<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_17_157231</id>
	<title>CERN Physicist Warns About Uranium Shortage</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258471440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:my/.username@@@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">eldavojohn</a> writes <i>"Uranium mines provide us with 40,000 tons of uranium each year.  Sounds like that ought to be enough for anyone, but <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/">it comes up about 25,000 tons short of what we consume yearly</a> in our nuclear power plants.  The difference is made up by stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium &mdash; which should be completely used up by 2013.  And the problem with just opening more uranium mines is that nobody really knows where to go for the next big uranium lode.  Dr. Michael Dittmar <a href="http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentfiles/ASPO6/3-2\_APSO6\_MDittmar.pdf">has been warning us for some time about the coming shortage</a> (PDF) and has recently uploaded a four-part <a href="http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/51333"> comprehensive report on the future of nuclear energy</a> and how socioeconomic change is exacerbating the effect this coming shortage will have on our power consumption.  Although not quite on par with zombie apocalypse, Dr. Dittmar's final conclusions paint a dire picture, stating that options like large-scale commercial fission breeder reactors are not an option by 2013 and 'no matter how far into the future we may look, nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors, for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Uranium mines provide us with 40,000 tons of uranium each year .
Sounds like that ought to be enough for anyone , but it comes up about 25,000 tons short of what we consume yearly in our nuclear power plants .
The difference is made up by stockpiles , reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium    which should be completely used up by 2013 .
And the problem with just opening more uranium mines is that nobody really knows where to go for the next big uranium lode .
Dr. Michael Dittmar has been warning us for some time about the coming shortage ( PDF ) and has recently uploaded a four-part comprehensive report on the future of nuclear energy and how socioeconomic change is exacerbating the effect this coming shortage will have on our power consumption .
Although not quite on par with zombie apocalypse , Dr. Dittmar 's final conclusions paint a dire picture , stating that options like large-scale commercial fission breeder reactors are not an option by 2013 and 'no matter how far into the future we may look , nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors , for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Uranium mines provide us with 40,000 tons of uranium each year.
Sounds like that ought to be enough for anyone, but it comes up about 25,000 tons short of what we consume yearly in our nuclear power plants.
The difference is made up by stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium — which should be completely used up by 2013.
And the problem with just opening more uranium mines is that nobody really knows where to go for the next big uranium lode.
Dr. Michael Dittmar has been warning us for some time about the coming shortage (PDF) and has recently uploaded a four-part  comprehensive report on the future of nuclear energy and how socioeconomic change is exacerbating the effect this coming shortage will have on our power consumption.
Although not quite on par with zombie apocalypse, Dr. Dittmar's final conclusions paint a dire picture, stating that options like large-scale commercial fission breeder reactors are not an option by 2013 and 'no matter how far into the future we may look, nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors, for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30138708</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Captain Segfault</author>
	<datestamp>1258471560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fair portion of geothermal is nuclear, albeit not fission -- much of the heat in the Earth's core is due to radioactive decay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fair portion of geothermal is nuclear , albeit not fission -- much of the heat in the Earth 's core is due to radioactive decay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fair portion of geothermal is nuclear, albeit not fission -- much of the heat in the Earth's core is due to radioactive decay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130188</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's only about 20 billion years of known reserves of thorium at current world energy usage rates.  India is going into this as fast as possible right now and are setting themselves up for centuries of cheap, plentiful, and super-green energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only about 20 billion years of known reserves of thorium at current world energy usage rates .
India is going into this as fast as possible right now and are setting themselves up for centuries of cheap , plentiful , and super-green energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only about 20 billion years of known reserves of thorium at current world energy usage rates.
India is going into this as fast as possible right now and are setting themselves up for centuries of cheap, plentiful, and super-green energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129480</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Fusion...</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1258476000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... is that as soon as it becomes a reality, it becomes a commodity. More energy out than in? No business model there, it's all free!
</p><p>Nobody wants to invest in a commodity. It's a cash sink. No profit in selling "free."</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, most of the things you buy on a routine basis are commodities, so obviously a lot of people believe in investing in them.
</p><p>Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but fusion won't be "free".
</p><p>Even after we learn how to build one that works, we'll still have the moderately colossal expense of building fusion plants.
</p><p>And disposing of moderately radioactive fusion reactors at end-of-life.  Mustn't forget that part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is that as soon as it becomes a reality , it becomes a commodity .
More energy out than in ?
No business model there , it 's all free !
Nobody wants to invest in a commodity .
It 's a cash sink .
No profit in selling " free .
" Actually , most of the things you buy on a routine basis are commodities , so obviously a lot of people believe in investing in them .
Also , I hate to burst your bubble , but fusion wo n't be " free " .
Even after we learn how to build one that works , we 'll still have the moderately colossal expense of building fusion plants .
And disposing of moderately radioactive fusion reactors at end-of-life .
Must n't forget that part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is that as soon as it becomes a reality, it becomes a commodity.
More energy out than in?
No business model there, it's all free!
Nobody wants to invest in a commodity.
It's a cash sink.
No profit in selling "free.
"Actually, most of the things you buy on a routine basis are commodities, so obviously a lot of people believe in investing in them.
Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but fusion won't be "free".
Even after we learn how to build one that works, we'll still have the moderately colossal expense of building fusion plants.
And disposing of moderately radioactive fusion reactors at end-of-life.
Mustn't forget that part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130174</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean something like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">CANDU</a> [wikipedia.org] reactors, that can already run on thorium, MOX or spent fuel from normal reactors and are already relatively common?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean something like CANDU [ wikipedia.org ] reactors , that can already run on thorium , MOX or spent fuel from normal reactors and are already relatively common ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean something like CANDU [wikipedia.org] reactors, that can already run on thorium, MOX or spent fuel from normal reactors and are already relatively common?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129676</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>jareds</author>
	<datestamp>1258476840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Solar, for as long as we really need to care about, is going to be around forever. [...] Gravititic potential energy is another largely untapped resource. While some forms of this like dams and tidal generators have been developed, there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravity.</p></div><p>Gravitational potential energy on Earth is limited in roughly the same sense as solar energy.  The universe of course has limited <strong>total</strong> energy resources...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar , for as long as we really need to care about , is going to be around forever .
[ ... ] Gravititic potential energy is another largely untapped resource .
While some forms of this like dams and tidal generators have been developed , there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravity.Gravitational potential energy on Earth is limited in roughly the same sense as solar energy .
The universe of course has limited total energy resources.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar, for as long as we really need to care about, is going to be around forever.
[...] Gravititic potential energy is another largely untapped resource.
While some forms of this like dams and tidal generators have been developed, there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravity.Gravitational potential energy on Earth is limited in roughly the same sense as solar energy.
The universe of course has limited total energy resources...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132678</id>
	<title>Mine baby mine!</title>
	<author>Yaos</author>
	<datestamp>1258488420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's use the republican answer to everything and just dig up more of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's use the republican answer to everything and just dig up more of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's use the republican answer to everything and just dig up more of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130250</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Hieronymus Howard</author>
	<datestamp>1258479240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Britain, you insensitive clod.  We're almost out of Sun here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Britain , you insensitive clod .
We 're almost out of Sun here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Britain, you insensitive clod.
We're almost out of Sun here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129944</id>
	<title>Re:Man up and build fast-breeder reactors.</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1258477920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you just RTFS, you'll note that "Dr. Dittmar's final conclusions paint a dire picture, stating that options like large-scale commercial fission breeder reactors are not an option by 2013", due to simple engineering and logistical hurdles thanks to the immaturity of the technology (ie, while the science and basic engineering is done, that's an far cry from commercialization).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you just RTFS , you 'll note that " Dr. Dittmar 's final conclusions paint a dire picture , stating that options like large-scale commercial fission breeder reactors are not an option by 2013 " , due to simple engineering and logistical hurdles thanks to the immaturity of the technology ( ie , while the science and basic engineering is done , that 's an far cry from commercialization ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you just RTFS, you'll note that "Dr. Dittmar's final conclusions paint a dire picture, stating that options like large-scale commercial fission breeder reactors are not an option by 2013", due to simple engineering and logistical hurdles thanks to the immaturity of the technology (ie, while the science and basic engineering is done, that's an far cry from commercialization).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136530</id>
	<title>Peak uranium?</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1258458540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First we run short of petroleum.</p><p>Then we run short of uranium.</p><p>I just hope we don't hit peak solar power too soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First we run short of petroleum.Then we run short of uranium.I just hope we do n't hit peak solar power too soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First we run short of petroleum.Then we run short of uranium.I just hope we don't hit peak solar power too soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</id>
	<title>The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1258475520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peak Oil was really just the beginning. If nuclear energy were to take off, we would be out of uranium before the first year was over. This points to a deadly flaw in the use of natural resources as the basis for energy sources. If you have to mine it, drill it, or harvest it, you will always run the risk of running out of it.</p><p>This is why there are only a handful truly renewable resources. Solar, for as long as we really need to care about, is going to be around forever. Fusion, if effectively harnessed, could provide a very good power source without the pollution of fission and the only input is hydrogen (or even heavier elements). Gravititic potential energy is another largely untapped resource. While some forms of this like dams and tidal generators have been developed, there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravity.</p><p>We're so far behind the energy resource curve that it is only a matter of time before we end up in the dark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peak Oil was really just the beginning .
If nuclear energy were to take off , we would be out of uranium before the first year was over .
This points to a deadly flaw in the use of natural resources as the basis for energy sources .
If you have to mine it , drill it , or harvest it , you will always run the risk of running out of it.This is why there are only a handful truly renewable resources .
Solar , for as long as we really need to care about , is going to be around forever .
Fusion , if effectively harnessed , could provide a very good power source without the pollution of fission and the only input is hydrogen ( or even heavier elements ) .
Gravititic potential energy is another largely untapped resource .
While some forms of this like dams and tidal generators have been developed , there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravity.We 're so far behind the energy resource curve that it is only a matter of time before we end up in the dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peak Oil was really just the beginning.
If nuclear energy were to take off, we would be out of uranium before the first year was over.
This points to a deadly flaw in the use of natural resources as the basis for energy sources.
If you have to mine it, drill it, or harvest it, you will always run the risk of running out of it.This is why there are only a handful truly renewable resources.
Solar, for as long as we really need to care about, is going to be around forever.
Fusion, if effectively harnessed, could provide a very good power source without the pollution of fission and the only input is hydrogen (or even heavier elements).
Gravititic potential energy is another largely untapped resource.
While some forms of this like dams and tidal generators have been developed, there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravity.We're so far behind the energy resource curve that it is only a matter of time before we end up in the dark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129752</id>
	<title>Dumb question time</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1258477080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feel free to point and laugh but I'm curious.</p><p>What about asteroids?  Are they all composed of rock and such or do some of them have uranium deposits?  Have any of our probes detected uranium somewhere in the belt?</p><p>I realize the inherent and monumental tasks involved in getting to an asteroid laden with uranium, moving it towards Earth then mining it, but I'm asking if uranium has been found anywhere else we could potentially get at.</p><p>As an aside, what about undersea mining?  Any uranium deposits found in the ocean depths?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feel free to point and laugh but I 'm curious.What about asteroids ?
Are they all composed of rock and such or do some of them have uranium deposits ?
Have any of our probes detected uranium somewhere in the belt ? I realize the inherent and monumental tasks involved in getting to an asteroid laden with uranium , moving it towards Earth then mining it , but I 'm asking if uranium has been found anywhere else we could potentially get at.As an aside , what about undersea mining ?
