<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_30_1326218</id>
	<title>Chinese To Supply 600 MW Wind Farm In Texas</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256910240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> sends in a Wall Street Journal report that Chinese banks will provide $1.5B to a consortium of Chinese and American companies to build a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125683832677216475.html">600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas, using turbines made in China</a>. The wind farm will be built on 36,000 acres, and will use 240 2.5-megawatt turbines, providing enough power to meet the electrical needs of around 150,000 American homes. The project will be the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/business/energy-environment/30wind.html">first instance of a Chinese manufacturer exporting wind turbines to the United States</a>. China aims to be the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1931616,00.html">front-runner in wind- and solar-power generation</a> <i>"The Obama administration is hoping a shift to renewable energy will inject new life into the US manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs, making up for losses in other sectors. But while the US has poured money into renewable energy through tax credits and other subsidies, China has positioned itself to reap many of the benefits by ramping up its export machine."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens sends in a Wall Street Journal report that Chinese banks will provide $ 1.5B to a consortium of Chinese and American companies to build a 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas , using turbines made in China .
The wind farm will be built on 36,000 acres , and will use 240 2.5-megawatt turbines , providing enough power to meet the electrical needs of around 150,000 American homes .
The project will be the first instance of a Chinese manufacturer exporting wind turbines to the United States .
China aims to be the front-runner in wind- and solar-power generation " The Obama administration is hoping a shift to renewable energy will inject new life into the US manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs , making up for losses in other sectors .
But while the US has poured money into renewable energy through tax credits and other subsidies , China has positioned itself to reap many of the benefits by ramping up its export machine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens sends in a Wall Street Journal report that Chinese banks will provide $1.5B to a consortium of Chinese and American companies to build a 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas, using turbines made in China.
The wind farm will be built on 36,000 acres, and will use 240 2.5-megawatt turbines, providing enough power to meet the electrical needs of around 150,000 American homes.
The project will be the first instance of a Chinese manufacturer exporting wind turbines to the United States.
China aims to be the front-runner in wind- and solar-power generation "The Obama administration is hoping a shift to renewable energy will inject new life into the US manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs, making up for losses in other sectors.
But while the US has poured money into renewable energy through tax credits and other subsidies, China has positioned itself to reap many of the benefits by ramping up its export machine.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923525</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256916540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is in West Texas. Finding a contiguous 36K acres with no life form higher than a snake living on it is pretty easy. What else are they going to use the land for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is in West Texas .
Finding a contiguous 36K acres with no life form higher than a snake living on it is pretty easy .
What else are they going to use the land for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is in West Texas.
Finding a contiguous 36K acres with no life form higher than a snake living on it is pretty easy.
What else are they going to use the land for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927927</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1256935560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(go on, TRY to get a permit for a new nuclear plant...)</p></div></blockquote><p> Over 30 new permits have been issued by the DOE in the last 3 years, this doesn't include the 60 or so permits that were issued in the 80's that were never built that have notified the DOE of intent to pursue construction. This means we could have over 100 new nuclear plants come online before the end of the next decade (2020) with the permits issued to date. The DOE has said they have had heavy interest from the nuclear industry because the current cost per KW in the US is profitable for nuclear without subsidy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( go on , TRY to get a permit for a new nuclear plant... ) Over 30 new permits have been issued by the DOE in the last 3 years , this does n't include the 60 or so permits that were issued in the 80 's that were never built that have notified the DOE of intent to pursue construction .
This means we could have over 100 new nuclear plants come online before the end of the next decade ( 2020 ) with the permits issued to date .
The DOE has said they have had heavy interest from the nuclear industry because the current cost per KW in the US is profitable for nuclear without subsidy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(go on, TRY to get a permit for a new nuclear plant...) Over 30 new permits have been issued by the DOE in the last 3 years, this doesn't include the 60 or so permits that were issued in the 80's that were never built that have notified the DOE of intent to pursue construction.
This means we could have over 100 new nuclear plants come online before the end of the next decade (2020) with the permits issued to date.
The DOE has said they have had heavy interest from the nuclear industry because the current cost per KW in the US is profitable for nuclear without subsidy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841</id>
	<title>Not "Baseline" generating capacity.</title>
	<author>GuyFawkes</author>
	<datestamp>1256917920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, with electricity generation you have something known as "baseline demand" which you can think of as a water table or the level of the sea a low tide.</p><p>You absolutely HAVE to have this generating capacity 24/365, no if's, but's or maybe's.</p><p>The problem with wind (and solar, and wave, etc) is that generating capacity can be anywhere from zero on up, if there is no wind, or even just light winds, generating capacity is effectively zero.</p><p>What this means is that if you are an electricity grid planner, it doesn't matter how much theoretical wind turbine generating capacity you have, NONE of it is applicable to your baseline demand.</p><p>This means the only things that you can use for baseline demand are coal powered, oil powered, nuke powered or hydro powered "traditional" generating stations.</p><p>The nature of "traditional" power stations is such that like the car doing 60mph down the freeway, there is a fair bit more power on tap, 24/365, so in fact, due to the nature of grid demand, by definition, the "traditional" power stations that are REQUIRED to meet baseline capacity can, in 99.9\% of cases, ALSO supply peak demand (think of this as high tide).</p><p>So, the ONLY thing you can use wind power for, assuming the wind is blowing, is peak demand.</p><p>Now that you can only use it for peak demand, and given that you have an electrical grid, the only time you will ACTUALLY use one power source over another is if one is CHEAPER per giga-watt-hour than another.</p><p>Fact is, wind power loses out here too, UNLESS you heavily subsidise it, and that is no longer a level playing field.</p><p>The grid itself is also a problem, although a high tension grid can transfer useful power 1,000 miles, when you start talking about reasonable losses and efficiency in the grid, you are down to 250 miles, so it is not like you can put offshore wind farms *here* and connect them via the grid to a demand *here* 1,200 miles away, even with the wind power subsidies, it still does not make economic sense.</p><p>All you have to remember, is this.</p><p>The purpose of a wind turbine manufacturer is to sell wind turbines.</p><p>They really could not care one way or another if the installed turbines make economic sense on a level playing field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , with electricity generation you have something known as " baseline demand " which you can think of as a water table or the level of the sea a low tide.You absolutely HAVE to have this generating capacity 24/365 , no if 's , but 's or maybe 's.The problem with wind ( and solar , and wave , etc ) is that generating capacity can be anywhere from zero on up , if there is no wind , or even just light winds , generating capacity is effectively zero.What this means is that if you are an electricity grid planner , it does n't matter how much theoretical wind turbine generating capacity you have , NONE of it is applicable to your baseline demand.This means the only things that you can use for baseline demand are coal powered , oil powered , nuke powered or hydro powered " traditional " generating stations.The nature of " traditional " power stations is such that like the car doing 60mph down the freeway , there is a fair bit more power on tap , 24/365 , so in fact , due to the nature of grid demand , by definition , the " traditional " power stations that are REQUIRED to meet baseline capacity can , in 99.9 \ % of cases , ALSO supply peak demand ( think of this as high tide ) .So , the ONLY thing you can use wind power for , assuming the wind is blowing , is peak demand.Now that you can only use it for peak demand , and given that you have an electrical grid , the only time you will ACTUALLY use one power source over another is if one is CHEAPER per giga-watt-hour than another.Fact is , wind power loses out here too , UNLESS you heavily subsidise it , and that is no longer a level playing field.The grid itself is also a problem , although a high tension grid can transfer useful power 1,000 miles , when you start talking about reasonable losses and efficiency in the grid , you are down to 250 miles , so it is not like you can put offshore wind farms * here * and connect them via the grid to a demand * here * 1,200 miles away , even with the wind power subsidies , it still does not make economic sense.All you have to remember , is this.The purpose of a wind turbine manufacturer is to sell wind turbines.They really could not care one way or another if the installed turbines make economic sense on a level playing field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, with electricity generation you have something known as "baseline demand" which you can think of as a water table or the level of the sea a low tide.You absolutely HAVE to have this generating capacity 24/365, no if's, but's or maybe's.The problem with wind (and solar, and wave, etc) is that generating capacity can be anywhere from zero on up, if there is no wind, or even just light winds, generating capacity is effectively zero.What this means is that if you are an electricity grid planner, it doesn't matter how much theoretical wind turbine generating capacity you have, NONE of it is applicable to your baseline demand.This means the only things that you can use for baseline demand are coal powered, oil powered, nuke powered or hydro powered "traditional" generating stations.The nature of "traditional" power stations is such that like the car doing 60mph down the freeway, there is a fair bit more power on tap, 24/365, so in fact, due to the nature of grid demand, by definition, the "traditional" power stations that are REQUIRED to meet baseline capacity can, in 99.9\% of cases, ALSO supply peak demand (think of this as high tide).So, the ONLY thing you can use wind power for, assuming the wind is blowing, is peak demand.Now that you can only use it for peak demand, and given that you have an electrical grid, the only time you will ACTUALLY use one power source over another is if one is CHEAPER per giga-watt-hour than another.Fact is, wind power loses out here too, UNLESS you heavily subsidise it, and that is no longer a level playing field.The grid itself is also a problem, although a high tension grid can transfer useful power 1,000 miles, when you start talking about reasonable losses and efficiency in the grid, you are down to 250 miles, so it is not like you can put offshore wind farms *here* and connect them via the grid to a demand *here* 1,200 miles away, even with the wind power subsidies, it still does not make economic sense.All you have to remember, is this.The purpose of a wind turbine manufacturer is to sell wind turbines.They really could not care one way or another if the installed turbines make economic sense on a level playing field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924147</id>
	<title>Chinese lessons anyone?</title>
	<author>ebonum</author>
	<datestamp>1256919180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Repeat after me:<br>lesson 1.<br>"Ni hao" = Hello.</p><p>lesson 2.<br>"Wo men shi dou ni de ji di"=All your base are belong to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Repeat after me : lesson 1 .
" Ni hao " = Hello.lesson 2 .
" Wo men shi dou ni de ji di " = All your base are belong to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Repeat after me:lesson 1.
"Ni hao" = Hello.lesson 2.
"Wo men shi dou ni de ji di"=All your base are belong to us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925113</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256922900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.<br></em></p><p>That's a lot of paranoia. Windmills and wind farms have been around for a long time. The only high tech here is that they're putting the stuff up high on poles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.That 's a lot of paranoia .
Windmills and wind farms have been around for a long time .
The only high tech here is that they 're putting the stuff up high on poles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.That's a lot of paranoia.
Windmills and wind farms have been around for a long time.
The only high tech here is that they're putting the stuff up high on poles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924291</id>
	<title>Re:Some choice, huh?</title>
	<author>Marcika</author>
	<datestamp>1256919780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So these days we have a choice for every 36,000 acres: either build 150,000 structures to house 300,000+ mouths to feed, or build 240 turbines to power 150,000 structures housing 300,000+ hungry mouths somewhere else?  Can we have an option (c) none of the above?  I'd kinda like to just leave those 36,000 acres the hell alone.</p></div><p>What about option (d):240 turbines plus 35,000 acres of farmland that are necessary to feed the people anyway? It's not like having a turbine on the edge of a 150-acre field would preclude it from being used for other purposes... (And it's not like you'd have the right to demand for someone else to leave their farmland "the hell alone" if they want to use it for turbines.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So these days we have a choice for every 36,000 acres : either build 150,000 structures to house 300,000 + mouths to feed , or build 240 turbines to power 150,000 structures housing 300,000 + hungry mouths somewhere else ?
Can we have an option ( c ) none of the above ?
I 'd kinda like to just leave those 36,000 acres the hell alone.What about option ( d ) : 240 turbines plus 35,000 acres of farmland that are necessary to feed the people anyway ?
It 's not like having a turbine on the edge of a 150-acre field would preclude it from being used for other purposes... ( And it 's not like you 'd have the right to demand for someone else to leave their farmland " the hell alone " if they want to use it for turbines .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So these days we have a choice for every 36,000 acres: either build 150,000 structures to house 300,000+ mouths to feed, or build 240 turbines to power 150,000 structures housing 300,000+ hungry mouths somewhere else?
Can we have an option (c) none of the above?
I'd kinda like to just leave those 36,000 acres the hell alone.What about option (d):240 turbines plus 35,000 acres of farmland that are necessary to feed the people anyway?
It's not like having a turbine on the edge of a 150-acre field would preclude it from being used for other purposes... (And it's not like you'd have the right to demand for someone else to leave their farmland "the hell alone" if they want to use it for turbines.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923591</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1256916780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Wages are cents in the dollar. Working conditions are as cheap and unsafe as they can get. Wind turbines due to low manufacturing numbers have a high labor content as such, there is no way reasonable or acceptable way for US labor to compete and if they could of course the whole exercise becomes utterly pointless as they could not afford to pay the electricity generated killing the investment. </p><p> As long as government continue down the path of blind, deaf and dumb monkeys and don't accept the need to establish fair trade practices and import duties to ensure companies compete upon a equal basic, whether foreign or domestic, socio economic collapse is inevitable. </p><p> The WTO is nothing more than a tool of the rich to destroy the middle class, eliminating that threat to their hereditary power base and, turning the bulk of the worlds population into nothing more that working in poverty minimum wage slaves (counting India and China that is already true but the first world middle class have yet to feel the weight of the chain and the bite of the whip not since they put down the masters a century or so ago).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wages are cents in the dollar .
Working conditions are as cheap and unsafe as they can get .
Wind turbines due to low manufacturing numbers have a high labor content as such , there is no way reasonable or acceptable way for US labor to compete and if they could of course the whole exercise becomes utterly pointless as they could not afford to pay the electricity generated killing the investment .
As long as government continue down the path of blind , deaf and dumb monkeys and do n't accept the need to establish fair trade practices and import duties to ensure companies compete upon a equal basic , whether foreign or domestic , socio economic collapse is inevitable .
The WTO is nothing more than a tool of the rich to destroy the middle class , eliminating that threat to their hereditary power base and , turning the bulk of the worlds population into nothing more that working in poverty minimum wage slaves ( counting India and China that is already true but the first world middle class have yet to feel the weight of the chain and the bite of the whip not since they put down the masters a century or so ago ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Wages are cents in the dollar.
Working conditions are as cheap and unsafe as they can get.
Wind turbines due to low manufacturing numbers have a high labor content as such, there is no way reasonable or acceptable way for US labor to compete and if they could of course the whole exercise becomes utterly pointless as they could not afford to pay the electricity generated killing the investment.
As long as government continue down the path of blind, deaf and dumb monkeys and don't accept the need to establish fair trade practices and import duties to ensure companies compete upon a equal basic, whether foreign or domestic, socio economic collapse is inevitable.
The WTO is nothing more than a tool of the rich to destroy the middle class, eliminating that threat to their hereditary power base and, turning the bulk of the worlds population into nothing more that working in poverty minimum wage slaves (counting India and China that is already true but the first world middle class have yet to feel the weight of the chain and the bite of the whip not since they put down the masters a century or so ago).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29928633</id>
	<title>Re:Some choice, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256895720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kill yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kill yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kill yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29933821</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>bigpat</author>
	<datestamp>1256997900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You use the worst possible examples to shore up your faulty arguments.</p><p>Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, which is one of the latest plants to be built in the US (completed in 1986), has a capacity of 1,244MW and sits on 900 acres much of which is just a buffer area that is left in a mostly natural state.</p><p>So comparing apples to apples, this wind farm uses 80 times more land area per megawatt.   And if you are going to be dragging in mining into the equation, then you had better account for all the materials and energy required to manufacture those wind turbines.  Not to mention the land area of the new power grid that it will take to transmit all this power from far off places.  When you add it all up, a full roll out of wind and solar in the US would take up an area the size of Arizona and still wouldn't give you enough power on a cloudy or windless day.</p><p>Heck can you even run an industrial economy on wind power?  How many wind turbines would it take to power the manufacture of a single turbine?  All this talk of how many homes you can power, without considering manufacturing and business.  Is the expectation that we are just going to keep outsourcing our industrial production to China where they will continue to use cheap coal power?  The Chinese have done the math on this, have we?  The last major foray into renewable energy in the US was with hydro-electric power and now many environmental groups want to see many rivers undammed to allow the ecosystem to recover. Do we really want to see our entire landscape covered with wind farms and transmission lines?  What is the environmental impact of that?</p><p>Nuclear is a proven safe reliable technology that has the least environmental impact of any other technology including wind and solar.</p><p>I do, by the way, believe that wind and solar do have a place, but it is only going to get us about 5-10\% of the way there.</p><p>It is a simple choice either Global Warming is a threat and we need to triple our nuclear capacity in the next 20 years or Global Warming isn't going to be so bad and we can play around with a little solar and wind power to assuage some political groups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You use the worst possible examples to shore up your faulty arguments.Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant , which is one of the latest plants to be built in the US ( completed in 1986 ) , has a capacity of 1,244MW and sits on 900 acres much of which is just a buffer area that is left in a mostly natural state.So comparing apples to apples , this wind farm uses 80 times more land area per megawatt .
And if you are going to be dragging in mining into the equation , then you had better account for all the materials and energy required to manufacture those wind turbines .
Not to mention the land area of the new power grid that it will take to transmit all this power from far off places .
When you add it all up , a full roll out of wind and solar in the US would take up an area the size of Arizona and still would n't give you enough power on a cloudy or windless day.Heck can you even run an industrial economy on wind power ?
How many wind turbines would it take to power the manufacture of a single turbine ?
All this talk of how many homes you can power , without considering manufacturing and business .
Is the expectation that we are just going to keep outsourcing our industrial production to China where they will continue to use cheap coal power ?
The Chinese have done the math on this , have we ?
The last major foray into renewable energy in the US was with hydro-electric power and now many environmental groups want to see many rivers undammed to allow the ecosystem to recover .
Do we really want to see our entire landscape covered with wind farms and transmission lines ?
What is the environmental impact of that ? Nuclear is a proven safe reliable technology that has the least environmental impact of any other technology including wind and solar.I do , by the way , believe that wind and solar do have a place , but it is only going to get us about 5-10 \ % of the way there.It is a simple choice either Global Warming is a threat and we need to triple our nuclear capacity in the next 20 years or Global Warming is n't going to be so bad and we can play around with a little solar and wind power to assuage some political groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You use the worst possible examples to shore up your faulty arguments.Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, which is one of the latest plants to be built in the US (completed in 1986), has a capacity of 1,244MW and sits on 900 acres much of which is just a buffer area that is left in a mostly natural state.So comparing apples to apples, this wind farm uses 80 times more land area per megawatt.
And if you are going to be dragging in mining into the equation, then you had better account for all the materials and energy required to manufacture those wind turbines.
Not to mention the land area of the new power grid that it will take to transmit all this power from far off places.
When you add it all up, a full roll out of wind and solar in the US would take up an area the size of Arizona and still wouldn't give you enough power on a cloudy or windless day.Heck can you even run an industrial economy on wind power?
How many wind turbines would it take to power the manufacture of a single turbine?
All this talk of how many homes you can power, without considering manufacturing and business.
Is the expectation that we are just going to keep outsourcing our industrial production to China where they will continue to use cheap coal power?
The Chinese have done the math on this, have we?
The last major foray into renewable energy in the US was with hydro-electric power and now many environmental groups want to see many rivers undammed to allow the ecosystem to recover.
Do we really want to see our entire landscape covered with wind farms and transmission lines?
What is the environmental impact of that?Nuclear is a proven safe reliable technology that has the least environmental impact of any other technology including wind and solar.I do, by the way, believe that wind and solar do have a place, but it is only going to get us about 5-10\% of the way there.It is a simple choice either Global Warming is a threat and we need to triple our nuclear capacity in the next 20 years or Global Warming isn't going to be so bad and we can play around with a little solar and wind power to assuage some political groups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923329</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256915460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, heaven forbid.  Next we may see China make bids to buy out corporate America!<p>

Not like they're buying out Morgan Stanley...</p><p>
<a href="http://www.upi.com/Business\_News/2009/06/03/CIC-to-buy-447M-shares-of-Morgan-Stanley/UPI-45271244026009/" title="upi.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.upi.com/Business\_News/2009/06/03/CIC-to-buy-447M-shares-of-Morgan-Stanley/UPI-45271244026009/</a> [upi.com] </p><p>

Or NBA teams...</p><p>
<a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=stein\_marc&amp;page=CavsChina-090601" title="go.com" rel="nofollow">http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=stein\_marc&amp;page=CavsChina-090601</a> [go.com] </p><p>

Or Automobile companies like Hummer...</p><p>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/business/03auto.html?\_r=2&amp;adxnnl=1&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss&amp;pagewanted=1&amp;adxnnlx=1256911465-MYcwhz7EQCEgv2gHJoLH7Q" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/business/03auto.html?\_r=2&amp;adxnnl=1&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss&amp;pagewanted=1&amp;adxnnlx=1256911465-MYcwhz7EQCEgv2gHJoLH7Q</a> [nytimes.com] </p><p>

