<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_08_167212</id>
	<title>Pickens Calls Off Massive Wind Farm In Texas</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247070900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>schwit1 writes with this excerpt from an AP report:
<i>"Plans for the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he's <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap\_on\_bi\_ge/us\_pickens\_wind\_energy">looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines</a>. Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which can stand 400 feet tall &mdash; taller than most 30-story buildings. 'When I start receiving those turbines, I've got to ... like I said, my garage won't hold them,' the legendary Texas oilman said. 'They've got to go someplace.' Pickens' company Mesa Power ordered the turbines from General Electric Co. &mdash; <a href="//hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/09/2246259&amp;tid=232">a $2 billion investment</a> &mdash; a little more than a year ago. Pickens said he has leases on about 200,000 acres in Texas that were planned for the project, and he might place some of the turbines there, but he's also looking for smaller wind projects to participate in."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>schwit1 writes with this excerpt from an AP report : " Plans for the world 's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped , energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday , and he 's looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines .
Pickens has already ordered the turbines , which can stand 400 feet tall    taller than most 30-story buildings .
'When I start receiving those turbines , I 've got to ... like I said , my garage wo n't hold them, ' the legendary Texas oilman said .
'They 've got to go someplace .
' Pickens ' company Mesa Power ordered the turbines from General Electric Co.    a $ 2 billion investment    a little more than a year ago .
Pickens said he has leases on about 200,000 acres in Texas that were planned for the project , and he might place some of the turbines there , but he 's also looking for smaller wind projects to participate in .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>schwit1 writes with this excerpt from an AP report:
"Plans for the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he's looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines.
Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which can stand 400 feet tall — taller than most 30-story buildings.
'When I start receiving those turbines, I've got to ... like I said, my garage won't hold them,' the legendary Texas oilman said.
'They've got to go someplace.
' Pickens' company Mesa Power ordered the turbines from General Electric Co. — a $2 billion investment — a little more than a year ago.
Pickens said he has leases on about 200,000 acres in Texas that were planned for the project, and he might place some of the turbines there, but he's also looking for smaller wind projects to participate in.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779</id>
	<title>Pickens may be losing it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I went to a talk by Pickens, and I think he's losing it. He didn't mention wind at all. He was talking about how natural gas is going to solve all our energy problems, and how we just have to convert heavy trucks to run on natural gas.  He's far more optimistic about natural gas supplies than most people in the industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to a talk by Pickens , and I think he 's losing it .
He did n't mention wind at all .
He was talking about how natural gas is going to solve all our energy problems , and how we just have to convert heavy trucks to run on natural gas .
He 's far more optimistic about natural gas supplies than most people in the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I went to a talk by Pickens, and I think he's losing it.
He didn't mention wind at all.
He was talking about how natural gas is going to solve all our energy problems, and how we just have to convert heavy trucks to run on natural gas.
He's far more optimistic about natural gas supplies than most people in the industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625633</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds.</title>
	<author>aldeveron</author>
	<datestamp>1247079780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Offtopic perhaps, but, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting  &gt;&gt;  <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html" title="mcclatchydc.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html</a> [mcclatchydc.com].

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a role, but there is much more to the mortgage meltdown than what is spun out in the parents reference. In the absense of the other bad actors the actions of FM2 would not have precipitated the crisis.

-M-</htmltext>
<tokenext>Offtopic perhaps , but , in the interest of fair and balanced reporting &gt; &gt; http : //www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html [ mcclatchydc.com ] .
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a role , but there is much more to the mortgage meltdown than what is spun out in the parents reference .
In the absense of the other bad actors the actions of FM2 would not have precipitated the crisis .
-M-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offtopic perhaps, but, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting  &gt;&gt;  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html [mcclatchydc.com].
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a role, but there is much more to the mortgage meltdown than what is spun out in the parents reference.
In the absense of the other bad actors the actions of FM2 would not have precipitated the crisis.
-M-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624289</id>
	<title>Alternative Energy - Huge Setback</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call it what you want, but this is going to be a huge blow to alternative energy in this country.  This was an all out high-profile project that just fell on it's face.  Pundits will be using this to slap other alternative energy projects in the face for years to come.  This is the kind of thing you could dream up very elaborate conspiracy theories about. Watch the oil prices skyrocket as a consequence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call it what you want , but this is going to be a huge blow to alternative energy in this country .
This was an all out high-profile project that just fell on it 's face .
Pundits will be using this to slap other alternative energy projects in the face for years to come .
This is the kind of thing you could dream up very elaborate conspiracy theories about .
Watch the oil prices skyrocket as a consequence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call it what you want, but this is going to be a huge blow to alternative energy in this country.
This was an all out high-profile project that just fell on it's face.
Pundits will be using this to slap other alternative energy projects in the face for years to come.
This is the kind of thing you could dream up very elaborate conspiracy theories about.
Watch the oil prices skyrocket as a consequence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28637075</id>
	<title>Black Mesa is actually a possibility</title>
	<author>mr.mctibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1247155980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are numerous places in the US named Black Mesa, but the Black Mesa on which the half-life location is based exists just outside of Los Alamos, NM and, based on its location (right outside LANL) and the local wind characteristics, it may in fact be a perfect spot for fielding a set of wind turbines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are numerous places in the US named Black Mesa , but the Black Mesa on which the half-life location is based exists just outside of Los Alamos , NM and , based on its location ( right outside LANL ) and the local wind characteristics , it may in fact be a perfect spot for fielding a set of wind turbines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are numerous places in the US named Black Mesa, but the Black Mesa on which the half-life location is based exists just outside of Los Alamos, NM and, based on its location (right outside LANL) and the local wind characteristics, it may in fact be a perfect spot for fielding a set of wind turbines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624659</id>
	<title>Are you fucking stupid?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fuck does "buying prototypes" have to do with the article?  Did you read the article?  Did you read the summary?</p><p>Are you a mouth-breathing cretin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck does " buying prototypes " have to do with the article ?
Did you read the article ?
Did you read the summary ? Are you a mouth-breathing cretin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck does "buying prototypes" have to do with the article?
Did you read the article?
Did you read the summary?Are you a mouth-breathing cretin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629755</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247055240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the bigger the turbine, the lower the RPM</p></div><p>remember that the airspeed at the tip of the blade is rpm * radius.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the bigger the turbine , the lower the RPMremember that the airspeed at the tip of the blade is rpm * radius .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the bigger the turbine, the lower the RPMremember that the airspeed at the tip of the blade is rpm * radius.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625175</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>jridley</author>
	<datestamp>1247078220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind kills less birds than coal does.  And less than large buildings do too, but you hardly ever hear people complaining that they can't build a building there because birds might hit it and die.</p><p>I think we should do nuclear TOO.  As long as we can do it sensibly; that is, with breeder reactors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind kills less birds than coal does .
And less than large buildings do too , but you hardly ever hear people complaining that they ca n't build a building there because birds might hit it and die.I think we should do nuclear TOO .
As long as we can do it sensibly ; that is , with breeder reactors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind kills less birds than coal does.
And less than large buildings do too, but you hardly ever hear people complaining that they can't build a building there because birds might hit it and die.I think we should do nuclear TOO.
As long as we can do it sensibly; that is, with breeder reactors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626643</id>
	<title>bullshit alert.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247083200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext> FTA: "In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems."

If he could put together an order for 687 gigantor windmills, he goddamned-well knew \_exactly\_ where they were going to go and exactly, to the foot, how many feet/miles away the nearest 345kV line was.  (substitute appropiate buzzaords).   Or whatever.   Engineering power distrubition is complicated and painstaking, but it's also fairly cut and dried.  What "technical" issue could there possibly be here?   was he planning to build a giant Tesla coil??

Sounds like bullshit to me, and i think bullshit like this does enormous damage to the credibility and viability of alt. energy.  Political, environmental or financial problems i would accept at face value, but not technical power distribution problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " In Texas , the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system , Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York .
He 'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems .
" If he could put together an order for 687 gigantor windmills , he goddamned-well knew \ _exactly \ _ where they were going to go and exactly , to the foot , how many feet/miles away the nearest 345kV line was .
( substitute appropiate buzzaords ) .
Or whatever .
Engineering power distrubition is complicated and painstaking , but it 's also fairly cut and dried .
What " technical " issue could there possibly be here ?
was he planning to build a giant Tesla coil ? ?
Sounds like bullshit to me , and i think bullshit like this does enormous damage to the credibility and viability of alt .
energy. Political , environmental or financial problems i would accept at face value , but not technical power distribution problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> FTA: "In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York.
He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.
"

If he could put together an order for 687 gigantor windmills, he goddamned-well knew \_exactly\_ where they were going to go and exactly, to the foot, how many feet/miles away the nearest 345kV line was.
(substitute appropiate buzzaords).
Or whatever.
Engineering power distrubition is complicated and painstaking, but it's also fairly cut and dried.
What "technical" issue could there possibly be here?
was he planning to build a giant Tesla coil??
Sounds like bullshit to me, and i think bullshit like this does enormous damage to the credibility and viability of alt.
energy.  Political, environmental or financial problems i would accept at face value, but not technical power distribution problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629291</id>
	<title>Re:Pickens may be losing it.</title>
	<author>ebs16</author>
	<datestamp>1247052420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must have been to one of his talks regarding alternative fuels for automobiles specifically.  Part of the "Pickens Plan" involves replacing gasoline cars with electric vehicles and replacing diesel 18-wheelers with trucks powered by natural gas.  Large trucks need more power than can currently be provided by electrical systems and natural gas has less of an impact on the environment than does diesel fuel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must have been to one of his talks regarding alternative fuels for automobiles specifically .
Part of the " Pickens Plan " involves replacing gasoline cars with electric vehicles and replacing diesel 18-wheelers with trucks powered by natural gas .
Large trucks need more power than can currently be provided by electrical systems and natural gas has less of an impact on the environment than does diesel fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must have been to one of his talks regarding alternative fuels for automobiles specifically.
Part of the "Pickens Plan" involves replacing gasoline cars with electric vehicles and replacing diesel 18-wheelers with trucks powered by natural gas.
Large trucks need more power than can currently be provided by electrical systems and natural gas has less of an impact on the environment than does diesel fuel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624483</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1247075940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, I was driving an interstate through West Virginia a few days ago and saw a billboard that said, "Clean, carbon-neutral coal."  So it must be true!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , I was driving an interstate through West Virginia a few days ago and saw a billboard that said , " Clean , carbon-neutral coal .
" So it must be true !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, I was driving an interstate through West Virginia a few days ago and saw a billboard that said, "Clean, carbon-neutral coal.
"  So it must be true!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628667</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother -- won't change the (un)logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247049240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But not so much that we can't do it. It also takes a lot to underwrite the insurance for nuclear power. So much, in fact, that nuclear power companies don't pay for it -- the US gov't does. Somehow that tidbit, a tidbit that makes nuclear power one of the most expensive options around, is rarely mentioned around here.</p></div><p>Correction, the nuclear power industry pays the United States government to provide insurance, similar to how banks pay for FDIC insurance. This is established under the Price-Anderson Act, and you would do well to actually understand its basis before you try to use it as a bogeyman.</p><p>The Price-Anderson Act was intended to guarantee that there would be funds available to pay for cleanup in the event of a major nuclear accident. I don't recall exactly, but I believe it covers accidents that cost between $100 million and $10 billion dollars, with provisions in case there is a major accident costing more than $10 billion. Once again, I don't exactly recall the history, but I believe the most costly accident ever covered by PAA was the Three Mile Island incident, which did exceed $10 billion and, quite frankly, much of that cost was still overblown. (Example: A couple sued because their child, born after TMI, had Down's syndrome. They received an out-of-court settlement. The kicker? They were in the second trimester at the time of the accident - the child already had Down's syndrome.)</p><p>I have often read about the PAA being raised as a spectre by anti-nuclear campaigners, but I've never heard what I thought was a compelling argument against it. It seems profoundly responsible to have something like that in place, no matter how safe nuclear energy actually is or becomes. Petroleum, which is by and large considered "safe," was still responsible for the Exxon-Valdez catastrophe, and Exxon-Mobil has done a fantastic job of shirking responsibility for the incident. Wouldn't it have been nice if we had a Price-Anderson Act for petroleum accidents?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some people don't like the aesthetics of coal power plant smokestacks, giant fences around nuclear plants, or <b>what's left of the mountain</b> after the coal or <b>nuclear fuel is mined</b></p> </div><p>Once again, this is often something I read from anti-nuclear campaigners, but it seems to belie their ignorance of the nuclear fuel cycle. Uranium mining can be a very clean process, owing to the very small amount of material extracted, the relatively high value of that material, and the low price sensitivity nuclear energy programs have with respect to fuel costs (the cost of fuel is only a small fraction of the overall operating costs).</p><p>I cannot say that all uranium mines are environmentally friendly, but I don't think the onus is on me to do so. You are the one that advanced the claim that uranium mining related to nuclear energy is environmentally damaging, so the burden is on you to provide proof of this.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nuclear isn't financially efficient now, if you try to use it for anything more than base load your efficiency drops like a rock.</p></div><p>Also a claim I often read, but that is rarely supported. Nuclear generation costs are often quoted as being around 2-3 cents per kilowatt-hour*, which I believe is around half the cost of wind and about 50\% more expensive than similar coal-fired plants (bearing in mind that coal-fired plants externalize most of their environmental costs, in comparison to wind and nuclear, which I believe both have relatively well-developed environmental policies).</p><p>* You can look here:<br>http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html<br>or if you buy your electricity from a nuclear power plant, you can possibly just consult your bill. A plant near me sells for 3 cents a kilowatt hour (regardless of time of day), although consumers are still billed additionally for peak usage, owing partly to a nearby windfarm that sells for around 6.5 cents/kilowatt hour, and a few natural gas plants whose rate I don't know. (And of course I pay distribution charges on top of that.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not support both?</p></div><p>There's something I do agree with. I can't understand all those people who pick a "favorite" energy policy, like it's a fucking <i>sports team</i>, and then support it against all other policies regardless of logic, common sense, or human decency.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But not so much that we ca n't do it .
It also takes a lot to underwrite the insurance for nuclear power .
So much , in fact , that nuclear power companies do n't pay for it -- the US gov't does .
Somehow that tidbit , a tidbit that makes nuclear power one of the most expensive options around , is rarely mentioned around here.Correction , the nuclear power industry pays the United States government to provide insurance , similar to how banks pay for FDIC insurance .
This is established under the Price-Anderson Act , and you would do well to actually understand its basis before you try to use it as a bogeyman.The Price-Anderson Act was intended to guarantee that there would be funds available to pay for cleanup in the event of a major nuclear accident .
I do n't recall exactly , but I believe it covers accidents that cost between $ 100 million and $ 10 billion dollars , with provisions in case there is a major accident costing more than $ 10 billion .
Once again , I do n't exactly recall the history , but I believe the most costly accident ever covered by PAA was the Three Mile Island incident , which did exceed $ 10 billion and , quite frankly , much of that cost was still overblown .
( Example : A couple sued because their child , born after TMI , had Down 's syndrome .
They received an out-of-court settlement .
The kicker ?
They were in the second trimester at the time of the accident - the child already had Down 's syndrome .
) I have often read about the PAA being raised as a spectre by anti-nuclear campaigners , but I 've never heard what I thought was a compelling argument against it .
It seems profoundly responsible to have something like that in place , no matter how safe nuclear energy actually is or becomes .
Petroleum , which is by and large considered " safe , " was still responsible for the Exxon-Valdez catastrophe , and Exxon-Mobil has done a fantastic job of shirking responsibility for the incident .
Would n't it have been nice if we had a Price-Anderson Act for petroleum accidents ? Some people do n't like the aesthetics of coal power plant smokestacks , giant fences around nuclear plants , or what 's left of the mountain after the coal or nuclear fuel is mined Once again , this is often something I read from anti-nuclear campaigners , but it seems to belie their ignorance of the nuclear fuel cycle .
Uranium mining can be a very clean process , owing to the very small amount of material extracted , the relatively high value of that material , and the low price sensitivity nuclear energy programs have with respect to fuel costs ( the cost of fuel is only a small fraction of the overall operating costs ) .I can not say that all uranium mines are environmentally friendly , but I do n't think the onus is on me to do so .
You are the one that advanced the claim that uranium mining related to nuclear energy is environmentally damaging , so the burden is on you to provide proof of this.Nuclear is n't financially efficient now , if you try to use it for anything more than base load your efficiency drops like a rock.Also a claim I often read , but that is rarely supported .
Nuclear generation costs are often quoted as being around 2-3 cents per kilowatt-hour * , which I believe is around half the cost of wind and about 50 \ % more expensive than similar coal-fired plants ( bearing in mind that coal-fired plants externalize most of their environmental costs , in comparison to wind and nuclear , which I believe both have relatively well-developed environmental policies ) .
* You can look here : http : //www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htmlor if you buy your electricity from a nuclear power plant , you can possibly just consult your bill .
A plant near me sells for 3 cents a kilowatt hour ( regardless of time of day ) , although consumers are still billed additionally for peak usage , owing partly to a nearby windfarm that sells for around 6.5 cents/kilowatt hour , and a few natural gas plants whose rate I do n't know .
( And of course I pay distribution charges on top of that .
) Why not support both ? There 's something I do agree with .
I ca n't understand all those people who pick a " favorite " energy policy , like it 's a fucking sports team , and then support it against all other policies regardless of logic , common sense , or human decency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But not so much that we can't do it.
It also takes a lot to underwrite the insurance for nuclear power.
So much, in fact, that nuclear power companies don't pay for it -- the US gov't does.
Somehow that tidbit, a tidbit that makes nuclear power one of the most expensive options around, is rarely mentioned around here.Correction, the nuclear power industry pays the United States government to provide insurance, similar to how banks pay for FDIC insurance.
This is established under the Price-Anderson Act, and you would do well to actually understand its basis before you try to use it as a bogeyman.The Price-Anderson Act was intended to guarantee that there would be funds available to pay for cleanup in the event of a major nuclear accident.
I don't recall exactly, but I believe it covers accidents that cost between $100 million and $10 billion dollars, with provisions in case there is a major accident costing more than $10 billion.
Once again, I don't exactly recall the history, but I believe the most costly accident ever covered by PAA was the Three Mile Island incident, which did exceed $10 billion and, quite frankly, much of that cost was still overblown.
(Example: A couple sued because their child, born after TMI, had Down's syndrome.
They received an out-of-court settlement.
The kicker?
They were in the second trimester at the time of the accident - the child already had Down's syndrome.
)I have often read about the PAA being raised as a spectre by anti-nuclear campaigners, but I've never heard what I thought was a compelling argument against it.
