<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_22_2244222</id>
	<title>Wind Could Provide 100\% of World Energy Needs</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245669180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Damien1972 sends in a report on a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which finds that <a href="http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0622-hance\_global\_wind.html">wind power could provide for the entire world's current and future energy needs</a>. <i>"To estimate the earth's capacity for wind power, the researchers first sectioned the globe into areas of approximately 3,300 square kilometers (2,050 square miles) and surveyed local wind speeds every six hours. They imagined 2.5 megawatt turbines crisscrossing the terrestrial globe, excluding 'areas classified as forested, areas occupied by permanent snow or ice, areas covered by water, and areas identified as either developed or urban,' according to the paper. They also included the possibility of 3.6 megawatt offshore wind turbines, but restricted them to 50 nautical miles off the coast and to oceans depths less than 200 meters. Using [these] criteria the researchers found that wind energy could not only supply all of the world's energy requirements, but it could provide over forty times the world's current electrical consumption and over five times the global use of total energy needs."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damien1972 sends in a report on a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science , which finds that wind power could provide for the entire world 's current and future energy needs .
" To estimate the earth 's capacity for wind power , the researchers first sectioned the globe into areas of approximately 3,300 square kilometers ( 2,050 square miles ) and surveyed local wind speeds every six hours .
They imagined 2.5 megawatt turbines crisscrossing the terrestrial globe , excluding 'areas classified as forested , areas occupied by permanent snow or ice , areas covered by water , and areas identified as either developed or urban, ' according to the paper .
They also included the possibility of 3.6 megawatt offshore wind turbines , but restricted them to 50 nautical miles off the coast and to oceans depths less than 200 meters .
Using [ these ] criteria the researchers found that wind energy could not only supply all of the world 's energy requirements , but it could provide over forty times the world 's current electrical consumption and over five times the global use of total energy needs .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damien1972 sends in a report on a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which finds that wind power could provide for the entire world's current and future energy needs.
"To estimate the earth's capacity for wind power, the researchers first sectioned the globe into areas of approximately 3,300 square kilometers (2,050 square miles) and surveyed local wind speeds every six hours.
They imagined 2.5 megawatt turbines crisscrossing the terrestrial globe, excluding 'areas classified as forested, areas occupied by permanent snow or ice, areas covered by water, and areas identified as either developed or urban,' according to the paper.
They also included the possibility of 3.6 megawatt offshore wind turbines, but restricted them to 50 nautical miles off the coast and to oceans depths less than 200 meters.
Using [these] criteria the researchers found that wind energy could not only supply all of the world's energy requirements, but it could provide over forty times the world's current electrical consumption and over five times the global use of total energy needs.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433197</id>
	<title>alternative (slightly) to wind power...</title>
	<author>ushere</author>
	<datestamp>1245682380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's probably enough hot air generated by the worlds politicians to power the needs of the planet for the next century or two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's probably enough hot air generated by the worlds politicians to power the needs of the planet for the next century or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's probably enough hot air generated by the worlds politicians to power the needs of the planet for the next century or two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436695</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1245756540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd also imagine that if they lived in a less litigious society, the aches and pains would mysteriously vanish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd also imagine that if they lived in a less litigious society , the aches and pains would mysteriously vanish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd also imagine that if they lived in a less litigious society, the aches and pains would mysteriously vanish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431241</id>
	<title>We COULD do it</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1245673560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but PMG, we would stop the wind!  The environment would be destroyed!  And birds!  Won't someone think of the birds!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but PMG , we would stop the wind !
The environment would be destroyed !
And birds !
Wo n't someone think of the birds !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but PMG, we would stop the wind!
The environment would be destroyed!
And birds!
Won't someone think of the birds!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28442597</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245785460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About a year ago I was thinking like you are today but in reality hydrogen is not a good solution to anything.  For starters they only last a year and fuel cell that powers a car costs $30,000.  Second you have to put a lot of energy into compressing the hydrogen resulting in a huge inefficiency then there is an inefficiency in getting the power back.</p><p>There is no reason to fear however, supercapacitors are the solution bit far off (unless eestor turns out to not be a fraud but I think it is at this point) but they will come and replace batteries and power our cars when oil runs out.</p><p>Thbe only technology we have right now that can really do the job and do it well is nuclear and as long as there is no accidents it is good for the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About a year ago I was thinking like you are today but in reality hydrogen is not a good solution to anything .
For starters they only last a year and fuel cell that powers a car costs $ 30,000 .
Second you have to put a lot of energy into compressing the hydrogen resulting in a huge inefficiency then there is an inefficiency in getting the power back.There is no reason to fear however , supercapacitors are the solution bit far off ( unless eestor turns out to not be a fraud but I think it is at this point ) but they will come and replace batteries and power our cars when oil runs out.Thbe only technology we have right now that can really do the job and do it well is nuclear and as long as there is no accidents it is good for the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About a year ago I was thinking like you are today but in reality hydrogen is not a good solution to anything.
For starters they only last a year and fuel cell that powers a car costs $30,000.
Second you have to put a lot of energy into compressing the hydrogen resulting in a huge inefficiency then there is an inefficiency in getting the power back.There is no reason to fear however, supercapacitors are the solution bit far off (unless eestor turns out to not be a fraud but I think it is at this point) but they will come and replace batteries and power our cars when oil runs out.Thbe only technology we have right now that can really do the job and do it well is nuclear and as long as there is no accidents it is good for the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28444515</id>
	<title>Proposed mix of energy sources</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245748860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Economical and Healthy mix for the next 40 years (current builds):<br>We need to get rid of coal now, and oil as best we can.  The health effects are orders of magnitude worse than any other option.<br>Wind and Solar are rapidly becoming cost effective up to a small amount of the current supply.<br>Unfortunately, the adoption of electric cars could make these two options less cost effective, but is still worthwhile since it reduces greatly the pollution in our air.<br>Generation III nuclear can load follow to a certain degree, and so can offset wind and solar variability.<br>This reduces reliance on oil and gas for load-following.</p><p>Wind 10-20\%<br>Solar 10-20\% (largely residential)<br>Experimental new energy sources 1-5\%  (keep our options open)<br>Oil, Gas, Biofuel 1-10\%  (minimum needed for load-following)<br>Hydroelectricity 10-45\% (a very good, cheap option, location dependent)<br>Nuclear  0-68\% (remainder of the mix)</p><p>Ideal Reasonable Mix by Capacity/Cost:<br>Wind 15/25<br>Solar 10/25<br>Hydro 30/13<br>Oil, Gas, Biofuel 10/12<br>Nuclear 35/25</p><p>Numbers are based upon reading multiple sources of costing various energy sources for over 20 hours in the past two weeks.<br>They are a fiction, but are not arbitrary.</p><p>Recommended New Builds:  2 Solar, 3 Wind, 2 Hydro, 4 Nuclear</p><p>Once large scale power storage becomes feasible, wind and solar can and should make up a larger part of the mix.</p><p>Also, in cold places, district heating should be considered (geothermal, nuclear) as heat from these sources<br>is more efficient than heat-&gt;steam-&gt;electricity-&gt;heat.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Economical and Healthy mix for the next 40 years ( current builds ) : We need to get rid of coal now , and oil as best we can .
The health effects are orders of magnitude worse than any other option.Wind and Solar are rapidly becoming cost effective up to a small amount of the current supply.Unfortunately , the adoption of electric cars could make these two options less cost effective , but is still worthwhile since it reduces greatly the pollution in our air.Generation III nuclear can load follow to a certain degree , and so can offset wind and solar variability.This reduces reliance on oil and gas for load-following.Wind 10-20 \ % Solar 10-20 \ % ( largely residential ) Experimental new energy sources 1-5 \ % ( keep our options open ) Oil , Gas , Biofuel 1-10 \ % ( minimum needed for load-following ) Hydroelectricity 10-45 \ % ( a very good , cheap option , location dependent ) Nuclear 0-68 \ % ( remainder of the mix ) Ideal Reasonable Mix by Capacity/Cost : Wind 15/25Solar 10/25Hydro 30/13Oil , Gas , Biofuel 10/12Nuclear 35/25Numbers are based upon reading multiple sources of costing various energy sources for over 20 hours in the past two weeks.They are a fiction , but are not arbitrary.Recommended New Builds : 2 Solar , 3 Wind , 2 Hydro , 4 NuclearOnce large scale power storage becomes feasible , wind and solar can and should make up a larger part of the mix.Also , in cold places , district heating should be considered ( geothermal , nuclear ) as heat from these sourcesis more efficient than heat- &gt; steam- &gt; electricity- &gt; heat.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economical and Healthy mix for the next 40 years (current builds):We need to get rid of coal now, and oil as best we can.
The health effects are orders of magnitude worse than any other option.Wind and Solar are rapidly becoming cost effective up to a small amount of the current supply.Unfortunately, the adoption of electric cars could make these two options less cost effective, but is still worthwhile since it reduces greatly the pollution in our air.Generation III nuclear can load follow to a certain degree, and so can offset wind and solar variability.This reduces reliance on oil and gas for load-following.Wind 10-20\%Solar 10-20\% (largely residential)Experimental new energy sources 1-5\%  (keep our options open)Oil, Gas, Biofuel 1-10\%  (minimum needed for load-following)Hydroelectricity 10-45\% (a very good, cheap option, location dependent)Nuclear  0-68\% (remainder of the mix)Ideal Reasonable Mix by Capacity/Cost:Wind 15/25Solar 10/25Hydro 30/13Oil, Gas, Biofuel 10/12Nuclear 35/25Numbers are based upon reading multiple sources of costing various energy sources for over 20 hours in the past two weeks.They are a fiction, but are not arbitrary.Recommended New Builds:  2 Solar, 3 Wind, 2 Hydro, 4 NuclearOnce large scale power storage becomes feasible, wind and solar can and should make up a larger part of the mix.Also, in cold places, district heating should be considered (geothermal, nuclear) as heat from these sourcesis more efficient than heat-&gt;steam-&gt;electricity-&gt;heat.-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431261</id>
	<title>Energy storage?</title>
	<author>rcw-home</author>
	<datestamp>1245673680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article doesn't mention anything about mass energy storage. Without that, if we try to increase wind's share of power generation too much, it'll destabilize the grid (I've heard figures of 20-30\% for this previously, but can't find a convenient reference).</p><p>Has anything panned out on that front? (i.e. been cheap enough for wide-scale use?) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage\_hydroelectricity" title="wikipedia.org">Pumped-storage hydro</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur\_battery" title="wikipedia.org">Sodium-sulfur batteries</a> [wikipedia.org], etc?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article does n't mention anything about mass energy storage .
Without that , if we try to increase wind 's share of power generation too much , it 'll destabilize the grid ( I 've heard figures of 20-30 \ % for this previously , but ca n't find a convenient reference ) .Has anything panned out on that front ?
( i.e. been cheap enough for wide-scale use ?
) Pumped-storage hydro [ wikipedia.org ] , Sodium-sulfur batteries [ wikipedia.org ] , etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article doesn't mention anything about mass energy storage.
Without that, if we try to increase wind's share of power generation too much, it'll destabilize the grid (I've heard figures of 20-30\% for this previously, but can't find a convenient reference).Has anything panned out on that front?
(i.e. been cheap enough for wide-scale use?
) Pumped-storage hydro [wikipedia.org], Sodium-sulfur batteries [wikipedia.org], etc?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28451031</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1245848820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a theory that geothermal energy is not from the sun, but <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news62952904.html" title="physorg.com">from the earth's core, which is radioactive.</a> [physorg.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a theory that geothermal energy is not from the sun , but from the earth 's core , which is radioactive .
[ physorg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a theory that geothermal energy is not from the sun, but from the earth's core, which is radioactive.
[physorg.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431975</id>
	<title>How is that a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245676500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the things that wind power proponents point to is the economic activity they create.  Look at all the jobs.  Look at all the money staying in the local economy and not flowing to 'people who hate our freedoms'.</p><p>Were you trying to say there is some kind of problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things that wind power proponents point to is the economic activity they create .
Look at all the jobs .
Look at all the money staying in the local economy and not flowing to 'people who hate our freedoms'.Were you trying to say there is some kind of problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things that wind power proponents point to is the economic activity they create.
Look at all the jobs.
Look at all the money staying in the local economy and not flowing to 'people who hate our freedoms'.Were you trying to say there is some kind of problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28445427</id>
	<title>Re:The usual comment...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245751980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's fill the world with gigantic metal spinning blades suspended hundreds of feet in the air.  What could possibly go wrong?</p></div><p>No more trouble than launching 100s of buses full of people through the air everyday. (called airplanes)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's fill the world with gigantic metal spinning blades suspended hundreds of feet in the air .
What could possibly go wrong ? No more trouble than launching 100s of buses full of people through the air everyday .
( called airplanes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's fill the world with gigantic metal spinning blades suspended hundreds of feet in the air.
What could possibly go wrong?No more trouble than launching 100s of buses full of people through the air everyday.
(called airplanes)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431285</id>
	<title>The usual comment...</title>
	<author>MWoody</author>
	<datestamp>1245673740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's fill the world with gigantic metal spinning blades suspended hundreds of feet in the air.  What could possibly go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's fill the world with gigantic metal spinning blades suspended hundreds of feet in the air .
What could possibly go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's fill the world with gigantic metal spinning blades suspended hundreds of feet in the air.
What could possibly go wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28439641</id>
	<title>Stop Looking for Silver Bullets</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1245774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wish we'd stop looking for silver bullet/panaceas.  Instead of hanging our hopes on one systems, i think we should use many sources... the more the merrier.  While simultaneously reducing use and recycling.</p><p>If we're going to do wind farms, can we please look into the vertical systems that kill fewer birds?  Birds shouldn't die because you can't be bothered to turn off the lights when you leave a room.</p><p>Have there been any studies as to what will happen when we slow down and disrupt the natural flow of wind?  When the wind hits the blade, it loses energy.  That wind was heading somewhere as part of the whole big system.  If we frack with that, there might be consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i wish we 'd stop looking for silver bullet/panaceas .
Instead of hanging our hopes on one systems , i think we should use many sources... the more the merrier .
While simultaneously reducing use and recycling.If we 're going to do wind farms , can we please look into the vertical systems that kill fewer birds ?
Birds should n't die because you ca n't be bothered to turn off the lights when you leave a room.Have there been any studies as to what will happen when we slow down and disrupt the natural flow of wind ?
When the wind hits the blade , it loses energy .
That wind was heading somewhere as part of the whole big system .
If we frack with that , there might be consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wish we'd stop looking for silver bullet/panaceas.
Instead of hanging our hopes on one systems, i think we should use many sources... the more the merrier.
While simultaneously reducing use and recycling.If we're going to do wind farms, can we please look into the vertical systems that kill fewer birds?
Birds shouldn't die because you can't be bothered to turn off the lights when you leave a room.Have there been any studies as to what will happen when we slow down and disrupt the natural flow of wind?
When the wind hits the blade, it loses energy.
That wind was heading somewhere as part of the whole big system.
If we frack with that, there might be consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28441745</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting counter-article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245782640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with IdahoEv:</p><p>Sounds like a great project.  What part seemed ludicrous to you?  I guess the part where you have to cover the coastline doesn't sound so great, and the part where you're constructing stuff in the atlantic ocean.  Certainly the costs involved are minimal: $867 per american per year to build enough wind towers to power the entire country?  The only operating costs of these things is upkeep - no fuel, no mining/drilling.</p><p>Your figures make it sound like a bargain!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with IdahoEv : Sounds like a great project .
What part seemed ludicrous to you ?
I guess the part where you have to cover the coastline does n't sound so great , and the part where you 're constructing stuff in the atlantic ocean .
Certainly the costs involved are minimal : $ 867 per american per year to build enough wind towers to power the entire country ?
The only operating costs of these things is upkeep - no fuel , no mining/drilling.Your figures make it sound like a bargain !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with IdahoEv:Sounds like a great project.
What part seemed ludicrous to you?
I guess the part where you have to cover the coastline doesn't sound so great, and the part where you're constructing stuff in the atlantic ocean.
Certainly the costs involved are minimal: $867 per american per year to build enough wind towers to power the entire country?
The only operating costs of these things is upkeep - no fuel, no mining/drilling.Your figures make it sound like a bargain!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432581</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting counter-article</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1245679380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you fix a broken windmill when it's out in the middle of the sea?  That's got to be expensive.  You can't fix them in situ - a lot of the time you'll need to replace it.  With thousands of them out there, there's going to be a few to fix every day.  That's going to cost a lot of money/energy.  Will it be worth it?  And how is the energy going to get into planes/ships etc?  Big fucking batteries?   How's that going to work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you fix a broken windmill when it 's out in the middle of the sea ?
That 's got to be expensive .
You ca n't fix them in situ - a lot of the time you 'll need to replace it .
With thousands of them out there , there 's going to be a few to fix every day .
That 's going to cost a lot of money/energy .
Will it be worth it ?
And how is the energy going to get into planes/ships etc ?
Big fucking batteries ?
How 's that going to work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you fix a broken windmill when it's out in the middle of the sea?
That's got to be expensive.
You can't fix them in situ - a lot of the time you'll need to replace it.
With thousands of them out there, there's going to be a few to fix every day.
That's going to cost a lot of money/energy.
Will it be worth it?
And how is the energy going to get into planes/ships etc?
Big fucking batteries?
How's that going to work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435029</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting counter-article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245694740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to create an account and login, but for some reason or other It won't allow me to do so.<br>I'm TonyfromOz who wrote the post you are referring to.<br>First, thanks for the link.</p><p>Just showing some of the facts there in isolation does not give the whole story for those of you who don't take the jump to the link here.<br>That workforce of 170,000 is just to man the 120 factories to produce the nacelles. At current work rates for producing the nacelles, each factory can produce 250 nacelles a year, hence the 30,000 nacelles required to meet the 40 year plan of 1.2 million nacelles.</p><p>Once they are manufactured, you will then need another workforce of indeterminate size to construct the towers in the Atlantic, place the nacelles on top, and fit the huge driving propeller, all this at the rate of one every 8 minutes. That cannot be done, so you would need to be constructing many towers at the one time. That 8 minutes equates to finishing one every 8 minutes, so at 30,000 a year, you would probably need to be working on hundreds, perhaps thousands of them at any one time. All the infrastructure needs for them to be constructed, (actually IN the Atlantic) will then need to be moved from the factories to the construction site.</p><p>Also, that $10.4 trillion is in actual today's dollars, extrapolated out for the whole project. So, if the price doubles every 7 years, the end cost might be in the vicinity of $50 Trillion or more, which breaks down to around $1.4 Trillion each and every year, with the wages packages to be added to that.</p><p>That's 1.2 million huge towers, one every 375 feet for the Atlantic coastline length of 2069 Miles, for one row, and you will need 38 rows of them, and then construct the infrastructure to get all that power back ashore to where it will be used, again an enormous task of itself, and you'll find that even if you can do this, the power can only be used relatively locally, as it cannot be then transmitted across the length and breadth of the Country.</p><p>I understand fully that this is a mathematical exercise only, and serves only to point out that the task is a patently ridiculous one as is the mathematical exercise that wind can provide the whole of the power requirements for the whole Planet.</p><p>The correct use of the mathematics in themselves will prove that a construction of this scale could not be achieved in any time length by any number of people working at the task to do it. The costing alone would be beyond any scope of calculation. Consider that this 1.2 million towers supplies the equivalent of the total U.S. installed capacity. The US consumes one quarter of the World's current electrical power, but again that is also distracting, because within China, only one family in seven has access to any electrical power, an amount of nearly 800 million to 1 billion people without any electricity, and the same applies in India, so to supply this wind power to them you then need to multiply that US figure of 1.2 million towers by 4 for current demand and then multiply that again by 14 for just China and India, keeping in mind that there is also those other vast undeveloped Countries as well, all requiring electrical power. The numbers now become mind boggling indeed.</p><p>This is a mathematical (theoretical) exercise only.</p><p>Over at the site the link takes you to, I have been submitting posts there on this generation of electrical power for 16 months now, and almost 25 such posts on every aspect of electrical power generation. My background is from working in the electrical trade for 25 years, the last 6 years teaching that trade, and then as the senior electrical examiner at that trade school.<br>http://papundits.wordpress.com/tag/kyoto/ will take you to those posts.<br>Sorry to take so much space with this response.<br>Tony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to create an account and login , but for some reason or other It wo n't allow me to do so.I 'm TonyfromOz who wrote the post you are referring to.First , thanks for the link.Just showing some of the facts there in isolation does not give the whole story for those of you who do n't take the jump to the link here.That workforce of 170,000 is just to man the 120 factories to produce the nacelles .
At current work rates for producing the nacelles , each factory can produce 250 nacelles a year , hence the 30,000 nacelles required to meet the 40 year plan of 1.2 million nacelles.Once they are manufactured , you will then need another workforce of indeterminate size to construct the towers in the Atlantic , place the nacelles on top , and fit the huge driving propeller , all this at the rate of one every 8 minutes .
That can not be done , so you would need to be constructing many towers at the one time .
That 8 minutes equates to finishing one every 8 minutes , so at 30,000 a year , you would probably need to be working on hundreds , perhaps thousands of them at any one time .
All the infrastructure needs for them to be constructed , ( actually IN the Atlantic ) will then need to be moved from the factories to the construction site.Also , that $ 10.4 trillion is in actual today 's dollars , extrapolated out for the whole project .
So , if the price doubles every 7 years , the end cost might be in the vicinity of $ 50 Trillion or more , which breaks down to around $ 1.4 Trillion each and every year , with the wages packages to be added to that.That 's 1.2 million huge towers , one every 375 feet for the Atlantic coastline length of 2069 Miles , for one row , and you will need 38 rows of them , and then construct the infrastructure to get all that power back ashore to where it will be used , again an enormous task of itself , and you 'll find that even if you can do this , the power can only be used relatively locally , as it can not be then transmitted across the length and breadth of the Country.I understand fully that this is a mathematical exercise only , and serves only to point out that the task is a patently ridiculous one as is the mathematical exercise that wind can provide the whole of the power requirements for the whole Planet.The correct use of the mathematics in themselves will prove that a construction of this scale could not be achieved in any time length by any number of people working at the task to do it .
The costing alone would be beyond any scope of calculation .
Consider that this 1.2 million towers supplies the equivalent of the total U.S. installed capacity .
The US consumes one quarter of the World 's current electrical power , but again that is also distracting , because within China , only one family in seven has access to any electrical power , an amount of nearly 800 million to 1 billion people without any electricity , and the same applies in India , so to supply this wind power to them you then need to multiply that US figure of 1.2 million towers by 4 for current demand and then multiply that again by 14 for just China and India , keeping in mind that there is also those other vast undeveloped Countries as well , all requiring electrical power .
The numbers now become mind boggling indeed.This is a mathematical ( theoretical ) exercise only.Over at the site the link takes you to , I have been submitting posts there on this generation of electrical power for 16 months now , and almost 25 such posts on every aspect of electrical power generation .
My background is from working in the electrical trade for 25 years , the last 6 years teaching that trade , and then as the senior electrical examiner at that trade school.http : //papundits.wordpress.com/tag/kyoto/ will take you to those posts.Sorry to take so much space with this response.Tony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to create an account and login, but for some reason or other It won't allow me to do so.I'm TonyfromOz who wrote the post you are referring to.First, thanks for the link.Just showing some of the facts there in isolation does not give the whole story for those of you who don't take the jump to the link here.That workforce of 170,000 is just to man the 120 factories to produce the nacelles.
At current work rates for producing the nacelles, each factory can produce 250 nacelles a year, hence the 30,000 nacelles required to meet the 40 year plan of 1.2 million nacelles.Once they are manufactured, you will then need another workforce of indeterminate size to construct the towers in the Atlantic, place the nacelles on top, and fit the huge driving propeller, all this at the rate of one every 8 minutes.
That cannot be done, so you would need to be constructing many towers at the one time.
That 8 minutes equates to finishing one every 8 minutes, so at 30,000 a year, you would probably need to be working on hundreds, perhaps thousands of them at any one time.
All the infrastructure needs for them to be constructed, (actually IN the Atlantic) will then need to be moved from the factories to the construction site.Also, that $10.4 trillion is in actual today's dollars, extrapolated out for the whole project.
So, if the price doubles every 7 years, the end cost might be in the vicinity of $50 Trillion or more, which breaks down to around $1.4 Trillion each and every year, with the wages packages to be added to that.That's 1.2 million huge towers, one every 375 feet for the Atlantic coastline length of 2069 Miles, for one row, and you will need 38 rows of them, and then construct the infrastructure to get all that power back ashore to where it will be used, again an enormous task of itself, and you'll find that even if you can do this, the power can only be used relatively locally, as it cannot be then transmitted across the length and breadth of the Country.I understand fully that this is a mathematical exercise only, and serves only to point out that the task is a patently ridiculous one as is the mathematical exercise that wind can provide the whole of the power requirements for the whole Planet.The correct use of the mathematics in themselves will prove that a construction of this scale could not be achieved in any time length by any number of people working at the task to do it.
The costing alone would be beyond any scope of calculation.
Consider that this 1.2 million towers supplies the equivalent of the total U.S. installed capacity.
The US consumes one quarter of the World's current electrical power, but again that is also distracting, because within China, only one family in seven has access to any electrical power, an amount of nearly 800 million to 1 billion people without any electricity, and the same applies in India, so to supply this wind power to them you then need to multiply that US figure of 1.2 million towers by 4 for current demand and then multiply that again by 14 for just China and India, keeping in mind that there is also those other vast undeveloped Countries as well, all requiring electrical power.
The numbers now become mind boggling indeed.This is a mathematical (theoretical) exercise only.Over at the site the link takes you to, I have been submitting posts there on this generation of electrical power for 16 months now, and almost 25 such posts on every aspect of electrical power generation.
My background is from working in the electrical trade for 25 years, the last 6 years teaching that trade, and then as the senior electrical examiner at that trade school.http://papundits.wordpress.com/tag/kyoto/ will take you to those posts.Sorry to take so much space with this response.Tony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433487</id>
	<title>Cost???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's great that we have that much wind energy available, but the article does not say anything about the cost (not just monetary) of deploying a network of wind turbines that dots most of the world's land (and a good amount of the sea).</p><p>Food for thought:<br>1) How much money would it cost to build this many wind turbines?<br>2) What would be the environmental impact of deploying this many wind turbines?<br>3) Could this affect global wind patterns?<br>4) What would be the environmental impact of mining enough material to build this many wind turbines?</p><p>Personally, I think nuclear is the way to go. It's too bad it isn't considered "green". All things considered, nuclear seems to be the most "green" of them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great that we have that much wind energy available , but the article does not say anything about the cost ( not just monetary ) of deploying a network of wind turbines that dots most of the world 's land ( and a good amount of the sea ) .Food for thought : 1 ) How much money would it cost to build this many wind turbines ? 2 ) What would be the environmental impact of deploying this many wind turbines ? 3 ) Could this affect global wind patterns ? 4 ) What would be the environmental impact of mining enough material to build this many wind turbines ? Personally , I think nuclear is the way to go .
It 's too bad it is n't considered " green " .
All things considered , nuclear seems to be the most " green " of them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great that we have that much wind energy available, but the article does not say anything about the cost (not just monetary) of deploying a network of wind turbines that dots most of the world's land (and a good amount of the sea).Food for thought:1) How much money would it cost to build this many wind turbines?2) What would be the environmental impact of deploying this many wind turbines?3) Could this affect global wind patterns?4) What would be the environmental impact of mining enough material to build this many wind turbines?Personally, I think nuclear is the way to go.
It's too bad it isn't considered "green".
All things considered, nuclear seems to be the most "green" of them all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431891</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1245676140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/AMERICAN+SUPERCONDUCTOR+SELECTS+ZENERGY+TO+EVALUATE+HYDRA.-a0179532462" title="thefreelibrary.com">Project HYDRA</a> [thefreelibrary.com], <a href="http://www.amsc.com/products/hydra.html" title="amsc.com">look into it.</a> [amsc.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Project HYDRA [ thefreelibrary.com ] , look into it .
[ amsc.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Project HYDRA [thefreelibrary.com], look into it.
[amsc.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437459</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Intermittancy Debunked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245764640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you could deliberately run them at less than maximum but that just makes the economics even worse. You'd need a large overcapacity and a very, very wide distribution of sources with corresponding transmission costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you could deliberately run them at less than maximum but that just makes the economics even worse .
You 'd need a large overcapacity and a very , very wide distribution of sources with corresponding transmission costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you could deliberately run them at less than maximum but that just makes the economics even worse.
You'd need a large overcapacity and a very, very wide distribution of sources with corresponding transmission costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431305</id>
	<title>Best Idea Ever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Harnessing the wind in such high quantities will have absolutely no unexpected effects on any environmental issues whatsoever.</p><p>Seriously, I'd bet that fossil fuels are probably a better (less bad?) idea, ecologically speaking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Harnessing the wind in such high quantities will have absolutely no unexpected effects on any environmental issues whatsoever.Seriously , I 'd bet that fossil fuels are probably a better ( less bad ?
) idea , ecologically speaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Harnessing the wind in such high quantities will have absolutely no unexpected effects on any environmental issues whatsoever.Seriously, I'd bet that fossil fuels are probably a better (less bad?
) idea, ecologically speaking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433497</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1245684240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldnt we store up energy in the wind turbines using a gravity method. Something like when there is wind some of the energy is used to pump [matter] to a higher kinetic state and then release it against a electricity generating turbine to maintain a constant rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Couldnt we store up energy in the wind turbines using a gravity method .
Something like when there is wind some of the energy is used to pump [ matter ] to a higher kinetic state and then release it against a electricity generating turbine to maintain a constant rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldnt we store up energy in the wind turbines using a gravity method.
Something like when there is wind some of the energy is used to pump [matter] to a higher kinetic state and then release it against a electricity generating turbine to maintain a constant rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437431</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1245764280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pumped storage, nanotech ultracapacitors, flywheels, fuel cells even will store energy for a calm day.</p></div><p>The problems in not a few calm days. It is seasonal variations in output, and the storage technologies you mentioned cannot help with this. You cannot store energy for an entire city for 6 months. With the kind of seasonal variation in power output from solar and wind present in most parts of Europe, you'd either have to invent means of storing an obscene amount of energy (good luck making it safe as well), or massively overbuild generating capacity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pumped storage , nanotech ultracapacitors , flywheels , fuel cells even will store energy for a calm day.The problems in not a few calm days .
It is seasonal variations in output , and the storage technologies you mentioned can not help with this .
You can not store energy for an entire city for 6 months .
With the kind of seasonal variation in power output from solar and wind present in most parts of Europe , you 'd either have to invent means of storing an obscene amount of energy ( good luck making it safe as well ) , or massively overbuild generating capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pumped storage, nanotech ultracapacitors, flywheels, fuel cells even will store energy for a calm day.The problems in not a few calm days.
It is seasonal variations in output, and the storage technologies you mentioned cannot help with this.
You cannot store energy for an entire city for 6 months.
With the kind of seasonal variation in power output from solar and wind present in most parts of Europe, you'd either have to invent means of storing an obscene amount of energy (good luck making it safe as well), or massively overbuild generating capacity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28490771</id>
	<title>cheap wow gold</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weekends to people<a href="http://www.ig2t.net/" title="ig2t.net" rel="nofollow">ig2t</a> [ig2t.net] mean that they can have a two-day <a href="http://www.wowgold4europe.net/" title="wowgold4europe.net" rel="nofollow">wowgold4europe</a> [wowgold4europe.net] good rest. For example&#239;&#188;OE people <a href="http://www.gameusd.org/" title="gameusd.org" rel="nofollow">gameusd</a> [gameusd.org] can go out to enjoy themselves or get <a href="http://www.meinwowgold.com/" title="meinwowgold.com" rel="nofollow">meinwowgold</a> [meinwowgold.com] together with relatives and friends to talk with each <a href="http://www.storeingame.net/" title="storeingame.net" rel="nofollow">storeingame</a> [storeingame.net] other or watch interesting video tapes with the <a href="http://www.speebie.org/" title="speebie.org" rel="nofollow">speebie</a> [speebie.org] whole family.<br>Everyone spends <a href="http://www.agamegold.org/" title="agamegold.org" rel="nofollow">agamegold</a> [agamegold.org] weekends in his own<a href="http://www.mmofly.org/" title="mmofly.org" rel="nofollow">mmofly</a> [mmofly.org] way. Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to music&#239;&#188;OE reading novels&#239;&#188;OEor watching<a href="http://www.ogeworld.org/" title="ogeworld.org" rel="nofollow">ogeworld</a> [ogeworld.org] films. Others perhaps are more active by playing basketball&#239;&#188;OEwimming or<a href="http://www.mmorpgvip.net/" title="mmorpgvip.net" rel="nofollow">mmorpgvip</a> [mmorpgvip.net] dancing. Different people have different <a href="http://www.gamesavor.net/" title="gamesavor.net" rel="nofollow">gamesavor</a> [gamesavor.net] relaxations.<br>I often spend weekends with<a href="http://www.oggsale.net/" title="oggsale.net" rel="nofollow">oggsale</a> [oggsale.net] my family or my friends. Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends. Sometimes<a href="http://www.gamersell.net/" title="gamersell.net" rel="nofollow">gamersell</a> [gamersell.net] I go to the library to study or borrow some books to<a href="http://www.mmovirtex.net/" title="mmovirtex.net" rel="nofollow">mmovirtex</a> [mmovirtex.net] gain much knowledge. I also go to see various exhibition to broaden<a href="http://www.rpg-trader.net/" title="rpg-trader.net" rel="nofollow">rpg trader</a> [rpg-trader.net] my vision. An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends. Weekends are always enjoyable for me.<br><a href="http://www.igxe.org/" title="igxe.org" rel="nofollow">igxe</a> [igxe.org] <a href="http://www.swagvault.org/" title="swagvault.org" rel="nofollow">swagvault</a> [swagvault.org] oforu <a href="http://www.wowgold-usa.org/" title="wowgold-usa.org" rel="nofollow">wowgold-usa</a> [wowgold-usa.org] <a href="http://www.ignmax.org/" title="ignmax.org" rel="nofollow">ignmax</a> [ignmax.org] <a href="http://www.wowgoldlive.net/" title="wowgoldlive.net" rel="nofollow">wowgoldlive</a> [wowgoldlive.net] <a href="http://www.brogame.net/" title="brogame.net" rel="nofollow">brogame</a> [brogame.net]  <a href="http://www.thsale.org/" title="thsale.org" rel="nofollow">thsale</a> [thsale.org] <a href="http://www.goldrocku.net/" title="goldrocku.net" rel="nofollow">GoldRockU</a> [goldrocku.net] <a href="http://www.brogame.us/" title="brogame.us" rel="nofollow">brogame</a> [brogame.us]<br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://www.swagvault.us/" title="swagvault.us" rel="nofollow">swagvault</a> [swagvault.us] <a href="http://www.goldsoon.us/" title="goldsoon.us" rel="nofollow">goldsoon</a> [goldsoon.us] <a href="http://www.oforu.us/" title="oforu.us" rel="nofollow">oforu</a> [oforu.us] <a href="http://www.igxe.us/" title="www.igxe.us" rel="nofollow">igxe</a> [www.igxe.us] <a href="http://www.thsale.us/" title="thsale.us" rel="nofollow">thsale</a> [thsale.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Weekends to peopleig2t [ ig2t.net ] mean that they can have a two-day wowgold4europe [ wowgold4europe.net ] good rest .
For example     OE people gameusd [ gameusd.org ] can go out to enjoy themselves or get meinwowgold [ meinwowgold.com ] together with relatives and friends to talk with each storeingame [ storeingame.net ] other or watch interesting video tapes with the speebie [ speebie.org ] whole family.Everyone spends agamegold [ agamegold.org ] weekends in his ownmmofly [ mmofly.org ] way .
Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to music     OE reading novels     OEor watchingogeworld [ ogeworld.org ] films .
Others perhaps are more active by playing basketball     OEwimming ormmorpgvip [ mmorpgvip.net ] dancing .
Different people have different gamesavor [ gamesavor.net ] relaxations.I often spend weekends withoggsale [ oggsale.net ] my family or my friends .
Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends .
Sometimesgamersell [ gamersell.net ] I go to the library to study or borrow some books tommovirtex [ mmovirtex.net ] gain much knowledge .
I also go to see various exhibition to broadenrpg trader [ rpg-trader.net ] my vision .
An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends .
Weekends are always enjoyable for me.igxe [ igxe.org ] swagvault [ swagvault.org ] oforu wowgold-usa [ wowgold-usa.org ] ignmax [ ignmax.org ] wowgoldlive [ wowgoldlive.net ] brogame [ brogame.net ] thsale [ thsale.org ] GoldRockU [ goldrocku.net ] brogame [ brogame.us ]   swagvault [ swagvault.us ] goldsoon [ goldsoon.us ] oforu [ oforu.us ] igxe [ www.igxe.us ] thsale [ thsale.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weekends to peopleig2t [ig2t.net] mean that they can have a two-day wowgold4europe [wowgold4europe.net] good rest.
For exampleï¼OE people gameusd [gameusd.org] can go out to enjoy themselves or get meinwowgold [meinwowgold.com] together with relatives and friends to talk with each storeingame [storeingame.net] other or watch interesting video tapes with the speebie [speebie.org] whole family.Everyone spends agamegold [agamegold.org] weekends in his ownmmofly [mmofly.org] way.
Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to musicï¼OE reading novelsï¼OEor watchingogeworld [ogeworld.org] films.
Others perhaps are more active by playing basketballï¼OEwimming ormmorpgvip [mmorpgvip.net] dancing.
Different people have different gamesavor [gamesavor.net] relaxations.I often spend weekends withoggsale [oggsale.net] my family or my friends.
Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends.
Sometimesgamersell [gamersell.net] I go to the library to study or borrow some books tommovirtex [mmovirtex.net] gain much knowledge.
I also go to see various exhibition to broadenrpg trader [rpg-trader.net] my vision.
An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends.
Weekends are always enjoyable for me.igxe [igxe.org] swagvault [swagvault.org] oforu wowgold-usa [wowgold-usa.org] ignmax [ignmax.org] wowgoldlive [wowgoldlive.net] brogame [brogame.net]  thsale [thsale.org] GoldRockU [goldrocku.net] brogame [brogame.us]
  swagvault [swagvault.us] goldsoon [goldsoon.us] oforu [oforu.us] igxe [www.igxe.us] thsale [thsale.us]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431387</id>
	<title>This may be the Year of Linux on the Desktop.</title>
	<author>Smidge207</author>
	<datestamp>1245674040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or not. Every so often, the blogosphere erupts in furious exchanges on the subject, with the Pollyanna set trilling 'This is the Year!' and the Eeyore types giving Linux on the Desktop about the same odds as the Cubs winning the World Series. But wait -- summer's just beginning!</p><p>Now that Memorial Day has come and gone, summer is unofficially here. What better way to celebrate than with another rousing "Year of Linux on the desktop" debate?!</p><p>Sure enough -- it may be an oldie, but it's clearly a goodie, and in recent days, bloggers far and wide have been ready and willing to entertain the question again.</p><p>In fact, two such topics have dominated the Linux blogs lately, and they're inherently related. First came the well-worn question of whether Linux needs marketing Click here to get the Free Email Design No-No's Guide from Lyris -- includes the top 10 things you need to know., a topic that was kicked off when Danijel Orsolic noted that "Linux is not an OS."</p><p>"Good luck with that," quipped tuxchick on LXer, leading to more than 100 lively comments.<br>'Marketing Fail'</p><p>Orsolic went on to argue that because Linux is not an OS, attempting to sell it as such causes "Marketing Fail." That conversation, in turn, intensified when H. Kwint asserted that "Linux doesn't need marketing," spawning a fresh round of debate.</p><p>A few days later, that good ol' "year of" debate surfaced apparently independently --almost like the Swine Flu, one might say -- in multiple spots throughout the blogosphere, where many -- and we mean *many* -- bloggers succumbed to the urge to have their say on the matter yet another time.</p><p>Carla Schroder of Linux Today began by asking, "When will it really be the year of Linux?" Almost 40 comments followed on that site before it was picked up on LXer as well.<br>'It Will Never Be the Year'</p><p>Meanwhile, Thomas King asserted on LXer that "It will never be the year of the Linux desktop," sparking another joint round of spirited comments there.</p><p>Around the same time, however, Slashdot bloggers were pondering a published list of reasons "Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop" -- to the tune of more than 1,300 comments there.</p><p>Some questions just can't be debated too much, especially if you're a Linux geek! We here at LinuxInsider felt we had no choice but to take to the proverbial streets for more.<br>'There Is a Disincentive'</p><p>"Of course GNU/Linux needs marketing as in advertising, publishing, spreading the good news," blogger Robert Pogson told LinuxInsider by email. "It does not necessarily need someone planning to make money from GNU/Linux to do that, but advertising is expensive so the two are usually connected."</p><p>An ad "showing off some good features and advantages of GNU/Linux could indeed bring in customers, but the retailers/OEMs already get loot from M$ for pushing their stuff, so there is a disincentive for established merchants to push GNU/Linux," Pogson noted. "It will have to be someone big enough to stand up to M$ -- like IBM (NYSE: IBM) More about IBM or Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) More about Google --or it will have to be a smallish outfit with nothing much to lose in the way of business connected with M$."</p><p>Only in the netbook realm has GNU/Linux been able to compete with Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) More about Microsoft on price and quality, "and that is because there is not a big enough price to hide all the slush the suppliers and M$ have been dividing up all these years," Pogson added. "Now consumers will be aware of the M$ tax. Before long, M$ will have to cut prices everywhere and they will no longer have the slush to bribe the market."<br>'It Does Need More Visibility'</p><p>On the other hand: "I don't think Linux needs to be 'marketed' in the traditional sense of marketing," tjonnyc999, an Internet marketing consultant and Slashdot blogger, told LinuxInsider via email. "It does need more visibility and to be 'de-stigmatized,' or cleared from the overtones of being the 'weird' system of choice for 'geeks and hackers' -- not broug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or not .
Every so often , the blogosphere erupts in furious exchanges on the subject , with the Pollyanna set trilling 'This is the Year !
' and the Eeyore types giving Linux on the Desktop about the same odds as the Cubs winning the World Series .
But wait -- summer 's just beginning ! Now that Memorial Day has come and gone , summer is unofficially here .
What better way to celebrate than with another rousing " Year of Linux on the desktop " debate ?
! Sure enough -- it may be an oldie , but it 's clearly a goodie , and in recent days , bloggers far and wide have been ready and willing to entertain the question again.In fact , two such topics have dominated the Linux blogs lately , and they 're inherently related .
First came the well-worn question of whether Linux needs marketing Click here to get the Free Email Design No-No 's Guide from Lyris -- includes the top 10 things you need to know. , a topic that was kicked off when Danijel Orsolic noted that " Linux is not an OS .
" " Good luck with that , " quipped tuxchick on LXer , leading to more than 100 lively comments .
'Marketing Fail'Orsolic went on to argue that because Linux is not an OS , attempting to sell it as such causes " Marketing Fail .
" That conversation , in turn , intensified when H. Kwint asserted that " Linux does n't need marketing , " spawning a fresh round of debate.A few days later , that good ol ' " year of " debate surfaced apparently independently --almost like the Swine Flu , one might say -- in multiple spots throughout the blogosphere , where many -- and we mean * many * -- bloggers succumbed to the urge to have their say on the matter yet another time.Carla Schroder of Linux Today began by asking , " When will it really be the year of Linux ?
" Almost 40 comments followed on that site before it was picked up on LXer as well .
'It Will Never Be the Year'Meanwhile , Thomas King asserted on LXer that " It will never be the year of the Linux desktop , " sparking another joint round of spirited comments there.Around the same time , however , Slashdot bloggers were pondering a published list of reasons " Why Linux is not ( yet ) ready for the desktop " -- to the tune of more than 1,300 comments there.Some questions just ca n't be debated too much , especially if you 're a Linux geek !
We here at LinuxInsider felt we had no choice but to take to the proverbial streets for more .
'There Is a Disincentive ' " Of course GNU/Linux needs marketing as in advertising , publishing , spreading the good news , " blogger Robert Pogson told LinuxInsider by email .
" It does not necessarily need someone planning to make money from GNU/Linux to do that , but advertising is expensive so the two are usually connected .
" An ad " showing off some good features and advantages of GNU/Linux could indeed bring in customers , but the retailers/OEMs already get loot from M $ for pushing their stuff , so there is a disincentive for established merchants to push GNU/Linux , " Pogson noted .
" It will have to be someone big enough to stand up to M $ -- like IBM ( NYSE : IBM ) More about IBM or Google ( Nasdaq : GOOG ) More about Google --or it will have to be a smallish outfit with nothing much to lose in the way of business connected with M $ .
" Only in the netbook realm has GNU/Linux been able to compete with Microsoft ( Nasdaq : MSFT ) More about Microsoft on price and quality , " and that is because there is not a big enough price to hide all the slush the suppliers and M $ have been dividing up all these years , " Pogson added .
" Now consumers will be aware of the M $ tax .
Before long , M $ will have to cut prices everywhere and they will no longer have the slush to bribe the market .
" 'It Does Need More Visibility'On the other hand : " I do n't think Linux needs to be 'marketed ' in the traditional sense of marketing , " tjonnyc999 , an Internet marketing consultant and Slashdot blogger , told LinuxInsider via email .
" It does need more visibility and to be 'de-stigmatized, ' or cleared from the overtones of being the 'weird ' system of choice for 'geeks and hackers ' -- not broug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or not.
Every so often, the blogosphere erupts in furious exchanges on the subject, with the Pollyanna set trilling 'This is the Year!
' and the Eeyore types giving Linux on the Desktop about the same odds as the Cubs winning the World Series.
But wait -- summer's just beginning!Now that Memorial Day has come and gone, summer is unofficially here.
What better way to celebrate than with another rousing "Year of Linux on the desktop" debate?
!Sure enough -- it may be an oldie, but it's clearly a goodie, and in recent days, bloggers far and wide have been ready and willing to entertain the question again.In fact, two such topics have dominated the Linux blogs lately, and they're inherently related.
First came the well-worn question of whether Linux needs marketing Click here to get the Free Email Design No-No's Guide from Lyris -- includes the top 10 things you need to know., a topic that was kicked off when Danijel Orsolic noted that "Linux is not an OS.
""Good luck with that," quipped tuxchick on LXer, leading to more than 100 lively comments.
'Marketing Fail'Orsolic went on to argue that because Linux is not an OS, attempting to sell it as such causes "Marketing Fail.
" That conversation, in turn, intensified when H. Kwint asserted that "Linux doesn't need marketing," spawning a fresh round of debate.A few days later, that good ol' "year of" debate surfaced apparently independently --almost like the Swine Flu, one might say -- in multiple spots throughout the blogosphere, where many -- and we mean *many* -- bloggers succumbed to the urge to have their say on the matter yet another time.Carla Schroder of Linux Today began by asking, "When will it really be the year of Linux?
" Almost 40 comments followed on that site before it was picked up on LXer as well.
'It Will Never Be the Year'Meanwhile, Thomas King asserted on LXer that "It will never be the year of the Linux desktop," sparking another joint round of spirited comments there.Around the same time, however, Slashdot bloggers were pondering a published list of reasons "Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop" -- to the tune of more than 1,300 comments there.Some questions just can't be debated too much, especially if you're a Linux geek!
We here at LinuxInsider felt we had no choice but to take to the proverbial streets for more.
'There Is a Disincentive'"Of course GNU/Linux needs marketing as in advertising, publishing, spreading the good news," blogger Robert Pogson told LinuxInsider by email.
"It does not necessarily need someone planning to make money from GNU/Linux to do that, but advertising is expensive so the two are usually connected.
"An ad "showing off some good features and advantages of GNU/Linux could indeed bring in customers, but the retailers/OEMs already get loot from M$ for pushing their stuff, so there is a disincentive for established merchants to push GNU/Linux," Pogson noted.
"It will have to be someone big enough to stand up to M$ -- like IBM (NYSE: IBM) More about IBM or Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) More about Google --or it will have to be a smallish outfit with nothing much to lose in the way of business connected with M$.
"Only in the netbook realm has GNU/Linux been able to compete with Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) More about Microsoft on price and quality, "and that is because there is not a big enough price to hide all the slush the suppliers and M$ have been dividing up all these years," Pogson added.
"Now consumers will be aware of the M$ tax.
Before long, M$ will have to cut prices everywhere and they will no longer have the slush to bribe the market.
"'It Does Need More Visibility'On the other hand: "I don't think Linux needs to be 'marketed' in the traditional sense of marketing," tjonnyc999, an Internet marketing consultant and Slashdot blogger, told LinuxInsider via email.
"It does need more visibility and to be 'de-stigmatized,' or cleared from the overtones of being the 'weird' system of choice for 'geeks and hackers' -- not broug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433741</id>
	<title>This is silly</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1245685680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can solve all of our energy problems with nuclear power right now.  We have enough uranium fuel to last hundreds of years.  If we switch to thorium there's ten thousand years of fuel just in the known reserves alone.  Here's a little <a href="http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">reading</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can solve all of our energy problems with nuclear power right now .
We have enough uranium fuel to last hundreds of years .
If we switch to thorium there 's ten thousand years of fuel just in the known reserves alone .
Here 's a little reading [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can solve all of our energy problems with nuclear power right now.
We have enough uranium fuel to last hundreds of years.
If we switch to thorium there's ten thousand years of fuel just in the known reserves alone.
Here's a little reading [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437123</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245761700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except it all comes from gravity. No gravity, no stars or planets. No stars or planets, no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>The Earth steals energy away from the moon's orbit by way of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal\_acceleration" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">negative tidal acceleration</a> [wikipedia.org]. Basically this means that the moon is slowly drifting away from us because the friction of the tides steals angular momentum.  I'm not even sure how to back-of-the-envelope calculate how much energy is involved in the moon orbiting the Earth, but I'd wager that you could absorb all of the friction and turn it into usable energy and still have the moon moving away from us at less than 4ms / 100 years (double what it is now).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except it all comes from gravity .
No gravity , no stars or planets .
No stars or planets , no .The Earth steals energy away from the moon 's orbit by way of negative tidal acceleration [ wikipedia.org ] .
Basically this means that the moon is slowly drifting away from us because the friction of the tides steals angular momentum .
I 'm not even sure how to back-of-the-envelope calculate how much energy is involved in the moon orbiting the Earth , but I 'd wager that you could absorb all of the friction and turn it into usable energy and still have the moon moving away from us at less than 4ms / 100 years ( double what it is now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except it all comes from gravity.
No gravity, no stars or planets.
No stars or planets, no .The Earth steals energy away from the moon's orbit by way of negative tidal acceleration [wikipedia.org].
Basically this means that the moon is slowly drifting away from us because the friction of the tides steals angular momentum.
I'm not even sure how to back-of-the-envelope calculate how much energy is involved in the moon orbiting the Earth, but I'd wager that you could absorb all of the friction and turn it into usable energy and still have the moon moving away from us at less than 4ms / 100 years (double what it is now).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28445979</id>
	<title>Smarter transmission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245754260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've pointed this out before, but here goes again.</p><p>There are currently massive transmission lines taking power from Hoover Dam, near Las Vegas, NV into California.</p><p>There are ~170 miles along I-15 between Primm, NV (on the state line) to Victorville, CA.<br>If you replace one tower on the transmission lines every mile with a 2MW windmill... You get 340MW of power.</p><p>Hoover Dam generates almost 2100MW. California gets about 55\% of that, or roughly 1160MW.<br>By using modest power-generating transmission lines, California could receive 30\% more power.</p><p>Now consider this. The average household in the southwest USA uses ~9 MWh of energy every year.<br>A single transmission tower equipped with small 500W solar panels could generate over 2 MWh of energy every year.<br>A single transmission line, so equipped, from Hoover Dam to L.A. could generate electricity for almost 300 homes.<br>No moving parts; very low maintenance. No noise. No bird kills. No pollution.</p><p>And that's just tacking a dinky panel onto existing towers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've pointed this out before , but here goes again.There are currently massive transmission lines taking power from Hoover Dam , near Las Vegas , NV into California.There are ~ 170 miles along I-15 between Primm , NV ( on the state line ) to Victorville , CA.If you replace one tower on the transmission lines every mile with a 2MW windmill... You get 340MW of power.Hoover Dam generates almost 2100MW .
California gets about 55 \ % of that , or roughly 1160MW.By using modest power-generating transmission lines , California could receive 30 \ % more power.Now consider this .
The average household in the southwest USA uses ~ 9 MWh of energy every year.A single transmission tower equipped with small 500W solar panels could generate over 2 MWh of energy every year.A single transmission line , so equipped , from Hoover Dam to L.A. could generate electricity for almost 300 homes.No moving parts ; very low maintenance .
No noise .
No bird kills .
No pollution.And that 's just tacking a dinky panel onto existing towers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've pointed this out before, but here goes again.There are currently massive transmission lines taking power from Hoover Dam, near Las Vegas, NV into California.There are ~170 miles along I-15 between Primm, NV (on the state line) to Victorville, CA.If you replace one tower on the transmission lines every mile with a 2MW windmill... You get 340MW of power.Hoover Dam generates almost 2100MW.
California gets about 55\% of that, or roughly 1160MW.By using modest power-generating transmission lines, California could receive 30\% more power.Now consider this.
The average household in the southwest USA uses ~9 MWh of energy every year.A single transmission tower equipped with small 500W solar panels could generate over 2 MWh of energy every year.A single transmission line, so equipped, from Hoover Dam to L.A. could generate electricity for almost 300 homes.No moving parts; very low maintenance.
No noise.
No bird kills.
No pollution.And that's just tacking a dinky panel onto existing towers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431577</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245674640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pumped storage, nanotech ultracapacitors, flywheels, fuel cells even will store energy for a calm day. If you have a fairly efficient electricity grid you won't even need to store that much because the chances are it will be windy in some place within reach. <br> <br>

