's the very point that keeps being swept under the rug when doing a cost evaluation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the cost you state, do you take into account the dismantlement of the power plant at the end of its life cycle?
I ask that because that's the very point that keeps being swept under the rug when doing a cost evaluation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970264</id>
	<title>Re:Loan guarantees?</title>
	<author>Greg Hullender</author>
	<datestamp>1264952580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note that even China doesn't build many nuclear reactors. The Chinese aren't exactly ecowarriors, so it can't have anything to do with considerations of safety or waste disposal. Nuclear power is a very cool, very complex technology. It's just very expensive to build.
<p>

--Greg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that even China does n't build many nuclear reactors .
The Chinese are n't exactly ecowarriors , so it ca n't have anything to do with considerations of safety or waste disposal .
Nuclear power is a very cool , very complex technology .
It 's just very expensive to build .
--Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that even China doesn't build many nuclear reactors.
The Chinese aren't exactly ecowarriors, so it can't have anything to do with considerations of safety or waste disposal.
Nuclear power is a very cool, very complex technology.
It's just very expensive to build.
--Greg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30979392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30979186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30978244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30975962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30979062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.31033888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30976744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30978658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30978694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30980096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30976448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30990770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30982340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30976312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_1327238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30976448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30983500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30982340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30990770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.31033888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30975962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30979186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970968
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30976312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30976744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30973320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30980096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_1327238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971024
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30974034
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30978658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30979062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30978244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30971414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30972900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30979392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30970380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_1327238.30978694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