Any uranium deposits found in the ocean depths ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feel free to point and laugh but I'm curious.What about asteroids?
Are they all composed of rock and such or do some of them have uranium deposits?
Have any of our probes detected uranium somewhere in the belt?I realize the inherent and monumental tasks involved in getting to an asteroid laden with uranium, moving it towards Earth then mining it, but I'm asking if uranium has been found anywhere else we could potentially get at.As an aside, what about undersea mining?
Any uranium deposits found in the ocean depths?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130324</id>
	<title>Food for fuel program?</title>
	<author>ZuluZero</author>
	<datestamp>1258479480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently being a "CERN physicist" doesn't prevent you from being an biased loud mouth, ignoring evidence and spinning "facts" for your personal agenda.

Besides, haven't you heard the *REAL* US gov supported solution?
Simply burn your food supplies as fuel.
Problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently being a " CERN physicist " does n't prevent you from being an biased loud mouth , ignoring evidence and spinning " facts " for your personal agenda .
Besides , have n't you heard the * REAL * US gov supported solution ?
Simply burn your food supplies as fuel .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently being a "CERN physicist" doesn't prevent you from being an biased loud mouth, ignoring evidence and spinning "facts" for your personal agenda.
Besides, haven't you heard the *REAL* US gov supported solution?
Simply burn your food supplies as fuel.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129968</id>
	<title>Then there is no problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the world is going to end in 2012, we have more than we'll ever need.<br>We also have 10 years of oil left, so no problem there, either.<br>Also, Brocko Bama is going to have us converted to solar and wind before then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the world is going to end in 2012 , we have more than we 'll ever need.We also have 10 years of oil left , so no problem there , either.Also , Brocko Bama is going to have us converted to solar and wind before then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the world is going to end in 2012, we have more than we'll ever need.We also have 10 years of oil left, so no problem there, either.Also, Brocko Bama is going to have us converted to solar and wind before then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129432</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1258475820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is utter nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is utter nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is utter nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133130</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1258489800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just ask your PC <a href="http://www.multivax.com/last\_question.html" title="multivax.com">how to reverse entropy</a> [multivax.com], and the rest will take care of itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just ask your PC how to reverse entropy [ multivax.com ] , and the rest will take care of itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just ask your PC how to reverse entropy [multivax.com], and the rest will take care of itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130754</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258481640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're so far behind the energy resource curve that it is only a matter of time before we end up in the dark.</p></div><p>So give up and go live in the rain forest. The rest of us will man up and pursue other solutions such as the ones suggested elsewhere in the comments.</p><p>And anyone else notice that many people who warn of our impending doom seem to also be salivating at the prospect?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're so far behind the energy resource curve that it is only a matter of time before we end up in the dark.So give up and go live in the rain forest .
The rest of us will man up and pursue other solutions such as the ones suggested elsewhere in the comments.And anyone else notice that many people who warn of our impending doom seem to also be salivating at the prospect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're so far behind the energy resource curve that it is only a matter of time before we end up in the dark.So give up and go live in the rain forest.
The rest of us will man up and pursue other solutions such as the ones suggested elsewhere in the comments.And anyone else notice that many people who warn of our impending doom seem to also be salivating at the prospect?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129804</id>
	<title>Correct me if I'm wrong...</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1258477260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but isn't salt the most abundent resource we have on Earth that we mine the hell out of?  I remember reading/hearing somewhere that even at present mining capacity, the human race will likely die out before all the salt is mined.  Any truth to this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but is n't salt the most abundent resource we have on Earth that we mine the hell out of ?
I remember reading/hearing somewhere that even at present mining capacity , the human race will likely die out before all the salt is mined .
Any truth to this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but isn't salt the most abundent resource we have on Earth that we mine the hell out of?
I remember reading/hearing somewhere that even at present mining capacity, the human race will likely die out before all the salt is mined.
Any truth to this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130492</id>
	<title>Clarke's Law</title>
	<author>nani popoki</author>
	<datestamp>1258480380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...will never become a reality...
</p><p>
"When an elderly and respected scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly right.  When he says it is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong."
</p><p>
I wouldn't declare commercial fusion power impossible just yet.  The more that fissionables become in short supply, the more somebody is going to figure that there's big bucks to be made getting fusion to work and spend money doing the engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...will never become a reality.. . " When an elderly and respected scientist says something is possible , he is almost certainly right .
When he says it is impossible , he is almost certainly wrong .
" I would n't declare commercial fusion power impossible just yet .
The more that fissionables become in short supply , the more somebody is going to figure that there 's big bucks to be made getting fusion to work and spend money doing the engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; ...will never become a reality...

"When an elderly and respected scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
When he says it is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong.
"

I wouldn't declare commercial fusion power impossible just yet.
The more that fissionables become in short supply, the more somebody is going to figure that there's big bucks to be made getting fusion to work and spend money doing the engineering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129364</id>
	<title>Nuclear Technicians</title>
	<author>Conchobair</author>
	<datestamp>1258475640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I speak for a great many nuclear technicians when I say:<br> <br>

D'oh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I speak for a great many nuclear technicians when I say : D'oh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I speak for a great many nuclear technicians when I say: 

D'oh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141038</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>senselesswaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257067980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Today's panel are certified for a life of 20 years, they will very likely last longer. I have seen panels that were manufactured in the early 80's still generating power after 25 years. Quality panels made today are quite a bit better than those early efforts, due to the last 30 years of putting panels outside and testing them. We may not get 50 years like a coal plant, but you won't have spent a bundle on maintenance over their life either. Then after everything is done you can recycle them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today 's panel are certified for a life of 20 years , they will very likely last longer .
I have seen panels that were manufactured in the early 80 's still generating power after 25 years .
Quality panels made today are quite a bit better than those early efforts , due to the last 30 years of putting panels outside and testing them .
We may not get 50 years like a coal plant , but you wo n't have spent a bundle on maintenance over their life either .
Then after everything is done you can recycle them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today's panel are certified for a life of 20 years, they will very likely last longer.
I have seen panels that were manufactured in the early 80's still generating power after 25 years.
Quality panels made today are quite a bit better than those early efforts, due to the last 30 years of putting panels outside and testing them.
We may not get 50 years like a coal plant, but you won't have spent a bundle on maintenance over their life either.
Then after everything is done you can recycle them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130234</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258479180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually it is possible. Think "very cloudy"... most of the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it is possible .
Think " very cloudy " ... most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it is possible.
Think "very cloudy"... most of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129388</id>
	<title>Man up and build fast-breeder reactors.</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1258475700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can extract dramatically more energy from a supply of uranium by using them and the by-products have a shorter half-life. I'm sure that by now safe, redundant control system can be built to keep them safe. Just NIMBY (not in my backyard).</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can extract dramatically more energy from a supply of uranium by using them and the by-products have a shorter half-life .
I 'm sure that by now safe , redundant control system can be built to keep them safe .
Just NIMBY ( not in my backyard ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can extract dramatically more energy from a supply of uranium by using them and the by-products have a shorter half-life.
I'm sure that by now safe, redundant control system can be built to keep them safe.
Just NIMBY (not in my backyard).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129986</id>
	<title>2012?</title>
	<author>fluch</author>
	<datestamp>1258478040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I am confused! Shouldn't it be 2012 when the earth comes to an end?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I am confused !
Should n't it be 2012 when the earth comes to an end ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I am confused!
Shouldn't it be 2012 when the earth comes to an end?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131052</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258482960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He said Solar Energy, he wasn't assuming that solar panels had to be the capture method.  The biosphere of earth has maintained a sustainable balance of solar energy collection for hundreds of millions of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He said Solar Energy , he was n't assuming that solar panels had to be the capture method .
The biosphere of earth has maintained a sustainable balance of solar energy collection for hundreds of millions of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said Solar Energy, he wasn't assuming that solar panels had to be the capture method.
The biosphere of earth has maintained a sustainable balance of solar energy collection for hundreds of millions of years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129810</id>
	<title>I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Metasquares</author>
	<datestamp>1258477320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No matter how far into the future we may look, nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors, for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality."</p><p>I have a feeling this will go up there with "it's impossible to build a heavier-than-air flying machine" and "there's a world market for about 6 computers".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No matter how far into the future we may look , nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors , for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality .
" I have a feeling this will go up there with " it 's impossible to build a heavier-than-air flying machine " and " there 's a world market for about 6 computers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No matter how far into the future we may look, nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors, for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality.
"I have a feeling this will go up there with "it's impossible to build a heavier-than-air flying machine" and "there's a world market for about 6 computers".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130760</id>
	<title>no problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258481640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear that Iran has a pretty good enrichment program going, I'm sure that we can just buy our uranium from them.  After all, they sell us their oil as it is, so how much worse could it be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear that Iran has a pretty good enrichment program going , I 'm sure that we can just buy our uranium from them .
After all , they sell us their oil as it is , so how much worse could it be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear that Iran has a pretty good enrichment program going, I'm sure that we can just buy our uranium from them.
After all, they sell us their oil as it is, so how much worse could it be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132116</id>
	<title>Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258486500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No more Uranium? Pull it out of Uranus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No more Uranium ?
Pull it out of Uranus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more Uranium?
Pull it out of Uranus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129370</id>
	<title>Recycle the spent fuel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say recycle the spent fuel because it's hardly done.</p><p>Odd really, given how into recycling all those environmental freaks are . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say recycle the spent fuel because it 's hardly done.Odd really , given how into recycling all those environmental freaks are .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say recycle the spent fuel because it's hardly done.Odd really, given how into recycling all those environmental freaks are .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130232</id>
	<title>New space race?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258479180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's sure we cannot harvest oil from other planets. But what about Uranium?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sure we can not harvest oil from other planets .
But what about Uranium ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sure we cannot harvest oil from other planets.
But what about Uranium?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129656</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1258476780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I the only one who's starting to think that as soon as we put all of our eggs in the solar energy basket, somebody will come along and say that we're almost out of sun?</p></div><p>If it does happen, I would think it was the speculators who bought all those sunshine futures and stock piled sunshine with the hopes of it going up in price.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who 's starting to think that as soon as we put all of our eggs in the solar energy basket , somebody will come along and say that we 're almost out of sun ? If it does happen , I would think it was the speculators who bought all those sunshine futures and stock piled sunshine with the hopes of it going up in price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who's starting to think that as soon as we put all of our eggs in the solar energy basket, somebody will come along and say that we're almost out of sun?If it does happen, I would think it was the speculators who bought all those sunshine futures and stock piled sunshine with the hopes of it going up in price.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129314</id>
	<title>Water on moon, why not uranium?</title>
	<author>Lillebo</author>
	<datestamp>1258475460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The moon is the answer for all our future resource-problems..</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moon is the answer for all our future resource-problems. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moon is the answer for all our future resource-problems..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30149116</id>
	<title>We SHOULD have solutions now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've got a truly enormous uranium find right here in Southern Virginia. But we can't mine it due to politics. I wonder how many other cases like this are out there. Our older, closed down mines out West also still have tons of uranium in them. It's all just sitting there waiting for two things. One, the price of uranium to rise enough and make it too attractive for pols to resist, and two, the time when the pressing need for uranium overwhelms the cries of the 'no nukes at any cost' cohort.</p><p>What a great tragedy that the nuclear engineering industry got pretty much put out of business and neutered starting about 30 years ago. We've got gaps in where we are in our capabilities to where we ought to be.</p><p>We need to get busy and get to work on these problems and not hamstring ourselves with all these ludicrous political machinations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've got a truly enormous uranium find right here in Southern Virginia .