On calm days the sun usually shines so photo voltaic cells come into play. Don't like those? just use solar concentrators or stirling engine-based solar panels, wave energy, put alternators into the stationary bikes at the local gym.<br> <br>

Of course the amount of energy required is greatly exaggerated these days because there are a lot of poorly insulated houses and an awful lot of people using incandescent lighting and 'wall warts' (and also wall marts) powering stand-by equipment are ubiquitous. It would be great if everyone had a 12v transformer providing power to 12v sockets around the house and maybe an ultracap that would store some energy so the transformer wouldn't be going all the time. <br> <br>

I'd go off the grid if i could. I kind of feel people have become overly dependent on electricity - one day I was in a shopping mall in London and a girl actually started screaming the second the power went out. I have a generator and a 600w invertor here but the last time the power went I didn't even bother using them</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pumped storage , nanotech ultracapacitors , flywheels , fuel cells even will store energy for a calm day .
If you have a fairly efficient electricity grid you wo n't even need to store that much because the chances are it will be windy in some place within reach .
On calm days the sun usually shines so photo voltaic cells come into play .
Do n't like those ?
just use solar concentrators or stirling engine-based solar panels , wave energy , put alternators into the stationary bikes at the local gym .
Of course the amount of energy required is greatly exaggerated these days because there are a lot of poorly insulated houses and an awful lot of people using incandescent lighting and 'wall warts ' ( and also wall marts ) powering stand-by equipment are ubiquitous .
It would be great if everyone had a 12v transformer providing power to 12v sockets around the house and maybe an ultracap that would store some energy so the transformer would n't be going all the time .
I 'd go off the grid if i could .
I kind of feel people have become overly dependent on electricity - one day I was in a shopping mall in London and a girl actually started screaming the second the power went out .
I have a generator and a 600w invertor here but the last time the power went I did n't even bother using them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pumped storage, nanotech ultracapacitors, flywheels, fuel cells even will store energy for a calm day.
If you have a fairly efficient electricity grid you won't even need to store that much because the chances are it will be windy in some place within reach.
On calm days the sun usually shines so photo voltaic cells come into play.
Don't like those?
just use solar concentrators or stirling engine-based solar panels, wave energy, put alternators into the stationary bikes at the local gym.
Of course the amount of energy required is greatly exaggerated these days because there are a lot of poorly insulated houses and an awful lot of people using incandescent lighting and 'wall warts' (and also wall marts) powering stand-by equipment are ubiquitous.
It would be great if everyone had a 12v transformer providing power to 12v sockets around the house and maybe an ultracap that would store some energy so the transformer wouldn't be going all the time.
I'd go off the grid if i could.
I kind of feel people have become overly dependent on electricity - one day I was in a shopping mall in London and a girl actually started screaming the second the power went out.
I have a generator and a 600w invertor here but the last time the power went I didn't even bother using them</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28441187</id>
	<title>Re:All we need now</title>
	<author>Pandrake</author>
	<datestamp>1245780660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, in the Bay Area I see the results that began with Severson Co in So Cal where I grew up and got a friend his first job building the control systems for the first wind farms near Palm Springs. Within 20 years the farms have found their way into great places for supplementing power grids where before there was only windy valleys and freeways, and very little NIMBY complaints or depletions of bird and bat populations.

Of course, I'm always reluctant to offer the real point of view of a typical Californian, since it's usually assumed that I've hugged trees more than people and raise pet buffalo instead of eating them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , in the Bay Area I see the results that began with Severson Co in So Cal where I grew up and got a friend his first job building the control systems for the first wind farms near Palm Springs .
Within 20 years the farms have found their way into great places for supplementing power grids where before there was only windy valleys and freeways , and very little NIMBY complaints or depletions of bird and bat populations .
Of course , I 'm always reluctant to offer the real point of view of a typical Californian , since it 's usually assumed that I 've hugged trees more than people and raise pet buffalo instead of eating them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, in the Bay Area I see the results that began with Severson Co in So Cal where I grew up and got a friend his first job building the control systems for the first wind farms near Palm Springs.
Within 20 years the farms have found their way into great places for supplementing power grids where before there was only windy valleys and freeways, and very little NIMBY complaints or depletions of bird and bat populations.
Of course, I'm always reluctant to offer the real point of view of a typical Californian, since it's usually assumed that I've hugged trees more than people and raise pet buffalo instead of eating them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432371</id>
	<title>Geothermal is better</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1245678300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geothermal does not have the pollution problem, does not have visual problem, the problem of messing with birds or whatever, and the latest technology allows them to drill geothermal wells in very low temperatures or dry wells by pumping water in to the earth, rather than needing to find a particular geothermal friendly area. Even if just limited to areas naturally conducive to geothermal, there is likly just as many areas in the World where geothermal can be built (if you include all the places you can not build wind turbines like the middle of a city). Best of all, it is 24 hours, always on energy using the same technology we already use for our oil based society (drills, turbines, etc). It is "shovel ready" and producing energy right now all over the World.</p><p>Can anyone give me something that beats all of that in terms of energy to cost (including environmental)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geothermal does not have the pollution problem , does not have visual problem , the problem of messing with birds or whatever , and the latest technology allows them to drill geothermal wells in very low temperatures or dry wells by pumping water in to the earth , rather than needing to find a particular geothermal friendly area .
Even if just limited to areas naturally conducive to geothermal , there is likly just as many areas in the World where geothermal can be built ( if you include all the places you can not build wind turbines like the middle of a city ) .
Best of all , it is 24 hours , always on energy using the same technology we already use for our oil based society ( drills , turbines , etc ) .
It is " shovel ready " and producing energy right now all over the World.Can anyone give me something that beats all of that in terms of energy to cost ( including environmental ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geothermal does not have the pollution problem, does not have visual problem, the problem of messing with birds or whatever, and the latest technology allows them to drill geothermal wells in very low temperatures or dry wells by pumping water in to the earth, rather than needing to find a particular geothermal friendly area.
Even if just limited to areas naturally conducive to geothermal, there is likly just as many areas in the World where geothermal can be built (if you include all the places you can not build wind turbines like the middle of a city).
Best of all, it is 24 hours, always on energy using the same technology we already use for our oil based society (drills, turbines, etc).
It is "shovel ready" and producing energy right now all over the World.Can anyone give me something that beats all of that in terms of energy to cost (including environmental)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435195</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>nateb</author>
	<datestamp>1245696480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.</i> </p><p>
Where do you propose geothermal energy comes from?  I haven't read on it at all, but I would assume (standard disclaimers apply) that the heat in the core of the Earth is generated by reactions with fields from the sun as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth , without tapping geothermal sources , originally comes from the sun .
Where do you propose geothermal energy comes from ?
I have n't read on it at all , but I would assume ( standard disclaimers apply ) that the heat in the core of the Earth is generated by reactions with fields from the sun as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.
Where do you propose geothermal energy comes from?
I haven't read on it at all, but I would assume (standard disclaimers apply) that the heat in the core of the Earth is generated by reactions with fields from the sun as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436867</id>
	<title>Re:News From Slashdot 2029</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245758700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely they can prevent this by pointing all the wind turbines in the same direction?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely they can prevent this by pointing all the wind turbines in the same direction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely they can prevent this by pointing all the wind turbines in the same direction?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28443825</id>
	<title>Wind power is a joke</title>
	<author>gnulinuxrat</author>
	<datestamp>1245789720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wind mills need fiberglass, around 200 tons per windmill, fiberglass is e-glass, e-glass requires a blast furnace that operates between 2600-3100 degrees. How about BTUs, ever consider the amount of energy needed per ton, I think its fair to state 1,200,000 BTU

Ever consider what basic minerals, elements, raw materials needed other than sand.

