<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_29_0511233</id>
	<title>French Fusion Experiment Delayed Until 2025 or Beyond</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243591800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The old joke is that fusion is the power of the future and always will be. But it's not looking so funny for <a href="http://www.iter.org/">ITER</a>, an EU10 billion fusion experiment in France. According to Nature News, ITER <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090527/full/459488a.html">will not conduct energy-producing experiments until at least 2025</a> &mdash; five years later than what had been previously agreed to. The article adds that the reactor will cost even more than the seven parties in the project first thought:'...Construction costs are likely to double from the 5-billion (US$7-billion) estimate provided by the project in 2006, as a result of rises in the price of raw materials, gaps in the original design, and an unanticipated increase in staffing to manage procurement. The cost of ITER's operations phase, another 5 billion over 20 years, may also rise.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The old joke is that fusion is the power of the future and always will be .
But it 's not looking so funny for ITER , an EU10 billion fusion experiment in France .
According to Nature News , ITER will not conduct energy-producing experiments until at least 2025    five years later than what had been previously agreed to .
The article adds that the reactor will cost even more than the seven parties in the project first thought : '...Construction costs are likely to double from the 5-billion ( US $ 7-billion ) estimate provided by the project in 2006 , as a result of rises in the price of raw materials , gaps in the original design , and an unanticipated increase in staffing to manage procurement .
The cost of ITER 's operations phase , another 5 billion over 20 years , may also rise .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The old joke is that fusion is the power of the future and always will be.
But it's not looking so funny for ITER, an EU10 billion fusion experiment in France.
According to Nature News, ITER will not conduct energy-producing experiments until at least 2025 — five years later than what had been previously agreed to.
The article adds that the reactor will cost even more than the seven parties in the project first thought:'...Construction costs are likely to double from the 5-billion (US$7-billion) estimate provided by the project in 2006, as a result of rises in the price of raw materials, gaps in the original design, and an unanticipated increase in staffing to manage procurement.
The cost of ITER's operations phase, another 5 billion over 20 years, may also rise.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137155</id>
	<title>Re:Fusion</title>
	<author>Prof.Phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1243603500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, many thousands of years from now, when we start to run out of hydrogen (oceans are big) for our fusion plants, we might just start fusing helium. Think of "hydrogen" as being the first easiest stepping stone... but everything upto Iron can be fused<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>By the time hydrogen runs out, we'd likely be burning through the gasses of Jupiter, and looking for other solar systems to colonise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , many thousands of years from now , when we start to run out of hydrogen ( oceans are big ) for our fusion plants , we might just start fusing helium .
Think of " hydrogen " as being the first easiest stepping stone... but everything upto Iron can be fused : - ) By the time hydrogen runs out , we 'd likely be burning through the gasses of Jupiter , and looking for other solar systems to colonise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, many thousands of years from now, when we start to run out of hydrogen (oceans are big) for our fusion plants, we might just start fusing helium.
Think of "hydrogen" as being the first easiest stepping stone... but everything upto Iron can be fused :-)By the time hydrogen runs out, we'd likely be burning through the gasses of Jupiter, and looking for other solar systems to colonise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136577</id>
	<title>"EU10"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243597020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's EUR for the currency if that's what they're referring to with the 10 billion...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's EUR for the currency if that 's what they 're referring to with the 10 billion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's EUR for the currency if that's what they're referring to with the 10 billion...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136603</id>
	<title>Re:Not "French"</title>
	<author>who knows my name</author>
	<datestamp>1243597260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the I in ITER stands for international...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the I in ITER stands for international.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the I in ITER stands for international...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136643</id>
	<title>Re:Not "French"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243597980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The title got it wrong: this is not a French experiment, but an international one which happens to take place in France. There's a difference...</p></div><p>You don't get it, an experiment is International when it succeeds but French when it fails.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The title got it wrong : this is not a French experiment , but an international one which happens to take place in France .
There 's a difference...You do n't get it , an experiment is International when it succeeds but French when it fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title got it wrong: this is not a French experiment, but an international one which happens to take place in France.
There's a difference...You don't get it, an experiment is International when it succeeds but French when it fails.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139621</id>
	<title>disappointment</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1243615860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Were they bought out by big oil?<br>
Or are they really incompetent?<br>
Don't they understand that it is better to pump a few more billions into ITER than to pump those same billions into banks?<br>
Don't they understand that energy is a world-class problem and that it needs to be solved ASAP? I.e.: 5 years extra is unacceptable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were they bought out by big oil ?
Or are they really incompetent ?
Do n't they understand that it is better to pump a few more billions into ITER than to pump those same billions into banks ?
Do n't they understand that energy is a world-class problem and that it needs to be solved ASAP ?
I.e. : 5 years extra is unacceptable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were they bought out by big oil?
Or are they really incompetent?
Don't they understand that it is better to pump a few more billions into ITER than to pump those same billions into banks?
Don't they understand that energy is a world-class problem and that it needs to be solved ASAP?
I.e.: 5 years extra is unacceptable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28142213</id>
	<title>Re:If I were a French taxpayer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243627860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What for-profit company is likely to make a multi-billion dollar investment that, even discounting the possibility of failure, it is unlikely to see any chance of a return on for 40 years?  The only industries I can think that make billion dollar investments are shipmakers and aircraft manufacturers, and their planned ROI period is much less than 40 years.</p></div><p>Carmakers... it takes about 6 billion euros now to design a new car and put it on the road. Chipmakers -  the cost of new factories are astronomical. Foundry-makers. Pharmaceutical companies. Biotech companies...</p><p>There are a lot of companies investing money like water. But yes, the ROI is usually something like 4 years, not 40. And thus we need government, to do those things collectively that individually would mean suicide for companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What for-profit company is likely to make a multi-billion dollar investment that , even discounting the possibility of failure , it is unlikely to see any chance of a return on for 40 years ?
The only industries I can think that make billion dollar investments are shipmakers and aircraft manufacturers , and their planned ROI period is much less than 40 years.Carmakers... it takes about 6 billion euros now to design a new car and put it on the road .
Chipmakers - the cost of new factories are astronomical .
Foundry-makers. Pharmaceutical companies .
Biotech companies...There are a lot of companies investing money like water .
But yes , the ROI is usually something like 4 years , not 40 .
And thus we need government , to do those things collectively that individually would mean suicide for companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What for-profit company is likely to make a multi-billion dollar investment that, even discounting the possibility of failure, it is unlikely to see any chance of a return on for 40 years?
The only industries I can think that make billion dollar investments are shipmakers and aircraft manufacturers, and their planned ROI period is much less than 40 years.Carmakers... it takes about 6 billion euros now to design a new car and put it on the road.
Chipmakers -  the cost of new factories are astronomical.
Foundry-makers. Pharmaceutical companies.
Biotech companies...There are a lot of companies investing money like water.
But yes, the ROI is usually something like 4 years, not 40.
And thus we need government, to do those things collectively that individually would mean suicide for companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136693</id>
	<title>Re:Not "French"</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1243598640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The title got it wrong: this is not a French experiment, but an international one which happens to take place in France. There's a difference...</i> <br>
<br>
Merde! We give you suppositories and this is how you repay us!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The title got it wrong : this is not a French experiment , but an international one which happens to take place in France .
There 's a difference.. . Merde ! We give you suppositories and this is how you repay us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title got it wrong: this is not a French experiment, but an international one which happens to take place in France.
There's a difference... 

Merde! We give you suppositories and this is how you repay us!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28140783</id>
	<title>Oh well, then, that's a problem:</title>
	<author>tchdab1</author>
	<datestamp>1243622040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;ITER will not conduct energy-producing experiments until at least 2025 -- five years later than what had been previously agreed to. The article adds that the reactor will cost even more than the seven parties in the project first thought:'...Construction costs are likely to double from the 5-billion (US$7-billion)</p><p>I guess the in-home personal version of this is also delayed then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; ITER will not conduct energy-producing experiments until at least 2025 -- five years later than what had been previously agreed to .
The article adds that the reactor will cost even more than the seven parties in the project first thought : '...Construction costs are likely to double from the 5-billion ( US $ 7-billion ) I guess the in-home personal version of this is also delayed then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;ITER will not conduct energy-producing experiments until at least 2025 -- five years later than what had been previously agreed to.
The article adds that the reactor will cost even more than the seven parties in the project first thought:'...Construction costs are likely to double from the 5-billion (US$7-billion)I guess the in-home personal version of this is also delayed then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137045</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1243602720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If fusion is 2-3 times more expensive, and no cleaner than solar/wind power - why invest in it?</i> <p>

Because it produces more power per area, and does not depend on local weather conditions. This also means that you can use it as a power source outside of Earths atmosphere and far away from the sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If fusion is 2-3 times more expensive , and no cleaner than solar/wind power - why invest in it ?
Because it produces more power per area , and does not depend on local weather conditions .
This also means that you can use it as a power source outside of Earths atmosphere and far away from the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If fusion is 2-3 times more expensive, and no cleaner than solar/wind power - why invest in it?
Because it produces more power per area, and does not depend on local weather conditions.
This also means that you can use it as a power source outside of Earths atmosphere and far away from the sun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28140797</id>
	<title>Re:If I were a French taxpayer...You wouldn't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243622100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one thing, this is an international experiment, that just happens to be in France -- it had to be built someplace after all.  A lot of countries contribute dollars and people to it.</p><p>Second, it is only one of many possible approaches, the one that happens to suit tenure seeking cubicle type big scientists and bureaucrats the best, not perhaps the scientifically best approach, and obviously not for the money.  I've lost count of how many times fusioneers have said "we just need one twice as big and it will work this time".  Personally, as a businessman -- I'd have fired the lot of them on rev 2.  But since each try takes like 10 years, and everyone has moved on to some cushy position by then, it's always a different crowd using the same old trick for employment security.</p><p>I have done government work, and there is no way we'd have penicillin if the governement had funded that.  In that case it would have gone like "There's some contamination in this ditch bitch -- toss it out and do it all over and get it right this time".  If, while doing government work (I have actual experience here) you find that the original thing can't work, but discover something that could -- no joy.  They will tell you to spend the original money and time on something known not to ever work, then write a new grant, and 3 years later, long after any inspiration is gone, try the new thing.</p><p>I am privately funding my own fusion work, and am already doing better than that crowd, and while not on a slashdot shoestring, real cheap compared to anyone else.  And getting results!  The thing is, here we can follow our noses, taking anything we learn into account for the next experiment.  Those guys can't.</p><p>We're not doing Bussard's thing, as we don't like the idea much and there's not enough data we can find to prove even their limited claims.  And BTW, yet another error -- the government cut him/them off quite awhile back, that's why there's that video of him trying to get money from Google...</p><p>We are right now doing electrostatic/dynamic containment/focus in a pulsed mode (nnot like Lerners DPF) using transit times and pure ions (not plasmas) and getting like 100 times the interaction rates compared to anyone else in the literature -- more than enough for the neutron flux to be very dangerous with 40 watts input total.  Cost?  Maybe a couple hundred K$ over two years, and we think we'll see gain before another two.</p><p>Don't all visit at once, and no, I don't want your money or cynicism, I have plenty of my own.<br>This ain't a slashvertisement.  Sorry, this site is nearly two years old since last update.  I've been having more fun doing than documenting --<br>www.coultersmithing.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one thing , this is an international experiment , that just happens to be in France -- it had to be built someplace after all .
A lot of countries contribute dollars and people to it.Second , it is only one of many possible approaches , the one that happens to suit tenure seeking cubicle type big scientists and bureaucrats the best , not perhaps the scientifically best approach , and obviously not for the money .
I 've lost count of how many times fusioneers have said " we just need one twice as big and it will work this time " .
Personally , as a businessman -- I 'd have fired the lot of them on rev 2 .
But since each try takes like 10 years , and everyone has moved on to some cushy position by then , it 's always a different crowd using the same old trick for employment security.I have done government work , and there is no way we 'd have penicillin if the governement had funded that .
In that case it would have gone like " There 's some contamination in this ditch bitch -- toss it out and do it all over and get it right this time " .
If , while doing government work ( I have actual experience here ) you find that the original thing ca n't work , but discover something that could -- no joy .
They will tell you to spend the original money and time on something known not to ever work , then write a new grant , and 3 years later , long after any inspiration is gone , try the new thing.I am privately funding my own fusion work , and am already doing better than that crowd , and while not on a slashdot shoestring , real cheap compared to anyone else .
And getting results !
The thing is , here we can follow our noses , taking anything we learn into account for the next experiment .
Those guys ca n't.We 're not doing Bussard 's thing , as we do n't like the idea much and there 's not enough data we can find to prove even their limited claims .
And BTW , yet another error -- the government cut him/them off quite awhile back , that 's why there 's that video of him trying to get money from Google...We are right now doing electrostatic/dynamic containment/focus in a pulsed mode ( nnot like Lerners DPF ) using transit times and pure ions ( not plasmas ) and getting like 100 times the interaction rates compared to anyone else in the literature -- more than enough for the neutron flux to be very dangerous with 40 watts input total .
Cost ? Maybe a couple hundred K $ over two years , and we think we 'll see gain before another two.Do n't all visit at once , and no , I do n't want your money or cynicism , I have plenty of my own.This ai n't a slashvertisement .
Sorry , this site is nearly two years old since last update .
I 've been having more fun doing than documenting --www.coultersmithing.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one thing, this is an international experiment, that just happens to be in France -- it had to be built someplace after all.
A lot of countries contribute dollars and people to it.Second, it is only one of many possible approaches, the one that happens to suit tenure seeking cubicle type big scientists and bureaucrats the best, not perhaps the scientifically best approach, and obviously not for the money.
I've lost count of how many times fusioneers have said "we just need one twice as big and it will work this time".
Personally, as a businessman -- I'd have fired the lot of them on rev 2.
But since each try takes like 10 years, and everyone has moved on to some cushy position by then, it's always a different crowd using the same old trick for employment security.I have done government work, and there is no way we'd have penicillin if the governement had funded that.
In that case it would have gone like "There's some contamination in this ditch bitch -- toss it out and do it all over and get it right this time".
If, while doing government work (I have actual experience here) you find that the original thing can't work, but discover something that could -- no joy.
They will tell you to spend the original money and time on something known not to ever work, then write a new grant, and 3 years later, long after any inspiration is gone, try the new thing.I am privately funding my own fusion work, and am already doing better than that crowd, and while not on a slashdot shoestring, real cheap compared to anyone else.
And getting results!
The thing is, here we can follow our noses, taking anything we learn into account for the next experiment.
Those guys can't.We're not doing Bussard's thing, as we don't like the idea much and there's not enough data we can find to prove even their limited claims.
And BTW, yet another error -- the government cut him/them off quite awhile back, that's why there's that video of him trying to get money from Google...We are right now doing electrostatic/dynamic containment/focus in a pulsed mode (nnot like Lerners DPF) using transit times and pure ions (not plasmas) and getting like 100 times the interaction rates compared to anyone else in the literature -- more than enough for the neutron flux to be very dangerous with 40 watts input total.
Cost?  Maybe a couple hundred K$ over two years, and we think we'll see gain before another two.Don't all visit at once, and no, I don't want your money or cynicism, I have plenty of my own.This ain't a slashvertisement.
Sorry, this site is nearly two years old since last update.
I've been having more fun doing than documenting --www.coultersmithing.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136459</id>
	<title>Someone just give this man some money....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243595760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard</p><p>Even if he fails miserably its gonna cost a shedload less than all the projects like ITER around the world are</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BussardEven if he fails miserably its gon na cost a shedload less than all the projects like ITER around the world are</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BussardEven if he fails miserably its gonna cost a shedload less than all the projects like ITER around the world are</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137977</id>
	<title>Re:I'll cross my fingures harder for polywell then</title>
	<author>dintech</author>
	<datestamp>1243608060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nearly all the worlds problems come down to energy!</p></div></blockquote><p>True. After free energy however, the bottleneck will eventually move to some other resource. Metals, plastics, water, food, space - something like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly all the worlds problems come down to energy ! True .
After free energy however , the bottleneck will eventually move to some other resource .