Or tried to buy out our oil/energy corporations in the past...</p><p>
<a href="http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/08/chinese\_ownersh\_2.html" title="becker-posner-blog.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/08/chinese\_ownersh\_2.html</a> [becker-posner-blog.com] </p><p>

Yes, Chinese needs a 'backdoor' entry.   This would be similiar to having a co-owner of a house putting in a back door to the house.</p><p>
Kinda hard to get a backdoor entry when they're already sitting in your living room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , heaven forbid .
Next we may see China make bids to buy out corporate America !
Not like they 're buying out Morgan Stanley.. . http : //www.upi.com/Business \ _News/2009/06/03/CIC-to-buy-447M-shares-of-Morgan-Stanley/UPI-45271244026009/ [ upi.com ] Or NBA teams.. . http : //sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story ? columnist = stein \ _marc&amp;page = CavsChina-090601 [ go.com ] Or Automobile companies like Hummer.. . http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/business/03auto.html ? \ _r = 2&amp;adxnnl = 1&amp;partner = rss&amp;emc = rss&amp;pagewanted = 1&amp;adxnnlx = 1256911465-MYcwhz7EQCEgv2gHJoLH7Q [ nytimes.com ] Or tried to buy out our oil/energy corporations in the past.. . http : //www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/08/chinese \ _ownersh \ _2.html [ becker-posner-blog.com ] Yes , Chinese needs a 'backdoor ' entry .
This would be similiar to having a co-owner of a house putting in a back door to the house .
Kinda hard to get a backdoor entry when they 're already sitting in your living room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, heaven forbid.
Next we may see China make bids to buy out corporate America!
Not like they're buying out Morgan Stanley...
http://www.upi.com/Business\_News/2009/06/03/CIC-to-buy-447M-shares-of-Morgan-Stanley/UPI-45271244026009/ [upi.com] 

Or NBA teams...
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=stein\_marc&amp;page=CavsChina-090601 [go.com] 

Or Automobile companies like Hummer...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/business/03auto.html?\_r=2&amp;adxnnl=1&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss&amp;pagewanted=1&amp;adxnnlx=1256911465-MYcwhz7EQCEgv2gHJoLH7Q [nytimes.com] 

Or tried to buy out our oil/energy corporations in the past...
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/08/chinese\_ownersh\_2.html [becker-posner-blog.com] 

Yes, Chinese needs a 'backdoor' entry.
This would be similiar to having a co-owner of a house putting in a back door to the house.
Kinda hard to get a backdoor entry when they're already sitting in your living room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923783</id>
	<title>Re:Argh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256917620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope.<br>
First, losing parts of manufacturing to nations that free trade and have free money is NOT an issue. The money values change and then things will straighten up.  China is not doing that. They have their money pegged to ours AND have trade barriers against the vast majority of goods.<br>
Second, this deal is going through FINANCED MOSTLY BY AMERICAN AND TEXAN GOV. The Chinese got in on a small amount of financing on this. <br>
Third, the Chinese plants are WELL KNOWN FOR BEING HORRIBLE. THey break down ALL THE TIME. There are American made plants that are great quality. Likewise, multiple companies out of EU as well. Sadly, GE makes theirs in China. But these 3rd party parts are PURE JUNK.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
First , losing parts of manufacturing to nations that free trade and have free money is NOT an issue .
The money values change and then things will straighten up .
China is not doing that .
They have their money pegged to ours AND have trade barriers against the vast majority of goods .
Second , this deal is going through FINANCED MOSTLY BY AMERICAN AND TEXAN GOV .
The Chinese got in on a small amount of financing on this .
Third , the Chinese plants are WELL KNOWN FOR BEING HORRIBLE .
THey break down ALL THE TIME .
There are American made plants that are great quality .
Likewise , multiple companies out of EU as well .
Sadly , GE makes theirs in China .
But these 3rd party parts are PURE JUNK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
First, losing parts of manufacturing to nations that free trade and have free money is NOT an issue.
The money values change and then things will straighten up.
China is not doing that.
They have their money pegged to ours AND have trade barriers against the vast majority of goods.
Second, this deal is going through FINANCED MOSTLY BY AMERICAN AND TEXAN GOV.
The Chinese got in on a small amount of financing on this.
Third, the Chinese plants are WELL KNOWN FOR BEING HORRIBLE.
THey break down ALL THE TIME.
There are American made plants that are great quality.
Likewise, multiple companies out of EU as well.
Sadly, GE makes theirs in China.
But these 3rd party parts are PURE JUNK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924601</id>
	<title>Why not American suppliers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256920920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's quite simple really; Chinese banks are willing to loan the money for this venture. American banks aren't. With Chinese money comes Chinese suppliers.</p><p>In spite of the fact that the government has pumped over $1T into American banking, they still aren't loaning money for ventures like these. Of course it will probably be profitable; Chinese investors are not stupid. So why aren't there any American investors putting up money for these things? Maybe we would have way better off letting big banks fail and directly using the same amount of money to fund projects directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's quite simple really ; Chinese banks are willing to loan the money for this venture .
American banks are n't .
With Chinese money comes Chinese suppliers.In spite of the fact that the government has pumped over $ 1T into American banking , they still are n't loaning money for ventures like these .
Of course it will probably be profitable ; Chinese investors are not stupid .
So why are n't there any American investors putting up money for these things ?
Maybe we would have way better off letting big banks fail and directly using the same amount of money to fund projects directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's quite simple really; Chinese banks are willing to loan the money for this venture.
American banks aren't.
With Chinese money comes Chinese suppliers.In spite of the fact that the government has pumped over $1T into American banking, they still aren't loaning money for ventures like these.
Of course it will probably be profitable; Chinese investors are not stupid.
So why aren't there any American investors putting up money for these things?
Maybe we would have way better off letting big banks fail and directly using the same amount of money to fund projects directly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924065</id>
	<title>depency</title>
	<author>backdoc</author>
	<datestamp>1256918880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great.  Now, instead of being dependent on foreign oil, we'll be dependent on foreign windmills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
Now , instead of being dependent on foreign oil , we 'll be dependent on foreign windmills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
Now, instead of being dependent on foreign oil, we'll be dependent on foreign windmills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923693</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>Oswald.fi</author>
	<datestamp>1256917260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suppose it can be high tech in the same sense a cutting edge car can be high tech even though people rode horse wagons way back when.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose it can be high tech in the same sense a cutting edge car can be high tech even though people rode horse wagons way back when .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose it can be high tech in the same sense a cutting edge car can be high tech even though people rode horse wagons way back when.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29929013</id>
	<title>Re:Why does each turbine require 144 acres?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256897700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same reason it's inefficient to put thousands of oil rigs on a single field, or dozens of hydroelectric dams on a single river.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same reason it 's inefficient to put thousands of oil rigs on a single field , or dozens of hydroelectric dams on a single river .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same reason it's inefficient to put thousands of oil rigs on a single field, or dozens of hydroelectric dams on a single river.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923569</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a treehugger but...</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1256916720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That land can be used simultaneously for other things, like a farm.  OR, We could accomplish the same thing with one (fairly small by modern standards) nuclear power plant AND use much less land.  Your choice.  Either is fine by me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That land can be used simultaneously for other things , like a farm .
OR , We could accomplish the same thing with one ( fairly small by modern standards ) nuclear power plant AND use much less land .
Your choice .
Either is fine by me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That land can be used simultaneously for other things, like a farm.
OR, We could accomplish the same thing with one (fairly small by modern standards) nuclear power plant AND use much less land.
Your choice.
Either is fine by me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29937663</id>
	<title>Re:Not "Baseline" generating capacity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256990160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First let me tell you how "wonderful" it is to see your use of QUOTES and CAPS.  It's really nice to see you found out which keys to use to make that happen.  IT "shows" what a "special" PERSON you are.  Now, on to content...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing is, with electricity generation you have something known as "baseline demand" which you can think of as a water table or the level of the sea a low tide.</p><p>You absolutely HAVE to have this generating capacity 24/365, no if's, but's or maybe's.</p><p>The problem with wind (and solar, and wave, etc) is that generating capacity can be anywhere from zero on up, if there is no wind, or even just light winds, generating capacity is effectively zero.</p></div><p>That's why you use batteries to store the extra power when you are generating more than you need, such as on extremely long sunny summer days for solar and windy nights for turbines.  It does mean you need to have a smarter power grid to use or store power at the right time, that's true.  But that's true for any form of power, really.  What I'm saying is that this argument of yours is old and tired, and really just BS.  I say that with the most kindness and love possible.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So, the ONLY thing you can use wind power for, assuming the wind is blowing, is peak demand.</p><p>Now that you can only use it for peak demand, and given that you have an electrical grid, the only time you will ACTUALLY use one power source over another is if one is CHEAPER per giga-watt-hour than another.</p></div><p>*Snore* So you were saying something?  Oh yeah, peak demand.  As stated BS, but lets assume you are right.  Peak demand is the time when people need electricity the most and thus pay the most for their power.  That's why some factories work only at night because the power is cheaper then.  At that time, power companies are most likely to use any power they can get, including more expensive power, because they can still make a profit.  All they have to do is provide the power.  So, again, what you're saying is BS.  You just don't understand economics, bless your heart.</p><p>Worse, though, is your assumption that wind power is more expensive.  That in itself is a fallacy.  Onshore wind power costs the same as coal, and offshore only slightly more.  That's why T. Boone Pickens is so keen on spending money on it.  There's a lot of money that could be made.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The grid itself is also a problem, although a high tension grid can transfer useful power 1,000 miles, when you start talking about reasonable losses and efficiency in the grid, you are down to 250 miles, so it is not like you can put offshore wind farms *here* and connect them via the grid to a demand *here* 1,200 miles away, even with the wind power subsidies, it still does not make economic sense.</p></div><p>Hmmm...currently I don't have any form of power plant in my back yard, yet somehow the power can still get to my house over many miles.  But let's say you are right (ha!) and we can't even move power more than a few 100 yards.  Would I rather have a solar panel on my roof and a turbine on the hill behind my house OR a coal plant / nuclear power plant?  The point is that your argument works against you.  With alternative energy, you don't need to move the power over miles and miles, but with any other kind of power, you do.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All you have to remember, is this.</p><p>The purpose of a wind turbine manufacturer is to sell wind turbines.</p><p>They really could not care one way or another if the installed turbines make economic sense on a level playing field.</p></div><p>You really need to get a job in an underdog industry, seriously.  You think they work hard to push wind power just to make money when they could easily make more money in other industries?  Are you freakin' serious???  Go meet some of these people and talk to them (I have).  You will find that a large percentage of them are a rare form of Hippy that not only doesn't smell of patchouli and weed but also works hard within the system to make real change in society instead of sitting and whining about things.  They're pretty frickin' cool.  Or as you'd say:</p><p>"They" are pretty FRICKIN' COOL.</p><p>
&nbsp; IF these guys could get past the red tape, there were fewer Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) people slowing them down, and if people like you would stop spreading misinformation, yeah, they could make a lot of money.  But they know that they have to keep struggling against your kind to help us all.  Gods be praised they don't give up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First let me tell you how " wonderful " it is to see your use of QUOTES and CAPS .
It 's really nice to see you found out which keys to use to make that happen .
IT " shows " what a " special " PERSON you are .
Now , on to content...The thing is , with electricity generation you have something known as " baseline demand " which you can think of as a water table or the level of the sea a low tide.You absolutely HAVE to have this generating capacity 24/365 , no if 's , but 's or maybe 's.The problem with wind ( and solar , and wave , etc ) is that generating capacity can be anywhere from zero on up , if there is no wind , or even just light winds , generating capacity is effectively zero.That 's why you use batteries to store the extra power when you are generating more than you need , such as on extremely long sunny summer days for solar and windy nights for turbines .
It does mean you need to have a smarter power grid to use or store power at the right time , that 's true .
But that 's true for any form of power , really .
What I 'm saying is that this argument of yours is old and tired , and really just BS .
I say that with the most kindness and love possible.So , the ONLY thing you can use wind power for , assuming the wind is blowing , is peak demand.Now that you can only use it for peak demand , and given that you have an electrical grid , the only time you will ACTUALLY use one power source over another is if one is CHEAPER per giga-watt-hour than another .
* Snore * So you were saying something ?
Oh yeah , peak demand .
As stated BS , but lets assume you are right .
Peak demand is the time when people need electricity the most and thus pay the most for their power .
That 's why some factories work only at night because the power is cheaper then .
At that time , power companies are most likely to use any power they can get , including more expensive power , because they can still make a profit .
All they have to do is provide the power .
So , again , what you 're saying is BS .
You just do n't understand economics , bless your heart.Worse , though , is your assumption that wind power is more expensive .
That in itself is a fallacy .
Onshore wind power costs the same as coal , and offshore only slightly more .
That 's why T. Boone Pickens is so keen on spending money on it .
There 's a lot of money that could be made.The grid itself is also a problem , although a high tension grid can transfer useful power 1,000 miles , when you start talking about reasonable losses and efficiency in the grid , you are down to 250 miles , so it is not like you can put offshore wind farms * here * and connect them via the grid to a demand * here * 1,200 miles away , even with the wind power subsidies , it still does not make economic sense.Hmmm...currently I do n't have any form of power plant in my back yard , yet somehow the power can still get to my house over many miles .
But let 's say you are right ( ha !
) and we ca n't even move power more than a few 100 yards .
Would I rather have a solar panel on my roof and a turbine on the hill behind my house OR a coal plant / nuclear power plant ?
The point is that your argument works against you .
With alternative energy , you do n't need to move the power over miles and miles , but with any other kind of power , you do.All you have to remember , is this.The purpose of a wind turbine manufacturer is to sell wind turbines.They really could not care one way or another if the installed turbines make economic sense on a level playing field.You really need to get a job in an underdog industry , seriously .
You think they work hard to push wind power just to make money when they could easily make more money in other industries ?
Are you freakin ' serious ? ? ?
Go meet some of these people and talk to them ( I have ) .
You will find that a large percentage of them are a rare form of Hippy that not only does n't smell of patchouli and weed but also works hard within the system to make real change in society instead of sitting and whining about things .
They 're pretty frickin ' cool .
Or as you 'd say : " They " are pretty FRICKIN ' COOL .
  IF these guys could get past the red tape , there were fewer Not In My Back Yard ( NIMBY ) people slowing them down , and if people like you would stop spreading misinformation , yeah , they could make a lot of money .
But they know that they have to keep struggling against your kind to help us all .
Gods be praised they do n't give up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First let me tell you how "wonderful" it is to see your use of QUOTES and CAPS.
It's really nice to see you found out which keys to use to make that happen.
IT "shows" what a "special" PERSON you are.
Now, on to content...The thing is, with electricity generation you have something known as "baseline demand" which you can think of as a water table or the level of the sea a low tide.You absolutely HAVE to have this generating capacity 24/365, no if's, but's or maybe's.The problem with wind (and solar, and wave, etc) is that generating capacity can be anywhere from zero on up, if there is no wind, or even just light winds, generating capacity is effectively zero.That's why you use batteries to store the extra power when you are generating more than you need, such as on extremely long sunny summer days for solar and windy nights for turbines.
It does mean you need to have a smarter power grid to use or store power at the right time, that's true.
But that's true for any form of power, really.
What I'm saying is that this argument of yours is old and tired, and really just BS.
I say that with the most kindness and love possible.So, the ONLY thing you can use wind power for, assuming the wind is blowing, is peak demand.Now that you can only use it for peak demand, and given that you have an electrical grid, the only time you will ACTUALLY use one power source over another is if one is CHEAPER per giga-watt-hour than another.
*Snore* So you were saying something?
Oh yeah, peak demand.
As stated BS, but lets assume you are right.
Peak demand is the time when people need electricity the most and thus pay the most for their power.
That's why some factories work only at night because the power is cheaper then.
At that time, power companies are most likely to use any power they can get, including more expensive power, because they can still make a profit.
All they have to do is provide the power.
So, again, what you're saying is BS.
You just don't understand economics, bless your heart.Worse, though, is your assumption that wind power is more expensive.
That in itself is a fallacy.
Onshore wind power costs the same as coal, and offshore only slightly more.
That's why T. Boone Pickens is so keen on spending money on it.
There's a lot of money that could be made.The grid itself is also a problem, although a high tension grid can transfer useful power 1,000 miles, when you start talking about reasonable losses and efficiency in the grid, you are down to 250 miles, so it is not like you can put offshore wind farms *here* and connect them via the grid to a demand *here* 1,200 miles away, even with the wind power subsidies, it still does not make economic sense.Hmmm...currently I don't have any form of power plant in my back yard, yet somehow the power can still get to my house over many miles.
But let's say you are right (ha!
) and we can't even move power more than a few 100 yards.
Would I rather have a solar panel on my roof and a turbine on the hill behind my house OR a coal plant / nuclear power plant?
The point is that your argument works against you.
With alternative energy, you don't need to move the power over miles and miles, but with any other kind of power, you do.All you have to remember, is this.The purpose of a wind turbine manufacturer is to sell wind turbines.They really could not care one way or another if the installed turbines make economic sense on a level playing field.You really need to get a job in an underdog industry, seriously.
You think they work hard to push wind power just to make money when they could easily make more money in other industries?
Are you freakin' serious???
Go meet some of these people and talk to them (I have).
You will find that a large percentage of them are a rare form of Hippy that not only doesn't smell of patchouli and weed but also works hard within the system to make real change in society instead of sitting and whining about things.
They're pretty frickin' cool.
Or as you'd say:"They" are pretty FRICKIN' COOL.
  IF these guys could get past the red tape, there were fewer Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) people slowing them down, and if people like you would stop spreading misinformation, yeah, they could make a lot of money.
But they know that they have to keep struggling against your kind to help us all.
Gods be praised they don't give up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924449</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1256920380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods. In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Repeat after me:
</p><p>
<b>There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world.</b>
</p><p>
China getting richer doesn't automatically mean that the US gets poorer.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods .
In this case it 's Chinese turbines so they get jobs , and we get poorer .
Repeat after me : There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world .
China getting richer does n't automatically mean that the US gets poorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods.
In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.
Repeat after me:

There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world.
China getting richer doesn't automatically mean that the US gets poorer.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925075</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>DavMz</author>
	<datestamp>1256922660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was reading in the Times two days ago that China has invested massively in sustainable energies, including windpower, building windfarms accross the country. A few years ago, most of the products were european and american. As you say, those blades are huge and not easily transportable, so makers had to build factories in China (plus, it's also more easy to get contracts from the government if you are operating from China). Of course, technological transfer (voluntary or not) followed. Now, most of the contracts in mainland China are won by Chinese manufacturers, so yes, they have the technology. They don't have 1.5 billion people making sweaters. Even if only a small fraction of the population has a degree, that still makes a lot of people, and those guys know how to make "high tech" products (missiles, semiconductors).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was reading in the Times two days ago that China has invested massively in sustainable energies , including windpower , building windfarms accross the country .
A few years ago , most of the products were european and american .
As you say , those blades are huge and not easily transportable , so makers had to build factories in China ( plus , it 's also more easy to get contracts from the government if you are operating from China ) .
Of course , technological transfer ( voluntary or not ) followed .
Now , most of the contracts in mainland China are won by Chinese manufacturers , so yes , they have the technology .
They do n't have 1.5 billion people making sweaters .
Even if only a small fraction of the population has a degree , that still makes a lot of people , and those guys know how to make " high tech " products ( missiles , semiconductors ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was reading in the Times two days ago that China has invested massively in sustainable energies, including windpower, building windfarms accross the country.
A few years ago, most of the products were european and american.
As you say, those blades are huge and not easily transportable, so makers had to build factories in China (plus, it's also more easy to get contracts from the government if you are operating from China).
Of course, technological transfer (voluntary or not) followed.
Now, most of the contracts in mainland China are won by Chinese manufacturers, so yes, they have the technology.
They don't have 1.5 billion people making sweaters.
Even if only a small fraction of the population has a degree, that still makes a lot of people, and those guys know how to make "high tech" products (missiles, semiconductors).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925931</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1256926500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, at the time there wasn't the same level of world trade as there is now and the U.S. didn't rebuild Europe for a market. The U.S. *helped* to rebuild Europe because (a) we felt sorry for the little buggers (hell, we still do), and (b) we didn't wish to turn it over to another dictator, Stalin, and have to go back in and do what we *helped* do to Hitler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , at the time there was n't the same level of world trade as there is now and the U.S. did n't rebuild Europe for a market .
The U.S. * helped * to rebuild Europe because ( a ) we felt sorry for the little buggers ( hell , we still do ) , and ( b ) we did n't wish to turn it over to another dictator , Stalin , and have to go back in and do what we * helped * do to Hitler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, at the time there wasn't the same level of world trade as there is now and the U.S. didn't rebuild Europe for a market.
The U.S. *helped* to rebuild Europe because (a) we felt sorry for the little buggers (hell, we still do), and (b) we didn't wish to turn it over to another dictator, Stalin, and have to go back in and do what we *helped* do to Hitler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923655</id>
	<title>Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature...</title>
	<author>mayko</author>
	<datestamp>1256917140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Asian-American, please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asian-American , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asian-American, please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29935979</id>
	<title>Re:Not "Baseline" generating capacity.</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1257017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true at all.  While you had better make sure that you have enough generating capacity to cover all the demand if the wind is not blowing, saying that wind power is only good for peak demand is false.  Basically how it works is when the wind turbines are generating power, you can scale back generation the other power plants accordingly - most likely the coal and gas-fired ones since they cost more than the hydro/nuclear ones to run.  Wind can even be used as part of the "baseline" power if it happens to be blowing during the times when demand is lowest (like the middle of the night).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true at all .
While you had better make sure that you have enough generating capacity to cover all the demand if the wind is not blowing , saying that wind power is only good for peak demand is false .
Basically how it works is when the wind turbines are generating power , you can scale back generation the other power plants accordingly - most likely the coal and gas-fired ones since they cost more than the hydro/nuclear ones to run .
Wind can even be used as part of the " baseline " power if it happens to be blowing during the times when demand is lowest ( like the middle of the night ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true at all.
While you had better make sure that you have enough generating capacity to cover all the demand if the wind is not blowing, saying that wind power is only good for peak demand is false.
Basically how it works is when the wind turbines are generating power, you can scale back generation the other power plants accordingly - most likely the coal and gas-fired ones since they cost more than the hydro/nuclear ones to run.
Wind can even be used as part of the "baseline" power if it happens to be blowing during the times when demand is lowest (like the middle of the night).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925161</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1256923080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes? Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?</i> </p><p>Yes but there's a big difference in how those acres are occupied.  One is sparsely occupied by the windmill towers, the other is a field of impermeable ground cover.</p><p>Just saying.  More nuke plants too please.</p></div><p>One was 100 acres of farmland, amd the other was 36K of farmland. Now it's Chinese vegetables for dinner.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , 36K acres to power 150K homes ?
Does n't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number ?
Yes but there 's a big difference in how those acres are occupied .
One is sparsely occupied by the windmill towers , the other is a field of impermeable ground cover.Just saying .
More nuke plants too please.One was 100 acres of farmland , amd the other was 36K of farmland .
Now it 's Chinese vegetables for dinner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes?
Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?
Yes but there's a big difference in how those acres are occupied.
One is sparsely occupied by the windmill towers, the other is a field of impermeable ground cover.Just saying.
More nuke plants too please.One was 100 acres of farmland, amd the other was 36K of farmland.
Now it's Chinese vegetables for dinner.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29931169</id>
	<title>Re:Not "Baseline" generating capacity.</title>
	<author>TheBozBoz</author>
	<datestamp>1256912820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are outdated assumptions..</p><p>Wind is on a par with coal now, without subsidies. But the playing field will only level once carbon capture has been added on as a cost (it will double the kWh price).</p><p>Balancing the inconstancy of wind generation only becomes an issue once the technology has penetrated beyond about 30\% of grid capacity.<br>Once you have wind farms spread all over the grid, you will begin to see a baseline output, the wind is always blowin somewhere.</p><p>It is possible to transmit high voltage AC over hundreds of miles for a loss of only about 5-8\% and with high voltage DC you can do it for several thousand with a similar loss.</p><p>Nukes and Gas provide the base load as they are the cleanest, carbon wise, and coal rides the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are outdated assumptions..Wind is on a par with coal now , without subsidies .
But the playing field will only level once carbon capture has been added on as a cost ( it will double the kWh price ) .Balancing the inconstancy of wind generation only becomes an issue once the technology has penetrated beyond about 30 \ % of grid capacity.Once you have wind farms spread all over the grid , you will begin to see a baseline output , the wind is always blowin somewhere.It is possible to transmit high voltage AC over hundreds of miles for a loss of only about 5-8 \ % and with high voltage DC you can do it for several thousand with a similar loss.Nukes and Gas provide the base load as they are the cleanest , carbon wise , and coal rides the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are outdated assumptions..Wind is on a par with coal now, without subsidies.
But the playing field will only level once carbon capture has been added on as a cost (it will double the kWh price).Balancing the inconstancy of wind generation only becomes an issue once the technology has penetrated beyond about 30\% of grid capacity.Once you have wind farms spread all over the grid, you will begin to see a baseline output, the wind is always blowin somewhere.It is possible to transmit high voltage AC over hundreds of miles for a loss of only about 5-8\% and with high voltage DC you can do it for several thousand with a similar loss.Nukes and Gas provide the base load as they are the cleanest, carbon wise, and coal rides the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923665</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>dfenstrate</author>
	<datestamp>1256917200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, a 1,000 acres or more is preferable for all the support buildings and security reasons, but yes, the 'power block' can be under 100 acres.</p><p>Anyway, The total maximum capacity of these turbines is 600 megawatts. Modern (ie, built in the last 30 years or in progress) put out double this amount, and they do so 24-7 for an 18 month fuel cycle.</p><p>A wind farm as described might put out a few hundred megawatts for parts of the day. Actual power plants have to be ready to compensate when the wind dies down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a 1,000 acres or more is preferable for all the support buildings and security reasons , but yes , the 'power block ' can be under 100 acres.Anyway , The total maximum capacity of these turbines is 600 megawatts .
Modern ( ie , built in the last 30 years or in progress ) put out double this amount , and they do so 24-7 for an 18 month fuel cycle.A wind farm as described might put out a few hundred megawatts for parts of the day .
Actual power plants have to be ready to compensate when the wind dies down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a 1,000 acres or more is preferable for all the support buildings and security reasons, but yes, the 'power block' can be under 100 acres.Anyway, The total maximum capacity of these turbines is 600 megawatts.
Modern (ie, built in the last 30 years or in progress) put out double this amount, and they do so 24-7 for an 18 month fuel cycle.A wind farm as described might put out a few hundred megawatts for parts of the day.
Actual power plants have to be ready to compensate when the wind dies down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925105</id>
	<title>Putting infrastructure in the hands of the enemy..</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256922840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's so goddamn smart I can't begin to describe it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's so goddamn smart I ca n't begin to describe it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's so goddamn smart I can't begin to describe it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924205</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a treehugger but...</title>
	<author>pedestrian crossing</author>
	<datestamp>1256919480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can use the land for multiple purposes at the same time.  Kind of like <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/pedxing/Spain2008#5225084426614047138" title="google.com">this</a> [google.com]...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can use the land for multiple purposes at the same time .
Kind of like this [ google.com ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can use the land for multiple purposes at the same time.
Kind of like this [google.com]...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29931329</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256914500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the bombs are just enjoying a soft landing lately.</p><p>it's just the opium war in reverse, quit tokin on that pipe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the bombs are just enjoying a soft landing lately.it 's just the opium war in reverse , quit tokin on that pipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the bombs are just enjoying a soft landing lately.it's just the opium war in reverse, quit tokin on that pipe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</id>
	<title>The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256914320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.</p><p>Who knows...the Chinese could well end up controlling everything we rely on. This could be a backdoor entry!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.Who knows...the Chinese could well end up controlling everything we rely on .
This could be a backdoor entry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.Who knows...the Chinese could well end up controlling everything we rely on.
This could be a backdoor entry!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29930787</id>
	<title>No Money No Talk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256909280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You Americans just don't get it do you?  You have no money to finance this kind of projects anymore.  Do you know how many of your banks got bailout money from China?  Your government owes China a shit load of money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You Americans just do n't get it do you ?
You have no money to finance this kind of projects anymore .
Do you know how many of your banks got bailout money from China ?
Your government owes China a shit load of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You Americans just don't get it do you?
You have no money to finance this kind of projects anymore.
Do you know how many of your banks got bailout money from China?
Your government owes China a shit load of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924519</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256920560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're getting windmills and they're supplying the materials and doing the work.  How does that make US poorer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're getting windmills and they 're supplying the materials and doing the work .
How does that make US poorer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're getting windmills and they're supplying the materials and doing the work.
How does that make US poorer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923675</id>
	<title>Re:Why China?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256917200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the answer:</p><p>Right now I am involved in getting funding for a telco venture. Only the Chinese banks will funds the gig, on condition we source only from Chinese suppliers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the answer : Right now I am involved in getting funding for a telco venture .
Only the Chinese banks will funds the gig , on condition we source only from Chinese suppliers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the answer:Right now I am involved in getting funding for a telco venture.
Only the Chinese banks will funds the gig, on condition we source only from Chinese suppliers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923515</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1256916480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The hardest part in transporting mega-turbines is the ground part. The logistics of routing a shipment in a way that ensures that every overpass has the necessary clearance are immense and add greatly to the cost. <br> <br>I don't like how much space these turbines take up and how little power they provide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hardest part in transporting mega-turbines is the ground part .
The logistics of routing a shipment in a way that ensures that every overpass has the necessary clearance are immense and add greatly to the cost .
I do n't like how much space these turbines take up and how little power they provide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hardest part in transporting mega-turbines is the ground part.
The logistics of routing a shipment in a way that ensures that every overpass has the necessary clearance are immense and add greatly to the cost.
I don't like how much space these turbines take up and how little power they provide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29939199</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>End up? They own you. Head to toe, face to ass.</p><p>One word: Debt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>End up ?
They own you .
Head to toe , face to ass.One word : Debt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>End up?
They own you.
Head to toe, face to ass.One word: Debt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29934167</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>whosaidanythingabout</author>
	<datestamp>1257001140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are absolutely no difficulties with transporting the blades. There are hundreds moving through our ports as is evidenced <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;ll=28.938468,-95.344462&amp;spn=0.005953,0.010804&amp;t=h&amp;z=17" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">here.</a> [google.com] I believe that the blades in this port are coming from India. What is concerning is that the US cannot compete with a foreign source for these parts. Why? There are certainly many reasons but IMO the number one is that people are not willing to change. Just the other day there was a CNN article about a Pennsylvania town that was protesting the closure of the local coal mines. What needs to happen in the US is to take these workers that are displaced from aging, outdated industries and retrain them to provide the labor pool for the next generation of technology. Without the correctly trained skilled labor force the US will slowly lose the ability to innovate and utilize the technology needed to advance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are absolutely no difficulties with transporting the blades .
There are hundreds moving through our ports as is evidenced here .
[ google.com ] I believe that the blades in this port are coming from India .
What is concerning is that the US can not compete with a foreign source for these parts .
Why ? There are certainly many reasons but IMO the number one is that people are not willing to change .
Just the other day there was a CNN article about a Pennsylvania town that was protesting the closure of the local coal mines .
What needs to happen in the US is to take these workers that are displaced from aging , outdated industries and retrain them to provide the labor pool for the next generation of technology .
Without the correctly trained skilled labor force the US will slowly lose the ability to innovate and utilize the technology needed to advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are absolutely no difficulties with transporting the blades.
There are hundreds moving through our ports as is evidenced here.
[google.com] I believe that the blades in this port are coming from India.
What is concerning is that the US cannot compete with a foreign source for these parts.
Why? There are certainly many reasons but IMO the number one is that people are not willing to change.
Just the other day there was a CNN article about a Pennsylvania town that was protesting the closure of the local coal mines.
What needs to happen in the US is to take these workers that are displaced from aging, outdated industries and retrain them to provide the labor pool for the next generation of technology.
Without the correctly trained skilled labor force the US will slowly lose the ability to innovate and utilize the technology needed to advance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925353</id>