It seems profoundly responsible to have something like that in place, no matter how safe nuclear energy actually is or becomes.
Petroleum, which is by and large considered "safe," was still responsible for the Exxon-Valdez catastrophe, and Exxon-Mobil has done a fantastic job of shirking responsibility for the incident.
Wouldn't it have been nice if we had a Price-Anderson Act for petroleum accidents?Some people don't like the aesthetics of coal power plant smokestacks, giant fences around nuclear plants, or what's left of the mountain after the coal or nuclear fuel is mined Once again, this is often something I read from anti-nuclear campaigners, but it seems to belie their ignorance of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Uranium mining can be a very clean process, owing to the very small amount of material extracted, the relatively high value of that material, and the low price sensitivity nuclear energy programs have with respect to fuel costs (the cost of fuel is only a small fraction of the overall operating costs).I cannot say that all uranium mines are environmentally friendly, but I don't think the onus is on me to do so.
You are the one that advanced the claim that uranium mining related to nuclear energy is environmentally damaging, so the burden is on you to provide proof of this.Nuclear isn't financially efficient now, if you try to use it for anything more than base load your efficiency drops like a rock.Also a claim I often read, but that is rarely supported.
Nuclear generation costs are often quoted as being around 2-3 cents per kilowatt-hour*, which I believe is around half the cost of wind and about 50\% more expensive than similar coal-fired plants (bearing in mind that coal-fired plants externalize most of their environmental costs, in comparison to wind and nuclear, which I believe both have relatively well-developed environmental policies).
* You can look here:http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htmlor if you buy your electricity from a nuclear power plant, you can possibly just consult your bill.
A plant near me sells for 3 cents a kilowatt hour (regardless of time of day), although consumers are still billed additionally for peak usage, owing partly to a nearby windfarm that sells for around 6.5 cents/kilowatt hour, and a few natural gas plants whose rate I don't know.
(And of course I pay distribution charges on top of that.
)Why not support both?There's something I do agree with.
I can't understand all those people who pick a "favorite" energy policy, like it's a fucking sports team, and then support it against all other policies regardless of logic, common sense, or human decency.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28627603</id>
	<title>Re:A possible plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not allowed to abbreviate Resonance Cascade as ???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not allowed to abbreviate Resonance Cascade as ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not allowed to abbreviate Resonance Cascade as ??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28646841</id>
	<title>Re:What's with the conspiracy theories?</title>
	<author>peas\_n\_carrots</author>
	<datestamp>1247259360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course he's in it for the money.  And he'll use &amp; abuse as much govt loopholes &amp; taxpayer money to get rich "quick".  If it were entirely his money, sure he can get all the reward, but it's not all his money.  It's our money, taxpayer money, that subsidizes much of his wealth.

You ask why people loathe oil whores.  It's because their M.O. has been to systematically destroy renewable energy, lobby for rules &amp; regulations that heavily favor coal &amp; oil (e.g. virtually no responsibility for emissions), destroy stable &amp; productive environments (e.g. mountaintop removal) and generally spread misinformation.  They have been too successful at playing the lobbying game.  The wealthier &amp; bigger they get, the more monopolistic they behave, the easier it is for them to crush new potentially competitive technology, tech which almost always has a high capital investment and later becomes cheap.  But that tech never gets a chance to reach the later stages because it's systematically dismantled.

Anyways, your cheap oil, big cars and endless highways are not the product of the Magic Powers of Capitalism.  They are and have always been taxpayer subsidized industries.  Buy whatever you want, but pay for it yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course he 's in it for the money .
And he 'll use &amp; abuse as much govt loopholes &amp; taxpayer money to get rich " quick " .
If it were entirely his money , sure he can get all the reward , but it 's not all his money .
It 's our money , taxpayer money , that subsidizes much of his wealth .
You ask why people loathe oil whores .
It 's because their M.O .
has been to systematically destroy renewable energy , lobby for rules &amp; regulations that heavily favor coal &amp; oil ( e.g .
virtually no responsibility for emissions ) , destroy stable &amp; productive environments ( e.g .
mountaintop removal ) and generally spread misinformation .
They have been too successful at playing the lobbying game .
The wealthier &amp; bigger they get , the more monopolistic they behave , the easier it is for them to crush new potentially competitive technology , tech which almost always has a high capital investment and later becomes cheap .
But that tech never gets a chance to reach the later stages because it 's systematically dismantled .
Anyways , your cheap oil , big cars and endless highways are not the product of the Magic Powers of Capitalism .
They are and have always been taxpayer subsidized industries .
Buy whatever you want , but pay for it yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course he's in it for the money.
And he'll use &amp; abuse as much govt loopholes &amp; taxpayer money to get rich "quick".
If it were entirely his money, sure he can get all the reward, but it's not all his money.
It's our money, taxpayer money, that subsidizes much of his wealth.
You ask why people loathe oil whores.
It's because their M.O.
has been to systematically destroy renewable energy, lobby for rules &amp; regulations that heavily favor coal &amp; oil (e.g.
virtually no responsibility for emissions), destroy stable &amp; productive environments (e.g.
mountaintop removal) and generally spread misinformation.
They have been too successful at playing the lobbying game.
The wealthier &amp; bigger they get, the more monopolistic they behave, the easier it is for them to crush new potentially competitive technology, tech which almost always has a high capital investment and later becomes cheap.
But that tech never gets a chance to reach the later stages because it's systematically dismantled.
Anyways, your cheap oil, big cars and endless highways are not the product of the Magic Powers of Capitalism.
They are and have always been taxpayer subsidized industries.
Buy whatever you want, but pay for it yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624563</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>gnick</author>
	<datestamp>1247076180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clean renewable energy is <i>worse</i> for the environment than radioactive waste?</p></div><p>Typically.  Yeah.  Do the math.  Hell - Pick something easy like manufacturing costs of solar cells or transmission/storage costs for wind.</p><p>Nuclear == Sensible green.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clean renewable energy is worse for the environment than radioactive waste ? Typically .
Yeah. Do the math .
Hell - Pick something easy like manufacturing costs of solar cells or transmission/storage costs for wind.Nuclear = = Sensible green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clean renewable energy is worse for the environment than radioactive waste?Typically.
Yeah.  Do the math.
Hell - Pick something easy like manufacturing costs of solar cells or transmission/storage costs for wind.Nuclear == Sensible green.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626511</id>
	<title>The best-laid plans of mice and Pickens</title>
	<author>GPS Pilot</author>
	<datestamp>1247082780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of people point out that wind energy is not yet competitive with more traditional sources -- and that government spending on green energy kills on average 2.2 jobs for every job it creates ( <a href="http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf" title="juandemariana.org">http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf</a> [juandemariana.org] ).</p><p>Now that one of wind power's biggest supporters (Pickens) is at least partially throwing in the towel, here's hoping that some people will begin to realize that not every "green" initiative is worth its economic cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people point out that wind energy is not yet competitive with more traditional sources -- and that government spending on green energy kills on average 2.2 jobs for every job it creates ( http : //www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf [ juandemariana.org ] ) .Now that one of wind power 's biggest supporters ( Pickens ) is at least partially throwing in the towel , here 's hoping that some people will begin to realize that not every " green " initiative is worth its economic cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people point out that wind energy is not yet competitive with more traditional sources -- and that government spending on green energy kills on average 2.2 jobs for every job it creates ( http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf [juandemariana.org] ).Now that one of wind power's biggest supporters (Pickens) is at least partially throwing in the towel, here's hoping that some people will begin to realize that not every "green" initiative is worth its economic cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624361</id>
	<title>Slim and T-Boone Pickens.....</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1247075520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dr. Strange Glove....<br>.<br>I have this mental image of T.Boone Pickens straddling one of the blades of a giant turbine as it goes round and round.   He is strapped to it and screaming "Yee Haw" while waving around his Cowboy hat with one arm.<br>.<br>Then the Turbine blows up real good!<br>.<br>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dr. Strange Glove.....I have this mental image of T.Boone Pickens straddling one of the blades of a giant turbine as it goes round and round .
He is strapped to it and screaming " Yee Haw " while waving around his Cowboy hat with one arm..Then the Turbine blows up real good ! . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dr. Strange Glove.....I have this mental image of T.Boone Pickens straddling one of the blades of a giant turbine as it goes round and round.
He is strapped to it and screaming "Yee Haw" while waving around his Cowboy hat with one arm..Then the Turbine blows up real good!..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624399</id>
	<title>Power grid is particularly problematic in Texas</title>
	<author>stox</author>
	<datestamp>1247075640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of Texas has its own grid, and is not very well connected with the neighboring grids. The cost of enabling that grid to distribute power to the rest of the country was far more than TBone expected. There are plenty of other places that are closer to the grid to locate his turbines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of Texas has its own grid , and is not very well connected with the neighboring grids .
The cost of enabling that grid to distribute power to the rest of the country was far more than TBone expected .
There are plenty of other places that are closer to the grid to locate his turbines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of Texas has its own grid, and is not very well connected with the neighboring grids.
The cost of enabling that grid to distribute power to the rest of the country was far more than TBone expected.
There are plenty of other places that are closer to the grid to locate his turbines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625453</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>nico60513</author>
	<datestamp>1247079240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The issue is, wind power is needs a lot of space to operate. And for aesthetic reasons, they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers, which reduces efficiency.</p></div><p>As opposed to nuclear plants?  They don't tend to get built in densely populated areas either.</p><p>(I agree with most of your points - I just think wind farms aren't alone with the NIMBY issues).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is , wind power is needs a lot of space to operate .
And for aesthetic reasons , they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers , which reduces efficiency.As opposed to nuclear plants ?
They do n't tend to get built in densely populated areas either .
( I agree with most of your points - I just think wind farms are n't alone with the NIMBY issues ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is, wind power is needs a lot of space to operate.
And for aesthetic reasons, they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers, which reduces efficiency.As opposed to nuclear plants?
They don't tend to get built in densely populated areas either.
(I agree with most of your points - I just think wind farms aren't alone with the NIMBY issues).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625001</id>
	<title>AC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Michigan but hes welcome to place one in my backyard, as long as its run through my house and i get to incorporate as a power plant and sell the wattage myself.</p><p>Here where i live DTE Energy wont pay customers for energy production so if I have a solar panel and consistently over-produce i'll just get free energy for myself, they wont cut me a check on the extra. DTE Energy sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Michigan but hes welcome to place one in my backyard , as long as its run through my house and i get to incorporate as a power plant and sell the wattage myself.Here where i live DTE Energy wont pay customers for energy production so if I have a solar panel and consistently over-produce i 'll just get free energy for myself , they wont cut me a check on the extra .
DTE Energy sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Michigan but hes welcome to place one in my backyard, as long as its run through my house and i get to incorporate as a power plant and sell the wattage myself.Here where i live DTE Energy wont pay customers for energy production so if I have a solar panel and consistently over-produce i'll just get free energy for myself, they wont cut me a check on the extra.
DTE Energy sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1247075580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Becuase wind doesn't meet the needs of today's energy grid (baseline power needs, peak power needs). It takes alot to maintain such a distrubuted generation system, some people don't like the aesthetics, they grind up birds like no tomorrow. Sure they will be nice here and there but they don't have the potential to solve the problems we have now while nuclear does. <br> <br>Enviromentalism needs to wake up and face the fact that the problem is now so bad that idealism must take a back seat to pragmatics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Becuase wind does n't meet the needs of today 's energy grid ( baseline power needs , peak power needs ) .
It takes alot to maintain such a distrubuted generation system , some people do n't like the aesthetics , they grind up birds like no tomorrow .
Sure they will be nice here and there but they do n't have the potential to solve the problems we have now while nuclear does .
Enviromentalism needs to wake up and face the fact that the problem is now so bad that idealism must take a back seat to pragmatics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Becuase wind doesn't meet the needs of today's energy grid (baseline power needs, peak power needs).
It takes alot to maintain such a distrubuted generation system, some people don't like the aesthetics, they grind up birds like no tomorrow.
Sure they will be nice here and there but they don't have the potential to solve the problems we have now while nuclear does.
Enviromentalism needs to wake up and face the fact that the problem is now so bad that idealism must take a back seat to pragmatics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624209</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Nucular".  It's pronounced "nucular".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nucular " .
It 's pronounced " nucular " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nucular".
It's pronounced "nucular".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28633685</id>
	<title>Pithy Wordplay on this ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247134200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pickens chickens</p><p>Boone to bust</p><p>Ka-booone!</p><p>Pickens pickled</p><p>Rich windbag bags wind</p><p>T Boone t-boned by project losses</p><p>Project Boonerangs back on investor</p><p>What the Pickens!</p><p>Pickensian pathos dooms project</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pickens chickensBoone to bustKa-booone ! Pickens pickledRich windbag bags windT Boone t-boned by project lossesProject Boonerangs back on investorWhat the Pickens ! Pickensian pathos dooms project</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pickens chickensBoone to bustKa-booone!Pickens pickledRich windbag bags windT Boone t-boned by project lossesProject Boonerangs back on investorWhat the Pickens!Pickensian pathos dooms project</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624351</id>
	<title>Not as bad as it sounds.</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1247075520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ones already ordered are still being built.<br>
If gas prices go back up giving cost parity for wind, he plans to continue the plan.<br>
As we modernize the infrastructure he plans to continue; just the current infrastructure can't handle the increased load, so it is a waist.<br>
If it wasn't for the <a href="http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=595" title="house.gov">government created recession</a> [house.gov] he would still be pressing forward.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ones already ordered are still being built .
If gas prices go back up giving cost parity for wind , he plans to continue the plan .
As we modernize the infrastructure he plans to continue ; just the current infrastructure ca n't handle the increased load , so it is a waist .
If it was n't for the government created recession [ house.gov ] he would still be pressing forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ones already ordered are still being built.
If gas prices go back up giving cost parity for wind, he plans to continue the plan.
As we modernize the infrastructure he plans to continue; just the current infrastructure can't handle the increased load, so it is a waist.
If it wasn't for the government created recession [house.gov] he would still be pressing forward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625117</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1247078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Becuase wind doesn't meet the needs of today's energy grid (baseline power needs, peak power needs).</i></p><p>Virtually every study done on the subject disagrees with you. Our current grid supports up to about 20\% penetration.  With peaking and transmission upgrades, but without large-scale storage, studies in Denmark suggest that 50\% is economically realistic.</p><p><i>they grind up birds like no tomorrow</i></p><p>Ugh!  Why won't this myth die?  There was *one freaking wind farm* that had significant bird kill problems.  One -- Altamont Pass.  Built in the middle of a flyway.  Built without a bird-risk placement study.  With turbines that have far faster rotation than anything we use nowadays (the bigger the turbine, the lower the RPM).  I mean, come on!  The average wind turbine nowadays causes more bird deaths from the <i>transmission wires</i> that take the power to market than die from the turbine itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Becuase wind does n't meet the needs of today 's energy grid ( baseline power needs , peak power needs ) .Virtually every study done on the subject disagrees with you .
Our current grid supports up to about 20 \ % penetration .
With peaking and transmission upgrades , but without large-scale storage , studies in Denmark suggest that 50 \ % is economically realistic.they grind up birds like no tomorrowUgh !
Why wo n't this myth die ?
There was * one freaking wind farm * that had significant bird kill problems .
One -- Altamont Pass .
Built in the middle of a flyway .
Built without a bird-risk placement study .
With turbines that have far faster rotation than anything we use nowadays ( the bigger the turbine , the lower the RPM ) .
I mean , come on !
The average wind turbine nowadays causes more bird deaths from the transmission wires that take the power to market than die from the turbine itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Becuase wind doesn't meet the needs of today's energy grid (baseline power needs, peak power needs).Virtually every study done on the subject disagrees with you.
Our current grid supports up to about 20\% penetration.
With peaking and transmission upgrades, but without large-scale storage, studies in Denmark suggest that 50\% is economically realistic.they grind up birds like no tomorrowUgh!
Why won't this myth die?
There was *one freaking wind farm* that had significant bird kill problems.
One -- Altamont Pass.
Built in the middle of a flyway.
Built without a bird-risk placement study.
With turbines that have far faster rotation than anything we use nowadays (the bigger the turbine, the lower the RPM).
I mean, come on!
The average wind turbine nowadays causes more bird deaths from the transmission wires that take the power to market than die from the turbine itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629235</id>
	<title>Re:Pickens may be losing it.</title>
	<author>ksheff</author>
	<datestamp>1247052000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Natural gas is a part of his plan to reduce petroleum imports.  Use wind turbines to generate electricity and use the natural gas that would have been used for generating electricity for transportation uses instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Natural gas is a part of his plan to reduce petroleum imports .
Use wind turbines to generate electricity and use the natural gas that would have been used for generating electricity for transportation uses instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Natural gas is a part of his plan to reduce petroleum imports.
Use wind turbines to generate electricity and use the natural gas that would have been used for generating electricity for transportation uses instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625485</id>
	<title>Re:This reminds me so much of Slashdot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously you don't know much about Mr. Pickens, nor Atlas Shrugged.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously you do n't know much about Mr. Pickens , nor Atlas Shrugged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously you don't know much about Mr. Pickens, nor Atlas Shrugged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28630711</id>
	<title>Re:What's with the conspiracy theories?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why is it oil people are made out to be haters of renewable energy? They just want money, they don't have a love for black oily gunk"</p><p>They have a love of money and power. Control. This is how "oil barons" can even exist; oil has a bunch of monopolizable aspects, which you can then string together into a vertical monopoly too. Anything else is automatically a threat, because it strikes directly at their money/power base and takes control away from them.</p><p>On top of that, pretty much EVERY alternative energy source is harder to control (and therefore harder to monopolize) than oil. Wind and Solar are particularly large threats because they lend themselves to extreme decentralization; these could be outright impossible to monopolize. With oil, you can control the wells, tanker ships, tanker trucks, refineries, pipelines, gas stations... and enough success in any one of those aspects enables you to sink your teeth into another ones, until eventually you get the Exxons and Shells of the world. You can't really do that with distributed local electric generation. Pickens had the best chance of anyone to *try* to grab a local monopoly, and even that didn't work.</p><p>"I'm supportive of oil "barons" like Pickens doing these projects, not the government."</p><p>You worked out the reasons on your own in that paragraph; Pickens wanted a vast power line, power generation, and water pipeline monopoly handed to him. Private industry is great at a lot of things, but handing monopolies over infrastructure to single companies (or in Pickens' case, to *one person*) is outright a bad idea.</p><p>IMO, the heart of Pickens' arguments were self-serving bull anyway. If you look at the actual wind maps for North America, and then look at population maps, and then look at where he wanted turbines and lines, it didn't make any sense. Most of the wind is on the coasts. Most of the population is on the coasts. Building a vast wind farm in the middle and vast power networks out from there to the coasts is silly. The reality will be: we build a lot of wind farms off the coast, and ever so slightly beef up the existing lines that run along the coasts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why is it oil people are made out to be haters of renewable energy ?