Metals , plastics , water , food , space - something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly all the worlds problems come down to energy!True.
After free energy however, the bottleneck will eventually move to some other resource.
Metals, plastics, water, food, space - something like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136981</id>
	<title>Re:Moon</title>
	<author>frith01</author>
	<datestamp>1243602120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me introduce you to a new concept, it's called waves reaching the beach.  Energy is reduced when the waves reach the beach.<br>If we extract that energy instead,  there is no net change in energy distribution at a planetary scale.</p><p>Additionally,  the moon is actually departing earth orbit, just very slowly. ( 1-3 inches / year) , so no global moon imact is imminent</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me introduce you to a new concept , it 's called waves reaching the beach .
Energy is reduced when the waves reach the beach.If we extract that energy instead , there is no net change in energy distribution at a planetary scale.Additionally , the moon is actually departing earth orbit , just very slowly .
( 1-3 inches / year ) , so no global moon imact is imminent</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me introduce you to a new concept, it's called waves reaching the beach.
Energy is reduced when the waves reach the beach.If we extract that energy instead,  there is no net change in energy distribution at a planetary scale.Additionally,  the moon is actually departing earth orbit, just very slowly.
( 1-3 inches / year) , so no global moon imact is imminent</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28143059</id>
	<title>Re:bvgygtggtvcxrgnh</title>
	<author>Craig Davison</author>
	<datestamp>1243588020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Giant TVs everywhere happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Giant TVs everywhere happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Giant TVs everywhere happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138365</id>
	<title>Re:Someone just give this man some money....</title>
	<author>The\_Wilschon</author>
	<datestamp>1243609680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad you know more about fusion reactor design viability than people who are devoting their entire working lives to the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad you know more about fusion reactor design viability than people who are devoting their entire working lives to the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad you know more about fusion reactor design viability than people who are devoting their entire working lives to the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137451</id>
	<title>Re:If I were a French taxpayer...</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1243605240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we're talking tens if not ultimately hundreds of billions here, which makes a big difference.</p><p>That said, if we're only talking billions, how about the $6 billion Microsoft spent developing Vista. Heck, Microsoft spend about $1.5 billion a year just in advertizing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we 're talking tens if not ultimately hundreds of billions here , which makes a big difference.That said , if we 're only talking billions , how about the $ 6 billion Microsoft spent developing Vista .
Heck , Microsoft spend about $ 1.5 billion a year just in advertizing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we're talking tens if not ultimately hundreds of billions here, which makes a big difference.That said, if we're only talking billions, how about the $6 billion Microsoft spent developing Vista.
Heck, Microsoft spend about $1.5 billion a year just in advertizing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138145</id>
	<title>Re:Not "French"</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1243608780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it would definitely be a "French" problem if the thing blows up in a spectacular fashion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it would definitely be a " French " problem if the thing blows up in a spectacular fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it would definitely be a "French" problem if the thing blows up in a spectacular fashion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28166977</id>
	<title>Why not geothermal investment?</title>
	<author>Jonas007</author>
	<datestamp>1243866240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of spending billions on a theoretical power generation source, why doesn't the government invest in geothermal plants?

These have already been proven to work (you can even get a plant setup big enough to run 2 family homes for around $40,000USD), and will provide energy for about the next 10,000 years.  I'm sure with the final price tag of the 14 billion or whatever, a geothermal company could have created some pretty cheap and efficient commercial versions of these plants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of spending billions on a theoretical power generation source , why does n't the government invest in geothermal plants ?
These have already been proven to work ( you can even get a plant setup big enough to run 2 family homes for around $ 40,000USD ) , and will provide energy for about the next 10,000 years .
I 'm sure with the final price tag of the 14 billion or whatever , a geothermal company could have created some pretty cheap and efficient commercial versions of these plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of spending billions on a theoretical power generation source, why doesn't the government invest in geothermal plants?
These have already been proven to work (you can even get a plant setup big enough to run 2 family homes for around $40,000USD), and will provide energy for about the next 10,000 years.
I'm sure with the final price tag of the 14 billion or whatever, a geothermal company could have created some pretty cheap and efficient commercial versions of these plants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139159</id>
	<title>National Ignition Facility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243613580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a somewhat related article, The Economist this week wrote an article about the startup of the <a href="http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=13726730" title="economist.com" rel="nofollow">National Ignitiion Facility</a> [economist.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a somewhat related article , The Economist this week wrote an article about the startup of the National Ignitiion Facility [ economist.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a somewhat related article, The Economist this week wrote an article about the startup of the National Ignitiion Facility [economist.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136543</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy to fund for something we have already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243596600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Natural fusion energy is there everywhere, the sun provides plenty of energy for presently just a little more cost than usual<br>methods.  If we would invest even a fraction from what is spend there and in fission programs we would have already reduced the cost of solar electricity to what it will be anyway within 10-20yr.</p><p>Big business and political powers dont like energy sources that are decentralized because they loose a way<br>to control their power source, the population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Natural fusion energy is there everywhere , the sun provides plenty of energy for presently just a little more cost than usualmethods .
If we would invest even a fraction from what is spend there and in fission programs we would have already reduced the cost of solar electricity to what it will be anyway within 10-20yr.Big business and political powers dont like energy sources that are decentralized because they loose a wayto control their power source , the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Natural fusion energy is there everywhere, the sun provides plenty of energy for presently just a little more cost than usualmethods.
If we would invest even a fraction from what is spend there and in fission programs we would have already reduced the cost of solar electricity to what it will be anyway within 10-20yr.Big business and political powers dont like energy sources that are decentralized because they loose a wayto control their power source, the population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139353</id>
	<title>ITER will fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243614600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell you with a good degree of certainty that ITER will fail. Here is why;</p><p>The solar nuclear Hydrogen-gas-plasma model is wrong.</p><p>Based on various satellite observations there is clear evidence that suggests a liquid iron-nickel rich sun with insulating layers of calcium, neon, sulfur, and silicon. Unrelated cold fusion experiments have provided some insight into interactions and byproducts which are likely to occur such as ** Iron-nickel's ability to absorb D2 and produce He3. **</p><p>This a new area of science with huge opportunity.  Any enterprising individuals reading this?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you with a good degree of certainty that ITER will fail .
Here is why ; The solar nuclear Hydrogen-gas-plasma model is wrong.Based on various satellite observations there is clear evidence that suggests a liquid iron-nickel rich sun with insulating layers of calcium , neon , sulfur , and silicon .
Unrelated cold fusion experiments have provided some insight into interactions and byproducts which are likely to occur such as * * Iron-nickel 's ability to absorb D2 and produce He3 .
* * This a new area of science with huge opportunity .
Any enterprising individuals reading this ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you with a good degree of certainty that ITER will fail.
Here is why;The solar nuclear Hydrogen-gas-plasma model is wrong.Based on various satellite observations there is clear evidence that suggests a liquid iron-nickel rich sun with insulating layers of calcium, neon, sulfur, and silicon.
Unrelated cold fusion experiments have provided some insight into interactions and byproducts which are likely to occur such as ** Iron-nickel's ability to absorb D2 and produce He3.
**This a new area of science with huge opportunity.
Any enterprising individuals reading this?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136873</id>
	<title>Things that make you go 'Hmmm...'</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1243600980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>gaps in the original design</p></div><p>I read this as "nobody has any idea how the fusion power technology is supposed to work yet."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>gaps in the original designI read this as " nobody has any idea how the fusion power technology is supposed to work yet .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gaps in the original designI read this as "nobody has any idea how the fusion power technology is supposed to work yet.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138351</id>
	<title>Time to move on</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1243609620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's really no point in continuing with this experiment now.</p><p>I have strong confidence in the technical side of this project, meaning that I believe that ITER will work, and generate net energy. Unfortunately it's not clear to me how much we'll actually learn in that process; this is an engineering project more than a scientific one.</p><p>I have zero confidence that the ITER path (and related approaches) is one that will ever result in commercial power generation. The energy density of ITER is far too low to be useful, and the only way to improve that is to make more expensive machines. There's no evidence that the technology scales down in cost, and that any approach along this "big dumb" line is useful. Very smart people at the power companies have already given it a big thumbs-down.</p><p>This money needs to be turned to other projects. For the price of ITER we can fund a whole bunch of smaller science projects, projects that at least have some hope of being actually useful. HiPER is one that cries out for funding, but so does magnetized target fusion and the polywell. Unlike ITER, the physics of these experiments is not yet understood, but IF they do work then they are FAR less expensive to build. That is a much better way to spend research money IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's really no point in continuing with this experiment now.I have strong confidence in the technical side of this project , meaning that I believe that ITER will work , and generate net energy .
Unfortunately it 's not clear to me how much we 'll actually learn in that process ; this is an engineering project more than a scientific one.I have zero confidence that the ITER path ( and related approaches ) is one that will ever result in commercial power generation .
The energy density of ITER is far too low to be useful , and the only way to improve that is to make more expensive machines .
There 's no evidence that the technology scales down in cost , and that any approach along this " big dumb " line is useful .
Very smart people at the power companies have already given it a big thumbs-down.This money needs to be turned to other projects .
For the price of ITER we can fund a whole bunch of smaller science projects , projects that at least have some hope of being actually useful .
HiPER is one that cries out for funding , but so does magnetized target fusion and the polywell .
Unlike ITER , the physics of these experiments is not yet understood , but IF they do work then they are FAR less expensive to build .
That is a much better way to spend research money IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's really no point in continuing with this experiment now.I have strong confidence in the technical side of this project, meaning that I believe that ITER will work, and generate net energy.
Unfortunately it's not clear to me how much we'll actually learn in that process; this is an engineering project more than a scientific one.I have zero confidence that the ITER path (and related approaches) is one that will ever result in commercial power generation.
The energy density of ITER is far too low to be useful, and the only way to improve that is to make more expensive machines.
There's no evidence that the technology scales down in cost, and that any approach along this "big dumb" line is useful.
Very smart people at the power companies have already given it a big thumbs-down.This money needs to be turned to other projects.
For the price of ITER we can fund a whole bunch of smaller science projects, projects that at least have some hope of being actually useful.
HiPER is one that cries out for funding, but so does magnetized target fusion and the polywell.
Unlike ITER, the physics of these experiments is not yet understood, but IF they do work then they are FAR less expensive to build.
That is a much better way to spend research money IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28140841</id>
	<title>Big fusion alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243622280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are other fusion projects available.</p><p>Several excellent GoogleTalks available.</p><p>The first which is Dr. Busserds Poleywell project:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&amp;ei=wxkgSqWnPIyEqQP9sZScAQ&amp;q=googletalk+nuclear" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&amp;ei=wxkgSqWnPIyEqQP9sZScAQ&amp;q=googletalk+nuclear</a> [google.com]</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The second and more exciting is the Focus Fusion project which is a Dense Plasma Focus machine:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1518007279479871760&amp;ei=UhogStX8GYuEqQO\_tMGiAQ&amp;q=googletalk+focus+fusion" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1518007279479871760&amp;ei=UhogStX8GYuEqQO\_tMGiAQ&amp;q=googletalk+focus+fusion</a> [google.com]</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense\_plasma\_focus" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense\_plasma\_focus</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The second GoogleTalk is more interesting because it covers the other small fusion development areas.</p><p>Dense Plasma focus fusion allows you to build a table top machine from which the electricity is drawn off directly, rather than the fusion energy being used to heat water to run turbines as all the other fusion methods would require.</p><p>I do not hear about Fusion research in Obama's energy plan, despite his appointment of Dr. Steven Chu to the department of energy.</p><p>Small fusion projects have a handicap as expressed in by both proponents in their respective GoogleTalk videos.</p><p>These small projects can be run in parallel, and I feel that our time is running out for our civilization as a whole:</p><p><a href="http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/" title="lifeaftertheoilcrash.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/</a> [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net]</p><p>Ahimsa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other fusion projects available.Several excellent GoogleTalks available.The first which is Dr. Busserds Poleywell project :     http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = 1996321846673788606&amp;ei = wxkgSqWnPIyEqQP9sZScAQ&amp;q = googletalk + nuclear [ google.com ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell [ wikipedia.org ] The second and more exciting is the Focus Fusion project which is a Dense Plasma Focus machine :     http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = -1518007279479871760&amp;ei = UhogStX8GYuEqQO \ _tMGiAQ&amp;q = googletalk + focus + fusion [ google.com ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense \ _plasma \ _focus [ wikipedia.org ] The second GoogleTalk is more interesting because it covers the other small fusion development areas.Dense Plasma focus fusion allows you to build a table top machine from which the electricity is drawn off directly , rather than the fusion energy being used to heat water to run turbines as all the other fusion methods would require.I do not hear about Fusion research in Obama 's energy plan , despite his appointment of Dr. Steven Chu to the department of energy.Small fusion projects have a handicap as expressed in by both proponents in their respective GoogleTalk videos.These small projects can be run in parallel , and I feel that our time is running out for our civilization as a whole : http : //www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ [ lifeaftertheoilcrash.net ] Ahimsa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other fusion projects available.Several excellent GoogleTalks available.The first which is Dr. Busserds Poleywell project:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&amp;ei=wxkgSqWnPIyEqQP9sZScAQ&amp;q=googletalk+nuclear [google.com]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell [wikipedia.org]The second and more exciting is the Focus Fusion project which is a Dense Plasma Focus machine:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1518007279479871760&amp;ei=UhogStX8GYuEqQO\_tMGiAQ&amp;q=googletalk+focus+fusion [google.com]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense\_plasma\_focus [wikipedia.org]The second GoogleTalk is more interesting because it covers the other small fusion development areas.Dense Plasma focus fusion allows you to build a table top machine from which the electricity is drawn off directly, rather than the fusion energy being used to heat water to run turbines as all the other fusion methods would require.I do not hear about Fusion research in Obama's energy plan, despite his appointment of Dr. Steven Chu to the department of energy.Small fusion projects have a handicap as expressed in by both proponents in their respective GoogleTalk videos.These small projects can be run in parallel, and I feel that our time is running out for our civilization as a whole:http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net]Ahimsa.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28143231</id>
	<title>Arghh: ITER is not French!</title>
	<author>andre.david</author>
	<datestamp>1243588860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Again: ITER is not French.<br>Otherwise it would be fission and or it would be FTER...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Again : ITER is not French.Otherwise it would be fission and or it would be FTER.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again: ITER is not French.Otherwise it would be fission and or it would be FTER...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28142003</id>
	<title>Re:5 billion? Chump change!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243627080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And as the public is used to Really Big Numbers at the moment, they'd just shrug and say "okay, that doesnt sound like much", especially if you translate it into cost per year. So no problem there either - in that respect we live in a timeperiod conducive to large investments into long term ventures. Perhaps we should just create a fund for that sort of investment. I heard the name "Long Term Capital" was available so we'd have a well-known name too. And best of all, the public already knows its a sinkhole for large amounts of money<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And as the public is used to Really Big Numbers at the moment , they 'd just shrug and say " okay , that doesnt sound like much " , especially if you translate it into cost per year .
So no problem there either - in that respect we live in a timeperiod conducive to large investments into long term ventures .
Perhaps we should just create a fund for that sort of investment .
I heard the name " Long Term Capital " was available so we 'd have a well-known name too .
And best of all , the public already knows its a sinkhole for large amounts of money : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as the public is used to Really Big Numbers at the moment, they'd just shrug and say "okay, that doesnt sound like much", especially if you translate it into cost per year.
So no problem there either - in that respect we live in a timeperiod conducive to large investments into long term ventures.
Perhaps we should just create a fund for that sort of investment.
I heard the name "Long Term Capital" was available so we'd have a well-known name too.
And best of all, the public already knows its a sinkhole for large amounts of money :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136631</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>tomtomtom777</author>
	<datestamp>1243597800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they won't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up?</p></div><p>Please note, that it is not 15 Bn to get fusion energy. It is 15 Bn for fusion energy <i>research</i>. The equations depends on the amount that such research would help. If there is only a tiny chance that the development of fusion energy would be a tiny step closer with this research, 15 Bn is suddenly quite a lot</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they wo n't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up ? Please note , that it is not 15 Bn to get fusion energy .