	<title>Why does each turbine require 144 acres?</title>
	<author>joshuao3</author>
	<datestamp>1256923740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously... why?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923275</id>
	<title>What American companies and people are involved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256915220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to picket them.<br> <br> What I find amazing is that Chinese wind Generators are well known for lots of downtime (gee, what a surprise), which means high labor costs on THIS side. That means that these companies will pay a great deal more for the power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to picket them .
What I find amazing is that Chinese wind Generators are well known for lots of downtime ( gee , what a surprise ) , which means high labor costs on THIS side .
That means that these companies will pay a great deal more for the power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to picket them.
What I find amazing is that Chinese wind Generators are well known for lots of downtime (gee, what a surprise), which means high labor costs on THIS side.
That means that these companies will pay a great deal more for the power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29929089</id>
	<title>Cost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256898180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What i didn't see mentioned here is the fact that it is a 1.5 Trillion dollar investment for about 150000 homes.  That works out to be 10000/home</p><p>Seems like a extremely large dollar figure for a small coverage area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What i did n't see mentioned here is the fact that it is a 1.5 Trillion dollar investment for about 150000 homes .
That works out to be 10000/homeSeems like a extremely large dollar figure for a small coverage area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What i didn't see mentioned here is the fact that it is a 1.5 Trillion dollar investment for about 150000 homes.
That works out to be 10000/homeSeems like a extremely large dollar figure for a small coverage area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926085</id>
	<title>don't worry they will last for only 2 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256927220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then you can replace them with US-made ones which will last 5 years. After that you can get european ones which will last 20 years or more. good luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then you can replace them with US-made ones which will last 5 years .
After that you can get european ones which will last 20 years or more .
good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then you can replace them with US-made ones which will last 5 years.
After that you can get european ones which will last 20 years or more.
good luck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924889</id>
	<title>The difference</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1256922060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Much of the 36k acreage could be dual-use - I've seen lots of wind farms in actively farmed fields, for example. Many others are done in places like mountain passes, where you're not building much of anything else anyway. So it's not like all this space is just being wasted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Much of the 36k acreage could be dual-use - I 've seen lots of wind farms in actively farmed fields , for example .
Many others are done in places like mountain passes , where you 're not building much of anything else anyway .
So it 's not like all this space is just being wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much of the 36k acreage could be dual-use - I've seen lots of wind farms in actively farmed fields, for example.
Many others are done in places like mountain passes, where you're not building much of anything else anyway.
So it's not like all this space is just being wasted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923223</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256914980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.</p></div></blockquote><p>Just like when US exporters give out their technology to their buyers so they can control the technology.</p><p>You know, a good test of whether an idea like yours really is reasonable is to simply reverse the terms in your mind, and ask yourself, in this case: "self, if the US was exporting turbines to China, would I be fine with giving them the know-how and have China control the technology?"</p><p>If, in your mind, it does sound reasonable, then it quite possibly is. If not, then it's not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.Just like when US exporters give out their technology to their buyers so they can control the technology.You know , a good test of whether an idea like yours really is reasonable is to simply reverse the terms in your mind , and ask yourself , in this case : " self , if the US was exporting turbines to China , would I be fine with giving them the know-how and have China control the technology ?
" If , in your mind , it does sound reasonable , then it quite possibly is .
If not , then it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.Just like when US exporters give out their technology to their buyers so they can control the technology.You know, a good test of whether an idea like yours really is reasonable is to simply reverse the terms in your mind, and ask yourself, in this case: "self, if the US was exporting turbines to China, would I be fine with giving them the know-how and have China control the technology?
"If, in your mind, it does sound reasonable, then it quite possibly is.
If not, then it's not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923871</id>
	<title>Just one problem</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1256917980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know what they say about West Texas: the wind doesn't blow there -- it sucks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what they say about West Texas : the wind does n't blow there -- it sucks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what they say about West Texas: the wind doesn't blow there -- it sucks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925395</id>
	<title>There's a lot less to this than meets the eye</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1256923860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be a more serious objection if 1) you built all the wind turbines in the world in the same place and 2) this place had wild fluctuations in wind velocity. But in practice, we spread the turbines out over huge areas of the US, so if it's still in one place, it's blowing in another. And the grid issues are mitigated by the same thing. We'll use power generated in California to power California, in Texas to power Texas, off the east coast to power the east coast, etc.</p><p>Also, we tend to build wind turbines in places where the wind is rather steady and strong - mountain passes, plains, at sea, etc - so there's a lot less fluctuation in the wind than you might think.</p><p>Bottom line: yes, we'll need to be able to provide some level of baseline load, either by storing intermittent sources of energy, or by using traditional power plants such as nukes (probably we'll end up doing both). But to say that wind turbines are some kind of self-licking ice cream cone is sort of ridiculous. People aren't buying these things because they look cool - they're actually contributing useful capacity to the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be a more serious objection if 1 ) you built all the wind turbines in the world in the same place and 2 ) this place had wild fluctuations in wind velocity .
But in practice , we spread the turbines out over huge areas of the US , so if it 's still in one place , it 's blowing in another .
And the grid issues are mitigated by the same thing .
We 'll use power generated in California to power California , in Texas to power Texas , off the east coast to power the east coast , etc.Also , we tend to build wind turbines in places where the wind is rather steady and strong - mountain passes , plains , at sea , etc - so there 's a lot less fluctuation in the wind than you might think.Bottom line : yes , we 'll need to be able to provide some level of baseline load , either by storing intermittent sources of energy , or by using traditional power plants such as nukes ( probably we 'll end up doing both ) .
But to say that wind turbines are some kind of self-licking ice cream cone is sort of ridiculous .
People are n't buying these things because they look cool - they 're actually contributing useful capacity to the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be a more serious objection if 1) you built all the wind turbines in the world in the same place and 2) this place had wild fluctuations in wind velocity.
But in practice, we spread the turbines out over huge areas of the US, so if it's still in one place, it's blowing in another.
And the grid issues are mitigated by the same thing.
We'll use power generated in California to power California, in Texas to power Texas, off the east coast to power the east coast, etc.Also, we tend to build wind turbines in places where the wind is rather steady and strong - mountain passes, plains, at sea, etc - so there's a lot less fluctuation in the wind than you might think.Bottom line: yes, we'll need to be able to provide some level of baseline load, either by storing intermittent sources of energy, or by using traditional power plants such as nukes (probably we'll end up doing both).
But to say that wind turbines are some kind of self-licking ice cream cone is sort of ridiculous.
People aren't buying these things because they look cool - they're actually contributing useful capacity to the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927709</id>
	<title>worry about buying Gulf of Mexico oil leases</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1256934480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are are not restrictions on who drills in Gulf.  British, Dutch and France companies have been doing so for decades.  They then usually distribute production in the US which reduces transport costs and makes more profit.  But their shareholders keep the profits. Its not clear whether China would ship their oil to back home to statisfy the worlds 2nd largest oil market.
<br> <br>
Some of the best virgin prospects are just south of the border in Cuban territory.  Everyone execpt US companies are drilling there now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are are not restrictions on who drills in Gulf .
British , Dutch and France companies have been doing so for decades .
They then usually distribute production in the US which reduces transport costs and makes more profit .
But their shareholders keep the profits .
Its not clear whether China would ship their oil to back home to statisfy the worlds 2nd largest oil market .
Some of the best virgin prospects are just south of the border in Cuban territory .
Everyone execpt US companies are drilling there now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are are not restrictions on who drills in Gulf.
British, Dutch and France companies have been doing so for decades.
They then usually distribute production in the US which reduces transport costs and makes more profit.
But their shareholders keep the profits.
Its not clear whether China would ship their oil to back home to statisfy the worlds 2nd largest oil market.
Some of the best virgin prospects are just south of the border in Cuban territory.
Everyone execpt US companies are drilling there now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29934715</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine how hard they are laughing at us. We borrow money from them, to buy their stuff at prices sure to discourage our own development of the same technology.  Why would we pay them for extracting power from our wind?  We are DOPES if we don't smell the coffee.    Its a hundred years war, and we are not wise to not take this one on ourselves. If we hope to export this technology to other coutries (or even other states in US), we had better put MIT on it, and patent what we develop.  (hoping that int'l patents are relevant). We Americans are too predictable when issues of price come up. Money is not always the final arbiter of value.  Put GM on it. Give them something new to do. THey have the infrastructure for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine how hard they are laughing at us .
We borrow money from them , to buy their stuff at prices sure to discourage our own development of the same technology .
Why would we pay them for extracting power from our wind ?
We are DOPES if we do n't smell the coffee .
Its a hundred years war , and we are not wise to not take this one on ourselves .
If we hope to export this technology to other coutries ( or even other states in US ) , we had better put MIT on it , and patent what we develop .
( hoping that int'l patents are relevant ) .
We Americans are too predictable when issues of price come up .
Money is not always the final arbiter of value .
Put GM on it .
Give them something new to do .
THey have the infrastructure for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine how hard they are laughing at us.
We borrow money from them, to buy their stuff at prices sure to discourage our own development of the same technology.
Why would we pay them for extracting power from our wind?
We are DOPES if we don't smell the coffee.
Its a hundred years war, and we are not wise to not take this one on ourselves.
If we hope to export this technology to other coutries (or even other states in US), we had better put MIT on it, and patent what we develop.
(hoping that int'l patents are relevant).
We Americans are too predictable when issues of price come up.
Money is not always the final arbiter of value.
Put GM on it.
Give them something new to do.
THey have the infrastructure for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923155</id>
	<title>Argh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256914620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just makes me so cranky on a Friday morning that I don't know where to start.  If the U.S. hasn't figured out that losing all its manufacturing infrastructure to other countries is a BAD thing, then maybe we deserve it. Was it the funding?  Because it's not like the Chinese quality is superior (however, they are getting better). I'm all for spending a little extra money to buy a product made within my own country as long as the quality is the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just makes me so cranky on a Friday morning that I do n't know where to start .
If the U.S. has n't figured out that losing all its manufacturing infrastructure to other countries is a BAD thing , then maybe we deserve it .
Was it the funding ?
Because it 's not like the Chinese quality is superior ( however , they are getting better ) .
I 'm all for spending a little extra money to buy a product made within my own country as long as the quality is the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just makes me so cranky on a Friday morning that I don't know where to start.
If the U.S. hasn't figured out that losing all its manufacturing infrastructure to other countries is a BAD thing, then maybe we deserve it.
Was it the funding?
Because it's not like the Chinese quality is superior (however, they are getting better).
I'm all for spending a little extra money to buy a product made within my own country as long as the quality is the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924071</id>
	<title>Folly</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1256918880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is another great example of why giving money or tax breaks to the biggest corporations is no longer a winning strategy to promote job growth.  The multi-national corps have a world-wide market to pull labor from and are only forced to buy local labor for a few on-site jobs.  This is why I believe they should stop ALL money going to huge multi-national corps (who have their own R&amp;D money anyway) and focus on getting micro-loans to smaller businesses who can't offshore their work as easily.  Start preferring the little guy trying to start something on a local corner by his house instead of a corporation that really has no home or loyalty whatsoever.</p><p>I thought Obama wasn't going to fall into this trap of giving money to huge corps who are simply going buy cheap foreign labor.  I guess I was wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is another great example of why giving money or tax breaks to the biggest corporations is no longer a winning strategy to promote job growth .
The multi-national corps have a world-wide market to pull labor from and are only forced to buy local labor for a few on-site jobs .
This is why I believe they should stop ALL money going to huge multi-national corps ( who have their own R&amp;D money anyway ) and focus on getting micro-loans to smaller businesses who ca n't offshore their work as easily .
Start preferring the little guy trying to start something on a local corner by his house instead of a corporation that really has no home or loyalty whatsoever.I thought Obama was n't going to fall into this trap of giving money to huge corps who are simply going buy cheap foreign labor .
I guess I was wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is another great example of why giving money or tax breaks to the biggest corporations is no longer a winning strategy to promote job growth.
The multi-national corps have a world-wide market to pull labor from and are only forced to buy local labor for a few on-site jobs.
This is why I believe they should stop ALL money going to huge multi-national corps (who have their own R&amp;D money anyway) and focus on getting micro-loans to smaller businesses who can't offshore their work as easily.
Start preferring the little guy trying to start something on a local corner by his house instead of a corporation that really has no home or loyalty whatsoever.I thought Obama wasn't going to fall into this trap of giving money to huge corps who are simply going buy cheap foreign labor.
I guess I was wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926219</id>
	<title>Oddly enough, you're right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256927940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although you'd think there would have been significant technological improvements in the field of wind energy harvesting in the last 100 years, you'd be wrong.  Most of the "improvements" haven't actually panned out when implemented in real weather, with the exception of production cost reductions (first growth Sitka spruce being more valuable than platinum these days) and maintenance simplification, both due to use of modern synthetic materials.</p><p>The long-case Jakes of the 1940s are still the machines to beat, and most of the best windmills incorporate exactly the same technologies... or significantly inferior schemes... and  I'm speaking as someone who has been following the technology for over 25 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although you 'd think there would have been significant technological improvements in the field of wind energy harvesting in the last 100 years , you 'd be wrong .
Most of the " improvements " have n't actually panned out when implemented in real weather , with the exception of production cost reductions ( first growth Sitka spruce being more valuable than platinum these days ) and maintenance simplification , both due to use of modern synthetic materials.The long-case Jakes of the 1940s are still the machines to beat , and most of the best windmills incorporate exactly the same technologies... or significantly inferior schemes... and I 'm speaking as someone who has been following the technology for over 25 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although you'd think there would have been significant technological improvements in the field of wind energy harvesting in the last 100 years, you'd be wrong.
Most of the "improvements" haven't actually panned out when implemented in real weather, with the exception of production cost reductions (first growth Sitka spruce being more valuable than platinum these days) and maintenance simplification, both due to use of modern synthetic materials.The long-case Jakes of the 1940s are still the machines to beat, and most of the best windmills incorporate exactly the same technologies... or significantly inferior schemes... and  I'm speaking as someone who has been following the technology for over 25 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923233</id>
	<title>Why China?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256915040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are we not using US resources for this?  G.E. has been producing these turbines for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we not using US resources for this ?
G.E. has been producing these turbines for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we not using US resources for this?
G.E. has been producing these turbines for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29936823</id>
	<title>Falling apart before they get off the ground</title>
	<author>theGhostPony</author>
	<datestamp>1256981160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given the Chinese' infamous quality issues (<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=china+quality+control&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">a severe lack thereof</a> [google.com]) it may be safe to assume these things will start falling apart long before they've paid for themselves.<br> <br>