But we ca n't mine it due to politics .
I wonder how many other cases like this are out there .
Our older , closed down mines out West also still have tons of uranium in them .
It 's all just sitting there waiting for two things .
One , the price of uranium to rise enough and make it too attractive for pols to resist , and two , the time when the pressing need for uranium overwhelms the cries of the 'no nukes at any cost ' cohort.What a great tragedy that the nuclear engineering industry got pretty much put out of business and neutered starting about 30 years ago .
We 've got gaps in where we are in our capabilities to where we ought to be.We need to get busy and get to work on these problems and not hamstring ourselves with all these ludicrous political machinations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've got a truly enormous uranium find right here in Southern Virginia.
But we can't mine it due to politics.
I wonder how many other cases like this are out there.
Our older, closed down mines out West also still have tons of uranium in them.
It's all just sitting there waiting for two things.
One, the price of uranium to rise enough and make it too attractive for pols to resist, and two, the time when the pressing need for uranium overwhelms the cries of the 'no nukes at any cost' cohort.What a great tragedy that the nuclear engineering industry got pretty much put out of business and neutered starting about 30 years ago.
We've got gaps in where we are in our capabilities to where we ought to be.We need to get busy and get to work on these problems and not hamstring ourselves with all these ludicrous political machinations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129240</id>
	<title>Alternative materials?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about plutonium and other radioactive materials? (first post? hehehe)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about plutonium and other radioactive materials ?
( first post ?
hehehe )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about plutonium and other radioactive materials?
(first post?
hehehe)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129268</id>
	<title>The problem with Fusion...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1258475340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... is that as soon as it becomes a reality, it becomes a commodity. More energy out than in? No business model there, it's all free!<br> <br>Nobody wants to invest in a commodity. It's a cash sink. No profit in selling "free."</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is that as soon as it becomes a reality , it becomes a commodity .
More energy out than in ?
No business model there , it 's all free !
Nobody wants to invest in a commodity .
It 's a cash sink .
No profit in selling " free .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is that as soon as it becomes a reality, it becomes a commodity.
More energy out than in?
No business model there, it's all free!
Nobody wants to invest in a commodity.
It's a cash sink.
No profit in selling "free.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129758</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1258477080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He probably assumed everyone could manage looking up thorium on Google and finding the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia article on it</a> [wikipedia.org]. As for why not use it, I assume the reasons are complex, although from the Wikipedia article alone, I'd conclude a big reason is the stated lack of funding that ended the original research into it and the heavy investment we already have in uranium. It seems likely that newly developing countries might be in more of a position to invest in new thorium reactors. Of course, if we truly run out of uranium soon, we'd be forced to start investing in thorium reactors, if not other alternatives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He probably assumed everyone could manage looking up thorium on Google and finding the Wikipedia article on it [ wikipedia.org ] .
As for why not use it , I assume the reasons are complex , although from the Wikipedia article alone , I 'd conclude a big reason is the stated lack of funding that ended the original research into it and the heavy investment we already have in uranium .
It seems likely that newly developing countries might be in more of a position to invest in new thorium reactors .
Of course , if we truly run out of uranium soon , we 'd be forced to start investing in thorium reactors , if not other alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He probably assumed everyone could manage looking up thorium on Google and finding the Wikipedia article on it [wikipedia.org].
As for why not use it, I assume the reasons are complex, although from the Wikipedia article alone, I'd conclude a big reason is the stated lack of funding that ended the original research into it and the heavy investment we already have in uranium.
It seems likely that newly developing countries might be in more of a position to invest in new thorium reactors.
Of course, if we truly run out of uranium soon, we'd be forced to start investing in thorium reactors, if not other alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133260</id>
	<title>Fellas, don't get too hyped up.</title>
	<author>sgtrock</author>
	<datestamp>1258490220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read some of the comments to the original article.  This guy has apparently been severely criticized on more than one for the quality of his research.</p><p>That's not to say that he's necessarily wrong.  However, it's probably wise to take his statements with a grain of salt until other qualified people weigh in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read some of the comments to the original article .
This guy has apparently been severely criticized on more than one for the quality of his research.That 's not to say that he 's necessarily wrong .
However , it 's probably wise to take his statements with a grain of salt until other qualified people weigh in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read some of the comments to the original article.
This guy has apparently been severely criticized on more than one for the quality of his research.That's not to say that he's necessarily wrong.
However, it's probably wise to take his statements with a grain of salt until other qualified people weigh in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30134042</id>
	<title>Lies! Lies! All LIES!!</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1258449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lies! Nuclear power is the best and the cleanest source of energy, and it will last forever because of breeder reactors! It doesn't pollute or produce greenhouse gases! It is cheaper than anything else! It is safer than any other power source! It protects our national security because we wouldn't have to import oil! We can supply the energy needs of our entire economy forever on nuclear power!

Those are all of the foaming-at-the-mouth claims I can remember at the moment. Any more?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lies !
Nuclear power is the best and the cleanest source of energy , and it will last forever because of breeder reactors !
It does n't pollute or produce greenhouse gases !
It is cheaper than anything else !
It is safer than any other power source !
It protects our national security because we would n't have to import oil !
We can supply the energy needs of our entire economy forever on nuclear power !
Those are all of the foaming-at-the-mouth claims I can remember at the moment .
Any more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lies!
Nuclear power is the best and the cleanest source of energy, and it will last forever because of breeder reactors!
It doesn't pollute or produce greenhouse gases!
It is cheaper than anything else!
It is safer than any other power source!
It protects our national security because we wouldn't have to import oil!
We can supply the energy needs of our entire economy forever on nuclear power!
Those are all of the foaming-at-the-mouth claims I can remember at the moment.
Any more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258475820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solar power IS nuclear power, we've just offshored the actual reactor.  Some loss of energy occurs during transport, though.</p><p>If we run out of Sun, running my hairdryer is going to get really low on my list of priorities, really fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar power IS nuclear power , we 've just offshored the actual reactor .
Some loss of energy occurs during transport , though.If we run out of Sun , running my hairdryer is going to get really low on my list of priorities , really fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar power IS nuclear power, we've just offshored the actual reactor.
Some loss of energy occurs during transport, though.If we run out of Sun, running my hairdryer is going to get really low on my list of priorities, really fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>andy1307</author>
	<datestamp>1258476420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of natural resources go into Solar panels. Resources that need to be mined.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of natural resources go into Solar panels .
Resources that need to be mined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of natural resources go into Solar panels.
Resources that need to be mined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130116</id>
	<title>And the problem is...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world is going to end in 2012 anyway.  So what's the problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world is going to end in 2012 anyway .
So what 's the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world is going to end in 2012 anyway.
So what's the problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130080</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The One, the only, the simple solution...</p><p>stop having babies and revert back to pre-industrial revolution lifestyle. seriously, what's wrong with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The One , the only , the simple solution...stop having babies and revert back to pre-industrial revolution lifestyle .
seriously , what 's wrong with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The One, the only, the simple solution...stop having babies and revert back to pre-industrial revolution lifestyle.
seriously, what's wrong with that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30134422</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258450980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YEAH GO NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION! WOOO!</p><p>Slashdot says using caps is like yelling. Well maybe I want to yell? Insensitive clods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YEAH GO NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION !
WOOO ! Slashdot says using caps is like yelling .
Well maybe I want to yell ?
Insensitive clods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YEAH GO NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION!
WOOO!Slashdot says using caps is like yelling.
Well maybe I want to yell?
Insensitive clods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136114</id>
	<title>The answer to this problem is simple</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1258457040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to overturn the cold-war era ban on spent fuel reprocessing, get over the fear mongering and FUD about "reprocessing == nuclear weapons" or whatever it is and reprocess the stuff comming out of nuclear reactors.<br>If the right kinds of reactors are built, its possible to get a LOT more energy out of each bit of uranium that comes out of the ground than we are doing now. And there are other radioactive minerals you can process too and get energy out of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to overturn the cold-war era ban on spent fuel reprocessing , get over the fear mongering and FUD about " reprocessing = = nuclear weapons " or whatever it is and reprocess the stuff comming out of nuclear reactors.If the right kinds of reactors are built , its possible to get a LOT more energy out of each bit of uranium that comes out of the ground than we are doing now .
And there are other radioactive minerals you can process too and get energy out of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to overturn the cold-war era ban on spent fuel reprocessing, get over the fear mongering and FUD about "reprocessing == nuclear weapons" or whatever it is and reprocess the stuff comming out of nuclear reactors.If the right kinds of reactors are built, its possible to get a LOT more energy out of each bit of uranium that comes out of the ground than we are doing now.
And there are other radioactive minerals you can process too and get energy out of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129876</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to Wikipedia, it is 3-4x as abundant and creates Uranium-233 which is ideal for use in Nuclear weapons, so it looks you are over-stating the advantages somewhat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Wikipedia , it is 3-4x as abundant and creates Uranium-233 which is ideal for use in Nuclear weapons , so it looks you are over-stating the advantages somewhat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Wikipedia, it is 3-4x as abundant and creates Uranium-233 which is ideal for use in Nuclear weapons, so it looks you are over-stating the advantages somewhat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130022</id>
	<title>2013? I think that's supposed to be 2012.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We better speed up our consumption if we want to make our 2012 deadline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We better speed up our consumption if we want to make our 2012 deadline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We better speed up our consumption if we want to make our 2012 deadline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130588</id>
	<title>Re:Water on moon, why not uranium?</title>
	<author>painandgreed</author>
	<datestamp>1258480740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The moon is the answer for all our future resource-problems..</i> </p><p>You were probably going for a +5 Funny, but in case you weren't, there are various issues with that solution. First being that even if the moon were made of uranium (or oil), it would probably be too expensive to ship it in and out of our respective gravity wells to earth. Second, the moon seems to be pretty much mostly a large non-metallic mantel with a small non-active metallic core. Chances are that the moon simply isn't nearly mineral rich as the earth. Three, the moon is a really harsh environment, especially for the machinery that we would need to mine anything. Without weathering, every little bit of dust is a sharp jagged piece of sand paper that will wear down equipment fairly fast.</p><p>All in all, the moon probably isn't a good source of materials, even water. For energy, we'd be better harvesting solar energy in orbit and beaming it back to earth. For materials, especially metallic elements such as uranium, we'd be better off mining asteroids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The moon is the answer for all our future resource-problems.. You were probably going for a + 5 Funny , but in case you were n't , there are various issues with that solution .
First being that even if the moon were made of uranium ( or oil ) , it would probably be too expensive to ship it in and out of our respective gravity wells to earth .
Second , the moon seems to be pretty much mostly a large non-metallic mantel with a small non-active metallic core .
Chances are that the moon simply is n't nearly mineral rich as the earth .
Three , the moon is a really harsh environment , especially for the machinery that we would need to mine anything .
Without weathering , every little bit of dust is a sharp jagged piece of sand paper that will wear down equipment fairly fast.All in all , the moon probably is n't a good source of materials , even water .
For energy , we 'd be better harvesting solar energy in orbit and beaming it back to earth .
For materials , especially metallic elements such as uranium , we 'd be better off mining asteroids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The moon is the answer for all our future resource-problems.. You were probably going for a +5 Funny, but in case you weren't, there are various issues with that solution.
First being that even if the moon were made of uranium (or oil), it would probably be too expensive to ship it in and out of our respective gravity wells to earth.
Second, the moon seems to be pretty much mostly a large non-metallic mantel with a small non-active metallic core.