It is 15 Bn for fusion energy research .
The equations depends on the amount that such research would help .
If there is only a tiny chance that the development of fusion energy would be a tiny step closer with this research , 15 Bn is suddenly quite a lot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they won't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up?Please note, that it is not 15 Bn to get fusion energy.
It is 15 Bn for fusion energy research.
The equations depends on the amount that such research would help.
If there is only a tiny chance that the development of fusion energy would be a tiny step closer with this research, 15 Bn is suddenly quite a lot
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649</id>
	<title>If I were a French taxpayer...</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1243598160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would bug me about as much as the Superconducting Supercollider did.   The billions of francs the French government has wasted on this "big science" project would do a lot more good if it remained in the people's hands to spend as they saw fit.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would bug me about as much as the Superconducting Supercollider did .
The billions of francs the French government has wasted on this " big science " project would do a lot more good if it remained in the people 's hands to spend as they saw fit.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would bug me about as much as the Superconducting Supercollider did.
The billions of francs the French government has wasted on this "big science" project would do a lot more good if it remained in the people's hands to spend as they saw fit.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136703</id>
	<title>Re:If I were a French taxpayer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243598760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...the Superconducting Supercollider...</p><p>...billions of francs...</p></div><p>And that's just the obvious errors in your two line comment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the Superconducting Supercollider......billions of francs...And that 's just the obvious errors in your two line comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the Superconducting Supercollider......billions of francs...And that's just the obvious errors in your two line comment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136979</id>
	<title>Re:I've got the promo materials in front of me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243602120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia invented citations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia invented citations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia invented citations?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137043</id>
	<title>The DEMO plant won't start up in 2033 then</title>
	<author>distantbody</author>
	<datestamp>1243602720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>probably an optimistic start year anyway.<br> <br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO" title="wikipedia.org">DEMO</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>Might give some time for development of the superior <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellarator" title="wikipedia.org">stellarator</a> [wikipedia.org] design to catch up to tokamaks, but perhaps time-scale of decades lend themselves to development hell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>probably an optimistic start year anyway .
DEMO [ wikipedia.org ] Might give some time for development of the superior stellarator [ wikipedia.org ] design to catch up to tokamaks , but perhaps time-scale of decades lend themselves to development hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>probably an optimistic start year anyway.
DEMO [wikipedia.org]  Might give some time for development of the superior stellarator [wikipedia.org] design to catch up to tokamaks, but perhaps time-scale of decades lend themselves to development hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139309</id>
	<title>Re:If I were a French taxpayer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243614360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an international project, not a french project. Half of the funding comes from the European Union, the other half is from non-european countries (e.g. Japan). Also, you might not know it, but Europe has a currency known as the "Euro",  "francs" don't exist any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an international project , not a french project .
Half of the funding comes from the European Union , the other half is from non-european countries ( e.g .
Japan ) . Also , you might not know it , but Europe has a currency known as the " Euro " , " francs " do n't exist any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an international project, not a french project.
Half of the funding comes from the European Union, the other half is from non-european countries (e.g.
Japan). Also, you might not know it, but Europe has a currency known as the "Euro",  "francs" don't exist any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137183</id>
	<title>When I was in my teens...</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1243603680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fusion power was expected to have replaced nuclear by the year 2000. It's now 2009, and it's still more than 30 years in the future. A slippage of one year per year consistently for the last 40 years does not bode well.<p>Also when I was in my teens, those of us doing physics and chemistry at our school were encouraged to do the radiation physics and radiation chemistry options because this would career proof us. It was just so obvious that nuclear power would completely replace coal. Unfortunately all those other kids planning to do arts degrees regressed into NIMBYs.</p><p>Personally I think we should stop pissing about, build a new generation of standardised U/Pu reactors and put the development effort into thorium reactors. That will buy us time, lots of time, since thorium is plentiful, in which we may be able to have an advanced society while we sort out fusion. Spending billions on a lot of "ifs" looks like engineer willy-waggling, especially when we have other technologies that actually work.</p><p>Meanwhile the Russians are talking about 70MW floating conventional reactors based on their icebreaker technology to open up the Arctic. At this rate, they'll be selling power on demand to the world while the West is still trying to get a net energy gain from fusion. Being sexy does not make a technology valid or useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fusion power was expected to have replaced nuclear by the year 2000 .
It 's now 2009 , and it 's still more than 30 years in the future .
A slippage of one year per year consistently for the last 40 years does not bode well.Also when I was in my teens , those of us doing physics and chemistry at our school were encouraged to do the radiation physics and radiation chemistry options because this would career proof us .
It was just so obvious that nuclear power would completely replace coal .
Unfortunately all those other kids planning to do arts degrees regressed into NIMBYs.Personally I think we should stop pissing about , build a new generation of standardised U/Pu reactors and put the development effort into thorium reactors .
That will buy us time , lots of time , since thorium is plentiful , in which we may be able to have an advanced society while we sort out fusion .
Spending billions on a lot of " ifs " looks like engineer willy-waggling , especially when we have other technologies that actually work.Meanwhile the Russians are talking about 70MW floating conventional reactors based on their icebreaker technology to open up the Arctic .
At this rate , they 'll be selling power on demand to the world while the West is still trying to get a net energy gain from fusion .
Being sexy does not make a technology valid or useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fusion power was expected to have replaced nuclear by the year 2000.
It's now 2009, and it's still more than 30 years in the future.
A slippage of one year per year consistently for the last 40 years does not bode well.Also when I was in my teens, those of us doing physics and chemistry at our school were encouraged to do the radiation physics and radiation chemistry options because this would career proof us.
It was just so obvious that nuclear power would completely replace coal.
Unfortunately all those other kids planning to do arts degrees regressed into NIMBYs.Personally I think we should stop pissing about, build a new generation of standardised U/Pu reactors and put the development effort into thorium reactors.
That will buy us time, lots of time, since thorium is plentiful, in which we may be able to have an advanced society while we sort out fusion.
Spending billions on a lot of "ifs" looks like engineer willy-waggling, especially when we have other technologies that actually work.Meanwhile the Russians are talking about 70MW floating conventional reactors based on their icebreaker technology to open up the Arctic.
At this rate, they'll be selling power on demand to the world while the West is still trying to get a net energy gain from fusion.
Being sexy does not make a technology valid or useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138619</id>
	<title>Wasted money.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1243610820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't help but think that money wasted on the stimulus package couldn't have been better spent on research like this. Even if the end result was that this sort of power generation isn't practical I can't help but think that we'd learn a lot from it and come away with some sort of technological innovation. But of course, that's not how things work. Instead the money goes to whoever lobbies hardest and contributes to the right politicians.</p><p>But don't worry, China or India will do it first while the West is struggling to pay for its bloated, unproductive welfare programs. I don't deny there's some need for such programs, but the way I see things going our government is creating a class of people entirely dependent on the government instead of investing in programs which will ensure the long-term innovation prosperity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but think that money wasted on the stimulus package could n't have been better spent on research like this .
Even if the end result was that this sort of power generation is n't practical I ca n't help but think that we 'd learn a lot from it and come away with some sort of technological innovation .
But of course , that 's not how things work .
Instead the money goes to whoever lobbies hardest and contributes to the right politicians.But do n't worry , China or India will do it first while the West is struggling to pay for its bloated , unproductive welfare programs .
I do n't deny there 's some need for such programs , but the way I see things going our government is creating a class of people entirely dependent on the government instead of investing in programs which will ensure the long-term innovation prosperity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but think that money wasted on the stimulus package couldn't have been better spent on research like this.
Even if the end result was that this sort of power generation isn't practical I can't help but think that we'd learn a lot from it and come away with some sort of technological innovation.
But of course, that's not how things work.
Instead the money goes to whoever lobbies hardest and contributes to the right politicians.But don't worry, China or India will do it first while the West is struggling to pay for its bloated, unproductive welfare programs.
I don't deny there's some need for such programs, but the way I see things going our government is creating a class of people entirely dependent on the government instead of investing in programs which will ensure the long-term innovation prosperity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136551</id>
	<title>overbudget, late, increase staffing</title>
	<author>omz13</author>
	<datestamp>1243596720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that most government projects always end up late and over budget? So much for getting the specs right, decent planning and project management, and PRINCE2, etc. And the bit that made me really chuckle, "increase in staffing to manage procurement". For crying out loud. Why not throw out the staff they currently have and get in people who are more efficient. Just throwing more people at the problem is not the solution. Of course, in these economically challenged times, one has to ask whether such gigantic projects are value for money. Why don't they do smaller less ambitious projects, which might actually produce something useful... but I suppose those big white elephants are always a great way of keeping a bunch of people employed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that most government projects always end up late and over budget ?
So much for getting the specs right , decent planning and project management , and PRINCE2 , etc .
And the bit that made me really chuckle , " increase in staffing to manage procurement " .
For crying out loud .
Why not throw out the staff they currently have and get in people who are more efficient .
Just throwing more people at the problem is not the solution .
Of course , in these economically challenged times , one has to ask whether such gigantic projects are value for money .
Why do n't they do smaller less ambitious projects , which might actually produce something useful... but I suppose those big white elephants are always a great way of keeping a bunch of people employed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that most government projects always end up late and over budget?
So much for getting the specs right, decent planning and project management, and PRINCE2, etc.
And the bit that made me really chuckle, "increase in staffing to manage procurement".
For crying out loud.
Why not throw out the staff they currently have and get in people who are more efficient.
Just throwing more people at the problem is not the solution.
Of course, in these economically challenged times, one has to ask whether such gigantic projects are value for money.
Why don't they do smaller less ambitious projects, which might actually produce something useful... but I suppose those big white elephants are always a great way of keeping a bunch of people employed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138915</id>
	<title>Re:Moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243612380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't it accelerate the moon?</p><p>The good:<br>- Longer days -&gt; incompatible with biological clock -&gt; you don't need an alarm clock any more because you wake up early every day</p><p>The bad:<br>- No full solar eclipses any more<br>- Moon can only be seen from one half of the earth (can this be called hemisphere?). Just how it is on pluto.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it accelerate the moon ? The good : - Longer days - &gt; incompatible with biological clock - &gt; you do n't need an alarm clock any more because you wake up early every dayThe bad : - No full solar eclipses any more- Moon can only be seen from one half of the earth ( can this be called hemisphere ? ) .
Just how it is on pluto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it accelerate the moon?The good:- Longer days -&gt; incompatible with biological clock -&gt; you don't need an alarm clock any more because you wake up early every dayThe bad:- No full solar eclipses any more- Moon can only be seen from one half of the earth (can this be called hemisphere?).
Just how it is on pluto.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136485</id>
	<title>I've got the promo materials in front of me...</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1243595940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I swear, it's like reading the Duke Nukem Forever "reviews" that appeared when the product is/was/ vaporware.</p><p>"The ITER tokamak, 24 metres high and 30 metres wide, will be smaller than a conventional power station. It will produce up to 500 MW of thermal power in a toroidal fusion plasma of 800m^3 volume confined by strong magnetic fields. It will demonstrate prolonged power production aiming ultimately a steady-state operation."</p><p>In the words of wikipedia, citation please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I swear , it 's like reading the Duke Nukem Forever " reviews " that appeared when the product is/was/ vaporware .
" The ITER tokamak , 24 metres high and 30 metres wide , will be smaller than a conventional power station .
It will produce up to 500 MW of thermal power in a toroidal fusion plasma of 800m ^ 3 volume confined by strong magnetic fields .
It will demonstrate prolonged power production aiming ultimately a steady-state operation .
" In the words of wikipedia , citation please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I swear, it's like reading the Duke Nukem Forever "reviews" that appeared when the product is/was/ vaporware.
"The ITER tokamak, 24 metres high and 30 metres wide, will be smaller than a conventional power station.
It will produce up to 500 MW of thermal power in a toroidal fusion plasma of 800m^3 volume confined by strong magnetic fields.
It will demonstrate prolonged power production aiming ultimately a steady-state operation.
"In the words of wikipedia, citation please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139741</id>
	<title>Re:Someone just give this man some money....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243616580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The standard sun model (hydrogen fusion core) is wrong.</p><p>There is satellite evidence that suggests a liquid iron-nickel sun with insulating layers of neon, calcium, sulfur and silicon. Interestingly, Iron-nickel has the ability to absorb/compress Deuterium atoms and Helium3 output has been observed in cold fusion research.  Coincidence? You decide.</p><p>This area of research has great potential, any enterprising individuals reading this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The standard sun model ( hydrogen fusion core ) is wrong.There is satellite evidence that suggests a liquid iron-nickel sun with insulating layers of neon , calcium , sulfur and silicon .
Interestingly , Iron-nickel has the ability to absorb/compress Deuterium atoms and Helium3 output has been observed in cold fusion research .
Coincidence ? You decide.This area of research has great potential , any enterprising individuals reading this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The standard sun model (hydrogen fusion core) is wrong.There is satellite evidence that suggests a liquid iron-nickel sun with insulating layers of neon, calcium, sulfur and silicon.
Interestingly, Iron-nickel has the ability to absorb/compress Deuterium atoms and Helium3 output has been observed in cold fusion research.
Coincidence? You decide.This area of research has great potential, any enterprising individuals reading this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136663</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1243598280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they won't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up?</p><p>If fusion could be made to work for 2-3 times the cost of coal electricity massively reducing C02 emissions without massively cutting energy usage would be possible.</p> </div><p>The fusion boys should aim for the same energy price as coal power, simply because wind and solar are almost there. Wind energy suffers more from a lack of space to place the turbines at this moment (and in the future possibly from a lack of energy storage)... Solar power is believed to reach normal electricity prices in areas like Spain and Italy in the next few years.</p><p>If fusion is 2-3 times more expensive, and no cleaner than solar/wind power - why invest in it?</p><p>for 10 billion, you can also construct 10 Gigawatts of wind power... which will eventually (within a few years) pay itself back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they wo n't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up ? If fusion could be made to work for 2-3 times the cost of coal electricity massively reducing C02 emissions without massively cutting energy usage would be possible .
The fusion boys should aim for the same energy price as coal power , simply because wind and solar are almost there .
Wind energy suffers more from a lack of space to place the turbines at this moment ( and in the future possibly from a lack of energy storage ) ... Solar power is believed to reach normal electricity prices in areas like Spain and Italy in the next few years.If fusion is 2-3 times more expensive , and no cleaner than solar/wind power - why invest in it ? for 10 billion , you can also construct 10 Gigawatts of wind power... which will eventually ( within a few years ) pay itself back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they won't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up?If fusion could be made to work for 2-3 times the cost of coal electricity massively reducing C02 emissions without massively cutting energy usage would be possible.
The fusion boys should aim for the same energy price as coal power, simply because wind and solar are almost there.
Wind energy suffers more from a lack of space to place the turbines at this moment (and in the future possibly from a lack of energy storage)... Solar power is believed to reach normal electricity prices in areas like Spain and Italy in the next few years.If fusion is 2-3 times more expensive, and no cleaner than solar/wind power - why invest in it?for 10 billion, you can also construct 10 Gigawatts of wind power... which will eventually (within a few years) pay itself back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137099</id>
	<title>French Fromage Experiment Also Delayed ..</title>
	<author>UncleWilly</author>
	<datestamp>1243603020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The French revolt!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The French revolt !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The French revolt!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136587</id>
	<title>5 billion? Chump change!</title>
	<author>jdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1243597080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,GM burnt through 5 billion in 3 months and we got bupkis for it. Costing only 5 billion extra over 20 years sounds pretty good to me if there's a chance we'll get fusion out of it.  In fact, given unlimited funds, how much can we expedite this?  We've spent hundreds of billions on banks that are worth less than nothing. Let's build some hardware!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ,GM burnt through 5 billion in 3 months and we got bupkis for it .
Costing only 5 billion extra over 20 years sounds pretty good to me if there 's a chance we 'll get fusion out of it .
In fact , given unlimited funds , how much can we expedite this ?
We 've spent hundreds of billions on banks that are worth less than nothing .
Let 's build some hardware !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously ,GM burnt through 5 billion in 3 months and we got bupkis for it.