Might it be a smart move to reverse engineer the components in these turbines and start making our own replace parts for them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the Chinese ' infamous quality issues ( a severe lack thereof [ google.com ] ) it may be safe to assume these things will start falling apart long before they 've paid for themselves .
Might it be a smart move to reverse engineer the components in these turbines and start making our own replace parts for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the Chinese' infamous quality issues (a severe lack thereof [google.com]) it may be safe to assume these things will start falling apart long before they've paid for themselves.
Might it be a smart move to reverse engineer the components in these turbines and start making our own replace parts for them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925829</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>stupkid</author>
	<datestamp>1256925960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which part of $1.5B isn't beneficial?  Their banks collect interest and their manufacturers make sales.</p><p>Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes?  Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?</p></div><p>In you nuclear plant scenario are they mining and refining the necessary materials to power that plant on that 100 acres as well?  What about the coolant?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which part of $ 1.5B is n't beneficial ?
Their banks collect interest and their manufacturers make sales.Meanwhile , 36K acres to power 150K homes ?
Does n't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number ? In you nuclear plant scenario are they mining and refining the necessary materials to power that plant on that 100 acres as well ?
What about the coolant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which part of $1.5B isn't beneficial?
Their banks collect interest and their manufacturers make sales.Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes?
Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?In you nuclear plant scenario are they mining and refining the necessary materials to power that plant on that 100 acres as well?
What about the coolant?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924561</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1256920740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>The door is open on a level playing field for American companies to design and manufacture wind farm turbines</em> </p><p>No it isn't.  China manipulates its currency.  I can say that, because
I'm a free American, and I'm not in office.  The wimps we elect can't say
it or do anything about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The door is open on a level playing field for American companies to design and manufacture wind farm turbines No it is n't .
China manipulates its currency .
I can say that , because I 'm a free American , and I 'm not in office .
The wimps we elect ca n't say it or do anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The door is open on a level playing field for American companies to design and manufacture wind farm turbines No it isn't.
China manipulates its currency.
I can say that, because
I'm a free American, and I'm not in office.
The wimps we elect can't say
it or do anything about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923751</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1256917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> This could be a backdoor entry!</p></div><p>thats a good way to describe how China is shafting the US which has become complacent</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be a backdoor entry ! thats a good way to describe how China is shafting the US which has become complacent</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This could be a backdoor entry!thats a good way to describe how China is shafting the US which has become complacent
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923957</id>
	<title>Thanks "free marketers"</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1256918340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your secret plans for foreign industrial domination have now come to fruition.  Now, let's help you keep the financial industry deregulated as well so we can completely destroy our country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your secret plans for foreign industrial domination have now come to fruition .
Now , let 's help you keep the financial industry deregulated as well so we can completely destroy our country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your secret plans for foreign industrial domination have now come to fruition.
Now, let's help you keep the financial industry deregulated as well so we can completely destroy our country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925975</id>
	<title>Re:Not "Baseline" generating capacity.</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1256926740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is where a "smart" power grid could help.</p><p>I know there's a lot of ideas out there for appliances/etc that get info from the power grid and help reduce peak demand.</p><p>One of the ideas was for hybrid cars that when you leave them plugged in to charge up, if the grid suddenly has more demand, eg peak hours, that your car would dump some of it's stored power back into the grid.</p><p>So you got some people staying home, traveling, car plugged in at work and the wind turbines have some excess power that can't be used, so the cars charge up. Then later in the day, peak power hits and all those plugged in hybrids help put a bit more power back into the grid.</p><p>According to the article that wrong about this, it said the power company would have to have some way to track you personally, but would actually give you monetary compensation.</p><p>I could see these types of ideas being applied to battery banks for IT. Imagine a large secondary UPS that would communicate with the grid and would charge  itself when the grid said it had excess power from Wind Turbines/etc and this power would be provided at no cost. Then, later in the day when peak hours hit, the UPS would feed ma'b 10\% of the needed load for your computers for a few hours and not only "hopefully" save you money in the long run, but help reduce grid load during peak.</p><p>This does add losses since now you may be taking power and storing it, but isn't that overall better than not using the power at all and losing 100\% because there isn't demand right when the wind peaks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where a " smart " power grid could help.I know there 's a lot of ideas out there for appliances/etc that get info from the power grid and help reduce peak demand.One of the ideas was for hybrid cars that when you leave them plugged in to charge up , if the grid suddenly has more demand , eg peak hours , that your car would dump some of it 's stored power back into the grid.So you got some people staying home , traveling , car plugged in at work and the wind turbines have some excess power that ca n't be used , so the cars charge up .
Then later in the day , peak power hits and all those plugged in hybrids help put a bit more power back into the grid.According to the article that wrong about this , it said the power company would have to have some way to track you personally , but would actually give you monetary compensation.I could see these types of ideas being applied to battery banks for IT .
Imagine a large secondary UPS that would communicate with the grid and would charge itself when the grid said it had excess power from Wind Turbines/etc and this power would be provided at no cost .
Then , later in the day when peak hours hit , the UPS would feed ma'b 10 \ % of the needed load for your computers for a few hours and not only " hopefully " save you money in the long run , but help reduce grid load during peak.This does add losses since now you may be taking power and storing it , but is n't that overall better than not using the power at all and losing 100 \ % because there is n't demand right when the wind peaks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where a "smart" power grid could help.I know there's a lot of ideas out there for appliances/etc that get info from the power grid and help reduce peak demand.One of the ideas was for hybrid cars that when you leave them plugged in to charge up, if the grid suddenly has more demand, eg peak hours, that your car would dump some of it's stored power back into the grid.So you got some people staying home, traveling, car plugged in at work and the wind turbines have some excess power that can't be used, so the cars charge up.
Then later in the day, peak power hits and all those plugged in hybrids help put a bit more power back into the grid.According to the article that wrong about this, it said the power company would have to have some way to track you personally, but would actually give you monetary compensation.I could see these types of ideas being applied to battery banks for IT.
Imagine a large secondary UPS that would communicate with the grid and would charge  itself when the grid said it had excess power from Wind Turbines/etc and this power would be provided at no cost.
Then, later in the day when peak hours hit, the UPS would feed ma'b 10\% of the needed load for your computers for a few hours and not only "hopefully" save you money in the long run, but help reduce grid load during peak.This does add losses since now you may be taking power and storing it, but isn't that overall better than not using the power at all and losing 100\% because there isn't demand right when the wind peaks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924215</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1256919480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The land between the turbines can be used for other things like farming. They're spread over 36K acres, not occupying all of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The land between the turbines can be used for other things like farming .
They 're spread over 36K acres , not occupying all of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The land between the turbines can be used for other things like farming.
They're spread over 36K acres, not occupying all of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924585</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256920860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods.  In this case it's Chinese  turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.</p></div><p>Except Europe didn't get poorer. Rather the opposite, in fact.</p><p>If that's your analogy the U.S. has little to be afraid of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods .
In this case it 's Chinese turbines so they get jobs , and we get poorer.Except Europe did n't get poorer .
Rather the opposite , in fact.If that 's your analogy the U.S. has little to be afraid of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods.
In this case it's Chinese  turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.Except Europe didn't get poorer.
Rather the opposite, in fact.If that's your analogy the U.S. has little to be afraid of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927325</id>
	<title>Re:Putting infrastructure in the hands of the enem</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1256932740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enemy? Who has done more damage to the USA over the past few years? The US Gov or China?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enemy ?
Who has done more damage to the USA over the past few years ?
The US Gov or China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enemy?
Who has done more damage to the USA over the past few years?
The US Gov or China?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923307</id>
	<title>on first thought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256915400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope this works out better than the Chinese drywall that eventually reeked of their sulfurous quarries.</p><p>On second thought, this could be a good thing, something that could fire up the blood of the cowboy entrepreneurs down there to compete in this new arena.  I wouldn't surprised to see people like Dubya associated with new ventures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this works out better than the Chinese drywall that eventually reeked of their sulfurous quarries.On second thought , this could be a good thing , something that could fire up the blood of the cowboy entrepreneurs down there to compete in this new arena .
I would n't surprised to see people like Dubya associated with new ventures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope this works out better than the Chinese drywall that eventually reeked of their sulfurous quarries.On second thought, this could be a good thing, something that could fire up the blood of the cowboy entrepreneurs down there to compete in this new arena.
I wouldn't surprised to see people like Dubya associated with new ventures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923593</id>
	<title>Your Wind Farms Are The</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256916780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17pUBYESQBk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">New World Order</a> [youtube.com] Your winds farms not made in the U.S.A. Your wind farms not made in the U.S.A. in slave labor camps in China.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...errrrrr.... made in factories in China and so on and so forth.</p><p>Yours In Novorossisysk,<br>Kilgore T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New World Order [ youtube.com ] Your winds farms not made in the U.S.A. Your wind farms not made in the U.S.A. in slave labor camps in China .
...errrrrr.... made in factories in China and so on and so forth.Yours In Novorossisysk,Kilgore T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New World Order [youtube.com] Your winds farms not made in the U.S.A. Your wind farms not made in the U.S.A. in slave labor camps in China.
...errrrrr.... made in factories in China and so on and so forth.Yours In Novorossisysk,Kilgore T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924159</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1256919300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of a typical wind deployment, over 90\% of the land is usable for farming, and 75\% for housing, however, these things are usually placed where housing is unwanted as wind turbines to create some noise polition and are an eyesore.  The Texas site chosen is virtually unpopulated.  (and few expect it to ever be given the climate and terrain and high wind).  Other sites like down mountainsides are basically considdered useless for anything else as you can't live there and can't farm therte, and they make ideal wind farms.</p><p>In contracts; the Savana River nuclear site, for example, is a 198,000 acre site, of which 24,000 acres is used for the nuclear plant and secured from the public.   another 18,900 acres is set aside for ecological study of the effect of the nuclear faciltiy.  This facility is closed, and not generating power, but at its peak didn't make over 1.5GW.</p><p>The Hartsville SC plant (robinson), is a 5,000 acre site generating about 715MW at peak, but that includes nearly 200MW of non-nuclear power sources used as backups.  The reactor peak output is barely above 500, and rareley above half that.  Their "primary" unit is actually a coal fire plant.</p><p>This of course does not include the massive land necessary for the creation and storage of nuclear fuel, nor its waste...</p><p>nuclear power is also about 5 times the cost per GW, so it's more land, more expensive, more dangerous, and more politically charged (go on, TRY to get a permit for a new nuclear plant...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of a typical wind deployment , over 90 \ % of the land is usable for farming , and 75 \ % for housing , however , these things are usually placed where housing is unwanted as wind turbines to create some noise polition and are an eyesore .
The Texas site chosen is virtually unpopulated .
( and few expect it to ever be given the climate and terrain and high wind ) .
Other sites like down mountainsides are basically considdered useless for anything else as you ca n't live there and ca n't farm therte , and they make ideal wind farms.In contracts ; the Savana River nuclear site , for example , is a 198,000 acre site , of which 24,000 acres is used for the nuclear plant and secured from the public .
another 18,900 acres is set aside for ecological study of the effect of the nuclear faciltiy .
This facility is closed , and not generating power , but at its peak did n't make over 1.5GW.The Hartsville SC plant ( robinson ) , is a 5,000 acre site generating about 715MW at peak , but that includes nearly 200MW of non-nuclear power sources used as backups .
The reactor peak output is barely above 500 , and rareley above half that .
Their " primary " unit is actually a coal fire plant.This of course does not include the massive land necessary for the creation and storage of nuclear fuel , nor its waste...nuclear power is also about 5 times the cost per GW , so it 's more land , more expensive , more dangerous , and more politically charged ( go on , TRY to get a permit for a new nuclear plant... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of a typical wind deployment, over 90\% of the land is usable for farming, and 75\% for housing, however, these things are usually placed where housing is unwanted as wind turbines to create some noise polition and are an eyesore.
The Texas site chosen is virtually unpopulated.
(and few expect it to ever be given the climate and terrain and high wind).
Other sites like down mountainsides are basically considdered useless for anything else as you can't live there and can't farm therte, and they make ideal wind farms.In contracts; the Savana River nuclear site, for example, is a 198,000 acre site, of which 24,000 acres is used for the nuclear plant and secured from the public.
another 18,900 acres is set aside for ecological study of the effect of the nuclear faciltiy.
This facility is closed, and not generating power, but at its peak didn't make over 1.5GW.The Hartsville SC plant (robinson), is a 5,000 acre site generating about 715MW at peak, but that includes nearly 200MW of non-nuclear power sources used as backups.
The reactor peak output is barely above 500, and rareley above half that.
Their "primary" unit is actually a coal fire plant.This of course does not include the massive land necessary for the creation and storage of nuclear fuel, nor its waste...nuclear power is also about 5 times the cost per GW, so it's more land, more expensive, more dangerous, and more politically charged (go on, TRY to get a permit for a new nuclear plant...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927153</id>
	<title>Re:$10,000 a house</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256931900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really depends on the market.  I've seen lease terms anywhere between $2,000 up to $20,000 per turbine per year to the land owner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really depends on the market .
I 've seen lease terms anywhere between $ 2,000 up to $ 20,000 per turbine per year to the land owner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really depends on the market.
I've seen lease terms anywhere between $2,000 up to $20,000 per turbine per year to the land owner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924301</id>
	<title>Re:What happened to Pickens' windmills?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256919840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LTGTFY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LTGTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LTGTFY</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29958904</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>bhiestand</author>
	<datestamp>1257175680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods. In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.</p></div></blockquote><p>Repeat after me:</p><p><b>There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world.</b></p><p>China getting richer doesn't automatically mean that the US gets poorer.</p></div><p>Not necessarily, but us borrowing money from China to buy their wares means they're getting richer AND we're getting poorer unless we're using those borrowed funds to actually boost some sort of economically rewarding activity... which we're not.  If the power from this wind farm is being used to build widgets that we're exporting to China or elsewhere, then sure, we're all getting richer.</p><p>If this wind farm is simply going to power houses owned by the banks and built with tools manufactured in China, power electric cars built in China, and allow people to drive those electric cars to stores to buy goods made in China, then this whole system primarily benefits China.  The real question is whether they've blindly embraced consumerism as we have or if they're just using it temporarily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods .
In this case it 's Chinese turbines so they get jobs , and we get poorer.Repeat after me : There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world.China getting richer does n't automatically mean that the US gets poorer.Not necessarily , but us borrowing money from China to buy their wares means they 're getting richer AND we 're getting poorer unless we 're using those borrowed funds to actually boost some sort of economically rewarding activity... which we 're not .
If the power from this wind farm is being used to build widgets that we 're exporting to China or elsewhere , then sure , we 're all getting richer.If this wind farm is simply going to power houses owned by the banks and built with tools manufactured in China , power electric cars built in China , and allow people to drive those electric cars to stores to buy goods made in China , then this whole system primarily benefits China .
The real question is whether they 've blindly embraced consumerism as we have or if they 're just using it temporarily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods.
In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.Repeat after me:There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world.China getting richer doesn't automatically mean that the US gets poorer.Not necessarily, but us borrowing money from China to buy their wares means they're getting richer AND we're getting poorer unless we're using those borrowed funds to actually boost some sort of economically rewarding activity... which we're not.
If the power from this wind farm is being used to build widgets that we're exporting to China or elsewhere, then sure, we're all getting richer.If this wind farm is simply going to power houses owned by the banks and built with tools manufactured in China, power electric cars built in China, and allow people to drive those electric cars to stores to buy goods made in China, then this whole system primarily benefits China.
The real question is whether they've blindly embraced consumerism as we have or if they're just using it temporarily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924855</id>
	<title>subsidies at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256921940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet the Chinese government is subsidizing this to help the Chinese wind industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet the Chinese government is subsidizing this to help the Chinese wind industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet the Chinese government is subsidizing this to help the Chinese wind industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924383</id>
	<title>How big is 36,000 acres?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1256920140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To put this into perspective:</p><p>36,000 acres = 7.5 x 7.5 miles = 12.5 x 12.5 kilometers = the size of Walt Disney World</p><p>Source:<br><a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=convert+36000+acres+to+square+miles" title="wolframalpha.com">Convert 36000 acres to square miles</a> [wolframalpha.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To put this into perspective : 36,000 acres = 7.5 x 7.5 miles = 12.5 x 12.5 kilometers = the size of Walt Disney WorldSource : Convert 36000 acres to square miles [ wolframalpha.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To put this into perspective:36,000 acres = 7.5 x 7.5 miles = 12.5 x 12.5 kilometers = the size of Walt Disney WorldSource:Convert 36000 acres to square miles [wolframalpha.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923909</id>
	<title>Not surprising really</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1256918220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anything in this article is news its that its China and not some other country. Hopefully they are made better than most Chinese crap.</p><p>I know I personally went on a tour of a new wind farm (just under 200MW, 86 2.3MW turbines I believe or something like that) on Wolfe Island in Ontario, Canada. Everything excepting the base infrastructure was make in Denmark, shipped to New York, then Barged to Ontario. They (Denmark) are world leaders in that technology, which is why they are shipped from there. They are also monitored by Siemens in Denmark as well (as well as locally).</p><p>Its the same thing as when I also went on a tour of a solar farm in also in Ontario, the panels were all built and transported from California, because that is where the expertise and technology is located. Again they also monitor in California as well as locally the farm.</p><p>I mean ideally we would have these technologies locally in Canada, but due to shortsightedness on the part of our Government, none of the infrastructure is in place. I believe the largest solar panel manufacturing facility owned by a Canadian company is actually located in Germany as that government was willing to front matching capital of up to 50 million dollars, Canada wouldn't match anything. So now Germans primarily get the benefit of that facility, in both jobs, product, and technology.</p><p>Anyway I was not aware that China had inroads into this technology hopefully for Texas sake they do, as one of the big components to cost feasibility is A) How much maintenance will the windmills require, and B) what is the lifespan. If they require tons of work or don't last very long, they could be in trouble. Of course perhaps they got a discount to make it worthwhile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything in this article is news its that its China and not some other country .
Hopefully they are made better than most Chinese crap.I know I personally went on a tour of a new wind farm ( just under 200MW , 86 2.3MW turbines I believe or something like that ) on Wolfe Island in Ontario , Canada .
Everything excepting the base infrastructure was make in Denmark , shipped to New York , then Barged to Ontario .
They ( Denmark ) are world leaders in that technology , which is why they are shipped from there .
They are also monitored by Siemens in Denmark as well ( as well as locally ) .Its the same thing as when I also went on a tour of a solar farm in also in Ontario , the panels were all built and transported from California , because that is where the expertise and technology is located .
Again they also monitor in California as well as locally the farm.I mean ideally we would have these technologies locally in Canada , but due to shortsightedness on the part of our Government , none of the infrastructure is in place .
I believe the largest solar panel manufacturing facility owned by a Canadian company is actually located in Germany as that government was willing to front matching capital of up to 50 million dollars , Canada would n't match anything .
So now Germans primarily get the benefit of that facility , in both jobs , product , and technology.Anyway I was not aware that China had inroads into this technology hopefully for Texas sake they do , as one of the big components to cost feasibility is A ) How much maintenance will the windmills require , and B ) what is the lifespan .
If they require tons of work or do n't last very long , they could be in trouble .
Of course perhaps they got a discount to make it worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anything in this article is news its that its China and not some other country.
Hopefully they are made better than most Chinese crap.I know I personally went on a tour of a new wind farm (just under 200MW, 86 2.3MW turbines I believe or something like that) on Wolfe Island in Ontario, Canada.
Everything excepting the base infrastructure was make in Denmark, shipped to New York, then Barged to Ontario.
They (Denmark) are world leaders in that technology, which is why they are shipped from there.
They are also monitored by Siemens in Denmark as well (as well as locally).Its the same thing as when I also went on a tour of a solar farm in also in Ontario, the panels were all built and transported from California, because that is where the expertise and technology is located.
Again they also monitor in California as well as locally the farm.I mean ideally we would have these technologies locally in Canada, but due to shortsightedness on the part of our Government, none of the infrastructure is in place.
I believe the largest solar panel manufacturing facility owned by a Canadian company is actually located in Germany as that government was willing to front matching capital of up to 50 million dollars, Canada wouldn't match anything.
So now Germans primarily get the benefit of that facility, in both jobs, product, and technology.Anyway I was not aware that China had inroads into this technology hopefully for Texas sake they do, as one of the big components to cost feasibility is A) How much maintenance will the windmills require, and B) what is the lifespan.
If they require tons of work or don't last very long, they could be in trouble.
Of course perhaps they got a discount to make it worthwhile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926775</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a treehugger but...</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1256930220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Efficency? Would you like fries with that? Cows can graze on the land the turbines sit on. There's a turbine smack-dab in the middle of a Wal*Mart parking lot two towns north of me. Turbines are fenced off with 100x100' fences, but other than that the 20 acres of "wind land" they use is up for grabs for agriculture, hunting lodges, parking lots etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Efficency ?
Would you like fries with that ?
Cows can graze on the land the turbines sit on .
There 's a turbine smack-dab in the middle of a Wal * Mart parking lot two towns north of me .
Turbines are fenced off with 100x100 ' fences , but other than that the 20 acres of " wind land " they use is up for grabs for agriculture , hunting lodges , parking lots etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Efficency?
Would you like fries with that?
Cows can graze on the land the turbines sit on.
There's a turbine smack-dab in the middle of a Wal*Mart parking lot two towns north of me.
Turbines are fenced off with 100x100' fences, but other than that the 20 acres of "wind land" they use is up for grabs for agriculture, hunting lodges, parking lots etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923271</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256915220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The door is open on a level playing field for American companies to design and manufacture wind farm turbines.  The fault for why this did not happen lies within America.  You want the USA to 'control' the technology?  Control in the 21st century comes from innovation and first mover advantage.<br> <br>I personally don't have a problem with where the turbines come from.  Borders don't mean a whole lot to me and cheap, clean energy is social justice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The door is open on a level playing field for American companies to design and manufacture wind farm turbines .
The fault for why this did not happen lies within America .
You want the USA to 'control ' the technology ?
Control in the 21st century comes from innovation and first mover advantage .
I personally do n't have a problem with where the turbines come from .
Borders do n't mean a whole lot to me and cheap , clean energy is social justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The door is open on a level playing field for American companies to design and manufacture wind farm turbines.
The fault for why this did not happen lies within America.
You want the USA to 'control' the technology?
Control in the 21st century comes from innovation and first mover advantage.
I personally don't have a problem with where the turbines come from.
Borders don't mean a whole lot to me and cheap, clean energy is social justice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927403</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256933220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i have purchased and installed a 1 MW chinese hydro electric turbine.</p><p>apart from the rat carcasses that arrived with it, poor documentation, poor quality fittings for bearing cooling pipes, improperly seated valve seat (got seated when the rat bones got jammed in there though), poor quality felt seal on bearing (lasted 3000 hours), it is working OK.</p><p>I've had conversations with people in the wind turbine industry (europe), who, as you would expect, say the chinese turbines aren't quite up to snuff. I don't think anyone is going to argue that point though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i have purchased and installed a 1 MW chinese hydro electric turbine.apart from the rat carcasses that arrived with it , poor documentation , poor quality fittings for bearing cooling pipes , improperly seated valve seat ( got seated when the rat bones got jammed in there though ) , poor quality felt seal on bearing ( lasted 3000 hours ) , it is working OK.I 've had conversations with people in the wind turbine industry ( europe ) , who , as you would expect , say the chinese turbines are n't quite up to snuff .
I do n't think anyone is going to argue that point though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i have purchased and installed a 1 MW chinese hydro electric turbine.apart from the rat carcasses that arrived with it, poor documentation, poor quality fittings for bearing cooling pipes, improperly seated valve seat (got seated when the rat bones got jammed in there though), poor quality felt seal on bearing (lasted 3000 hours), it is working OK.I've had conversations with people in the wind turbine industry (europe), who, as you would expect, say the chinese turbines aren't quite up to snuff.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that point though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.30093434</id>
	<title>Manufacturing jobs?</title>
	<author>re4all</author>
	<datestamp>1258117260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Manufacturing sector has already shifted. Our strict guidelines and laws will never let manufacturing jobs to come back here. But, we can expect many jobs created in the whole supply line - designs, installation, maintenance etc. But for sure, no manufacturing. government funding should keep this in mind when designing incentives for "go green". I invite you to <a href="http://blog.valopia.com/" title="valopia.com" rel="nofollow"> read my blog. </a> [valopia.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Manufacturing sector has already shifted .
Our strict guidelines and laws will never let manufacturing jobs to come back here .
But , we can expect many jobs created in the whole supply line - designs , installation , maintenance etc .
But for sure , no manufacturing .
government funding should keep this in mind when designing incentives for " go green " .
I invite you to read my blog .
[ valopia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manufacturing sector has already shifted.
Our strict guidelines and laws will never let manufacturing jobs to come back here.
But, we can expect many jobs created in the whole supply line - designs, installation, maintenance etc.
But for sure, no manufacturing.
government funding should keep this in mind when designing incentives for "go green".
I invite you to  read my blog.
[valopia.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926445</id>
	<title>oh well ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256928840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so much for energy independence</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so much for energy independence</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so much for energy independence</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923295</id>
	<title>We're dooooooomed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256915400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, though, this is getting sad. First we loose the manufacturing of cheap plastic crap, then consumer electronics, then consumer everything. We pin our hopes on big-ticket stuff like train engines and green technology, then we start losing that too. The fine article pointed out that just 25\% of the components of US-installed turbines are made in the states.</p><p>What's wrong here? It can't just be the wages or the currency. There's a hell of a lot of skill and work that went into china's boom for the past 30 years. Are our best and brightest going to Wall Street rather than industries that actually produce something? Is economic nationalism seen as passe among the powerful? Are we generally just too lazy now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , though , this is getting sad .
First we loose the manufacturing of cheap plastic crap , then consumer electronics , then consumer everything .
We pin our hopes on big-ticket stuff like train engines and green technology , then we start losing that too .
The fine article pointed out that just 25 \ % of the components of US-installed turbines are made in the states.What 's wrong here ?
It ca n't just be the wages or the currency .
There 's a hell of a lot of skill and work that went into china 's boom for the past 30 years .
Are our best and brightest going to Wall Street rather than industries that actually produce something ?
Is economic nationalism seen as passe among the powerful ?
Are we generally just too lazy now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, though, this is getting sad.
First we loose the manufacturing of cheap plastic crap, then consumer electronics, then consumer everything.
We pin our hopes on big-ticket stuff like train engines and green technology, then we start losing that too.
The fine article pointed out that just 25\% of the components of US-installed turbines are made in the states.What's wrong here?
It can't just be the wages or the currency.
There's a hell of a lot of skill and work that went into china's boom for the past 30 years.
Are our best and brightest going to Wall Street rather than industries that actually produce something?
Is economic nationalism seen as passe among the powerful?
Are we generally just too lazy now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043</id>
	<title>How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256913960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not seeing an obvious benefit to China in doing this. Is there one, or is China just being really generous?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not seeing an obvious benefit to China in doing this .
Is there one , or is China just being really generous ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not seeing an obvious benefit to China in doing this.
Is there one, or is China just being really generous?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29932835</id>
	<title>"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256980320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You will be assimilated .
Resistance is futile .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You will be assimilated.
Resistance is futile.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925383</id>
	<title>Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1256923800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And at some point, the people of China will go after the leaders. 300 million people upset that they are being left behind is quite a problem to deal with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And at some point , the people of China will go after the leaders .
300 million people upset that they are being left behind is quite a problem to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And at some point, the people of China will go after the leaders.
300 million people upset that they are being left behind is quite a problem to deal with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923311</id>
	<title>Bah.</title>
	<author>Penumbra</author>
	<datestamp>1256915400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, Texas EXPORTS windmills, mostly to the Netherlands. I see the blades going by rail to the port all the time.