Chances are that the moon simply isn't nearly mineral rich as the earth.
Three, the moon is a really harsh environment, especially for the machinery that we would need to mine anything.
Without weathering, every little bit of dust is a sharp jagged piece of sand paper that will wear down equipment fairly fast.All in all, the moon probably isn't a good source of materials, even water.
For energy, we'd be better harvesting solar energy in orbit and beaming it back to earth.
For materials, especially metallic elements such as uranium, we'd be better off mining asteroids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129600</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258476480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Citation Please!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/yes. please provide YOUR links</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation Please !
/yes. please provide YOUR links</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation Please!
/yes. please provide YOUR links</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129940</id>
	<title>Waxing Philosophical</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1258477860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone ever consider what life would be like without burning (ie, energy use for efficiency of existence)?  Perhaps the native Americans had it right: we should be nomadic, moving with the herds and the climate, eating dropped fruit versus growing orchards, etc.  Granted, you can't do that with the population (or the populace) we have now, but give it a few years: with no nuclear fuel, no gasoline or plastic/petroleum-based products, water shortages (never mind when everything east of California falls into the ocean), the population might thin out enough that we move back to living within nature instead of being this anomalous creature that tries to force nature to obey.</p><p>And besides, with less people on the Internet, my ping times in L4D would be teh awsum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone ever consider what life would be like without burning ( ie , energy use for efficiency of existence ) ?
Perhaps the native Americans had it right : we should be nomadic , moving with the herds and the climate , eating dropped fruit versus growing orchards , etc .
Granted , you ca n't do that with the population ( or the populace ) we have now , but give it a few years : with no nuclear fuel , no gasoline or plastic/petroleum-based products , water shortages ( never mind when everything east of California falls into the ocean ) , the population might thin out enough that we move back to living within nature instead of being this anomalous creature that tries to force nature to obey.And besides , with less people on the Internet , my ping times in L4D would be teh awsum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone ever consider what life would be like without burning (ie, energy use for efficiency of existence)?
Perhaps the native Americans had it right: we should be nomadic, moving with the herds and the climate, eating dropped fruit versus growing orchards, etc.
Granted, you can't do that with the population (or the populace) we have now, but give it a few years: with no nuclear fuel, no gasoline or plastic/petroleum-based products, water shortages (never mind when everything east of California falls into the ocean), the population might thin out enough that we move back to living within nature instead of being this anomalous creature that tries to force nature to obey.And besides, with less people on the Internet, my ping times in L4D would be teh awsum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129638</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>ruiner13</author>
	<datestamp>1258476660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Solar, for as long as we really need to care about, is going to be around forever.</p></div><p>Speak for yourself, meatbag!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar , for as long as we really need to care about , is going to be around forever.Speak for yourself , meatbag !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar, for as long as we really need to care about, is going to be around forever.Speak for yourself, meatbag!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130836</id>
	<title>300 comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258482000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And not one of them pointed out this is yet another dupe from last week?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And not one of them pointed out this is yet another dupe from last week ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not one of them pointed out this is yet another dupe from last week?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130042</id>
	<title>Bah!</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1258478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>"The accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality."</em></p><p>They said the same thing about Faster Than Light travel, and look where we are today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality .
" They said the same thing about Faster Than Light travel , and look where we are today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality.
"They said the same thing about Faster Than Light travel, and look where we are today!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130290</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>DamonHD</author>
	<datestamp>1258479420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't you notice that Sun is being bought up by Oracle, presumably to be extinguished shortly after?  Sun only had a few more months of life...</p><p>Rgds</p><p>Damon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you notice that Sun is being bought up by Oracle , presumably to be extinguished shortly after ?
Sun only had a few more months of life...RgdsDamon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you notice that Sun is being bought up by Oracle, presumably to be extinguished shortly after?
Sun only had a few more months of life...RgdsDamon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132170</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>xupere</author>
	<datestamp>1258486680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I the only one who's starting to think that as soon as we put all of our eggs in the solar energy basket, somebody will come along and say that we're almost out of sun?</p></div><p>And as soon as we put all of our space travel eggs in the spice harvesting basket, somebody will come along and oppress all of humanity for 3500 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who 's starting to think that as soon as we put all of our eggs in the solar energy basket , somebody will come along and say that we 're almost out of sun ? And as soon as we put all of our space travel eggs in the spice harvesting basket , somebody will come along and oppress all of humanity for 3500 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who's starting to think that as soon as we put all of our eggs in the solar energy basket, somebody will come along and say that we're almost out of sun?And as soon as we put all of our space travel eggs in the spice harvesting basket, somebody will come along and oppress all of humanity for 3500 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133390</id>
	<title>nuclear disarmament</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258490700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old news. Guess why the US and Russia are so eager to sign a new nuclear disarmament deal ?<br>Lots of U235 in those warheads. The wish to 'make this world a better place' has nothing to do with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old news .
Guess why the US and Russia are so eager to sign a new nuclear disarmament deal ? Lots of U235 in those warheads .
The wish to 'make this world a better place ' has nothing to do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old news.
Guess why the US and Russia are so eager to sign a new nuclear disarmament deal ?Lots of U235 in those warheads.
The wish to 'make this world a better place' has nothing to do with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30135870</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258455780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are those natural, mined resources which are, at least in theory, reusable/recyclable (like silicon or aluminium) or natural, mined resources which are spent by the process for which they are used (like uranium, coal or oil)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are those natural , mined resources which are , at least in theory , reusable/recyclable ( like silicon or aluminium ) or natural , mined resources which are spent by the process for which they are used ( like uranium , coal or oil ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are those natural, mined resources which are, at least in theory, reusable/recyclable (like silicon or aluminium) or natural, mined resources which are spent by the process for which they are used (like uranium, coal or oil)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131314</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258484040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Links is stronger than Your Links!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Links is stronger than Your Links !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Links is stronger than Your Links!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131474</id>
	<title>Not a CERN physicist</title>
	<author>andre.david</author>
	<datestamp>1258484460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But a physicist that works at CERN:</p><p><a href="http://consult.cern.ch/xwho/people/387836" title="consult.cern.ch" rel="nofollow">http://consult.cern.ch/xwho/people/387836</a> [consult.cern.ch]</p><p>This gentleman seems to hail from the Swiss ETH Zurich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But a physicist that works at CERN : http : //consult.cern.ch/xwho/people/387836 [ consult.cern.ch ] This gentleman seems to hail from the Swiss ETH Zurich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But a physicist that works at CERN:http://consult.cern.ch/xwho/people/387836 [consult.cern.ch]This gentleman seems to hail from the Swiss ETH Zurich.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129982</id>
	<title>Sounds Good to Me</title>
	<author>yancey</author>
	<datestamp>1258478040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that when we run out of uranium, it becomes difficult to create more nuclear weapons. I'm OK with that. Besides, there are better power production technologies in the pipeline. It seems that fusion will become a viable option by around 2013 (if we move quickly and provide sufficient funding). I'm thinking specifically of Dr. Richard Nebel's research with IEC fusion. There are other promising fusion research projects as well. However, from what I've seen, the ITER project should be shut down and its funding distributed to other projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that when we run out of uranium , it becomes difficult to create more nuclear weapons .
I 'm OK with that .
Besides , there are better power production technologies in the pipeline .
It seems that fusion will become a viable option by around 2013 ( if we move quickly and provide sufficient funding ) .
I 'm thinking specifically of Dr. Richard Nebel 's research with IEC fusion .
There are other promising fusion research projects as well .
However , from what I 've seen , the ITER project should be shut down and its funding distributed to other projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that when we run out of uranium, it becomes difficult to create more nuclear weapons.
I'm OK with that.
Besides, there are better power production technologies in the pipeline.
It seems that fusion will become a viable option by around 2013 (if we move quickly and provide sufficient funding).
I'm thinking specifically of Dr. Richard Nebel's research with IEC fusion.
There are other promising fusion research projects as well.
However, from what I've seen, the ITER project should be shut down and its funding distributed to other projects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129300</id>
	<title>Best quality, Best reputation , Best services,look</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]  Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God.Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Best quality , Best reputation , Best services Our commitment , customer is God.Quality is our Dignity ; Service is our Lift.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]  Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God.Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30139662</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1258479000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Expecting anyone to bring a commercial FBR online before 2013 is ludicrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Expecting anyone to bring a commercial FBR online before 2013 is ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expecting anyone to bring a commercial FBR online before 2013 is ludicrous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30138468</id>
	<title>Norris Power GO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258469700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>better get chuck norris on that tredmill fast</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>better get chuck norris on that tredmill fast</tokentext>
<sentencetext>better get chuck norris on that tredmill fast</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132712</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258488480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, Canada here. How ya doin, eh?</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU\_reactor#Fuel\_cycles</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , Canada here .
How ya doin , eh ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU \ _reactor # Fuel \ _cycles</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, Canada here.
How ya doin, eh?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU\_reactor#Fuel\_cycles</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129678</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1258476840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Gravititic potential energy is another largely untapped resource. </i></p><p>I always had a hunch you could tap into gravitation forces at high levels of free fall between two celestial objects using something like a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel\_energy\_storage" title="wikipedia.org">flywheel storage system</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Of course it would be only useful for autonomous deep space voyages where solar energy is at a minimum and you're basically in a vacuum anyways with low power requirements and you are going to be orbit for a long time.</p><p>Otherwise for large energy needs you'd still need nuclear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gravititic potential energy is another largely untapped resource .
I always had a hunch you could tap into gravitation forces at high levels of free fall between two celestial objects using something like a flywheel storage system [ wikipedia.org ] Of course it would be only useful for autonomous deep space voyages where solar energy is at a minimum and you 're basically in a vacuum anyways with low power requirements and you are going to be orbit for a long time.Otherwise for large energy needs you 'd still need nuclear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gravititic potential energy is another largely untapped resource.
I always had a hunch you could tap into gravitation forces at high levels of free fall between two celestial objects using something like a flywheel storage system [wikipedia.org]Of course it would be only useful for autonomous deep space voyages where solar energy is at a minimum and you're basically in a vacuum anyways with low power requirements and you are going to be orbit for a long time.Otherwise for large energy needs you'd still need nuclear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254</id>
	<title>I mention this</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1258475280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everytime nuclear fission comes up as a possible viable alternative. Peak Uranium is as real as peak oil, and it's here now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everytime nuclear fission comes up as a possible viable alternative .
Peak Uranium is as real as peak oil , and it 's here now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everytime nuclear fission comes up as a possible viable alternative.
Peak Uranium is as real as peak oil, and it's here now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30137914</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>chgros</author>
	<datestamp>1258465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Gravitational potential energy is another largely untapped resource. While some forms of this like dams and tidal generators have been developed, there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravity.</i><br>Say what?<br>Dams actually harvest solar energy (solar energy causes water to evaporate and go up).<br>Tidal energy is actually kinetic energy; it is due to earth's rotation (depletion of this energy causes tidal locking).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gravitational potential energy is another largely untapped resource .
While some forms of this like dams and tidal generators have been developed , there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravity.Say what ? Dams actually harvest solar energy ( solar energy causes water to evaporate and go up ) .Tidal energy is actually kinetic energy ; it is due to earth 's rotation ( depletion of this energy causes tidal locking ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gravitational potential energy is another largely untapped resource.