They just want money , they do n't have a love for black oily gunk " They have a love of money and power .
Control. This is how " oil barons " can even exist ; oil has a bunch of monopolizable aspects , which you can then string together into a vertical monopoly too .
Anything else is automatically a threat , because it strikes directly at their money/power base and takes control away from them.On top of that , pretty much EVERY alternative energy source is harder to control ( and therefore harder to monopolize ) than oil .
Wind and Solar are particularly large threats because they lend themselves to extreme decentralization ; these could be outright impossible to monopolize .
With oil , you can control the wells , tanker ships , tanker trucks , refineries , pipelines , gas stations... and enough success in any one of those aspects enables you to sink your teeth into another ones , until eventually you get the Exxons and Shells of the world .
You ca n't really do that with distributed local electric generation .
Pickens had the best chance of anyone to * try * to grab a local monopoly , and even that did n't work .
" I 'm supportive of oil " barons " like Pickens doing these projects , not the government .
" You worked out the reasons on your own in that paragraph ; Pickens wanted a vast power line , power generation , and water pipeline monopoly handed to him .
Private industry is great at a lot of things , but handing monopolies over infrastructure to single companies ( or in Pickens ' case , to * one person * ) is outright a bad idea.IMO , the heart of Pickens ' arguments were self-serving bull anyway .
If you look at the actual wind maps for North America , and then look at population maps , and then look at where he wanted turbines and lines , it did n't make any sense .
Most of the wind is on the coasts .
Most of the population is on the coasts .
Building a vast wind farm in the middle and vast power networks out from there to the coasts is silly .
The reality will be : we build a lot of wind farms off the coast , and ever so slightly beef up the existing lines that run along the coasts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why is it oil people are made out to be haters of renewable energy?
They just want money, they don't have a love for black oily gunk"They have a love of money and power.
Control. This is how "oil barons" can even exist; oil has a bunch of monopolizable aspects, which you can then string together into a vertical monopoly too.
Anything else is automatically a threat, because it strikes directly at their money/power base and takes control away from them.On top of that, pretty much EVERY alternative energy source is harder to control (and therefore harder to monopolize) than oil.
Wind and Solar are particularly large threats because they lend themselves to extreme decentralization; these could be outright impossible to monopolize.
With oil, you can control the wells, tanker ships, tanker trucks, refineries, pipelines, gas stations... and enough success in any one of those aspects enables you to sink your teeth into another ones, until eventually you get the Exxons and Shells of the world.
You can't really do that with distributed local electric generation.
Pickens had the best chance of anyone to *try* to grab a local monopoly, and even that didn't work.
"I'm supportive of oil "barons" like Pickens doing these projects, not the government.
"You worked out the reasons on your own in that paragraph; Pickens wanted a vast power line, power generation, and water pipeline monopoly handed to him.
Private industry is great at a lot of things, but handing monopolies over infrastructure to single companies (or in Pickens' case, to *one person*) is outright a bad idea.IMO, the heart of Pickens' arguments were self-serving bull anyway.
If you look at the actual wind maps for North America, and then look at population maps, and then look at where he wanted turbines and lines, it didn't make any sense.
Most of the wind is on the coasts.
Most of the population is on the coasts.
Building a vast wind farm in the middle and vast power networks out from there to the coasts is silly.
The reality will be: we build a lot of wind farms off the coast, and ever so slightly beef up the existing lines that run along the coasts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624561</id>
	<title>this could only mean...</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1247076180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The collapse of the Cap &amp; Trade scheme.</p><p>Woohoo!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The collapse of the Cap &amp; Trade scheme.Woohoo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The collapse of the Cap &amp; Trade scheme.Woohoo!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28627055</id>
	<title>Re:Turbines en route</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247084820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have seen these on I-10 between Phoenix and Southern California.  Trucks carrying enormous blades that extend way beyond a standard semi trailer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have seen these on I-10 between Phoenix and Southern California .
Trucks carrying enormous blades that extend way beyond a standard semi trailer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have seen these on I-10 between Phoenix and Southern California.
Trucks carrying enormous blades that extend way beyond a standard semi trailer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628829</id>
	<title>Re:Pickens may be losing it.</title>
	<author>Big\_Breaker</author>
	<datestamp>1247049960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are are swimming in natural gas in the US due to new extraction technology.  Gas power plants are cheap, small and clean (no particulates or hydrocarbons and 50\% of the CO2 as coal).  Pickens is huge in natural gas and always promoted a partnership of gas and wind.  So this is just like before, except now that gas is cheap... skip the wind part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are are swimming in natural gas in the US due to new extraction technology .
Gas power plants are cheap , small and clean ( no particulates or hydrocarbons and 50 \ % of the CO2 as coal ) .
Pickens is huge in natural gas and always promoted a partnership of gas and wind .
So this is just like before , except now that gas is cheap... skip the wind part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are are swimming in natural gas in the US due to new extraction technology.
Gas power plants are cheap, small and clean (no particulates or hydrocarbons and 50\% of the CO2 as coal).
Pickens is huge in natural gas and always promoted a partnership of gas and wind.
So this is just like before, except now that gas is cheap... skip the wind part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624907</id>
	<title>Cover story?</title>
	<author>Dracos</author>
	<datestamp>1247077320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were some rumors shortly after Pickens announced this wind farm scheme that it was really a cover for a water rights land grab.  What else could this mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were some rumors shortly after Pickens announced this wind farm scheme that it was really a cover for a water rights land grab .
What else could this mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were some rumors shortly after Pickens announced this wind farm scheme that it was really a cover for a water rights land grab.
What else could this mean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625573</id>
	<title>Re:A fool and his money are some party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't an electric co-op or something in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska or somewhere near there jump in at the opportunity of getting some serious wind generation equipment on the cheap?   I agree he should have come up with a reasonable solution prior to spinning up the hype machine but it seems like some other entities would want to play ball too and they aren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't an electric co-op or something in Colorado , Kansas , Oklahoma , Nebraska or somewhere near there jump in at the opportunity of getting some serious wind generation equipment on the cheap ?
I agree he should have come up with a reasonable solution prior to spinning up the hype machine but it seems like some other entities would want to play ball too and they are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't an electric co-op or something in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska or somewhere near there jump in at the opportunity of getting some serious wind generation equipment on the cheap?
I agree he should have come up with a reasonable solution prior to spinning up the hype machine but it seems like some other entities would want to play ball too and they aren't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624239</id>
	<title>High Voltage DC?</title>
	<author>seven of five</author>
	<datestamp>1247075220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm shocked he didn't have this figured out before he plunked the $2B down for turbines.<br> <br>Isn't high voltage DC the thing to do these days for sending power long distance? Is this a technical issue or a land rights issue? People not wanting HV pylons in their backyards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm shocked he did n't have this figured out before he plunked the $ 2B down for turbines .
Is n't high voltage DC the thing to do these days for sending power long distance ?
Is this a technical issue or a land rights issue ?
People not wanting HV pylons in their backyards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm shocked he didn't have this figured out before he plunked the $2B down for turbines.
Isn't high voltage DC the thing to do these days for sending power long distance?
Is this a technical issue or a land rights issue?
People not wanting HV pylons in their backyards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629477</id>
	<title>Re:"On Hold" vs "Scrapped"</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247053500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is also a big difference between 'CNN' and 'Accuracy''~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also a big difference between 'CNN ' and 'Accuracy' ' ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also a big difference between 'CNN' and 'Accuracy''~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628903</id>
	<title>Re:Pickens may be losing it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC, his plan is to use wind to displace natural gas use for electrical generation. The natural gas thus freed will then be used to power vehicles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , his plan is to use wind to displace natural gas use for electrical generation .
The natural gas thus freed will then be used to power vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, his plan is to use wind to displace natural gas use for electrical generation.
The natural gas thus freed will then be used to power vehicles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625013</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>FishWithAHammer</author>
	<datestamp>1247077680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good points. Wind is <em>not</em> a base load replacement. It's a supplement.</p><p>That said, we need to build more nuclear plants 'till we can't build any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good points .
Wind is not a base load replacement .
It 's a supplement.That said , we need to build more nuclear plants 'till we ca n't build any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good points.
Wind is not a base load replacement.
It's a supplement.That said, we need to build more nuclear plants 'till we can't build any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625409</id>
	<title>What's with the conspiracy theories?</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1247079060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fairly certain that Pickens is in this for the money... whether the money comes from oil or renewable energy, I don't think he particularly cares.</p><p>Why is it oil people are made out to be haters of renewable energy?  They just want money, they don't have a love for black oily gunk.  If Pickens can make money from renewable energy, then he'll do it.  Seems pretty easy to understand to me.  I doubt he just loves oil.</p><p>I also don't quite understand the "We need more clean energy" sentiment combined with the "We don't want to pay for our clean energy" and "We don't want an oil guy creating our clean energy" sentiments.  It seems that we want clean energy, for free, and have it have nothing to do with a company that previously dealt with Awful Wicked Oil (tm).</p><p>I'm all for renewable energy... but it does need to be economical, and the supply needs to come from demand.  And I don't want these sorts of projects flopping after MY money was used in it... e.g., I'm supportive of oil "barons" like Pickens doing these projects, <i>not the government</i>.  Why?  Because that's the whole point of private enterprise.  Taking risks.  Making it work.  And if it works and someone gets rich from it, good for them.  I won't complain.  Unless I start getting forced to use it and THAT'S why someone gets rich.  Which, unfortunately, appears to be the way a lot of people want it to go...</p><p>Oh well.  I'm probably just cynical because I like large "cars" and don't want to spend $20k more to have it be electric or hybrid... or not spend that much more money and drive on the freeways [with crazy drunk people] in a plastic coffin<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly certain that Pickens is in this for the money... whether the money comes from oil or renewable energy , I do n't think he particularly cares.Why is it oil people are made out to be haters of renewable energy ?
They just want money , they do n't have a love for black oily gunk .
If Pickens can make money from renewable energy , then he 'll do it .
Seems pretty easy to understand to me .
I doubt he just loves oil.I also do n't quite understand the " We need more clean energy " sentiment combined with the " We do n't want to pay for our clean energy " and " We do n't want an oil guy creating our clean energy " sentiments .
It seems that we want clean energy , for free , and have it have nothing to do with a company that previously dealt with Awful Wicked Oil ( tm ) .I 'm all for renewable energy... but it does need to be economical , and the supply needs to come from demand .
And I do n't want these sorts of projects flopping after MY money was used in it.. .
e.g. , I 'm supportive of oil " barons " like Pickens doing these projects , not the government .
Why ? Because that 's the whole point of private enterprise .
Taking risks .
Making it work .
And if it works and someone gets rich from it , good for them .
I wo n't complain .
Unless I start getting forced to use it and THAT 'S why someone gets rich .
Which , unfortunately , appears to be the way a lot of people want it to go...Oh well .
I 'm probably just cynical because I like large " cars " and do n't want to spend $ 20k more to have it be electric or hybrid... or not spend that much more money and drive on the freeways [ with crazy drunk people ] in a plastic coffin : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly certain that Pickens is in this for the money... whether the money comes from oil or renewable energy, I don't think he particularly cares.Why is it oil people are made out to be haters of renewable energy?
They just want money, they don't have a love for black oily gunk.
If Pickens can make money from renewable energy, then he'll do it.
Seems pretty easy to understand to me.
I doubt he just loves oil.I also don't quite understand the "We need more clean energy" sentiment combined with the "We don't want to pay for our clean energy" and "We don't want an oil guy creating our clean energy" sentiments.
It seems that we want clean energy, for free, and have it have nothing to do with a company that previously dealt with Awful Wicked Oil (tm).I'm all for renewable energy... but it does need to be economical, and the supply needs to come from demand.
And I don't want these sorts of projects flopping after MY money was used in it...
e.g., I'm supportive of oil "barons" like Pickens doing these projects, not the government.
Why?  Because that's the whole point of private enterprise.
Taking risks.
Making it work.
And if it works and someone gets rich from it, good for them.
I won't complain.
Unless I start getting forced to use it and THAT'S why someone gets rich.
Which, unfortunately, appears to be the way a lot of people want it to go...Oh well.
I'm probably just cynical because I like large "cars" and don't want to spend $20k more to have it be electric or hybrid... or not spend that much more money and drive on the freeways [with crazy drunk people] in a plastic coffin :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629207</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother -- won't change the (un)logic</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1247051760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to knock nuclear when some moonbat is using it to knock wind.</p><p>The fact is that as a distributed source, wind will take a lot of manpower to install and get right, while nuclear plants are a drop-in replacement for what we've got now.  ish.    It's simply not economically viable to switch entirely over to wind right now, even if the fabrication ability was already in place.  If carbon is evil, then nuclear needs some cheerleading because it's the only thing that we can do right now in sufficient quantity to make a real difference.</p><p>That said, the anti-wind luddites need to realize the important, salient fact about wind: there is energy there.  It is fairly easy to extract and techniques are developing to make it even more economically feasible to extract that energy.  It's not a question of <em>IF</em> any more.  It's only a question of <em>when</em> and who benefits from it.  You can't stop the windmills any more than you can stop nature from filling a niche.  <em>and why would you want to?</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to knock nuclear when some moonbat is using it to knock wind.The fact is that as a distributed source , wind will take a lot of manpower to install and get right , while nuclear plants are a drop-in replacement for what we 've got now .
ish. It 's simply not economically viable to switch entirely over to wind right now , even if the fabrication ability was already in place .
If carbon is evil , then nuclear needs some cheerleading because it 's the only thing that we can do right now in sufficient quantity to make a real difference.That said , the anti-wind luddites need to realize the important , salient fact about wind : there is energy there .
It is fairly easy to extract and techniques are developing to make it even more economically feasible to extract that energy .
It 's not a question of IF any more .
It 's only a question of when and who benefits from it .
You ca n't stop the windmills any more than you can stop nature from filling a niche .
and why would you want to ? .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to knock nuclear when some moonbat is using it to knock wind.The fact is that as a distributed source, wind will take a lot of manpower to install and get right, while nuclear plants are a drop-in replacement for what we've got now.
ish.    It's simply not economically viable to switch entirely over to wind right now, even if the fabrication ability was already in place.
If carbon is evil, then nuclear needs some cheerleading because it's the only thing that we can do right now in sufficient quantity to make a real difference.That said, the anti-wind luddites need to realize the important, salient fact about wind: there is energy there.
It is fairly easy to extract and techniques are developing to make it even more economically feasible to extract that energy.
It's not a question of IF any more.
It's only a question of when and who benefits from it.
You can't stop the windmills any more than you can stop nature from filling a niche.
and why would you want to?.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625431</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1247079120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, huh?  The energy payback time on silicon cells is 1-3 years, while for solar thermal and non-silicon thin-films it's a matter of months.  Nanosolar reports under 1 month for energy payback on their CIGS cells.</p><p>Beat that with nuclear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , huh ?
The energy payback time on silicon cells is 1-3 years , while for solar thermal and non-silicon thin-films it 's a matter of months .
Nanosolar reports under 1 month for energy payback on their CIGS cells.Beat that with nuclear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, huh?
The energy payback time on silicon cells is 1-3 years, while for solar thermal and non-silicon thin-films it's a matter of months.
Nanosolar reports under 1 month for energy payback on their CIGS cells.Beat that with nuclear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625139</id>
	<title>It was never about wind, it's all about WATER</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247078100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was never about wind, it was about WATER, and Mr Pickens' newly-granted powers of Eminent Domain!</p><p><a href="http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/071008/loc\_302185743.shtml" title="lubbockonline.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/071008/loc\_302185743.shtml</a> [lubbockonline.com]<br><a href="http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html" title="junkscience.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html</a> [junkscience.com]<br><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/T\_Boone\_Pickens\_wants\_your\_water.html" title="washingtonexaminer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/T\_Boone\_Pickens\_wants\_your\_water.html</a> [washingtonexaminer.com]<br><a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/24410-t-boone-pickens-invests-in-water-should-you" title="seekingalpha.com" rel="nofollow">http://seekingalpha.com/article/24410-t-boone-pickens-invests-in-water-should-you</a> [seekingalpha.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was never about wind , it was about WATER , and Mr Pickens ' newly-granted powers of Eminent Domain ! http : //www.lubbockonline.com/stories/071008/loc \ _302185743.shtml [ lubbockonline.com ] http : //www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html [ junkscience.com ] http : //www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/T \ _Boone \ _Pickens \ _wants \ _your \ _water.html [ washingtonexaminer.com ] http : //seekingalpha.com/article/24410-t-boone-pickens-invests-in-water-should-you [ seekingalpha.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was never about wind, it was about WATER, and Mr Pickens' newly-granted powers of Eminent Domain!http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/071008/loc\_302185743.shtml [lubbockonline.com]http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html [junkscience.com]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/T\_Boone\_Pickens\_wants\_your\_water.html [washingtonexaminer.com]http://seekingalpha.com/article/24410-t-boone-pickens-invests-in-water-should-you [seekingalpha.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625125</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>AtomicJake</author>
	<datestamp>1247078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The plant where my dad works at has a 200 gallon pool where the waste is stored that what they have from 75 years of running the plant...</p></div><p>Bart Simpson, is this you?  On a side note, as far as I am aware the world-oldest nuclear power plant became operational in <a href="http://www.electricityforum.com/news/mar03/ukplant.html" title="electricityforum.com">1956</a> [electricityforum.com].  Unless he is working in a military nuclear plant, but then they are actually using the waste for the bombs (or did I miss here something?).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The plant where my dad works at has a 200 gallon pool where the waste is stored that what they have from 75 years of running the plant...Bart Simpson , is this you ?
On a side note , as far as I am aware the world-oldest nuclear power plant became operational in 1956 [ electricityforum.com ] .
Unless he is working in a military nuclear plant , but then they are actually using the waste for the bombs ( or did I miss here something ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plant where my dad works at has a 200 gallon pool where the waste is stored that what they have from 75 years of running the plant...Bart Simpson, is this you?
On a side note, as far as I am aware the world-oldest nuclear power plant became operational in 1956 [electricityforum.com].
Unless he is working in a military nuclear plant, but then they are actually using the waste for the bombs (or did I miss here something?
).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624163</id>
	<title>Re:A fool and his money are some party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247074920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here, I'll handle that for you.</p><p><i>In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.</i></p><p>Now, one would think a major issue like this would have been thought of beforehand (it was) and thoroughly scoped out BEFORE the investment (it wasn't).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , I 'll handle that for you.In Texas , the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system , Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York .