The Beaumont Enterprise lists what ships are in port with cargo and destination information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , Texas EXPORTS windmills , mostly to the Netherlands .
I see the blades going by rail to the port all the time .
The Beaumont Enterprise lists what ships are in port with cargo and destination information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, Texas EXPORTS windmills, mostly to the Netherlands.
I see the blades going by rail to the port all the time.
The Beaumont Enterprise lists what ships are in port with cargo and destination information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924701</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>gnick</author>
	<datestamp>1256921340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A wind farm as described might put out a few hundred megawatts for parts of the day. Actual power plants have to be ready to compensate when the wind dies down.</p></div><p>We're talking about the Chinese - That's just the way it is.  The power's great while you're using it.  But then, just a couple of hours later, you find yourself wanting to go back for more...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A wind farm as described might put out a few hundred megawatts for parts of the day .
Actual power plants have to be ready to compensate when the wind dies down.We 're talking about the Chinese - That 's just the way it is .
The power 's great while you 're using it .
But then , just a couple of hours later , you find yourself wanting to go back for more.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A wind farm as described might put out a few hundred megawatts for parts of the day.
Actual power plants have to be ready to compensate when the wind dies down.We're talking about the Chinese - That's just the way it is.
The power's great while you're using it.
But then, just a couple of hours later, you find yourself wanting to go back for more...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29931319</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1256914380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, a 1,000 acres or more is preferable for all the support buildings and security reasons, but yes, the 'power block' can be under 100 acres.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Have you factored in the existing land use from the Chernobyl accident? 2640 Square kilometres of farmland (652358 acres), 1900 sqkm of forest (469500 acres). What about land use from mining, enrichment, test facilities etc? To be fair that existing land use should also be included. Those sites would be ideal areas for locating wind arrays - if you could find a way to not disturb the radio-active isotopes that settled after the accident.</p><blockquote><div><p>Anyway, The total maximum capacity of these turbines is 600 megawatts. Modern (ie, built in the last 30 years or in progress) put out double this amount, and they do so 24-7 for an 18 month fuel cycle.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The technology development cycle for nuclear power plants from design to implementation take decades and can only be implemented at build time because it is not cost effective to retro-fit. Where-as the technology development cycle for wind installations is measured in months and is cost effective to retrofit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a 1,000 acres or more is preferable for all the support buildings and security reasons , but yes , the 'power block ' can be under 100 acres .
Have you factored in the existing land use from the Chernobyl accident ?
2640 Square kilometres of farmland ( 652358 acres ) , 1900 sqkm of forest ( 469500 acres ) .
What about land use from mining , enrichment , test facilities etc ?
To be fair that existing land use should also be included .
Those sites would be ideal areas for locating wind arrays - if you could find a way to not disturb the radio-active isotopes that settled after the accident.Anyway , The total maximum capacity of these turbines is 600 megawatts .
Modern ( ie , built in the last 30 years or in progress ) put out double this amount , and they do so 24-7 for an 18 month fuel cycle .
The technology development cycle for nuclear power plants from design to implementation take decades and can only be implemented at build time because it is not cost effective to retro-fit .
Where-as the technology development cycle for wind installations is measured in months and is cost effective to retrofit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a 1,000 acres or more is preferable for all the support buildings and security reasons, but yes, the 'power block' can be under 100 acres.
Have you factored in the existing land use from the Chernobyl accident?
2640 Square kilometres of farmland (652358 acres), 1900 sqkm of forest (469500 acres).
What about land use from mining, enrichment, test facilities etc?
To be fair that existing land use should also be included.
Those sites would be ideal areas for locating wind arrays - if you could find a way to not disturb the radio-active isotopes that settled after the accident.Anyway, The total maximum capacity of these turbines is 600 megawatts.
Modern (ie, built in the last 30 years or in progress) put out double this amount, and they do so 24-7 for an 18 month fuel cycle.
The technology development cycle for nuclear power plants from design to implementation take decades and can only be implemented at build time because it is not cost effective to retro-fit.
Where-as the technology development cycle for wind installations is measured in months and is cost effective to retrofit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29960806</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257279060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many more coal-fired power plants will the chinese build first in order to make us our new green turbines. Like everything else on the shelf it's made coal fired by lots of slaves. Yeah, China is still communist. We used to embargo their trade because of it. I guess the new 'market economy look' has us fooled. Anyway, if a third world country like Brazil can raise their tariffs to keep tooled-up then we can too. Takes guts though. Might have to take the E.P.A. down a notch or two to let us compete, not to say lets blacken our skies, but all we did so far is take it overseas to slaves n' coal. Is that good? Let's get our lost industry back and make our own product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many more coal-fired power plants will the chinese build first in order to make us our new green turbines .
Like everything else on the shelf it 's made coal fired by lots of slaves .
Yeah , China is still communist .
We used to embargo their trade because of it .
I guess the new 'market economy look ' has us fooled .
Anyway , if a third world country like Brazil can raise their tariffs to keep tooled-up then we can too .
Takes guts though .
Might have to take the E.P.A .
down a notch or two to let us compete , not to say lets blacken our skies , but all we did so far is take it overseas to slaves n ' coal .
Is that good ?
Let 's get our lost industry back and make our own product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many more coal-fired power plants will the chinese build first in order to make us our new green turbines.
Like everything else on the shelf it's made coal fired by lots of slaves.
Yeah, China is still communist.
We used to embargo their trade because of it.
I guess the new 'market economy look' has us fooled.
Anyway, if a third world country like Brazil can raise their tariffs to keep tooled-up then we can too.
Takes guts though.
Might have to take the E.P.A.
down a notch or two to let us compete, not to say lets blacken our skies, but all we did so far is take it overseas to slaves n' coal.
Is that good?
Let's get our lost industry back and make our own product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923151</id>
	<title>End up controlling everything we rely on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256914620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like our deficit financing?</p><p>Why do they need a back door when they can go in the front door of the fed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like our deficit financing ? Why do they need a back door when they can go in the front door of the fed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like our deficit financing?Why do they need a back door when they can go in the front door of the fed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923437</id>
	<title>Why get China into this?</title>
	<author>werfu</author>
	<datestamp>1256916060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do the China has to get into this? Don't the US realize that by having such deals and loan with China they're selling their country. Obama has planned for the green energy industry to help to rebuild the economy. If the wind turbines and most of the manufacturing is done in China, where's the point?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do the China has to get into this ?
Do n't the US realize that by having such deals and loan with China they 're selling their country .
Obama has planned for the green energy industry to help to rebuild the economy .
If the wind turbines and most of the manufacturing is done in China , where 's the point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do the China has to get into this?
Don't the US realize that by having such deals and loan with China they're selling their country.
Obama has planned for the green energy industry to help to rebuild the economy.
If the wind turbines and most of the manufacturing is done in China, where's the point?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927149</id>
	<title>Protect America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256931840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there should be a considerable tariff on everything imported from china</p><p>http://www.americanprotectionist.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there should be a considerable tariff on everything imported from chinahttp : //www.americanprotectionist.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there should be a considerable tariff on everything imported from chinahttp://www.americanprotectionist.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923599</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>omeomi</author>
	<datestamp>1256916840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes?</p></div><p>Who cares? There's plenty of open land in Texas...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , 36K acres to power 150K homes ? Who cares ?
There 's plenty of open land in Texas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes?Who cares?
There's plenty of open land in Texas...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926225</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1256928000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find interesting, is that wind turbines really are not that high tech.  You can google and find 100's of sites showing you how to make basic ones from readily available parts.</p><p>Fine tuning their efficiency might reach high tech levels though.  And I'm with you, why isn't this being built in country?  There are tons of these mega turbines being built in oregon and along the columbia gorge area:<br>http://blog.oregonlive.com/news\_impact/2009/03/wind3.JPG</p><p>I'm pretty sure those are built in country.  I wonder they just can't make them fast enough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find interesting , is that wind turbines really are not that high tech .
You can google and find 100 's of sites showing you how to make basic ones from readily available parts.Fine tuning their efficiency might reach high tech levels though .
And I 'm with you , why is n't this being built in country ?
There are tons of these mega turbines being built in oregon and along the columbia gorge area : http : //blog.oregonlive.com/news \ _impact/2009/03/wind3.JPGI 'm pretty sure those are built in country .
I wonder they just ca n't make them fast enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find interesting, is that wind turbines really are not that high tech.
You can google and find 100's of sites showing you how to make basic ones from readily available parts.Fine tuning their efficiency might reach high tech levels though.
And I'm with you, why isn't this being built in country?
There are tons of these mega turbines being built in oregon and along the columbia gorge area:http://blog.oregonlive.com/news\_impact/2009/03/wind3.JPGI'm pretty sure those are built in country.
I wonder they just can't make them fast enough?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923517</id>
	<title>It makes sense, actually</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256916540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're suppressing competition by undercutting prices. This is easy to do if you've got a low cost labor pool and government backing (both overt in the form of subsidies and covert in the form of silent ownership by senior Chinese government officials).  All the better that you can seek (and probably get) tax breaks from the government of the very country who's industry you're looking to hobble with your low prices.</p><p>That said, there's nothing wrong with buying Chinese generators if they meet quality and price requirements.  But I think this is a case where the US government has lost sight of the football here.  Assisting a foreign power with the task of gutting an industry that was pioneered in the US and that may be important in future green energy markets around the world seems extremely foolish and short sighted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're suppressing competition by undercutting prices .
This is easy to do if you 've got a low cost labor pool and government backing ( both overt in the form of subsidies and covert in the form of silent ownership by senior Chinese government officials ) .
All the better that you can seek ( and probably get ) tax breaks from the government of the very country who 's industry you 're looking to hobble with your low prices.That said , there 's nothing wrong with buying Chinese generators if they meet quality and price requirements .
But I think this is a case where the US government has lost sight of the football here .
Assisting a foreign power with the task of gutting an industry that was pioneered in the US and that may be important in future green energy markets around the world seems extremely foolish and short sighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're suppressing competition by undercutting prices.
This is easy to do if you've got a low cost labor pool and government backing (both overt in the form of subsidies and covert in the form of silent ownership by senior Chinese government officials).
All the better that you can seek (and probably get) tax breaks from the government of the very country who's industry you're looking to hobble with your low prices.That said, there's nothing wrong with buying Chinese generators if they meet quality and price requirements.
But I think this is a case where the US government has lost sight of the football here.
Assisting a foreign power with the task of gutting an industry that was pioneered in the US and that may be important in future green energy markets around the world seems extremely foolish and short sighted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923503</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256916480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's not.  The Chinese government uses what amounts to slave labor to build these, giving them the ability to undercharge to the point that no one can compete on price.  This is in NO WAY a level playing field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not .
The Chinese government uses what amounts to slave labor to build these , giving them the ability to undercharge to the point that no one can compete on price .
This is in NO WAY a level playing field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's not.
The Chinese government uses what amounts to slave labor to build these, giving them the ability to undercharge to the point that no one can compete on price.
This is in NO WAY a level playing field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927795</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256934900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Borders don't mean a whole lot to me . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>This statement is one of the reasons the west is on the decline compared to asia. A theoretical world without borders would be a grand utopia; however, we're not there yet.</p><p>The Chinese DO pay attention, quite closely, to borders. If you think the Chinese are setting up this opportunity out of 'social justice' or some grand scheme of empathetic utilitarianism, you are gravely mistaken. China is obtaining the know-how and will undoubtedly return the favor by providing those GREAT long lasting parts and materials Americans have come to know and love. This deal smacks of a quid pro quo -- without the pro quo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Borders do n't mean a whole lot to me .
. .This statement is one of the reasons the west is on the decline compared to asia .
A theoretical world without borders would be a grand utopia ; however , we 're not there yet.The Chinese DO pay attention , quite closely , to borders .
If you think the Chinese are setting up this opportunity out of 'social justice ' or some grand scheme of empathetic utilitarianism , you are gravely mistaken .
China is obtaining the know-how and will undoubtedly return the favor by providing those GREAT long lasting parts and materials Americans have come to know and love .
This deal smacks of a quid pro quo -- without the pro quo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Borders don't mean a whole lot to me .
. .This statement is one of the reasons the west is on the decline compared to asia.
A theoretical world without borders would be a grand utopia; however, we're not there yet.The Chinese DO pay attention, quite closely, to borders.
If you think the Chinese are setting up this opportunity out of 'social justice' or some grand scheme of empathetic utilitarianism, you are gravely mistaken.
China is obtaining the know-how and will undoubtedly return the favor by providing those GREAT long lasting parts and materials Americans have come to know and love.
This deal smacks of a quid pro quo -- without the pro quo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923277</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1256915220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's hope the Chinese made turbines are better than the ones <a href="http://www.windaction.org/news/16604" title="windaction.org">made in India.</a> [windaction.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hope the Chinese made turbines are better than the ones made in India .
[ windaction.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hope the Chinese made turbines are better than the ones made in India.
[windaction.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924317</id>
	<title>Re:Capacity Factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256919900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The nuclear plants in and around my state operate at 40-60\% capacity, and rarely generate more.  One local site has 3 reactors, one of which has not been fired in several years.</p><p>These reactors cost 4-5 times more to build per GW generated (based on AVNERAGE output at 30\%), take tens of thousands of acres we can never again use (where we can at least farm on 85\% of the land a wind farm exists on), and a reactor lasts 30-50 years, where a wind tower lasts 150, and the generators are inexpensive to replace ever 40-60 years with ones that get better efficiency.</p><p>This does not include nuclear fuel storage and waste disposal costs, for which wind has none.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nuclear plants in and around my state operate at 40-60 \ % capacity , and rarely generate more .
One local site has 3 reactors , one of which has not been fired in several years.These reactors cost 4-5 times more to build per GW generated ( based on AVNERAGE output at 30 \ % ) , take tens of thousands of acres we can never again use ( where we can at least farm on 85 \ % of the land a wind farm exists on ) , and a reactor lasts 30-50 years , where a wind tower lasts 150 , and the generators are inexpensive to replace ever 40-60 years with ones that get better efficiency.This does not include nuclear fuel storage and waste disposal costs , for which wind has none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nuclear plants in and around my state operate at 40-60\% capacity, and rarely generate more.
One local site has 3 reactors, one of which has not been fired in several years.These reactors cost 4-5 times more to build per GW generated (based on AVNERAGE output at 30\%), take tens of thousands of acres we can never again use (where we can at least farm on 85\% of the land a wind farm exists on), and a reactor lasts 30-50 years, where a wind tower lasts 150, and the generators are inexpensive to replace ever 40-60 years with ones that get better efficiency.This does not include nuclear fuel storage and waste disposal costs, for which wind has none.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924045</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>C\_L\_Lk</author>
	<datestamp>1256918760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that 240 wind turbines spread across 36,000 acres does not *use* 36,000 acres - not anywhere near it.  Every wind energy corporation I've worked with allows farmers to farm right up to within 10 meters of the turbine tower base.  The wires are almost universally all run underground with these new wind farms. The actual footprint of the turbine tower base with the 10 meters of safety space, is less than 1/2 of 1 acres. 240 towers will use an area around 120 acres.  The remaining 35,880 acres will still be prime viable agricultural space.  In the meantime, the typical turbine lease involves payments to the landowner of approx. $10,000 per year per turbine on their property.  That means if you have a farm that is 1000 acres and have suitable space for 10 turbines, you'll lose about 5 acres of your growing space, but be paid around $100,000 a year.  The loss of 5 acres of crop space may see something in the order of $5000 in lost revenue from the growing space.</p><p>The farmer comes out $95,000 a year ahead - that just might keep their farm operating when otherwise economics might say they couldn't.  Also, note that for every MWh of power generated by a wind turbine, that's typically 1220 pounds of CO2 emissions avoided from traditional power generating plants (coal, gas, oil, etc.) - a 600Mw farm running at 25\% capacity for a 20 year life span generates 26,280 GWh of power - potentially keeping 16 million tons of CO2 out of the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that 240 wind turbines spread across 36,000 acres does not * use * 36,000 acres - not anywhere near it .
Every wind energy corporation I 've worked with allows farmers to farm right up to within 10 meters of the turbine tower base .
The wires are almost universally all run underground with these new wind farms .
The actual footprint of the turbine tower base with the 10 meters of safety space , is less than 1/2 of 1 acres .
240 towers will use an area around 120 acres .
The remaining 35,880 acres will still be prime viable agricultural space .
In the meantime , the typical turbine lease involves payments to the landowner of approx .
$ 10,000 per year per turbine on their property .
That means if you have a farm that is 1000 acres and have suitable space for 10 turbines , you 'll lose about 5 acres of your growing space , but be paid around $ 100,000 a year .
The loss of 5 acres of crop space may see something in the order of $ 5000 in lost revenue from the growing space.The farmer comes out $ 95,000 a year ahead - that just might keep their farm operating when otherwise economics might say they could n't .
Also , note that for every MWh of power generated by a wind turbine , that 's typically 1220 pounds of CO2 emissions avoided from traditional power generating plants ( coal , gas , oil , etc .
) - a 600Mw farm running at 25 \ % capacity for a 20 year life span generates 26,280 GWh of power - potentially keeping 16 million tons of CO2 out of the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that 240 wind turbines spread across 36,000 acres does not *use* 36,000 acres - not anywhere near it.
Every wind energy corporation I've worked with allows farmers to farm right up to within 10 meters of the turbine tower base.
The wires are almost universally all run underground with these new wind farms.
The actual footprint of the turbine tower base with the 10 meters of safety space, is less than 1/2 of 1 acres.
240 towers will use an area around 120 acres.
The remaining 35,880 acres will still be prime viable agricultural space.
In the meantime, the typical turbine lease involves payments to the landowner of approx.
$10,000 per year per turbine on their property.
That means if you have a farm that is 1000 acres and have suitable space for 10 turbines, you'll lose about 5 acres of your growing space, but be paid around $100,000 a year.
The loss of 5 acres of crop space may see something in the order of $5000 in lost revenue from the growing space.The farmer comes out $95,000 a year ahead - that just might keep their farm operating when otherwise economics might say they couldn't.
Also, note that for every MWh of power generated by a wind turbine, that's typically 1220 pounds of CO2 emissions avoided from traditional power generating plants (coal, gas, oil, etc.
) - a 600Mw farm running at 25\% capacity for a 20 year life span generates 26,280 GWh of power - potentially keeping 16 million tons of CO2 out of the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925389</id>
	<title>Oh, America.</title>
	<author>angryphase</author>
	<datestamp>1256923860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it strange that already a lot of the comments seem shocked and confused by the fact that China is capable, willing and more than ready to provide this technology at a price that would obviously be deemed competitive with local markets. Has American industry really been asleep for so long?</p><p>Yes, other countries, even those that people think are so backward and lacking in knowledge are more than capable of producing high value goods at a reasonable price and a high quality standard.</p><p>I'm just waiting for the rest of the comments to come flooding in that:</p><p>