Costing only 5 billion extra over 20 years sounds pretty good to me if there's a chance we'll get fusion out of it.
In fact, given unlimited funds, how much can we expedite this?
We've spent hundreds of billions on banks that are worth less than nothing.
Let's build some hardware!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139841</id>
	<title>Re:Fusion</title>
	<author>Ecuador</author>
	<datestamp>1243617180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess mods today are sub-high school level in physics. Ok, the amusing worries about helium concentrations and hydrogen exhaustion were already addressed. I just wanted to point that at least one of your "safe" power sources, hydroelectric power, is quite destructive for the environment in more than one ways (disrupts local ecosystems, sometimes leads to CH4 &amp; CO2 emmissions...). Wind power is not as bad (well, it mostly poses a danger for birds who pass by), however it is not such a great power source if you look at how much each turbine produces...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess mods today are sub-high school level in physics .
Ok , the amusing worries about helium concentrations and hydrogen exhaustion were already addressed .
I just wanted to point that at least one of your " safe " power sources , hydroelectric power , is quite destructive for the environment in more than one ways ( disrupts local ecosystems , sometimes leads to CH4 &amp; CO2 emmissions... ) .
Wind power is not as bad ( well , it mostly poses a danger for birds who pass by ) , however it is not such a great power source if you look at how much each turbine produces.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess mods today are sub-high school level in physics.
Ok, the amusing worries about helium concentrations and hydrogen exhaustion were already addressed.
I just wanted to point that at least one of your "safe" power sources, hydroelectric power, is quite destructive for the environment in more than one ways (disrupts local ecosystems, sometimes leads to CH4 &amp; CO2 emmissions...).
Wind power is not as bad (well, it mostly poses a danger for birds who pass by), however it is not such a great power source if you look at how much each turbine produces...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136441</id>
	<title>Baah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243595460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need fusion energy desperately...</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need fusion energy desperately.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need fusion energy desperately...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139129</id>
	<title>Waste of money!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243613400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The design criteria for ITER have been known since the mid-1980's. If you build a machine big enough you can sustain fusion for a while. The reason ITER has been so long getting approval is that it is a waste of time--the design will not support many ports for taking data to actually try to figure out what was going on in the plasma at fusion temperatures. In other words, very little new physics can be anticipated from ITER but somebody may get a Nobel prize out of it for positive energy yield in a sustained reaction. The ITER reactor will work for about 3 weeks at positive power yield before the neutron flux degrades the steel to the point it will no longer hold vacuum, hence they are delaying that 15 years or so, since that is the end of ITER related jobs. While running, it could basically power the entire North American continent. Then, you shut down and send in the robots to disassemble the radioactive mess and ship it off to some appropriate storage facility, while you start building the next one. This is not practical power production, and if it were the utilities would have built it 20 years ago.</p><p>Ex plasma physicist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The design criteria for ITER have been known since the mid-1980 's .
If you build a machine big enough you can sustain fusion for a while .
The reason ITER has been so long getting approval is that it is a waste of time--the design will not support many ports for taking data to actually try to figure out what was going on in the plasma at fusion temperatures .
In other words , very little new physics can be anticipated from ITER but somebody may get a Nobel prize out of it for positive energy yield in a sustained reaction .
The ITER reactor will work for about 3 weeks at positive power yield before the neutron flux degrades the steel to the point it will no longer hold vacuum , hence they are delaying that 15 years or so , since that is the end of ITER related jobs .
While running , it could basically power the entire North American continent .
Then , you shut down and send in the robots to disassemble the radioactive mess and ship it off to some appropriate storage facility , while you start building the next one .
This is not practical power production , and if it were the utilities would have built it 20 years ago.Ex plasma physicist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The design criteria for ITER have been known since the mid-1980's.
If you build a machine big enough you can sustain fusion for a while.
The reason ITER has been so long getting approval is that it is a waste of time--the design will not support many ports for taking data to actually try to figure out what was going on in the plasma at fusion temperatures.
In other words, very little new physics can be anticipated from ITER but somebody may get a Nobel prize out of it for positive energy yield in a sustained reaction.
The ITER reactor will work for about 3 weeks at positive power yield before the neutron flux degrades the steel to the point it will no longer hold vacuum, hence they are delaying that 15 years or so, since that is the end of ITER related jobs.
While running, it could basically power the entire North American continent.
Then, you shut down and send in the robots to disassemble the radioactive mess and ship it off to some appropriate storage facility, while you start building the next one.
This is not practical power production, and if it were the utilities would have built it 20 years ago.Ex plasma physicist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136759</id>
	<title>Re:If I were a French taxpayer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243599600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>People used to say the same about Hubble... Personally, I like the fact that Governments put money into pure-science research, because no one else is likely to.  <br> <br>Fusion, if ever successful, is likely to revolutionise our society, and the only way its ever going to be successful is if investment is made.<br> <br>What for-profit company is likely to make a multi-billion dollar investment that, even discounting the possibility of failure, it is unlikely to see any chance of a return on for 40 years?  The only industries I can think that make billion dollar investments are shipmakers and aircraft manufacturers, and their planned ROI period is much less than 40 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People used to say the same about Hubble... Personally , I like the fact that Governments put money into pure-science research , because no one else is likely to .
Fusion , if ever successful , is likely to revolutionise our society , and the only way its ever going to be successful is if investment is made .
What for-profit company is likely to make a multi-billion dollar investment that , even discounting the possibility of failure , it is unlikely to see any chance of a return on for 40 years ?
The only industries I can think that make billion dollar investments are shipmakers and aircraft manufacturers , and their planned ROI period is much less than 40 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People used to say the same about Hubble... Personally, I like the fact that Governments put money into pure-science research, because no one else is likely to.
Fusion, if ever successful, is likely to revolutionise our society, and the only way its ever going to be successful is if investment is made.
What for-profit company is likely to make a multi-billion dollar investment that, even discounting the possibility of failure, it is unlikely to see any chance of a return on for 40 years?
The only industries I can think that make billion dollar investments are shipmakers and aircraft manufacturers, and their planned ROI period is much less than 40 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138739</id>
	<title>Re:Fusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very informative post. But I expect it would be increasingly difficult to extract the deuterium as it's used up. Sometime a few hundred million years from now they'll be looking for that last atom among all the oceans and lakes of the world...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very informative post .
But I expect it would be increasingly difficult to extract the deuterium as it 's used up .
Sometime a few hundred million years from now they 'll be looking for that last atom among all the oceans and lakes of the world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very informative post.
But I expect it would be increasingly difficult to extract the deuterium as it's used up.
Sometime a few hundred million years from now they'll be looking for that last atom among all the oceans and lakes of the world...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136819</id>
	<title>wrong aproach</title>
	<author>Zashi</author>
	<datestamp>1243600440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this super expensive design is the wrong approach to fusion and that this <a href="http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-12/machine-might-save-world" title="popsci.com">guy</a> [popsci.com] is on the right track. This is assuming, of course, that fusion can work as a power source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this super expensive design is the wrong approach to fusion and that this guy [ popsci.com ] is on the right track .
This is assuming , of course , that fusion can work as a power source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this super expensive design is the wrong approach to fusion and that this guy [popsci.com] is on the right track.
This is assuming, of course, that fusion can work as a power source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28141203</id>
	<title>Don't worry...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243623720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sarkozy is going to make it a 30 hour work... Day.</p><p>Cheers,</p><p>An anonymous frenchman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sarkozy is going to make it a 30 hour work... Day.Cheers,An anonymous frenchman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sarkozy is going to make it a 30 hour work... Day.Cheers,An anonymous frenchman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28144511</id>
	<title>Re:Time to move on</title>
	<author>mako1138</author>
	<datestamp>1243594740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there's one thing I learned from taking classes about nuclear fusion, it's this: generating net fusion power is difficult. This goes for magnetic as well as inertial confinement schemes. So I caution you against being too enthusiastic about any particular initiative. The history of fusion research is a pattern of "oh this is a great idea, we'll have it in 10 years", followed by "uhh there are all sorts of unexpected issues". Progress is slow and painstaking, and TANSTAAFL is the rule. Don't be surprised when previously inexpensive concepts turn out to require significant investment to achieve net power production.</p><p>But I agree that we should fund research across the board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's one thing I learned from taking classes about nuclear fusion , it 's this : generating net fusion power is difficult .
This goes for magnetic as well as inertial confinement schemes .
So I caution you against being too enthusiastic about any particular initiative .
The history of fusion research is a pattern of " oh this is a great idea , we 'll have it in 10 years " , followed by " uhh there are all sorts of unexpected issues " .
Progress is slow and painstaking , and TANSTAAFL is the rule .
Do n't be surprised when previously inexpensive concepts turn out to require significant investment to achieve net power production.But I agree that we should fund research across the board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's one thing I learned from taking classes about nuclear fusion, it's this: generating net fusion power is difficult.
This goes for magnetic as well as inertial confinement schemes.
So I caution you against being too enthusiastic about any particular initiative.
The history of fusion research is a pattern of "oh this is a great idea, we'll have it in 10 years", followed by "uhh there are all sorts of unexpected issues".
Progress is slow and painstaking, and TANSTAAFL is the rule.
Don't be surprised when previously inexpensive concepts turn out to require significant investment to achieve net power production.But I agree that we should fund research across the board.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136513</id>
	<title>French Fusion aka</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243596240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom Fusion in the U.S.A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom Fusion in the U.S.A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom Fusion in the U.S.A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136731</id>
	<title>Re:Fusion</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1243599180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The idea of fusion and benefits of fusion are tremendous compared to fossil fuels but I've always wondered how long will it last before it starts eating a significant enough portion of the hydrogen to be a concern."</p><p>If your fusion powerplants are eating a significant portion of Earth's hydrogen, then it's time to relocate somewhere where the temperature is not high enough to boil oceans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The idea of fusion and benefits of fusion are tremendous compared to fossil fuels but I 've always wondered how long will it last before it starts eating a significant enough portion of the hydrogen to be a concern .
" If your fusion powerplants are eating a significant portion of Earth 's hydrogen , then it 's time to relocate somewhere where the temperature is not high enough to boil oceans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The idea of fusion and benefits of fusion are tremendous compared to fossil fuels but I've always wondered how long will it last before it starts eating a significant enough portion of the hydrogen to be a concern.
"If your fusion powerplants are eating a significant portion of Earth's hydrogen, then it's time to relocate somewhere where the temperature is not high enough to boil oceans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137607</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>DrWho520</author>
	<datestamp>1243606140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If <i>any</i> project was threatening to come in 5 years late at double in cost, should money just be thrown at it?  Do not let the clean energy siren lull you out of common sense and good engineering practices.  These delays and cost overruns are a clear signs of an incomplete design.  Collect the designs, gather the lessons learned and start over.  Return to an earlier stage of development, incorporate the wisdom gained from this project.  Fix the gaps in the original design with real solutions, not stop-gap measures.  And figure out your supply chain because "an unanticipated increase in staffing to manage procurement" screams extra support staff and middle management flotsam.  Nothing makes project costs soar like additional, non-budgeted support staff and middle management.  Stop pouring the concrete and fix the blueprints!<br>
<br>
It always seemed ITER was started a little early, before enough was known to build a practical device.  That is now clearly apparent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If any project was threatening to come in 5 years late at double in cost , should money just be thrown at it ?
Do not let the clean energy siren lull you out of common sense and good engineering practices .
These delays and cost overruns are a clear signs of an incomplete design .
Collect the designs , gather the lessons learned and start over .
Return to an earlier stage of development , incorporate the wisdom gained from this project .
Fix the gaps in the original design with real solutions , not stop-gap measures .
And figure out your supply chain because " an unanticipated increase in staffing to manage procurement " screams extra support staff and middle management flotsam .
Nothing makes project costs soar like additional , non-budgeted support staff and middle management .
Stop pouring the concrete and fix the blueprints !
It always seemed ITER was started a little early , before enough was known to build a practical device .
That is now clearly apparent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If any project was threatening to come in 5 years late at double in cost, should money just be thrown at it?
Do not let the clean energy siren lull you out of common sense and good engineering practices.
These delays and cost overruns are a clear signs of an incomplete design.
Collect the designs, gather the lessons learned and start over.
Return to an earlier stage of development, incorporate the wisdom gained from this project.
Fix the gaps in the original design with real solutions, not stop-gap measures.
And figure out your supply chain because "an unanticipated increase in staffing to manage procurement" screams extra support staff and middle management flotsam.
Nothing makes project costs soar like additional, non-budgeted support staff and middle management.
Stop pouring the concrete and fix the blueprints!
It always seemed ITER was started a little early, before enough was known to build a practical device.
That is now clearly apparent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136895</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243601280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason the tokamak approach has been followed for ITER is that it is currently the most promising. Temperatures achievable in tokamak reactors are orders of magnitude higher than in other machines. Tokamaks have demonstrated fusion-relevant temperatures (~10 keV, 100 million degrees C) and net power gain (briefly in TFTR and JT60-U), and long pulse operation (in e.g. Tore Supra). Other approaches still need much more research before they get to the ITER stage.</p><p>The only other designs which come close are stellarators, and this approach is also being followed with this machine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein\_7-X<br>The main problem with stellarators is that they need very complicated coil arrangements (whereas tokamaks' are pretty simple), greatly increasing the costs. Until relatively recently (10-20 years), the computing power necessary to design these machines properly simply wasn't available. Wendelstein 7-X is projected to have a performance similar to the JET tokamak (which was built in 1982).</p><p>Non-toroidal designs (e.g. linear machines, fusors etc.) always have problems with loss of particles/energy along magnetic fields (end loss), primarily due to fast electrons. This is because non-toroidal magnetic field structures always have nulls or holes where plasma can escape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy\_ball\_theorem</p><p>Disclosure: I am a plasma physicist working on tokamaks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason the tokamak approach has been followed for ITER is that it is currently the most promising .
Temperatures achievable in tokamak reactors are orders of magnitude higher than in other machines .
Tokamaks have demonstrated fusion-relevant temperatures ( ~ 10 keV , 100 million degrees C ) and net power gain ( briefly in TFTR and JT60-U ) , and long pulse operation ( in e.g .
Tore Supra ) .
Other approaches still need much more research before they get to the ITER stage.The only other designs which come close are stellarators , and this approach is also being followed with this machine : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein \ _7-XThe main problem with stellarators is that they need very complicated coil arrangements ( whereas tokamaks ' are pretty simple ) , greatly increasing the costs .
Until relatively recently ( 10-20 years ) , the computing power necessary to design these machines properly simply was n't available .
Wendelstein 7-X is projected to have a performance similar to the JET tokamak ( which was built in 1982 ) .Non-toroidal designs ( e.g .
linear machines , fusors etc .
) always have problems with loss of particles/energy along magnetic fields ( end loss ) , primarily due to fast electrons .
This is because non-toroidal magnetic field structures always have nulls or holes where plasma can escape : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy \ _ball \ _theoremDisclosure : I am a plasma physicist working on tokamaks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason the tokamak approach has been followed for ITER is that it is currently the most promising.
Temperatures achievable in tokamak reactors are orders of magnitude higher than in other machines.
Tokamaks have demonstrated fusion-relevant temperatures (~10 keV, 100 million degrees C) and net power gain (briefly in TFTR and JT60-U), and long pulse operation (in e.g.
Tore Supra).
Other approaches still need much more research before they get to the ITER stage.The only other designs which come close are stellarators, and this approach is also being followed with this machine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein\_7-XThe main problem with stellarators is that they need very complicated coil arrangements (whereas tokamaks' are pretty simple), greatly increasing the costs.
Until relatively recently (10-20 years), the computing power necessary to design these machines properly simply wasn't available.
Wendelstein 7-X is projected to have a performance similar to the JET tokamak (which was built in 1982).Non-toroidal designs (e.g.
linear machines, fusors etc.
) always have problems with loss of particles/energy along magnetic fields (end loss), primarily due to fast electrons.