While some forms of this like dams and tidal generators have been developed, there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravity.Say what?Dams actually harvest solar energy (solar energy causes water to evaporate and go up).Tidal energy is actually kinetic energy; it is due to earth's rotation (depletion of this energy causes tidal locking).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129868</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't need government to fund this. When Uranium supplies run low, the cost of uranium will rise. As the cost of uranium rises, breeder reactors and alternative research becomes more attractive. Eventually, the cost of changing will be cheaper than the cost of buying Uranium, in which case, the market will adapt.<br> <br> That's the joy of capitalism. It works perfectly. Interfere with it though, and it's going to bite you back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need government to fund this .
When Uranium supplies run low , the cost of uranium will rise .
As the cost of uranium rises , breeder reactors and alternative research becomes more attractive .
Eventually , the cost of changing will be cheaper than the cost of buying Uranium , in which case , the market will adapt .
That 's the joy of capitalism .
It works perfectly .
Interfere with it though , and it 's going to bite you back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need government to fund this.
When Uranium supplies run low, the cost of uranium will rise.
As the cost of uranium rises, breeder reactors and alternative research becomes more attractive.
Eventually, the cost of changing will be cheaper than the cost of buying Uranium, in which case, the market will adapt.
That's the joy of capitalism.
It works perfectly.
Interfere with it though, and it's going to bite you back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130252</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Again</author>
	<datestamp>1258479240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Solar power IS nuclear power, we've just offshored the actual reactor.  Some loss of energy occurs during transport, though.</p><p>If we run out of Sun, running my hairdryer is going to get really low on my list of priorities, really fast.</p></div><p>Wait... I thought Oracle was fixing that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar power IS nuclear power , we 've just offshored the actual reactor .
Some loss of energy occurs during transport , though.If we run out of Sun , running my hairdryer is going to get really low on my list of priorities , really fast.Wait... I thought Oracle was fixing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar power IS nuclear power, we've just offshored the actual reactor.
Some loss of energy occurs during transport, though.If we run out of Sun, running my hairdryer is going to get really low on my list of priorities, really fast.Wait... I thought Oracle was fixing that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132146</id>
	<title>Illuminati</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258486620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about Anti-Matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Anti-Matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Anti-Matter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129274</id>
	<title>thorium</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1258475340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>arent the Indians using that now and its more plentiful</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>arent the Indians using that now and its more plentiful</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arent the Indians using that now and its more plentiful</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130102</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what your saying is the Amish are really \_ahead\_ of their time; rather than behind. I mean, they live in a world that minimizes the impact of most of what we're discussing, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what your saying is the Amish are really \ _ahead \ _ of their time ; rather than behind .
I mean , they live in a world that minimizes the impact of most of what we 're discussing , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what your saying is the Amish are really \_ahead\_ of their time; rather than behind.
I mean, they live in a world that minimizes the impact of most of what we're discussing, no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133624</id>
	<title>SI Units</title>
	<author>cnf</author>
	<datestamp>1258448400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI</a> [wikipedia.org] SI units, shall we? 40 Gigagrams of uranium.</p><p>PS: I couldn&rsquo;t figure out how to create proper links, and I am too tired to keep on looking...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets use http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI [ wikipedia.org ] SI units , shall we ?
40 Gigagrams of uranium.PS : I couldn    t figure out how to create proper links , and I am too tired to keep on looking.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI [wikipedia.org] SI units, shall we?
40 Gigagrams of uranium.PS: I couldn’t figure out how to create proper links, and I am too tired to keep on looking...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129444</id>
	<title>Re:Water on moon, why not uranium?</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1258475880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, those 20 x 5 litre jugs are going to last the human race forever !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , those 20 x 5 litre jugs are going to last the human race forever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, those 20 x 5 litre jugs are going to last the human race forever !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129872</id>
	<title>This is not news, please move along</title>
	<author>mythandros</author>
	<datestamp>1258477500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The companies that supply American power (fossil fuels and nuclear) will not simply give up, throw in the towel, and retire to the beach when it becomes impractical to "get more fuel".  They'll simply find another way to produce energy from renewable resources and sell it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The companies that supply American power ( fossil fuels and nuclear ) will not simply give up , throw in the towel , and retire to the beach when it becomes impractical to " get more fuel " .
They 'll simply find another way to produce energy from renewable resources and sell it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The companies that supply American power (fossil fuels and nuclear) will not simply give up, throw in the towel, and retire to the beach when it becomes impractical to "get more fuel".
They'll simply find another way to produce energy from renewable resources and sell it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130422</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258480020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All power except nuclear power is solar power. The sun powers the wind, powers hydroelectric vial rainfall, is used by flora (trees in fireplaces), even long dead ones (oil, coal).</p><p>But today's nuke plants are fission reactors, the sun is a fusion reactor. And indeed it will run out of fuel, but it's most likely that the earth will run out of people before it runs out of sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All power except nuclear power is solar power .
The sun powers the wind , powers hydroelectric vial rainfall , is used by flora ( trees in fireplaces ) , even long dead ones ( oil , coal ) .But today 's nuke plants are fission reactors , the sun is a fusion reactor .
And indeed it will run out of fuel , but it 's most likely that the earth will run out of people before it runs out of sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All power except nuclear power is solar power.
The sun powers the wind, powers hydroelectric vial rainfall, is used by flora (trees in fireplaces), even long dead ones (oil, coal).But today's nuke plants are fission reactors, the sun is a fusion reactor.
And indeed it will run out of fuel, but it's most likely that the earth will run out of people before it runs out of sun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129728</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1258476960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to silence the "citation please" trolls who can't use google:</p><p><a href="http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">Energy from Thorium</a> [blogspot.com]<br><a href="http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">Nuclear Green</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>Disclaimer: the second link goes to my uncle's blog.  My grandfather worked on the original liquid fluoride thorium reactor at ORNL, and my uncle has advocated the technology for quite some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to silence the " citation please " trolls who ca n't use google : Energy from Thorium [ blogspot.com ] Nuclear Green [ blogspot.com ] Disclaimer : the second link goes to my uncle 's blog .
My grandfather worked on the original liquid fluoride thorium reactor at ORNL , and my uncle has advocated the technology for quite some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to silence the "citation please" trolls who can't use google:Energy from Thorium [blogspot.com]Nuclear Green [blogspot.com]Disclaimer: the second link goes to my uncle's blog.
My grandfather worked on the original liquid fluoride thorium reactor at ORNL, and my uncle has advocated the technology for quite some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133568</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1258491420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disarm "israel" and get yourself lotsa good stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disarm " israel " and get yourself lotsa good stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disarm "israel" and get yourself lotsa good stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133474</id>
	<title>GASP!</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1258491060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just in!</p><p>Non-renewable resources are in limited supply!</p><p>News at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just in ! Non-renewable resources are in limited supply ! News at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just in!Non-renewable resources are in limited supply!News at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130236</id>
	<title>Statistics Don't Lie...</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1258479180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But if you don't like Dr. Dittmar's numbers it's not hard to find <a href="http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html" title="www.nea.fr">another estimate</a> [www.nea.fr] which state's there's at least a 100 year supply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if you do n't like Dr. Dittmar 's numbers it 's not hard to find another estimate [ www.nea.fr ] which state 's there 's at least a 100 year supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if you don't like Dr. Dittmar's numbers it's not hard to find another estimate [www.nea.fr] which state's there's at least a 100 year supply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one who's starting to think that as soon as we put all of our eggs in the solar energy basket, somebody will come along and say that we're almost out of sun?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who 's starting to think that as soon as we put all of our eggs in the solar energy basket , somebody will come along and say that we 're almost out of sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who's starting to think that as soon as we put all of our eggs in the solar energy basket, somebody will come along and say that we're almost out of sun?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30134954</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1258452780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fixed resource base is a bit of a fallacy, but people like to commit it.  Over the past 100,000 years, we have always been coming up with "new" resources, usually quite different from the "old" resources.  If not, we would be extinct.  This is kind of an existential counter-argument, as well as emperical.  It is true at at any given tech level, resources are finite.  And it is also true that the sun is a finite resource at current and immediately foreseeable tech levels.</p><p>troll on/<br>What is it with greenies and such.  The above argument is not particularly sophisticated and I stole some of it from previous posts from others above.  So why the endless claptrap about in effect god-given finite resources?  I think,fundamentally, they do not distinguish between man and beast.  Well, these days a lot scientists do not either.  Incidentally, I consider myself a bit of an environmentalist.  I would like to see some big environmental projects.  For instance, biology did not finish its job on earth.  I would like to see the Sahara irrigated and converted into something useful for man.  I think terraforming mars is a fine idea.  But I suspect these ideas would make a greenie howl.</p><p>We need to have a new mental disease classification just for greenies.  They would easily fit under the usual commitment statues.  Maybe we could let them leave the hospital on a day pass and go to a park.  The rest of the time, we could immerse them in Renaissance art.<br>troll off/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fixed resource base is a bit of a fallacy , but people like to commit it .
Over the past 100,000 years , we have always been coming up with " new " resources , usually quite different from the " old " resources .
If not , we would be extinct .
This is kind of an existential counter-argument , as well as emperical .
It is true at at any given tech level , resources are finite .
And it is also true that the sun is a finite resource at current and immediately foreseeable tech levels.troll on/What is it with greenies and such .
The above argument is not particularly sophisticated and I stole some of it from previous posts from others above .
So why the endless claptrap about in effect god-given finite resources ?
I think,fundamentally , they do not distinguish between man and beast .
Well , these days a lot scientists do not either .
Incidentally , I consider myself a bit of an environmentalist .
I would like to see some big environmental projects .
For instance , biology did not finish its job on earth .
I would like to see the Sahara irrigated and converted into something useful for man .
I think terraforming mars is a fine idea .
But I suspect these ideas would make a greenie howl.We need to have a new mental disease classification just for greenies .
They would easily fit under the usual commitment statues .
Maybe we could let them leave the hospital on a day pass and go to a park .
The rest of the time , we could immerse them in Renaissance art.troll off/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fixed resource base is a bit of a fallacy, but people like to commit it.
Over the past 100,000 years, we have always been coming up with "new" resources, usually quite different from the "old" resources.
If not, we would be extinct.
This is kind of an existential counter-argument, as well as emperical.
It is true at at any given tech level, resources are finite.
And it is also true that the sun is a finite resource at current and immediately foreseeable tech levels.troll on/What is it with greenies and such.
The above argument is not particularly sophisticated and I stole some of it from previous posts from others above.
So why the endless claptrap about in effect god-given finite resources?
I think,fundamentally, they do not distinguish between man and beast.
Well, these days a lot scientists do not either.
Incidentally, I consider myself a bit of an environmentalist.
I would like to see some big environmental projects.
For instance, biology did not finish its job on earth.
I would like to see the Sahara irrigated and converted into something useful for man.
I think terraforming mars is a fine idea.
But I suspect these ideas would make a greenie howl.We need to have a new mental disease classification just for greenies.
They would easily fit under the usual commitment statues.
Maybe we could let them leave the hospital on a day pass and go to a park.
The rest of the time, we could immerse them in Renaissance art.troll off/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129896</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1258477620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1CYg0vIygE" title="youtube.com">This</a> [youtube.com] hairdryer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This [ youtube.com ] hairdryer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This [youtube.com] hairdryer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129916</id>
	<title>Re:Water on moon, why not uranium?</title>
	<author>Hey Apples</author>
	<datestamp>1258477680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The moon is the answer for all our future resource-problems..</p></div><p>Why stop at the moon?  I'm sure we could pull all of our resource needs out of Uranus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moon is the answer for all our future resource-problems..Why stop at the moon ?
I 'm sure we could pull all of our resource needs out of Uranus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moon is the answer for all our future resource-problems..Why stop at the moon?