How about Propene (not propane), Propene comes from oil and only oil, propene demand is larger than the supply, the only way to make more is to refine oil at a faster rate.

Windmills are making oil companies richer due to the raw materials needed, I have only touched on a couple of items, I could go on forever, oil needed for lubrication, amount of Boran used, what about carbon fiber, titanium, copper, brass, etc, etc.

People who think windmills are good for the environment are IGNORANT, the news tells you its good and the sheeple believe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind mills need fiberglass , around 200 tons per windmill , fiberglass is e-glass , e-glass requires a blast furnace that operates between 2600-3100 degrees .
How about BTUs , ever consider the amount of energy needed per ton , I think its fair to state 1,200,000 BTU Ever consider what basic minerals , elements , raw materials needed other than sand .
How about Propene ( not propane ) , Propene comes from oil and only oil , propene demand is larger than the supply , the only way to make more is to refine oil at a faster rate .
Windmills are making oil companies richer due to the raw materials needed , I have only touched on a couple of items , I could go on forever , oil needed for lubrication , amount of Boran used , what about carbon fiber , titanium , copper , brass , etc , etc .
People who think windmills are good for the environment are IGNORANT , the news tells you its good and the sheeple believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind mills need fiberglass, around 200 tons per windmill, fiberglass is e-glass, e-glass requires a blast furnace that operates between 2600-3100 degrees.
How about BTUs, ever consider the amount of energy needed per ton, I think its fair to state 1,200,000 BTU

Ever consider what basic minerals, elements, raw materials needed other than sand.
How about Propene (not propane), Propene comes from oil and only oil, propene demand is larger than the supply, the only way to make more is to refine oil at a faster rate.
Windmills are making oil companies richer due to the raw materials needed, I have only touched on a couple of items, I could go on forever, oil needed for lubrication, amount of Boran used, what about carbon fiber, titanium, copper, brass, etc, etc.
People who think windmills are good for the environment are IGNORANT, the news tells you its good and the sheeple believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433851</id>
	<title>Not exactly realistic</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1245686460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not only unrealistic, it's ridiculous.   If you excluse forested areas, urban areas, areas with year round ice and snow, you know what you're left with?
<br> <br>
Damn near all of Africa
<br>
About one third of Canada
<br>
Most of the US Great Plains
<br>
Most of the US Southwest
<br>
More than 75\% of Mexico
<br>
A good chunk of Argentina
<br>
Much of Eastern Europe
<br>
More than half of Russia (yes, more than half does not have year round snow/ice)
<br>
Most of the middle east, including very large portions of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia
<br>
Most of central asia (Afgahnistan, Kazakstan, Western China out to the Gobi)
<br>
Damn near all of Australia
 <br>
<br>
And the way we could provide ample energy?   Cover every square inch of these areas with wind turbines.   That's right - big ones too.  the big ones that are tall enough to qualify as sky scrapers and are spaced about half a KM apart in a dense wind farm.     The sheer size of this is absurd.  It's so enormous it's hard to rap your mind around it.    Does the world even have enough reserves of copper to make the windings?
 <br>
<br>
Oh yeah, then all the shores of the world.
 <br>
<br>
Yeah... the energy is there, it's just too low in density to make it worth recovering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not only unrealistic , it 's ridiculous .
If you excluse forested areas , urban areas , areas with year round ice and snow , you know what you 're left with ?
Damn near all of Africa About one third of Canada Most of the US Great Plains Most of the US Southwest More than 75 \ % of Mexico A good chunk of Argentina Much of Eastern Europe More than half of Russia ( yes , more than half does not have year round snow/ice ) Most of the middle east , including very large portions of Iraq , Iran , Saudi Arabia Most of central asia ( Afgahnistan , Kazakstan , Western China out to the Gobi ) Damn near all of Australia And the way we could provide ample energy ?
Cover every square inch of these areas with wind turbines .
That 's right - big ones too .
the big ones that are tall enough to qualify as sky scrapers and are spaced about half a KM apart in a dense wind farm .
The sheer size of this is absurd .
It 's so enormous it 's hard to rap your mind around it .
Does the world even have enough reserves of copper to make the windings ?
Oh yeah , then all the shores of the world .
Yeah... the energy is there , it 's just too low in density to make it worth recovering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not only unrealistic, it's ridiculous.
If you excluse forested areas, urban areas, areas with year round ice and snow, you know what you're left with?
Damn near all of Africa

About one third of Canada

Most of the US Great Plains

Most of the US Southwest

More than 75\% of Mexico

A good chunk of Argentina

Much of Eastern Europe

More than half of Russia (yes, more than half does not have year round snow/ice)

Most of the middle east, including very large portions of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia

Most of central asia (Afgahnistan, Kazakstan, Western China out to the Gobi)

Damn near all of Australia
 

And the way we could provide ample energy?
Cover every square inch of these areas with wind turbines.
That's right - big ones too.
the big ones that are tall enough to qualify as sky scrapers and are spaced about half a KM apart in a dense wind farm.
The sheer size of this is absurd.
It's so enormous it's hard to rap your mind around it.
Does the world even have enough reserves of copper to make the windings?
Oh yeah, then all the shores of the world.
Yeah... the energy is there, it's just too low in density to make it worth recovering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440327</id>
	<title>Re:The usual comment...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245777600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are mostly made of fibre glass and wood, not metal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are mostly made of fibre glass and wood , not metal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are mostly made of fibre glass and wood, not metal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433715</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1245685500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except it all comes from gravity. No gravity, no stars or planets. No stars or planets, no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br> <br>

That's one thing I always had an issue with over geothermal. What happens when we pump out all the heat from the planet? It solidifies and our magnetic field shuts off? (unless you believe that new thing about the ocean currents) I read somewhere that we'd have ~9000 years of geothermal at current world usage levels of energy. No, it wouldn't affect anyone we might ever know and who knows if we would last long enough to hit the limit. However, what if solidification of the core is shorter than that figure? Do we have the right to screw over possible future generations?<br> <br>

The we-might-slow-down-all-the-wind issue is kind of the same but more short-term. The only viable source of energy is solar. It'll run out when the Earth is well beyond uninhabitable. We don't screw over anyone in the process. Well, unless you count mining for panel materials...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except it all comes from gravity .
No gravity , no stars or planets .
No stars or planets , no .
That 's one thing I always had an issue with over geothermal .
What happens when we pump out all the heat from the planet ?
It solidifies and our magnetic field shuts off ?
( unless you believe that new thing about the ocean currents ) I read somewhere that we 'd have ~ 9000 years of geothermal at current world usage levels of energy .
No , it would n't affect anyone we might ever know and who knows if we would last long enough to hit the limit .
However , what if solidification of the core is shorter than that figure ?
Do we have the right to screw over possible future generations ?
The we-might-slow-down-all-the-wind issue is kind of the same but more short-term .
The only viable source of energy is solar .
It 'll run out when the Earth is well beyond uninhabitable .
We do n't screw over anyone in the process .
Well , unless you count mining for panel materials.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except it all comes from gravity.
No gravity, no stars or planets.
No stars or planets, no .
That's one thing I always had an issue with over geothermal.
What happens when we pump out all the heat from the planet?
It solidifies and our magnetic field shuts off?
(unless you believe that new thing about the ocean currents) I read somewhere that we'd have ~9000 years of geothermal at current world usage levels of energy.
No, it wouldn't affect anyone we might ever know and who knows if we would last long enough to hit the limit.
However, what if solidification of the core is shorter than that figure?
Do we have the right to screw over possible future generations?
The we-might-slow-down-all-the-wind issue is kind of the same but more short-term.
The only viable source of energy is solar.
It'll run out when the Earth is well beyond uninhabitable.
We don't screw over anyone in the process.
Well, unless you count mining for panel materials...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432519</id>
	<title>Re:kite</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1245679080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Electric Kite!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Electric Kite !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electric Kite!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433697</id>
	<title>Re:The usual comment...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;TINFOIL-HAT&gt;<br>At least it'd stop those freaking UFO's from grabbing people for experimentation....<br>&lt;/TINFOIL-HAT&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... So it's also a global defense system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least it 'd stop those freaking UFO 's from grabbing people for experimentation.... ... So it 's also a global defense system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least it'd stop those freaking UFO's from grabbing people for experimentation.... ... So it's also a global defense system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431279</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>um yes it COULD, RTFA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um yes it COULD , RTFA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um yes it COULD, RTFA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434993</id>
	<title>Re:Learn the goddam metric system ffs</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1245694440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly, converting from metric to English units has as much to do with the metric system as it does to do with the English system.</p><p>Learn the goddam proper terminology ffs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly , converting from metric to English units has as much to do with the metric system as it does to do with the English system.Learn the goddam proper terminology ffs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly, converting from metric to English units has as much to do with the metric system as it does to do with the English system.Learn the goddam proper terminology ffs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432089</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1245677100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you did like the study authors said and put wind turbines everywhere, you can pretty much ensure that there will be enough wind somewhere in the world at any given time to accommodate demand.  That's assuming that you create a world electrical grid (or a set of grids that each cover a large enough area) to allow everyone to benefit from the averaging out of wind around the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you did like the study authors said and put wind turbines everywhere , you can pretty much ensure that there will be enough wind somewhere in the world at any given time to accommodate demand .
That 's assuming that you create a world electrical grid ( or a set of grids that each cover a large enough area ) to allow everyone to benefit from the averaging out of wind around the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you did like the study authors said and put wind turbines everywhere, you can pretty much ensure that there will be enough wind somewhere in the world at any given time to accommodate demand.
That's assuming that you create a world electrical grid (or a set of grids that each cover a large enough area) to allow everyone to benefit from the averaging out of wind around the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431219</id>
	<title>Sure... but...  wow.  Missing the point.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, really, this kind of talk is nonsensical.  The more we invest in such technologies the better, but how do exaggeration and fanciful claims help investors take the industry seriously?</p><p>How about start with "Less dependence on terrorist-funding nations" and go from there... Plenty compelling without the bullshit science fact afterthought.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , really , this kind of talk is nonsensical .
The more we invest in such technologies the better , but how do exaggeration and fanciful claims help investors take the industry seriously ? How about start with " Less dependence on terrorist-funding nations " and go from there... Plenty compelling without the bullshit science fact afterthought .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, really, this kind of talk is nonsensical.
The more we invest in such technologies the better, but how do exaggeration and fanciful claims help investors take the industry seriously?How about start with "Less dependence on terrorist-funding nations" and go from there... Plenty compelling without the bullshit science fact afterthought.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431331</id>
	<title>Forget the birds.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't birds.  Newer turbines rotate much more slowly then the old ones (which resembled Cuisinarts).  Most birds can easily avoid the larger slower blades that these new turbines.</p><p>The problem is the transmission.  Right now companies like First Solar claim to be able to produce electricity for less cost than coal?  The problem is, the deserts don't have power lines to get the power out.</p><p>Oh and cover the world with wind turbines?  You think global warming is a problem?  What do you think will happen if we lower air flow around the world by say... 30\%?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't birds .
Newer turbines rotate much more slowly then the old ones ( which resembled Cuisinarts ) .
Most birds can easily avoid the larger slower blades that these new turbines.The problem is the transmission .
Right now companies like First Solar claim to be able to produce electricity for less cost than coal ?
The problem is , the deserts do n't have power lines to get the power out.Oh and cover the world with wind turbines ?
You think global warming is a problem ?
What do you think will happen if we lower air flow around the world by say... 30 \ % ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't birds.
Newer turbines rotate much more slowly then the old ones (which resembled Cuisinarts).
Most birds can easily avoid the larger slower blades that these new turbines.The problem is the transmission.
Right now companies like First Solar claim to be able to produce electricity for less cost than coal?
The problem is, the deserts don't have power lines to get the power out.Oh and cover the world with wind turbines?
You think global warming is a problem?
What do you think will happen if we lower air flow around the world by say... 30\%?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432243</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anaerin</author>
	<datestamp>1245677760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What will lubricate the turbine bearings?</p></div><p>Polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE for short (AKA Teflon&reg;).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>how will we paint the machines?</p></div><p>Soy/Rapeseed(canola)/nut-based oil pigment paints</p><p><div class="quote"><p>how will be mine the materials that go into these things?</p></div><p>Mine? Use electric power. Though you could also recycle! 10,000 drinks cans = 1 turbine nacelle (Note: Completely wild guess, but you get the idea)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>how will we make the fiberglas?</p></div><p>Glass-Reinforced Soy-based plastics? Carbon Fibre?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>without oil?</p></div><p>There are already solutions to all your problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will lubricate the turbine bearings ? Polytetrafluoroethylene , or PTFE for short ( AKA Teflon   ) .how will we paint the machines ? Soy/Rapeseed ( canola ) /nut-based oil pigment paintshow will be mine the materials that go into these things ? Mine ?
Use electric power .
Though you could also recycle !
10,000 drinks cans = 1 turbine nacelle ( Note : Completely wild guess , but you get the idea ) how will we make the fiberglas ? Glass-Reinforced Soy-based plastics ?
Carbon Fibre ? without oil ? There are already solutions to all your problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will lubricate the turbine bearings?Polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE for short (AKA Teflon®).how will we paint the machines?Soy/Rapeseed(canola)/nut-based oil pigment paintshow will be mine the materials that go into these things?Mine?
Use electric power.
Though you could also recycle!
10,000 drinks cans = 1 turbine nacelle (Note: Completely wild guess, but you get the idea)how will we make the fiberglas?Glass-Reinforced Soy-based plastics?
Carbon Fibre?without oil?There are already solutions to all your problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437561</id>
	<title>Re:Cost? $$ and practicality?</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1245765360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"So could solar, if we spot a shitload of solar cells all over the world cover a decent portion of it."</p></div> </blockquote><p>You should check again how much solar would be needed. Hint, it is still a lot, but it would cover an irrelevant part of the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" So could solar , if we spot a shitload of solar cells all over the world cover a decent portion of it .
" You should check again how much solar would be needed .
Hint , it is still a lot , but it would cover an irrelevant part of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So could solar, if we spot a shitload of solar cells all over the world cover a decent portion of it.
" You should check again how much solar would be needed.
Hint, it is still a lot, but it would cover an irrelevant part of the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432061</id>
	<title>How long to pay off?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245676980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long would this take to pay off and how much would I be paying per kWh until the debt is paid? 10 c/kWh is enough for me. I'm a fan of nuke energy, but I am biased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long would this take to pay off and how much would I be paying per kWh until the debt is paid ?
10 c/kWh is enough for me .
I 'm a fan of nuke energy , but I am biased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long would this take to pay off and how much would I be paying per kWh until the debt is paid?
10 c/kWh is enough for me.
I'm a fan of nuke energy, but I am biased.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437335</id>
	<title>Oh Noes!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245763560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of da boids!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of da boids ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of da boids!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432673</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>floateyedumpi</author>
	<datestamp>1245679800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are close to correct.  Some large number of joules of energy here on Earth arise from material leftover from supernova predating the sun: radioactive materials, which can be harvested directly in fission reactors, or indirectly through tapping the Earth's molten inner they help to heat.  The Earth's internal heat also results not from the sun, but from the continued slow tapping of gravitational potential energy from the material from which the sun and its planets formed.  This power source is roughly <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal\_power" title="wikipedia.org">40 TW</a> [wikipedia.org], compared to the 100,000 TW of solar power reaching the Earth's surface.  Still, several times the current worldwide energy consumption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are close to correct .
Some large number of joules of energy here on Earth arise from material leftover from supernova predating the sun : radioactive materials , which can be harvested directly in fission reactors , or indirectly through tapping the Earth 's molten inner they help to heat .
The Earth 's internal heat also results not from the sun , but from the continued slow tapping of gravitational potential energy from the material from which the sun and its planets formed .
This power source is roughly 40 TW [ wikipedia.org ] , compared to the 100,000 TW of solar power reaching the Earth 's surface .
Still , several times the current worldwide energy consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are close to correct.
Some large number of joules of energy here on Earth arise from material leftover from supernova predating the sun: radioactive materials, which can be harvested directly in fission reactors, or indirectly through tapping the Earth's molten inner they help to heat.
The Earth's internal heat also results not from the sun, but from the continued slow tapping of gravitational potential energy from the material from which the sun and its planets formed.
This power source is roughly 40 TW [wikipedia.org], compared to the 100,000 TW of solar power reaching the Earth's surface.
Still, several times the current worldwide energy consumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431703</id>
	<title>kite</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1245675240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But, once they use up all the wind, how will I fly my kite?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , once they use up all the wind , how will I fly my kite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, once they use up all the wind, how will I fly my kite?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432433</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting counter-article</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1245678660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't necessarily consider this pricey or resource intensive when you realize that what is proposed in nothing short of replacing roughly 100 years of nationwide power generation infrastructure, from scratch, in 40 years.  Attempting to do that, with any technology, is what is ridiculous (though nuclear might be up to the challenge, haven't seen the numbers).  That and attempting to do it with energy generation limited exclusively to the east coast, introducing insurmountable (or at least unnecessarily difficult to surmount) obstacles to distribution.  Oh, and essentially barricading the entire eastern seaboard.  So, yeah, it's a bad idea, but not because it costs $10.4 trillion and requires 170,000 people for 40 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't necessarily consider this pricey or resource intensive when you realize that what is proposed in nothing short of replacing roughly 100 years of nationwide power generation infrastructure , from scratch , in 40 years .
Attempting to do that , with any technology , is what is ridiculous ( though nuclear might be up to the challenge , have n't seen the numbers ) .
That and attempting to do it with energy generation limited exclusively to the east coast , introducing insurmountable ( or at least unnecessarily difficult to surmount ) obstacles to distribution .
Oh , and essentially barricading the entire eastern seaboard .
So , yeah , it 's a bad idea , but not because it costs $ 10.4 trillion and requires 170,000 people for 40 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't necessarily consider this pricey or resource intensive when you realize that what is proposed in nothing short of replacing roughly 100 years of nationwide power generation infrastructure, from scratch, in 40 years.
Attempting to do that, with any technology, is what is ridiculous (though nuclear might be up to the challenge, haven't seen the numbers).
That and attempting to do it with energy generation limited exclusively to the east coast, introducing insurmountable (or at least unnecessarily difficult to surmount) obstacles to distribution.
Oh, and essentially barricading the entire eastern seaboard.
So, yeah, it's a bad idea, but not because it costs $10.4 trillion and requires 170,000 people for 40 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433303</id>
	<title>Wind Intermittancy Debunked</title>
	<author>StCredZero</author>
	<datestamp>1245682920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It just couldn't simply because there isn't wind all the time and we don't have any realistic way to store energy for calm days. Wind could be useful as a part of the energy production but with current technology there is no way wind could be used as the only energy source.</p></div><p>Somebody who works for an actual wind power company debunked this for us.  If you build more turbines and deliberately run them at less than their maximum, then you can use the reserve capacity plus a limited amount of geographic distribution to get steady-state power output the majority of the time.  This stuff about storage technology is bunk -- we haven't built out wind power infrastructure to its potential.  Do that and you don't need storage.  (And Solar Thermal could make up for a lot as well.  It has a cheap and reliable storage technology that would work just fine on 24 hour timescales.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just could n't simply because there is n't wind all the time and we do n't have any realistic way to store energy for calm days .
Wind could be useful as a part of the energy production but with current technology there is no way wind could be used as the only energy source.Somebody who works for an actual wind power company debunked this for us .
If you build more turbines and deliberately run them at less than their maximum , then you can use the reserve capacity plus a limited amount of geographic distribution to get steady-state power output the majority of the time .
This stuff about storage technology is bunk -- we have n't built out wind power infrastructure to its potential .
Do that and you do n't need storage .
( And Solar Thermal could make up for a lot as well .
It has a cheap and reliable storage technology that would work just fine on 24 hour timescales .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just couldn't simply because there isn't wind all the time and we don't have any realistic way to store energy for calm days.
Wind could be useful as a part of the energy production but with current technology there is no way wind could be used as the only energy source.Somebody who works for an actual wind power company debunked this for us.
If you build more turbines and deliberately run them at less than their maximum, then you can use the reserve capacity plus a limited amount of geographic distribution to get steady-state power output the majority of the time.
This stuff about storage technology is bunk -- we haven't built out wind power infrastructure to its potential.
Do that and you don't need storage.
(And Solar Thermal could make up for a lot as well.
It has a cheap and reliable storage technology that would work just fine on 24 hour timescales.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432523</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1245679080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Energy is measured in Joules. This applies to everything from power utilities (3.6 MJ == 1 KW H) to cars (32 MJ per litre of 87 Octane gasoline). Any decent physics class or book should explain this - it really is just math, which makes your subject somewhat ironic.</p><p>Apparently, electrical energy accounts for 1/8 of the global energy consumption. Thus, an energy source that produces exactly as much energy as our total consumption would produce 8 times as much eneergy as our electrical consumption, and a source that produced 40 times our electrical consumption would produce 5 times our total energy consumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy is measured in Joules .
This applies to everything from power utilities ( 3.6 MJ = = 1 KW H ) to cars ( 32 MJ per litre of 87 Octane gasoline ) .
Any decent physics class or book should explain this - it really is just math , which makes your subject somewhat ironic.Apparently , electrical energy accounts for 1/8 of the global energy consumption .
Thus , an energy source that produces exactly as much energy as our total consumption would produce 8 times as much eneergy as our electrical consumption , and a source that produced 40 times our electrical consumption would produce 5 times our total energy consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy is measured in Joules.
This applies to everything from power utilities (3.6 MJ == 1 KW H) to cars (32 MJ per litre of 87 Octane gasoline).
Any decent physics class or book should explain this - it really is just math, which makes your subject somewhat ironic.Apparently, electrical energy accounts for 1/8 of the global energy consumption.
Thus, an energy source that produces exactly as much energy as our total consumption would produce 8 times as much eneergy as our electrical consumption, and a source that produced 40 times our electrical consumption would produce 5 times our total energy consumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245678240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.</p></div><p>There's actually another exception: nuclear energy. It comes from supernovas that predate the solar system's formation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth , without tapping geothermal sources , originally comes from the sun.There 's actually another exception : nuclear energy .
It comes from supernovas that predate the solar system 's formation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.There's actually another exception: nuclear energy.
It comes from supernovas that predate the solar system's formation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28446187</id>
	<title>The fallacy of cost</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1245755160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- $10.4 Trillion in today's dollars (conservatively).</p></div><p>Which would go to private corporations who are building and installing the turbines--generating jobs, profits, and shareholder value, growing the broader economy.</p><p>If you just look at the price side, any large-scale industrial undertaking appears ludicrously expensive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- $ 10.4 Trillion in today 's dollars ( conservatively ) .Which would go to private corporations who are building and installing the turbines--generating jobs , profits , and shareholder value , growing the broader economy.If you just look at the price side , any large-scale industrial undertaking appears ludicrously expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- $10.4 Trillion in today's dollars (conservatively).Which would go to private corporations who are building and installing the turbines--generating jobs, profits, and shareholder value, growing the broader economy.If you just look at the price side, any large-scale industrial undertaking appears ludicrously expensive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436675</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245756300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iirc there was some research which showed that maybe the field concentrated pollutant ions a bit. Overall though yeah, any direct effect is tiny and it's almost 100\% nocebo.</p><p>Mythbusters did a piece on "can you tap power from a power line with adjacent wires" which showed that it's not even remotely practical, the field drops off to near zero at a very short distance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iirc there was some research which showed that maybe the field concentrated pollutant ions a bit .
Overall though yeah , any direct effect is tiny and it 's almost 100 \ % nocebo.Mythbusters did a piece on " can you tap power from a power line with adjacent wires " which showed that it 's not even remotely practical , the field drops off to near zero at a very short distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iirc there was some research which showed that maybe the field concentrated pollutant ions a bit.
Overall though yeah, any direct effect is tiny and it's almost 100\% nocebo.Mythbusters did a piece on "can you tap power from a power line with adjacent wires" which showed that it's not even remotely practical, the field drops off to near zero at a very short distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433267</id>
	<title>Re:Impact on birds...</title>
	<author>ikono</author>
	<datestamp>1245682740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not entirely about the OMG lifetime milez, it's about new avenues of energy production. Even if a fraction of this ideal turnout is done, it will reduce our dependency on oil and coal a good deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not entirely about the OMG lifetime milez , it 's about new avenues of energy production .
Even if a fraction of this ideal turnout is done , it will reduce our dependency on oil and coal a good deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not entirely about the OMG lifetime milez, it's about new avenues of energy production.
Even if a fraction of this ideal turnout is done, it will reduce our dependency on oil and coal a good deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433253</id>
	<title>Geothermal is messy</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245682680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Drilling is a messy proposition.  Heavy equipment trashes the ground, you turn the drilling area into a giant mudpie... the stuff you drill up has to go somewhere...That's the problem with geothermal.  If drilling were nice and easy, and clean the USA wouldn't be arguing about ANWR.</p><p>Still, with that said, there's a five mile wide blob of molten rock below Yellowstone park that seems to be able boil water for hundreds of miles around.  I'd be willing to bet that if were willing to trash a part of our national park, we could really have a lot of essentially free energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Drilling is a messy proposition .
Heavy equipment trashes the ground , you turn the drilling area into a giant mudpie... the stuff you drill up has to go somewhere...That 's the problem with geothermal .
If drilling were nice and easy , and clean the USA would n't be arguing about ANWR.Still , with that said , there 's a five mile wide blob of molten rock below Yellowstone park that seems to be able boil water for hundreds of miles around .
I 'd be willing to bet that if were willing to trash a part of our national park , we could really have a lot of essentially free energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drilling is a messy proposition.
Heavy equipment trashes the ground, you turn the drilling area into a giant mudpie... the stuff you drill up has to go somewhere...That's the problem with geothermal.
If drilling were nice and easy, and clean the USA wouldn't be arguing about ANWR.Still, with that said, there's a five mile wide blob of molten rock below Yellowstone park that seems to be able boil water for hundreds of miles around.
I'd be willing to bet that if were willing to trash a part of our national park, we could really have a lot of essentially free energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28449651</id>
	<title>Re:What are "needs" ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245785040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>very good point. Just like every ones fuel "needs" greatly decreased when it spiked.<br>We could probably easily do w/ around 25\% of current consumption if we had to.<br>Heck, if power got too expensive and I really needed it I would figure something out myself.<br>I'd setup solar panels or maybe even a small nuclear plant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>very good point .
Just like every ones fuel " needs " greatly decreased when it spiked.We could probably easily do w/ around 25 \ % of current consumption if we had to.Heck , if power got too expensive and I really needed it I would figure something out myself.I 'd setup solar panels or maybe even a small nuclear plant : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very good point.
Just like every ones fuel "needs" greatly decreased when it spiked.We could probably easily do w/ around 25\% of current consumption if we had to.Heck, if power got too expensive and I really needed it I would figure something out myself.I'd setup solar panels or maybe even a small nuclear plant :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440863</id>
	<title>wind powered generators for electricity</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1245779520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will there be a law preventing you from installing and owning your own wind generator.

With the thousands of generators (windmills) facing one direction, would they provide sufficient resistance to air circulation to cause a change in the earths rotation?