This is because non-toroidal magnetic field structures always have nulls or holes where plasma can escape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy\_ball\_theoremDisclosure: I am a plasma physicist working on tokamaks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28141749</id>
	<title>Re:omfg</title>
	<author>Firethorn</author>
	<datestamp>1243625940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As jcnnghm said, you need to adjust the tinfoil.  And make sure it's not lead laced foil from China.</p><p>1.  Water doesn't compress.  You're probably thinking about compressed air<br>2.  Compressed air is a known science.  After all, we've been running tools off it since before we had good electric motors.<br>3.  Energy density and efficiency, sadly, are lacking.  Both in compressing in the first place and extracting it later.<br>4.  A container capable of holding enough air volume for significant travel is huge, heavy, and expensive.  Also dangerous in an accident.<br>5.  Patents are out in the open.  Buying and burying the patent would only buy 7 years before it's open sourced and anybody can build one.<br>6.  Compressed air wouldn't really have a 'mpg' that corresponds to gasoline or diesel usage.  Same with electric vehicles.  They're so different that any comparison that depends on 'equivalent to X mpg' are so abstract to be almost useless.  What do you go by?  Energy?  90\% efficient electric vehiles don't need that much energy.  Cost?  The battery depreciation raises costs substantially if it's included.  What do you pay per gallon of gasoline, and what do you pay per kwh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As jcnnghm said , you need to adjust the tinfoil .
And make sure it 's not lead laced foil from China.1 .
Water does n't compress .
You 're probably thinking about compressed air2 .
Compressed air is a known science .
After all , we 've been running tools off it since before we had good electric motors.3 .
Energy density and efficiency , sadly , are lacking .
Both in compressing in the first place and extracting it later.4 .
A container capable of holding enough air volume for significant travel is huge , heavy , and expensive .
Also dangerous in an accident.5 .
Patents are out in the open .
Buying and burying the patent would only buy 7 years before it 's open sourced and anybody can build one.6 .
Compressed air would n't really have a 'mpg ' that corresponds to gasoline or diesel usage .
Same with electric vehicles .
They 're so different that any comparison that depends on 'equivalent to X mpg ' are so abstract to be almost useless .
What do you go by ?
Energy ? 90 \ % efficient electric vehiles do n't need that much energy .
Cost ? The battery depreciation raises costs substantially if it 's included .
What do you pay per gallon of gasoline , and what do you pay per kwh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As jcnnghm said, you need to adjust the tinfoil.
And make sure it's not lead laced foil from China.1.
Water doesn't compress.
You're probably thinking about compressed air2.
Compressed air is a known science.
After all, we've been running tools off it since before we had good electric motors.3.
Energy density and efficiency, sadly, are lacking.
Both in compressing in the first place and extracting it later.4.
A container capable of holding enough air volume for significant travel is huge, heavy, and expensive.
Also dangerous in an accident.5.
Patents are out in the open.
Buying and burying the patent would only buy 7 years before it's open sourced and anybody can build one.6.
Compressed air wouldn't really have a 'mpg' that corresponds to gasoline or diesel usage.
Same with electric vehicles.
They're so different that any comparison that depends on 'equivalent to X mpg' are so abstract to be almost useless.
What do you go by?
Energy?  90\% efficient electric vehiles don't need that much energy.
Cost?  The battery depreciation raises costs substantially if it's included.
What do you pay per gallon of gasoline, and what do you pay per kwh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</id>
	<title>Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>sien</author>
	<datestamp>1243595940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they won't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up?</p><p>If fusion could be made to work for 2-3 times the cost of coal electricity massively reducing C02 emissions without massively cutting energy usage would be possible. It's worth spending money to find this out. Bjorn Lomborg, who is loathed by most environmentalists recommends spending more on alternative energy research. Anthorny Watts would probably approve spending more on this kind of fusion research.</p><p>Surely if the US and the Europe, that would collectively spend about 700 Bn a YEAR on defence are serious about alternative energy this should be funded more.</p><p>Steven Chu where are you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they wo n't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up ? If fusion could be made to work for 2-3 times the cost of coal electricity massively reducing C02 emissions without massively cutting energy usage would be possible .
It 's worth spending money to find this out .
Bjorn Lomborg , who is loathed by most environmentalists recommends spending more on alternative energy research .
Anthorny Watts would probably approve spending more on this kind of fusion research.Surely if the US and the Europe , that would collectively spend about 700 Bn a YEAR on defence are serious about alternative energy this should be funded more.Steven Chu where are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they won't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up?If fusion could be made to work for 2-3 times the cost of coal electricity massively reducing C02 emissions without massively cutting energy usage would be possible.
It's worth spending money to find this out.
Bjorn Lomborg, who is loathed by most environmentalists recommends spending more on alternative energy research.
Anthorny Watts would probably approve spending more on this kind of fusion research.Surely if the US and the Europe, that would collectively spend about 700 Bn a YEAR on defence are serious about alternative energy this should be funded more.Steven Chu where are you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137487</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1243605480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The French oil company Total racked up 13 billions of <b>profit</b> last year. That is an interesting comparison.<br> <br>
However, I think that ITER (that is not btw a French effort but a real international cooperation including EU, US, Japan and others) suffers from very poor management : it took them almost 5 years to decide where they would build the prototype. I wouldn't be surprised if most of their time was wasted in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikeshed" title="wikipedia.org">bikeshed</a> [wikipedia.org] discussions.<br> <br>
My bets are safer put on the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15043462/" title="msn.com">Chinese fusion reactor project</a> [msn.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The French oil company Total racked up 13 billions of profit last year .
That is an interesting comparison .
However , I think that ITER ( that is not btw a French effort but a real international cooperation including EU , US , Japan and others ) suffers from very poor management : it took them almost 5 years to decide where they would build the prototype .
I would n't be surprised if most of their time was wasted in bikeshed [ wikipedia.org ] discussions .
My bets are safer put on the Chinese fusion reactor project [ msn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The French oil company Total racked up 13 billions of profit last year.
That is an interesting comparison.
However, I think that ITER (that is not btw a French effort but a real international cooperation including EU, US, Japan and others) suffers from very poor management : it took them almost 5 years to decide where they would build the prototype.
I wouldn't be surprised if most of their time was wasted in bikeshed [wikipedia.org] discussions.
My bets are safer put on the Chinese fusion reactor project [msn.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136843</id>
	<title>Re:Fusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243600680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you have some difficulties understanding scale.  Let's take a look at an example fusion reaction, combining two deuterium atoms into tritium and a proton (note: This only occurs in 50\% of deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions, but the numbers are similar for the other outcome, helium and a neutron).  Deuterium has a molar mass of 2.01410178, trituim has 3.0160492, and a proton has 1.00727646677.  That means, fusing two moles of deuterium gives a net mass change of 0.00487789323g.  You can get the energy released from this directly by plugging it into e=mc^2 (ignoring momentum for this back-of-an-envelope calculation).  The output is around 4.4e11 J.  The current global energy consumption is around 5e20 J.  To get this amount of energy from deuterium fusion, you would need to burn around 2e9 moles of deuterium per year.  </p><p>
2e9 moles sounds like a lot, but it's only around 1.1e9g, or 1.1e3 tonnes.  It's around
Deuterium is a naturally-occurring isotope of Hydrogen, and accounts for around 0.015\% of all hydrogen.  Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, accounting for about 75\% of the total mass.  76\% of the Earth's surface is covered with water.  How much water would you need to get this much deuterium?</p><p>
The molar mass of water is 18.0153, so you need 18.0153g for one mole, which contains two moles of hydrogen.  We need just under 6667 moles of hydrogen to get one mole of deuterium, so we need about 1e13 moles of water.  Now we're at some big numbers, around 2.4e11 kg of water.  Because the density of water is roughly 1g:1cm^3, that's around 2.4e8m^3.  </p><p>
Still sounds like a lot?  The volume of Earth's oceans is around 1.4e18m^3.  At our current energy consumption rate, it would take around 5.7e9 years to burn it all.  Note that this is longer than the current age of the Earth.  Note also that this would only have a tiny effect on the oceans even after using all of the deuterium, since we would only be removing 0.015\% of the hydrogen.  </p><p>
Of course, these are just rough figures.  Fusion efficiency is likely to be low enough that we've only got enough readily-accessible deuterium for a few tens or hundreds of millions of years.  It's a short-term solution, but only in as far as staying living on a single planet around a single star is.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Or possibly when the helium concentration will become high enough to be a concern.</p></div><p>This is even more funny.  The reason helium is so expensive is because it floats to the top of the atmosphere and is lost to space if you release it.  Having helium as a by-product of fusion would be nice, as it's currently in relatively short supply.  Unlike other wastes, it's trivial to dispose of.  Just let it into the atmosphere, and a short while later the solar winds will scatter it into interstellar space.  It's sufficiently valuable that you probably don't want to do that, however.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you have some difficulties understanding scale .
Let 's take a look at an example fusion reaction , combining two deuterium atoms into tritium and a proton ( note : This only occurs in 50 \ % of deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions , but the numbers are similar for the other outcome , helium and a neutron ) .
Deuterium has a molar mass of 2.01410178 , trituim has 3.0160492 , and a proton has 1.00727646677 .
That means , fusing two moles of deuterium gives a net mass change of 0.00487789323g .
You can get the energy released from this directly by plugging it into e = mc ^ 2 ( ignoring momentum for this back-of-an-envelope calculation ) .
The output is around 4.4e11 J. The current global energy consumption is around 5e20 J. To get this amount of energy from deuterium fusion , you would need to burn around 2e9 moles of deuterium per year .
2e9 moles sounds like a lot , but it 's only around 1.1e9g , or 1.1e3 tonnes .
It 's around Deuterium is a naturally-occurring isotope of Hydrogen , and accounts for around 0.015 \ % of all hydrogen .
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe , accounting for about 75 \ % of the total mass .
76 \ % of the Earth 's surface is covered with water .
How much water would you need to get this much deuterium ?
The molar mass of water is 18.0153 , so you need 18.0153g for one mole , which contains two moles of hydrogen .
We need just under 6667 moles of hydrogen to get one mole of deuterium , so we need about 1e13 moles of water .
Now we 're at some big numbers , around 2.4e11 kg of water .
Because the density of water is roughly 1g : 1cm ^ 3 , that 's around 2.4e8m ^ 3 .
Still sounds like a lot ?
The volume of Earth 's oceans is around 1.4e18m ^ 3 .
At our current energy consumption rate , it would take around 5.7e9 years to burn it all .
Note that this is longer than the current age of the Earth .
Note also that this would only have a tiny effect on the oceans even after using all of the deuterium , since we would only be removing 0.015 \ % of the hydrogen .
Of course , these are just rough figures .
Fusion efficiency is likely to be low enough that we 've only got enough readily-accessible deuterium for a few tens or hundreds of millions of years .
It 's a short-term solution , but only in as far as staying living on a single planet around a single star is .
Or possibly when the helium concentration will become high enough to be a concern.This is even more funny .
The reason helium is so expensive is because it floats to the top of the atmosphere and is lost to space if you release it .
Having helium as a by-product of fusion would be nice , as it 's currently in relatively short supply .
Unlike other wastes , it 's trivial to dispose of .
Just let it into the atmosphere , and a short while later the solar winds will scatter it into interstellar space .
It 's sufficiently valuable that you probably do n't want to do that , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you have some difficulties understanding scale.
Let's take a look at an example fusion reaction, combining two deuterium atoms into tritium and a proton (note: This only occurs in 50\% of deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions, but the numbers are similar for the other outcome, helium and a neutron).
Deuterium has a molar mass of 2.01410178, trituim has 3.0160492, and a proton has 1.00727646677.
That means, fusing two moles of deuterium gives a net mass change of 0.00487789323g.
You can get the energy released from this directly by plugging it into e=mc^2 (ignoring momentum for this back-of-an-envelope calculation).
The output is around 4.4e11 J.  The current global energy consumption is around 5e20 J.  To get this amount of energy from deuterium fusion, you would need to burn around 2e9 moles of deuterium per year.
2e9 moles sounds like a lot, but it's only around 1.1e9g, or 1.1e3 tonnes.
It's around
Deuterium is a naturally-occurring isotope of Hydrogen, and accounts for around 0.015\% of all hydrogen.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, accounting for about 75\% of the total mass.
76\% of the Earth's surface is covered with water.
How much water would you need to get this much deuterium?
The molar mass of water is 18.0153, so you need 18.0153g for one mole, which contains two moles of hydrogen.
We need just under 6667 moles of hydrogen to get one mole of deuterium, so we need about 1e13 moles of water.
Now we're at some big numbers, around 2.4e11 kg of water.
Because the density of water is roughly 1g:1cm^3, that's around 2.4e8m^3.
Still sounds like a lot?
The volume of Earth's oceans is around 1.4e18m^3.
At our current energy consumption rate, it would take around 5.7e9 years to burn it all.
Note that this is longer than the current age of the Earth.
Note also that this would only have a tiny effect on the oceans even after using all of the deuterium, since we would only be removing 0.015\% of the hydrogen.
Of course, these are just rough figures.
Fusion efficiency is likely to be low enough that we've only got enough readily-accessible deuterium for a few tens or hundreds of millions of years.
It's a short-term solution, but only in as far as staying living on a single planet around a single star is.
Or possibly when the helium concentration will become high enough to be a concern.This is even more funny.
The reason helium is so expensive is because it floats to the top of the atmosphere and is lost to space if you release it.
Having helium as a by-product of fusion would be nice, as it's currently in relatively short supply.
Unlike other wastes, it's trivial to dispose of.
Just let it into the atmosphere, and a short while later the solar winds will scatter it into interstellar space.
It's sufficiently valuable that you probably don't want to do that, however.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136539</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243596480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off that money is best spent on wars killing people reducing carbon - the massive amounts from the death machines and production maintenance and repair of the military complex.</p><p>Second by then it will be to little to late since the bio systems are already breaking down to a degree of mass extinction world wide. 25\% mammal species are gone in last 100 years, most big sea fish... Our growth rate is unsustainable and we know it yet don't care. OIL IS THE ANSWER !!!! drill in arctic!!!! nuclear is good cause we only have to use retarded amounts of energy(oil/gas) to extract and strip mine land for to collect it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off that money is best spent on wars killing people reducing carbon - the massive amounts from the death machines and production maintenance and repair of the military complex.Second by then it will be to little to late since the bio systems are already breaking down to a degree of mass extinction world wide .
25 \ % mammal species are gone in last 100 years , most big sea fish... Our growth rate is unsustainable and we know it yet do n't care .
OIL IS THE ANSWER ! ! ! !
drill in arctic ! ! ! !
nuclear is good cause we only have to use retarded amounts of energy ( oil/gas ) to extract and strip mine land for to collect it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off that money is best spent on wars killing people reducing carbon - the massive amounts from the death machines and production maintenance and repair of the military complex.Second by then it will be to little to late since the bio systems are already breaking down to a degree of mass extinction world wide.
25\% mammal species are gone in last 100 years, most big sea fish... Our growth rate is unsustainable and we know it yet don't care.
OIL IS THE ANSWER !!!!
drill in arctic!!!!
nuclear is good cause we only have to use retarded amounts of energy(oil/gas) to extract and strip mine land for to collect it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136997</id>
	<title>Why the buzz?</title>
	<author>Rivabem</author>
	<datestamp>1243602360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a) "is the power of the future and always will be.<br>b) "five years later than what had been previously agreed to"<br>c)  "will cost even more than the seven parties in the project first thought"</p><p>Have they never used Java...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) " is the power of the future and always will be.b ) " five years later than what had been previously agreed to " c ) " will cost even more than the seven parties in the project first thought " Have they never used Java... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) "is the power of the future and always will be.b) "five years later than what had been previously agreed to"c)  "will cost even more than the seven parties in the project first thought"Have they never used Java...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136515</id>
	<title>Say What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243596240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext> What's wrong with those Frenchies? My gf and I produce plenty of fusion energy all the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with those Frenchies ?
My gf and I produce plenty of fusion energy all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What's wrong with those Frenchies?