I'm sure we could pull all of our resource needs out of Uranus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129960</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>right on, brother! (but your title sounds stupid. should be The folly of non-renewable energy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>right on , brother !
( but your title sounds stupid .
should be The folly of non-renewable energy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>right on, brother!
(but your title sounds stupid.
should be The folly of non-renewable energy)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129782</id>
	<title>swords into plowshares</title>
	<author>wherrera</author>
	<datestamp>1258477140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use the weapons for electricity, of course</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use the weapons for electricity , of course</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use the weapons for electricity, of course</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129998</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1258478160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Peak Oil was really just the beginning. If nuclear energy were to take off, we would be out of uranium before the first year was over.</p></div></blockquote><p>

From <a href="http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html" title="stanford.edu">here</a> [stanford.edu]:</p><blockquote><div><p>Here are the basic facts.
<br> <br>
In 1983, uranium cost $40 per pound. The known uranium reserves at that price would suffice for light water reactors for a few tens of years. Since then more rich uranium deposits have been discovered including a very big one in Canada. At $40 per pound, uranium contributes about 0.2 cents per kwh to the cost of electricity. (Electricity retails between 5 cents and 10 cents per kwh in the U.S.)
<br> <br>
Breeder reactors use uranium more than 100 times as efficiently as the current light water reactors. Hence much more expensive uranium can be used. At $1,000 per pound, uranium would contribute only 0.03 cents per kwh, i.e. less than one percent of the cost of electricity. At that price, the fuel cost would correspond to gasoline priced at half a cent per gallon.
<br> <br>
How much uranium is available at $1,000 per pound?
<br> <br>
There is plenty in the Conway granites of New England and in shales in Tennessee, but Cohen decided to concentrate on uranium extracted from seawater - presumably in order to keep the calculations simple and certain. Cohen (see the references in his article) considers it certain that uranium can be extracted from seawater at less than $1000 per pound and considers $200-400 per pound the best estimate.
<br> <br>
In terms of fuel cost per million BTU, he gives (uranium at $400 per pound 1.1 cents , coal $1.25, OPEC oil $5.70, natural gas $3-4.)
<br> <br>
How much uranium is there in seawater?
<br> <br>
Seawater contains 3.3x10^(-9) (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium, so the 1.4x10^18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10^9 tonne of uranium. All the world's electricity usage, 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years.
<br> <br>
However, rivers bring more uranium into the sea all the time, in fact 3.2x10^4 tonne per year.
<br> <br>
Cohen calculates that we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater, which would supply 25 times the world's present electricity usage and twice the world's present total energy consumption. He argues that given the geological cycles of erosion, subduction and uplift, the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year. The crust contains 6.5x10^13 tonne of uranium.
<br> <br>
He comments that lasting 5 billion years, i.e. longer than the sun will support life on earth, should cause uranium to be considered a renewable resource.
<br> <br>
Here's a Japanese site discussing extracting uranium from seawater.
<br> <br>
Comments:
<br> <br>
Cohen neglects decay of the uranium. Since uranium has a half-life of 4.46 billion years, about half will have decayed by his postulated 5 billion years.
<br> <br>
He didn't mention thorium, also usable in breeders. There is 4 times as much in the earth's crust as there is uranium. There's less thorium in seawater than there is uranium.
<br> <br>
He did mention fusion, but remarks that it hasn't been developed yet. He has certainly provided us plenty of time to develop it.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peak Oil was really just the beginning .
If nuclear energy were to take off , we would be out of uranium before the first year was over .
From here [ stanford.edu ] : Here are the basic facts .
In 1983 , uranium cost $ 40 per pound .
The known uranium reserves at that price would suffice for light water reactors for a few tens of years .
Since then more rich uranium deposits have been discovered including a very big one in Canada .
At $ 40 per pound , uranium contributes about 0.2 cents per kwh to the cost of electricity .
( Electricity retails between 5 cents and 10 cents per kwh in the U.S. ) Breeder reactors use uranium more than 100 times as efficiently as the current light water reactors .
Hence much more expensive uranium can be used .
At $ 1,000 per pound , uranium would contribute only 0.03 cents per kwh , i.e .
less than one percent of the cost of electricity .
At that price , the fuel cost would correspond to gasoline priced at half a cent per gallon .
How much uranium is available at $ 1,000 per pound ?
There is plenty in the Conway granites of New England and in shales in Tennessee , but Cohen decided to concentrate on uranium extracted from seawater - presumably in order to keep the calculations simple and certain .
Cohen ( see the references in his article ) considers it certain that uranium can be extracted from seawater at less than $ 1000 per pound and considers $ 200-400 per pound the best estimate .
In terms of fuel cost per million BTU , he gives ( uranium at $ 400 per pound 1.1 cents , coal $ 1.25 , OPEC oil $ 5.70 , natural gas $ 3-4 .
) How much uranium is there in seawater ?
Seawater contains 3.3x10 ^ ( -9 ) ( 3.3 parts per billion ) of uranium , so the 1.4x10 ^ 18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10 ^ 9 tonne of uranium .
All the world 's electricity usage , 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years .
However , rivers bring more uranium into the sea all the time , in fact 3.2x10 ^ 4 tonne per year .
Cohen calculates that we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater , which would supply 25 times the world 's present electricity usage and twice the world 's present total energy consumption .
He argues that given the geological cycles of erosion , subduction and uplift , the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year .
The crust contains 6.5x10 ^ 13 tonne of uranium .
He comments that lasting 5 billion years , i.e .
longer than the sun will support life on earth , should cause uranium to be considered a renewable resource .
Here 's a Japanese site discussing extracting uranium from seawater .
Comments : Cohen neglects decay of the uranium .
Since uranium has a half-life of 4.46 billion years , about half will have decayed by his postulated 5 billion years .
He did n't mention thorium , also usable in breeders .
There is 4 times as much in the earth 's crust as there is uranium .
There 's less thorium in seawater than there is uranium .
He did mention fusion , but remarks that it has n't been developed yet .
He has certainly provided us plenty of time to develop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peak Oil was really just the beginning.
If nuclear energy were to take off, we would be out of uranium before the first year was over.
From here [stanford.edu]:Here are the basic facts.
In 1983, uranium cost $40 per pound.
The known uranium reserves at that price would suffice for light water reactors for a few tens of years.
Since then more rich uranium deposits have been discovered including a very big one in Canada.
At $40 per pound, uranium contributes about 0.2 cents per kwh to the cost of electricity.
(Electricity retails between 5 cents and 10 cents per kwh in the U.S.)
 
Breeder reactors use uranium more than 100 times as efficiently as the current light water reactors.
Hence much more expensive uranium can be used.
At $1,000 per pound, uranium would contribute only 0.03 cents per kwh, i.e.
less than one percent of the cost of electricity.
At that price, the fuel cost would correspond to gasoline priced at half a cent per gallon.
How much uranium is available at $1,000 per pound?
There is plenty in the Conway granites of New England and in shales in Tennessee, but Cohen decided to concentrate on uranium extracted from seawater - presumably in order to keep the calculations simple and certain.
Cohen (see the references in his article) considers it certain that uranium can be extracted from seawater at less than $1000 per pound and considers $200-400 per pound the best estimate.
In terms of fuel cost per million BTU, he gives (uranium at $400 per pound 1.1 cents , coal $1.25, OPEC oil $5.70, natural gas $3-4.
)
 
How much uranium is there in seawater?
Seawater contains 3.3x10^(-9) (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium, so the 1.4x10^18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10^9 tonne of uranium.
All the world's electricity usage, 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years.
However, rivers bring more uranium into the sea all the time, in fact 3.2x10^4 tonne per year.
Cohen calculates that we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater, which would supply 25 times the world's present electricity usage and twice the world's present total energy consumption.
He argues that given the geological cycles of erosion, subduction and uplift, the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year.
The crust contains 6.5x10^13 tonne of uranium.
He comments that lasting 5 billion years, i.e.
longer than the sun will support life on earth, should cause uranium to be considered a renewable resource.
Here's a Japanese site discussing extracting uranium from seawater.
Comments:
 
Cohen neglects decay of the uranium.
Since uranium has a half-life of 4.46 billion years, about half will have decayed by his postulated 5 billion years.
He didn't mention thorium, also usable in breeders.
There is 4 times as much in the earth's crust as there is uranium.
There's less thorium in seawater than there is uranium.
He did mention fusion, but remarks that it hasn't been developed yet.
He has certainly provided us plenty of time to develop it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129316</id>
	<title>Re:Alternative materials?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any new reactor built should most definitely be a breeder reactor.  Anyone who builds a Uranium based nuclear reactor this day and age is a fool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any new reactor built should most definitely be a breeder reactor .
Anyone who builds a Uranium based nuclear reactor this day and age is a fool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any new reactor built should most definitely be a breeder reactor.
Anyone who builds a Uranium based nuclear reactor this day and age is a fool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30134220</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258450380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope you're right!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you 're right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you're right!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132204</id>
	<title>virginia deposit good for two months</title>
	<author>jfb2252</author>
	<datestamp>1258486860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virginia land hides huge uranium deposit</p><p>First URL is UPI story.  Second is abstract of a scholarly paper from Virginia Tech.</p><p><a href="http://www.upi.com/Top\_News/2008/01/02/Virginia-land-hides-huge-uranium-deposit/UPI-69751199296526/" title="upi.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.upi.com/Top\_News/2008/01/02/Virginia-land-hides-huge-uranium-deposit/UPI-69751199296526/</a> [upi.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.geoinformatics.vt.edu/server/docs/jjerden/NA99l.htm" title="vt.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.geoinformatics.vt.edu/server/docs/jjerden/NA99l.htm</a> [vt.edu]</p><p>Estimated content 55,000 tons uranium per UPI.  The second suggests ~40,000 tonnes of uranium, ~40 million tonnes of 0.1\% ore.  If the 0.1\% ore is itself the usual 0.7\% U235, then ~10,000 tonnes of 3\% enriched would net from the ore body.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virginia land hides huge uranium depositFirst URL is UPI story .
Second is abstract of a scholarly paper from Virginia Tech.http : //www.upi.com/Top \ _News/2008/01/02/Virginia-land-hides-huge-uranium-deposit/UPI-69751199296526/ [ upi.com ] http : //www.geoinformatics.vt.edu/server/docs/jjerden/NA99l.htm [ vt.edu ] Estimated content 55,000 tons uranium per UPI .
The second suggests ~ 40,000 tonnes of uranium , ~ 40 million tonnes of 0.1 \ % ore. If the 0.1 \ % ore is itself the usual 0.7 \ % U235 , then ~ 10,000 tonnes of 3 \ % enriched would net from the ore body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virginia land hides huge uranium depositFirst URL is UPI story.
Second is abstract of a scholarly paper from Virginia Tech.http://www.upi.com/Top\_News/2008/01/02/Virginia-land-hides-huge-uranium-deposit/UPI-69751199296526/ [upi.com]http://www.geoinformatics.vt.edu/server/docs/jjerden/NA99l.htm [vt.edu]Estimated content 55,000 tons uranium per UPI.
The second suggests ~40,000 tonnes of uranium, ~40 million tonnes of 0.1\% ore.  If the 0.1\% ore is itself the usual 0.7\% U235, then ~10,000 tonnes of 3\% enriched would net from the ore body.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132818</id>
	<title>Fact checking.</title>
	<author>volpe</author>
	<datestamp>1258488840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Uranium mines provide us with 40,000 tons of uranium each year. Sounds like that ought to be enough for anyone,</p></div></blockquote><p>No, you're thinking of 655,360 tons. *That* ought to be enough for anyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uranium mines provide us with 40,000 tons of uranium each year .