I bet you yes, for the last statement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will there be a law preventing you from installing and owning your own wind generator .
With the thousands of generators ( windmills ) facing one direction , would they provide sufficient resistance to air circulation to cause a change in the earths rotation ?
I bet you yes , for the last statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will there be a law preventing you from installing and owning your own wind generator.
With the thousands of generators (windmills) facing one direction, would they provide sufficient resistance to air circulation to cause a change in the earths rotation?
I bet you yes, for the last statement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437191</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245762540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can they generate the 1.21 Gigawatts needed to power the Flux Capacitor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can they generate the 1.21 Gigawatts needed to power the Flux Capacitor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can they generate the 1.21 Gigawatts needed to power the Flux Capacitor?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438991</id>
	<title>Blow me away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245772500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So during hurricane season we can expect our utility bills to drop immensely, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So during hurricane season we can expect our utility bills to drop immensely , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So during hurricane season we can expect our utility bills to drop immensely, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433529</id>
	<title>Re:News From Slashdot 2029</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"windmills do not work that way!" - Morbo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" windmills do not work that way !
" - Morbo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"windmills do not work that way!
" - Morbo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437297</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245763320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In France you're not allowed to build a turbine less than 600 meters away from any house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In France you 're not allowed to build a turbine less than 600 meters away from any house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In France you're not allowed to build a turbine less than 600 meters away from any house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432057</id>
	<title>Re:Cost? $$ and practicality?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245676920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream</i> </p><p>Can someone please tell me what coal is if it is <b>not</b> carbon sequestration?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" clean " coal ( aka carbon sequestration ) as a pipe dream Can someone please tell me what coal is if it is not carbon sequestration ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream Can someone please tell me what coal is if it is not carbon sequestration?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434825</id>
	<title>Re:Geothermal is better</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1245692880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, what could possibly go wrong about injecting water into cities' underground and removing the heat from the ground. I for one welcome our colder grounds, flooded subways and mudslides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , what could possibly go wrong about injecting water into cities ' underground and removing the heat from the ground .
I for one welcome our colder grounds , flooded subways and mudslides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, what could possibly go wrong about injecting water into cities' underground and removing the heat from the ground.
I for one welcome our colder grounds, flooded subways and mudslides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431877</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>chuchmo</author>
	<datestamp>1245676080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Not true; you forgot nuclear.  Uranium and other heavy elements don't come from the sun.  Sure, they came from a star, just not ours.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth , without tapping geothermal sources , originally comes from the sun .
Not true ; you forgot nuclear .
Uranium and other heavy elements do n't come from the sun .
Sure , they came from a star , just not ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.
Not true; you forgot nuclear.
Uranium and other heavy elements don't come from the sun.
Sure, they came from a star, just not ours.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431253</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>SpiderClan</author>
	<datestamp>1245673620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both? There are many forms of energy that aren't electrical. I assume that for the most part, though, they're talking heating and transportation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both ?
There are many forms of energy that are n't electrical .
I assume that for the most part , though , they 're talking heating and transportation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both?
There are many forms of energy that aren't electrical.
I assume that for the most part, though, they're talking heating and transportation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431665</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1245675000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What will lubricate the turbine bearings?
<p>
how will we paint the machines?
</p><p>
how will be mine the materials that go into these things?
</p><p>
how will we make the fiberglas?
</p><p>
without oil?
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What will lubricate the turbine bearings ?
how will we paint the machines ?
how will be mine the materials that go into these things ?
how will we make the fiberglas ?
without oil ?
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will lubricate the turbine bearings?
how will we paint the machines?
how will be mine the materials that go into these things?
how will we make the fiberglas?
without oil?
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431263</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>Ian Alexander</author>
	<datestamp>1245673680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our energy use isn't quantified solely by electricity. For example, oil use counts as energy use but oil is not electricity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our energy use is n't quantified solely by electricity .
For example , oil use counts as energy use but oil is not electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our energy use isn't quantified solely by electricity.
For example, oil use counts as energy use but oil is not electricity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28439519</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245774420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here, let me fix that;</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mistress Helen Fraser and her husband lived just over 400 metres from a turbine. She says the sound and strobing effect caused their cow's milk to sour and hens to stop laying.</p></div><p>There, that's better.</p><p>Just give them a tinfoil hat and a hex sign and all will be well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , let me fix that ; Mistress Helen Fraser and her husband lived just over 400 metres from a turbine .
She says the sound and strobing effect caused their cow 's milk to sour and hens to stop laying.There , that 's better.Just give them a tinfoil hat and a hex sign and all will be well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, let me fix that;Mistress Helen Fraser and her husband lived just over 400 metres from a turbine.
She says the sound and strobing effect caused their cow's milk to sour and hens to stop laying.There, that's better.Just give them a tinfoil hat and a hex sign and all will be well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28439813</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245775500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Somehow I'm having a hard time imagining how diabetes is influenced by a big windmill."</p><p>You haven't dealt long term with stress then.</p><p>In short, chronic diseases raises stress levels.  You don't adapt, you deal with it.  Any additional stress makes a huge impact.</p><p>Everyone deals with this on a small level.  You may get a bad case of the flu, a massive headache, or some other bothersome issue.  Next thing, your neighbor's dog starts barking constantly and it annoys the hell out of you.  It's simple exacerbation.</p><p>Now think of someone who deals with chronic fatigue or pain or disability.</p><p>"I suppose she could be ranting and raving about the turbine so much that her husband's stress levels affected his diabetes."</p><p>So?</p><p>This is one of the many reasons, like a poor area having a bad environmental record (one leads to the other and vice versa).  If you live in an environment where you are powerless or have little power to change or affect where you live, where people don't listen, the only thing you can do is complain, and that does raise stress levels and make life less enjoyable.  You pointing that out is like saying you have internet access when posting on slashdot--no shit.</p><p>btw, all this complaining is why we don't have supersonic jets overland.  Also why we don't have new and improved nuclear reactors.  These "people" you disagree with learned from the best--the environmentalists themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Somehow I 'm having a hard time imagining how diabetes is influenced by a big windmill .
" You have n't dealt long term with stress then.In short , chronic diseases raises stress levels .
You do n't adapt , you deal with it .
Any additional stress makes a huge impact.Everyone deals with this on a small level .
You may get a bad case of the flu , a massive headache , or some other bothersome issue .
Next thing , your neighbor 's dog starts barking constantly and it annoys the hell out of you .
It 's simple exacerbation.Now think of someone who deals with chronic fatigue or pain or disability .
" I suppose she could be ranting and raving about the turbine so much that her husband 's stress levels affected his diabetes .
" So ? This is one of the many reasons , like a poor area having a bad environmental record ( one leads to the other and vice versa ) .
If you live in an environment where you are powerless or have little power to change or affect where you live , where people do n't listen , the only thing you can do is complain , and that does raise stress levels and make life less enjoyable .
You pointing that out is like saying you have internet access when posting on slashdot--no shit.btw , all this complaining is why we do n't have supersonic jets overland .
Also why we do n't have new and improved nuclear reactors .
These " people " you disagree with learned from the best--the environmentalists themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Somehow I'm having a hard time imagining how diabetes is influenced by a big windmill.
"You haven't dealt long term with stress then.In short, chronic diseases raises stress levels.
You don't adapt, you deal with it.
Any additional stress makes a huge impact.Everyone deals with this on a small level.
You may get a bad case of the flu, a massive headache, or some other bothersome issue.
Next thing, your neighbor's dog starts barking constantly and it annoys the hell out of you.
It's simple exacerbation.Now think of someone who deals with chronic fatigue or pain or disability.
"I suppose she could be ranting and raving about the turbine so much that her husband's stress levels affected his diabetes.
"So?This is one of the many reasons, like a poor area having a bad environmental record (one leads to the other and vice versa).
If you live in an environment where you are powerless or have little power to change or affect where you live, where people don't listen, the only thing you can do is complain, and that does raise stress levels and make life less enjoyable.
You pointing that out is like saying you have internet access when posting on slashdot--no shit.btw, all this complaining is why we don't have supersonic jets overland.
Also why we don't have new and improved nuclear reactors.
These "people" you disagree with learned from the best--the environmentalists themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28450879</id>
	<title>Re:All we need now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245846600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Solar collectors may only run during the day, and may lose efficiency during cloudy days, but consider this - when is the single biggest draw time? Summer, during the day, when all those air conditioners are running. This also happens to be when the skies are clearest and the solar radiation received at its highest - therefore when the solar collectors would be at their most efficient.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, the single biggest draw time isn't the summer. It's the winter, at night, when it's so cold you need to heat all sorts of things up just to keep them alive or operating. My own experience tells me that although summer rates are high, winter rates are higher. Worst part is that the time you need it the most, dead of night, is the time when solar collectors are at their weakest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar collectors may only run during the day , and may lose efficiency during cloudy days , but consider this - when is the single biggest draw time ?
Summer , during the day , when all those air conditioners are running .
This also happens to be when the skies are clearest and the solar radiation received at its highest - therefore when the solar collectors would be at their most efficient.Actually , the single biggest draw time is n't the summer .
It 's the winter , at night , when it 's so cold you need to heat all sorts of things up just to keep them alive or operating .
My own experience tells me that although summer rates are high , winter rates are higher .
Worst part is that the time you need it the most , dead of night , is the time when solar collectors are at their weakest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar collectors may only run during the day, and may lose efficiency during cloudy days, but consider this - when is the single biggest draw time?
Summer, during the day, when all those air conditioners are running.
This also happens to be when the skies are clearest and the solar radiation received at its highest - therefore when the solar collectors would be at their most efficient.Actually, the single biggest draw time isn't the summer.
It's the winter, at night, when it's so cold you need to heat all sorts of things up just to keep them alive or operating.
My own experience tells me that although summer rates are high, winter rates are higher.
Worst part is that the time you need it the most, dead of night, is the time when solar collectors are at their weakest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432529</id>
	<title>Re:Offshore</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245679140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like with normal wind energy it is a problem of distribution vs. quantity.  Fossil Fuel and Nuclear power have the advantage in portability. As any electrical engineer knows that electricity when it goes threw a wire (which isn't in a super conductive state) will loose energy to heat over the lines, as the lines provide resistance for the electric current.  So until we can find a way to make long distance lines that are super conductive in a warm condition (warm meaning dry ice warm, vs. Liquid Helium 5 degrees kelvin)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like with normal wind energy it is a problem of distribution vs. quantity. Fossil Fuel and Nuclear power have the advantage in portability .
As any electrical engineer knows that electricity when it goes threw a wire ( which is n't in a super conductive state ) will loose energy to heat over the lines , as the lines provide resistance for the electric current .
So until we can find a way to make long distance lines that are super conductive in a warm condition ( warm meaning dry ice warm , vs. Liquid Helium 5 degrees kelvin )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like with normal wind energy it is a problem of distribution vs. quantity.  Fossil Fuel and Nuclear power have the advantage in portability.
As any electrical engineer knows that electricity when it goes threw a wire (which isn't in a super conductive state) will loose energy to heat over the lines, as the lines provide resistance for the electric current.
So until we can find a way to make long distance lines that are super conductive in a warm condition (warm meaning dry ice warm, vs. Liquid Helium 5 degrees kelvin)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431197</id>
	<title>tourism</title>
	<author>binarybum</author>
	<datestamp>1245673440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Holland's tourism industry would crash, I mean without the windmills, why would you want to go to the Netherlands...  I mean isn't that what draws all those young folks to Amsterdam these days?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Holland 's tourism industry would crash , I mean without the windmills , why would you want to go to the Netherlands... I mean is n't that what draws all those young folks to Amsterdam these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Holland's tourism industry would crash, I mean without the windmills, why would you want to go to the Netherlands...  I mean isn't that what draws all those young folks to Amsterdam these days?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432731</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245680040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're forgetting nuclear.  Atomic energy does not come from the sun, and weight-to-weight has 1,000,000 times more heat-power than coal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting nuclear .
Atomic energy does not come from the sun , and weight-to-weight has 1,000,000 times more heat-power than coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting nuclear.
Atomic energy does not come from the sun, and weight-to-weight has 1,000,000 times more heat-power than coal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432573</id>
	<title>Re:All we need now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245679320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Australia does not depend wholly on coal, you know. In fact, wind power generation is increasing by a large amount.</p><p>How do I know this? My brother works at the wind farm on the south coast of south-eastern South Australia (it's near a place called Millicent). He is currently working extremely long hours constructing yet another batch of turbines. This is the second batch he's worked on in only a few years, and both batches are huge (we're talking dozens of turbines, not just a handful). So, it's not some feel-good experiment, it's a full-fledged economically-viable business.</p><p>As for solar energy, Australia has so much sunlight we'd have to be crazy not to make use of it. I know there are problems with transmission if you put a big solar plant out in the middle of nowhere, but that's not what I'm talking about. Think about all of the roofs in all of the cities - not just residential, either. How much solar energy is being wasted just bouncing off of the corrugated iron roofs of warehouses and factories? Put solar collectors on them, and they'd probably generate more power than they'd use - at least during the day, and most factories shut down at night.</p><p>Solar collectors may only run during the day, and may lose efficiency during cloudy days, but consider this - when is the single biggest draw time? Summer, during the day, when all those air conditioners are running. This also happens to be when the skies are clearest and the solar radiation received at its highest - therefore when the solar collectors would be at their most efficient.</p><p>Yes, we may not be able to just ban coal - yet. But we can easily reduce the dependence on it if we look outside the box, and don't just bag alternatives out of hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia does not depend wholly on coal , you know .
In fact , wind power generation is increasing by a large amount.How do I know this ?
My brother works at the wind farm on the south coast of south-eastern South Australia ( it 's near a place called Millicent ) .
He is currently working extremely long hours constructing yet another batch of turbines .
This is the second batch he 's worked on in only a few years , and both batches are huge ( we 're talking dozens of turbines , not just a handful ) .
So , it 's not some feel-good experiment , it 's a full-fledged economically-viable business.As for solar energy , Australia has so much sunlight we 'd have to be crazy not to make use of it .
I know there are problems with transmission if you put a big solar plant out in the middle of nowhere , but that 's not what I 'm talking about .
Think about all of the roofs in all of the cities - not just residential , either .
How much solar energy is being wasted just bouncing off of the corrugated iron roofs of warehouses and factories ?
Put solar collectors on them , and they 'd probably generate more power than they 'd use - at least during the day , and most factories shut down at night.Solar collectors may only run during the day , and may lose efficiency during cloudy days , but consider this - when is the single biggest draw time ?
Summer , during the day , when all those air conditioners are running .
This also happens to be when the skies are clearest and the solar radiation received at its highest - therefore when the solar collectors would be at their most efficient.Yes , we may not be able to just ban coal - yet .
But we can easily reduce the dependence on it if we look outside the box , and do n't just bag alternatives out of hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia does not depend wholly on coal, you know.
In fact, wind power generation is increasing by a large amount.How do I know this?
My brother works at the wind farm on the south coast of south-eastern South Australia (it's near a place called Millicent).
He is currently working extremely long hours constructing yet another batch of turbines.
This is the second batch he's worked on in only a few years, and both batches are huge (we're talking dozens of turbines, not just a handful).
So, it's not some feel-good experiment, it's a full-fledged economically-viable business.As for solar energy, Australia has so much sunlight we'd have to be crazy not to make use of it.
I know there are problems with transmission if you put a big solar plant out in the middle of nowhere, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Think about all of the roofs in all of the cities - not just residential, either.
How much solar energy is being wasted just bouncing off of the corrugated iron roofs of warehouses and factories?
Put solar collectors on them, and they'd probably generate more power than they'd use - at least during the day, and most factories shut down at night.Solar collectors may only run during the day, and may lose efficiency during cloudy days, but consider this - when is the single biggest draw time?
Summer, during the day, when all those air conditioners are running.
This also happens to be when the skies are clearest and the solar radiation received at its highest - therefore when the solar collectors would be at their most efficient.Yes, we may not be able to just ban coal - yet.
But we can easily reduce the dependence on it if we look outside the box, and don't just bag alternatives out of hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434063</id>
	<title>Aesthetics...</title>
	<author>LunarEffect</author>
	<datestamp>1245687540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was reading about this dude who was building a single wind turbine in some rural area in the Swabian Alps in Germany. There was a huge protest against it, because a windmill like that would "spoil the countryside"...it ended with him having to cancel his plans, no windmill was allowed to be built.<br>
So yeah, I really like the idea of this article, but a lot of people are way too conservative to tolerate placing these things everywhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was reading about this dude who was building a single wind turbine in some rural area in the Swabian Alps in Germany .
There was a huge protest against it , because a windmill like that would " spoil the countryside " ...it ended with him having to cancel his plans , no windmill was allowed to be built .
So yeah , I really like the idea of this article , but a lot of people are way too conservative to tolerate placing these things everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was reading about this dude who was building a single wind turbine in some rural area in the Swabian Alps in Germany.
There was a huge protest against it, because a windmill like that would "spoil the countryside"...it ended with him having to cancel his plans, no windmill was allowed to be built.
So yeah, I really like the idea of this article, but a lot of people are way too conservative to tolerate placing these things everywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435921</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245790140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep... with a whopping maximum efficiency of 30\%.<br>Next time I'll want to waste more than 2 thirds of my electricity, I'll call you.</p><p>Thanks for your suggestion!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep... with a whopping maximum efficiency of 30 \ % .Next time I 'll want to waste more than 2 thirds of my electricity , I 'll call you.Thanks for your suggestion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep... with a whopping maximum efficiency of 30\%.Next time I'll want to waste more than 2 thirds of my electricity, I'll call you.Thanks for your suggestion!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432411</id>
	<title>Re:Cost? $$ and practicality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245678540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We do not need to cover a decent portion of the planet with solar cells to generate enough electricity for the whole world. Current world power generation is about 20000 TWh and projected to reach 30000 TWh in 2030. Solar energy per square meter is ca. 1kW peak (sun overhead, no occlusion). The average is about a quarter of that, so you get efficiency*250W*24h*365 per square meter of covered land. That's about efficiency*3MWh per square meter and year. 30000TWh/3MWh is 10^10, or 100km*100km times the inverse of the solar cell efficiency. Let's assume an efficiency of just 10\%, then a (200 miles)^2 square would be enough area to supply the electricity for the whole world in 2030. That is "a shitload of solar cells", but not a decent portion of the planet's surface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do not need to cover a decent portion of the planet with solar cells to generate enough electricity for the whole world .
Current world power generation is about 20000 TWh and projected to reach 30000 TWh in 2030 .
Solar energy per square meter is ca .
1kW peak ( sun overhead , no occlusion ) .
The average is about a quarter of that , so you get efficiency * 250W * 24h * 365 per square meter of covered land .
That 's about efficiency * 3MWh per square meter and year .
30000TWh/3MWh is 10 ^ 10 , or 100km * 100km times the inverse of the solar cell efficiency .
Let 's assume an efficiency of just 10 \ % , then a ( 200 miles ) ^ 2 square would be enough area to supply the electricity for the whole world in 2030 .
That is " a shitload of solar cells " , but not a decent portion of the planet 's surface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do not need to cover a decent portion of the planet with solar cells to generate enough electricity for the whole world.
Current world power generation is about 20000 TWh and projected to reach 30000 TWh in 2030.
Solar energy per square meter is ca.
1kW peak (sun overhead, no occlusion).
The average is about a quarter of that, so you get efficiency*250W*24h*365 per square meter of covered land.
That's about efficiency*3MWh per square meter and year.
30000TWh/3MWh is 10^10, or 100km*100km times the inverse of the solar cell efficiency.
Let's assume an efficiency of just 10\%, then a (200 miles)^2 square would be enough area to supply the electricity for the whole world in 2030.
That is "a shitload of solar cells", but not a decent portion of the planet's surface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431699</id>
	<title>100\% wind power is certainly possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245675240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>especially if everybody starts eating a lot of beans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>especially if everybody starts eating a lot of beans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>especially if everybody starts eating a lot of beans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432583</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>Mountaineer1024</author>
	<datestamp>1245679440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well the article talks about electrical consumption and total energy, so I would assume that part of that total energy need is currently being met in a way that is not electrical.<br>Cars for example mostly run on petro-chemicals right now, but if they were suddenly all electric, it would substantially add to our electrical consumption without really altering our total energy usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the article talks about electrical consumption and total energy , so I would assume that part of that total energy need is currently being met in a way that is not electrical.Cars for example mostly run on petro-chemicals right now , but if they were suddenly all electric , it would substantially add to our electrical consumption without really altering our total energy usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the article talks about electrical consumption and total energy, so I would assume that part of that total energy need is currently being met in a way that is not electrical.Cars for example mostly run on petro-chemicals right now, but if they were suddenly all electric, it would substantially add to our electrical consumption without really altering our total energy usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432075</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245676980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just at the University of Washington alone, there are 20 patented methods of storing generated wind energy for later uses, and for solar power, the patents number in the hundreds.</p><p>(source - recent displays at the UW Tower of University Tech Transfer projects)</p><p>The efficiencies depend on the methods used and the locations and costs of materials and production involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just at the University of Washington alone , there are 20 patented methods of storing generated wind energy for later uses , and for solar power , the patents number in the hundreds .
( source - recent displays at the UW Tower of University Tech Transfer projects ) The efficiencies depend on the methods used and the locations and costs of materials and production involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just at the University of Washington alone, there are 20 patented methods of storing generated wind energy for later uses, and for solar power, the patents number in the hundreds.
(source - recent displays at the UW Tower of University Tech Transfer projects)The efficiencies depend on the methods used and the locations and costs of materials and production involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433451</id>
	<title>wrong department.</title>
	<author>thaddeusthudpucker</author>
	<datestamp>1245683940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>should be the you-must-construct-additional-pylons department...</htmltext>
<tokenext>should be the you-must-construct-additional-pylons department.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>should be the you-must-construct-additional-pylons department...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435371</id>
	<title>Re:All we need now</title>
	<author>SpeleoNut</author>
	<datestamp>1245698160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for solar energy, Australia has so much sunlight we'd have to be crazy not to make use of it. I know there are problems with transmission if you put a big solar plant out in the middle of nowhere, but that's not what I'm talking about. Think about all of the roofs in all of the cities - not just residential, either. How much solar energy is being wasted just bouncing off of the corrugated iron roofs of warehouses and factories? Put solar collectors on them, and they'd probably generate more power than they'd use - at least during the day, and most factories shut down at night.</p></div><p>I like the cut of your jib.  Furthermore I will happily rent out my North facing roof space (Adelaide, South Australia) to first power company that wants to install solar panels on it.  I looked into doing this myself but it is not an economically viable option for an individual household at present and I am too mean spirited just to do it for the dolphins.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for solar energy , Australia has so much sunlight we 'd have to be crazy not to make use of it .
I know there are problems with transmission if you put a big solar plant out in the middle of nowhere , but that 's not what I 'm talking about .
Think about all of the roofs in all of the cities - not just residential , either .
How much solar energy is being wasted just bouncing off of the corrugated iron roofs of warehouses and factories ?
Put solar collectors on them , and they 'd probably generate more power than they 'd use - at least during the day , and most factories shut down at night.I like the cut of your jib .
Furthermore I will happily rent out my North facing roof space ( Adelaide , South Australia ) to first power company that wants to install solar panels on it .
I looked into doing this myself but it is not an economically viable option for an individual household at present and I am too mean spirited just to do it for the dolphins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for solar energy, Australia has so much sunlight we'd have to be crazy not to make use of it.
I know there are problems with transmission if you put a big solar plant out in the middle of nowhere, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Think about all of the roofs in all of the cities - not just residential, either.
How much solar energy is being wasted just bouncing off of the corrugated iron roofs of warehouses and factories?
Put solar collectors on them, and they'd probably generate more power than they'd use - at least during the day, and most factories shut down at night.I like the cut of your jib.
Furthermore I will happily rent out my North facing roof space (Adelaide, South Australia) to first power company that wants to install solar panels on it.
I looked into doing this myself but it is not an economically viable option for an individual household at present and I am too mean spirited just to do it for the dolphins.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432821</id>
	<title>Re:Energy storage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245680520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uranium has some pretty freakin mass energy stored in it.  Weight to Weight it has 1,000,000 times the heat-power than coal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uranium has some pretty freakin mass energy stored in it .
Weight to Weight it has 1,000,000 times the heat-power than coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uranium has some pretty freakin mass energy stored in it.
Weight to Weight it has 1,000,000 times the heat-power than coal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28444729</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>gonzonista</author>
	<datestamp>1245749580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the whole point of going to renewables.  Using a barrel of oil for lubrication and making components is far  better than burning it to get from A to B.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the whole point of going to renewables .
Using a barrel of oil for lubrication and making components is far better than burning it to get from A to B .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the whole point of going to renewables.
Using a barrel of oil for lubrication and making components is far  better than burning it to get from A to B.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438587</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>swimsaturn</author>
	<datestamp>1245770700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or from the Big Bang, if we get good at fusion (D-D)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>or from the Big Bang , if we get good at fusion ( D-D ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or from the Big Bang, if we get good at fusion (D-D)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431727</id>
	<title>The original article</title>
	<author>siddesu</author>
	<datestamp>1245675360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case someone's interested, it is available free here:<br><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/19/0904101106.abstract" title="pnas.org">http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/19/0904101106.abstract</a> [pnas.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case someone 's interested , it is available free here : http : //www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/19/0904101106.abstract [ pnas.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case someone's interested, it is available free here:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/19/0904101106.abstract [pnas.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433555</id>
	<title>Instead of going green, why not white?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that is what we need.  Lets make the world a better place by covering all the green areas and oceans with wind turbines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that is what we need .
Lets make the world a better place by covering all the green areas and oceans with wind turbines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that is what we need.
Lets make the world a better place by covering all the green areas and oceans with wind turbines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432107</id>
	<title>FAoGORz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Ofone single puny prospects are and that the fllor Distro is done Here</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ofone single puny prospects are and that the fllor Distro is done Here [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ofone single puny prospects are and that the fllor Distro is done Here [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434729</id>
	<title>Shoulda Coulda Woulda</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1245692040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we just hang all the politicians and get on with building our wind/solar/geothermal powered wonderland already?</p><p>I'm tired of all the starving, bombing, genocide and general stupidity.</p><p>No?  Not going to happen?  That whole, <b>"So long as Advertising works, Democracy cannot"</b> maxim?</p><p>Oh.  Great.</p><p>Stupid, Stupid Monkey Creatures.  You deserve every last iota of misery being dished out because you are too stupid to hang your politicians and install mandatory psychopathy testing.  The last U.S. Administration wouldn't have passed.  And the current one wouldn't either.  Guantanamo is still open and your downloads will land you in prison one day soon.</p><p>And the oil still flows.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we just hang all the politicians and get on with building our wind/solar/geothermal powered wonderland already ? I 'm tired of all the starving , bombing , genocide and general stupidity.No ?
Not going to happen ?
That whole , " So long as Advertising works , Democracy can not " maxim ? Oh .
Great.Stupid , Stupid Monkey Creatures .
You deserve every last iota of misery being dished out because you are too stupid to hang your politicians and install mandatory psychopathy testing .
The last U.S. Administration would n't have passed .
And the current one would n't either .
Guantanamo is still open and your downloads will land you in prison one day soon.And the oil still flows.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we just hang all the politicians and get on with building our wind/solar/geothermal powered wonderland already?I'm tired of all the starving, bombing, genocide and general stupidity.No?
Not going to happen?
That whole, "So long as Advertising works, Democracy cannot" maxim?Oh.
Great.Stupid, Stupid Monkey Creatures.
You deserve every last iota of misery being dished out because you are too stupid to hang your politicians and install mandatory psychopathy testing.
The last U.S. Administration wouldn't have passed.
And the current one wouldn't either.
Guantanamo is still open and your downloads will land you in prison one day soon.And the oil still flows.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431365</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>disclaimer: I didn't really read anything.</p><p>I really doubt your claim that wind could not provide 100\% of all electricity by the fact that there are clam days occasionally. Yes, sure, there are calm days, but I cannot imagine a day in which there's virtually no wind anywhere where these generators are placed. From my extremely cursory knowledge of the idea, I would posit that the energy is designed to be shared by everyone, and should be transmitted to a hub for distribution. As such, it wouldn't matter if there were clam days at some locations, the rest of the locations would pick up the slack (or at least, would be able to cover for it).</p><p>Of course, I think this is infeasible for other reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>disclaimer : I did n't really read anything.I really doubt your claim that wind could not provide 100 \ % of all electricity by the fact that there are clam days occasionally .
Yes , sure , there are calm days , but I can not imagine a day in which there 's virtually no wind anywhere where these generators are placed .
From my extremely cursory knowledge of the idea , I would posit that the energy is designed to be shared by everyone , and should be transmitted to a hub for distribution .
As such , it would n't matter if there were clam days at some locations , the rest of the locations would pick up the slack ( or at least , would be able to cover for it ) .Of course , I think this is infeasible for other reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>disclaimer: I didn't really read anything.I really doubt your claim that wind could not provide 100\% of all electricity by the fact that there are clam days occasionally.
Yes, sure, there are calm days, but I cannot imagine a day in which there's virtually no wind anywhere where these generators are placed.
From my extremely cursory knowledge of the idea, I would posit that the energy is designed to be shared by everyone, and should be transmitted to a hub for distribution.
As such, it wouldn't matter if there were clam days at some locations, the rest of the locations would pick up the slack (or at least, would be able to cover for it).Of course, I think this is infeasible for other reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440937</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting counter-article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245779760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>spend $10.4 trillion on petroleum imports, or on equipment that will provide clean, domestic and renewable energy for decades to come, all the while providing jobs for thousands upon thousands of people?  Seems like a no-brainer to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>spend $ 10.4 trillion on petroleum imports , or on equipment that will provide clean , domestic and renewable energy for decades to come , all the while providing jobs for thousands upon thousands of people ?
Seems like a no-brainer to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>spend $10.4 trillion on petroleum imports, or on equipment that will provide clean, domestic and renewable energy for decades to come, all the while providing jobs for thousands upon thousands of people?
Seems like a no-brainer to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433075</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>kryptKnight</author>
	<datestamp>1245681780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.</p></div><p>I guess you haven't heard of nuclear power then.  I hear that it's not only more scalable than windmills, but more reliable to boot!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth , without tapping geothermal sources , originally comes from the sun.I guess you have n't heard of nuclear power then .
I hear that it 's not only more scalable than windmills , but more reliable to boot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.I guess you haven't heard of nuclear power then.
I hear that it's not only more scalable than windmills, but more reliable to boot!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28439619</id>
	<title>Wind turbines are economically non-viable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most wind turbines (90\%) cost more to maintain than what they give in return. (Read the statistics) It is impossible to maintain a power grid solely based on wind.<br>In a few years, people will finally realise the enormous FIASCO that wind-power is (except for those who sold them...).<br>Wind does not blow planet-wide on a 24hr schedule. Most of the time, the harsh reality is : absence of wind, generated power is 2\% of the installed capacity.<br>Hence, this article is ludicrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most wind turbines ( 90 \ % ) cost more to maintain than what they give in return .
( Read the statistics ) It is impossible to maintain a power grid solely based on wind.In a few years , people will finally realise the enormous FIASCO that wind-power is ( except for those who sold them... ) .Wind does not blow planet-wide on a 24hr schedule .
Most of the time , the harsh reality is : absence of wind , generated power is 2 \ % of the installed capacity.Hence , this article is ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most wind turbines (90\%) cost more to maintain than what they give in return.
(Read the statistics) It is impossible to maintain a power grid solely based on wind.In a few years, people will finally realise the enormous FIASCO that wind-power is (except for those who sold them...).Wind does not blow planet-wide on a 24hr schedule.
Most of the time, the harsh reality is : absence of wind, generated power is 2\% of the installed capacity.Hence, this article is ludicrous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432715</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>BadOctopus</author>
	<datestamp>1245679980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It just couldn't simply because there isn't wind all the time...</p></div><p>Yes there is wind all the time.</p><p>Not in one place, obviously, but by the time you've hooked up a shitload of turbines spread across thousands of miles you largely mitigate the "it's not windy here" problem.</p><p>