My gf and I produce plenty of fusion energy all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137073</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>jiriw</author>
	<datestamp>1243602840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for wind and solar but you might want to remember the fact those two aren't continuously available. Solar has a 24h cycle with roughly half of it producing no power at all. And<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, the answer to the other one... is blowing in the wind.<br>Don't give me the battery crap to manage low yield hours. Battery storage is fine for emergencies. It's not fine for large scale use because it's wholly inefficient and materials consuming (to make them, and keep making them to replace degraded ones). Same goes for long distance power lines. Either you lose quite a lot of energy in transport or you lose it because you cool your superconducting lines over too long a distance, unless you make a mega research project for spanning the globe with a large scale efficient superconducting power line which will cost you comparable billions and comparable international cooperation. A third option is making hydrogen of the spare electricity in high yield hours. But before that is efficient enough and researched through I think we have better options.<br>So we need some stable energy sources beside wind and solar. Hydro is good, in those areas where it can be available, reliably. But those areas are small and not always near places where people want to live. Besides, hydro also can have quite an environmental impact. (China, three gorges anyone?)<br>So we're left with the polluting forms energy generation for a stable grid. Which are:<br>-Gas: Relatively clean on the CO2 front, easily distributable for use in small 'neighborhood' serving power plants. But it could be better used for, for example, cooking. Besides there is a limited amount of it in fossil form.<br>-Oil: Out of the question. Oil is much too useful for making products to waste it on electricity generation.<br>-Coal: Say bye bye to the coastal plains because they are gonna flood if we keep going on as we are doing now.<br>-Fission: In it's current form with all its problems: Wholly inadequate, but we might have to stick to it, if we don't research fusion and get something good out of it. Only thing I see this become a better option is going the breeder reactor way and burn ALL the uranium (including the U238), take the risk and say 'Nuclear weapons proliferation up my a**'. To have a cleaner way of fission also requires quite some research. Especially in how to get those hot reactors safer than they were in the past. There are a lot more of dangerous isotopes we have to handle this way, but when done wisely it will ultimately lead in far less radioactive polutants than the current way we use nuclear fission.<br>-Fusion: It's complex, it's hard to do. Every shortcut we tried up to now failed miserably. The only way we think it might reliably work is the way of ITER. We owe it to our (grand) children to at least try it once. Give it a good chance before we 'pull the plug'. A couple of billion is nothing compared to the wealth of knowledge it will surely enrich the scientific community with and the chance we have for this being the prelude to something marvelous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for wind and solar but you might want to remember the fact those two are n't continuously available .
Solar has a 24h cycle with roughly half of it producing no power at all .
And ... well , the answer to the other one... is blowing in the wind.Do n't give me the battery crap to manage low yield hours .
Battery storage is fine for emergencies .
It 's not fine for large scale use because it 's wholly inefficient and materials consuming ( to make them , and keep making them to replace degraded ones ) .
Same goes for long distance power lines .
Either you lose quite a lot of energy in transport or you lose it because you cool your superconducting lines over too long a distance , unless you make a mega research project for spanning the globe with a large scale efficient superconducting power line which will cost you comparable billions and comparable international cooperation .
A third option is making hydrogen of the spare electricity in high yield hours .
But before that is efficient enough and researched through I think we have better options.So we need some stable energy sources beside wind and solar .
Hydro is good , in those areas where it can be available , reliably .
But those areas are small and not always near places where people want to live .
Besides , hydro also can have quite an environmental impact .
( China , three gorges anyone ?
) So we 're left with the polluting forms energy generation for a stable grid .
Which are : -Gas : Relatively clean on the CO2 front , easily distributable for use in small 'neighborhood ' serving power plants .
But it could be better used for , for example , cooking .
Besides there is a limited amount of it in fossil form.-Oil : Out of the question .
Oil is much too useful for making products to waste it on electricity generation.-Coal : Say bye bye to the coastal plains because they are gon na flood if we keep going on as we are doing now.-Fission : In it 's current form with all its problems : Wholly inadequate , but we might have to stick to it , if we do n't research fusion and get something good out of it .
Only thing I see this become a better option is going the breeder reactor way and burn ALL the uranium ( including the U238 ) , take the risk and say 'Nuclear weapons proliferation up my a * * ' .
To have a cleaner way of fission also requires quite some research .
Especially in how to get those hot reactors safer than they were in the past .
There are a lot more of dangerous isotopes we have to handle this way , but when done wisely it will ultimately lead in far less radioactive polutants than the current way we use nuclear fission.-Fusion : It 's complex , it 's hard to do .
Every shortcut we tried up to now failed miserably .
The only way we think it might reliably work is the way of ITER .
We owe it to our ( grand ) children to at least try it once .
Give it a good chance before we 'pull the plug' .
A couple of billion is nothing compared to the wealth of knowledge it will surely enrich the scientific community with and the chance we have for this being the prelude to something marvelous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for wind and solar but you might want to remember the fact those two aren't continuously available.
Solar has a 24h cycle with roughly half of it producing no power at all.
And ... well, the answer to the other one... is blowing in the wind.Don't give me the battery crap to manage low yield hours.
Battery storage is fine for emergencies.
It's not fine for large scale use because it's wholly inefficient and materials consuming (to make them, and keep making them to replace degraded ones).
Same goes for long distance power lines.
Either you lose quite a lot of energy in transport or you lose it because you cool your superconducting lines over too long a distance, unless you make a mega research project for spanning the globe with a large scale efficient superconducting power line which will cost you comparable billions and comparable international cooperation.
A third option is making hydrogen of the spare electricity in high yield hours.
But before that is efficient enough and researched through I think we have better options.So we need some stable energy sources beside wind and solar.
Hydro is good, in those areas where it can be available, reliably.
But those areas are small and not always near places where people want to live.
Besides, hydro also can have quite an environmental impact.
(China, three gorges anyone?
)So we're left with the polluting forms energy generation for a stable grid.
Which are:-Gas: Relatively clean on the CO2 front, easily distributable for use in small 'neighborhood' serving power plants.
But it could be better used for, for example, cooking.
Besides there is a limited amount of it in fossil form.-Oil: Out of the question.
Oil is much too useful for making products to waste it on electricity generation.-Coal: Say bye bye to the coastal plains because they are gonna flood if we keep going on as we are doing now.-Fission: In it's current form with all its problems: Wholly inadequate, but we might have to stick to it, if we don't research fusion and get something good out of it.
Only thing I see this become a better option is going the breeder reactor way and burn ALL the uranium (including the U238), take the risk and say 'Nuclear weapons proliferation up my a**'.
To have a cleaner way of fission also requires quite some research.
Especially in how to get those hot reactors safer than they were in the past.
There are a lot more of dangerous isotopes we have to handle this way, but when done wisely it will ultimately lead in far less radioactive polutants than the current way we use nuclear fission.-Fusion: It's complex, it's hard to do.
Every shortcut we tried up to now failed miserably.
The only way we think it might reliably work is the way of ITER.
We owe it to our (grand) children to at least try it once.
Give it a good chance before we 'pull the plug'.
A couple of billion is nothing compared to the wealth of knowledge it will surely enrich the scientific community with and the chance we have for this being the prelude to something marvelous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139743</id>
	<title>Re:Fusion</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1243616640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--The idea of fusion and benefits of fusion are tremendous compared to fossil fuels but I've always wondered how long will it last before it starts eating a significant enough portion of the hydrogen to be a concern---</p><p>What! that is the most abundant chemical there is. By that time think antimatter.</p><p>--Ultimately the only "safe" power sources are those that derive their energy from external sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and wave power; all of which are powered by the sun's energy and/or gravitational interaction with outside sources (aka moon).--</p><p>Technically all power is from the sun even fossil fuels. Without the sun, how would all of those plants have formed to make coal for instance? Nothing is completely safe but if a fusion reactor goes bad the reaction simply stops. I would be more worried about the materials that are bombarded with neutrons.</p><p>How much pollution is caused by making solar panels? There are a lot of carbon based solvents used in those processes. AND all of that stuff doesn't give you base load power except maybe geothermal. Wind and solar ARE under developed here when they are subsidizing 10\% ethanol from corn in our gas. They should subsidize solar panels for those farmers fields instead. It would be cheaper. All that green stuff helps but in the end you need 2000 megawatt power stations that can be run continually unless you want to build a shitload of batteries to carry your green power when the sun don't shine, wind don't blow, etc. How much is the environmental impact of that? Nukes aren't perfect but seem to be the least bad of a choice that should be made very fast before we run out of oil. Coal will take a while longer but damn it is real nasty stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--The idea of fusion and benefits of fusion are tremendous compared to fossil fuels but I 've always wondered how long will it last before it starts eating a significant enough portion of the hydrogen to be a concern---What !
that is the most abundant chemical there is .
By that time think antimatter.--Ultimately the only " safe " power sources are those that derive their energy from external sources such as solar , wind , hydroelectric , and wave power ; all of which are powered by the sun 's energy and/or gravitational interaction with outside sources ( aka moon ) .--Technically all power is from the sun even fossil fuels .
Without the sun , how would all of those plants have formed to make coal for instance ?
Nothing is completely safe but if a fusion reactor goes bad the reaction simply stops .
I would be more worried about the materials that are bombarded with neutrons.How much pollution is caused by making solar panels ?
There are a lot of carbon based solvents used in those processes .
AND all of that stuff does n't give you base load power except maybe geothermal .
Wind and solar ARE under developed here when they are subsidizing 10 \ % ethanol from corn in our gas .
They should subsidize solar panels for those farmers fields instead .
It would be cheaper .
All that green stuff helps but in the end you need 2000 megawatt power stations that can be run continually unless you want to build a shitload of batteries to carry your green power when the sun do n't shine , wind do n't blow , etc .
How much is the environmental impact of that ?
Nukes are n't perfect but seem to be the least bad of a choice that should be made very fast before we run out of oil .
Coal will take a while longer but damn it is real nasty stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--The idea of fusion and benefits of fusion are tremendous compared to fossil fuels but I've always wondered how long will it last before it starts eating a significant enough portion of the hydrogen to be a concern---What!
that is the most abundant chemical there is.
By that time think antimatter.--Ultimately the only "safe" power sources are those that derive their energy from external sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and wave power; all of which are powered by the sun's energy and/or gravitational interaction with outside sources (aka moon).--Technically all power is from the sun even fossil fuels.
Without the sun, how would all of those plants have formed to make coal for instance?
Nothing is completely safe but if a fusion reactor goes bad the reaction simply stops.
I would be more worried about the materials that are bombarded with neutrons.How much pollution is caused by making solar panels?
There are a lot of carbon based solvents used in those processes.
AND all of that stuff doesn't give you base load power except maybe geothermal.
Wind and solar ARE under developed here when they are subsidizing 10\% ethanol from corn in our gas.
They should subsidize solar panels for those farmers fields instead.
It would be cheaper.
All that green stuff helps but in the end you need 2000 megawatt power stations that can be run continually unless you want to build a shitload of batteries to carry your green power when the sun don't shine, wind don't blow, etc.
How much is the environmental impact of that?
Nukes aren't perfect but seem to be the least bad of a choice that should be made very fast before we run out of oil.
Coal will take a while longer but damn it is real nasty stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137531</id>
	<title>omfg</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1243605720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess which industry has given a nice big check to someone on that team to keep things from happening....yes you have 3 guesses but the first 2 don't count, take your time.....need a clue...it's the same industry that as soon as they heard any type of new engine coming out that could run on compressed water and get more miles to the gallon, bought up the copyright and placed that engine in storage until the day we would never use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... for our cars again......yes you guessed it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess which industry has given a nice big check to someone on that team to keep things from happening....yes you have 3 guesses but the first 2 do n't count , take your time.....need a clue...it 's the same industry that as soon as they heard any type of new engine coming out that could run on compressed water and get more miles to the gallon , bought up the copyright and placed that engine in storage until the day we would never use ..... for our cars again......yes you guessed it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess which industry has given a nice big check to someone on that team to keep things from happening....yes you have 3 guesses but the first 2 don't count, take your time.....need a clue...it's the same industry that as soon as they heard any type of new engine coming out that could run on compressed water and get more miles to the gallon, bought up the copyright and placed that engine in storage until the day we would never use ..... for our cars again......yes you guessed it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137405</id>
	<title>Whats wrong with this?</title>
	<author>allcoolnameswheretak</author>
	<datestamp>1243605000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once this technology is properly developed, it means virtually unlimited energy for humankind and a very big step towards solving our environmental issues. I don't get it why there isn't already massive investment into this and why governments are bitching about a cost measured in single-digit billions - peanuts in the grand scheme of things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once this technology is properly developed , it means virtually unlimited energy for humankind and a very big step towards solving our environmental issues .
I do n't get it why there is n't already massive investment into this and why governments are bitching about a cost measured in single-digit billions - peanuts in the grand scheme of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once this technology is properly developed, it means virtually unlimited energy for humankind and a very big step towards solving our environmental issues.
I don't get it why there isn't already massive investment into this and why governments are bitching about a cost measured in single-digit billions - peanuts in the grand scheme of things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136505</id>
	<title>I'll cross my fingures harder for polywell then</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1243596180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't know about anyone else but polywell is far more interesting to me. IF it works, then it will be much better then tokamak. At this rate, IF it works, it could also beat tokamak to net energy production. I have a dream of cheap energy! Nearly all the worlds problems come down to energy! I'll keep dreaming.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know about anyone else but polywell is far more interesting to me .
IF it works , then it will be much better then tokamak .
At this rate , IF it works , it could also beat tokamak to net energy production .
I have a dream of cheap energy !
Nearly all the worlds problems come down to energy !
I 'll keep dreaming .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know about anyone else but polywell is far more interesting to me.
IF it works, then it will be much better then tokamak.
At this rate, IF it works, it could also beat tokamak to net energy production.
I have a dream of cheap energy!
Nearly all the worlds problems come down to energy!
I'll keep dreaming.
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138189</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NIF/Laser Megajoule?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NIF/Laser Megajoule ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NIF/Laser Megajoule?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139723</id>
	<title>Why isn't Japan building their own?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1243616520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm surprised that Japan doesn't have a more aggressive fusion program. Japan has almost no oil, little coal, and small natural gas reserves.  Japan imports over 97\% of its energy.  If anybody needs fusion, it's Japan.  Japan is a participant in ITER, but that's not enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that Japan does n't have a more aggressive fusion program .
Japan has almost no oil , little coal , and small natural gas reserves .
Japan imports over 97 \ % of its energy .
If anybody needs fusion , it 's Japan .
Japan is a participant in ITER , but that 's not enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm surprised that Japan doesn't have a more aggressive fusion program.
Japan has almost no oil, little coal, and small natural gas reserves.
Japan imports over 97\% of its energy.
If anybody needs fusion, it's Japan.
Japan is a participant in ITER, but that's not enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137121</id>
	<title>Re:IFR</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1243603260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My God, yes, imagine if Jacques Foreigner were the first to produce cheap abundant power.  What a nightmare world that would be for our children to live in; better to drown them at birth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My God , yes , imagine if Jacques Foreigner were the first to produce cheap abundant power .
What a nightmare world that would be for our children to live in ; better to drown them at birth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My God, yes, imagine if Jacques Foreigner were the first to produce cheap abundant power.
What a nightmare world that would be for our children to live in; better to drown them at birth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138801</id>
	<title>Re:More like 2032 if you take into account...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>35 to 39 sorry...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>35 to 39 sorry.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>35 to 39 sorry...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137257</id>
	<title>France &amp; Italy - same politics problems</title>
	<author>marco69v</author>
	<datestamp>1243604040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem behind this notice is indeed the fact that mr Sarcozy has signed a contract with Mr Berlusconi where France will build 5 nuclear station in Italy ! how can they approve a test with fusion with that econo/politcs/dictorial contract !?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem behind this notice is indeed the fact that mr Sarcozy has signed a contract with Mr Berlusconi where France will build 5 nuclear station in Italy !
how can they approve a test with fusion with that econo/politcs/dictorial contract !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem behind this notice is indeed the fact that mr Sarcozy has signed a contract with Mr Berlusconi where France will build 5 nuclear station in Italy !
how can they approve a test with fusion with that econo/politcs/dictorial contract !
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136535</id>
	<title>And in other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243596420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds suspicious to me. Read the whole FA and no mention of SAP..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds suspicious to me .
Read the whole FA and no mention of SAP. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds suspicious to me.