He 'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.Now , one would think a major issue like this would have been thought of beforehand ( it was ) and thoroughly scoped out BEFORE the investment ( it was n't ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, I'll handle that for you.In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York.
He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.Now, one would think a major issue like this would have been thought of beforehand (it was) and thoroughly scoped out BEFORE the investment (it wasn't).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628673</id>
	<title>Re:Turbines en route</title>
	<author>tiptone</author>
	<datestamp>1247049240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I drive I-45 just North of Houston and regularly see the things being driven north towards Dallas.  I've never looked into where they're coming from or going, but I see them on a regular weekly basis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I drive I-45 just North of Houston and regularly see the things being driven north towards Dallas .
I 've never looked into where they 're coming from or going , but I see them on a regular weekly basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I drive I-45 just North of Houston and regularly see the things being driven north towards Dallas.
I've never looked into where they're coming from or going, but I see them on a regular weekly basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626089</id>
	<title>Re:Pickens may be losing it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247081460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>methane hydrates</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>methane hydrates</tokentext>
<sentencetext>methane hydrates</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625983</id>
	<title>Re:A fool and his money are some party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247081100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.</p><p>Now, one would think a major issue like this would have been thought of beforehand"</p><p>Moreover, it's a lie - unless by "technical problems" he meant "technical problems of a political nature".<br>See info and links elsewhere in the comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" He 'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.Now , one would think a major issue like this would have been thought of beforehand " Moreover , it 's a lie - unless by " technical problems " he meant " technical problems of a political nature " .See info and links elsewhere in the comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.Now, one would think a major issue like this would have been thought of beforehand"Moreover, it's a lie - unless by "technical problems" he meant "technical problems of a political nature".See info and links elsewhere in the comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625241</id>
	<title>He could try SRP</title>
	<author>JohnnyGTO</author>
	<datestamp>1247078460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and add them to the Dry Lake Project here in Arizona. <a href="http://www.srpnet.com/environment/drylakewind.aspx" title="srpnet.com">http://www.srpnet.com/environment/drylakewind.aspx</a> [srpnet.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>and add them to the Dry Lake Project here in Arizona .
http : //www.srpnet.com/environment/drylakewind.aspx [ srpnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and add them to the Dry Lake Project here in Arizona.
http://www.srpnet.com/environment/drylakewind.aspx [srpnet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626751</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother -- won't change the (un)logic</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1247083680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not support both?</p></div><p>Clearly, supporting every option available to us that improves from the current situation is the way to go.  The problem that the earlier poster was referring to is that many environmentalists would rather support no option until a perfect option is somehow devised, and in the meantime, we're all supposed to sit around in the dark.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not support both ? Clearly , supporting every option available to us that improves from the current situation is the way to go .
The problem that the earlier poster was referring to is that many environmentalists would rather support no option until a perfect option is somehow devised , and in the meantime , we 're all supposed to sit around in the dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not support both?Clearly, supporting every option available to us that improves from the current situation is the way to go.
The problem that the earlier poster was referring to is that many environmentalists would rather support no option until a perfect option is somehow devised, and in the meantime, we're all supposed to sit around in the dark.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628417</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>jafiwam</author>
	<datestamp>1247047920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which wind farm is this?  What bird study are you looking at?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... never  mind.  I'll just get to the point.  You are a liar.  You made up the place, and the number of birds, didn't you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which wind farm is this ?
What bird study are you looking at ?
... never mind .
I 'll just get to the point .
You are a liar .
You made up the place , and the number of birds , did n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which wind farm is this?
What bird study are you looking at?
... never  mind.
I'll just get to the point.
You are a liar.
You made up the place, and the number of birds, didn't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625347</id>
	<title>Re:Pickens may be losing it.</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1247078820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um no... this was always in the <a href="http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/" title="pickensplan.com">"Pickens Plan."</a> [pickensplan.com]  Wind is only one half of it.  Moving vehicles over to natural gas (it's the only energy he thinks could displace oil in vehicles in a relatively short amount of time) is the second half.</p><p>You could have a good argument over your comment about whether he is overly optimistic about our supplies of natural gas though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um no... this was always in the " Pickens Plan .
" [ pickensplan.com ] Wind is only one half of it .
Moving vehicles over to natural gas ( it 's the only energy he thinks could displace oil in vehicles in a relatively short amount of time ) is the second half.You could have a good argument over your comment about whether he is overly optimistic about our supplies of natural gas though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um no... this was always in the "Pickens Plan.
" [pickensplan.com]  Wind is only one half of it.
Moving vehicles over to natural gas (it's the only energy he thinks could displace oil in vehicles in a relatively short amount of time) is the second half.You could have a good argument over your comment about whether he is overly optimistic about our supplies of natural gas though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625323</id>
	<title>My advice to Mr. Pickens</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1247078760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> 'They've got to go someplace.'</p></div></blockquote><p>One word:  Craigslist.  They would probably go faster if you put them in the exotic^H^H^H^H^Hadult services section</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'They 've got to go someplace .
'One word : Craigslist .
They would probably go faster if you put them in the exotic ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Hadult services section</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'They've got to go someplace.
'One word:  Craigslist.
They would probably go faster if you put them in the exotic^H^H^H^H^Hadult services section
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089</id>
	<title>A fool and his money are some party</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1247074620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. I've seen this same kind of mistake happen in the little companies I work for, spending money on stuff right before plans change. I've seen this kind of mistake but never personally witnessed one of them this big. Looks like I'm going to have to RTFA to see what changed the deal after all the checks were signed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I 've seen this same kind of mistake happen in the little companies I work for , spending money on stuff right before plans change .
I 've seen this kind of mistake but never personally witnessed one of them this big .
Looks like I 'm going to have to RTFA to see what changed the deal after all the checks were signed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I've seen this same kind of mistake happen in the little companies I work for, spending money on stuff right before plans change.
I've seen this kind of mistake but never personally witnessed one of them this big.
Looks like I'm going to have to RTFA to see what changed the deal after all the checks were signed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28638471</id>
	<title>South Africa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247161980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell him to come and set up a private power generating farm here in South Africa. Our main supplier here, Eskom hasnt bothered to put any new infrastructure in place over the last 14 years, and are now floundering about trying to do some crisis management. The money is here to pay for the electricity generated. so it might be an ideal opportunity for a gutsy entrepeneur.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell him to come and set up a private power generating farm here in South Africa .
Our main supplier here , Eskom hasnt bothered to put any new infrastructure in place over the last 14 years , and are now floundering about trying to do some crisis management .
The money is here to pay for the electricity generated .
so it might be an ideal opportunity for a gutsy entrepeneur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell him to come and set up a private power generating farm here in South Africa.
Our main supplier here, Eskom hasnt bothered to put any new infrastructure in place over the last 14 years, and are now floundering about trying to do some crisis management.
The money is here to pay for the electricity generated.
so it might be an ideal opportunity for a gutsy entrepeneur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624395</id>
	<title>Here in Alberta Canada...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't the birds that are having problems with wind turbines, it's *Bats*<br>Apparently their lungs cannot handle the presure gradients around the vanes so their lungs have been exploding.<br><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-turbines-make-bat-lungs-explode.html?feedId=online-news\_rss20" title="newscientist.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-turbines-make-bat-lungs-explode.html?feedId=online-news\_rss20</a> [newscientist.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't the birds that are having problems with wind turbines , it 's * Bats * Apparently their lungs can not handle the presure gradients around the vanes so their lungs have been exploding.http : //www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-turbines-make-bat-lungs-explode.html ? feedId = online-news \ _rss20 [ newscientist.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't the birds that are having problems with wind turbines, it's *Bats*Apparently their lungs cannot handle the presure gradients around the vanes so their lungs have been exploding.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-turbines-make-bat-lungs-explode.html?feedId=online-news\_rss20 [newscientist.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1247075100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These things are a great way to make a beautiful landscape hideous.</p> </div><p>As opposed to what, a coal plant?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else.</p></div><p>Clean renewable energy is <i>worse</i> for the environment than radioactive waste?  I understand that nuclear power is a viable alternative to coal and oil, and that it produces constant power and all that, but how is it better for the environment than wind?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These things are a great way to make a beautiful landscape hideous .
As opposed to what , a coal plant ? Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else.Clean renewable energy is worse for the environment than radioactive waste ?
I understand that nuclear power is a viable alternative to coal and oil , and that it produces constant power and all that , but how is it better for the environment than wind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These things are a great way to make a beautiful landscape hideous.
As opposed to what, a coal plant?Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else.Clean renewable energy is worse for the environment than radioactive waste?
I understand that nuclear power is a viable alternative to coal and oil, and that it produces constant power and all that, but how is it better for the environment than wind?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28635537</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother -- won't change the (un)logic</title>
	<author>QuantumPion</author>
	<datestamp>1247150220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nuclear doesn't meet peak power needs either. It turns out that multiple sources can be used together -- every wind turbine spinning replaces MWh generated by gas or coal. Build enough un/negatively correlated turbines and you can count a fraction of wind generation as base. The rest replaces gas turbine output. No engineer is claiming that wind can, by itself, replace all other power demands. It can certainly play a role replacing some fossil fuel power generation, and it's nuclear waste-free!</p></div></blockquote><p>The only reason why nuclear "does not meet peak power needs" is because nuclear pants are very large and operating them at less then 100\% power is a big waste of resources. If the economics were different, reactors can (and have in the past) operate in load-following mode (i.e. providing peak power demand).</p><p>You can make the claim that with all the wind power around the country, at any given time at least some of them are spinning and therefore the total installed wind base has a minimum threshold. But a wind farm that is spinning in California can't ship its power to one that isn't in New York. You still need the natural gas turbine backup locally. So wind power can never be counted as base load capacity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear does n't meet peak power needs either .
It turns out that multiple sources can be used together -- every wind turbine spinning replaces MWh generated by gas or coal .
Build enough un/negatively correlated turbines and you can count a fraction of wind generation as base .
The rest replaces gas turbine output .
No engineer is claiming that wind can , by itself , replace all other power demands .
It can certainly play a role replacing some fossil fuel power generation , and it 's nuclear waste-free ! The only reason why nuclear " does not meet peak power needs " is because nuclear pants are very large and operating them at less then 100 \ % power is a big waste of resources .
If the economics were different , reactors can ( and have in the past ) operate in load-following mode ( i.e .
providing peak power demand ) .You can make the claim that with all the wind power around the country , at any given time at least some of them are spinning and therefore the total installed wind base has a minimum threshold .
But a wind farm that is spinning in California ca n't ship its power to one that is n't in New York .
You still need the natural gas turbine backup locally .
So wind power can never be counted as base load capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear doesn't meet peak power needs either.
It turns out that multiple sources can be used together -- every wind turbine spinning replaces MWh generated by gas or coal.
Build enough un/negatively correlated turbines and you can count a fraction of wind generation as base.
The rest replaces gas turbine output.
No engineer is claiming that wind can, by itself, replace all other power demands.
It can certainly play a role replacing some fossil fuel power generation, and it's nuclear waste-free!The only reason why nuclear "does not meet peak power needs" is because nuclear pants are very large and operating them at less then 100\% power is a big waste of resources.
If the economics were different, reactors can (and have in the past) operate in load-following mode (i.e.
providing peak power demand).You can make the claim that with all the wind power around the country, at any given time at least some of them are spinning and therefore the total installed wind base has a minimum threshold.
But a wind farm that is spinning in California can't ship its power to one that isn't in New York.
You still need the natural gas turbine backup locally.
So wind power can never be counted as base load capacity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624707</id>
	<title>Turbines en route</title>
	<author>Ponga</author>
	<datestamp>1247076660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live is Southern AZ where Interstate 10 runs and a road which I am driving on often. Over the last few months I've noticed a steady flow of "oversize load"s on the freeway that contain rather large wind turbine components heading eastbound, presumably heading to TX from somewhere in CA. Perhaps these are Mr. Pickens, but who knows. Bottom line is there sure have been a lot of these steadily flowing through AZ...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live is Southern AZ where Interstate 10 runs and a road which I am driving on often .
Over the last few months I 've noticed a steady flow of " oversize load " s on the freeway that contain rather large wind turbine components heading eastbound , presumably heading to TX from somewhere in CA .
Perhaps these are Mr. Pickens , but who knows .
Bottom line is there sure have been a lot of these steadily flowing through AZ.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live is Southern AZ where Interstate 10 runs and a road which I am driving on often.
Over the last few months I've noticed a steady flow of "oversize load"s on the freeway that contain rather large wind turbine components heading eastbound, presumably heading to TX from somewhere in CA.
Perhaps these are Mr. Pickens, but who knows.
Bottom line is there sure have been a lot of these steadily flowing through AZ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28636451</id>
	<title>Re:Pickens may be losing it.</title>
	<author>shplorb</author>
	<datestamp>1247153700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's buttloads of natural gas out there. Here in Australia we apparently have known reserves large enough to keep us running for a few centuries, and our reserves pale in comparison to say Russia.</p><p>You can run internal combustion engines on natural gas. Lots of buses run on it here in Oz, and I'm sure the only thing stopping cars being able to run on it is the government not being able to gouge us for fuel excise when everyone can fill up from the gas main at home. There's also diesel/gas engines that are used to run gensets in remote areas as natural gas is cheaper than diesel and the diesel is only used to get the engine running.</p><p>And if you're not going to run vehicles directly on natural gas I believe you can also use it as a feedstock for creating "syncrude" via the Fischer-Tropsch process, which can be refined into ultra-clean high-grade diesel and jet fuels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's buttloads of natural gas out there .
Here in Australia we apparently have known reserves large enough to keep us running for a few centuries , and our reserves pale in comparison to say Russia.You can run internal combustion engines on natural gas .
Lots of buses run on it here in Oz , and I 'm sure the only thing stopping cars being able to run on it is the government not being able to gouge us for fuel excise when everyone can fill up from the gas main at home .
There 's also diesel/gas engines that are used to run gensets in remote areas as natural gas is cheaper than diesel and the diesel is only used to get the engine running.And if you 're not going to run vehicles directly on natural gas I believe you can also use it as a feedstock for creating " syncrude " via the Fischer-Tropsch process , which can be refined into ultra-clean high-grade diesel and jet fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's buttloads of natural gas out there.
Here in Australia we apparently have known reserves large enough to keep us running for a few centuries, and our reserves pale in comparison to say Russia.You can run internal combustion engines on natural gas.
Lots of buses run on it here in Oz, and I'm sure the only thing stopping cars being able to run on it is the government not being able to gouge us for fuel excise when everyone can fill up from the gas main at home.
There's also diesel/gas engines that are used to run gensets in remote areas as natural gas is cheaper than diesel and the diesel is only used to get the engine running.And if you're not going to run vehicles directly on natural gas I believe you can also use it as a feedstock for creating "syncrude" via the Fischer-Tropsch process, which can be refined into ultra-clean high-grade diesel and jet fuels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28635735</id>
	<title>Re:Turbines en route</title>
	<author>Epi-man</author>
	<datestamp>1247151120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I live is Southern AZ where Interstate 10 runs and a road which I am driving on often. Over the last few months I've noticed a steady flow of "oversize load"s on the freeway that contain rather large wind turbine components heading eastbound, presumably heading to TX from somewhere in CA.</p></div></blockquote><p>Interesting, here in San Antonio on I-10, I see a lot of the components westbound.  Actually, I see them on 1604 fairly often as well (the loop that connects I-35 to I-10 if you have a big load).  I always figured they were headed to AZ.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live is Southern AZ where Interstate 10 runs and a road which I am driving on often .
Over the last few months I 've noticed a steady flow of " oversize load " s on the freeway that contain rather large wind turbine components heading eastbound , presumably heading to TX from somewhere in CA.Interesting , here in San Antonio on I-10 , I see a lot of the components westbound .
Actually , I see them on 1604 fairly often as well ( the loop that connects I-35 to I-10 if you have a big load ) .
I always figured they were headed to AZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live is Southern AZ where Interstate 10 runs and a road which I am driving on often.
Over the last few months I've noticed a steady flow of "oversize load"s on the freeway that contain rather large wind turbine components heading eastbound, presumably heading to TX from somewhere in CA.Interesting, here in San Antonio on I-10, I see a lot of the components westbound.
Actually, I see them on 1604 fairly often as well (the loop that connects I-35 to I-10 if you have a big load).
I always figured they were headed to AZ.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625351</id>
	<title>Read this article, there's a section on oil prices</title>
	<author>m509272</author>
	<datestamp>1247078820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Great American Bubble Machine</p><p><a href="http://www.correntewire.com/great\_american\_bubble\_machine\_0" title="correntewire.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.correntewire.com/great\_american\_bubble\_machine\_0</a> [correntewire.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Great American Bubble Machinehttp : //www.correntewire.com/great \ _american \ _bubble \ _machine \ _0 [ correntewire.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Great American Bubble Machinehttp://www.correntewire.com/great\_american\_bubble\_machine\_0 [correntewire.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624457</id>
	<title>A possible plan</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1247075820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'They've got to go someplace.' Pickens' company Mesa Power ordered the turbines from General Electric Co.</p></div><p>1. Form new Mesa Power subsidiary called Black Mesa 
2. Use extra wind generated power to open interdimensional gate
3. ???
4. Half-Life!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'They 've got to go someplace .
' Pickens ' company Mesa Power ordered the turbines from General Electric Co.1 .
Form new Mesa Power subsidiary called Black Mesa 2 .
Use extra wind generated power to open interdimensional gate 3 .
? ? ? 4 .
Half-Life ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'They've got to go someplace.
' Pickens' company Mesa Power ordered the turbines from General Electric Co.1.
Form new Mesa Power subsidiary called Black Mesa 
2.
Use extra wind generated power to open interdimensional gate
3.
???
4.
Half-Life!!!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625123</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1247078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wind power costs about <b>0.055 cents</b>/kWh. Coal has been slowly rising and is about <b>0.03 cents</b>/kWh right now. </p></div><p>You don't, by any chance, work for Verizon?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind power costs about 0.055 cents/kWh .
Coal has been slowly rising and is about 0.03 cents/kWh right now .
You do n't , by any chance , work for Verizon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind power costs about 0.055 cents/kWh.
Coal has been slowly rising and is about 0.03 cents/kWh right now.
You don't, by any chance, work for Verizon?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628321</id>
	<title>Re:A fool and his money are some party</title>
	<author>stevied</author>
	<datestamp>1247047440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen. I'm not generally a big fan of rich capitalists, but this guy saw what needed doing and had a go. I've got a lot of respect for people who actually try to get stuff done rather than just moaning, even if they are still aiming to make money off of it in the long term. With any luck he'll learn some lessons, and be able to use of the hardware, and come back later with a better plan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
I 'm not generally a big fan of rich capitalists , but this guy saw what needed doing and had a go .