And in Europe, on the rare occasions when whole countries are becalmed, power is sent along interconnectors from neighbouring countries. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7598212.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7598212.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk] </p><p>It's always windy somewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just could n't simply because there is n't wind all the time...Yes there is wind all the time.Not in one place , obviously , but by the time you 've hooked up a shitload of turbines spread across thousands of miles you largely mitigate the " it 's not windy here " problem .
And in Europe , on the rare occasions when whole countries are becalmed , power is sent along interconnectors from neighbouring countries .
http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7598212.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] It 's always windy somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just couldn't simply because there isn't wind all the time...Yes there is wind all the time.Not in one place, obviously, but by the time you've hooked up a shitload of turbines spread across thousands of miles you largely mitigate the "it's not windy here" problem.
And in Europe, on the rare occasions when whole countries are becalmed, power is sent along interconnectors from neighbouring countries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7598212.stm [bbc.co.uk] It's always windy somewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432173</id>
	<title>Re:All we need now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> The economy would go into the toilet and that would raise the real cost of power to even higher, and the demand would go down even more. By the end of the year we'd be all living in dirt huts.  But, ya know, reality.. never let it get in the way of an indignant cause.</i></p><p>If you're concerned with reality, why not examine it rather than putting up a straw man?</p><p>A real solution would build out wind and solar resources over a number of decades, and wind down coal usage as the load gets shifted over.</p><p>Nobody is proposing anything remotely like forcibly converting the entire world to wind/solar within one year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The economy would go into the toilet and that would raise the real cost of power to even higher , and the demand would go down even more .
By the end of the year we 'd be all living in dirt huts .
But , ya know , reality.. never let it get in the way of an indignant cause.If you 're concerned with reality , why not examine it rather than putting up a straw man ? A real solution would build out wind and solar resources over a number of decades , and wind down coal usage as the load gets shifted over.Nobody is proposing anything remotely like forcibly converting the entire world to wind/solar within one year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The economy would go into the toilet and that would raise the real cost of power to even higher, and the demand would go down even more.
By the end of the year we'd be all living in dirt huts.
But, ya know, reality.. never let it get in the way of an indignant cause.If you're concerned with reality, why not examine it rather than putting up a straw man?A real solution would build out wind and solar resources over a number of decades, and wind down coal usage as the load gets shifted over.Nobody is proposing anything remotely like forcibly converting the entire world to wind/solar within one year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437139</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245762000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe there was something else strobing her head and body causing aches and at the same time reducing her husbands sugar levels<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe there was something else strobing her head and body causing aches and at the same time reducing her husbands sugar levels : -/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe there was something else strobing her head and body causing aches and at the same time reducing her husbands sugar levels :-/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>NewbieProgrammerMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245674280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Helen Fraser and her husband lived just over 400 metres from a turbine. She says the sound and strobing effect caused her to develop headaches and body aches, and her caused her husband's diabetes to get worse.</p></div><p>Somehow I'm having a hard time imagining how diabetes is influenced by a big windmill.  I suppose she could be ranting and raving about the turbine so much that her husband's stress levels affected his diabetes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Helen Fraser and her husband lived just over 400 metres from a turbine .
She says the sound and strobing effect caused her to develop headaches and body aches , and her caused her husband 's diabetes to get worse.Somehow I 'm having a hard time imagining how diabetes is influenced by a big windmill .
I suppose she could be ranting and raving about the turbine so much that her husband 's stress levels affected his diabetes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Helen Fraser and her husband lived just over 400 metres from a turbine.
She says the sound and strobing effect caused her to develop headaches and body aches, and her caused her husband's diabetes to get worse.Somehow I'm having a hard time imagining how diabetes is influenced by a big windmill.
I suppose she could be ranting and raving about the turbine so much that her husband's stress levels affected his diabetes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385</id>
	<title>Cost?  $$ and practicality?</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245674040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, wind could do it.  So could solar, if we spot a shitload of solar cells all over the world cover a decent portion of it.</p><p>But is it practical?  It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing "clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream, technology doesn't exist, etc., and then turning around and throwing scheme's like these out there as perfectly reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , wind could do it .
So could solar , if we spot a shitload of solar cells all over the world cover a decent portion of it.But is it practical ?
It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing " clean " coal ( aka carbon sequestration ) as a pipe dream , technology does n't exist , etc. , and then turning around and throwing scheme 's like these out there as perfectly reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, wind could do it.
So could solar, if we spot a shitload of solar cells all over the world cover a decent portion of it.But is it practical?
It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing "clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream, technology doesn't exist, etc., and then turning around and throwing scheme's like these out there as perfectly reasonable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435893</id>
	<title>Re:What are "needs" ?</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1245789840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are the mods on crack? How is this +4? I think it's pretty clear that "need" is based on how much energy we are using today.
And we may no be that flexible about the energy that we use. Transportation and heating are were most of the energy is used and they are not much elastic. Electricity use would have been to be reduced drastically to make an important difference and at that point civil unrest could start a dangerous downward spiral. In a few decades there won't be so much fossil fuels to fall back for easy energy to maintain a large population. The only way to prevent a catastrophic energy shortage is to have varied and redundant energy sources ahead of that happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the mods on crack ?
How is this + 4 ?
I think it 's pretty clear that " need " is based on how much energy we are using today .
And we may no be that flexible about the energy that we use .
Transportation and heating are were most of the energy is used and they are not much elastic .
Electricity use would have been to be reduced drastically to make an important difference and at that point civil unrest could start a dangerous downward spiral .
In a few decades there wo n't be so much fossil fuels to fall back for easy energy to maintain a large population .
The only way to prevent a catastrophic energy shortage is to have varied and redundant energy sources ahead of that happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the mods on crack?
How is this +4?
I think it's pretty clear that "need" is based on how much energy we are using today.
And we may no be that flexible about the energy that we use.
Transportation and heating are were most of the energy is used and they are not much elastic.
Electricity use would have been to be reduced drastically to make an important difference and at that point civil unrest could start a dangerous downward spiral.
In a few decades there won't be so much fossil fuels to fall back for easy energy to maintain a large population.
The only way to prevent a catastrophic energy shortage is to have varied and redundant energy sources ahead of that happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434209</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1245688320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also tidal energy which we would get even if the sun went away thanks to our friend the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also tidal energy which we would get even if the sun went away thanks to our friend the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also tidal energy which we would get even if the sun went away thanks to our friend the moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431621</id>
	<title>I propose a movie title.</title>
	<author>yanguang</author>
	<datestamp>1245674820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Day the Wind Stopped Blowing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Day the Wind Stopped Blowing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Day the Wind Stopped Blowing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437871</id>
	<title>No, thanks</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1245766980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a change in the human emission of CO2 (which is what, a small \% of 0.04\% of our atmosphere) is allegedly so catastrophic that it's going to end the world, what would that level of windmill power do to our atmosphere?</p><p>I mean, aside from allowing some FUTURE has-been lefty politician to generate $100 million in windfall revenues, would it really be a danger?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a change in the human emission of CO2 ( which is what , a small \ % of 0.04 \ % of our atmosphere ) is allegedly so catastrophic that it 's going to end the world , what would that level of windmill power do to our atmosphere ? I mean , aside from allowing some FUTURE has-been lefty politician to generate $ 100 million in windfall revenues , would it really be a danger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a change in the human emission of CO2 (which is what, a small \% of 0.04\% of our atmosphere) is allegedly so catastrophic that it's going to end the world, what would that level of windmill power do to our atmosphere?I mean, aside from allowing some FUTURE has-been lefty politician to generate $100 million in windfall revenues, would it really be a danger?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431247</id>
	<title>cheap wow gold</title>
	<author>cheap wow gold</author>
	<datestamp>1245673560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Weekends to people<a href="http://www.ig2t.net/" title="ig2t.net" rel="nofollow">ig2t</a> [ig2t.net] mean that they can have a two-day <a href="http://www.wowgold4europe.net/" title="wowgold4europe.net" rel="nofollow">wowgold4europe</a> [wowgold4europe.net] good rest. For example&#239;&#188;OE people <a href="http://www.gameusd.org/" title="gameusd.org" rel="nofollow">gameusd</a> [gameusd.org] can go out to enjoy themselves or get <a href="http://www.meinwowgold.com/" title="meinwowgold.com" rel="nofollow">meinwowgold</a> [meinwowgold.com] together with relatives and friends to talk with each <a href="http://www.storeingame.net/" title="storeingame.net" rel="nofollow">storeingame</a> [storeingame.net] other or watch interesting video tapes with the <a href="http://www.speebie.org/" title="speebie.org" rel="nofollow">speebie</a> [speebie.org] whole family.
Everyone spends <a href="http://www.agamegold.org/" title="agamegold.org" rel="nofollow">agamegold</a> [agamegold.org] weekends in his own<a href="http://www.mmofly.org/" title="mmofly.org" rel="nofollow">mmofly</a> [mmofly.org] way. Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to music&#239;&#188;OE reading novels&#239;&#188;OEor watching<a href="http://www.ogeworld.org/" title="ogeworld.org" rel="nofollow">ogeworld</a> [ogeworld.org] films. Others perhaps are more active by playing basketball&#239;&#188;OEwimming or<a href="http://www.mmorpgvip.net/" title="mmorpgvip.net" rel="nofollow">mmorpgvip</a> [mmorpgvip.net] dancing. Different people have different <a href="http://www.gamesavor.net/" title="gamesavor.net" rel="nofollow">gamesavor</a> [gamesavor.net] relaxations.
I often spend weekends with<a href="http://www.oggsale.net/" title="oggsale.net" rel="nofollow">oggsale</a> [oggsale.net] my family or my friends. Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends. Sometimes<a href="http://www.gamersell.net/" title="gamersell.net" rel="nofollow">gamersell</a> [gamersell.net] I go to the library to study or borrow some books to<a href="http://www.mmovirtex.net/" title="mmovirtex.net" rel="nofollow">mmovirtex</a> [mmovirtex.net] gain much knowledge. I also go to see various exhibition to broaden<a href="http://www.rpg-trader.net/" title="rpg-trader.net" rel="nofollow">rpg trader</a> [rpg-trader.net] my vision. An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends. Weekends are always enjoyable for me.
<a href="http://www.igxe.org/" title="igxe.org" rel="nofollow">igxe</a> [igxe.org] <a href="http://www.swagvault.org/" title="swagvault.org" rel="nofollow">swagvault</a> [swagvault.org] oforu <a href="http://www.wowgold-usa.org/" title="wowgold-usa.org" rel="nofollow">wowgold-usa</a> [wowgold-usa.org] <a href="http://www.ignmax.org/" title="ignmax.org" rel="nofollow">ignmax</a> [ignmax.org] <a href="http://www.wowgoldlive.net/" title="wowgoldlive.net" rel="nofollow">wowgoldlive</a> [wowgoldlive.net] <a href="http://www.brogame.net/" title="brogame.net" rel="nofollow">brogame</a> [brogame.net]  <a href="http://www.thsale.org/" title="thsale.org" rel="nofollow">thsale</a> [thsale.org] <a href="http://www.goldrocku.net/" title="goldrocku.net" rel="nofollow">GoldRockU</a> [goldrocku.net] <a href="http://www.brogame.us/" title="brogame.us" rel="nofollow">brogame</a> [brogame.us]
 <a href="http://www.swagvault.us/" title="swagvault.us" rel="nofollow">swagvault</a> [swagvault.us] <a href="http://www.goldsoon.us/" title="goldsoon.us" rel="nofollow">goldsoon</a> [goldsoon.us] <a href="http://www.oforu.us/" title="oforu.us" rel="nofollow">oforu</a> [oforu.us] <a href="http://www.igxe.us/" title="www.igxe.us" rel="nofollow">igxe</a> [www.igxe.us] <a href="http://www.thsale.us/" title="thsale.us" rel="nofollow">thsale</a> [thsale.us]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Weekends to peopleig2t [ ig2t.net ] mean that they can have a two-day wowgold4europe [ wowgold4europe.net ] good rest .
For example     OE people gameusd [ gameusd.org ] can go out to enjoy themselves or get meinwowgold [ meinwowgold.com ] together with relatives and friends to talk with each storeingame [ storeingame.net ] other or watch interesting video tapes with the speebie [ speebie.org ] whole family .
Everyone spends agamegold [ agamegold.org ] weekends in his ownmmofly [ mmofly.org ] way .
Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to music     OE reading novels     OEor watchingogeworld [ ogeworld.org ] films .
Others perhaps are more active by playing basketball     OEwimming ormmorpgvip [ mmorpgvip.net ] dancing .
Different people have different gamesavor [ gamesavor.net ] relaxations .
I often spend weekends withoggsale [ oggsale.net ] my family or my friends .
Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends .
Sometimesgamersell [ gamersell.net ] I go to the library to study or borrow some books tommovirtex [ mmovirtex.net ] gain much knowledge .
I also go to see various exhibition to broadenrpg trader [ rpg-trader.net ] my vision .
An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends .
Weekends are always enjoyable for me .
igxe [ igxe.org ] swagvault [ swagvault.org ] oforu wowgold-usa [ wowgold-usa.org ] ignmax [ ignmax.org ] wowgoldlive [ wowgoldlive.net ] brogame [ brogame.net ] thsale [ thsale.org ] GoldRockU [ goldrocku.net ] brogame [ brogame.us ] swagvault [ swagvault.us ] goldsoon [ goldsoon.us ] oforu [ oforu.us ] igxe [ www.igxe.us ] thsale [ thsale.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weekends to peopleig2t [ig2t.net] mean that they can have a two-day wowgold4europe [wowgold4europe.net] good rest.
For exampleï¼OE people gameusd [gameusd.org] can go out to enjoy themselves or get meinwowgold [meinwowgold.com] together with relatives and friends to talk with each storeingame [storeingame.net] other or watch interesting video tapes with the speebie [speebie.org] whole family.
Everyone spends agamegold [agamegold.org] weekends in his ownmmofly [mmofly.org] way.
Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to musicï¼OE reading novelsï¼OEor watchingogeworld [ogeworld.org] films.
Others perhaps are more active by playing basketballï¼OEwimming ormmorpgvip [mmorpgvip.net] dancing.
Different people have different gamesavor [gamesavor.net] relaxations.
I often spend weekends withoggsale [oggsale.net] my family or my friends.
Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends.
Sometimesgamersell [gamersell.net] I go to the library to study or borrow some books tommovirtex [mmovirtex.net] gain much knowledge.
I also go to see various exhibition to broadenrpg trader [rpg-trader.net] my vision.
An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends.
Weekends are always enjoyable for me.
igxe [igxe.org] swagvault [swagvault.org] oforu wowgold-usa [wowgold-usa.org] ignmax [ignmax.org] wowgoldlive [wowgoldlive.net] brogame [brogame.net]  thsale [thsale.org] GoldRockU [goldrocku.net] brogame [brogame.us]
 swagvault [swagvault.us] goldsoon [goldsoon.us] oforu [oforu.us] igxe [www.igxe.us] thsale [thsale.us]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432127</id>
	<title>Nice extrapolation</title>
	<author>TrixX</author>
	<datestamp>1245677220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They imagined 2.5 megawatt turbines crisscrossing the terrestrial globe, excluding 'areas classified as forested, areas occupied by permanent snow or ice, areas covered by water, and areas identified as either developed or urban,'</p></div><p>I hope the power is enough to make all the food replicators work. Otherwise I don't know what we will eat when we cover every arable field (read: the places where we grow most food now, which are not forested, with ice, water, nor urban) with wind turbines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They imagined 2.5 megawatt turbines crisscrossing the terrestrial globe , excluding 'areas classified as forested , areas occupied by permanent snow or ice , areas covered by water , and areas identified as either developed or urban,'I hope the power is enough to make all the food replicators work .
Otherwise I do n't know what we will eat when we cover every arable field ( read : the places where we grow most food now , which are not forested , with ice , water , nor urban ) with wind turbines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They imagined 2.5 megawatt turbines crisscrossing the terrestrial globe, excluding 'areas classified as forested, areas occupied by permanent snow or ice, areas covered by water, and areas identified as either developed or urban,'I hope the power is enough to make all the food replicators work.
Otherwise I don't know what we will eat when we cover every arable field (read: the places where we grow most food now, which are not forested, with ice, water, nor urban) with wind turbines.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437623</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>jabuzz</author>
	<datestamp>1245765720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately a study of the weather across the whole of Europe showed that the number of calm days covering significant areas of Europe are such that we would have several blackouts a year, even taking into account storage of the electricity.</p><p>What we need is reliable renewable power, and in the UK that means tidal barrages in the Seven, the Mersey and the Conwy at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately a study of the weather across the whole of Europe showed that the number of calm days covering significant areas of Europe are such that we would have several blackouts a year , even taking into account storage of the electricity.What we need is reliable renewable power , and in the UK that means tidal barrages in the Seven , the Mersey and the Conwy at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately a study of the weather across the whole of Europe showed that the number of calm days covering significant areas of Europe are such that we would have several blackouts a year, even taking into account storage of the electricity.What we need is reliable renewable power, and in the UK that means tidal barrages in the Seven, the Mersey and the Conwy at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434059</id>
	<title>Someone should consult with these guys...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break\_Like\_the\_Wind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break \ _Like \ _the \ _Wind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break\_Like\_the\_Wind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434903</id>
	<title>Cost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245693600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much would it cost to build all these wind-farms offshore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much would it cost to build all these wind-farms offshore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much would it cost to build all these wind-farms offshore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434335</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that would be <b>very old</b> solar then...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that would be very old solar then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that would be very old solar then...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436851</id>
	<title>Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air</title>
	<author>KillQuentin</author>
	<datestamp>1245758460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you like thought experiments on future energy supplies, here is absolutely essential background reading:<br> <br>

www.withouthotair.com<br> <br>

No major energy source left behind! Enjoy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you like thought experiments on future energy supplies , here is absolutely essential background reading : www.withouthotair.com No major energy source left behind !
Enjoy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you like thought experiments on future energy supplies, here is absolutely essential background reading: 

www.withouthotair.com 

No major energy source left behind!
Enjoy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438877</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>Medievalist</author>
	<datestamp>1245772080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.</p></div></blockquote><p>There's actually another exception: nuclear energy. It comes from supernovas that predate the solar system's formation.</p></div></blockquote><p>Seems like a good argument for not using it.</p><p>I like nuclear power in theory.  But I believe human beings of the corporate-controlling social classes are too cheap, greedy and stupid to run nuclear power plants safely.  Come the revolution, maybe we can have nukes, but for now <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3550604.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">this is why we can't have nice things</a> [bbc.co.uk].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth , without tapping geothermal sources , originally comes from the sun.There 's actually another exception : nuclear energy .
It comes from supernovas that predate the solar system 's formation.Seems like a good argument for not using it.I like nuclear power in theory .
But I believe human beings of the corporate-controlling social classes are too cheap , greedy and stupid to run nuclear power plants safely .
Come the revolution , maybe we can have nukes , but for now this is why we ca n't have nice things [ bbc.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.There's actually another exception: nuclear energy.
It comes from supernovas that predate the solar system's formation.Seems like a good argument for not using it.I like nuclear power in theory.
But I believe human beings of the corporate-controlling social classes are too cheap, greedy and stupid to run nuclear power plants safely.
Come the revolution, maybe we can have nukes, but for now this is why we can't have nice things [bbc.co.uk].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432803</id>
	<title>Re:Learn the goddam metric system ffs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245680460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no no, they know the metric system, since 1 mile is equal to 1.6 km, 1 square mile must be equal to 1.6 square kilometers.</p><p>your real title should be:<br>"Learn how to do basic goddamn unit conversions ffs"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no no , they know the metric system , since 1 mile is equal to 1.6 km , 1 square mile must be equal to 1.6 square kilometers.your real title should be : " Learn how to do basic goddamn unit conversions ffs "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no no, they know the metric system, since 1 mile is equal to 1.6 km, 1 square mile must be equal to 1.6 square kilometers.your real title should be:"Learn how to do basic goddamn unit conversions ffs"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438215</id>
	<title>They're NOT metal...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245768840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they're all made of composites like fiberglass or carbon fiber. Even aluminum is too heavy for the size blades needed on an efficient wind turbine generator</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they 're all made of composites like fiberglass or carbon fiber .
Even aluminum is too heavy for the size blades needed on an efficient wind turbine generator</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they're all made of composites like fiberglass or carbon fiber.
Even aluminum is too heavy for the size blades needed on an efficient wind turbine generator</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431427</id>
	<title>What happens when it breaks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245674100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A broken wind would be a stinky situation to be caught in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A broken wind would be a stinky situation to be caught in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A broken wind would be a stinky situation to be caught in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431335</id>
	<title>interesting</title>
	<author>Ian Alexander</author>
	<datestamp>1245673860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I don't believe deploying wind farms all over the damn place is the best solution, this study does demonstrate that there's a ton of energy out there waiting to be used. We need a mixture of many different sources of energy: some wind, some solar, maybe nuclear, some hamsters on wheels, etc. We have options.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't believe deploying wind farms all over the damn place is the best solution , this study does demonstrate that there 's a ton of energy out there waiting to be used .
We need a mixture of many different sources of energy : some wind , some solar , maybe nuclear , some hamsters on wheels , etc .
We have options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't believe deploying wind farms all over the damn place is the best solution, this study does demonstrate that there's a ton of energy out there waiting to be used.
We need a mixture of many different sources of energy: some wind, some solar, maybe nuclear, some hamsters on wheels, etc.
We have options.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438569</id>
	<title>Actually....</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1245770640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is something that happens to wind once you start to place too may turbines/windmills close together.<br>Just like aerodynamics dictates, you put too may obstacles close to each other, the wind will be effectively<br>diminished, thereby providing much less power then first though. So the model that this scientist proposes, would be great in a perfect world, but in real life, having too many turbines close together might not be such a great idea....however!!! if we were to only put<br>1/4 of the amount of turbines he is talking about, we would have enough energy to supply our needs = to today's consumption...which in itself is still pretty damn good!</p><p>A bit of population control, we could maintain this level of life/consumption indefinitely...<br>but we all know those damn chinese love to fornicate!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is something that happens to wind once you start to place too may turbines/windmills close together.Just like aerodynamics dictates , you put too may obstacles close to each other , the wind will be effectivelydiminished , thereby providing much less power then first though .
So the model that this scientist proposes , would be great in a perfect world , but in real life , having too many turbines close together might not be such a great idea....however ! ! !
if we were to only put1/4 of the amount of turbines he is talking about , we would have enough energy to supply our needs = to today 's consumption...which in itself is still pretty damn good ! A bit of population control , we could maintain this level of life/consumption indefinitely...but we all know those damn chinese love to fornicate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is something that happens to wind once you start to place too may turbines/windmills close together.Just like aerodynamics dictates, you put too may obstacles close to each other, the wind will be effectivelydiminished, thereby providing much less power then first though.
So the model that this scientist proposes, would be great in a perfect world, but in real life, having too many turbines close together might not be such a great idea....however!!!
if we were to only put1/4 of the amount of turbines he is talking about, we would have enough energy to supply our needs = to today's consumption...which in itself is still pretty damn good!A bit of population control, we could maintain this level of life/consumption indefinitely...but we all know those damn chinese love to fornicate!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28447887</id>
	<title>Re:All we need now</title>
	<author>smegged</author>
	<datestamp>1245765420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Efficiency is the most important thing when looking at power investment - economic efficiency.  The reason Australia relies so heavily on coal is that we can build a power plant on a coal mine and basically cut out the cost of fuel transportation.  This gives us an economic advantage over our competitors in highly energy intensive industries (like smelting).  No renewable is economically efficient enough for large scale investment.<br> <br>

You do not need academic papers to show this, you just need to look at what companies are building and buying.  CS Energy built a huge waterless coal station called Kogan Creek and Origin built a massive gas fired power station in the last five years which combined dwarf investment in renewable energy over the same period.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Efficiency is the most important thing when looking at power investment - economic efficiency .
The reason Australia relies so heavily on coal is that we can build a power plant on a coal mine and basically cut out the cost of fuel transportation .
This gives us an economic advantage over our competitors in highly energy intensive industries ( like smelting ) .
No renewable is economically efficient enough for large scale investment .
You do not need academic papers to show this , you just need to look at what companies are building and buying .
CS Energy built a huge waterless coal station called Kogan Creek and Origin built a massive gas fired power station in the last five years which combined dwarf investment in renewable energy over the same period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Efficiency is the most important thing when looking at power investment - economic efficiency.
The reason Australia relies so heavily on coal is that we can build a power plant on a coal mine and basically cut out the cost of fuel transportation.
This gives us an economic advantage over our competitors in highly energy intensive industries (like smelting).
No renewable is economically efficient enough for large scale investment.
You do not need academic papers to show this, you just need to look at what companies are building and buying.
CS Energy built a huge waterless coal station called Kogan Creek and Origin built a massive gas fired power station in the last five years which combined dwarf investment in renewable energy over the same period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432995</id>
	<title>Re:kite</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1245681360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a world where all our power comes from giant spinning fans densely scattered around the countryside, only terrorists will have kites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a world where all our power comes from giant spinning fans densely scattered around the countryside , only terrorists will have kites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a world where all our power comes from giant spinning fans densely scattered around the countryside, only terrorists will have kites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438397</id>
	<title>We need better storage!</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1245769920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we could harvest energy from hurricanes, we would could obtain lots of energy. The problem is to store such energy in a permanent medium which is easy to transport.</p><p>We already know where hurricanes are going to pass, each and every year PEMEX oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are evacuated, and at least 1 hurricane hits the Yucatan peninsula every year.</p><p>If wind energy harvesters could be installed in such platforms and the energy stored somewhere safe until transported to the surface, a huge amount of energy could be obtained.</p><p>I know this is a lot of speculation (just count the number of "could" words in this message) but maybe using something like hydrogen generators might be the answer...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we could harvest energy from hurricanes , we would could obtain lots of energy .
The problem is to store such energy in a permanent medium which is easy to transport.We already know where hurricanes are going to pass , each and every year PEMEX oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are evacuated , and at least 1 hurricane hits the Yucatan peninsula every year.If wind energy harvesters could be installed in such platforms and the energy stored somewhere safe until transported to the surface , a huge amount of energy could be obtained.I know this is a lot of speculation ( just count the number of " could " words in this message ) but maybe using something like hydrogen generators might be the answer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we could harvest energy from hurricanes, we would could obtain lots of energy.
The problem is to store such energy in a permanent medium which is easy to transport.We already know where hurricanes are going to pass, each and every year PEMEX oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are evacuated, and at least 1 hurricane hits the Yucatan peninsula every year.If wind energy harvesters could be installed in such platforms and the energy stored somewhere safe until transported to the surface, a huge amount of energy could be obtained.I know this is a lot of speculation (just count the number of "could" words in this message) but maybe using something like hydrogen generators might be the answer...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432421</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting counter-article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245678600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even this extremely pessimistic analysis is still good value for what is on offer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even this extremely pessimistic analysis is still good value for what is on offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even this extremely pessimistic analysis is still good value for what is on offer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437025</id>
	<title>Re:Cost? $$ and practicality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245760440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm, <a href="http://www.desertec.org/" title="desertec.org" rel="nofollow">some people</a> [desertec.org] seem to think that filling huge parts of earth with solar thermal plants is not only practical but also an opportunity to cash in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm , some people [ desertec.org ] seem to think that filling huge parts of earth with solar thermal plants is not only practical but also an opportunity to cash in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm, some people [desertec.org] seem to think that filling huge parts of earth with solar thermal plants is not only practical but also an opportunity to cash in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433927</id>
	<title>Nuclear is better</title>
	<author>junglebeast</author>
	<datestamp>1245686820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, calculations suggest that if the entire surface of the globe were converted into a massive nuclear reactor, then we could get exceed the world's energy needs by over 1 million times.  Further research will discuss possible environmental impacts of eliminating all plant and animal life, as well as using nuclear waste as drinking water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , calculations suggest that if the entire surface of the globe were converted into a massive nuclear reactor , then we could get exceed the world 's energy needs by over 1 million times .
Further research will discuss possible environmental impacts of eliminating all plant and animal life , as well as using nuclear waste as drinking water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, calculations suggest that if the entire surface of the globe were converted into a massive nuclear reactor, then we could get exceed the world's energy needs by over 1 million times.
Further research will discuss possible environmental impacts of eliminating all plant and animal life, as well as using nuclear waste as drinking water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435003</id>
	<title>Re:Impact on birds...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245694620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't matter. You can erect five turbines and use the energy output from them to make a hundred more. With those hundred turbines you can make ten thousand. It's called a wind<i>farm</i> because that's where you breed new turbines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't matter .
You can erect five turbines and use the energy output from them to make a hundred more .
With those hundred turbines you can make ten thousand .
It 's called a windfarm because that 's where you breed new turbines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't matter.
You can erect five turbines and use the energy output from them to make a hundred more.
With those hundred turbines you can make ten thousand.
It's called a windfarm because that's where you breed new turbines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432265</id>
	<title>What are "needs" ?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1245677880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It bothers me when people talk about our energy "needs", as though without some particular number of number of Watts, the world ends.</p><p>Are they better considered our energy "wants at a given price point"?</p><p>When I hear "need", but don't hear a "for what" part soon after, I get suspicious.  Was the term "energy <i>needs</i>" a rhetorical device introduced by governments or energy suppliers to distract from the fact that we can live on varying amounts of energy consumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It bothers me when people talk about our energy " needs " , as though without some particular number of number of Watts , the world ends.Are they better considered our energy " wants at a given price point " ? When I hear " need " , but do n't hear a " for what " part soon after , I get suspicious .
Was the term " energy needs " a rhetorical device introduced by governments or energy suppliers to distract from the fact that we can live on varying amounts of energy consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It bothers me when people talk about our energy "needs", as though without some particular number of number of Watts, the world ends.Are they better considered our energy "wants at a given price point"?When I hear "need", but don't hear a "for what" part soon after, I get suspicious.
Was the term "energy needs" a rhetorical device introduced by governments or energy suppliers to distract from the fact that we can live on varying amounts of energy consumption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28449327</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>jamesswift</author>
	<datestamp>1245781380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention that groups of people have always had tendencies to link all sorts of random things with their ailments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that groups of people have always had tendencies to link all sorts of random things with their ailments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that groups of people have always had tendencies to link all sorts of random things with their ailments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431351</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>FishTankX</author>
	<datestamp>1245673920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The answer to this is fuel cell plants powered by hydrogen derived from electrolysis. Supplemented by nuclear baseload power if desired.