Read the whole FA and no mention of SAP..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136989</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>SolusSD</author>
	<datestamp>1243602240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The parent makes a very good point, and I'd like to add- The excuse for underfunding fusion power research has for a long time been that fusion power is at least 30 years off. Seems like a great reason to start aggressively pursuing it \_now\_.  After all, in 30 years we will need fusion power more desperately than ever. Researchers in the field have long pointed out that the problems with fusion as a source of energy are not theoretical, but technical hurtles. This \_is\_ the solution to our ongoing energy crisis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent makes a very good point , and I 'd like to add- The excuse for underfunding fusion power research has for a long time been that fusion power is at least 30 years off .
Seems like a great reason to start aggressively pursuing it \ _now \ _ .
After all , in 30 years we will need fusion power more desperately than ever .
Researchers in the field have long pointed out that the problems with fusion as a source of energy are not theoretical , but technical hurtles .
This \ _is \ _ the solution to our ongoing energy crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent makes a very good point, and I'd like to add- The excuse for underfunding fusion power research has for a long time been that fusion power is at least 30 years off.
Seems like a great reason to start aggressively pursuing it \_now\_.
After all, in 30 years we will need fusion power more desperately than ever.
Researchers in the field have long pointed out that the problems with fusion as a source of energy are not theoretical, but technical hurtles.
This \_is\_ the solution to our ongoing energy crisis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137629</id>
	<title>Re:5 billion? Chump change!</title>
	<author>r\_jensen11</author>
	<datestamp>1243606320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We've spent hundreds of billions on banks that are worth less than nothing. Let's build some hardware!</p></div><p>I'm so sick of hearing people saying this crap.  The money the government "gave" to the banks is a loan, with an interest rate.  It's an investment by the government, which the government expects to earn money on.  Hell, 9 of the banks that the government lent money are willing to pay the money back now so that they don't have to pay additional interest.</p><p>The vast majority of the institutions which got TARP money are NOT AIG.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've spent hundreds of billions on banks that are worth less than nothing .
Let 's build some hardware ! I 'm so sick of hearing people saying this crap .
The money the government " gave " to the banks is a loan , with an interest rate .
It 's an investment by the government , which the government expects to earn money on .
Hell , 9 of the banks that the government lent money are willing to pay the money back now so that they do n't have to pay additional interest.The vast majority of the institutions which got TARP money are NOT AIG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've spent hundreds of billions on banks that are worth less than nothing.
Let's build some hardware!I'm so sick of hearing people saying this crap.
The money the government "gave" to the banks is a loan, with an interest rate.
It's an investment by the government, which the government expects to earn money on.
Hell, 9 of the banks that the government lent money are willing to pay the money back now so that they don't have to pay additional interest.The vast majority of the institutions which got TARP money are NOT AIG.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136781</id>
	<title>IFR</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1243599960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why America needs to re-build the IFR. It may be very important.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why America needs to re-build the IFR .
It may be very important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why America needs to re-build the IFR.
It may be very important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137727</id>
	<title>If only Japan had won the ITER contract...</title>
	<author>Suiggy</author>
	<datestamp>1243606860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...then they would have already begun construction. You can thank the lazy French for their relaxing way of life in the delay and increased cost for ITER.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...then they would have already begun construction .
You can thank the lazy French for their relaxing way of life in the delay and increased cost for ITER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then they would have already begun construction.
You can thank the lazy French for their relaxing way of life in the delay and increased cost for ITER.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138285</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say if we can spend, what was it, about 1*10^12 dollars, on automakers and wall street, much of which we almost certainly will never get back, we should be able to afford to put $1.5*10^10 dollars into Fusion research, which seems like it at least is is no *more* speculative than throwing money at detroit and failed banks, and which might have far greater payoff if we *do* win that particular bet. The nature of technology is to get cheaper over time, right? Seems to me that Fusion, if we get it working, will be expensive, *at first*, so that it may not be competitive with coal, etc in the short term.</p><p>But, given time, if we can make fusion work at all, the price/kWh should drop to be competitive or cheaper. Of course, the more R&amp;D dollars you put into it, you would expect the development and price reduction to speed up. Put more money in now and as you go along, and we might get relatively affordable fusion in, say, 30 years isntead of 50 years, and cheaper fusion in maybe 60 years instead of 100 years. Of course, one hopes that at some point, those dollars are coming from private industry more than governments. But, with something like Fusion research which is massively expensive, somewhat speculative, and won't pay off for decades, it's difficult to get private funding in sufficient quantities. Since energy security is an incredibly important part of national security, and since one of the chief reasons for the existence of government is Nat. Sec., I feel that research like this is appropriate to use government funds for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say if we can spend , what was it , about 1 * 10 ^ 12 dollars , on automakers and wall street , much of which we almost certainly will never get back , we should be able to afford to put $ 1.5 * 10 ^ 10 dollars into Fusion research , which seems like it at least is is no * more * speculative than throwing money at detroit and failed banks , and which might have far greater payoff if we * do * win that particular bet .
The nature of technology is to get cheaper over time , right ?
Seems to me that Fusion , if we get it working , will be expensive , * at first * , so that it may not be competitive with coal , etc in the short term.But , given time , if we can make fusion work at all , the price/kWh should drop to be competitive or cheaper .
Of course , the more R&amp;D dollars you put into it , you would expect the development and price reduction to speed up .
Put more money in now and as you go along , and we might get relatively affordable fusion in , say , 30 years isntead of 50 years , and cheaper fusion in maybe 60 years instead of 100 years .
Of course , one hopes that at some point , those dollars are coming from private industry more than governments .
But , with something like Fusion research which is massively expensive , somewhat speculative , and wo n't pay off for decades , it 's difficult to get private funding in sufficient quantities .
Since energy security is an incredibly important part of national security , and since one of the chief reasons for the existence of government is Nat .
Sec. , I feel that research like this is appropriate to use government funds for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say if we can spend, what was it, about 1*10^12 dollars, on automakers and wall street, much of which we almost certainly will never get back, we should be able to afford to put $1.5*10^10 dollars into Fusion research, which seems like it at least is is no *more* speculative than throwing money at detroit and failed banks, and which might have far greater payoff if we *do* win that particular bet.
The nature of technology is to get cheaper over time, right?
Seems to me that Fusion, if we get it working, will be expensive, *at first*, so that it may not be competitive with coal, etc in the short term.But, given time, if we can make fusion work at all, the price/kWh should drop to be competitive or cheaper.
Of course, the more R&amp;D dollars you put into it, you would expect the development and price reduction to speed up.
Put more money in now and as you go along, and we might get relatively affordable fusion in, say, 30 years isntead of 50 years, and cheaper fusion in maybe 60 years instead of 100 years.
Of course, one hopes that at some point, those dollars are coming from private industry more than governments.
But, with something like Fusion research which is massively expensive, somewhat speculative, and won't pay off for decades, it's difficult to get private funding in sufficient quantities.
Since energy security is an incredibly important part of national security, and since one of the chief reasons for the existence of government is Nat.
Sec., I feel that research like this is appropriate to use government funds for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138299</id>
	<title>Technology Prerequisites</title>
	<author>Atmchicago</author>
	<datestamp>1243609380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fusion, if ever successful, is likely to revolutionize our society, and the only way its ever going to be successful is if investment is made.</p></div><p>What these researchers haven't realized is that first we need to learn about superconductors (Conquer 4) and Pre-sentient Algorithms (Discover 5) to learn Fusion Power.  But yeah, it'll be a pretty big deal once we get it.</p><p>To quote:</p><p>"It will happen, and it will happen in our lifetimes. Fusion Power isn't just the future. Fusion Power is now.</p><p>-- T. M. Morgan-Reilly,
Morgan Metagenics"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fusion , if ever successful , is likely to revolutionize our society , and the only way its ever going to be successful is if investment is made.What these researchers have n't realized is that first we need to learn about superconductors ( Conquer 4 ) and Pre-sentient Algorithms ( Discover 5 ) to learn Fusion Power .
But yeah , it 'll be a pretty big deal once we get it.To quote : " It will happen , and it will happen in our lifetimes .
Fusion Power is n't just the future .
Fusion Power is now.-- T. M. Morgan-Reilly , Morgan Metagenics "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fusion, if ever successful, is likely to revolutionize our society, and the only way its ever going to be successful is if investment is made.What these researchers haven't realized is that first we need to learn about superconductors (Conquer 4) and Pre-sentient Algorithms (Discover 5) to learn Fusion Power.
But yeah, it'll be a pretty big deal once we get it.To quote:"It will happen, and it will happen in our lifetimes.
Fusion Power isn't just the future.
Fusion Power is now.-- T. M. Morgan-Reilly,
Morgan Metagenics"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136719</id>
	<title>solving the problem is not the goal</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1243599060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the governments and special interest groups don't want the problem solved.  When it is "solved" then all the regulatory structure and special fees/taxes won't have application.  The lose revenue and control over other people.</p><p>Look, we have known for a long time in the US that Nuclear power when done right is great for the environment.  Yet at every corner it was shot down by one group or another.  I have been watching Georgia Power trying to spin up two new nuclear reactors and it took years just to get it to the PSC and be allowed to price it out.  Now they are past the point of being allowed to bill for them reactors they must fight to get them started.  I seriously doubt they will get these two new reactors on line.</p><p>When control and tax (read cap and trade) comes along people are going to see their electrical bills skyrocket.  Yet where will the base load power supply come from?  Coal.  There are no alternatives to it.  My county spend almost a decade just to build a reservoir for drink water, I cannot imagine what it would take for to get one large enough for power generation.</p><p>So again, we have technologies to fix the problem, we even have the money, but the powers that be and the groups supporting them don't want it fixed.  They need the problem to guilt and control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the governments and special interest groups do n't want the problem solved .
When it is " solved " then all the regulatory structure and special fees/taxes wo n't have application .
The lose revenue and control over other people.Look , we have known for a long time in the US that Nuclear power when done right is great for the environment .
Yet at every corner it was shot down by one group or another .
I have been watching Georgia Power trying to spin up two new nuclear reactors and it took years just to get it to the PSC and be allowed to price it out .
Now they are past the point of being allowed to bill for them reactors they must fight to get them started .
I seriously doubt they will get these two new reactors on line.When control and tax ( read cap and trade ) comes along people are going to see their electrical bills skyrocket .
Yet where will the base load power supply come from ?
Coal. There are no alternatives to it .
My county spend almost a decade just to build a reservoir for drink water , I can not imagine what it would take for to get one large enough for power generation.So again , we have technologies to fix the problem , we even have the money , but the powers that be and the groups supporting them do n't want it fixed .
They need the problem to guilt and control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the governments and special interest groups don't want the problem solved.
When it is "solved" then all the regulatory structure and special fees/taxes won't have application.
The lose revenue and control over other people.Look, we have known for a long time in the US that Nuclear power when done right is great for the environment.
Yet at every corner it was shot down by one group or another.
I have been watching Georgia Power trying to spin up two new nuclear reactors and it took years just to get it to the PSC and be allowed to price it out.
Now they are past the point of being allowed to bill for them reactors they must fight to get them started.
I seriously doubt they will get these two new reactors on line.When control and tax (read cap and trade) comes along people are going to see their electrical bills skyrocket.
Yet where will the base load power supply come from?
Coal.  There are no alternatives to it.
My county spend almost a decade just to build a reservoir for drink water, I cannot imagine what it would take for to get one large enough for power generation.So again, we have technologies to fix the problem, we even have the money, but the powers that be and the groups supporting them don't want it fixed.
They need the problem to guilt and control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136481</id>
	<title>bvgygtggtvcxrgnh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243595940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is any part of Back to the Future II going to happen?  Besides the Internet, the future's turning out to be a total ripoff.<br>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp; </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is any part of Back to the Future II going to happen ?
Besides the Internet , the future 's turning out to be a total ripoff .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is any part of Back to the Future II going to happen?
Besides the Internet, the future's turning out to be a total ripoff.
  
  
  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136697</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>KonoWatakushi</author>
	<datestamp>1243598700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am all for investment in fusion technology, but that money should be better spent.  Even if the Tokamak approach can be made to work, it will never be economically viable.  It is extremely expensive, and there is no hope of scaling it down; the physics requires such an enormous and complex machine.</p><p>In the mean time, there are a number of other very promising approaches which continue to be neglected, and these could be funded at a small fraction of the cost.  What is very frustrating is that most of these have been around for a long time, and some were even cancelled so that our futile pursuit of Tokamaks could continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am all for investment in fusion technology , but that money should be better spent .
Even if the Tokamak approach can be made to work , it will never be economically viable .
It is extremely expensive , and there is no hope of scaling it down ; the physics requires such an enormous and complex machine.In the mean time , there are a number of other very promising approaches which continue to be neglected , and these could be funded at a small fraction of the cost .
What is very frustrating is that most of these have been around for a long time , and some were even cancelled so that our futile pursuit of Tokamaks could continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am all for investment in fusion technology, but that money should be better spent.
Even if the Tokamak approach can be made to work, it will never be economically viable.
It is extremely expensive, and there is no hope of scaling it down; the physics requires such an enormous and complex machine.In the mean time, there are a number of other very promising approaches which continue to be neglected, and these could be funded at a small fraction of the cost.
What is very frustrating is that most of these have been around for a long time, and some were even cancelled so that our futile pursuit of Tokamaks could continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138005</id>
	<title>USA : Should start building reactors now.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1243608180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is an absolute disgrace that the USA is a junior ITER partner and is not building its own ITER reactor.  Yes, its billions of dollars, but the prize is priceless.  Americans have the money to do this.  If we could cut a sliver of medicare and defense, and maybe have a tax structure in place so that we don't have to borrow a trillion dollars every time corporate and capital gains taxes plunge in a recession, then, we could easily fund the kind of research into fusion that can get the job done.</p><p>I think the only way to get there is to build a new fusion plant every few years, expecting each to actually fail, but gaining lessons from it to apply to the next one that we will build.  If we don't have the answers to all the physics problems, guess, and learn from it.  Trying to figure out everything before hand is just impossible in a task this complex.  We need to build, fail, learn, and keep building.  This is how we learned to do everything else, from flying, to cars, to spacecraft, and even to operating systems and computer software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is an absolute disgrace that the USA is a junior ITER partner and is not building its own ITER reactor .
Yes , its billions of dollars , but the prize is priceless .
Americans have the money to do this .
If we could cut a sliver of medicare and defense , and maybe have a tax structure in place so that we do n't have to borrow a trillion dollars every time corporate and capital gains taxes plunge in a recession , then , we could easily fund the kind of research into fusion that can get the job done.I think the only way to get there is to build a new fusion plant every few years , expecting each to actually fail , but gaining lessons from it to apply to the next one that we will build .
If we do n't have the answers to all the physics problems , guess , and learn from it .
Trying to figure out everything before hand is just impossible in a task this complex .
We need to build , fail , learn , and keep building .
This is how we learned to do everything else , from flying , to cars , to spacecraft , and even to operating systems and computer software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is an absolute disgrace that the USA is a junior ITER partner and is not building its own ITER reactor.
Yes, its billions of dollars, but the prize is priceless.
Americans have the money to do this.
If we could cut a sliver of medicare and defense, and maybe have a tax structure in place so that we don't have to borrow a trillion dollars every time corporate and capital gains taxes plunge in a recession, then, we could easily fund the kind of research into fusion that can get the job done.I think the only way to get there is to build a new fusion plant every few years, expecting each to actually fail, but gaining lessons from it to apply to the next one that we will build.
If we don't have the answers to all the physics problems, guess, and learn from it.
Trying to figure out everything before hand is just impossible in a task this complex.
We need to build, fail, learn, and keep building.
This is how we learned to do everything else, from flying, to cars, to spacecraft, and even to operating systems and computer software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137637</id>
	<title>Relax...</title>
	<author>ghetto2ivy</author>
	<datestamp>1243606380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They probably just ran out of baguettes &amp; wine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably just ran out of baguettes &amp; wine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably just ran out of baguettes &amp; wine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136961</id>
	<title>Shouldn't this be "plasmaware" not "vapourware"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243601940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136475</id>
	<title>Twats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243595940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Twats</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twats</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twats</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28145375</id>
	<title>Good ideas, spinoffs</title>
	<author>twopoint718</author>
	<datestamp>1243600020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went to a talk at Fermilab a while ago about this project. I nerded-out over the different technologies that'll be brought to bear on it (it is a superconducting tokamak, for starters). If I were the president of the world, this is what I'd spend my money on. I would fund the crap out of fusion research until fusion happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to a talk at Fermilab a while ago about this project .