a) China will try to takeover local industry<br>
b) America will be seen as weak<br>
c) Local industries weren't given enough opportunity<br>
d) The American Life will be affected by reasonably outsourcing work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it strange that already a lot of the comments seem shocked and confused by the fact that China is capable , willing and more than ready to provide this technology at a price that would obviously be deemed competitive with local markets .
Has American industry really been asleep for so long ? Yes , other countries , even those that people think are so backward and lacking in knowledge are more than capable of producing high value goods at a reasonable price and a high quality standard.I 'm just waiting for the rest of the comments to come flooding in that : a ) China will try to takeover local industry b ) America will be seen as weak c ) Local industries were n't given enough opportunity d ) The American Life will be affected by reasonably outsourcing work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it strange that already a lot of the comments seem shocked and confused by the fact that China is capable, willing and more than ready to provide this technology at a price that would obviously be deemed competitive with local markets.
Has American industry really been asleep for so long?Yes, other countries, even those that people think are so backward and lacking in knowledge are more than capable of producing high value goods at a reasonable price and a high quality standard.I'm just waiting for the rest of the comments to come flooding in that:

a) China will try to takeover local industry
b) America will be seen as weak
c) Local industries weren't given enough opportunity
d) The American Life will be affected by reasonably outsourcing work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29928569</id>
	<title>Re:Folly</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1256895360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is why I believe they should stop ALL money going to huge multi-national corps (who have their own R&amp;D money anyway) and focus on getting micro-loans to smaller businesses who can't offshore their work as easily. Start preferring the little guy trying to start something on a local corner by his house instead of a corporation that really has no home or loyalty whatsoever.</p></div></blockquote><p>While you might have something vis-a-vis "loyalty", it's certainly NOT true that only large multinationals off-shore their labor force.</p><p>You'd be amazed by the number of times I've been hired for some consultant work by a tiny company, only to find my interaction with the 1 or 2-man IT department severely hampered by lack of knowledge and time zone differences, because they were located in India.</p><p>And that's nothing compared to call centers.  If you're looking to contract-out your orders or support work, you have 99 Indian companys to choose from, for every 1 domestic company.  And the deals work out better for small companies, because the cost is based on the call volume, not a fixed per-hour rate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I believe they should stop ALL money going to huge multi-national corps ( who have their own R&amp;D money anyway ) and focus on getting micro-loans to smaller businesses who ca n't offshore their work as easily .
Start preferring the little guy trying to start something on a local corner by his house instead of a corporation that really has no home or loyalty whatsoever.While you might have something vis-a-vis " loyalty " , it 's certainly NOT true that only large multinationals off-shore their labor force.You 'd be amazed by the number of times I 've been hired for some consultant work by a tiny company , only to find my interaction with the 1 or 2-man IT department severely hampered by lack of knowledge and time zone differences , because they were located in India.And that 's nothing compared to call centers .
If you 're looking to contract-out your orders or support work , you have 99 Indian companys to choose from , for every 1 domestic company .
And the deals work out better for small companies , because the cost is based on the call volume , not a fixed per-hour rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I believe they should stop ALL money going to huge multi-national corps (who have their own R&amp;D money anyway) and focus on getting micro-loans to smaller businesses who can't offshore their work as easily.
Start preferring the little guy trying to start something on a local corner by his house instead of a corporation that really has no home or loyalty whatsoever.While you might have something vis-a-vis "loyalty", it's certainly NOT true that only large multinationals off-shore their labor force.You'd be amazed by the number of times I've been hired for some consultant work by a tiny company, only to find my interaction with the 1 or 2-man IT department severely hampered by lack of knowledge and time zone differences, because they were located in India.And that's nothing compared to call centers.
If you're looking to contract-out your orders or support work, you have 99 Indian companys to choose from, for every 1 domestic company.
And the deals work out better for small companies, because the cost is based on the call volume, not a fixed per-hour rate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924489</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1256920440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>By American Businesses buying finished, and partially assembled products from anywhere outside of America really, really does nothing for the average American. It also points out the contempt that investors have for contributing back to the community that they have benefited from.  As much as I disagree about the allowed undermining of America's Infrastructure, Nuclear Power Plants also make an abundant supply of Radio Active Waste; that's a bad thing.  But consider another question, what would happen if one were to place a large scale Automated Electronics Factory by this new power source?  What is the economic impact of electronic products made without humans?  What if the waste material generated by this 100\% automated factory was "composted" so that future products yet to be created could already take advantage of now readily accessible mined raw materials, ready to go?  And if the current factory did not have enough capacity, then an additional adjoining 100\% automated factory would be constructed?  Is there a Airport, Freeway, and Rail Line close by this proposed location?</htmltext>
<tokenext>By American Businesses buying finished , and partially assembled products from anywhere outside of America really , really does nothing for the average American .
It also points out the contempt that investors have for contributing back to the community that they have benefited from .
As much as I disagree about the allowed undermining of America 's Infrastructure , Nuclear Power Plants also make an abundant supply of Radio Active Waste ; that 's a bad thing .
But consider another question , what would happen if one were to place a large scale Automated Electronics Factory by this new power source ?
What is the economic impact of electronic products made without humans ?
What if the waste material generated by this 100 \ % automated factory was " composted " so that future products yet to be created could already take advantage of now readily accessible mined raw materials , ready to go ?
And if the current factory did not have enough capacity , then an additional adjoining 100 \ % automated factory would be constructed ?
Is there a Airport , Freeway , and Rail Line close by this proposed location ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By American Businesses buying finished, and partially assembled products from anywhere outside of America really, really does nothing for the average American.
It also points out the contempt that investors have for contributing back to the community that they have benefited from.
As much as I disagree about the allowed undermining of America's Infrastructure, Nuclear Power Plants also make an abundant supply of Radio Active Waste; that's a bad thing.
But consider another question, what would happen if one were to place a large scale Automated Electronics Factory by this new power source?
What is the economic impact of electronic products made without humans?
What if the waste material generated by this 100\% automated factory was "composted" so that future products yet to be created could already take advantage of now readily accessible mined raw materials, ready to go?
And if the current factory did not have enough capacity, then an additional adjoining 100\% automated factory would be constructed?
Is there a Airport, Freeway, and Rail Line close by this proposed location?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924775</id>
	<title>Re:$10,000 a house</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1256921700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A rooftop PV setup for $10k would be an unheard of deal,
so $10k/house for clean energy sounds like a bargain.  I'm
not sure what fraction of the time these wind farms will
be generating vs. solar though.  Of course, it depends on
the location.  It's reasonable anyway.  I'm paying roughly
$1000/yr to power my small house.  If you finance the infrastructure,
You can buy quite a bit.</p><p>A $10k loan at 6.5\% for 30 years costs $63.21/mo or $758.52/yr.
Still plenty of revenue for other costs and a modest profit, and
like I said my house is small and the local power company probably
didn't spend that much on infrastructure.  They probably turn over
shorter-term bonds and pay less interest too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A rooftop PV setup for $ 10k would be an unheard of deal , so $ 10k/house for clean energy sounds like a bargain .
I 'm not sure what fraction of the time these wind farms will be generating vs. solar though .
Of course , it depends on the location .
It 's reasonable anyway .
I 'm paying roughly $ 1000/yr to power my small house .
If you finance the infrastructure , You can buy quite a bit.A $ 10k loan at 6.5 \ % for 30 years costs $ 63.21/mo or $ 758.52/yr .
Still plenty of revenue for other costs and a modest profit , and like I said my house is small and the local power company probably did n't spend that much on infrastructure .
They probably turn over shorter-term bonds and pay less interest too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A rooftop PV setup for $10k would be an unheard of deal,
so $10k/house for clean energy sounds like a bargain.
I'm
not sure what fraction of the time these wind farms will
be generating vs. solar though.
Of course, it depends on
the location.
It's reasonable anyway.
I'm paying roughly
$1000/yr to power my small house.
If you finance the infrastructure,
You can buy quite a bit.A $10k loan at 6.5\% for 30 years costs $63.21/mo or $758.52/yr.
Still plenty of revenue for other costs and a modest profit, and
like I said my house is small and the local power company probably
didn't spend that much on infrastructure.
They probably turn over
shorter-term bonds and pay less interest too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923681</id>
	<title>Fungible</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1256917260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes Obama, even green jobs are fungible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes Obama , even green jobs are fungible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes Obama, even green jobs are fungible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924179</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>hany</author>
	<datestamp>1256919360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some time ago I saw some documentary whose message has been essentially like "<i>There are few hundred thousands of Muslims in Europe already. With average birth rate in EU being something like 1.6 but in those Muslim families 6-8 the future is most of the Europe countries becoming a muslim states in something like 30-40 years.</i>".</p><p>So, seeing also your post I see this:</p><ol>
  <li>Europe will be conquered by Muslims by out-birthing Europeans.</li><li>USA will be conquered by Chinese thanks to Americans giving Chinese american know-how, money and land in exchange for few truckloads of cheap consumer goods.</li></ol><p>Well, future seemed quite a lot different when I was a child: all that talk about leaps in science and technology, conquest of the universe, etc. presumably mainly by "white guys" from Europe and USA.</p><p>Who would have thought?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some time ago I saw some documentary whose message has been essentially like " There are few hundred thousands of Muslims in Europe already .
With average birth rate in EU being something like 1.6 but in those Muslim families 6-8 the future is most of the Europe countries becoming a muslim states in something like 30-40 years .
" .So , seeing also your post I see this : Europe will be conquered by Muslims by out-birthing Europeans.USA will be conquered by Chinese thanks to Americans giving Chinese american know-how , money and land in exchange for few truckloads of cheap consumer goods.Well , future seemed quite a lot different when I was a child : all that talk about leaps in science and technology , conquest of the universe , etc .
presumably mainly by " white guys " from Europe and USA.Who would have thought ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some time ago I saw some documentary whose message has been essentially like "There are few hundred thousands of Muslims in Europe already.
With average birth rate in EU being something like 1.6 but in those Muslim families 6-8 the future is most of the Europe countries becoming a muslim states in something like 30-40 years.
".So, seeing also your post I see this:
  Europe will be conquered by Muslims by out-birthing Europeans.USA will be conquered by Chinese thanks to Americans giving Chinese american know-how, money and land in exchange for few truckloads of cheap consumer goods.Well, future seemed quite a lot different when I was a child: all that talk about leaps in science and technology, conquest of the universe, etc.
presumably mainly by "white guys" from Europe and USA.Who would have thought?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923897</id>
	<title>$10,000 a house</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1256918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's back-of-the-envelope based on the summary. Does that strike anyone as high? Low?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's back-of-the-envelope based on the summary .
Does that strike anyone as high ?
Low ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's back-of-the-envelope based on the summary.
Does that strike anyone as high?
Low?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924345</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Peregr1n</author>
	<datestamp>1256919960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, because the Chinese are only interested in subverting the American way of life, and couldn't possibly be looking at it from an investment point of view!<br> <br>I'm fully aware I'll be modded as a troll, but I find American's suspicion of Chinese investment ironic, considering the amount of American investment, development and exports worldwide in the last century.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , because the Chinese are only interested in subverting the American way of life , and could n't possibly be looking at it from an investment point of view !
I 'm fully aware I 'll be modded as a troll , but I find American 's suspicion of Chinese investment ironic , considering the amount of American investment , development and exports worldwide in the last century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, because the Chinese are only interested in subverting the American way of life, and couldn't possibly be looking at it from an investment point of view!
I'm fully aware I'll be modded as a troll, but I find American's suspicion of Chinese investment ironic, considering the amount of American investment, development and exports worldwide in the last century.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29928665</id>
	<title>Why not use US suppliers?</title>
	<author>drdroege</author>
	<datestamp>1256895900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised that we're not contracting through some of the companies that are building these windmills here in the US.  We have at least two in here Colorado.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that we 're not contracting through some of the companies that are building these windmills here in the US .
We have at least two in here Colorado .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that we're not contracting through some of the companies that are building these windmills here in the US.
We have at least two in here Colorado.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29999914</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257416460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a nuclear servicing company.</p><blockquote><div><p>"massive land necessary for the creation and storage of nuclear fuel"</p></div></blockquote><p>This is just flat out not true. The amount of storage required for all nuclear waste within the United States could be reasonably moved into the size of a football field.</p><p>Also, most nuclear fuel <i>can</i> be reused, but is not simply due to a treaty signed by Jimmy Carter.</p><p>The plants you cited do not break down how their land is actually used.  A lot of nuclear plants set aside land for wildlife refuges, as well as other completely non-nuclear purposes. For example, the <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at\_a\_glance/reactors/davisbesse.html" title="doe.gov" rel="nofollow">Davis-Besse</a> [doe.gov] plant in Ohio generates 879 MW using just 221 acres, but has 733 acres for a wildlife refuge (totaling 954 acres).</p><p>Add to that that wind turbines are known for being undependable, and I really cannot see the point in them. Nuclear is not a non-green power source. It is boiling or pressurizing water with a radioactive byproduct.  The radioactivity can be safely stored behind a couple feet of concrete or lead, and it's contained. Inconvenient for naysayers that want to fear monger with "radioactivity," but true nonetheless.</p><p>Also, for the <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at\_a\_glance/reactors/hbrobinson.html" title="doe.gov" rel="nofollow">Harstville SC plant</a> [doe.gov], the coal plant is their first unit, not necessarily their primary unit. At 5,000 acres, it very well may be that the coal plant is actually the largest part of the plant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a nuclear servicing company .
" massive land necessary for the creation and storage of nuclear fuel " This is just flat out not true .
The amount of storage required for all nuclear waste within the United States could be reasonably moved into the size of a football field.Also , most nuclear fuel can be reused , but is not simply due to a treaty signed by Jimmy Carter.The plants you cited do not break down how their land is actually used .
A lot of nuclear plants set aside land for wildlife refuges , as well as other completely non-nuclear purposes .
For example , the Davis-Besse [ doe.gov ] plant in Ohio generates 879 MW using just 221 acres , but has 733 acres for a wildlife refuge ( totaling 954 acres ) .Add to that that wind turbines are known for being undependable , and I really can not see the point in them .
Nuclear is not a non-green power source .
It is boiling or pressurizing water with a radioactive byproduct .
The radioactivity can be safely stored behind a couple feet of concrete or lead , and it 's contained .
Inconvenient for naysayers that want to fear monger with " radioactivity , " but true nonetheless.Also , for the Harstville SC plant [ doe.gov ] , the coal plant is their first unit , not necessarily their primary unit .
At 5,000 acres , it very well may be that the coal plant is actually the largest part of the plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a nuclear servicing company.
"massive land necessary for the creation and storage of nuclear fuel"This is just flat out not true.
The amount of storage required for all nuclear waste within the United States could be reasonably moved into the size of a football field.Also, most nuclear fuel can be reused, but is not simply due to a treaty signed by Jimmy Carter.The plants you cited do not break down how their land is actually used.
A lot of nuclear plants set aside land for wildlife refuges, as well as other completely non-nuclear purposes.
For example, the Davis-Besse [doe.gov] plant in Ohio generates 879 MW using just 221 acres, but has 733 acres for a wildlife refuge (totaling 954 acres).Add to that that wind turbines are known for being undependable, and I really cannot see the point in them.
Nuclear is not a non-green power source.
It is boiling or pressurizing water with a radioactive byproduct.
The radioactivity can be safely stored behind a couple feet of concrete or lead, and it's contained.
Inconvenient for naysayers that want to fear monger with "radioactivity," but true nonetheless.Also, for the Harstville SC plant [doe.gov], the coal plant is their first unit, not necessarily their primary unit.
At 5,000 acres, it very well may be that the coal plant is actually the largest part of the plant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923509</id>
	<title>What happened to Pickens' windmills?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1256916480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Pickens Calls Off Massive Wind Farm In Texas" "Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday July 08, @12:35PM" <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/08/167212" title="slashdot.org">http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/08/167212</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pickens Calls Off Massive Wind Farm In Texas " " Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday July 08 , @ 12 : 35PM " http : //hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/07/08/167212 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pickens Calls Off Massive Wind Farm In Texas" "Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday July 08, @12:35PM" http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/08/167212 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923483</id>
	<title>Problem is, this is NOT just America</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1256916360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right now, China is targetting America by tying their Yuan to the dollar. BUT, once they feel that we are down enough, then they will go after EU by tying to the Euro.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , China is targetting America by tying their Yuan to the dollar .
BUT , once they feel that we are down enough , then they will go after EU by tying to the Euro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, China is targetting America by tying their Yuan to the dollar.
BUT, once they feel that we are down enough, then they will go after EU by tying to the Euro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926283</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1256928240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, and the huge wind turbines are a good distance from each other.  It would be entirely feasible to grow crops under them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , and the huge wind turbines are a good distance from each other .
It would be entirely feasible to grow crops under them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, and the huge wind turbines are a good distance from each other.
It would be entirely feasible to grow crops under them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.30093478</id>
	<title>No manufacturing Jobs</title>
	<author>re4all</author>
	<datestamp>1258117620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Manufacturing sector has already shifted. Our strict guidelines and laws will never let manufacturing jobs to come back here. But, we can expect many jobs created in the whole supply line - designs, installation, maintenance etc. But for sure, no manufacturing. government funding should keep this in mind when designing incentives for "go green". I invite you to read my <a href="http://blog.valopia.com/" title="valopia.com" rel="nofollow">blog</a> [valopia.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Manufacturing sector has already shifted .
Our strict guidelines and laws will never let manufacturing jobs to come back here .
But , we can expect many jobs created in the whole supply line - designs , installation , maintenance etc .
But for sure , no manufacturing .
government funding should keep this in mind when designing incentives for " go green " .
I invite you to read my blog [ valopia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manufacturing sector has already shifted.
Our strict guidelines and laws will never let manufacturing jobs to come back here.
But, we can expect many jobs created in the whole supply line - designs, installation, maintenance etc.
But for sure, no manufacturing.
government funding should keep this in mind when designing incentives for "go green".
I invite you to read my blog [valopia.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29930469</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1256907000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Deregulation of the utilities and the lack of Government incentives has killed this industry, not foreign competition</p></div></blockquote><p>If the industry can't survive without government intervention - then it should be allowed to die.  Isn't that the Slashdot mantra?<br>
&nbsp; <br>Whether it's GM, Amalgamated Buggy Whips, or GE's wind power division - if they want to make money from it, let 'em do on their dime not on that of the taxpayer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Deregulation of the utilities and the lack of Government incentives has killed this industry , not foreign competitionIf the industry ca n't survive without government intervention - then it should be allowed to die .
Is n't that the Slashdot mantra ?
  Whether it 's GM , Amalgamated Buggy Whips , or GE 's wind power division - if they want to make money from it , let 'em do on their dime not on that of the taxpayer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deregulation of the utilities and the lack of Government incentives has killed this industry, not foreign competitionIf the industry can't survive without government intervention - then it should be allowed to die.
Isn't that the Slashdot mantra?
  Whether it's GM, Amalgamated Buggy Whips, or GE's wind power division - if they want to make money from it, let 'em do on their dime not on that of the taxpayer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923757</id>
	<title>Re:"using turbines made in China"</title>
	<author>thetagger</author>
	<datestamp>1256917560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I the only person in America who sees a horribly bleak future for our children because of inequitable free trade and trickle-down economics? The latter only encourages our top economic tier to seek the margins the former provides, eliminating patriotism (and ethics, morality, honor, and even the public displays of religion - but that is another rant entirely) from the equation.</p></div><p>
Wow, an American complaining about inequitable free trade? WTF.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only person in America who sees a horribly bleak future for our children because of inequitable free trade and trickle-down economics ?
The latter only encourages our top economic tier to seek the margins the former provides , eliminating patriotism ( and ethics , morality , honor , and even the public displays of religion - but that is another rant entirely ) from the equation .
Wow , an American complaining about inequitable free trade ?
WTF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only person in America who sees a horribly bleak future for our children because of inequitable free trade and trickle-down economics?
The latter only encourages our top economic tier to seek the margins the former provides, eliminating patriotism (and ethics, morality, honor, and even the public displays of religion - but that is another rant entirely) from the equation.
Wow, an American complaining about inequitable free trade?
WTF.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923331</id>
	<title>"using turbines made in China"</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1256915460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...using turbines made in China...</p></div><p>Sigh...I <i>knew</i> the artificial inequities in trade - that is, the artificial difference in the cost of living and thus the wages you can get away with paying, the artificial differences in the cost of regulation, and the way the Chinese manipulate their currency to ensure they maintain a preeminent trade position - would result in the much-ballyhooed "green jobs" going to China.</p><p>Am I the only person in America who sees a horribly bleak future for our children because of inequitable free trade and trickle-down economics?  The latter only encourages our top economic tier to seek the margins the former provides, eliminating patriotism (and ethics, morality, honor, and even the public displays of religion - but that is another rant entirely) from the equation.</p><p>Unless something changes, I don't think America has anywhere to go but down...for 90\% of us, anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...using turbines made in China...Sigh...I knew the artificial inequities in trade - that is , the artificial difference in the cost of living and thus the wages you can get away with paying , the artificial differences in the cost of regulation , and the way the Chinese manipulate their currency to ensure they maintain a preeminent trade position - would result in the much-ballyhooed " green jobs " going to China.Am I the only person in America who sees a horribly bleak future for our children because of inequitable free trade and trickle-down economics ?
The latter only encourages our top economic tier to seek the margins the former provides , eliminating patriotism ( and ethics , morality , honor , and even the public displays of religion - but that is another rant entirely ) from the equation.Unless something changes , I do n't think America has anywhere to go but down...for 90 \ % of us , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...using turbines made in China...Sigh...I knew the artificial inequities in trade - that is, the artificial difference in the cost of living and thus the wages you can get away with paying, the artificial differences in the cost of regulation, and the way the Chinese manipulate their currency to ensure they maintain a preeminent trade position - would result in the much-ballyhooed "green jobs" going to China.Am I the only person in America who sees a horribly bleak future for our children because of inequitable free trade and trickle-down economics?
The latter only encourages our top economic tier to seek the margins the former provides, eliminating patriotism (and ethics, morality, honor, and even the public displays of religion - but that is another rant entirely) from the equation.Unless something changes, I don't think America has anywhere to go but down...for 90\% of us, anyway.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926303</id>
	<title>Wind farm?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1256928300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not a gold farm?</p><p>I kid, I kid!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not a gold farm ? I kid , I kid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not a gold farm?I kid, I kid!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923753</id>
	<title>How long</title>
	<author>kannibul</author>
	<datestamp>1256917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long before one of the blades snaps off and kills someone, or there's lead in the paint, or the turbines themselves are "rigged" by China for debt-collection purposes?

I know here in Oklahoma I see huge wind turbine blades being hauled all the time - well, at least in summer. I don't know where they come from or going to, but the going along the highway that goes from Tulsa to Dallas (state HWY 75)

Why not buy American...and help OUR economy for once?

Seems there needs to be an increase on taxes for imported goods...maybe we could use that to supliment health insurance (either by lowering income taxes, or by paying for it...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before one of the blades snaps off and kills someone , or there 's lead in the paint , or the turbines themselves are " rigged " by China for debt-collection purposes ?
I know here in Oklahoma I see huge wind turbine blades being hauled all the time - well , at least in summer .
I do n't know where they come from or going to , but the going along the highway that goes from Tulsa to Dallas ( state HWY 75 ) Why not buy American...and help OUR economy for once ?
Seems there needs to be an increase on taxes for imported goods...maybe we could use that to supliment health insurance ( either by lowering income taxes , or by paying for it... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before one of the blades snaps off and kills someone, or there's lead in the paint, or the turbines themselves are "rigged" by China for debt-collection purposes?
I know here in Oklahoma I see huge wind turbine blades being hauled all the time - well, at least in summer.
I don't know where they come from or going to, but the going along the highway that goes from Tulsa to Dallas (state HWY 75)

Why not buy American...and help OUR economy for once?
Seems there needs to be an increase on taxes for imported goods...maybe we could use that to supliment health insurance (either by lowering income taxes, or by paying for it...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924261</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1256919660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA stated this was a Chinease/American company based in the USA making the turbines...  They will not be imported cheap chinease crap, they'll be made right here by American families (using China's money, much of which will stay here in our economy instead of theirs).</p><p>I bought a nice new Chevy a few years ago, and a Chrysler 2 years later.  One was manufactured in Canada, the other in Mexico.  The Honda, Subaru, and Kia we've also bought over the years were all made in America, with over 80\% of manufacture and assembly taking place on american soil...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA stated this was a Chinease/American company based in the USA making the turbines... They will not be imported cheap chinease crap , they 'll be made right here by American families ( using China 's money , much of which will stay here in our economy instead of theirs ) .I bought a nice new Chevy a few years ago , and a Chrysler 2 years later .
One was manufactured in Canada , the other in Mexico .
The Honda , Subaru , and Kia we 've also bought over the years were all made in America , with over 80 \ % of manufacture and assembly taking place on american soil.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA stated this was a Chinease/American company based in the USA making the turbines...  They will not be imported cheap chinease crap, they'll be made right here by American families (using China's money, much of which will stay here in our economy instead of theirs).I bought a nice new Chevy a few years ago, and a Chrysler 2 years later.
One was manufactured in Canada, the other in Mexico.
The Honda, Subaru, and Kia we've also bought over the years were all made in America, with over 80\% of manufacture and assembly taking place on american soil...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923447</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1256916180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhh, high tech???  WTF is high tech about a wind mill?  We have been building wind mills for about 3 thousand years, so it is mature tech in extreme.  However, you do realize that China is launching space vehicles - *that* is high tech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh , high tech ? ? ?
WTF is high tech about a wind mill ?
We have been building wind mills for about 3 thousand years , so it is mature tech in extreme .
However , you do realize that China is launching space vehicles - * that * is high tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh, high tech???
WTF is high tech about a wind mill?
We have been building wind mills for about 3 thousand years, so it is mature tech in extreme.
However, you do realize that China is launching space vehicles - *that* is high tech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924507</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256920500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They got this stuff called farmland. I hear you grow things on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They got this stuff called farmland .
I hear you grow things on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got this stuff called farmland.
I hear you grow things on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923571</id>
	<title>Obligatory (suprised noone has said it yet)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256916720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, would like to welcome our chinese overlords.<br> <br>Its not that you are "new" - you are just finally starting to show your face.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , would like to welcome our chinese overlords .
Its not that you are " new " - you are just finally starting to show your face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, would like to welcome our chinese overlords.
Its not that you are "new" - you are just finally starting to show your face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256915580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods.  In this case it's Chinese  turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods .
In this case it 's Chinese turbines so they get jobs , and we get poorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods.
In this case it's Chinese  turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924823</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>mwalleisa</author>
	<datestamp>1256921880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boy do we need a better solution.  Let's have some fun with numbers...<br>
 <br>
36,000 acres = 56.25 square miles (640 acres = 1 square mile)<br>
US population ~ 307,000,000 (<a href="http://www.census.gov/" title="census.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.census.gov/</a> [census.gov])<br>
Average US household size = 2.61 (<a href="http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts" title="census.gov" rel="nofollow">http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts</a> [census.gov])<br>
Number of turbines (@ 2.5MW / turbine) to power all US homes (just homes; <b>no businesses at all</b>) = ~188,200<br>
Land area to power all US homes = ~44,100 square miles<br>
Land area of the state of Pennsylvania (<a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html" title="census.gov" rel="nofollow">http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html</a> [census.gov]) = 44,816.61<br>
 <br>
Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly find good data breakdowns on power consumption for residential vs. business.  The DOE website has a lot of data and analysis but I'm not sure they even have such a breakdown.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boy do we need a better solution .
Let 's have some fun with numbers.. . 36,000 acres = 56.25 square miles ( 640 acres = 1 square mile ) US population ~ 307,000,000 ( http : //www.census.gov/ [ census.gov ] ) Average US household size = 2.61 ( http : //factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts [ census.gov ] ) Number of turbines ( @ 2.5MW / turbine ) to power all US homes ( just homes ; no businesses at all ) = ~ 188,200 Land area to power all US homes = ~ 44,100 square miles Land area of the state of Pennsylvania ( http : //quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html [ census.gov ] ) = 44,816.61 Unfortunately , I could n't quickly find good data breakdowns on power consumption for residential vs. business. The DOE website has a lot of data and analysis but I 'm not sure they even have such a breakdown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boy do we need a better solution.
Let's have some fun with numbers...
 