There have been some good advances in cheaper electrolysis latley.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to this is fuel cell plants powered by hydrogen derived from electrolysis .
Supplemented by nuclear baseload power if desired .
There have been some good advances in cheaper electrolysis latley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to this is fuel cell plants powered by hydrogen derived from electrolysis.
Supplemented by nuclear baseload power if desired.
There have been some good advances in cheaper electrolysis latley.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28441589</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>teklob</author>
	<datestamp>1245782100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this a joke? I remember laughing in high school physics about the absurdity of electrolysing water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then recombining it again in an attempt to have a net gain of energy from the process. It would be a perfect solution if not for that pesky first law of thermodynamics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a joke ?
I remember laughing in high school physics about the absurdity of electrolysing water into hydrogen and oxygen , and then recombining it again in an attempt to have a net gain of energy from the process .
It would be a perfect solution if not for that pesky first law of thermodynamics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a joke?
I remember laughing in high school physics about the absurdity of electrolysing water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then recombining it again in an attempt to have a net gain of energy from the process.
It would be a perfect solution if not for that pesky first law of thermodynamics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434541</id>
	<title>typo in summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3300 sq.km. = 1274.13712 sq. mi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3300 sq.km .
= 1274.13712 sq .
mi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3300 sq.km.
= 1274.13712 sq.
mi</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431923</id>
	<title>Learn the goddam metric system ffs</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1245676320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>3300 square kilometers is 1275 square miles, not 2000.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3300 square kilometers is 1275 square miles , not 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3300 square kilometers is 1275 square miles, not 2000.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438435</id>
	<title>Re:What are "needs" ?</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1245770100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It bothers me when people talk about our energy "needs", as though without some particular number of number of Watts, the world ends.</p><p>Are they better considered our energy "wants at a given price point"?</p><p>When I hear "need", but don't hear a "for what" part soon after, I get suspicious.  Was the term "energy <i>needs</i>" a rhetorical device introduced by governments or energy suppliers to distract from the fact that we can live on varying amounts of energy consumption.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.earthday.net/footprint/flash.html" title="earthday.net" rel="nofollow">You can get an idea of yours here</a> [earthday.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It bothers me when people talk about our energy " needs " , as though without some particular number of number of Watts , the world ends.Are they better considered our energy " wants at a given price point " ? When I hear " need " , but do n't hear a " for what " part soon after , I get suspicious .
Was the term " energy needs " a rhetorical device introduced by governments or energy suppliers to distract from the fact that we can live on varying amounts of energy consumption .
You can get an idea of yours here [ earthday.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It bothers me when people talk about our energy "needs", as though without some particular number of number of Watts, the world ends.Are they better considered our energy "wants at a given price point"?When I hear "need", but don't hear a "for what" part soon after, I get suspicious.
Was the term "energy needs" a rhetorical device introduced by governments or energy suppliers to distract from the fact that we can live on varying amounts of energy consumption.
You can get an idea of yours here [earthday.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</id>
	<title>An interesting counter-article</title>
	<author>dougsyo</author>
	<datestamp>1245674100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was looking for a quote about "open mouth, change feet" - completely unrelated to this topic - just a few moments ago, and ran across this post that really fits:</p><p><a href="http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/salazars-wind-power-first-open-mouth-then-change-feet/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/salazars-wind-power-first-open-mouth-then-change-feet/</a> [wordpress.com]</p><p>The summary of the numbers in that article (replacing US coal-burning plants with offshore east coast windmills):</p><p>So, we have, just for the towers nacelles and fans:<br>- A workforce of 170,000 people, just to work at the plants to construct them.<br>- 120 huge factories to construct.<br>- Wind towers every 375 feet for the whole length of the Atlantic Coastline and stacked 38 rows deep.<br>- Construct those towers, nacelles and fans at the rate of one every 8 minutes for 40 years, in the Atlantic Ocean.<br>- $10.4 Trillion in today's dollars (conservatively).</p><p>It gets more ludicrous than that, when you consider continental shelf, keeping shipping lanes open, etc.</p><p>Admitted, adding on-shore windmills would be more doable, but still - it is quite pricey and impractical.</p><p>Doug</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was looking for a quote about " open mouth , change feet " - completely unrelated to this topic - just a few moments ago , and ran across this post that really fits : http : //papundits.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/salazars-wind-power-first-open-mouth-then-change-feet/ [ wordpress.com ] The summary of the numbers in that article ( replacing US coal-burning plants with offshore east coast windmills ) : So , we have , just for the towers nacelles and fans : - A workforce of 170,000 people , just to work at the plants to construct them.- 120 huge factories to construct.- Wind towers every 375 feet for the whole length of the Atlantic Coastline and stacked 38 rows deep.- Construct those towers , nacelles and fans at the rate of one every 8 minutes for 40 years , in the Atlantic Ocean.- $ 10.4 Trillion in today 's dollars ( conservatively ) .It gets more ludicrous than that , when you consider continental shelf , keeping shipping lanes open , etc.Admitted , adding on-shore windmills would be more doable , but still - it is quite pricey and impractical.Doug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was looking for a quote about "open mouth, change feet" - completely unrelated to this topic - just a few moments ago, and ran across this post that really fits:http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/salazars-wind-power-first-open-mouth-then-change-feet/ [wordpress.com]The summary of the numbers in that article (replacing US coal-burning plants with offshore east coast windmills):So, we have, just for the towers nacelles and fans:- A workforce of 170,000 people, just to work at the plants to construct them.- 120 huge factories to construct.- Wind towers every 375 feet for the whole length of the Atlantic Coastline and stacked 38 rows deep.- Construct those towers, nacelles and fans at the rate of one every 8 minutes for 40 years, in the Atlantic Ocean.- $10.4 Trillion in today's dollars (conservatively).It gets more ludicrous than that, when you consider continental shelf, keeping shipping lanes open, etc.Admitted, adding on-shore windmills would be more doable, but still - it is quite pricey and impractical.Doug
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437289</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245763200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And another exception: cosmic radiation. Certainly not enough for powerplants but certainly not less than a Joule<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And another exception : cosmic radiation .
Certainly not enough for powerplants but certainly not less than a Joule : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And another exception: cosmic radiation.
Certainly not enough for powerplants but certainly not less than a Joule :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431317</id>
	<title>I think we're missing the point here...</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1245673860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: "despite these limitations, it is clear that wind power could make a significant contribution to the demand for electricity"</p><p>I don't think they're saying that the would <i>should</i> be entirely wind-powered.  They're pointing out that there's so much untapped wind power that we should stop thinking about wind power as only a minor source of energy and invest more toward developing the resource.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " despite these limitations , it is clear that wind power could make a significant contribution to the demand for electricity " I do n't think they 're saying that the would should be entirely wind-powered .
They 're pointing out that there 's so much untapped wind power that we should stop thinking about wind power as only a minor source of energy and invest more toward developing the resource .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "despite these limitations, it is clear that wind power could make a significant contribution to the demand for electricity"I don't think they're saying that the would should be entirely wind-powered.
They're pointing out that there's so much untapped wind power that we should stop thinking about wind power as only a minor source of energy and invest more toward developing the resource.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436583</id>
	<title>Not the whole answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245755160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem 1 - practical: At near-ground level, wind doesn't blow all the time. Until you've got practical storage mechanisms to smooth out any extended periods, or practical approaches to harvesting wind energy at higher altitude, wind is never going to be more than a very modest component of the overall energy equation.</p><p>Problem 2 - aesthetic/quality of life. In denser-populated parts of the world, many of the "best" locations for wind turbines are also areas of comparatively untouched country, with a recognised value resources in their own rights. Again, the reality of the technology as it currently stands comes into the equation - it can't yet deliver more than a very small fraction of what its proponents claim as its potential. And until it matures (if it ever does) and becomes genuinely capable of delivering a significant proportion of our overall needs, and we can have a sensible discussion about the whole topic, allowing those natural resources to be despoiled for the sake of dogma is something we do at our peril.<br>(Putting that last paragraph differently - if we could get a continuous, say, 50\% of our energy from wind, and an essential part of that picture was wind turbines all over the hills of some of our most picturesque countryside, then we could at least talk about the subject. But while all we're getting is an intermittent 3-4\% of our needs (the current figure here in the UK right now), there's no contest. Countryside first. Come back when the technology's mature and we'll talk again.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem 1 - practical : At near-ground level , wind does n't blow all the time .
Until you 've got practical storage mechanisms to smooth out any extended periods , or practical approaches to harvesting wind energy at higher altitude , wind is never going to be more than a very modest component of the overall energy equation.Problem 2 - aesthetic/quality of life .
In denser-populated parts of the world , many of the " best " locations for wind turbines are also areas of comparatively untouched country , with a recognised value resources in their own rights .
Again , the reality of the technology as it currently stands comes into the equation - it ca n't yet deliver more than a very small fraction of what its proponents claim as its potential .
And until it matures ( if it ever does ) and becomes genuinely capable of delivering a significant proportion of our overall needs , and we can have a sensible discussion about the whole topic , allowing those natural resources to be despoiled for the sake of dogma is something we do at our peril .
( Putting that last paragraph differently - if we could get a continuous , say , 50 \ % of our energy from wind , and an essential part of that picture was wind turbines all over the hills of some of our most picturesque countryside , then we could at least talk about the subject .
But while all we 're getting is an intermittent 3-4 \ % of our needs ( the current figure here in the UK right now ) , there 's no contest .
Countryside first .
Come back when the technology 's mature and we 'll talk again .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem 1 - practical: At near-ground level, wind doesn't blow all the time.
Until you've got practical storage mechanisms to smooth out any extended periods, or practical approaches to harvesting wind energy at higher altitude, wind is never going to be more than a very modest component of the overall energy equation.Problem 2 - aesthetic/quality of life.
In denser-populated parts of the world, many of the "best" locations for wind turbines are also areas of comparatively untouched country, with a recognised value resources in their own rights.
Again, the reality of the technology as it currently stands comes into the equation - it can't yet deliver more than a very small fraction of what its proponents claim as its potential.
And until it matures (if it ever does) and becomes genuinely capable of delivering a significant proportion of our overall needs, and we can have a sensible discussion about the whole topic, allowing those natural resources to be despoiled for the sake of dogma is something we do at our peril.
(Putting that last paragraph differently - if we could get a continuous, say, 50\% of our energy from wind, and an essential part of that picture was wind turbines all over the hills of some of our most picturesque countryside, then we could at least talk about the subject.
But while all we're getting is an intermittent 3-4\% of our needs (the current figure here in the UK right now), there's no contest.
Countryside first.
Come back when the technology's mature and we'll talk again.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437691</id>
	<title>Wow this is news?</title>
	<author>Flentil</author>
	<datestamp>1245766080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay then this will blow your mind... We could also power the entire planet using nothing but solar power!  100\%!  Better still, that's only scratching the surface of whats possible with solar energy.  We can fully power any number of space colonies, moonbases, spacewheel hubs etc, ALL FROM THE SUN!  100\%  Even more mind blowing is that we've had the tech to do this for decades and we don't care enough to do it because nobody can figure out how to make ongoing profits from it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay then this will blow your mind... We could also power the entire planet using nothing but solar power !
100 \ % ! Better still , that 's only scratching the surface of whats possible with solar energy .
We can fully power any number of space colonies , moonbases , spacewheel hubs etc , ALL FROM THE SUN !
100 \ % Even more mind blowing is that we 've had the tech to do this for decades and we do n't care enough to do it because nobody can figure out how to make ongoing profits from it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay then this will blow your mind... We could also power the entire planet using nothing but solar power!
100\%!  Better still, that's only scratching the surface of whats possible with solar energy.
We can fully power any number of space colonies, moonbases, spacewheel hubs etc, ALL FROM THE SUN!
100\%  Even more mind blowing is that we've had the tech to do this for decades and we don't care enough to do it because nobody can figure out how to make ongoing profits from it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440093</id>
	<title>CNN article</title>
	<author>wfeick</author>
	<datestamp>1245776700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good discussion of scale that puts things in perspective was published on CNN not long ago...</p><p>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html?iref=newssearch" title="cnn.com">http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html?iref=newssearch</a> [cnn.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good discussion of scale that puts things in perspective was published on CNN not long ago.. . http : //www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html ? iref = newssearch [ cnn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good discussion of scale that puts things in perspective was published on CNN not long ago...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html?iref=newssearch [cnn.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431723</id>
	<title>Re:Cost? $$ and practicality?</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1245675360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but we do not have an infinite coal ressource, but solar resource seems infinite (Of course it is not, but we will have worse problem to deal with at this time).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but we do not have an infinite coal ressource , but solar resource seems infinite ( Of course it is not , but we will have worse problem to deal with at this time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but we do not have an infinite coal ressource, but solar resource seems infinite (Of course it is not, but we will have worse problem to deal with at this time).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431869</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1245676080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, you'd be surprised, inflammation and poor sleep are linked to all kinds of different diseases. Admittedly the degree of actual support in the documentation varies widely depending upon the specifics, but I definitely wouldn't rule out her claims on a brief look.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you 'd be surprised , inflammation and poor sleep are linked to all kinds of different diseases .
Admittedly the degree of actual support in the documentation varies widely depending upon the specifics , but I definitely would n't rule out her claims on a brief look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you'd be surprised, inflammation and poor sleep are linked to all kinds of different diseases.
Admittedly the degree of actual support in the documentation varies widely depending upon the specifics, but I definitely wouldn't rule out her claims on a brief look.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432183</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting counter-article</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1245677460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I looked into that post.  It makes some good points, but it was trying to refute a specific assertion (that off-shore turbines could replace coal plants), not look at the overall practicality of wind power.  It assumed no on-land turbines, only off-shore ones and that the biggest turbine was 3MW.</p><p>So you put most of the turbines on land which eliminates most of the land-area problem.  Turbines have gone from 3MW to 4.5MW turbines (which are available now) in the last 5 years or so, and I can imagine them doubling again (6MW turbines are already being tested).  Now you're talking a few hundred thousand turbines to supply all the electricity in the country.  Even with the low volume today, you're talking about maybe $3-4M installed per turbine, or about $1.2T.  Or less than the cost of all the recent bailouts.  I'm sure there's a lot of games you can play with the numbers, but it doesn't have to be impossible to make a HUGE dent in our oil consumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked into that post .
It makes some good points , but it was trying to refute a specific assertion ( that off-shore turbines could replace coal plants ) , not look at the overall practicality of wind power .
It assumed no on-land turbines , only off-shore ones and that the biggest turbine was 3MW.So you put most of the turbines on land which eliminates most of the land-area problem .
Turbines have gone from 3MW to 4.5MW turbines ( which are available now ) in the last 5 years or so , and I can imagine them doubling again ( 6MW turbines are already being tested ) .
Now you 're talking a few hundred thousand turbines to supply all the electricity in the country .
Even with the low volume today , you 're talking about maybe $ 3-4M installed per turbine , or about $ 1.2T .
Or less than the cost of all the recent bailouts .
I 'm sure there 's a lot of games you can play with the numbers , but it does n't have to be impossible to make a HUGE dent in our oil consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked into that post.
It makes some good points, but it was trying to refute a specific assertion (that off-shore turbines could replace coal plants), not look at the overall practicality of wind power.
It assumed no on-land turbines, only off-shore ones and that the biggest turbine was 3MW.So you put most of the turbines on land which eliminates most of the land-area problem.
Turbines have gone from 3MW to 4.5MW turbines (which are available now) in the last 5 years or so, and I can imagine them doubling again (6MW turbines are already being tested).
Now you're talking a few hundred thousand turbines to supply all the electricity in the country.
Even with the low volume today, you're talking about maybe $3-4M installed per turbine, or about $1.2T.
Or less than the cost of all the recent bailouts.
I'm sure there's a lot of games you can play with the numbers, but it doesn't have to be impossible to make a HUGE dent in our oil consumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436859</id>
	<title>Yes but...</title>
	<author>KneelBeforeZod</author>
	<datestamp>1245758520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What kind of environmental impact would that make?  I remember hearing hydroelectric power being a green source of energy but the dams wreak havoc on the local ecology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of environmental impact would that make ?
I remember hearing hydroelectric power being a green source of energy but the dams wreak havoc on the local ecology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of environmental impact would that make?
I remember hearing hydroelectric power being a green source of energy but the dams wreak havoc on the local ecology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</id>
	<title>Not many choices...</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1245674040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun. The only question is which source is the most economically (from an energy standpoint) obtainable and environmentally sustainable.</p><p>Wind and sun to electric current seem to be the best bets, since they don't require any intermediate steps like biomass or super old biomass, also known as oil. Solar-thermal molten salt storage for overnight and cloudy weather with natural gas backups will probably be the winner for much of our electricity needs. Colder climates will rely on wind and geothermal differential generators.</p><p>The important thing is that we invest now in technologies that allow high efficiency transfers of electricity, because we're going to need to balance the load across the country. This, in combination with building efficiency improvements and abandoning the urban sprawl model, should have us well on our way to sustainability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth , without tapping geothermal sources , originally comes from the sun .
The only question is which source is the most economically ( from an energy standpoint ) obtainable and environmentally sustainable.Wind and sun to electric current seem to be the best bets , since they do n't require any intermediate steps like biomass or super old biomass , also known as oil .
Solar-thermal molten salt storage for overnight and cloudy weather with natural gas backups will probably be the winner for much of our electricity needs .
Colder climates will rely on wind and geothermal differential generators.The important thing is that we invest now in technologies that allow high efficiency transfers of electricity , because we 're going to need to balance the load across the country .
This , in combination with building efficiency improvements and abandoning the urban sprawl model , should have us well on our way to sustainability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.
The only question is which source is the most economically (from an energy standpoint) obtainable and environmentally sustainable.Wind and sun to electric current seem to be the best bets, since they don't require any intermediate steps like biomass or super old biomass, also known as oil.
Solar-thermal molten salt storage for overnight and cloudy weather with natural gas backups will probably be the winner for much of our electricity needs.
Colder climates will rely on wind and geothermal differential generators.The important thing is that we invest now in technologies that allow high efficiency transfers of electricity, because we're going to need to balance the load across the country.
This, in combination with building efficiency improvements and abandoning the urban sprawl model, should have us well on our way to sustainability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432059</id>
	<title>Did they calculate the costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245676920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oblig. Futurama quote:<br>Nixon: "but it damn well better work! we can't spend all of earth's money every day."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oblig .
Futurama quote : Nixon : " but it damn well better work !
we ca n't spend all of earth 's money every day .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oblig.
Futurama quote:Nixon: "but it damn well better work!
we can't spend all of earth's money every day.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431165</id>
	<title>Re:Impact on birds...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And...

How much energy will it take to create these wind turbines?
To erect them?
Maintain them?
Ditto for the network connecting them to the people who want to use the electricity.
How do they expect the worlds energy demand to increase with increased access to energy?
What type of environmental impact would this network have?
Would it have a local/global impact on weather patterns?

These results definitely sound interesting enough to warrant looking into these questions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And.. . How much energy will it take to create these wind turbines ?
To erect them ?
Maintain them ?
Ditto for the network connecting them to the people who want to use the electricity .
How do they expect the worlds energy demand to increase with increased access to energy ?
What type of environmental impact would this network have ?
Would it have a local/global impact on weather patterns ?
These results definitely sound interesting enough to warrant looking into these questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And...