I 've got a lot of respect for people who actually try to get stuff done rather than just moaning , even if they are still aiming to make money off of it in the long term .
With any luck he 'll learn some lessons , and be able to use of the hardware , and come back later with a better plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
I'm not generally a big fan of rich capitalists, but this guy saw what needed doing and had a go.
I've got a lot of respect for people who actually try to get stuff done rather than just moaning, even if they are still aiming to make money off of it in the long term.
With any luck he'll learn some lessons, and be able to use of the hardware, and come back later with a better plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625759</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1247080320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed the sarcasm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed the sarcasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed the sarcasm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624843</id>
	<title>"On Hold" vs "Scrapped"</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1247077140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/08/pickens.wind.farm/index.html" title="cnn.com">CNN is reporting the project is "On hold" not "scrapped".</a> [cnn.com]  They also reports the wind equipment that has been bought is going to be used.</p><p>There is a big difference between "On Hold" and "Scrapped".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN is reporting the project is " On hold " not " scrapped " .
[ cnn.com ] They also reports the wind equipment that has been bought is going to be used.There is a big difference between " On Hold " and " Scrapped " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN is reporting the project is "On hold" not "scrapped".
[cnn.com]  They also reports the wind equipment that has been bought is going to be used.There is a big difference between "On Hold" and "Scrapped".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624965</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1247077560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*One* freaking poorly placed, poorly designed wind farm (Altamont Pass) and wind turbines get forever scarred as bird killers.  Ugh.</p><p>Wind turbines almost everywhere *except* Altamont Pass (one of the first large-scale farms, placed in the middle of a flyway, using small turbines with fast-turning blades, with no study -- something nobody would dream of doing today) have very low bird death rates.  The freaking Audubon Society supports wind power because it's impact on birds is much smaller than that of the other generation methods it displaces.</p><p>If you actually want to make an impact on bird deaths, spay and neuter your cats, keep them indoors, and stop supporting the construction of glass-curtained buildings.  Both kill far more birds than wind farms ever will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* One * freaking poorly placed , poorly designed wind farm ( Altamont Pass ) and wind turbines get forever scarred as bird killers .
Ugh.Wind turbines almost everywhere * except * Altamont Pass ( one of the first large-scale farms , placed in the middle of a flyway , using small turbines with fast-turning blades , with no study -- something nobody would dream of doing today ) have very low bird death rates .
The freaking Audubon Society supports wind power because it 's impact on birds is much smaller than that of the other generation methods it displaces.If you actually want to make an impact on bird deaths , spay and neuter your cats , keep them indoors , and stop supporting the construction of glass-curtained buildings .
Both kill far more birds than wind farms ever will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*One* freaking poorly placed, poorly designed wind farm (Altamont Pass) and wind turbines get forever scarred as bird killers.
Ugh.Wind turbines almost everywhere *except* Altamont Pass (one of the first large-scale farms, placed in the middle of a flyway, using small turbines with fast-turning blades, with no study -- something nobody would dream of doing today) have very low bird death rates.
The freaking Audubon Society supports wind power because it's impact on birds is much smaller than that of the other generation methods it displaces.If you actually want to make an impact on bird deaths, spay and neuter your cats, keep them indoors, and stop supporting the construction of glass-curtained buildings.
Both kill far more birds than wind farms ever will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626517</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's $.055/kWh and $.03/kWh.  You're off by a couple orders of magnitude, regardless of your source for these numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's $ .055/kWh and $ .03/kWh .
You 're off by a couple orders of magnitude , regardless of your source for these numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's $.055/kWh and $.03/kWh.
You're off by a couple orders of magnitude, regardless of your source for these numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28639309</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247165340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wind IS a base load replacement.</p></div><p>*blink* The respondent is a moron.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind IS a base load replacement .
* blink * The respondent is a moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind IS a base load replacement.
*blink* The respondent is a moron.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624591</id>
	<title>This reminds me so much of Atlas Shrugged.</title>
	<author>random coward</author>
	<datestamp>1247076300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This so reminds me of something Orrin Boyle would do in Atlas Shrugged. Spending all that money because it was the socially right thing to do, but with no real plan to make it productive; because he has never cared about profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This so reminds me of something Orrin Boyle would do in Atlas Shrugged .
Spending all that money because it was the socially right thing to do , but with no real plan to make it productive ; because he has never cared about profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This so reminds me of something Orrin Boyle would do in Atlas Shrugged.
Spending all that money because it was the socially right thing to do, but with no real plan to make it productive; because he has never cared about profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625277</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1247078580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wind power costs about <b>0.055 cents</b>/kWh. Coal has been slowly rising and is about <b>0.03 cents</b>/kWh right now.</p></div><p>Please don't ever get your energy pricing information from Verizon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind power costs about 0.055 cents/kWh .
Coal has been slowly rising and is about 0.03 cents/kWh right now.Please do n't ever get your energy pricing information from Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind power costs about 0.055 cents/kWh.
Coal has been slowly rising and is about 0.03 cents/kWh right now.Please don't ever get your energy pricing information from Verizon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>dan\_sdot</author>
	<datestamp>1247074740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>These things are a great way to make a beautiful landscape hideous.  And the amount of power generated considering the acreage needed is ridiculous.  <br>
<br>
Here's a crazy idea: how about nuclear power?  Oh, that's right, the word "nuclear" is too super-scary for the science-based environmentalists.  Never mind that they <i>actually are</i> better for the environment than anything else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These things are a great way to make a beautiful landscape hideous .
And the amount of power generated considering the acreage needed is ridiculous .
Here 's a crazy idea : how about nuclear power ?
Oh , that 's right , the word " nuclear " is too super-scary for the science-based environmentalists .
Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These things are a great way to make a beautiful landscape hideous.
And the amount of power generated considering the acreage needed is ridiculous.
Here's a crazy idea: how about nuclear power?
Oh, that's right, the word "nuclear" is too super-scary for the science-based environmentalists.
Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626053</id>
	<title>Re:"On Hold" vs "Scrapped"</title>
	<author>googlegoddess</author>
	<datestamp>1247081280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this is just some massive scale bet on the recovery of steel and aluminum in the markets.  He can always recycle the raw materials whenever the prices on them jump</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is just some massive scale bet on the recovery of steel and aluminum in the markets .
He can always recycle the raw materials whenever the prices on them jump</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is just some massive scale bet on the recovery of steel and aluminum in the markets.
He can always recycle the raw materials whenever the prices on them jump</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625613</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1247079720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If coal is cheap and wind is clean, then we should burn coal to power turbines that generate wind, then get electricity from wind turbines. It becomes a win-win!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If coal is cheap and wind is clean , then we should burn coal to power turbines that generate wind , then get electricity from wind turbines .
It becomes a win-win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If coal is cheap and wind is clean, then we should burn coal to power turbines that generate wind, then get electricity from wind turbines.
It becomes a win-win!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28632065</id>
	<title>But I heard him on NPR tonight...</title>
	<author>singingjim1</author>
	<datestamp>1247071020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and he didn't say he scrapped the plan. Just that due to the credit market it will take another couple years before the financing is in place and the transmission infrastructure won't be completed until 2013. He said it's just been pushed back 2 years, but that his plan is definitely still going to happen.  I'm not sure why everyone is convinced the plan is scrapped.  I heard the man from his own lips say that it's going to happen, just 2 years later than originally planned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and he did n't say he scrapped the plan .
Just that due to the credit market it will take another couple years before the financing is in place and the transmission infrastructure wo n't be completed until 2013 .
He said it 's just been pushed back 2 years , but that his plan is definitely still going to happen .
I 'm not sure why everyone is convinced the plan is scrapped .
I heard the man from his own lips say that it 's going to happen , just 2 years later than originally planned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and he didn't say he scrapped the plan.
Just that due to the credit market it will take another couple years before the financing is in place and the transmission infrastructure won't be completed until 2013.
He said it's just been pushed back 2 years, but that his plan is definitely still going to happen.
I'm not sure why everyone is convinced the plan is scrapped.
I heard the man from his own lips say that it's going to happen, just 2 years later than originally planned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625057</id>
	<title>Re:Cover story?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1247077860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading those stories and I don't really doubt it because water is drying up in the west.  You don't hear much about it, but water rights and who controls the water is going to be a deal and make someone very rich over the next 25 - 30+ years.  Actually that goes for the entire world.  Anyone take notice of how many dams have been built around Iraq in the past few years by Turkey and Iran?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading those stories and I do n't really doubt it because water is drying up in the west .
You do n't hear much about it , but water rights and who controls the water is going to be a deal and make someone very rich over the next 25 - 30 + years .
Actually that goes for the entire world .
Anyone take notice of how many dams have been built around Iraq in the past few years by Turkey and Iran ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading those stories and I don't really doubt it because water is drying up in the west.
You don't hear much about it, but water rights and who controls the water is going to be a deal and make someone very rich over the next 25 - 30+ years.
Actually that goes for the entire world.
Anyone take notice of how many dams have been built around Iraq in the past few years by Turkey and Iran?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28627019</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247084700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The economic result here is that deploying wind power to provide a cheaper supplement to existing gas turbine and oil peak plants is viable in a few markets. But such deployment will happen slowly, over many years, as the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure exceeds the cost of building and operating new infrastructure.</p></div><p>Interestingly enough, when I was really into SimCity (4), this describes the point at which wind power deployments became viable. The coal plants (and to a lesser extent, gas plants) which started the cities off would eventually lose capacity and reach end-of-life. At that point, their remaining service capacity could be taken over by cheap, easy-to-deploy (but not very space efficient overall) wind power units, which didn't involve the massive expense and (often without reducing capacity manually) the waste, of a new gas power plant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The economic result here is that deploying wind power to provide a cheaper supplement to existing gas turbine and oil peak plants is viable in a few markets .
But such deployment will happen slowly , over many years , as the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure exceeds the cost of building and operating new infrastructure.Interestingly enough , when I was really into SimCity ( 4 ) , this describes the point at which wind power deployments became viable .
The coal plants ( and to a lesser extent , gas plants ) which started the cities off would eventually lose capacity and reach end-of-life .
At that point , their remaining service capacity could be taken over by cheap , easy-to-deploy ( but not very space efficient overall ) wind power units , which did n't involve the massive expense and ( often without reducing capacity manually ) the waste , of a new gas power plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The economic result here is that deploying wind power to provide a cheaper supplement to existing gas turbine and oil peak plants is viable in a few markets.
But such deployment will happen slowly, over many years, as the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure exceeds the cost of building and operating new infrastructure.Interestingly enough, when I was really into SimCity (4), this describes the point at which wind power deployments became viable.
The coal plants (and to a lesser extent, gas plants) which started the cities off would eventually lose capacity and reach end-of-life.
At that point, their remaining service capacity could be taken over by cheap, easy-to-deploy (but not very space efficient overall) wind power units, which didn't involve the massive expense and (often without reducing capacity manually) the waste, of a new gas power plant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711</id>
	<title>Why bother -- won't change the (un)logic</title>
	<author>stomv</author>
	<datestamp>1247076660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Becuase[sic] wind doesn't meet the needs of today's energy grid (baseline power needs, peak power needs)</p></div><p>Nuclear doesn't meet peak power needs either.  It turns out that multiple sources can be used together -- every wind turbine spinning replaces MWh generated by gas or coal.  Build enough un/negatively correlated turbines and you can count a fraction of wind generation as base.  The rest replaces gas turbine output.  No engineer is claiming that wind can, by itself, replace all other power demands.  It can certainly play a role replacing <b>some</b> fossil fuel power generation, and it's nuclear waste-free!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It takes alot[sic] to maintain such a distrubuted[sic] generation system</p></div><p>But not so much that we can't do it.  It also takes a lot to underwrite the insurance for nuclear power.  So much, in fact, that nuclear power companies don't pay for it -- the US gov't does.  Somehow that tidbit, a tidbit that makes nuclear power one of the most expensive options around, is rarely mentioned around here.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>some people don't like the aesthetics</p></div><p>Some people don't like the aesthetics of coal power plant smokestacks, giant fences around nuclear plants, or what's left of the mountain after the coal or nuclear fuel is mined.  No energy solution is perfect.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>they grind up birds like no tomorrow.</p></div><p>No, no they don't.  The 1980s called, and they want their  built with small fast moving blades, non-monopole design, and located in bird migration routes wind turbines back.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure they will be nice here and there but they don't have the potential to solve the problems we have now while nuclear does.</p></div><p>Nuclear has the potential to be part of the solution, but it too can't solve the problem whole-hog.  Nuclear isn't financially efficient <i>now</i>, if you try to use it for anything more than base load your efficiency drops like a rock.  Solar can be used to shave some peak (in much of the world peak demand is very positively correlated with hot sunny days), wind can be used to reduce the need for fossil-based intermediate demand when it's blowing, and biomass, natural gas, and water pumped uphill (battery) can be used to make up the difference.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Enviromentalism needs to wake up and face the fact that the problem is now so bad that idealism must take a back seat to pragmatics.</p></div><p>The pragmatic solution is not to pooh-pooh wind.  The pragmatic solution is to use a mix of non-fossil fuel approaches to (1) meet our electricity desires, while (2) reducing the amount of carbon emissions we generate as much as we can.  Wind can't do all of that to maximum effect.  Neither can nuclear.  Neither can solar.  Neither can biomass.  Nor hydro.  Nor natural gas.  Nor whatever comes next (tidal?).  But, using all of them, whenever feasible, will maximize our reduction of carbon emissions in electricity generation.</p><p>Why not support both?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Becuase [ sic ] wind does n't meet the needs of today 's energy grid ( baseline power needs , peak power needs ) Nuclear does n't meet peak power needs either .
It turns out that multiple sources can be used together -- every wind turbine spinning replaces MWh generated by gas or coal .
Build enough un/negatively correlated turbines and you can count a fraction of wind generation as base .
The rest replaces gas turbine output .
No engineer is claiming that wind can , by itself , replace all other power demands .
It can certainly play a role replacing some fossil fuel power generation , and it 's nuclear waste-free ! It takes alot [ sic ] to maintain such a distrubuted [ sic ] generation systemBut not so much that we ca n't do it .
It also takes a lot to underwrite the insurance for nuclear power .
So much , in fact , that nuclear power companies do n't pay for it -- the US gov't does .
Somehow that tidbit , a tidbit that makes nuclear power one of the most expensive options around , is rarely mentioned around here.some people do n't like the aestheticsSome people do n't like the aesthetics of coal power plant smokestacks , giant fences around nuclear plants , or what 's left of the mountain after the coal or nuclear fuel is mined .
No energy solution is perfect.they grind up birds like no tomorrow.No , no they do n't .
The 1980s called , and they want their built with small fast moving blades , non-monopole design , and located in bird migration routes wind turbines back.Sure they will be nice here and there but they do n't have the potential to solve the problems we have now while nuclear does.Nuclear has the potential to be part of the solution , but it too ca n't solve the problem whole-hog .
Nuclear is n't financially efficient now , if you try to use it for anything more than base load your efficiency drops like a rock .
Solar can be used to shave some peak ( in much of the world peak demand is very positively correlated with hot sunny days ) , wind can be used to reduce the need for fossil-based intermediate demand when it 's blowing , and biomass , natural gas , and water pumped uphill ( battery ) can be used to make up the difference.Enviromentalism needs to wake up and face the fact that the problem is now so bad that idealism must take a back seat to pragmatics.The pragmatic solution is not to pooh-pooh wind .
The pragmatic solution is to use a mix of non-fossil fuel approaches to ( 1 ) meet our electricity desires , while ( 2 ) reducing the amount of carbon emissions we generate as much as we can .
Wind ca n't do all of that to maximum effect .
Neither can nuclear .
Neither can solar .
Neither can biomass .
Nor hydro .
Nor natural gas .
Nor whatever comes next ( tidal ? ) .
But , using all of them , whenever feasible , will maximize our reduction of carbon emissions in electricity generation.Why not support both ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Becuase[sic] wind doesn't meet the needs of today's energy grid (baseline power needs, peak power needs)Nuclear doesn't meet peak power needs either.
It turns out that multiple sources can be used together -- every wind turbine spinning replaces MWh generated by gas or coal.
Build enough un/negatively correlated turbines and you can count a fraction of wind generation as base.
The rest replaces gas turbine output.
No engineer is claiming that wind can, by itself, replace all other power demands.
It can certainly play a role replacing some fossil fuel power generation, and it's nuclear waste-free!It takes alot[sic] to maintain such a distrubuted[sic] generation systemBut not so much that we can't do it.
It also takes a lot to underwrite the insurance for nuclear power.
So much, in fact, that nuclear power companies don't pay for it -- the US gov't does.
Somehow that tidbit, a tidbit that makes nuclear power one of the most expensive options around, is rarely mentioned around here.some people don't like the aestheticsSome people don't like the aesthetics of coal power plant smokestacks, giant fences around nuclear plants, or what's left of the mountain after the coal or nuclear fuel is mined.
No energy solution is perfect.they grind up birds like no tomorrow.No, no they don't.
The 1980s called, and they want their  built with small fast moving blades, non-monopole design, and located in bird migration routes wind turbines back.Sure they will be nice here and there but they don't have the potential to solve the problems we have now while nuclear does.Nuclear has the potential to be part of the solution, but it too can't solve the problem whole-hog.
Nuclear isn't financially efficient now, if you try to use it for anything more than base load your efficiency drops like a rock.
Solar can be used to shave some peak (in much of the world peak demand is very positively correlated with hot sunny days), wind can be used to reduce the need for fossil-based intermediate demand when it's blowing, and biomass, natural gas, and water pumped uphill (battery) can be used to make up the difference.Enviromentalism needs to wake up and face the fact that the problem is now so bad that idealism must take a back seat to pragmatics.The pragmatic solution is not to pooh-pooh wind.
The pragmatic solution is to use a mix of non-fossil fuel approaches to (1) meet our electricity desires, while (2) reducing the amount of carbon emissions we generate as much as we can.
Wind can't do all of that to maximum effect.
Neither can nuclear.
Neither can solar.
Neither can biomass.
Nor hydro.
Nor natural gas.
Nor whatever comes next (tidal?).
But, using all of them, whenever feasible, will maximize our reduction of carbon emissions in electricity generation.Why not support both?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625515</id>
	<title>natural gas</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1247079480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, the consensus is that there is a lot of natural gas to be tapped.  The problem is that it still dumps CO2 into the atmosphere, and a lot of the reserves are in the same places where the oil is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the consensus is that there is a lot of natural gas to be tapped .
The problem is that it still dumps CO2 into the atmosphere , and a lot of the reserves are in the same places where the oil is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the consensus is that there is a lot of natural gas to be tapped.