Sounds like that ought to be enough for anyone,No , you 're thinking of 655,360 tons .
* That * ought to be enough for anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uranium mines provide us with 40,000 tons of uranium each year.
Sounds like that ought to be enough for anyone,No, you're thinking of 655,360 tons.
*That* ought to be enough for anyone.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130308</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1258479480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The usage of the sun will be possible for the next 2 billion years. Until then we can use it to power our technology. But nuclear energy will run out of fuel very soon and then we can care for the wast for millions of years. Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The usage of the sun will be possible for the next 2 billion years .
Until then we can use it to power our technology .
But nuclear energy will run out of fuel very soon and then we can care for the wast for millions of years .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The usage of the sun will be possible for the next 2 billion years.
Until then we can use it to power our technology.
But nuclear energy will run out of fuel very soon and then we can care for the wast for millions of years.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129508</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Fusion...</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1258476120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doc Smith thought of this in the Skylark Series.  The hero discovers total liberation of mass-energy from matter, and assumes the rational thing is to sell the energy at prices so low it's practically free -- he'll still get filthy rich. The bad guys realize that if they get a *monopoly* on the process, they can sell the energy at just enough below current market prices to drive competition out of business.</p><p>If ultra-cheap fusion becomes technically feasible, the race will be to get working plants on line so you can knock out the competition. Profits, unless regulated by law, will inevitably ensue.</p><p>In any case, there is no such thing as unlimited energy.  If energy were 1000x lower in price than it is today, we'd still be facing some form of an energy crisis, because we'd adjust our economy to use energy on vastly larger scales.   The place to be in that scenario is distribution. The people who own the power distribution lines will do very well indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doc Smith thought of this in the Skylark Series .
The hero discovers total liberation of mass-energy from matter , and assumes the rational thing is to sell the energy at prices so low it 's practically free -- he 'll still get filthy rich .
The bad guys realize that if they get a * monopoly * on the process , they can sell the energy at just enough below current market prices to drive competition out of business.If ultra-cheap fusion becomes technically feasible , the race will be to get working plants on line so you can knock out the competition .
Profits , unless regulated by law , will inevitably ensue.In any case , there is no such thing as unlimited energy .
If energy were 1000x lower in price than it is today , we 'd still be facing some form of an energy crisis , because we 'd adjust our economy to use energy on vastly larger scales .
The place to be in that scenario is distribution .
The people who own the power distribution lines will do very well indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doc Smith thought of this in the Skylark Series.
The hero discovers total liberation of mass-energy from matter, and assumes the rational thing is to sell the energy at prices so low it's practically free -- he'll still get filthy rich.
The bad guys realize that if they get a *monopoly* on the process, they can sell the energy at just enough below current market prices to drive competition out of business.If ultra-cheap fusion becomes technically feasible, the race will be to get working plants on line so you can knock out the competition.
Profits, unless regulated by law, will inevitably ensue.In any case, there is no such thing as unlimited energy.
If energy were 1000x lower in price than it is today, we'd still be facing some form of an energy crisis, because we'd adjust our economy to use energy on vastly larger scales.
The place to be in that scenario is distribution.
The people who own the power distribution lines will do very well indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130076</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, while we might not run out of sun, we could definitely run out the materials used to capture solar energy.  That is, the raw materials used to manufacture solar energy devices.  It's already a problem with our current solar cell technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , while we might not run out of sun , we could definitely run out the materials used to capture solar energy .
That is , the raw materials used to manufacture solar energy devices .
It 's already a problem with our current solar cell technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, while we might not run out of sun, we could definitely run out the materials used to capture solar energy.
That is, the raw materials used to manufacture solar energy devices.
It's already a problem with our current solar cell technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30137554</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258463340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I probably shouldn't feed this troll, but:<br>I've been on PV panels for over 3 decades.  Only about 5\% ever failed, waiting for them to be cheaper would have been stupid.</p><p>Ever seen a real panel and figured out what it's made of?<br>Silica -- for the silicon -- no problem, no shortage.  Silica for the glass too.<br>Aluminum (a tiny amount by weight) for the frame.<br>A teeny amount of dopants, depending on the tech, nitrogen, phosphorous and so on.<br>A teeny amount of wire (copper, some kind of tape for cell interconnect in the panel.<br>A teeny amount of plastic - less than a half pound.</p><p>I am using 175 watt ea BP solar panels, mostly, along with some others I got before they started making them that large.  The couple that have failed were replaced under warranty, no problem, they knew they'd made a bad batch once.</p><p>In fact the price of currently available panels is nearly the same as that for a quality window at the hardware store, the same size -- that speaks to the costs of the inputs.</p><p>The main "rare" on is aluminum.  Ever discovered the major component of the earths crust, after silicon and oxygen?</p><p>The utter bunk that they are energy negative is, well, utter bunk.  I call BS.<br>I had two helpers here today, welding, sawing, running the lathe and sanders all day long for our fun fusor project pieces.</p><p>We made the all energy in realtime with the PV panels on my roof -- and we didn't have full sun.  We could probably have made another panel with that much energy -- you can weld continuously off my array with only the usual series inductor for arc stabilization.  That'll refine a lot of silicon.  And these panels are already 10 yrs old, so they could have made many more than just their own replacements.</p><p>You had to make the roof out of something anyway, mine happens to be wood and shingles (coal tar or similar) and took more hydrocarbons to make than the panels did.  Yeah, the wood was pure bio, but will go back to CO2 someday when it rots.</p><p>So,.....previous post is full of it.  I am living proof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I probably should n't feed this troll , but : I 've been on PV panels for over 3 decades .
Only about 5 \ % ever failed , waiting for them to be cheaper would have been stupid.Ever seen a real panel and figured out what it 's made of ? Silica -- for the silicon -- no problem , no shortage .
Silica for the glass too.Aluminum ( a tiny amount by weight ) for the frame.A teeny amount of dopants , depending on the tech , nitrogen , phosphorous and so on.A teeny amount of wire ( copper , some kind of tape for cell interconnect in the panel.A teeny amount of plastic - less than a half pound.I am using 175 watt ea BP solar panels , mostly , along with some others I got before they started making them that large .
The couple that have failed were replaced under warranty , no problem , they knew they 'd made a bad batch once.In fact the price of currently available panels is nearly the same as that for a quality window at the hardware store , the same size -- that speaks to the costs of the inputs.The main " rare " on is aluminum .
Ever discovered the major component of the earths crust , after silicon and oxygen ? The utter bunk that they are energy negative is , well , utter bunk .
I call BS.I had two helpers here today , welding , sawing , running the lathe and sanders all day long for our fun fusor project pieces.We made the all energy in realtime with the PV panels on my roof -- and we did n't have full sun .
We could probably have made another panel with that much energy -- you can weld continuously off my array with only the usual series inductor for arc stabilization .
That 'll refine a lot of silicon .
And these panels are already 10 yrs old , so they could have made many more than just their own replacements.You had to make the roof out of something anyway , mine happens to be wood and shingles ( coal tar or similar ) and took more hydrocarbons to make than the panels did .
Yeah , the wood was pure bio , but will go back to CO2 someday when it rots.So,.....previous post is full of it .
I am living proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I probably shouldn't feed this troll, but:I've been on PV panels for over 3 decades.
Only about 5\% ever failed, waiting for them to be cheaper would have been stupid.Ever seen a real panel and figured out what it's made of?Silica -- for the silicon -- no problem, no shortage.
Silica for the glass too.Aluminum (a tiny amount by weight) for the frame.A teeny amount of dopants, depending on the tech, nitrogen, phosphorous and so on.A teeny amount of wire (copper, some kind of tape for cell interconnect in the panel.A teeny amount of plastic - less than a half pound.I am using 175 watt ea BP solar panels, mostly, along with some others I got before they started making them that large.
The couple that have failed were replaced under warranty, no problem, they knew they'd made a bad batch once.In fact the price of currently available panels is nearly the same as that for a quality window at the hardware store, the same size -- that speaks to the costs of the inputs.The main "rare" on is aluminum.
Ever discovered the major component of the earths crust, after silicon and oxygen?The utter bunk that they are energy negative is, well, utter bunk.
I call BS.I had two helpers here today, welding, sawing, running the lathe and sanders all day long for our fun fusor project pieces.We made the all energy in realtime with the PV panels on my roof -- and we didn't have full sun.
We could probably have made another panel with that much energy -- you can weld continuously off my array with only the usual series inductor for arc stabilization.
That'll refine a lot of silicon.
And these panels are already 10 yrs old, so they could have made many more than just their own replacements.You had to make the roof out of something anyway, mine happens to be wood and shingles (coal tar or similar) and took more hydrocarbons to make than the panels did.
Yeah, the wood was pure bio, but will go back to CO2 someday when it rots.So,.....previous post is full of it.
I am living proof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141568</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1257075720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are other ways to start the thorium cycle which is safer than uranium. We just have to finalize the technology behind it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other ways to start the thorium cycle which is safer than uranium .
We just have to finalize the technology behind it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other ways to start the thorium cycle which is safer than uranium.
We just have to finalize the technology behind it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130692</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>lrohrer</author>
	<datestamp>1258481280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a company that knows how to include thorium into existing power plants and they have contracts to experiment in Russia and India: Thorium Power.</p><p>Their technology couuld quickly be included in existing plants refueling cycles.</p><p>Oh bomb making from Thorium is tricky as U233  has less than a 2 year half life. It is very radioactive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a company that knows how to include thorium into existing power plants and they have contracts to experiment in Russia and India : Thorium Power.Their technology couuld quickly be included in existing plants refueling cycles.Oh bomb making from Thorium is tricky as U233 has less than a 2 year half life .
It is very radioactive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a company that knows how to include thorium into existing power plants and they have contracts to experiment in Russia and India: Thorium Power.Their technology couuld quickly be included in existing plants refueling cycles.Oh bomb making from Thorium is tricky as U233  has less than a 2 year half life.
It is very radioactive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131072</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258483080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is why there are only a handful truly renewable resources. Solar, for as long as we really need to care about, is going to be around forever.</i></p><p>And since the solar cells can be conjured into existence by wizards, you'll never run out of materials needed to make them!</p><p><i>We're so far behind the energy resource curve that it is only a matter of time before we end up in the dark.</i></p><p>I love fear-mongering. Give me another one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why there are only a handful truly renewable resources .
Solar , for as long as we really need to care about , is going to be around forever.And since the solar cells can be conjured into existence by wizards , you 'll never run out of materials needed to make them ! We 're so far behind the energy resource curve that it is only a matter of time before we end up in the dark.I love fear-mongering .
Give me another one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why there are only a handful truly renewable resources.
Solar, for as long as we really need to care about, is going to be around forever.And since the solar cells can be conjured into existence by wizards, you'll never run out of materials needed to make them!We're so far behind the energy resource curve that it is only a matter of time before we end up in the dark.I love fear-mongering.
Give me another one!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130162</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, since the main reason for building nuclear reactors historically has been bigger and better nukes...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/morpheo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , since the main reason for building nuclear reactors historically has been bigger and better nukes... /morpheo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, since the main reason for building nuclear reactors historically has been bigger and better nukes... /morpheo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130026</id>
	<title>Re:Zombie apocalypse</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1258478220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the real answer is to turn all humans into batteries. We'll hook them into this virtual reality machine, while sucking out all the energy they produce. Just don't let them get hold of the red or blue pills, or they'll start jumping across buildings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the real answer is to turn all humans into batteries .