How much energy will it take to create these wind turbines?
To erect them?
Maintain them?
Ditto for the network connecting them to the people who want to use the electricity.
How do they expect the worlds energy demand to increase with increased access to energy?
What type of environmental impact would this network have?
Would it have a local/global impact on weather patterns?
These results definitely sound interesting enough to warrant looking into these questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433661</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>rcw-home</author>
	<datestamp>1245685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's actually another exception: nuclear energy. It comes from supernovas that predate the solar system's formation.</p></div></blockquote><p>
One more exception: Tidal power comes from the earth's rotation in the presence of the sun and the moon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's actually another exception : nuclear energy .
It comes from supernovas that predate the solar system 's formation .
One more exception : Tidal power comes from the earth 's rotation in the presence of the sun and the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's actually another exception: nuclear energy.
It comes from supernovas that predate the solar system's formation.
One more exception: Tidal power comes from the earth's rotation in the presence of the sun and the moon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438073</id>
	<title>Wind + bioenergy</title>
	<author>idigitallDotCom</author>
	<datestamp>1245768180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I reckon they should instead funnel the cr@p and hot air that George Bush emits from his pie-hole into channels for processing. That'll provide more than enough energy for the world and we won't have to 'rape' the earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I reckon they should instead funnel the cr @ p and hot air that George Bush emits from his pie-hole into channels for processing .
That 'll provide more than enough energy for the world and we wo n't have to 'rape ' the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I reckon they should instead funnel the cr@p and hot air that George Bush emits from his pie-hole into channels for processing.
That'll provide more than enough energy for the world and we won't have to 'rape' the earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440713</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245778980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.</p></div><p>As pointed out elsewhere, this is not true. We also get a fair bit of energy from supernova, and even some radiation from the big bang.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only question is which source is the most economically (from an energy standpoint) obtainable and environmentally sustainable.</p></div><p>The answer is: none of what you listed. The correct answer will be: Nuclear. Fission at first most likely, Fusion down the road. That is the only truly sustainable energy resource.<br>Wind, Solar, Hydro, and GeoThermal are not energy sources in of themselves, they are methods of harvesting energy from existing sources and are completely reactionary. i.e. those sources are fully dependent on a different energy source to maintain them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Wind and sun to electric current seem to be the best bets, since they don't require any intermediate steps like biomass or super old biomass, also known as oil.</p></div><p>Solar relies on output of the Sun, as well as lack of clouds and this little thing called "night" tends to get in the way, especially at the poles. Wind relies on atmosphere, and is temperamental at best. So yes, they do rely on intermediate steps, after a fashion, and require huge grids to maintain a balanced load.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The important thing is that we invest now in technologies that allow high efficiency transfers of electricity, because we're going to need to balance the load across the country.</p></div><p>Or we could invest in small, efficient, safe nuclear technologies, which would allow us to localize our energy production and eliminate the need for high-capacity transmission and a sprawling electric grid. This would solve more problems than just the electricity production, reduce copper and tree use, and allow for less waste and ultimately, lower costs &amp; environmental impact.</p><p>The problem is, some people are a bunch of nut jobs who soil themselves any time anybody mentions the word nuclear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth , without tapping geothermal sources , originally comes from the sun.As pointed out elsewhere , this is not true .
We also get a fair bit of energy from supernova , and even some radiation from the big bang.The only question is which source is the most economically ( from an energy standpoint ) obtainable and environmentally sustainable.The answer is : none of what you listed .
The correct answer will be : Nuclear .
Fission at first most likely , Fusion down the road .
That is the only truly sustainable energy resource.Wind , Solar , Hydro , and GeoThermal are not energy sources in of themselves , they are methods of harvesting energy from existing sources and are completely reactionary .
i.e. those sources are fully dependent on a different energy source to maintain them.Wind and sun to electric current seem to be the best bets , since they do n't require any intermediate steps like biomass or super old biomass , also known as oil.Solar relies on output of the Sun , as well as lack of clouds and this little thing called " night " tends to get in the way , especially at the poles .
Wind relies on atmosphere , and is temperamental at best .
So yes , they do rely on intermediate steps , after a fashion , and require huge grids to maintain a balanced load.The important thing is that we invest now in technologies that allow high efficiency transfers of electricity , because we 're going to need to balance the load across the country.Or we could invest in small , efficient , safe nuclear technologies , which would allow us to localize our energy production and eliminate the need for high-capacity transmission and a sprawling electric grid .
This would solve more problems than just the electricity production , reduce copper and tree use , and allow for less waste and ultimately , lower costs &amp; environmental impact.The problem is , some people are a bunch of nut jobs who soil themselves any time anybody mentions the word nuclear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every joule of energy we get on the earth, without tapping geothermal sources, originally comes from the sun.As pointed out elsewhere, this is not true.
We also get a fair bit of energy from supernova, and even some radiation from the big bang.The only question is which source is the most economically (from an energy standpoint) obtainable and environmentally sustainable.The answer is: none of what you listed.
The correct answer will be: Nuclear.
Fission at first most likely, Fusion down the road.
That is the only truly sustainable energy resource.Wind, Solar, Hydro, and GeoThermal are not energy sources in of themselves, they are methods of harvesting energy from existing sources and are completely reactionary.
i.e. those sources are fully dependent on a different energy source to maintain them.Wind and sun to electric current seem to be the best bets, since they don't require any intermediate steps like biomass or super old biomass, also known as oil.Solar relies on output of the Sun, as well as lack of clouds and this little thing called "night" tends to get in the way, especially at the poles.
Wind relies on atmosphere, and is temperamental at best.
So yes, they do rely on intermediate steps, after a fashion, and require huge grids to maintain a balanced load.The important thing is that we invest now in technologies that allow high efficiency transfers of electricity, because we're going to need to balance the load across the country.Or we could invest in small, efficient, safe nuclear technologies, which would allow us to localize our energy production and eliminate the need for high-capacity transmission and a sprawling electric grid.
This would solve more problems than just the electricity production, reduce copper and tree use, and allow for less waste and ultimately, lower costs &amp; environmental impact.The problem is, some people are a bunch of nut jobs who soil themselves any time anybody mentions the word nuclear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435227</id>
	<title>Re:All we need now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245696840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But academics get their money from either the government or industry, so would you accept a drawing on a napkin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But academics get their money from either the government or industry , so would you accept a drawing on a napkin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But academics get their money from either the government or industry, so would you accept a drawing on a napkin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433287</id>
	<title>Diminishing returns</title>
	<author>redtide08</author>
	<datestamp>1245682860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope that this study took into account the fact that the turbines themselves actually REMOVE energy from the atmosphere. You can't just assume that "the wind blows this fast all the time" if you're going to be putting a bunch of structures in the way! The law of diminishing returns has to kick in at some point if you put in enough turbines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that this study took into account the fact that the turbines themselves actually REMOVE energy from the atmosphere .
You ca n't just assume that " the wind blows this fast all the time " if you 're going to be putting a bunch of structures in the way !
The law of diminishing returns has to kick in at some point if you put in enough turbines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that this study took into account the fact that the turbines themselves actually REMOVE energy from the atmosphere.
You can't just assume that "the wind blows this fast all the time" if you're going to be putting a bunch of structures in the way!
The law of diminishing returns has to kick in at some point if you put in enough turbines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251</id>
	<title>All we need now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is a cost effective wind turbine design.  Sheesh.</p><p>I live in Australia and we use coal.  This is not even slightly environmentally responsible.  In an effort to placate the greenies the government has been looking into clean coal and co2 sequestration.  The general opinion of the green movement is that "clean coal" is an oxymoron and co2 sequestration is "just burying the problem".  Wind and solar are continually touted as a realistic solution.  They are not.  If you were to ban coal, they say, wind and solar would be the only option so it would obviously grow.  So long as you maintained our current ban on nuclear of course.  Oh, and ban burning oil.  This is nonsense.  The result would simply be that the cost of power would go through the roof and all our industry would shut down.  The economy would go into the toilet and that would raise the real cost of power to even higher, and the demand would go down even more.  By the end of the year we'd be all living in dirt huts.</p><p>But, ya know, reality.. never let it get in the way of an indignant cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is a cost effective wind turbine design .
Sheesh.I live in Australia and we use coal .
This is not even slightly environmentally responsible .
In an effort to placate the greenies the government has been looking into clean coal and co2 sequestration .
The general opinion of the green movement is that " clean coal " is an oxymoron and co2 sequestration is " just burying the problem " .
Wind and solar are continually touted as a realistic solution .
They are not .
If you were to ban coal , they say , wind and solar would be the only option so it would obviously grow .
So long as you maintained our current ban on nuclear of course .
Oh , and ban burning oil .
This is nonsense .
The result would simply be that the cost of power would go through the roof and all our industry would shut down .
The economy would go into the toilet and that would raise the real cost of power to even higher , and the demand would go down even more .
By the end of the year we 'd be all living in dirt huts.But , ya know , reality.. never let it get in the way of an indignant cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a cost effective wind turbine design.
Sheesh.I live in Australia and we use coal.
This is not even slightly environmentally responsible.
In an effort to placate the greenies the government has been looking into clean coal and co2 sequestration.
The general opinion of the green movement is that "clean coal" is an oxymoron and co2 sequestration is "just burying the problem".
Wind and solar are continually touted as a realistic solution.
They are not.
If you were to ban coal, they say, wind and solar would be the only option so it would obviously grow.
So long as you maintained our current ban on nuclear of course.
Oh, and ban burning oil.
This is nonsense.
The result would simply be that the cost of power would go through the roof and all our industry would shut down.
The economy would go into the toilet and that would raise the real cost of power to even higher, and the demand would go down even more.
By the end of the year we'd be all living in dirt huts.But, ya know, reality.. never let it get in the way of an indignant cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432507</id>
	<title>Re:Cost? $$ and practicality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245679020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Can someone please tell me what coal is if it is not carbon sequestration?</i></p><p>Carbon desequestration.  You see, people are taking the coal out of the ground, not putting coal into the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please tell me what coal is if it is not carbon sequestration ? Carbon desequestration .
You see , people are taking the coal out of the ground , not putting coal into the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please tell me what coal is if it is not carbon sequestration?Carbon desequestration.
You see, people are taking the coal out of the ground, not putting coal into the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432975</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting counter-article</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245681240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about all the electric poles to carry the wires to these things everywhere?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about all the electric poles to carry the wires to these things everywhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about all the electric poles to carry the wires to these things everywhere?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434121</id>
	<title>Re:I think we're missing the point here...</title>
	<author>dfenstrate</author>
	<datestamp>1245687900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They're pointing out that there's so much untapped wind power that we should stop thinking about wind power as only a minor source of energy and invest more toward developing the resource.</i></p><p>The problem with wind power is that it's unreliable. We need absurd amounts of power available on command, not only when mother nature feels like delivering it.</p><p>Energy storage is difficult- the only large scale solution that's viable is to build dams in valleys, pump water uphill when the wind blows, and let it through water turbines as required.</p><p>Then of course your environmental impact is tremendous- not only did you mine or recycle the steel, copper, aluminum, etc to make the monstrosities in the first place, but then you covered rolling plains in them, and then you flooded countless square miles so the entire thing could actually work in a stable manner.</p><p>Oh yeah, and you built the damns, poured that concrete, and built all the other generators in the dam.</p><p>Lots of folks seem to think that you just make a wind turbine, hook it up to the grid, and when it generates electricity, the birds sing and the unicorns fart rainbows.</p><p>It ain't so. The grid has to be stable, wind isn't stable, so wind power is limited to supply only what actual power plants can replace rapidly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're pointing out that there 's so much untapped wind power that we should stop thinking about wind power as only a minor source of energy and invest more toward developing the resource.The problem with wind power is that it 's unreliable .
We need absurd amounts of power available on command , not only when mother nature feels like delivering it.Energy storage is difficult- the only large scale solution that 's viable is to build dams in valleys , pump water uphill when the wind blows , and let it through water turbines as required.Then of course your environmental impact is tremendous- not only did you mine or recycle the steel , copper , aluminum , etc to make the monstrosities in the first place , but then you covered rolling plains in them , and then you flooded countless square miles so the entire thing could actually work in a stable manner.Oh yeah , and you built the damns , poured that concrete , and built all the other generators in the dam.Lots of folks seem to think that you just make a wind turbine , hook it up to the grid , and when it generates electricity , the birds sing and the unicorns fart rainbows.It ai n't so .
The grid has to be stable , wind is n't stable , so wind power is limited to supply only what actual power plants can replace rapidly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're pointing out that there's so much untapped wind power that we should stop thinking about wind power as only a minor source of energy and invest more toward developing the resource.The problem with wind power is that it's unreliable.
We need absurd amounts of power available on command, not only when mother nature feels like delivering it.Energy storage is difficult- the only large scale solution that's viable is to build dams in valleys, pump water uphill when the wind blows, and let it through water turbines as required.Then of course your environmental impact is tremendous- not only did you mine or recycle the steel, copper, aluminum, etc to make the monstrosities in the first place, but then you covered rolling plains in them, and then you flooded countless square miles so the entire thing could actually work in a stable manner.Oh yeah, and you built the damns, poured that concrete, and built all the other generators in the dam.Lots of folks seem to think that you just make a wind turbine, hook it up to the grid, and when it generates electricity, the birds sing and the unicorns fart rainbows.It ain't so.
The grid has to be stable, wind isn't stable, so wind power is limited to supply only what actual power plants can replace rapidly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431199</id>
	<title>Offshore</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245673440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've often thought that if it's economically viable to go to the trouble of all that engineering for offshore oil exploration, extraction and processing, surely it's viable to build vast offshore wind farms where there's plenty of room, plenty of wind, and no neighbours to object.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've often thought that if it 's economically viable to go to the trouble of all that engineering for offshore oil exploration , extraction and processing , surely it 's viable to build vast offshore wind farms where there 's plenty of room , plenty of wind , and no neighbours to object .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've often thought that if it's economically viable to go to the trouble of all that engineering for offshore oil exploration, extraction and processing, surely it's viable to build vast offshore wind farms where there's plenty of room, plenty of wind, and no neighbours to object.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093</id>
	<title>Except</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now people are <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081223/wfive\_windmills\_081227/20081227" title="www.ctv.ca">whining</a> [www.ctv.ca] about the noise and environmental impact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now people are whining [ www.ctv.ca ] about the noise and environmental impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now people are whining [www.ctv.ca] about the noise and environmental impact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433805</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245686040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh I read a nice study on the impact of high voltage lines on the health of people leaving below.
The study showed a correlation between the presence of these lines and strange health diseases.... even when the lines where powered down... Nocebo effect is the worst thing to fight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh I read a nice study on the impact of high voltage lines on the health of people leaving below .
The study showed a correlation between the presence of these lines and strange health diseases.... even when the lines where powered down... Nocebo effect is the worst thing to fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh I read a nice study on the impact of high voltage lines on the health of people leaving below.
The study showed a correlation between the presence of these lines and strange health diseases.... even when the lines where powered down... Nocebo effect is the worst thing to fight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433771</id>
	<title>GE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will buy off on this plan if there are 2 OTHER companies other than GE building these turbo fans. Otherwise 10 Trillion and years worth of work is a heavy motive for misconduct for anyone..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will buy off on this plan if there are 2 OTHER companies other than GE building these turbo fans .
Otherwise 10 Trillion and years worth of work is a heavy motive for misconduct for anyone. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will buy off on this plan if there are 2 OTHER companies other than GE building these turbo fans.
Otherwise 10 Trillion and years worth of work is a heavy motive for misconduct for anyone..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185</id>
	<title>Math</title>
	<author>psyclone</author>
	<datestamp>1245673380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>researchers found that wind energy could not only supply all of the world's energy requirements, but it could provide over <b>forty times</b> the world's current electrical consumption and over <b>five times</b> the global use of total energy needs.</p></div><p>So which is it?  Forty times or five times the world/globe's current energy use?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>researchers found that wind energy could not only supply all of the world 's energy requirements , but it could provide over forty times the world 's current electrical consumption and over five times the global use of total energy needs.So which is it ?
Forty times or five times the world/globe 's current energy use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>researchers found that wind energy could not only supply all of the world's energy requirements, but it could provide over forty times the world's current electrical consumption and over five times the global use of total energy needs.So which is it?
Forty times or five times the world/globe's current energy use?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437485</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1245764760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well there is a difference on how much of the energy you gather from the Sun - Earth temperature difference and the Earth - Backgroung temperature difference. Theoreticaly, you could use all the energy from the Sun 2 times.</p><p>There is also nuclear, like a previous poster said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well there is a difference on how much of the energy you gather from the Sun - Earth temperature difference and the Earth - Backgroung temperature difference .
Theoreticaly , you could use all the energy from the Sun 2 times.There is also nuclear , like a previous poster said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well there is a difference on how much of the energy you gather from the Sun - Earth temperature difference and the Earth - Backgroung temperature difference.
Theoreticaly, you could use all the energy from the Sun 2 times.There is also nuclear, like a previous poster said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431299</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they mean 40x the ELECTRICAL consumption, like the electricity you use in your house to power your computer, but 5x total consumption, like the gas we use in cars and to heat our homes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they mean 40x the ELECTRICAL consumption , like the electricity you use in your house to power your computer , but 5x total consumption , like the gas we use in cars and to heat our homes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they mean 40x the ELECTRICAL consumption, like the electricity you use in your house to power your computer, but 5x total consumption, like the gas we use in cars and to heat our homes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431021</id>
	<title>Impact on birds...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245672900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...would be bloody terminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...would be bloody terminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...would be bloody terminal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434779</id>
	<title>Not enough copper to build the wind farms</title>
	<author>dododuh</author>
	<datestamp>1245692460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with this model is that it is predicated on highly distributed wind farms. This means extending the grid out to 200 miles offshore and covering the mountains and plains with it. We just don't have that much copper, as <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=measure-of-metal-supply-f" title="scientificamerican.com" rel="nofollow">Scientific American</a> [scientificamerican.com] points out. Wind sounds good, but only nuclear gives us the point-source density needed to allow distribution to population centers with our available copper constraints.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this model is that it is predicated on highly distributed wind farms .
This means extending the grid out to 200 miles offshore and covering the mountains and plains with it .
We just do n't have that much copper , as Scientific American [ scientificamerican.com ] points out .
Wind sounds good , but only nuclear gives us the point-source density needed to allow distribution to population centers with our available copper constraints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this model is that it is predicated on highly distributed wind farms.
This means extending the grid out to 200 miles offshore and covering the mountains and plains with it.
We just don't have that much copper, as Scientific American [scientificamerican.com] points out.
Wind sounds good, but only nuclear gives us the point-source density needed to allow distribution to population centers with our available copper constraints.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433737</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1245685620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are tons of ways to store the energy, we just haven't started doing it yet.</p><p>Take the columbia river gorge wind turbines.  They are situated along the top of the river gorge which is very deep.  I could envision that elevation difference being used in conjunction with water turbines to produce electricity.  When the turbine is producing more than the grid needs, pump water up the hill to tanks.  When the turbines aren't producing enough, let the water flow down the hill in pipes through a water turbine.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage\_hydroelectricity" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage\_hydroelectricity</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Another thing being worked on, is a 'smart grid'.  Wind is always blowing "somewhere".  We just need a smarter grid that can better move the power around.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart\_grid" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart\_grid</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are tons of ways to store the energy , we just have n't started doing it yet.Take the columbia river gorge wind turbines .
They are situated along the top of the river gorge which is very deep .
I could envision that elevation difference being used in conjunction with water turbines to produce electricity .
When the turbine is producing more than the grid needs , pump water up the hill to tanks .
When the turbines are n't producing enough , let the water flow down the hill in pipes through a water turbine.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage \ _hydroelectricity [ wikipedia.org ] Another thing being worked on , is a 'smart grid' .
Wind is always blowing " somewhere " .
We just need a smarter grid that can better move the power around.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart \ _grid [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are tons of ways to store the energy, we just haven't started doing it yet.Take the columbia river gorge wind turbines.
They are situated along the top of the river gorge which is very deep.
I could envision that elevation difference being used in conjunction with water turbines to produce electricity.
When the turbine is producing more than the grid needs, pump water up the hill to tanks.
When the turbines aren't producing enough, let the water flow down the hill in pipes through a water turbine.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage\_hydroelectricity [wikipedia.org]Another thing being worked on, is a 'smart grid'.
Wind is always blowing "somewhere".
We just need a smarter grid that can better move the power around.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart\_grid [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431369</id>
	<title>News From Slashdot 2029</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientists confirmed today that Global Slowing is real.  After years of speculation, it's now been confirmed that our harnessing of wind power for our energy needs is slowing the Earth down, and within a matter of decades, the  Earth will come to a complete stop.  Scientists are currently unsure whether this Global Slowing can be reversed, but some have proposed using fossil fuels to create artificial wind to help the Earth keep moving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists confirmed today that Global Slowing is real .
After years of speculation , it 's now been confirmed that our harnessing of wind power for our energy needs is slowing the Earth down , and within a matter of decades , the Earth will come to a complete stop .
Scientists are currently unsure whether this Global Slowing can be reversed , but some have proposed using fossil fuels to create artificial wind to help the Earth keep moving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists confirmed today that Global Slowing is real.
After years of speculation, it's now been confirmed that our harnessing of wind power for our energy needs is slowing the Earth down, and within a matter of decades, the  Earth will come to a complete stop.
Scientists are currently unsure whether this Global Slowing can be reversed, but some have proposed using fossil fuels to create artificial wind to help the Earth keep moving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435373</id>
	<title>Sure, wind could do it. So could solar</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245698220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But is it practical? It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing "clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream, technology doesn't exist, etc., and then turning around and throwing scheme's like these out there as perfectly reasonable.</i></p><p>Last I read there's not one "clean coal" plant in production.  But there are a number of both solar and wind farms in production.  Do you recall the <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/enron-caused-california-blackouts-traders-say" title="marketwatch.com">rolling blackouts</a> [marketwatch.com] in CA in 2000?  What most people do not know is that there was an <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0331-01.htm" title="commondreams.org">idle wind farm</a> [commondreams.org] that could have been contributing more than 200 megawatts of electricity but wasn't.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But is it practical ?
It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing " clean " coal ( aka carbon sequestration ) as a pipe dream , technology does n't exist , etc. , and then turning around and throwing scheme 's like these out there as perfectly reasonable.Last I read there 's not one " clean coal " plant in production .
But there are a number of both solar and wind farms in production .
Do you recall the rolling blackouts [ marketwatch.com ] in CA in 2000 ?
What most people do not know is that there was an idle wind farm [ commondreams.org ] that could have been contributing more than 200 megawatts of electricity but was n't .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But is it practical?
It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing "clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream, technology doesn't exist, etc., and then turning around and throwing scheme's like these out there as perfectly reasonable.Last I read there's not one "clean coal" plant in production.
But there are a number of both solar and wind farms in production.
Do you recall the rolling blackouts [marketwatch.com] in CA in 2000?
What most people do not know is that there was an idle wind farm [commondreams.org] that could have been contributing more than 200 megawatts of electricity but wasn't.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437779</id>
	<title>Stupid Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245766440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a really stupid question but what is the impact of taking energy out of the wind? Do the turbines slow the wind down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a really stupid question but what is the impact of taking energy out of the wind ?
Do the turbines slow the wind down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a really stupid question but what is the impact of taking energy out of the wind?
Do the turbines slow the wind down?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431961</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1245676440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The major problem with wind and sun, appart from efficiency, is one of storage.  Biomass and super old biomass (I like that name) are both fairly easy to store.  They don't release their energy until you take action.  Electricity generated by wind and solar can be stored, but we lack the technology and infrastructure to store it long term.  Even if this article is accurate, and achieveable.  We still need to find a way to store all of that electricity to deal with lulls and peaks in demand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The major problem with wind and sun , appart from efficiency , is one of storage .
Biomass and super old biomass ( I like that name ) are both fairly easy to store .
They do n't release their energy until you take action .
Electricity generated by wind and solar can be stored , but we lack the technology and infrastructure to store it long term .
Even if this article is accurate , and achieveable .
We still need to find a way to store all of that electricity to deal with lulls and peaks in demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The major problem with wind and sun, appart from efficiency, is one of storage.
Biomass and super old biomass (I like that name) are both fairly easy to store.
They don't release their energy until you take action.
Electricity generated by wind and solar can be stored, but we lack the technology and infrastructure to store it long term.
Even if this article is accurate, and achieveable.
We still need to find a way to store all of that electricity to deal with lulls and peaks in demand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433477</id>
	<title>What about running them in reverse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you run the entire lot in reverse and create a massive hurricane or something?</p><p>How many would you need?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you run the entire lot in reverse and create a massive hurricane or something ? How many would you need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you run the entire lot in reverse and create a massive hurricane or something?How many would you need?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431217</id>
	<title>The world has a surplus of solar and wind power</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1245673500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our reserves of this are so massive that we could easily provide the total global energy needs just from solar or wind in the USA alone.</p><p>Including the loss from storing said energy for transmission and usage.</p><p>That said, all energy sources have pros and cons. Some are extreme (nuclear,coal) but even the most benign source has impacts.</p><p>The same goes for tidal and geothermal.</p><p>But only oil, coal, and nuclear fission will likely lead to the extinction of our species due to the greed of the people involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our reserves of this are so massive that we could easily provide the total global energy needs just from solar or wind in the USA alone.Including the loss from storing said energy for transmission and usage.That said , all energy sources have pros and cons .
Some are extreme ( nuclear,coal ) but even the most benign source has impacts.The same goes for tidal and geothermal.But only oil , coal , and nuclear fission will likely lead to the extinction of our species due to the greed of the people involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our reserves of this are so massive that we could easily provide the total global energy needs just from solar or wind in the USA alone.Including the loss from storing said energy for transmission and usage.That said, all energy sources have pros and cons.
Some are extreme (nuclear,coal) but even the most benign source has impacts.The same goes for tidal and geothermal.But only oil, coal, and nuclear fission will likely lead to the extinction of our species due to the greed of the people involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440435</id>
	<title>Neat notion. Inadvisable to do though..</title>
	<author>dawning</author>
	<datestamp>1245778020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just took an excellent course at the University of Calgary where my prof David Keith (a god on this subject matter, go look the man up, seriously).. Discussed all sorts of world energy systems. One thing he discussed was that he conducted a study on the notion of how massive adoption of wind power would affect the climate. He found that there would be significant climate implications of harvesting vast amounts of kinetic energy from the atmosphere. Global climate would be seriously affected. Apparently Keith and his peers were shunned rather harshly for presenting that finding, makes you wonder what people's agendas are.. Anyway, I'm not saying it'd be better or worse to invoke that change, but it would be a different climate. Is that a lesser evil than dumping more and more CO2 in to the atmosphere? I think probably yes. Though I doubt we can really predict who would be affected most. Nevertheless, we don't have remotely effective means of storing lots of wind generated power. And you all love that the light comes on right away when you flip the switch.

For now the only global power generation technology we have that can function on demand, can be used safely, is well understood and doesn't inherently provoke climate change is nuclear power. People concerned about the waste products of nuclear power should understand that we have the knowledge to handle radioactive materials safely. Besides, the vast majority of the usable power is still present in the current output "spent" fuel. With sufficient motivation, we can reprocess that and get even more energy out. PS - if your fears are inspired by "Three Mile Island", you should go read what really happened. If you're concerned about Chernobyl - that was a garbage reactor design to fail in to a meltdown plus Russia tried to cover it up, which made the situation a lot worse. If one of the first gas engines had exploded, and thus the tech was dumped, we collectively would have missed out pretty harshly.

Fact is, everything we do has a consequence. And I think the solution to our environmental &amp; energy issues requires that we optimize on all fronts. We should continue to search for means to need less energy and produce it through a large range of processes. Part of that is not doing what's cool, but what works well. Solar Arrays (Photovoltaics) are awesome in space or remote places, they make sense there. However, I've been led to believe that it takes a very long time for them to collect the necessary power to make up for what it took to manufacture them...

Bah, anyway, the list goes on. Keep on thinkin people, sooner or later we'll find a way to harvest infinite power from the ether... or something. Brains unite!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just took an excellent course at the University of Calgary where my prof David Keith ( a god on this subject matter , go look the man up , seriously ) .. Discussed all sorts of world energy systems .
One thing he discussed was that he conducted a study on the notion of how massive adoption of wind power would affect the climate .
He found that there would be significant climate implications of harvesting vast amounts of kinetic energy from the atmosphere .
Global climate would be seriously affected .
Apparently Keith and his peers were shunned rather harshly for presenting that finding , makes you wonder what people 's agendas are.. Anyway , I 'm not saying it 'd be better or worse to invoke that change , but it would be a different climate .
Is that a lesser evil than dumping more and more CO2 in to the atmosphere ?
I think probably yes .
Though I doubt we can really predict who would be affected most .
Nevertheless , we do n't have remotely effective means of storing lots of wind generated power .
And you all love that the light comes on right away when you flip the switch .
For now the only global power generation technology we have that can function on demand , can be used safely , is well understood and does n't inherently provoke climate change is nuclear power .
People concerned about the waste products of nuclear power should understand that we have the knowledge to handle radioactive materials safely .
Besides , the vast majority of the usable power is still present in the current output " spent " fuel .
With sufficient motivation , we can reprocess that and get even more energy out .
PS - if your fears are inspired by " Three Mile Island " , you should go read what really happened .
If you 're concerned about Chernobyl - that was a garbage reactor design to fail in to a meltdown plus Russia tried to cover it up , which made the situation a lot worse .
If one of the first gas engines had exploded , and thus the tech was dumped , we collectively would have missed out pretty harshly .
Fact is , everything we do has a consequence .
And I think the solution to our environmental &amp; energy issues requires that we optimize on all fronts .
We should continue to search for means to need less energy and produce it through a large range of processes .
Part of that is not doing what 's cool , but what works well .
Solar Arrays ( Photovoltaics ) are awesome in space or remote places , they make sense there .
However , I 've been led to believe that it takes a very long time for them to collect the necessary power to make up for what it took to manufacture them.. . Bah , anyway , the list goes on .
Keep on thinkin people , sooner or later we 'll find a way to harvest infinite power from the ether... or something .
Brains unite !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just took an excellent course at the University of Calgary where my prof David Keith (a god on this subject matter, go look the man up, seriously).. Discussed all sorts of world energy systems.
One thing he discussed was that he conducted a study on the notion of how massive adoption of wind power would affect the climate.
He found that there would be significant climate implications of harvesting vast amounts of kinetic energy from the atmosphere.
Global climate would be seriously affected.
Apparently Keith and his peers were shunned rather harshly for presenting that finding, makes you wonder what people's agendas are.. Anyway, I'm not saying it'd be better or worse to invoke that change, but it would be a different climate.
Is that a lesser evil than dumping more and more CO2 in to the atmosphere?
I think probably yes.
Though I doubt we can really predict who would be affected most.
Nevertheless, we don't have remotely effective means of storing lots of wind generated power.
And you all love that the light comes on right away when you flip the switch.
For now the only global power generation technology we have that can function on demand, can be used safely, is well understood and doesn't inherently provoke climate change is nuclear power.
People concerned about the waste products of nuclear power should understand that we have the knowledge to handle radioactive materials safely.
Besides, the vast majority of the usable power is still present in the current output "spent" fuel.
With sufficient motivation, we can reprocess that and get even more energy out.
PS - if your fears are inspired by "Three Mile Island", you should go read what really happened.
If you're concerned about Chernobyl - that was a garbage reactor design to fail in to a meltdown plus Russia tried to cover it up, which made the situation a lot worse.
If one of the first gas engines had exploded, and thus the tech was dumped, we collectively would have missed out pretty harshly.
Fact is, everything we do has a consequence.
And I think the solution to our environmental &amp; energy issues requires that we optimize on all fronts.
We should continue to search for means to need less energy and produce it through a large range of processes.
Part of that is not doing what's cool, but what works well.
Solar Arrays (Photovoltaics) are awesome in space or remote places, they make sense there.
However, I've been led to believe that it takes a very long time for them to collect the necessary power to make up for what it took to manufacture them...

Bah, anyway, the list goes on.
Keep on thinkin people, sooner or later we'll find a way to harvest infinite power from the ether... or something.
Brains unite!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436589</id>
	<title>+1 for Efficiency</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1245755280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When I hear "need", but don't hear a "for what" part soon after, I get suspicious. Was the term "energy needs" a rhetorical device introduced by governments or energy suppliers to distract from the fact that we can live on varying amounts of energy consumption.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Exactly. Especially seeing as how most of our so-called "energy needs" can be eliminated using existing technology. Using 3 tonnes of vehicle with the drag coefficient of a barn door to transport one person to the grocery store is not a need. Heating your non-insulated house so that you can walk around in shorts and a t-shirt in winter is not a need.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I hear " need " , but do n't hear a " for what " part soon after , I get suspicious .
Was the term " energy needs " a rhetorical device introduced by governments or energy suppliers to distract from the fact that we can live on varying amounts of energy consumption .
Exactly. Especially seeing as how most of our so-called " energy needs " can be eliminated using existing technology .
Using 3 tonnes of vehicle with the drag coefficient of a barn door to transport one person to the grocery store is not a need .
Heating your non-insulated house so that you can walk around in shorts and a t-shirt in winter is not a need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I hear "need", but don't hear a "for what" part soon after, I get suspicious.
Was the term "energy needs" a rhetorical device introduced by governments or energy suppliers to distract from the fact that we can live on varying amounts of energy consumption.
Exactly. Especially seeing as how most of our so-called "energy needs" can be eliminated using existing technology.
Using 3 tonnes of vehicle with the drag coefficient of a barn door to transport one person to the grocery store is not a need.
Heating your non-insulated house so that you can walk around in shorts and a t-shirt in winter is not a need.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28449299</id>
	<title>Re:Energy storage?</title>
	<author>Inverted Intellect</author>
	<datestamp>1245781140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel\_energy\_storage" title="wikipedia.org">Flywheels</a> [wikipedia.org] were a decent alternative last I checked. Dunno about initial costs but maintenance is fairly low and life cycle extensive. Manufacture also doesn't have toxic byproducts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flywheels [ wikipedia.org ] were a decent alternative last I checked .
Dunno about initial costs but maintenance is fairly low and life cycle extensive .
Manufacture also does n't have toxic byproducts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flywheels [wikipedia.org] were a decent alternative last I checked.
Dunno about initial costs but maintenance is fairly low and life cycle extensive.
Manufacture also doesn't have toxic byproducts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435325</id>
	<title>anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245697860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i dunno about the noise thing or the ugly thing there is a huge wind farm between clovis and lubbock and it doesn't seem to be hurting anyone.  honestly i can tell you that there is a huge section of land in eastern new mexico that has very little else going for it except that the wind is ALWAYS friggin blowing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i dunno about the noise thing or the ugly thing there is a huge wind farm between clovis and lubbock and it does n't seem to be hurting anyone .
honestly i can tell you that there is a huge section of land in eastern new mexico that has very little else going for it except that the wind is ALWAYS friggin blowing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i dunno about the noise thing or the ugly thing there is a huge wind farm between clovis and lubbock and it doesn't seem to be hurting anyone.
honestly i can tell you that there is a huge section of land in eastern new mexico that has very little else going for it except that the wind is ALWAYS friggin blowing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433371</id>
	<title>A complete backflip</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't a story posted last year that showed if you install enough wind farms on North America to power just USA it would dramatically alter the natural circulation of air around the earth? Anyone who honestly thinks a single source of renewable energy currently available is our solution honestly needs to get their head checked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't a story posted last year that showed if you install enough wind farms on North America to power just USA it would dramatically alter the natural circulation of air around the earth ?
Anyone who honestly thinks a single source of renewable energy currently available is our solution honestly needs to get their head checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't a story posted last year that showed if you install enough wind farms on North America to power just USA it would dramatically alter the natural circulation of air around the earth?
Anyone who honestly thinks a single source of renewable energy currently available is our solution honestly needs to get their head checked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436321</id>
	<title>The vacuum provides all energy we need</title>
	<author>lamare</author>
	<datestamp>1245752040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Too bad nobody seems to realise that we can our all the energy we need right out of the vacuum. The reason we don't do that is because we are being taught that that would be against the laws of thermodynamics, which isn't the case, and that has been known for over a hundred years, first of all by the mostly forgotten genious Nikola Tesla, as he wrote in 1892 (!):
<a href="http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1892-02-03.htm" title="tfcbooks.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1892-02-03.htm</a> [tfcbooks.com]

"We shall have no need to transmit power at all. Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe.  This idea is not novel.  Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new.  We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time.  Throughout space there is energy.  Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic&#226;"and this we know it is, for certain&#226;"then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."

It turns out that the basic theory our electrical engineers work with, the Maxwell equations, have been deliberately curtailed such that they won't allow "over-unity" devices nor the so-called "scalar waves" or longitudinal waves, which can be both electrical or magnetic. The German Professor Konstantin Meyl shows some remarkable experiments, based on a.o. Tesla's "magnifying transmitter", which show that scalar waves *do* exist and are much more effective then Herzian type of electro-magnetic waves: <a href="http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3545-konstantin-meyl-scalar-faraday-vs-maxwell.html" title="energeticforum.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3545-konstantin-meyl-scalar-faraday-vs-maxwell.html</a> [energeticforum.com]
He also explains that the currently used Maxwell equations are actually a special case of his complete theory, based on vortexes. His theory can do without postulates like "black matter" and the like and also allows over-unity devices operating with scalar waves. Very interesting videos...