The problem is that it still dumps CO2 into the atmosphere, and a lot of the reserves are in the same places where the oil is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625205</id>
	<title>Re:A fool and his money are some party</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1247078340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Especially if you have friends in Congress!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially if you have friends in Congress !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially if you have friends in Congress!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301</id>
	<title>And the steps...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1247075340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Step 1: Reduce Refining Capacity through by-outs<br>Step 2: Send out pundits to claim how high oil prices will go<br>Step 3: Get price of oil/gas high enough that alternate energy starts to become profitable<br>Step 4: Get people to invest lots of money on said technologies.<br>Step 5: ????<br>Step 6: Let the oil bubble burst and take the alternative energy markets with it.</p><p>I'm not sure where profit goes in there, but this also happened in the late 1970's through early 1980's.  Right when other means of fuel production came online and people had invested a lot of money in the new technologies, the price of oil suddenly dropped causing the alternatives to quickly go broke and effectively stifle competition for the next couple decades.</p><p>Funny about that history not repeating itself, but sure does rhyme thing.</p><p>This was told to me by a retired GM executive and friend of the family back in 2006/2007 when the price of oil kept going up.  He even gave a prediction of that the price of oil would fall around 2008/2009 and when it did, any interest in alternate fuels would go with it.  Seems like he may have known something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : Reduce Refining Capacity through by-outsStep 2 : Send out pundits to claim how high oil prices will goStep 3 : Get price of oil/gas high enough that alternate energy starts to become profitableStep 4 : Get people to invest lots of money on said technologies.Step 5 : ? ? ?
? Step 6 : Let the oil bubble burst and take the alternative energy markets with it.I 'm not sure where profit goes in there , but this also happened in the late 1970 's through early 1980 's .
Right when other means of fuel production came online and people had invested a lot of money in the new technologies , the price of oil suddenly dropped causing the alternatives to quickly go broke and effectively stifle competition for the next couple decades.Funny about that history not repeating itself , but sure does rhyme thing.This was told to me by a retired GM executive and friend of the family back in 2006/2007 when the price of oil kept going up .
He even gave a prediction of that the price of oil would fall around 2008/2009 and when it did , any interest in alternate fuels would go with it .
Seems like he may have known something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: Reduce Refining Capacity through by-outsStep 2: Send out pundits to claim how high oil prices will goStep 3: Get price of oil/gas high enough that alternate energy starts to become profitableStep 4: Get people to invest lots of money on said technologies.Step 5: ???
?Step 6: Let the oil bubble burst and take the alternative energy markets with it.I'm not sure where profit goes in there, but this also happened in the late 1970's through early 1980's.
Right when other means of fuel production came online and people had invested a lot of money in the new technologies, the price of oil suddenly dropped causing the alternatives to quickly go broke and effectively stifle competition for the next couple decades.Funny about that history not repeating itself, but sure does rhyme thing.This was told to me by a retired GM executive and friend of the family back in 2006/2007 when the price of oil kept going up.
He even gave a prediction of that the price of oil would fall around 2008/2009 and when it did, any interest in alternate fuels would go with it.
Seems like he may have known something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624347</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1247075520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I understand that nuclear power is a viable alternative to coal and oil, and that it produces constant power and all that, but how is it better for the environment than wind?</p></div><p>It doesn't kill birds.  At least, not until the reactor blows up.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that nuclear power is a viable alternative to coal and oil , and that it produces constant power and all that , but how is it better for the environment than wind ? It does n't kill birds .
At least , not until the reactor blows up.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that nuclear power is a viable alternative to coal and oil, and that it produces constant power and all that, but how is it better for the environment than wind?It doesn't kill birds.
At least, not until the reactor blows up.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624199</id>
	<title>Re:A fool and his money are some party</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1247075040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Taking a bet that fails isn't necessarily a mistake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking a bet that fails is n't necessarily a mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking a bet that fails isn't necessarily a mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624211</id>
	<title>Buy a Prototype first.</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1247075100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why we buy prototypes and work out the fascilities/infrastructure before we order hundreds of parts with no place too put them. Everyone always underestimates the need for a building for their new business plan...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we buy prototypes and work out the fascilities/infrastructure before we order hundreds of parts with no place too put them .
Everyone always underestimates the need for a building for their new business plan.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we buy prototypes and work out the fascilities/infrastructure before we order hundreds of parts with no place too put them.
Everyone always underestimates the need for a building for their new business plan...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626737</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>highfidelitychris</author>
	<datestamp>1247083620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And for aesthetic reasons, they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers, which reduces efficiency.</p></div><p>Wrong.  There are new designs besides the standard windmill type that can be placed atop tall building and skyscrapers.  I saw them on the Green Channel where it looks more like a DNA structure that spins.  It also protects against throwing ice and such off of it and is actually more efficient in the types of wind that cities receive (which whip around in different directions).

Your argument just doesn't add up.  Plus if you add enough wind and solar then you do create a baseline.  There is always some wind and some sun somewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for aesthetic reasons , they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers , which reduces efficiency.Wrong .
There are new designs besides the standard windmill type that can be placed atop tall building and skyscrapers .
I saw them on the Green Channel where it looks more like a DNA structure that spins .
It also protects against throwing ice and such off of it and is actually more efficient in the types of wind that cities receive ( which whip around in different directions ) .
Your argument just does n't add up .
Plus if you add enough wind and solar then you do create a baseline .
There is always some wind and some sun somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for aesthetic reasons, they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers, which reduces efficiency.Wrong.
There are new designs besides the standard windmill type that can be placed atop tall building and skyscrapers.
I saw them on the Green Channel where it looks more like a DNA structure that spins.
It also protects against throwing ice and such off of it and is actually more efficient in the types of wind that cities receive (which whip around in different directions).
Your argument just doesn't add up.
Plus if you add enough wind and solar then you do create a baseline.
There is always some wind and some sun somewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626191</id>
	<title>Where to put those big giant fans?</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1247081760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Bohemian-Rhapsody-lyrics-Queen/7416C03B21F50ACD48256894000256A0" title="sing365.com">Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me</a> [sing365.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway the wind blows , does n't really matter to me , to me [ sing365.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me [sing365.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625705</id>
	<title>Correction: Delayed not cancelled...</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1247080080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may want to update the story summury:</p><p><a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/31802460" title="cnbc.com">http://www.cnbc.com/id/31802460</a> [cnbc.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>"I didn't cancel it," Pickens said after a press conference on Capitol Hill. "Financing is tough right now and so it's going to be delayed a year or two."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may want to update the story summury : http : //www.cnbc.com/id/31802460 [ cnbc.com ] " I did n't cancel it , " Pickens said after a press conference on Capitol Hill .
" Financing is tough right now and so it 's going to be delayed a year or two .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may want to update the story summury:http://www.cnbc.com/id/31802460 [cnbc.com] "I didn't cancel it," Pickens said after a press conference on Capitol Hill.
"Financing is tough right now and so it's going to be delayed a year or two.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626713</id>
	<title>Re: Wind turbine components</title>
	<author>colinnwn</author>
	<datestamp>1247083560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On I-35 in Texas just before you cross into Oklahoma, there is a place that makes or stores wind turbines. There are just rows  of huge blades laid next to each other visible from the freeway. Driving I-45 I regularly see blades moving from Houston towards Dallas. I figure those have arrived from Germany into the Houston Ship Channel. I wonder where they are usually going?</htmltext>
<tokenext>On I-35 in Texas just before you cross into Oklahoma , there is a place that makes or stores wind turbines .
There are just rows of huge blades laid next to each other visible from the freeway .
Driving I-45 I regularly see blades moving from Houston towards Dallas .
I figure those have arrived from Germany into the Houston Ship Channel .
I wonder where they are usually going ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On I-35 in Texas just before you cross into Oklahoma, there is a place that makes or stores wind turbines.
There are just rows  of huge blades laid next to each other visible from the freeway.
Driving I-45 I regularly see blades moving from Houston towards Dallas.
I figure those have arrived from Germany into the Houston Ship Channel.
I wonder where they are usually going?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</id>
	<title>two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind power costs about 0.055 cents/kWh. Coal has been slowly rising and is about 0.03 cents/kWh right now. Wind power would be competitive with oil and gas plants -- if it were 1998. Today, it beats both answers. Here's the problem -- nuclear and coal are the only economical alternatives for base load plants, which handle 35-40\% of the total electrical power generation in this country. Of the remainder, load-following and peak plants, wind power might be useful.</p><p>The issue is, wind power is needs a lot of space to operate. And for aesthetic reasons, they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers, which reduces efficiency. There are other geographical restrictions as well -- namely that the wind source must be fairly reliable. Electricity generated on an industrial scale can't be stored (for the most part). The grid must be designed to meet peak power requirements -- which means if you deploy wind power, you need a backup as well (such as gas turbine) -- wind power isn't a replacement in the majority of cases; It's a cost-reducing add-on.</p><p>A kWh of wind power is the cost of that infrastructure plus maintenance costs of the backup gas turbine infrastructure, when operating. The economic result here is that deploying wind power to provide a cheaper supplement to existing gas turbine and oil peak plants is viable in a few markets. But such deployment will happen slowly, over many years, as the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure exceeds the cost of building and operating new infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind power costs about 0.055 cents/kWh .
Coal has been slowly rising and is about 0.03 cents/kWh right now .
Wind power would be competitive with oil and gas plants -- if it were 1998 .
Today , it beats both answers .
Here 's the problem -- nuclear and coal are the only economical alternatives for base load plants , which handle 35-40 \ % of the total electrical power generation in this country .
Of the remainder , load-following and peak plants , wind power might be useful.The issue is , wind power is needs a lot of space to operate .
And for aesthetic reasons , they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers , which reduces efficiency .
There are other geographical restrictions as well -- namely that the wind source must be fairly reliable .
Electricity generated on an industrial scale ca n't be stored ( for the most part ) .
The grid must be designed to meet peak power requirements -- which means if you deploy wind power , you need a backup as well ( such as gas turbine ) -- wind power is n't a replacement in the majority of cases ; It 's a cost-reducing add-on.A kWh of wind power is the cost of that infrastructure plus maintenance costs of the backup gas turbine infrastructure , when operating .
The economic result here is that deploying wind power to provide a cheaper supplement to existing gas turbine and oil peak plants is viable in a few markets .
But such deployment will happen slowly , over many years , as the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure exceeds the cost of building and operating new infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind power costs about 0.055 cents/kWh.
Coal has been slowly rising and is about 0.03 cents/kWh right now.
Wind power would be competitive with oil and gas plants -- if it were 1998.
Today, it beats both answers.
Here's the problem -- nuclear and coal are the only economical alternatives for base load plants, which handle 35-40\% of the total electrical power generation in this country.
Of the remainder, load-following and peak plants, wind power might be useful.The issue is, wind power is needs a lot of space to operate.
And for aesthetic reasons, they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers, which reduces efficiency.
There are other geographical restrictions as well -- namely that the wind source must be fairly reliable.
Electricity generated on an industrial scale can't be stored (for the most part).
The grid must be designed to meet peak power requirements -- which means if you deploy wind power, you need a backup as well (such as gas turbine) -- wind power isn't a replacement in the majority of cases; It's a cost-reducing add-on.A kWh of wind power is the cost of that infrastructure plus maintenance costs of the backup gas turbine infrastructure, when operating.
The economic result here is that deploying wind power to provide a cheaper supplement to existing gas turbine and oil peak plants is viable in a few markets.
But such deployment will happen slowly, over many years, as the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure exceeds the cost of building and operating new infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624631</id>
	<title>The solution</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1247076420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make people pay for the full environmental impact of oil, and the cost of their share of wars in the middle east. Solar looks great once the real costs of fossil fuels are not hidden in taxes and the benefits of running an empire.</p><p>I don't think there's a huge conspiracy, but oil producers manipulate prices on a regular basis - they even have an official racketeering ring called OPEC. It's unfortunate that American and British companies are in on the profits, though, because if they weren't, we would have probably abandoned oil as an energy source. Relying on a finite resource that is mostly on the other side of the planet for nearly everything we consider essential to modern life seems pretty short sighted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make people pay for the full environmental impact of oil , and the cost of their share of wars in the middle east .
Solar looks great once the real costs of fossil fuels are not hidden in taxes and the benefits of running an empire.I do n't think there 's a huge conspiracy , but oil producers manipulate prices on a regular basis - they even have an official racketeering ring called OPEC .
It 's unfortunate that American and British companies are in on the profits , though , because if they were n't , we would have probably abandoned oil as an energy source .
Relying on a finite resource that is mostly on the other side of the planet for nearly everything we consider essential to modern life seems pretty short sighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make people pay for the full environmental impact of oil, and the cost of their share of wars in the middle east.
Solar looks great once the real costs of fossil fuels are not hidden in taxes and the benefits of running an empire.I don't think there's a huge conspiracy, but oil producers manipulate prices on a regular basis - they even have an official racketeering ring called OPEC.
It's unfortunate that American and British companies are in on the profits, though, because if they weren't, we would have probably abandoned oil as an energy source.
Relying on a finite resource that is mostly on the other side of the planet for nearly everything we consider essential to modern life seems pretty short sighted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624309</id>
	<title>I'll buy one!</title>
	<author>orgelspieler</author>
	<datestamp>1247075400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've only got about 30 grand, though, so I hope he doesn't mind taking a 99\% loss. On a more cynical note, I can't help but wonder if this was all some ploy to discredit renewable energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've only got about 30 grand , though , so I hope he does n't mind taking a 99 \ % loss .
On a more cynical note , I ca n't help but wonder if this was all some ploy to discredit renewable energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've only got about 30 grand, though, so I hope he doesn't mind taking a 99\% loss.
On a more cynical note, I can't help but wonder if this was all some ploy to discredit renewable energy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624431</id>
	<title>Numbers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So roughly $2.9M per turbine. Does that include shipping? Probably not. How long until I get a positive return on my investment? 10 years, 20? Come on man, I've got my bank on the other line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So roughly $ 2.9M per turbine .
Does that include shipping ?
Probably not .
How long until I get a positive return on my investment ?
10 years , 20 ?
Come on man , I 've got my bank on the other line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So roughly $2.9M per turbine.
Does that include shipping?
Probably not.
How long until I get a positive return on my investment?
10 years, 20?
Come on man, I've got my bank on the other line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624477</id>
	<title>Not all lost</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1247075940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not like the $2B dollars is going to go to waste.  There is high demand for wind turbines worldwide, now he's got a lock on a whole lot of them.  It's difficult to know if he'll come out ahead or behind (are turbine prices on the open market higher or lower than what he paid?  did he get a volume discount in his order?  is demand high enough and supply scarce enough that he can charge a premium?), but it won't be a total loss.  <br> <br>

Probably the worst thing, for him, is the opportunity cost of having so much capital tied up in this - it'll take him a long time to free it up by selling or leasing the turbines to other customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like the $ 2B dollars is going to go to waste .
There is high demand for wind turbines worldwide , now he 's got a lock on a whole lot of them .
It 's difficult to know if he 'll come out ahead or behind ( are turbine prices on the open market higher or lower than what he paid ?
did he get a volume discount in his order ?
is demand high enough and supply scarce enough that he can charge a premium ?
) , but it wo n't be a total loss .
Probably the worst thing , for him , is the opportunity cost of having so much capital tied up in this - it 'll take him a long time to free it up by selling or leasing the turbines to other customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like the $2B dollars is going to go to waste.
There is high demand for wind turbines worldwide, now he's got a lock on a whole lot of them.
It's difficult to know if he'll come out ahead or behind (are turbine prices on the open market higher or lower than what he paid?
did he get a volume discount in his order?
is demand high enough and supply scarce enough that he can charge a premium?
), but it won't be a total loss.
Probably the worst thing, for him, is the opportunity cost of having so much capital tied up in this - it'll take him a long time to free it up by selling or leasing the turbines to other customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626501</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And for aesthetic reasons, they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers, which reduces efficiency."</p><p>Translation: A bunch of N.I.M.B.Y. city dwellers want the power but not the supposed "ugliness" of how it's generated. Much like they want the steak but not the cattle feedlots, the bacon but not the slaughterhouse, the diesel fuel but not the refineries, the cockroach sprays but not the chemical plants, etc, etc, ad nauseum.</p><p>Essentially they want the finished product but want the mess of it's creation somewhere out of the range of their senses and travels.</p><p>I call shenanigans. If you want the electricity to run your subways, lights, heaters, plug in hybrids, air conditioning, computers, refrigerator, and all of the other things that make modern city life possible then you should be willing to put up with any "aesthetic" unpleasantness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And for aesthetic reasons , they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers , which reduces efficiency .
" Translation : A bunch of N.I.M.B.Y .
city dwellers want the power but not the supposed " ugliness " of how it 's generated .
Much like they want the steak but not the cattle feedlots , the bacon but not the slaughterhouse , the diesel fuel but not the refineries , the cockroach sprays but not the chemical plants , etc , etc , ad nauseum.Essentially they want the finished product but want the mess of it 's creation somewhere out of the range of their senses and travels.I call shenanigans .
If you want the electricity to run your subways , lights , heaters , plug in hybrids , air conditioning , computers , refrigerator , and all of the other things that make modern city life possible then you should be willing to put up with any " aesthetic " unpleasantness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And for aesthetic reasons, they need to be placed in fairly remote locations away from urban centers, which reduces efficiency.
"Translation: A bunch of N.I.M.B.Y.
city dwellers want the power but not the supposed "ugliness" of how it's generated.
Much like they want the steak but not the cattle feedlots, the bacon but not the slaughterhouse, the diesel fuel but not the refineries, the cockroach sprays but not the chemical plants, etc, etc, ad nauseum.Essentially they want the finished product but want the mess of it's creation somewhere out of the range of their senses and travels.I call shenanigans.
If you want the electricity to run your subways, lights, heaters, plug in hybrids, air conditioning, computers, refrigerator, and all of the other things that make modern city life possible then you should be willing to put up with any "aesthetic" unpleasantness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625299</id>
	<title>Re:A fool and his money are some party</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247078640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Betting you can fly a jumbo jet without ever having lessons or ridden in a plane IS necessarily a mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Betting you can fly a jumbo jet without ever having lessons or ridden in a plane IS necessarily a mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Betting you can fly a jumbo jet without ever having lessons or ridden in a plane IS necessarily a mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624445</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>xenolion</author>
	<datestamp>1247075820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The amount of waste is a lot smaller than most would think. The plant where my dad works at has a 200 gallon pool where the waste is stored that what they have from 75 years of running the plant since you cant take that stuff off sight do to regulations its stored on site. So can someone point me to the place that makes thousands of gallons of waste a month like all of those "environmental videos" they make people watch in school?? Oh I also forgot to ask what about the amount of birds these get environmental wind farms kill? They are better bird killers than cats, I know this for a fact due to living close to a great wind farm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of waste is a lot smaller than most would think .