36,000 acres = 56.25 square miles (640 acres = 1 square mile)
US population ~ 307,000,000 (http://www.census.gov/ [census.gov])
Average US household size = 2.61 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts [census.gov])
Number of turbines (@ 2.5MW / turbine) to power all US homes (just homes; no businesses at all) = ~188,200
Land area to power all US homes = ~44,100 square miles
Land area of the state of Pennsylvania (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html [census.gov]) = 44,816.61
 
Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly find good data breakdowns on power consumption for residential vs. business.  The DOE website has a lot of data and analysis but I'm not sure they even have such a breakdown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924285</id>
	<title>Re:Capacity Factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256919780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>36\% at installed location. Nameplate capacity is how its always been done with energy conversion systems.... ALWAYS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>36 \ % at installed location .
Nameplate capacity is how its always been done with energy conversion systems.... ALWAYS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>36\% at installed location.
Nameplate capacity is how its always been done with energy conversion systems.... ALWAYS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926833</id>
	<title>Re:Capacity Factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256930400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't hate, just understand.  Power plants, renewable or not, are uniformly refered to in their nameplate capacity because of all the variables that go into calculating these capacity factors (number of turbines, turbine placement, ground cover, turbulence intensity, electrical losses, and wind speeds--which is subjective itself to how they it is calculated/analyzed).</p><p>In laymen's terms, just because your tv is rated at 1080p, the show you're watching is more likely in 480p, 720i, or 1080i.  But the guy at Best Buy is selling you a 1080p tv and that's what you're going to tell to all your friends it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't hate , just understand .
Power plants , renewable or not , are uniformly refered to in their nameplate capacity because of all the variables that go into calculating these capacity factors ( number of turbines , turbine placement , ground cover , turbulence intensity , electrical losses , and wind speeds--which is subjective itself to how they it is calculated/analyzed ) .In laymen 's terms , just because your tv is rated at 1080p , the show you 're watching is more likely in 480p , 720i , or 1080i .
But the guy at Best Buy is selling you a 1080p tv and that 's what you 're going to tell to all your friends it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't hate, just understand.
Power plants, renewable or not, are uniformly refered to in their nameplate capacity because of all the variables that go into calculating these capacity factors (number of turbines, turbine placement, ground cover, turbulence intensity, electrical losses, and wind speeds--which is subjective itself to how they it is calculated/analyzed).In laymen's terms, just because your tv is rated at 1080p, the show you're watching is more likely in 480p, 720i, or 1080i.
But the guy at Best Buy is selling you a 1080p tv and that's what you're going to tell to all your friends it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924597</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256920860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's one thing to build product.</p><p>It's another to build quality product.</p><p>The Chinese are doing well on the first, not so well on the second.</p><p>I expect that these turbines will be cheap, and I don't mean only inexpensive.</p><p>As always, you get what you pay for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one thing to build product.It 's another to build quality product.The Chinese are doing well on the first , not so well on the second.I expect that these turbines will be cheap , and I do n't mean only inexpensive.As always , you get what you pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one thing to build product.It's another to build quality product.The Chinese are doing well on the first, not so well on the second.I expect that these turbines will be cheap, and I don't mean only inexpensive.As always, you get what you pay for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924981</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1256922420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.</p></div><p>Could you please elaborate what part of this "technology" USA owns and controls? You remind me of a guy that thought Tesla Sportster was a great American invention when in fact whole car is shipped into US in a form of modules that are merely screwed together by some immigrants at the back of Californian dealership.
<br> <br>

"The Obama administration is hoping a shift to renewable energy will inject new life into the US manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs"<br> <br>

Love this part, "new life into the US manufacturing base" by buying more Chinese crap<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.Could you please elaborate what part of this " technology " USA owns and controls ?
You remind me of a guy that thought Tesla Sportster was a great American invention when in fact whole car is shipped into US in a form of modules that are merely screwed together by some immigrants at the back of Californian dealership .
" The Obama administration is hoping a shift to renewable energy will inject new life into the US manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs " Love this part , " new life into the US manufacturing base " by buying more Chinese crap : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.Could you please elaborate what part of this "technology" USA owns and controls?
You remind me of a guy that thought Tesla Sportster was a great American invention when in fact whole car is shipped into US in a form of modules that are merely screwed together by some immigrants at the back of Californian dealership.
"The Obama administration is hoping a shift to renewable energy will inject new life into the US manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs" 

Love this part, "new life into the US manufacturing base" by buying more Chinese crap :).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925459</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1256924100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better Red than Achmed........</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better Red than Achmed....... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better Red than Achmed........</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149</id>
	<title>We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1256914560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought those huge blades were very difficult to manufacture and transport. I know for something this expensive they can customize a barge and do something special at the port, but I'm surprised this didn't give local producers an edge. And while I considered myself knowledgeable about the waking dragon, I'm somewhat surprised that they have the manufacturing chops to produce something this "high tech".  I guess it's another feather in their hat that their businessmen can arrange this sort of deal. With Texas no less.

<br> <br>Come ON people! Get it together!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought those huge blades were very difficult to manufacture and transport .
I know for something this expensive they can customize a barge and do something special at the port , but I 'm surprised this did n't give local producers an edge .
And while I considered myself knowledgeable about the waking dragon , I 'm somewhat surprised that they have the manufacturing chops to produce something this " high tech " .
I guess it 's another feather in their hat that their businessmen can arrange this sort of deal .
With Texas no less .
Come ON people !
Get it together !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought those huge blades were very difficult to manufacture and transport.
I know for something this expensive they can customize a barge and do something special at the port, but I'm surprised this didn't give local producers an edge.
And while I considered myself knowledgeable about the waking dragon, I'm somewhat surprised that they have the manufacturing chops to produce something this "high tech".
I guess it's another feather in their hat that their businessmen can arrange this sort of deal.
With Texas no less.
Come ON people!
Get it together!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925591</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>triathlon4life</author>
	<datestamp>1256924880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My friend, you obviously know very little about generating energy from wind.  It is extremely complex and the variables can become quite complex.  This is of course if you want to be as efficient as possible; which I would assume most of us would.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My friend , you obviously know very little about generating energy from wind .
It is extremely complex and the variables can become quite complex .
This is of course if you want to be as efficient as possible ; which I would assume most of us would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friend, you obviously know very little about generating energy from wind.
It is extremely complex and the variables can become quite complex.
This is of course if you want to be as efficient as possible; which I would assume most of us would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29930737</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256908980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods. In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.</p></div><p>So what you're saying is that in 50 years, while the US's GDP will be surpassed by China, the US will have affordable healthcare and have 6 weeks of paid annual leave per year and have the highest GDP per capita in the world. Sounds horrible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods .
In this case it 's Chinese turbines so they get jobs , and we get poorer.So what you 're saying is that in 50 years , while the US 's GDP will be surpassed by China , the US will have affordable healthcare and have 6 weeks of paid annual leave per year and have the highest GDP per capita in the world .
Sounds horrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods.
In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.So what you're saying is that in 50 years, while the US's GDP will be surpassed by China, the US will have affordable healthcare and have 6 weeks of paid annual leave per year and have the highest GDP per capita in the world.
Sounds horrible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923297</id>
	<title>I'm a treehugger but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256915400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>36,000 acres of turbines to power only 150,000 homes?  Seems incredibly inefficient...</htmltext>
<tokenext>36,000 acres of turbines to power only 150,000 homes ?
Seems incredibly inefficient.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>36,000 acres of turbines to power only 150,000 homes?
Seems incredibly inefficient...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925329</id>
	<title>Re:We can't even compete for THIS!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256923620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you seen a modern wind turbine close up? They are very much high tech. Just the scale of those things renders them pretty difficult to build.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen a modern wind turbine close up ?
They are very much high tech .
Just the scale of those things renders them pretty difficult to build .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen a modern wind turbine close up?
They are very much high tech.
Just the scale of those things renders them pretty difficult to build.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924785</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1256921760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.</i></p><p>My industry sells a lot of product to the rapidly expanding Chinese middle-class consumers, so maybe it is just you who gets poorer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case it 's Chinese turbines so they get jobs , and we get poorer.My industry sells a lot of product to the rapidly expanding Chinese middle-class consumers , so maybe it is just you who gets poorer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.My industry sells a lot of product to the rapidly expanding Chinese middle-class consumers, so maybe it is just you who gets poorer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925419</id>
	<title>$10,000 per Household!</title>
	<author>jm2morri</author>
	<datestamp>1256923920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one has commented on the fact that $1.5B / 150,000 homes is $10,000 per house served.  That seems ridiculously high to me.  I have no numbers to compare to but that seems high.</p><p>From <a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P87298.asp" title="msn.com" rel="nofollow">http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P87298.asp</a> [msn.com] it gives $1400 per year as the average power bill.  Let's assume 50\% profit margin since there aren't any consumables: 50\% going to infrastructure, salaries, maintenance, paying off lawsuits about dead birds, migraines,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  So that's only $700 profit per year.  That gives a payback of about 14 years!  I would say that would be approaching the lifetime of the windmills (no matter what the manufacturer says).</p><p>So how is this a good deal?  How can anyone make money with those numbers?  Poke some holes in my assumptions because it just doesn't make any sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has commented on the fact that $ 1.5B / 150,000 homes is $ 10,000 per house served .
That seems ridiculously high to me .
I have no numbers to compare to but that seems high.From http : //moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P87298.asp [ msn.com ] it gives $ 1400 per year as the average power bill .
Let 's assume 50 \ % profit margin since there are n't any consumables : 50 \ % going to infrastructure , salaries , maintenance , paying off lawsuits about dead birds , migraines , ... So that 's only $ 700 profit per year .
That gives a payback of about 14 years !
I would say that would be approaching the lifetime of the windmills ( no matter what the manufacturer says ) .So how is this a good deal ?
How can anyone make money with those numbers ?
Poke some holes in my assumptions because it just does n't make any sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has commented on the fact that $1.5B / 150,000 homes is $10,000 per house served.
That seems ridiculously high to me.
I have no numbers to compare to but that seems high.From http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P87298.asp [msn.com] it gives $1400 per year as the average power bill.
Let's assume 50\% profit margin since there aren't any consumables: 50\% going to infrastructure, salaries, maintenance, paying off lawsuits about dead birds, migraines, ...  So that's only $700 profit per year.
That gives a payback of about 14 years!
I would say that would be approaching the lifetime of the windmills (no matter what the manufacturer says).So how is this a good deal?
How can anyone make money with those numbers?
Poke some holes in my assumptions because it just doesn't make any sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923383</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1256915820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes? Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?</i></p><p>Yes but there's a big difference in how those acres are occupied.  One is sparsely occupied by the windmill towers, the other is a field of impermeable ground cover.</p><p>Just saying.  More nuke plants too please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , 36K acres to power 150K homes ?
Does n't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number ? Yes but there 's a big difference in how those acres are occupied .
One is sparsely occupied by the windmill towers , the other is a field of impermeable ground cover.Just saying .
More nuke plants too please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes?
Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?Yes but there's a big difference in how those acres are occupied.
One is sparsely occupied by the windmill towers, the other is a field of impermeable ground cover.Just saying.
More nuke plants too please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923221</id>
	<title>Capacity Factor</title>
	<author>some\_hoser</author>
	<datestamp>1256914980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate how articles talking about renewable energy never take into account the capacity factor of the production.  Wind is about 30\% or so, so the real average output will be more like 200 MW, unlike a nuclear or other plant with a capacity factor of 90+\%.  Yet still, they will be compared on their MAX output, not the AVERAGE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate how articles talking about renewable energy never take into account the capacity factor of the production .
Wind is about 30 \ % or so , so the real average output will be more like 200 MW , unlike a nuclear or other plant with a capacity factor of 90 + \ % .
Yet still , they will be compared on their MAX output , not the AVERAGE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate how articles talking about renewable energy never take into account the capacity factor of the production.
Wind is about 30\% or so, so the real average output will be more like 200 MW, unlike a nuclear or other plant with a capacity factor of 90+\%.
Yet still, they will be compared on their MAX output, not the AVERAGE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924189</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256919420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US technology was demonised by a previous administration and mostly driven offshore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US technology was demonised by a previous administration and mostly driven offshore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US technology was demonised by a previous administration and mostly driven offshore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925233</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256923260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is only one US company making Megawatt class wind turbines. Almost all the high quality Megawatt class units in the world come from Europe, where there has been an emphasis on research and progress on sustainable energy. The US has voluntarily stepped out of the field since the progress made in the 1980's. Deregulation of the utilities and the lack of Government incentives has killed this industry, not foreign competition. You cannot have the technological lead in alternate energy without government support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is only one US company making Megawatt class wind turbines .
Almost all the high quality Megawatt class units in the world come from Europe , where there has been an emphasis on research and progress on sustainable energy .
The US has voluntarily stepped out of the field since the progress made in the 1980 's .
Deregulation of the utilities and the lack of Government incentives has killed this industry , not foreign competition .
You can not have the technological lead in alternate energy without government support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is only one US company making Megawatt class wind turbines.
Almost all the high quality Megawatt class units in the world come from Europe, where there has been an emphasis on research and progress on sustainable energy.
The US has voluntarily stepped out of the field since the progress made in the 1980's.
Deregulation of the utilities and the lack of Government incentives has killed this industry, not foreign competition.
You cannot have the technological lead in alternate energy without government support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245</id>
	<title>Re:How is that sustainable?</title>
	<author>magarity</author>
	<datestamp>1256915100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which part of $1.5B isn't beneficial?  Their banks collect interest and their manufacturers make sales.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes?  Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which part of $ 1.5B is n't beneficial ?
Their banks collect interest and their manufacturers make sales .
  Meanwhile , 36K acres to power 150K homes ?
Does n't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which part of $1.5B isn't beneficial?
Their banks collect interest and their manufacturers make sales.
  Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes?
Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923439</id>
	<title>For those who were thinking about the math...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256916120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>150,000 homes, powered by<br>36,000 acres = 145.7 km^2</p><p>Average U.S. household size = 2.59 (census.gov)<br>150,000 homes = 388,500 people</p><p>145.7 km^2 / 150,000 homes  ~= 1000 m^2 per household<br>145.7 km^2 / 388,500 people ~= 375 m^2 per person</p><p>U.S. Population = 304,059,724 (Google)<br>To power the entire U.S., that's 114,022 km^2<br>(For reference, the state of Ohio is 116,096 km^2)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>150,000 homes , powered by36,000 acres = 145.7 km ^ 2Average U.S. household size = 2.59 ( census.gov ) 150,000 homes = 388,500 people145.7 km ^ 2 / 150,000 homes ~ = 1000 m ^ 2 per household145.7 km ^ 2 / 388,500 people ~ = 375 m ^ 2 per personU.S .
Population = 304,059,724 ( Google ) To power the entire U.S. , that 's 114,022 km ^ 2 ( For reference , the state of Ohio is 116,096 km ^ 2 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>150,000 homes, powered by36,000 acres = 145.7 km^2Average U.S. household size = 2.59 (census.gov)150,000 homes = 388,500 people145.7 km^2 / 150,000 homes  ~= 1000 m^2 per household145.7 km^2 / 388,500 people ~= 375 m^2 per personU.S.
Population = 304,059,724 (Google)To power the entire U.S., that's 114,022 km^2(For reference, the state of Ohio is 116,096 km^2)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29951042</id>
	<title>we need to re-engineer the tax credits</title>
	<author>mr\_java66</author>
	<datestamp>1257181500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is the tax-credits are for BUYING a wind-turbine.  We should have refundable tax-credits for SELLING a wind-turbine.  And make them structured upon the total electricity it makes.  Then we would have a PRO-BUY-AMERICA bias in the wind turbine making.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the tax-credits are for BUYING a wind-turbine .
We should have refundable tax-credits for SELLING a wind-turbine .
And make them structured upon the total electricity it makes .
Then we would have a PRO-BUY-AMERICA bias in the wind turbine making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the tax-credits are for BUYING a wind-turbine.
We should have refundable tax-credits for SELLING a wind-turbine.
And make them structured upon the total electricity it makes.
Then we would have a PRO-BUY-AMERICA bias in the wind turbine making.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923231</id>
	<title>Long cable</title>
	<author>daybot</author>
	<datestamp>1256915040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>providing enough power to meet the electrical needs of around 150,000 American homes.</p></div><p>California really are getting desperate. Also, that's a long cable; they'd better crank the voltage to reduce resistive loss...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>providing enough power to meet the electrical needs of around 150,000 American homes.California really are getting desperate .
Also , that 's a long cable ; they 'd better crank the voltage to reduce resistive loss.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>providing enough power to meet the electrical needs of around 150,000 American homes.California really are getting desperate.
Also, that's a long cable; they'd better crank the voltage to reduce resistive loss...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926203</id>
	<title>Don't do it!!!</title>
	<author>digitalPhant0m</author>
	<datestamp>1256927880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is obviously an ill-conceived attempt at a Trojan Horse. I'm sure a cursory look inside the windmill's will reveal trained, armed comando-monkeys</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is obviously an ill-conceived attempt at a Trojan Horse .
I 'm sure a cursory look inside the windmill 's will reveal trained , armed comando-monkeys</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is obviously an ill-conceived attempt at a Trojan Horse.
I'm sure a cursory look inside the windmill's will reveal trained, armed comando-monkeys</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926489</id>
	<title>Most Favored Nation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256929020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US government lied to Americans in the 1990s, telling us that lifting tariffs on China, ignoring its direct opposition to so many US values, was going to turn "2 billion consumers" into a bonanza for American producers. That never happened. The US is a third of a billion consumers for all kinds of Chinese production. China tells America what to do now, like ignore the Dalai Lama and the abuse of Tibet - and to ignore poison food and toxic products.</p><p>The trade relationship with China is a scam that has enriched only a few bankers, a few factory moguls who walked out on American labor, a tiny percentage of China's people who got to join them, and a bunch of Chinese and American government scam artists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US government lied to Americans in the 1990s , telling us that lifting tariffs on China , ignoring its direct opposition to so many US values , was going to turn " 2 billion consumers " into a bonanza for American producers .
That never happened .
The US is a third of a billion consumers for all kinds of Chinese production .
China tells America what to do now , like ignore the Dalai Lama and the abuse of Tibet - and to ignore poison food and toxic products.The trade relationship with China is a scam that has enriched only a few bankers , a few factory moguls who walked out on American labor , a tiny percentage of China 's people who got to join them , and a bunch of Chinese and American government scam artists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US government lied to Americans in the 1990s, telling us that lifting tariffs on China, ignoring its direct opposition to so many US values, was going to turn "2 billion consumers" into a bonanza for American producers.
That never happened.
The US is a third of a billion consumers for all kinds of Chinese production.
China tells America what to do now, like ignore the Dalai Lama and the abuse of Tibet - and to ignore poison food and toxic products.The trade relationship with China is a scam that has enriched only a few bankers, a few factory moguls who walked out on American labor, a tiny percentage of China's people who got to join them, and a bunch of Chinese and American government scam artists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923107</id>
	<title>It is NOT because China ramped up manufactuering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256914320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is because they have their yuan tied artificially low to the dollar. Once America is destroy, they will simply shift it to the Euro. This is for all intents and purposes, a cold war. It is aimed cleerly at all western nations. America will go down first, but EU, Canada, Australia will follow. Right now, China is working hard to pull Japan and South Korea away from the west and have them be part of an asian bloc.<br> <br>
If the west does not pull together and insist that China honor their treaty obligations (drop ALL trade barriers and free their money per the Clinton agreement AND WTO), then kiss it all goodbye.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is because they have their yuan tied artificially low to the dollar .
Once America is destroy , they will simply shift it to the Euro .
This is for all intents and purposes , a cold war .
It is aimed cleerly at all western nations .
America will go down first , but EU , Canada , Australia will follow .
Right now , China is working hard to pull Japan and South Korea away from the west and have them be part of an asian bloc .
If the west does not pull together and insist that China honor their treaty obligations ( drop ALL trade barriers and free their money per the Clinton agreement AND WTO ) , then kiss it all goodbye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is because they have their yuan tied artificially low to the dollar.
Once America is destroy, they will simply shift it to the Euro.
This is for all intents and purposes, a cold war.
It is aimed cleerly at all western nations.
America will go down first, but EU, Canada, Australia will follow.
Right now, China is working hard to pull Japan and South Korea away from the west and have them be part of an asian bloc.
If the west does not pull together and insist that China honor their treaty obligations (drop ALL trade barriers and free their money per the Clinton agreement AND WTO), then kiss it all goodbye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925823</id>
	<title>Re:The US should control the technolog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256925960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should not be reasonable, this is a competition.  Since we import more than we export from China we have all the power.  Kill the wind-turbine imports or tariff them so that US wind-turbines are cheaper.</p><p>It's that simple.  "Protectionism" is just a word created by people who want to get rich by exploiting the common person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should not be reasonable , this is a competition .
Since we import more than we export from China we have all the power .
Kill the wind-turbine imports or tariff them so that US wind-turbines are cheaper.It 's that simple .
" Protectionism " is just a word created by people who want to get rich by exploiting the common person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should not be reasonable, this is a competition.
Since we import more than we export from China we have all the power.
Kill the wind-turbine imports or tariff them so that US wind-turbines are cheaper.It's that simple.
"Protectionism" is just a word created by people who want to get rich by exploiting the common person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923679</id>
	<title>Irony</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1256917260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't be the only one that finds China supplying the US with technology to generate clean energy ironic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't be the only one that finds China supplying the US with technology to generate clean energy ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't be the only one that finds China supplying the US with technology to generate clean energy ironic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923519</id>
	<title>Some choice, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256916540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So these days we have a choice for every 36,000 acres: either build 150,000 structures to house 300,000+ mouths to feed, or build 240 turbines to power 150,000 structures housing 300,000+ hungry mouths somewhere else?  Can we have an option (c) none of the above?  I'd kinda like to just leave those 36,000 acres the hell alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So these days we have a choice for every 36,000 acres : either build 150,000 structures to house 300,000 + mouths to feed , or build 240 turbines to power 150,000 structures housing 300,000 + hungry mouths somewhere else ?
Can we have an option ( c ) none of the above ?
I 'd kinda like to just leave those 36,000 acres the hell alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So these days we have a choice for every 36,000 acres: either build 150,000 structures to house 300,000+ mouths to feed, or build 240 turbines to power 150,000 structures housing 300,000+ hungry mouths somewhere else?
Can we have an option (c) none of the above?
I'd kinda like to just leave those 36,000 acres the hell alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29939199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29931169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29931329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29958904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29930737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29933821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29929013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29931319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29928569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29934715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29934167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29928633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29930469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29999914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29935979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29937663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1326218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29929013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29928633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29931329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29930737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924449
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29958904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924889
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924159
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927927
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29933821
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29999914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923383
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925161
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923665
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29931319
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29931169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29935979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29937663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29934167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29926489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29930787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29928569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29934715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924561
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29927795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29939199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29930469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29925823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29924189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923437
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1326218.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1326218.29923681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