Furthermore, Thomas Bearden comes to the same conclusion, and he shows how and why the Maxwell equations have been deliberately curtailed in order *not* to allow over-unity devices:
<a href="http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:The\_Deliberate\_Curtailment\_of\_Nikola\_Tesla's\_Primary\_Energy\_Source" title="peswiki.com" rel="nofollow">http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:The\_Deliberate\_Curtailment\_of\_Nikola\_Tesla's\_Primary\_Energy\_Source</a> [peswiki.com]

"Tom Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor discuss how the present electrical engineering model (and practice) was severely curtailed to exclude overunity (COP&gt;1.0) electrical power systems that take their excess electromagnetic energy directly from their interaction with the active medium (vacuum/spacetime). "

"The purpose of this paper is to reveal the iron suppression of Tesla and his dream of giving the world free electrical energy extracted directly from the active medium (the active vacuum/spacetime itself). The electrical engineering model taught and studied in all our universities, beginning in the 1890s, was also ruthlessly curtailed to cast out all asymmetric Maxwellian systems and to also discard Heaviside&#226;(TM)s odd and nearly incredible giant curled EM energy flow component actually accompanying every far more feeble Poynting energy flow in every EM system or circuit. Following the decimation of Tesla around the turn of the century, similar tactics have continued against follow-on inventors who discovered overunity systems and attempted to complete them and bring them to market. The suppression continues to this day, as can be attested by several living overunity inventors and inventor groups. For more than a century there has indeed been a giant, unwritten conspiracy of some of the most powerful cartels on earth, to continue the curtail</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad nobody seems to realise that we can our all the energy we need right out of the vacuum .
The reason we do n't do that is because we are being taught that that would be against the laws of thermodynamics , which is n't the case , and that has been known for over a hundred years , first of all by the mostly forgotten genious Nikola Tesla , as he wrote in 1892 ( !
) : http : //www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1892-02-03.htm [ tfcbooks.com ] " We shall have no need to transmit power at all .
Ere many generations pass , our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe .
This idea is not novel .
Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason ; it has been expressed in many ways , and in many places , in the history of old and new .
We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus , who derives power from the earth ; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time .
Throughout space there is energy .
Is this energy static or kinetic !
If static our hopes are in vain ; if kinetic   " and this we know it is , for certain   " then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature .
" It turns out that the basic theory our electrical engineers work with , the Maxwell equations , have been deliberately curtailed such that they wo n't allow " over-unity " devices nor the so-called " scalar waves " or longitudinal waves , which can be both electrical or magnetic .
The German Professor Konstantin Meyl shows some remarkable experiments , based on a.o .
Tesla 's " magnifying transmitter " , which show that scalar waves * do * exist and are much more effective then Herzian type of electro-magnetic waves : http : //www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3545-konstantin-meyl-scalar-faraday-vs-maxwell.html [ energeticforum.com ] He also explains that the currently used Maxwell equations are actually a special case of his complete theory , based on vortexes .
His theory can do without postulates like " black matter " and the like and also allows over-unity devices operating with scalar waves .
Very interesting videos.. . Furthermore , Thomas Bearden comes to the same conclusion , and he shows how and why the Maxwell equations have been deliberately curtailed in order * not * to allow over-unity devices : http : //peswiki.com/index.php/Site : LRP : The \ _Deliberate \ _Curtailment \ _of \ _Nikola \ _Tesla 's \ _Primary \ _Energy \ _Source [ peswiki.com ] " Tom Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor discuss how the present electrical engineering model ( and practice ) was severely curtailed to exclude overunity ( COP &gt; 1.0 ) electrical power systems that take their excess electromagnetic energy directly from their interaction with the active medium ( vacuum/spacetime ) .
" " The purpose of this paper is to reveal the iron suppression of Tesla and his dream of giving the world free electrical energy extracted directly from the active medium ( the active vacuum/spacetime itself ) .
The electrical engineering model taught and studied in all our universities , beginning in the 1890s , was also ruthlessly curtailed to cast out all asymmetric Maxwellian systems and to also discard Heaviside   ( TM ) s odd and nearly incredible giant curled EM energy flow component actually accompanying every far more feeble Poynting energy flow in every EM system or circuit .
Following the decimation of Tesla around the turn of the century , similar tactics have continued against follow-on inventors who discovered overunity systems and attempted to complete them and bring them to market .
The suppression continues to this day , as can be attested by several living overunity inventors and inventor groups .
For more than a century there has indeed been a giant , unwritten conspiracy of some of the most powerful cartels on earth , to continue the curtail</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Too bad nobody seems to realise that we can our all the energy we need right out of the vacuum.
The reason we don't do that is because we are being taught that that would be against the laws of thermodynamics, which isn't the case, and that has been known for over a hundred years, first of all by the mostly forgotten genious Nikola Tesla, as he wrote in 1892 (!
):
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1892-02-03.htm [tfcbooks.com]

"We shall have no need to transmit power at all.
Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe.
This idea is not novel.
Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new.
We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time.
Throughout space there is energy.
Is this energy static or kinetic!
If static our hopes are in vain; if kineticâ"and this we know it is, for certainâ"then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.
"

It turns out that the basic theory our electrical engineers work with, the Maxwell equations, have been deliberately curtailed such that they won't allow "over-unity" devices nor the so-called "scalar waves" or longitudinal waves, which can be both electrical or magnetic.
The German Professor Konstantin Meyl shows some remarkable experiments, based on a.o.
Tesla's "magnifying transmitter", which show that scalar waves *do* exist and are much more effective then Herzian type of electro-magnetic waves: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3545-konstantin-meyl-scalar-faraday-vs-maxwell.html [energeticforum.com]
He also explains that the currently used Maxwell equations are actually a special case of his complete theory, based on vortexes.
His theory can do without postulates like "black matter" and the like and also allows over-unity devices operating with scalar waves.
Very interesting videos...

Furthermore, Thomas Bearden comes to the same conclusion, and he shows how and why the Maxwell equations have been deliberately curtailed in order *not* to allow over-unity devices:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:The\_Deliberate\_Curtailment\_of\_Nikola\_Tesla's\_Primary\_Energy\_Source [peswiki.com]

"Tom Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor discuss how the present electrical engineering model (and practice) was severely curtailed to exclude overunity (COP&gt;1.0) electrical power systems that take their excess electromagnetic energy directly from their interaction with the active medium (vacuum/spacetime).
"

"The purpose of this paper is to reveal the iron suppression of Tesla and his dream of giving the world free electrical energy extracted directly from the active medium (the active vacuum/spacetime itself).
The electrical engineering model taught and studied in all our universities, beginning in the 1890s, was also ruthlessly curtailed to cast out all asymmetric Maxwellian systems and to also discard Heavisideâ(TM)s odd and nearly incredible giant curled EM energy flow component actually accompanying every far more feeble Poynting energy flow in every EM system or circuit.
Following the decimation of Tesla around the turn of the century, similar tactics have continued against follow-on inventors who discovered overunity systems and attempted to complete them and bring them to market.
The suppression continues to this day, as can be attested by several living overunity inventors and inventor groups.
For more than a century there has indeed been a giant, unwritten conspiracy of some of the most powerful cartels on earth, to continue the curtail</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435519</id>
	<title>dudes this is totally bogus yo!</title>
	<author>unix\_geek\_512</author>
	<datestamp>1245699420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't these people heard of the base load? I mean c'mon.</p><p>I'm all for renewable energy and I have personally used 100\% CFLs, LEDs and energy saving devices for many years, but it will require a tremendous amount of resources to build enough wind turbines to power the entire planet. These resources have to come from somewhere and a heck of a lot of pollution will be generated mining the required resources, producing hundreds of thousands of turbines, installing them and building a new electrical grid to support them. Besides the wind doesn't always blow when you need it to. Building an energy storage system to support the wind turbines will greatly increase their environmental footprint.</p><p>This is totally bogus. It makes no sense to go 100\% wind when there are arguably more efficient ways to produce energy.</p><p>Nuclear and natural gas are much better choices for the base load until fusion comes along.</p><p>I wanna see an all of the above approach. I want nuclear and natural gas for the base load and solar, wind, hydro, tidal and other sources supplementing energy production where it makes sense.</p><p>I respect the environment within reason, but screw the birds and the fish, we need all kinds of clean energy ( solar, wind, hydro,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ) and we need it now!</p><p>I do want a power plant in my back yard! And I want the water turned back on in California! Forget the fish, we have jobs to save and people to feed, unless the environmental nuts would rather get all their food from China, the world's number 2 polluter ( competing for the #1 spot ), along with a heavy dose of lead and lots of other toxins.</p><p>--</p><p>unix\_geek\_512</p><p>I believe in the death penalty for spammers and tyrants around the world and of course world peace!</p><p>Miss Congeniality</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't these people heard of the base load ?
I mean c'mon.I 'm all for renewable energy and I have personally used 100 \ % CFLs , LEDs and energy saving devices for many years , but it will require a tremendous amount of resources to build enough wind turbines to power the entire planet .
These resources have to come from somewhere and a heck of a lot of pollution will be generated mining the required resources , producing hundreds of thousands of turbines , installing them and building a new electrical grid to support them .
Besides the wind does n't always blow when you need it to .
Building an energy storage system to support the wind turbines will greatly increase their environmental footprint.This is totally bogus .
It makes no sense to go 100 \ % wind when there are arguably more efficient ways to produce energy.Nuclear and natural gas are much better choices for the base load until fusion comes along.I wan na see an all of the above approach .
I want nuclear and natural gas for the base load and solar , wind , hydro , tidal and other sources supplementing energy production where it makes sense.I respect the environment within reason , but screw the birds and the fish , we need all kinds of clean energy ( solar , wind , hydro , ... ) and we need it now ! I do want a power plant in my back yard !
And I want the water turned back on in California !
Forget the fish , we have jobs to save and people to feed , unless the environmental nuts would rather get all their food from China , the world 's number 2 polluter ( competing for the # 1 spot ) , along with a heavy dose of lead and lots of other toxins.--unix \ _geek \ _512I believe in the death penalty for spammers and tyrants around the world and of course world peace ! Miss Congeniality</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't these people heard of the base load?
I mean c'mon.I'm all for renewable energy and I have personally used 100\% CFLs, LEDs and energy saving devices for many years, but it will require a tremendous amount of resources to build enough wind turbines to power the entire planet.
These resources have to come from somewhere and a heck of a lot of pollution will be generated mining the required resources, producing hundreds of thousands of turbines, installing them and building a new electrical grid to support them.
Besides the wind doesn't always blow when you need it to.
Building an energy storage system to support the wind turbines will greatly increase their environmental footprint.This is totally bogus.
It makes no sense to go 100\% wind when there are arguably more efficient ways to produce energy.Nuclear and natural gas are much better choices for the base load until fusion comes along.I wanna see an all of the above approach.
I want nuclear and natural gas for the base load and solar, wind, hydro, tidal and other sources supplementing energy production where it makes sense.I respect the environment within reason, but screw the birds and the fish, we need all kinds of clean energy ( solar, wind, hydro, ... ) and we need it now!I do want a power plant in my back yard!
And I want the water turned back on in California!
Forget the fish, we have jobs to save and people to feed, unless the environmental nuts would rather get all their food from China, the world's number 2 polluter ( competing for the #1 spot ), along with a heavy dose of lead and lots of other toxins.--unix\_geek\_512I believe in the death penalty for spammers and tyrants around the world and of course world peace!Miss Congeniality</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437127</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>Phreakiture</author>
	<datestamp>1245761820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be surprised about diabetes, but not so surprised about epilepsy.  The rotating blades would cause a strobing effect when the sun hits them wrong, which could be a problem, maybe.</p><p>Then again, I am not a doctor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be surprised about diabetes , but not so surprised about epilepsy .
The rotating blades would cause a strobing effect when the sun hits them wrong , which could be a problem , maybe.Then again , I am not a doctor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be surprised about diabetes, but not so surprised about epilepsy.
The rotating blades would cause a strobing effect when the sun hits them wrong, which could be a problem, maybe.Then again, I am not a doctor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436267</id>
	<title>Re:tourism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245751380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW old-style windmills are NOT used to generate electricity. They serve to grind grain or to pump water out of the polders.</p><p>For electricity we have the same modern, towering windmills as other countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW old-style windmills are NOT used to generate electricity .
They serve to grind grain or to pump water out of the polders.For electricity we have the same modern , towering windmills as other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW old-style windmills are NOT used to generate electricity.
They serve to grind grain or to pump water out of the polders.For electricity we have the same modern, towering windmills as other countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28442327</id>
	<title>Nuclear is the way to go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245784500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is plenty of Fuel for it and there is really no impact on the environment.  Wind power on this scare may slow down the weather and may make areas drier which is bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is plenty of Fuel for it and there is really no impact on the environment .
Wind power on this scare may slow down the weather and may make areas drier which is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is plenty of Fuel for it and there is really no impact on the environment.
Wind power on this scare may slow down the weather and may make areas drier which is bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431225</id>
	<title>business plan</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1245673500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>assume all cities with more than 500,000 people in them are perfect spheres that are 1 meter in diameter</li><li>assume there is wind all the time, except weekends and holidays</li><li>assume we do not live in a petro-military dictatorship</li><li>???</li><li>Profit!</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>assume all cities with more than 500,000 people in them are perfect spheres that are 1 meter in diameterassume there is wind all the time , except weekends and holidaysassume we do not live in a petro-military dictatorship ? ?
? Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
assume all cities with more than 500,000 people in them are perfect spheres that are 1 meter in diameterassume there is wind all the time, except weekends and holidaysassume we do not live in a petro-military dictatorship??
?Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28451099</id>
	<title>The AMOUNT of power is not the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245849540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of power available from the wind is not the problem, it's the variability.  The mechanisms used to dispatch power to the grid, balancing supply and demand, phase adjustments and other ancillary services is already a nightmare with systems that don't unpredictably stop and then restart in a matter of seconds.</p><p>Even arguments related to "it'll be windy somewhere" do not hold, as moving power across the grid is highly prone to congestion constraints on the grid (yet another complex term in the balancing equations).</p><p>The very reason wind is not used more is because it makes grids highly unstable, so this "research" is at best meaningless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of power available from the wind is not the problem , it 's the variability .
The mechanisms used to dispatch power to the grid , balancing supply and demand , phase adjustments and other ancillary services is already a nightmare with systems that do n't unpredictably stop and then restart in a matter of seconds.Even arguments related to " it 'll be windy somewhere " do not hold , as moving power across the grid is highly prone to congestion constraints on the grid ( yet another complex term in the balancing equations ) .The very reason wind is not used more is because it makes grids highly unstable , so this " research " is at best meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of power available from the wind is not the problem, it's the variability.
The mechanisms used to dispatch power to the grid, balancing supply and demand, phase adjustments and other ancillary services is already a nightmare with systems that don't unpredictably stop and then restart in a matter of seconds.Even arguments related to "it'll be windy somewhere" do not hold, as moving power across the grid is highly prone to congestion constraints on the grid (yet another complex term in the balancing equations).The very reason wind is not used more is because it makes grids highly unstable, so this "research" is at best meaningless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433589</id>
	<title>ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind doesn't grow on trees, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind does n't grow on trees , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind doesn't grow on trees, you know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432129</id>
	<title>Re:Cost? $$ and practicality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clean coal is like a soft hardon..........it ain't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clean coal is like a soft hardon..........it ai n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clean coal is like a soft hardon..........it ain't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432049</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1245676860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well windmills do crank out lots of carby flour...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well windmills do crank out lots of carby flour.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well windmills do crank out lots of carby flour...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431633</id>
	<title>Atomic energy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245674880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, atomic energy could definitely cover our energy needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , atomic energy could definitely cover our energy needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, atomic energy could definitely cover our energy needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432305</id>
	<title>"Could" means BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245678000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human farts "could" provide power.<br>Peso-electric platforms placed under every roadway could provide power.<br>Harnessing gravity could provide power.</p><p>Complete BS.</p><p>"May" is another BS word used.  Journalists, please use "happened" and "caused" more. Please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human farts " could " provide power.Peso-electric platforms placed under every roadway could provide power.Harnessing gravity could provide power.Complete BS .
" May " is another BS word used .
Journalists , please use " happened " and " caused " more .
Please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human farts "could" provide power.Peso-electric platforms placed under every roadway could provide power.Harnessing gravity could provide power.Complete BS.
"May" is another BS word used.
Journalists, please use "happened" and "caused" more.
Please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431991</id>
	<title>Re:All we need now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245676620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *think* your opinion is based around obsolete designs.  I'm not certain.  Perhaps you have good reasons for your beliefs that you didn't mention.  It's certain that I don't trust the messianic proponents of either wind or solar, but I do notice that the amount of investment in them has been increasing at a substantial rate over the last decade.  To me that means that they must be at least close to sufficiently efficient.  (I should have been cured of this belief by bio-ethanol for gasoline, but I haven't been, and consider that a statistical aberration cause by a strong political pressure group.)</p><p>If I'm wrong, could you please offer me a link to substantiate your opinions?  Academic sources are preferred over either governmental or industrial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * think * your opinion is based around obsolete designs .
I 'm not certain .
Perhaps you have good reasons for your beliefs that you did n't mention .
It 's certain that I do n't trust the messianic proponents of either wind or solar , but I do notice that the amount of investment in them has been increasing at a substantial rate over the last decade .
To me that means that they must be at least close to sufficiently efficient .
( I should have been cured of this belief by bio-ethanol for gasoline , but I have n't been , and consider that a statistical aberration cause by a strong political pressure group .
) If I 'm wrong , could you please offer me a link to substantiate your opinions ?
Academic sources are preferred over either governmental or industrial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *think* your opinion is based around obsolete designs.
I'm not certain.
Perhaps you have good reasons for your beliefs that you didn't mention.
It's certain that I don't trust the messianic proponents of either wind or solar, but I do notice that the amount of investment in them has been increasing at a substantial rate over the last decade.
To me that means that they must be at least close to sufficiently efficient.
(I should have been cured of this belief by bio-ethanol for gasoline, but I haven't been, and consider that a statistical aberration cause by a strong political pressure group.
)If I'm wrong, could you please offer me a link to substantiate your opinions?
Academic sources are preferred over either governmental or industrial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28445645</id>
	<title>Re:Not many choices...</title>
	<author>Scott Carnahan</author>
	<datestamp>1245752880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's one thing I always had an issue with over geothermal. What happens when we pump out all the heat from the planet?  It solidifies and our magnetic field shuts off? (unless you believe that new thing about the ocean currents) I read somewhere that we'd have ~9000 years of geothermal at current world usage levels of energy.</p></div></blockquote><p>From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal\_power#Resources" title="wikipedia.org">this article</a> [wikipedia.org], radioactive decay inside the Earth constantly releases about 30TW (= twice the current world usage levels of energy) as uncaptured heat, so we don't need to be concerned.  In particular, whatever source gave you the 9000 year figure is in stark conflict with <a href="http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull28-3/art2.pdf" title="oit.edu">this paper (pdf)</a> [oit.edu] on geothermal sustainability.  Since we don't currently have the technology to touch anything below the crust (i.e., less than 1\% of the Earth's radius), we are unlikely to cause any serious problems in the core in the near future.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one thing I always had an issue with over geothermal .
What happens when we pump out all the heat from the planet ?
It solidifies and our magnetic field shuts off ?
( unless you believe that new thing about the ocean currents ) I read somewhere that we 'd have ~ 9000 years of geothermal at current world usage levels of energy.From this article [ wikipedia.org ] , radioactive decay inside the Earth constantly releases about 30TW ( = twice the current world usage levels of energy ) as uncaptured heat , so we do n't need to be concerned .
In particular , whatever source gave you the 9000 year figure is in stark conflict with this paper ( pdf ) [ oit.edu ] on geothermal sustainability .
Since we do n't currently have the technology to touch anything below the crust ( i.e. , less than 1 \ % of the Earth 's radius ) , we are unlikely to cause any serious problems in the core in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's one thing I always had an issue with over geothermal.
What happens when we pump out all the heat from the planet?
It solidifies and our magnetic field shuts off?
(unless you believe that new thing about the ocean currents) I read somewhere that we'd have ~9000 years of geothermal at current world usage levels of energy.From this article [wikipedia.org], radioactive decay inside the Earth constantly releases about 30TW (= twice the current world usage levels of energy) as uncaptured heat, so we don't need to be concerned.
In particular, whatever source gave you the 9000 year figure is in stark conflict with this paper (pdf) [oit.edu] on geothermal sustainability.
Since we don't currently have the technology to touch anything below the crust (i.e., less than 1\% of the Earth's radius), we are unlikely to cause any serious problems in the core in the near future.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434483</id>
	<title>100\% wind? sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need storage or natural gas firming to get to 20\% of wind power penetration. Heck we even need the gas now. The demand for gas would be so high that the price would skyrocket. What we really need are parallel developments of multiple sustainable technologies and increased efficiencies at the customer and generation locations.</p><p>It's not as sexy as 100\% wind, just realistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need storage or natural gas firming to get to 20 \ % of wind power penetration .
Heck we even need the gas now .
The demand for gas would be so high that the price would skyrocket .
What we really need are parallel developments of multiple sustainable technologies and increased efficiencies at the customer and generation locations.It 's not as sexy as 100 \ % wind , just realistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need storage or natural gas firming to get to 20\% of wind power penetration.
Heck we even need the gas now.
The demand for gas would be so high that the price would skyrocket.
What we really need are parallel developments of multiple sustainable technologies and increased efficiencies at the customer and generation locations.It's not as sexy as 100\% wind, just realistic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431313</id>
	<title>40 times what we currently use? So what?</title>
	<author>typidemon</author>
	<datestamp>1245673860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me or isn't that very impressive? If global power consumption continues growing at 7\% p/a then in just 50 years we'll the wind power that we're talking about here will be almost tapped out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or is n't that very impressive ?
If global power consumption continues growing at 7 \ % p/a then in just 50 years we 'll the wind power that we 're talking about here will be almost tapped out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me or isn't that very impressive?
If global power consumption continues growing at 7\% p/a then in just 50 years we'll the wind power that we're talking about here will be almost tapped out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435047</id>
	<title>Environment</title>
	<author>gerardrj</author>
	<datestamp>1245694860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we start taking huge amounts of energy out of the atmosphere in the form of wind turbines, what effect will this have on weather patterns?<br>If you put up a wind farm in the midwest, does it alter the wind speeds enough to change the flow of the jet stream and ultimately change where rain falls, or average temperatures?<br>The knee-jerk reaction of most people will  be "it won't hurt anything". But we are talking about removing a huge amount of energy world-wide. Someone better study this before we start heading in that direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we start taking huge amounts of energy out of the atmosphere in the form of wind turbines , what effect will this have on weather patterns ? If you put up a wind farm in the midwest , does it alter the wind speeds enough to change the flow of the jet stream and ultimately change where rain falls , or average temperatures ? The knee-jerk reaction of most people will be " it wo n't hurt anything " .
But we are talking about removing a huge amount of energy world-wide .
Someone better study this before we start heading in that direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we start taking huge amounts of energy out of the atmosphere in the form of wind turbines, what effect will this have on weather patterns?If you put up a wind farm in the midwest, does it alter the wind speeds enough to change the flow of the jet stream and ultimately change where rain falls, or average temperatures?The knee-jerk reaction of most people will  be "it won't hurt anything".
But we are talking about removing a huge amount of energy world-wide.
Someone better study this before we start heading in that direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</id>
	<title>Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It just couldn't simply because there isn't wind all the time and we don't have any realistic way to store energy for calm days. Wind could be useful as a part of the energy production but with current technology there is no way wind could be used as the only energy source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just could n't simply because there is n't wind all the time and we do n't have any realistic way to store energy for calm days .
Wind could be useful as a part of the energy production but with current technology there is no way wind could be used as the only energy source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just couldn't simply because there isn't wind all the time and we don't have any realistic way to store energy for calm days.
Wind could be useful as a part of the energy production but with current technology there is no way wind could be used as the only energy source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431151</id>
	<title>Re:Impact on birds...</title>
	<author>smclean</author>
	<datestamp>1245673320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this a pun?  Terminal, like electrical terminal?  I don't get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a pun ?
Terminal , like electrical terminal ?
I do n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a pun?
Terminal, like electrical terminal?
I don't get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433423</id>
	<title>impact on nature of manufacturing these things?</title>
	<author>freshfromthevat</author>
	<datestamp>1245683880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much environmental damage would be done by manufacturing and maintaining all of these things?  I suspect that a hundred nuke plants would do less damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much environmental damage would be done by manufacturing and maintaining all of these things ?
I suspect that a hundred nuke plants would do less damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much environmental damage would be done by manufacturing and maintaining all of these things?
I suspect that a hundred nuke plants would do less damage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28447671</id>
	<title>Re:All we need now</title>
	<author>smegged</author>
	<datestamp>1245763680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As always the problem is cost.  Our current energy supply mix ends up costing anywhere between $20-$50/MWh on the wholesale market.  The long run marginal cost for solar has *at best* been estimated to be in the vicinity of $100/MWh.  Photovoltaics are much higher - in the vicinity of $440/MWh (at least that is the rebate given for using PV cells to provide electricity back into the grid).<br> <br>

You bring up South Australia as a good example of using wind power.  The fact is that SA is still ridiculously dependent on coal fired generation, both from inside the state and from Victoria.  There is also the problem of South Australia having the most variable wholesale cost of electricity of all the states other than Tasmania (we have to exclude WA because it is not a part of the Australian energy market).<br> <br>

There is one state in Australia that is almost entirely dependent on renewable energy sources (hydro and wind) and that state is Tasmania.  Unfortunately they have the problem of reliability.  Without the big dirty brown coal generators that sit on the southern tip of Victoria, Tasmania would be experiencing rolling blackouts at the moment.<br> <br>

Finally, peak demand occurs at two times in the year - the middle of the day in summer, and around 6pm in winter.  Solar might be great for smoothing over summer demand, but we still need enough generation to cover for the peak winter demand.  The amusing thing about it all is that a CPRS won't get companies investing in renewables, but instead it will get them investing in gas, which currently sits at an emissions intensity factor of approximately 0.3 tonnes/MWh versus black coal at 0.7 tonnes/MWh and brown coal at &gt;= 2 tonnes/MWh.<br> <br>

If people really want to make renewable energy an attractive alternative, find one that comes in at a long run marginal cost of under $100/MWh and watch the money roll in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As always the problem is cost .
Our current energy supply mix ends up costing anywhere between $ 20- $ 50/MWh on the wholesale market .
The long run marginal cost for solar has * at best * been estimated to be in the vicinity of $ 100/MWh .
Photovoltaics are much higher - in the vicinity of $ 440/MWh ( at least that is the rebate given for using PV cells to provide electricity back into the grid ) .
You bring up South Australia as a good example of using wind power .
The fact is that SA is still ridiculously dependent on coal fired generation , both from inside the state and from Victoria .
There is also the problem of South Australia having the most variable wholesale cost of electricity of all the states other than Tasmania ( we have to exclude WA because it is not a part of the Australian energy market ) .
There is one state in Australia that is almost entirely dependent on renewable energy sources ( hydro and wind ) and that state is Tasmania .
Unfortunately they have the problem of reliability .
Without the big dirty brown coal generators that sit on the southern tip of Victoria , Tasmania would be experiencing rolling blackouts at the moment .
Finally , peak demand occurs at two times in the year - the middle of the day in summer , and around 6pm in winter .
Solar might be great for smoothing over summer demand , but we still need enough generation to cover for the peak winter demand .
The amusing thing about it all is that a CPRS wo n't get companies investing in renewables , but instead it will get them investing in gas , which currently sits at an emissions intensity factor of approximately 0.3 tonnes/MWh versus black coal at 0.7 tonnes/MWh and brown coal at &gt; = 2 tonnes/MWh .
If people really want to make renewable energy an attractive alternative , find one that comes in at a long run marginal cost of under $ 100/MWh and watch the money roll in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As always the problem is cost.
Our current energy supply mix ends up costing anywhere between $20-$50/MWh on the wholesale market.
The long run marginal cost for solar has *at best* been estimated to be in the vicinity of $100/MWh.
Photovoltaics are much higher - in the vicinity of $440/MWh (at least that is the rebate given for using PV cells to provide electricity back into the grid).
You bring up South Australia as a good example of using wind power.
The fact is that SA is still ridiculously dependent on coal fired generation, both from inside the state and from Victoria.
There is also the problem of South Australia having the most variable wholesale cost of electricity of all the states other than Tasmania (we have to exclude WA because it is not a part of the Australian energy market).
There is one state in Australia that is almost entirely dependent on renewable energy sources (hydro and wind) and that state is Tasmania.
Unfortunately they have the problem of reliability.
Without the big dirty brown coal generators that sit on the southern tip of Victoria, Tasmania would be experiencing rolling blackouts at the moment.
Finally, peak demand occurs at two times in the year - the middle of the day in summer, and around 6pm in winter.
Solar might be great for smoothing over summer demand, but we still need enough generation to cover for the peak winter demand.
The amusing thing about it all is that a CPRS won't get companies investing in renewables, but instead it will get them investing in gas, which currently sits at an emissions intensity factor of approximately 0.3 tonnes/MWh versus black coal at 0.7 tonnes/MWh and brown coal at &gt;= 2 tonnes/MWh.
If people really want to make renewable energy an attractive alternative, find one that comes in at a long run marginal cost of under $100/MWh and watch the money roll in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431415</id>
	<title>Re:The world has a surplus of solar and wind power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245674100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, greed also has it's part in wind power. Search around and you'll find out stuff about wind "bubbles" and other fun stuff.</p><p>PS: Unless some of the problems of wind and solar power are resolved quickly, nuclear is still the safer bet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , greed also has it 's part in wind power .
Search around and you 'll find out stuff about wind " bubbles " and other fun stuff.PS : Unless some of the problems of wind and solar power are resolved quickly , nuclear is still the safer bet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, greed also has it's part in wind power.
Search around and you'll find out stuff about wind "bubbles" and other fun stuff.PS: Unless some of the problems of wind and solar power are resolved quickly, nuclear is still the safer bet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432721</id>
	<title>Re:News From Slashdot 2029</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245680040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So all the mechanical and digital clocks stop being accurate? Sounds like good news for the sundial industry!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So all the mechanical and digital clocks stop being accurate ?
Sounds like good news for the sundial industry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So all the mechanical and digital clocks stop being accurate?
Sounds like good news for the sundial industry!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432215</id>
	<title>Re:Wind Could NOT Provide 100\% of World Energy Nee</title>
	<author>Jeremi</author>
	<datestamp>1245677640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It just couldn't simply because there isn't wind all the time and we don't have any realistic way to store energy for calm days</i></p><p>Ah, but there is wind all the time, somewhere.  In theory at least, with a capable enough grid you'd be able to move energy from wherever the wind currently is to where the energy is needed.</p><p>I agree that an efficient way to store energy for future use would be greatly beneficial, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just could n't simply because there is n't wind all the time and we do n't have any realistic way to store energy for calm daysAh , but there is wind all the time , somewhere .
In theory at least , with a capable enough grid you 'd be able to move energy from wherever the wind currently is to where the energy is needed.I agree that an efficient way to store energy for future use would be greatly beneficial , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just couldn't simply because there isn't wind all the time and we don't have any realistic way to store energy for calm daysAh, but there is wind all the time, somewhere.
In theory at least, with a capable enough grid you'd be able to move energy from wherever the wind currently is to where the energy is needed.I agree that an efficient way to store energy for future use would be greatly beneficial, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431865</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting counter-article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245676080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we stop wasting money blowing up Iraq we've already found 10\% of the money that is needed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we stop wasting money blowing up Iraq we 've already found 10 \ % of the money that is needed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we stop wasting money blowing up Iraq we've already found 10\% of the money that is needed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28449299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28439813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28449651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28446187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28445645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28444729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28447671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28451031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28450879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28445427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28442597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28447887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28441745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28441589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28439519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28449327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28441187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_2244222_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28446187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28441745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28445427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28449651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436695
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433805
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28439813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28449327
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28439519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28443825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28449299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28444729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28450879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28447671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28441187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28447887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28441589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28442597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28440713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432353
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438877
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434209
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433715
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437123
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28445645
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434335
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437289
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433661
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28438587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28451031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435195
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431891
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28439641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28433267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28435373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28437025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28436321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28434993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28432803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_2244222.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_2244222.28431415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