The plant where my dad works at has a 200 gallon pool where the waste is stored that what they have from 75 years of running the plant since you cant take that stuff off sight do to regulations its stored on site .
So can someone point me to the place that makes thousands of gallons of waste a month like all of those " environmental videos " they make people watch in school ? ?
Oh I also forgot to ask what about the amount of birds these get environmental wind farms kill ?
They are better bird killers than cats , I know this for a fact due to living close to a great wind farm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of waste is a lot smaller than most would think.
The plant where my dad works at has a 200 gallon pool where the waste is stored that what they have from 75 years of running the plant since you cant take that stuff off sight do to regulations its stored on site.
So can someone point me to the place that makes thousands of gallons of waste a month like all of those "environmental videos" they make people watch in school??
Oh I also forgot to ask what about the amount of birds these get environmental wind farms kill?
They are better bird killers than cats, I know this for a fact due to living close to a great wind farm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624127</id>
	<title>Blazing Saddles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247074800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes me think of the "Wind farm" scene in "Blazing Saddles", when Slim Pickens says "Boys, I think you'd had enough".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me think of the " Wind farm " scene in " Blazing Saddles " , when Slim Pickens says " Boys , I think you 'd had enough " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes me think of the "Wind farm" scene in "Blazing Saddles", when Slim Pickens says "Boys, I think you'd had enough".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28632273</id>
	<title>Maybe the solution is in the Details of Fed.Law?</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1247073000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the other Big Dogs don't want to play, "Share the Billions" with Boone; big surprise.  But I thought there was some federal law that said if you generate electricity that the power company you're hooked up to HAS to buy it at the going market rate.  I know in out here in California that's the case, and the power company's make darn certain that the power that is fed to them from a home is clean, unlike what they sell to folks.  It doesn't make sense that the "Federal Law Requires..." card hasn't been played by Boone's legal staff.  I figure that both sides of this issue are playing chicken with the cost of building the electrical lines.  But has anyone considered what factories could be built by this wind farm?   Factories are moved all the time.  What if manufacturers that could make products using the electricity provided by this wind farm were thrown into this mix?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the other Big Dogs do n't want to play , " Share the Billions " with Boone ; big surprise .
But I thought there was some federal law that said if you generate electricity that the power company you 're hooked up to HAS to buy it at the going market rate .
I know in out here in California that 's the case , and the power company 's make darn certain that the power that is fed to them from a home is clean , unlike what they sell to folks .
It does n't make sense that the " Federal Law Requires... " card has n't been played by Boone 's legal staff .
I figure that both sides of this issue are playing chicken with the cost of building the electrical lines .
But has anyone considered what factories could be built by this wind farm ?
Factories are moved all the time .
What if manufacturers that could make products using the electricity provided by this wind farm were thrown into this mix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the other Big Dogs don't want to play, "Share the Billions" with Boone; big surprise.
But I thought there was some federal law that said if you generate electricity that the power company you're hooked up to HAS to buy it at the going market rate.
I know in out here in California that's the case, and the power company's make darn certain that the power that is fed to them from a home is clean, unlike what they sell to folks.
It doesn't make sense that the "Federal Law Requires..." card hasn't been played by Boone's legal staff.
I figure that both sides of this issue are playing chicken with the cost of building the electrical lines.
But has anyone considered what factories could be built by this wind farm?
Factories are moved all the time.
What if manufacturers that could make products using the electricity provided by this wind farm were thrown into this mix?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625029</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>Greg\_D</author>
	<datestamp>1247077740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also the issue of storms.  The most viable places to put these windmills are also places where they are most likely to be destroyed by severe storms.  And unlike, say, a nuke plant like Waterford III which restored service to the local grid less than a week after Katrina, you have a severe storm touch down around these windmills and you'll basically have to rebuild the entire system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also the issue of storms .
The most viable places to put these windmills are also places where they are most likely to be destroyed by severe storms .
And unlike , say , a nuke plant like Waterford III which restored service to the local grid less than a week after Katrina , you have a severe storm touch down around these windmills and you 'll basically have to rebuild the entire system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also the issue of storms.
The most viable places to put these windmills are also places where they are most likely to be destroyed by severe storms.
And unlike, say, a nuke plant like Waterford III which restored service to the local grid less than a week after Katrina, you have a severe storm touch down around these windmills and you'll basically have to rebuild the entire system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629541</id>
	<title>Re:bullshit alert.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247053860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the technical issue is that he accomplished his goal and he doesn't need them.<br>His goal being aquiring water and land right via eminent domain.</p><p><a href="http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html" title="junkscience.com">http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html</a> [junkscience.com]</p><p>And here I thought Texans weren't afraid to use guns when someone steps out of line~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the technical issue is that he accomplished his goal and he does n't need them.His goal being aquiring water and land right via eminent domain.http : //www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html [ junkscience.com ] And here I thought Texans were n't afraid to use guns when someone steps out of line ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the technical issue is that he accomplished his goal and he doesn't need them.His goal being aquiring water and land right via eminent domain.http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080731.html [junkscience.com]And here I thought Texans weren't afraid to use guns when someone steps out of line~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625397</id>
	<title>Re:two billion dollars...</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1247079000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind IS a base load replacement. Demand for power fluctuates, just like wind supply. It doesn't matter whether you are using coal, nuclear, or wind for you "base" power, you still need gas power plants (or other easy to control plants - maybe hydro) to smooth the difference between supply and demand. The only difference between wind and coal is that the standard deviation of the signal is a little bit larger (so you need another gas plant to provide more smoothing).</p><p>The lower reliability of wind means that it's worth a bit less than coal power (depending on the size of the grid, and the reliability of the demand), but it competes directly with base power.</p><p>Coal generators HATE wind, because it is a competitor. Peak load generators LOVE wind, because it requires more peak smoothing than coal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind IS a base load replacement .
Demand for power fluctuates , just like wind supply .
It does n't matter whether you are using coal , nuclear , or wind for you " base " power , you still need gas power plants ( or other easy to control plants - maybe hydro ) to smooth the difference between supply and demand .
The only difference between wind and coal is that the standard deviation of the signal is a little bit larger ( so you need another gas plant to provide more smoothing ) .The lower reliability of wind means that it 's worth a bit less than coal power ( depending on the size of the grid , and the reliability of the demand ) , but it competes directly with base power.Coal generators HATE wind , because it is a competitor .
Peak load generators LOVE wind , because it requires more peak smoothing than coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind IS a base load replacement.
Demand for power fluctuates, just like wind supply.
It doesn't matter whether you are using coal, nuclear, or wind for you "base" power, you still need gas power plants (or other easy to control plants - maybe hydro) to smooth the difference between supply and demand.
The only difference between wind and coal is that the standard deviation of the signal is a little bit larger (so you need another gas plant to provide more smoothing).The lower reliability of wind means that it's worth a bit less than coal power (depending on the size of the grid, and the reliability of the demand), but it competes directly with base power.Coal generators HATE wind, because it is a competitor.
Peak load generators LOVE wind, because it requires more peak smoothing than coal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625887</id>
	<title>Re:Power grid is particularly problematic in Texas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247080740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pampa is in the panhandle of Texas, further north than Amarillo and not within the geographic bounds of ERCOT.  ERCOT, the separate grid you mention, stops somewhere south of Amarillo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pampa is in the panhandle of Texas , further north than Amarillo and not within the geographic bounds of ERCOT .
ERCOT , the separate grid you mention , stops somewhere south of Amarillo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pampa is in the panhandle of Texas, further north than Amarillo and not within the geographic bounds of ERCOT.
ERCOT, the separate grid you mention, stops somewhere south of Amarillo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625447</id>
	<title>Re:And the steps...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1247079180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt; I'm not sure where profit goes in there, but this also happened in the late 1970's through early 1980's. Right when other means of fuel production came online and people had invested a lot of money in the new technologies, the price of oil suddenly dropped causing the alternatives to quickly go broke and effectively stifle competition for the next couple decades.
</p><p>
I think part of the mechanism is that large scale attempts at conservation and/or alternate fuels has a natural tendency to drive down the price of oil.  Part of this is normal market pressure, and part, I believe, is deliberate -- the oil suppliers don't want to lose their market, and will adjust prices to make a legitimate threat less attractive.
</p><p>
This creates an odd situation where you can purposely drive down the price of oil by investing in credible (or credible-sounding) alternate energies.  Which may explain why those who have large petroleum-based interests will jump on the alternative bandwagon -- it helps lower their costs and improves profit margin.
</p><p>
The perverse side of me wonders whether the more the government tries to force the issue, the lower the wholesale price of oil could go in response.  Unless the feds get really draconian -- like banning oil refining and delivery -- alternates may not become practical until we're actually <strong>out</strong> of oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm not sure where profit goes in there , but this also happened in the late 1970 's through early 1980 's .
Right when other means of fuel production came online and people had invested a lot of money in the new technologies , the price of oil suddenly dropped causing the alternatives to quickly go broke and effectively stifle competition for the next couple decades .
I think part of the mechanism is that large scale attempts at conservation and/or alternate fuels has a natural tendency to drive down the price of oil .
Part of this is normal market pressure , and part , I believe , is deliberate -- the oil suppliers do n't want to lose their market , and will adjust prices to make a legitimate threat less attractive .
This creates an odd situation where you can purposely drive down the price of oil by investing in credible ( or credible-sounding ) alternate energies .
Which may explain why those who have large petroleum-based interests will jump on the alternative bandwagon -- it helps lower their costs and improves profit margin .
The perverse side of me wonders whether the more the government tries to force the issue , the lower the wholesale price of oil could go in response .
Unless the feds get really draconian -- like banning oil refining and delivery -- alternates may not become practical until we 're actually out of oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; I'm not sure where profit goes in there, but this also happened in the late 1970's through early 1980's.
Right when other means of fuel production came online and people had invested a lot of money in the new technologies, the price of oil suddenly dropped causing the alternatives to quickly go broke and effectively stifle competition for the next couple decades.
I think part of the mechanism is that large scale attempts at conservation and/or alternate fuels has a natural tendency to drive down the price of oil.
Part of this is normal market pressure, and part, I believe, is deliberate -- the oil suppliers don't want to lose their market, and will adjust prices to make a legitimate threat less attractive.
This creates an odd situation where you can purposely drive down the price of oil by investing in credible (or credible-sounding) alternate energies.
Which may explain why those who have large petroleum-based interests will jump on the alternative bandwagon -- it helps lower their costs and improves profit margin.
The perverse side of me wonders whether the more the government tries to force the issue, the lower the wholesale price of oil could go in response.
Unless the feds get really draconian -- like banning oil refining and delivery -- alternates may not become practical until we're actually out of oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626595</id>
	<title>Both don't get support</title>
	<author>Latent Heat</author>
	<datestamp>1247083020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not support both (i.e. wind and nuclear)?  Why not indeed?
<p>
A lot of the problem is that people who support wind think it is some kind of one-size-fits-all solution to the energy problem and continue to oppose nuclear in any form.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not support both ( i.e .
wind and nuclear ) ?
Why not indeed ?
A lot of the problem is that people who support wind think it is some kind of one-size-fits-all solution to the energy problem and continue to oppose nuclear in any form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not support both (i.e.
wind and nuclear)?
Why not indeed?
A lot of the problem is that people who support wind think it is some kind of one-size-fits-all solution to the energy problem and continue to oppose nuclear in any form.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28632135</id>
	<title>Not really a setback for Energy...</title>
	<author>ciroknight</author>
	<datestamp>1247071620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can view it as a setback for Pickens and his billion dollar water/land-grab in Texas, but it's not really a set-back for energy.
<br> <br>
The turbines he purchased put money in the coffers of the companies building the turbines, which means more turbines and commercial viability for those companies. Pickens isn't likely to take the full $2bln hit from these things, so he'll find <i>somewhere</i> to put them, even if it wasn't along the Pickens Pipeline that he hoped for, so that he can regain some of the lost money in the form of energy ROI. All-in-all, the industry should see it as a boon.
<br> <br>
The funny part is, if he had planned it better, he might have gotten away without having to invest in the alternative energy aspect at all, but idiotically he bought the turbines before having it entirely planned out. Sucks to be him (okay, not really, he's still rolling in billions), but it's a real win for us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can view it as a setback for Pickens and his billion dollar water/land-grab in Texas , but it 's not really a set-back for energy .
The turbines he purchased put money in the coffers of the companies building the turbines , which means more turbines and commercial viability for those companies .
Pickens is n't likely to take the full $ 2bln hit from these things , so he 'll find somewhere to put them , even if it was n't along the Pickens Pipeline that he hoped for , so that he can regain some of the lost money in the form of energy ROI .
All-in-all , the industry should see it as a boon .
The funny part is , if he had planned it better , he might have gotten away without having to invest in the alternative energy aspect at all , but idiotically he bought the turbines before having it entirely planned out .
Sucks to be him ( okay , not really , he 's still rolling in billions ) , but it 's a real win for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can view it as a setback for Pickens and his billion dollar water/land-grab in Texas, but it's not really a set-back for energy.
The turbines he purchased put money in the coffers of the companies building the turbines, which means more turbines and commercial viability for those companies.
Pickens isn't likely to take the full $2bln hit from these things, so he'll find somewhere to put them, even if it wasn't along the Pickens Pipeline that he hoped for, so that he can regain some of the lost money in the form of energy ROI.
All-in-all, the industry should see it as a boon.
The funny part is, if he had planned it better, he might have gotten away without having to invest in the alternative energy aspect at all, but idiotically he bought the turbines before having it entirely planned out.
Sucks to be him (okay, not really, he's still rolling in billions), but it's a real win for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625031</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>noahisaac</author>
	<datestamp>1247077800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>they grind up birds like no tomorrow.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

From what (admittedly little) I know, the current turbines pose no significant threat to birds.  Unlike older turbines, the new ones have large propellers that move relatively slowly, and tests have shown them to be easily detectable and avoidable by birds.  I remember reading that many more birds die flying into glass windows on large buildings than by flying into wind turbines.

If it's any indication, my brother is an ornithologist and changed his stance a few years back to support wind turbines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they grind up birds like no tomorrow .
From what ( admittedly little ) I know , the current turbines pose no significant threat to birds .
Unlike older turbines , the new ones have large propellers that move relatively slowly , and tests have shown them to be easily detectable and avoidable by birds .
I remember reading that many more birds die flying into glass windows on large buildings than by flying into wind turbines .
If it 's any indication , my brother is an ornithologist and changed his stance a few years back to support wind turbines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they grind up birds like no tomorrow.
From what (admittedly little) I know, the current turbines pose no significant threat to birds.
Unlike older turbines, the new ones have large propellers that move relatively slowly, and tests have shown them to be easily detectable and avoidable by birds.
I remember reading that many more birds die flying into glass windows on large buildings than by flying into wind turbines.
If it's any indication, my brother is an ornithologist and changed his stance a few years back to support wind turbines.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28631057</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1247063280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ugh! Why won't this myth die?</i></p><p>Because ignorance never dies Rei.</p><p>Next time you run across an idiot that spouts the death of birds, simply show them some <a href="http://birdchaser.blogspot.com/2008/03/cats-kill-over-1-billion-birds-each.html" title="blogspot.com">napkin-math</a> [blogspot.com]  that calculates 1,000,000 birds die each year by (ready for this?)...<b>Cats</b>...in the USA alone!</p><p>Sometimes, you just gotta point, laugh, and accept nature is in balance =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh !
Why wo n't this myth die ? Because ignorance never dies Rei.Next time you run across an idiot that spouts the death of birds , simply show them some napkin-math [ blogspot.com ] that calculates 1,000,000 birds die each year by ( ready for this ?
) ...Cats...in the USA alone ! Sometimes , you just got ta point , laugh , and accept nature is in balance = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh!
Why won't this myth die?Because ignorance never dies Rei.Next time you run across an idiot that spouts the death of birds, simply show them some napkin-math [blogspot.com]  that calculates 1,000,000 birds die each year by (ready for this?
)...Cats...in the USA alone!Sometimes, you just gotta point, laugh, and accept nature is in balance =)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624727</id>
	<title>Just west of Austin -- you'd make billions.</title>
	<author>OpenGLFan</author>
	<datestamp>1247076720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cycle out that way, and I've never had a ride where I didn't have to fight the worst winds I've ever seen.  There aren't any trees, Austin could definitely use the power, and there's not much development out that way.  You'd be amazed how the wind just sweeps across a flat area where there isn't really enough water for good trees.  It's nightmarish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cycle out that way , and I 've never had a ride where I did n't have to fight the worst winds I 've ever seen .
There are n't any trees , Austin could definitely use the power , and there 's not much development out that way .
You 'd be amazed how the wind just sweeps across a flat area where there is n't really enough water for good trees .
It 's nightmarish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cycle out that way, and I've never had a ride where I didn't have to fight the worst winds I've ever seen.
There aren't any trees, Austin could definitely use the power, and there's not much development out that way.
You'd be amazed how the wind just sweeps across a flat area where there isn't really enough water for good trees.