I nerded-out over the different technologies that 'll be brought to bear on it ( it is a superconducting tokamak , for starters ) .
If I were the president of the world , this is what I 'd spend my money on .
I would fund the crap out of fusion research until fusion happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to a talk at Fermilab a while ago about this project.
I nerded-out over the different technologies that'll be brought to bear on it (it is a superconducting tokamak, for starters).
If I were the president of the world, this is what I'd spend my money on.
I would fund the crap out of fusion research until fusion happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28140123</id>
	<title>next 10 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243618620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wouldn't worry about fusion power, within next decade it will become clear that continuously growing fossil fuel use is over. once that realization is here and not even recession is capable of bringing oil prices back down we will see serious money poured into fusion power. i bet with few hundred billions we could have fusion within 1-2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i would n't worry about fusion power , within next decade it will become clear that continuously growing fossil fuel use is over .
once that realization is here and not even recession is capable of bringing oil prices back down we will see serious money poured into fusion power .
i bet with few hundred billions we could have fusion within 1-2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wouldn't worry about fusion power, within next decade it will become clear that continuously growing fossil fuel use is over.
once that realization is here and not even recession is capable of bringing oil prices back down we will see serious money poured into fusion power.
i bet with few hundred billions we could have fusion within 1-2 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533</id>
	<title>Not "French"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243596420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The title got it wrong: this is not a French experiment, but an international one which happens to take place in France. There's a difference...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The title got it wrong : this is not a French experiment , but an international one which happens to take place in France .
There 's a difference.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title got it wrong: this is not a French experiment, but an international one which happens to take place in France.
There's a difference...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28141237</id>
	<title>Re:When I was in my teens...</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1243623900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fusion power was expected to have replaced nuclear by the year 2000. It's now 2009, and it's still more than 30 years in the future. A slippage of one year per year consistently for the last 40 years does not bode well.</p></div><p>The situation is actually much worse than this. Controlled thermonuclear research began in the 1950s with Project Sherwood, at that time it was expected that fusion power was a problem that would be cracked in <i>ten years</i>. Around 1970, it was expected that commercial fusion power would be on line in 2000 (i.e. 30 years). Right now no projections have a commercial plant operating before about 2050 (i.e. 40 years). So the time until commercial fusion power is a strictly <i>increasing</i> function if time.</p><p>But maybe there is room for optimism since the rate of increase seems to be declining....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fusion power was expected to have replaced nuclear by the year 2000 .
It 's now 2009 , and it 's still more than 30 years in the future .
A slippage of one year per year consistently for the last 40 years does not bode well.The situation is actually much worse than this .
Controlled thermonuclear research began in the 1950s with Project Sherwood , at that time it was expected that fusion power was a problem that would be cracked in ten years .
Around 1970 , it was expected that commercial fusion power would be on line in 2000 ( i.e .
30 years ) .
Right now no projections have a commercial plant operating before about 2050 ( i.e .
40 years ) .
So the time until commercial fusion power is a strictly increasing function if time.But maybe there is room for optimism since the rate of increase seems to be declining... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fusion power was expected to have replaced nuclear by the year 2000.
It's now 2009, and it's still more than 30 years in the future.
A slippage of one year per year consistently for the last 40 years does not bode well.The situation is actually much worse than this.
Controlled thermonuclear research began in the 1950s with Project Sherwood, at that time it was expected that fusion power was a problem that would be cracked in ten years.
Around 1970, it was expected that commercial fusion power would be on line in 2000 (i.e.
30 years).
Right now no projections have a commercial plant operating before about 2050 (i.e.
40 years).
So the time until commercial fusion power is a strictly increasing function if time.But maybe there is room for optimism since the rate of increase seems to be declining....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136619</id>
	<title>News at 11</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1243597500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Trying to turn theoretical ideas into concrete practical projects is expensive. Damn expensive. However, if anything concrete at all comes out of it then the payoffs are going to be almost infinite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to turn theoretical ideas into concrete practical projects is expensive .
Damn expensive .
However , if anything concrete at all comes out of it then the payoffs are going to be almost infinite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to turn theoretical ideas into concrete practical projects is expensive.
Damn expensive.
However, if anything concrete at all comes out of it then the payoffs are going to be almost infinite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136863</id>
	<title>Re:Moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243600860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone done the maths on the effect of taking power extracted from tides on the orbit of the moon? If we take too much tidal power might the moon be drawn into a downward spiral crashing into the Earth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone done the maths on the effect of taking power extracted from tides on the orbit of the moon ?
If we take too much tidal power might the moon be drawn into a downward spiral crashing into the Earth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone done the maths on the effect of taking power extracted from tides on the orbit of the moon?
If we take too much tidal power might the moon be drawn into a downward spiral crashing into the Earth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136559</id>
	<title>More like 2032 if you take into account...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243596780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>the French 30 hour work week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the French 30 hour work week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the French 30 hour work week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136717</id>
	<title>Re:Fusion</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1243599000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>to provide 1TW for 1 year would require about a cubic meter of water based on the proton proton chain. ~25MeV per 6 hydrogens, means 75000 moles of water at 50\% efficieny to produce 1TWyr, 0.018kg/mole means about a 1000kg ballpark. Wiki lists global power consumption at about 15TW, so even if you allow much lower efficay, and energy costs to extract hydrogen from the water etc, its concievable that your local swimming pool could power the world for a couple of years</htmltext>
<tokenext>to provide 1TW for 1 year would require about a cubic meter of water based on the proton proton chain .
~ 25MeV per 6 hydrogens , means 75000 moles of water at 50 \ % efficieny to produce 1TWyr , 0.018kg/mole means about a 1000kg ballpark .
Wiki lists global power consumption at about 15TW , so even if you allow much lower efficay , and energy costs to extract hydrogen from the water etc , its concievable that your local swimming pool could power the world for a couple of years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to provide 1TW for 1 year would require about a cubic meter of water based on the proton proton chain.
~25MeV per 6 hydrogens, means 75000 moles of water at 50\% efficieny to produce 1TWyr, 0.018kg/mole means about a 1000kg ballpark.
Wiki lists global power consumption at about 15TW, so even if you allow much lower efficay, and energy costs to extract hydrogen from the water etc, its concievable that your local swimming pool could power the world for a couple of years</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136799</id>
	<title>rising costs</title>
	<author>astralpancakes</author>
	<datestamp>1243600200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With rising costs of fossil fuels (and by extension, manufacture and transport, and by extension, materials), the costs are likely to rise even further before it's completed. Which is why it would be so essential to get ITER done on time -- we're lucky to get even one shot at developing fusion power, before industrial civilization beings to creak at the seams because of a shortage of cheap energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With rising costs of fossil fuels ( and by extension , manufacture and transport , and by extension , materials ) , the costs are likely to rise even further before it 's completed .
Which is why it would be so essential to get ITER done on time -- we 're lucky to get even one shot at developing fusion power , before industrial civilization beings to creak at the seams because of a shortage of cheap energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With rising costs of fossil fuels (and by extension, manufacture and transport, and by extension, materials), the costs are likely to rise even further before it's completed.
Which is why it would be so essential to get ITER done on time -- we're lucky to get even one shot at developing fusion power, before industrial civilization beings to creak at the seams because of a shortage of cheap energy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136635</id>
	<title>Re:Not "French"</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1243597860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...this is not a French experiment, but an international one which happens to take place in France. There's a difference...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Clearly you haven't encountered the French. As long as something is based in France then it is French in their eyes, and that's all that matters to them. It's why there are two European parliaments - one in Brussels and one in Strasbourg that all the MEPs spend ridiculous amounts of money moving their stuff between, just to satisfy the French.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...this is not a French experiment , but an international one which happens to take place in France .
There 's a difference.. . Clearly you have n't encountered the French .
As long as something is based in France then it is French in their eyes , and that 's all that matters to them .
It 's why there are two European parliaments - one in Brussels and one in Strasbourg that all the MEPs spend ridiculous amounts of money moving their stuff between , just to satisfy the French .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this is not a French experiment, but an international one which happens to take place in France.
There's a difference...
Clearly you haven't encountered the French.
As long as something is based in France then it is French in their eyes, and that's all that matters to them.
It's why there are two European parliaments - one in Brussels and one in Strasbourg that all the MEPs spend ridiculous amounts of money moving their stuff between, just to satisfy the French.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28151557</id>
	<title>...an unanticipated increase in staffing</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1243716120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"[...] and an unanticipated increase in staffing to manage procurement"</p></div><p>Now there is a good example of the self-serving nature of bureaucracy:  Overspending on managers to manage spending.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ ... ] and an unanticipated increase in staffing to manage procurement " Now there is a good example of the self-serving nature of bureaucracy : Overspending on managers to manage spending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[...] and an unanticipated increase in staffing to manage procurement"Now there is a good example of the self-serving nature of bureaucracy:  Overspending on managers to manage spending.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137351</id>
	<title>Then, instead of calling it French Fusion, . . .</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1243604580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . it should be called Freedom Fusion???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
it should be called Freedom Fusion ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
it should be called Freedom Fusion??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139561</id>
	<title>If the experiment has unexpected results like....</title>
	<author>motherpusbucket</author>
	<datestamp>1243615620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>opening a portal to another dimension and letting in some non-carbon based life forms or something of that ilk, we can at least count on a quick surrender.

They will quickly bow to their [fill in the blank] overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>opening a portal to another dimension and letting in some non-carbon based life forms or something of that ilk , we can at least count on a quick surrender .
They will quickly bow to their [ fill in the blank ] overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>opening a portal to another dimension and letting in some non-carbon based life forms or something of that ilk, we can at least count on a quick surrender.
They will quickly bow to their [fill in the blank] overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138953</id>
	<title>Re:Someone just give this man some money....</title>
	<author>EdZ</author>
	<datestamp>1243612560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not simply have more than one avenue of research? We have many designs of fission reactor (PWR, pebble bed, MAGNOX, fast-breeders, etc), many designs of internal combustion engine (4-stroke, 2-stroke, rotary, gas turbine, diesel, etc), why not have several designs of fusion reactor as well? Tokemaks, Spheromaks, Polywells, PPDs, laser inertial and so on, all of them may have different applications, different niches where they work better than others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not simply have more than one avenue of research ?
We have many designs of fission reactor ( PWR , pebble bed , MAGNOX , fast-breeders , etc ) , many designs of internal combustion engine ( 4-stroke , 2-stroke , rotary , gas turbine , diesel , etc ) , why not have several designs of fusion reactor as well ?
Tokemaks , Spheromaks , Polywells , PPDs , laser inertial and so on , all of them may have different applications , different niches where they work better than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not simply have more than one avenue of research?
We have many designs of fission reactor (PWR, pebble bed, MAGNOX, fast-breeders, etc), many designs of internal combustion engine (4-stroke, 2-stroke, rotary, gas turbine, diesel, etc), why not have several designs of fusion reactor as well?
Tokemaks, Spheromaks, Polywells, PPDs, laser inertial and so on, all of them may have different applications, different niches where they work better than others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136847</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy- this should be funded more to go faster</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1243600740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Scientific" or other government project are not awarded according to our current need, but due to lobby of various kind.<br> <br>Thats why military receives $600 billion and crucial stem cell research nil.<br> <br>So much for our blessed democracy. <br> <br>Speaking of democracy. Hell, you can even invade and wage a war in two different countries at once and blame the other party. This is fantastic system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Scientific " or other government project are not awarded according to our current need , but due to lobby of various kind .
Thats why military receives $ 600 billion and crucial stem cell research nil .
So much for our blessed democracy .
Speaking of democracy .
Hell , you can even invade and wage a war in two different countries at once and blame the other party .
This is fantastic system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Scientific" or other government project are not awarded according to our current need, but due to lobby of various kind.
Thats why military receives $600 billion and crucial stem cell research nil.
So much for our blessed democracy.
Speaking of democracy.
Hell, you can even invade and wage a war in two different countries at once and blame the other party.
This is fantastic system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629</id>
	<title>Fusion</title>
	<author>Lifyre</author>
	<datestamp>1243597740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea of fusion and benefits of fusion are tremendous compared to fossil fuels but I've always wondered how long will it last before it starts eating a significant enough portion of the hydrogen to be a concern.  (Or possibly when the helium concentration will become high enough to be a concern.)  I imagine that we have enough reserves of hydrogen in the oceans it won't be a concern for many many many years to come but it is an interesting thought experiment.</p><p>Ultimately the only "safe" power sources are those that derive their energy from external sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and wave power; all of which are powered by the sun's energy and/or gravitational interaction with outside sources (aka moon).  Granted eventually the sun will run out of hydrogen and we won't be able to use it as an outside source of energy.  As long as we're burning things that have a finite source in the closed system of the planet we'll eventually run out or pay some unforseen consequences (Global Warming).</p><p>Not exactly the largest concern when it comes to alternative power but still and interesting topic to think about.</p><p>-Lifyre</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of fusion and benefits of fusion are tremendous compared to fossil fuels but I 've always wondered how long will it last before it starts eating a significant enough portion of the hydrogen to be a concern .
( Or possibly when the helium concentration will become high enough to be a concern .
) I imagine that we have enough reserves of hydrogen in the oceans it wo n't be a concern for many many many years to come but it is an interesting thought experiment.Ultimately the only " safe " power sources are those that derive their energy from external sources such as solar , wind , hydroelectric , and wave power ; all of which are powered by the sun 's energy and/or gravitational interaction with outside sources ( aka moon ) .
Granted eventually the sun will run out of hydrogen and we wo n't be able to use it as an outside source of energy .
As long as we 're burning things that have a finite source in the closed system of the planet we 'll eventually run out or pay some unforseen consequences ( Global Warming ) .Not exactly the largest concern when it comes to alternative power but still and interesting topic to think about.-Lifyre</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of fusion and benefits of fusion are tremendous compared to fossil fuels but I've always wondered how long will it last before it starts eating a significant enough portion of the hydrogen to be a concern.
(Or possibly when the helium concentration will become high enough to be a concern.
)  I imagine that we have enough reserves of hydrogen in the oceans it won't be a concern for many many many years to come but it is an interesting thought experiment.Ultimately the only "safe" power sources are those that derive their energy from external sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and wave power; all of which are powered by the sun's energy and/or gravitational interaction with outside sources (aka moon).
Granted eventually the sun will run out of hydrogen and we won't be able to use it as an outside source of energy.
As long as we're burning things that have a finite source in the closed system of the planet we'll eventually run out or pay some unforseen consequences (Global Warming).Not exactly the largest concern when it comes to alternative power but still and interesting topic to think about.-Lifyre</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28142533</id>
	<title>Re:Fusion</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1243629000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just one question (great post, btw.): in the reaction you mention, tritium is produced (and hydrogen). Tritium itself is easily fusible, if I'm not mistaken, so basically you could go on and do another fusion step that would (I'm totally out of my depth here) helium. I guess this would add to the total energy produced?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one question ( great post , btw .
) : in the reaction you mention , tritium is produced ( and hydrogen ) .
Tritium itself is easily fusible , if I 'm not mistaken , so basically you could go on and do another fusion step that would ( I 'm totally out of my depth here ) helium .
I guess this would add to the total energy produced ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one question (great post, btw.
): in the reaction you mention, tritium is produced (and hydrogen).
Tritium itself is easily fusible, if I'm not mistaken, so basically you could go on and do another fusion step that would (I'm totally out of my depth here) helium.
I guess this would add to the total energy produced?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136843</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28142003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28142533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28141749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28141237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28144511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28140797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28141203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28143059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28142213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0511233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28141203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28140797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28142213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28142533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28142003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28143059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28141749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28144511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136895
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28138285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28139129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28136847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0511233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28137183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0511233.28141237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