It's nightmarish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628529</id>
	<title>massive natural-gas discovery</title>
	<author>johnnyR</author>
	<datestamp>1247048400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is probably what changed his plan
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104549891270585.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104549891270585.html</a> [wsj.com]

If this is tapped and properly used we won't need wind or oil</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably what changed his plan http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB124104549891270585.html [ wsj.com ] If this is tapped and properly used we wo n't need wind or oil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably what changed his plan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104549891270585.html [wsj.com]

If this is tapped and properly used we won't need wind or oil</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28637543</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247157840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>These things are a great way to make a beautiful landscape hideous.</p></div><p>As opposed to what, a coal plant?</p></div><p>Personally I think the electrical towers are really ugly. <a href="http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/electricity-pylons-inspired-nature/9513" title="environmen...affiti.com" rel="nofollow">These artistic pylons</a> [environmen...affiti.com] are an interesting start to the "beautify the tower" problem, but what I'd really like to see are transmission towers that are sculptures. Some ideas off the top of my head: Paul Bunyan, Woody Hayes, Iron Man, Superman, knights, samurai, ninjas (probably should only be used for wireless power transmission, otherwise the cables will give them away), Micky Mouse, Greek Gods (Like from Rockefeller Center), national heroes, sports mascots.</p><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else.</p></div><p>Clean renewable energy is <i>worse</i> for the environment than radioactive waste?  I understand that nuclear power is a viable alternative to coal and oil, and that it produces constant power and all that, but how is it better for the environment than wind?</p></div><p>In this case, yes. Wind power is nice, but <i> <b>wind isn't constant.</b> </i> Do you want your family or loved ones undergoing surgery when the wind stops and the power fails? I sure don't. </p><p>Radioactive waste can be mitigated by several methods:</p><p>1. Use of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Breeder Reactors</a> [wikipedia.org] which actually create more fissionable fuel as they operate. So a lot of the radioactive waste is actually <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_reprocessing" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">recycled into fuel sources</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>2. Modern reactor designs are more efficient than the prior designs. Just like cars from 2000 are more reliable, have better fuel economy, and are safer than cars from the 1960's, the reactors that are being designed and implemented now outside the U.S. typically have 1/3 fewer mechanical parts and are made from materials that will last a lot longer. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic\_Simplified\_Boiling\_Water\_Reactor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://gt-mhr.ga.com/" title="ga.com" rel="nofollow">Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor</a> [ga.com] for two examples of these designs. Wikipedia has more information about these <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation\_III\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"Generation III"</a> [wikipedia.org] reactors.<br>3. Power generation efficiency could be increased beyond current levels by adding Stirling Engine-style generators to the cooling towers, but note that many of the Generation 3 and newer reactor designs don't use cooling towers (Three Mile Island).<br>4. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted\_uranium" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Depleted uranium</a> [wikipedia.org] is great for tank/aircraft shells, tank armor, and has several other uses in the civilian market.<br>5. The Federal Government promised the nuclear power industry a radioactive waste storage facility, Yucca Mountain, in 1987. It's a law. The nuclear industry has been paying for that, doubling the end-user cost of electricity, but hasn't received <i>anything</i> in exchange for the money. And then Secretary Chu decides that Yucca Mountain isn't good enough and kills it. So basically the nuclear power industry has paid millions of dollars for the past two decades and got nothing back for it, except coolant ponds that are filling up with more and more spent fuel, scattered across the country rather than being held in a single, secured location.</p><p>You may point to Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear reactors should be avoided. Good point, but the cause of that problem wasn't the reactor itself, it was the <i>people running</i> the reactor. Some stupid test* was conceived by an idiot, and when the most experienced shift refused to do it because it was dangerous, the idiot tried again and again until he got a group of less-experienced people who didn't know any better to do the test. Then things went wrong and we're left with Satan's spotlight shining straight up into the heavens.</p><p>The other big one in the U.S. is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three\_Mile\_Island\_accident" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Three Mile Island</a> [wikipedia.org]. The typical radiotherapy machine in a hospital will emit up to 1000 curies** into a patient. Three Mile Island released 20 curies of radioactive fuel. The real damage was from the 13 million curie's worth of radioactive gases that were released. This explains why there are so few cooling towers on reactors built after 1979, and there are so many more passive safety features built into the new reactors. Things like reactor tripping (automatic SCRAM), which shut down the reactor if the sensors detect <i>anything</i> out of the ordinary. Basically this is like your car realizing something's gone wrong, pulling itself over to the side of the road, and shutting itself off while calling for a tow truck or emergency services.</p><p>(No I don't work for the nuclear industry. My brother, though, was employed by the state I live in to inspect medical radioactivity departments in hospitals, and he currently works for the state on nuclear plant inspections.)</p><p>*Pulling all the control rods out of a reactor strikes me as stupid - "You need to be shot to protect the rest of us" stupid.</p><p>** Curies are the measurement unit of radioactivity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These things are a great way to make a beautiful landscape hideous.As opposed to what , a coal plant ? Personally I think the electrical towers are really ugly .
These artistic pylons [ environmen...affiti.com ] are an interesting start to the " beautify the tower " problem , but what I 'd really like to see are transmission towers that are sculptures .
Some ideas off the top of my head : Paul Bunyan , Woody Hayes , Iron Man , Superman , knights , samurai , ninjas ( probably should only be used for wireless power transmission , otherwise the cables will give them away ) , Micky Mouse , Greek Gods ( Like from Rockefeller Center ) , national heroes , sports mascots.Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else.Clean renewable energy is worse for the environment than radioactive waste ?
I understand that nuclear power is a viable alternative to coal and oil , and that it produces constant power and all that , but how is it better for the environment than wind ? In this case , yes .
Wind power is nice , but wind is n't constant .
Do you want your family or loved ones undergoing surgery when the wind stops and the power fails ?
I sure do n't .
Radioactive waste can be mitigated by several methods : 1 .
Use of Breeder Reactors [ wikipedia.org ] which actually create more fissionable fuel as they operate .
So a lot of the radioactive waste is actually recycled into fuel sources [ wikipedia.org ] .2 .
Modern reactor designs are more efficient than the prior designs .
Just like cars from 2000 are more reliable , have better fuel economy , and are safer than cars from the 1960 's , the reactors that are being designed and implemented now outside the U.S. typically have 1/3 fewer mechanical parts and are made from materials that will last a lot longer .
See Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor [ wikipedia.org ] and Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor [ ga.com ] for two examples of these designs .
Wikipedia has more information about these " Generation III " [ wikipedia.org ] reactors.3 .
Power generation efficiency could be increased beyond current levels by adding Stirling Engine-style generators to the cooling towers , but note that many of the Generation 3 and newer reactor designs do n't use cooling towers ( Three Mile Island ) .4 .
Depleted uranium [ wikipedia.org ] is great for tank/aircraft shells , tank armor , and has several other uses in the civilian market.5 .
The Federal Government promised the nuclear power industry a radioactive waste storage facility , Yucca Mountain , in 1987 .
It 's a law .
The nuclear industry has been paying for that , doubling the end-user cost of electricity , but has n't received anything in exchange for the money .
And then Secretary Chu decides that Yucca Mountain is n't good enough and kills it .
So basically the nuclear power industry has paid millions of dollars for the past two decades and got nothing back for it , except coolant ponds that are filling up with more and more spent fuel , scattered across the country rather than being held in a single , secured location.You may point to Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear reactors should be avoided .
Good point , but the cause of that problem was n't the reactor itself , it was the people running the reactor .
Some stupid test * was conceived by an idiot , and when the most experienced shift refused to do it because it was dangerous , the idiot tried again and again until he got a group of less-experienced people who did n't know any better to do the test .
Then things went wrong and we 're left with Satan 's spotlight shining straight up into the heavens.The other big one in the U.S. is Three Mile Island [ wikipedia.org ] .
The typical radiotherapy machine in a hospital will emit up to 1000 curies * * into a patient .
Three Mile Island released 20 curies of radioactive fuel .
The real damage was from the 13 million curie 's worth of radioactive gases that were released .
This explains why there are so few cooling towers on reactors built after 1979 , and there are so many more passive safety features built into the new reactors .
Things like reactor tripping ( automatic SCRAM ) , which shut down the reactor if the sensors detect anything out of the ordinary .
Basically this is like your car realizing something 's gone wrong , pulling itself over to the side of the road , and shutting itself off while calling for a tow truck or emergency services .
( No I do n't work for the nuclear industry .
My brother , though , was employed by the state I live in to inspect medical radioactivity departments in hospitals , and he currently works for the state on nuclear plant inspections .
) * Pulling all the control rods out of a reactor strikes me as stupid - " You need to be shot to protect the rest of us " stupid .
* * Curies are the measurement unit of radioactivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These things are a great way to make a beautiful landscape hideous.As opposed to what, a coal plant?Personally I think the electrical towers are really ugly.
These artistic pylons [environmen...affiti.com] are an interesting start to the "beautify the tower" problem, but what I'd really like to see are transmission towers that are sculptures.
Some ideas off the top of my head: Paul Bunyan, Woody Hayes, Iron Man, Superman, knights, samurai, ninjas (probably should only be used for wireless power transmission, otherwise the cables will give them away), Micky Mouse, Greek Gods (Like from Rockefeller Center), national heroes, sports mascots.Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else.Clean renewable energy is worse for the environment than radioactive waste?
I understand that nuclear power is a viable alternative to coal and oil, and that it produces constant power and all that, but how is it better for the environment than wind?In this case, yes.
Wind power is nice, but  wind isn't constant.
Do you want your family or loved ones undergoing surgery when the wind stops and the power fails?
I sure don't.
Radioactive waste can be mitigated by several methods:1.
Use of Breeder Reactors [wikipedia.org] which actually create more fissionable fuel as they operate.
So a lot of the radioactive waste is actually recycled into fuel sources [wikipedia.org].2.
Modern reactor designs are more efficient than the prior designs.
Just like cars from 2000 are more reliable, have better fuel economy, and are safer than cars from the 1960's, the reactors that are being designed and implemented now outside the U.S. typically have 1/3 fewer mechanical parts and are made from materials that will last a lot longer.
See Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor [wikipedia.org] and Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor [ga.com] for two examples of these designs.
Wikipedia has more information about these "Generation III" [wikipedia.org] reactors.3.
Power generation efficiency could be increased beyond current levels by adding Stirling Engine-style generators to the cooling towers, but note that many of the Generation 3 and newer reactor designs don't use cooling towers (Three Mile Island).4.
Depleted uranium [wikipedia.org] is great for tank/aircraft shells, tank armor, and has several other uses in the civilian market.5.
The Federal Government promised the nuclear power industry a radioactive waste storage facility, Yucca Mountain, in 1987.
It's a law.
The nuclear industry has been paying for that, doubling the end-user cost of electricity, but hasn't received anything in exchange for the money.
And then Secretary Chu decides that Yucca Mountain isn't good enough and kills it.
So basically the nuclear power industry has paid millions of dollars for the past two decades and got nothing back for it, except coolant ponds that are filling up with more and more spent fuel, scattered across the country rather than being held in a single, secured location.You may point to Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear reactors should be avoided.
Good point, but the cause of that problem wasn't the reactor itself, it was the people running the reactor.
Some stupid test* was conceived by an idiot, and when the most experienced shift refused to do it because it was dangerous, the idiot tried again and again until he got a group of less-experienced people who didn't know any better to do the test.
Then things went wrong and we're left with Satan's spotlight shining straight up into the heavens.The other big one in the U.S. is Three Mile Island [wikipedia.org].
The typical radiotherapy machine in a hospital will emit up to 1000 curies** into a patient.
Three Mile Island released 20 curies of radioactive fuel.
The real damage was from the 13 million curie's worth of radioactive gases that were released.
This explains why there are so few cooling towers on reactors built after 1979, and there are so many more passive safety features built into the new reactors.
Things like reactor tripping (automatic SCRAM), which shut down the reactor if the sensors detect anything out of the ordinary.
Basically this is like your car realizing something's gone wrong, pulling itself over to the side of the road, and shutting itself off while calling for a tow truck or emergency services.
(No I don't work for the nuclear industry.
My brother, though, was employed by the state I live in to inspect medical radioactivity departments in hospitals, and he currently works for the state on nuclear plant inspections.
)*Pulling all the control rods out of a reactor strikes me as stupid - "You need to be shot to protect the rest of us" stupid.
** Curies are the measurement unit of radioactivity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628341</id>
	<title>You are stupid</title>
	<author>jafiwam</author>
	<datestamp>1247047560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Changed the subject, to make it clear:<br><br>You. Are. Stupid.<br><br>Let's break down all the reasons where this is clear:<br><br>1. "Becuase"<br><br>2. Today's energy grid is an integrated one that reaches far and wide, the wind never stops everywhere at once so can be harvested somewhere all the time.  Wind power is also likely to be only a fraction of the total power and suits the peak/baseline power curve nicely.<br><br>3. Some people think Vegemite tastes good, that rap is good music, and that the moon landings never happened.  What some people think aesthetic is always going to be 90\% crap, and putting a coal plant side by side with a wind farm is like comparing a half rotten pile of weasel assholes with a live kitten. Don't bring the aesthetics into it unless you are also advocating tearing down every coal plant that exists because they are ugly.<br><br>4. The only thing ground up here appears to be your brain.  The bird thing is bullshit, debunked, and disingenuous crap touted by people too stupid to look up a few numbers.  Your fucking housecat and the rest of their species does far far far more damage to birds, likewise every large window in any suburb, and any tall building.  Let's tear all that stuff down too.  Or, is your claim they are "bird grinders" bullshit.  (Hint: yup)<br><br>5. Wind will not solve all power problems, and despite it's usefulness, duct tape will not fix everything (for example, it won't suppress the expression of your extra chromosomes), what sort of an uncle-tom waterhead thinks wind will solve anything except a few percent of our clean power needs.  Sure, we'll need nuclear but wind and nuclear are not mutually exclusive.<br><br>6. It seems to me like you used some pretty brain-dead environmentalist emotion laden-logic free views to say wind power is bad, and then turn around and say environmental compromises need to be made.  I suggest learning a bit more of which you speak, because you seem to be the type of person that picks up only the first line of any article and damn the facts within.<br><br>Goddamn, I fucking hate pseudo-philosophers, especially the young-stupid ones.  Grrrr.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Changed the subject , to make it clear : You .
Are. Stupid.Let 's break down all the reasons where this is clear : 1 .
" Becuase " 2. Today 's energy grid is an integrated one that reaches far and wide , the wind never stops everywhere at once so can be harvested somewhere all the time .
Wind power is also likely to be only a fraction of the total power and suits the peak/baseline power curve nicely.3 .
Some people think Vegemite tastes good , that rap is good music , and that the moon landings never happened .
What some people think aesthetic is always going to be 90 \ % crap , and putting a coal plant side by side with a wind farm is like comparing a half rotten pile of weasel assholes with a live kitten .
Do n't bring the aesthetics into it unless you are also advocating tearing down every coal plant that exists because they are ugly.4 .
The only thing ground up here appears to be your brain .
The bird thing is bullshit , debunked , and disingenuous crap touted by people too stupid to look up a few numbers .
Your fucking housecat and the rest of their species does far far far more damage to birds , likewise every large window in any suburb , and any tall building .
Let 's tear all that stuff down too .
Or , is your claim they are " bird grinders " bullshit .
( Hint : yup ) 5 .
Wind will not solve all power problems , and despite it 's usefulness , duct tape will not fix everything ( for example , it wo n't suppress the expression of your extra chromosomes ) , what sort of an uncle-tom waterhead thinks wind will solve anything except a few percent of our clean power needs .
Sure , we 'll need nuclear but wind and nuclear are not mutually exclusive.6 .
It seems to me like you used some pretty brain-dead environmentalist emotion laden-logic free views to say wind power is bad , and then turn around and say environmental compromises need to be made .
I suggest learning a bit more of which you speak , because you seem to be the type of person that picks up only the first line of any article and damn the facts within.Goddamn , I fucking hate pseudo-philosophers , especially the young-stupid ones .
Grrrr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changed the subject, to make it clear:You.
Are. Stupid.Let's break down all the reasons where this is clear:1.
"Becuase"2. Today's energy grid is an integrated one that reaches far and wide, the wind never stops everywhere at once so can be harvested somewhere all the time.
Wind power is also likely to be only a fraction of the total power and suits the peak/baseline power curve nicely.3.
Some people think Vegemite tastes good, that rap is good music, and that the moon landings never happened.
What some people think aesthetic is always going to be 90\% crap, and putting a coal plant side by side with a wind farm is like comparing a half rotten pile of weasel assholes with a live kitten.
Don't bring the aesthetics into it unless you are also advocating tearing down every coal plant that exists because they are ugly.4.
The only thing ground up here appears to be your brain.
The bird thing is bullshit, debunked, and disingenuous crap touted by people too stupid to look up a few numbers.
Your fucking housecat and the rest of their species does far far far more damage to birds, likewise every large window in any suburb, and any tall building.
Let's tear all that stuff down too.
Or, is your claim they are "bird grinders" bullshit.
(Hint: yup)5.
Wind will not solve all power problems, and despite it's usefulness, duct tape will not fix everything (for example, it won't suppress the expression of your extra chromosomes), what sort of an uncle-tom waterhead thinks wind will solve anything except a few percent of our clean power needs.
Sure, we'll need nuclear but wind and nuclear are not mutually exclusive.6.
It seems to me like you used some pretty brain-dead environmentalist emotion laden-logic free views to say wind power is bad, and then turn around and say environmental compromises need to be made.
I suggest learning a bit more of which you speak, because you seem to be the type of person that picks up only the first line of any article and damn the facts within.Goddamn, I fucking hate pseudo-philosophers, especially the young-stupid ones.
Grrrr.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28644011</id>
	<title>bring em to Europe</title>
	<author>Kvasio</author>
	<datestamp>1247141520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seriously. Energy is more expensive here than in US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seriously .
Energy is more expensive here than in US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seriously.
Energy is more expensive here than in US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624507</id>
	<title>Right.... This clearly passes occams razor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's another suggestion.</p><p>High priced oil *triggers* recessions.</p><p>This would be far simpler and explain the oscilation in the price of oil after the demand destruction has fed through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's another suggestion.High priced oil * triggers * recessions.This would be far simpler and explain the oscilation in the price of oil after the demand destruction has fed through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's another suggestion.High priced oil *triggers* recessions.This would be far simpler and explain the oscilation in the price of oil after the demand destruction has fed through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624149</id>
	<title>Re:A fool and his money are some party</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1247074860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt; In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system
</p><p>
It's a common problem.  Windmills in your back yard with easy access to the power grid, or windmills in a remote location where access to the grid is problematic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; In Texas , the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system It 's a common problem .
Windmills in your back yard with easy access to the power grid , or windmills in a remote location where access to the grid is problematic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system

It's a common problem.
Windmills in your back yard with easy access to the power grid, or windmills in a remote location where access to the grid is problematic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625329</id>
	<title>Blades being shipped by train</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247078820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if I actually saw those in transport?  I was travelling south on 287 Sunday morning just south of Wichita Falls, TX and there was a train going north.  I was surprised by the number of blades on the train.  I'm guessing there were probably 50.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if I actually saw those in transport ?
I was travelling south on 287 Sunday morning just south of Wichita Falls , TX and there was a train going north .
I was surprised by the number of blades on the train .
I 'm guessing there were probably 50 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if I actually saw those in transport?
I was travelling south on 287 Sunday morning just south of Wichita Falls, TX and there was a train going north.
I was surprised by the number of blades on the train.
I'm guessing there were probably 50.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28632271</id>
	<title>Using less?</title>
	<author>EmperorLinuz</author>
	<datestamp>1247073000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Odd how using less electricity is never an issue when it comes to conserving resources?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd how using less electricity is never an issue when it comes to conserving resources ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd how using less electricity is never an issue when it comes to conserving resources?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28627603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28637543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28627019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28630711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28632135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28639309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28635735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28636451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28631057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28627055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28635537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28646841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_167212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28646841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28630711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624239
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624199
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28627055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28635735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28627603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28636451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28627019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28639309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624445
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628417
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624389
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624711
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626595
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629207
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628667
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28626751
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28635537
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28628341
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625117
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28631057
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28629755
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28637543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624347
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625175
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624965
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624563
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28625431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28632135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_167212.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_167212.28624659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