We 'll hook them into this virtual reality machine , while sucking out all the energy they produce .
Just do n't let them get hold of the red or blue pills , or they 'll start jumping across buildings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the real answer is to turn all humans into batteries.
We'll hook them into this virtual reality machine, while sucking out all the energy they produce.
Just don't let them get hold of the red or blue pills, or they'll start jumping across buildings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30135262</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Firethorn</author>
	<datestamp>1258453800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I'd go for a 'type accreditation' - where you have a more or less cookie-cutter system that meets requirements, then not allow construction shut downs on the basis of vaguely worded letters sent by people completely ignorant of the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd go for a 'type accreditation ' - where you have a more or less cookie-cutter system that meets requirements , then not allow construction shut downs on the basis of vaguely worded letters sent by people completely ignorant of the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd go for a 'type accreditation' - where you have a more or less cookie-cutter system that meets requirements, then not allow construction shut downs on the basis of vaguely worded letters sent by people completely ignorant of the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130000</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article makes the fatal mistake of assuming Uranium will have to remain at it's current price.  Here in Utah, there are plenty of Uranium deposits that where abandoned in the 80's after the price of Uranium started going down ( http://www.321energy.com/editorials/roffey/roffey080806B.gif ).  If scarcity causes a boost in prices, all of these mines will become feasible again.  There is plenty of Uranium available, it is just a little harder to get to than we're use.  Due to the old nuclear stockpiles we've gotten too use to picking the stuff up off of the shelf.  If prices go up, we'll do what we use to do, open the older mines.</p><p>I won't pretend to know either, but I don't think this would result in a HUGE increase in the price of nuclear power because I doubt the cost of the Uranium is really the cost determining factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article makes the fatal mistake of assuming Uranium will have to remain at it 's current price .
Here in Utah , there are plenty of Uranium deposits that where abandoned in the 80 's after the price of Uranium started going down ( http : //www.321energy.com/editorials/roffey/roffey080806B.gif ) .
If scarcity causes a boost in prices , all of these mines will become feasible again .
There is plenty of Uranium available , it is just a little harder to get to than we 're use .
Due to the old nuclear stockpiles we 've gotten too use to picking the stuff up off of the shelf .
If prices go up , we 'll do what we use to do , open the older mines.I wo n't pretend to know either , but I do n't think this would result in a HUGE increase in the price of nuclear power because I doubt the cost of the Uranium is really the cost determining factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article makes the fatal mistake of assuming Uranium will have to remain at it's current price.
Here in Utah, there are plenty of Uranium deposits that where abandoned in the 80's after the price of Uranium started going down ( http://www.321energy.com/editorials/roffey/roffey080806B.gif ).
If scarcity causes a boost in prices, all of these mines will become feasible again.
There is plenty of Uranium available, it is just a little harder to get to than we're use.
Due to the old nuclear stockpiles we've gotten too use to picking the stuff up off of the shelf.
If prices go up, we'll do what we use to do, open the older mines.I won't pretend to know either, but I don't think this would result in a HUGE increase in the price of nuclear power because I doubt the cost of the Uranium is really the cost determining factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130566</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258480680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Back to coal and oil, are they?" -- Hober Mallow*, <i>Foundation</i> (Isaac Asimov)</p><p>* I think it was Mallow, I haven't read that series in a few years</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Back to coal and oil , are they ?
" -- Hober Mallow * , Foundation ( Isaac Asimov ) * I think it was Mallow , I have n't read that series in a few years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Back to coal and oil, are they?
" -- Hober Mallow*, Foundation (Isaac Asimov)* I think it was Mallow, I haven't read that series in a few years</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131240</id>
	<title>Re:Waxing Philosophical</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1258483800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone ever consider what life would be like without burning (ie, energy use for efficiency of existence)? Perhaps the native Americans had it right: we should be nomadic, moving with the herds and the climate, eating dropped fruit versus growing orchards, etc. Granted, you can't do that with the population (or the populace) we have now, but give it a few years: with no nuclear fuel, no gasoline or plastic/petroleum-based products, water shortages (never mind when everything east of California falls into the ocean), the population might thin out enough that we move back to living within nature instead of being this anomalous creature that tries to force nature to obey.</p></div><p>So many species will be hunted to extinction if humans go back to hunter-gatherer existence.  Population won't thin without forced castration, starvation, plague, or natural disaster.  Imagine what happens to the Chinese 1-child policy when the Chinese govt loses the tech it uses to keep such a disparate populace in check.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone ever consider what life would be like without burning ( ie , energy use for efficiency of existence ) ?
Perhaps the native Americans had it right : we should be nomadic , moving with the herds and the climate , eating dropped fruit versus growing orchards , etc .
Granted , you ca n't do that with the population ( or the populace ) we have now , but give it a few years : with no nuclear fuel , no gasoline or plastic/petroleum-based products , water shortages ( never mind when everything east of California falls into the ocean ) , the population might thin out enough that we move back to living within nature instead of being this anomalous creature that tries to force nature to obey.So many species will be hunted to extinction if humans go back to hunter-gatherer existence .
Population wo n't thin without forced castration , starvation , plague , or natural disaster .
Imagine what happens to the Chinese 1-child policy when the Chinese govt loses the tech it uses to keep such a disparate populace in check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone ever consider what life would be like without burning (ie, energy use for efficiency of existence)?
Perhaps the native Americans had it right: we should be nomadic, moving with the herds and the climate, eating dropped fruit versus growing orchards, etc.
Granted, you can't do that with the population (or the populace) we have now, but give it a few years: with no nuclear fuel, no gasoline or plastic/petroleum-based products, water shortages (never mind when everything east of California falls into the ocean), the population might thin out enough that we move back to living within nature instead of being this anomalous creature that tries to force nature to obey.So many species will be hunted to extinction if humans go back to hunter-gatherer existence.
Population won't thin without forced castration, starvation, plague, or natural disaster.
Imagine what happens to the Chinese 1-child policy when the Chinese govt loses the tech it uses to keep such a disparate populace in check.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30144452</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half life means the radioactive matter will have lost half of its radiation power by this time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not that half of it will have decayed.<br>The rest of the radioactivity will not then decrease on a linear manner but more on an asymptotic one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half life means the radioactive matter will have lost half of its radiation power by this time ... not that half of it will have decayed.The rest of the radioactivity will not then decrease on a linear manner but more on an asymptotic one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half life means the radioactive matter will have lost half of its radiation power by this time ... not that half of it will have decayed.The rest of the radioactivity will not then decrease on a linear manner but more on an asymptotic one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30148410</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257068940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And the panels have a finite (and not too lengthy) life span, meaning you not only need to mine, you need to keep mining just to run in place.</i></p><p>Solar panels have warranties of <a href="http://www.americanpv.com/c\_residential\_on\_faq.php" title="americanpv.com">20 or 25 years</a> [americanpv.com].  And at the end of their life they can be recycled and replaced with more efficient panels.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the panels have a finite ( and not too lengthy ) life span , meaning you not only need to mine , you need to keep mining just to run in place.Solar panels have warranties of 20 or 25 years [ americanpv.com ] .
And at the end of their life they can be recycled and replaced with more efficient panels .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the panels have a finite (and not too lengthy) life span, meaning you not only need to mine, you need to keep mining just to run in place.Solar panels have warranties of 20 or 25 years [americanpv.com].
And at the end of their life they can be recycled and replaced with more efficient panels.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130036</id>
	<title>First Time I'm Hearing This</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1258478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. That's the first time I've heard about an Uranium shortage.</p><p>Over where I live, fission plants are being touted as the answer to our energy needs. They're supposed to be clean, low-health risk (lower risk than coal plants, at least), and fuel is supposed to be plentiful. I thought the only thing the government wasn't telling us is that it's actually one of the more expensive sources of energy, but now you're saying that Uranium is actually in short supply?</p><p>Regardless, I think the answer to any energy shortage is, first of all, conservation (which we can easily do a lot more of!) and, secondly, renewable resources, including widely known ones such as wind and solar energy, but also less widely known ones such as biofuels (you do need something you can control the output of, after all, rather than having to depend on the weather).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
That 's the first time I 've heard about an Uranium shortage.Over where I live , fission plants are being touted as the answer to our energy needs .
They 're supposed to be clean , low-health risk ( lower risk than coal plants , at least ) , and fuel is supposed to be plentiful .
I thought the only thing the government was n't telling us is that it 's actually one of the more expensive sources of energy , but now you 're saying that Uranium is actually in short supply ? Regardless , I think the answer to any energy shortage is , first of all , conservation ( which we can easily do a lot more of !
) and , secondly , renewable resources , including widely known ones such as wind and solar energy , but also less widely known ones such as biofuels ( you do need something you can control the output of , after all , rather than having to depend on the weather ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
That's the first time I've heard about an Uranium shortage.Over where I live, fission plants are being touted as the answer to our energy needs.
They're supposed to be clean, low-health risk (lower risk than coal plants, at least), and fuel is supposed to be plentiful.
I thought the only thing the government wasn't telling us is that it's actually one of the more expensive sources of energy, but now you're saying that Uranium is actually in short supply?Regardless, I think the answer to any energy shortage is, first of all, conservation (which we can easily do a lot more of!
) and, secondly, renewable resources, including widely known ones such as wind and solar energy, but also less widely known ones such as biofuels (you do need something you can control the output of, after all, rather than having to depend on the weather).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131698</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1258485240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the panels have a finite (and not too lengthy) life span, meaning you not only need to mine, you need to <i>keep</i> mining just to run in place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the panels have a finite ( and not too lengthy ) life span , meaning you not only need to mine , you need to keep mining just to run in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the panels have a finite (and not too lengthy) life span, meaning you not only need to mine, you need to keep mining just to run in place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130110</id>
	<title>The real solution</title>
	<author>moronikos</author>
	<datestamp>1258478640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is to use dilithium crystals.  Someone, please call Capt. Scott.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is to use dilithium crystals .
Someone , please call Capt .
Scott .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is to use dilithium crystals.
Someone, please call Capt.
Scott.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129270</id>
	<title>Zombie apocalypse</title>
	<author>The Master Magician</author>
	<datestamp>1258475340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zombies don't require electricity, so that zombie apocalypse is the answer to all our problems!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zombies do n't require electricity , so that zombie apocalypse is the answer to all our problems !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zombies don't require electricity, so that zombie apocalypse is the answer to all our problems!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141086</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>senselesswaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257068460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Solar is very happy to be in deserts and on dry arid land that is of little alternative use. Solar farms are also relatively less harmful to the immediate environment - you will see a lot more wildlife in and around a solar farm than you see inside the typical coal fired power plant.

Nobody thinks we would use lead batteries for grid scale energy storage. More realistic low tech solutions are hydro - pump water up a mountain, thermal - store hot water or molten salt in underground caverns or compressed air in caverns. A high tech solution would be flow batteries which are cool but still small scale and early stage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar is very happy to be in deserts and on dry arid land that is of little alternative use .
Solar farms are also relatively less harmful to the immediate environment - you will see a lot more wildlife in and around a solar farm than you see inside the typical coal fired power plant .
Nobody thinks we would use lead batteries for grid scale energy storage .
More realistic low tech solutions are hydro - pump water up a mountain , thermal - store hot water or molten salt in underground caverns or compressed air in caverns .
A high tech solution would be flow batteries which are cool but still small scale and early stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar is very happy to be in deserts and on dry arid land that is of little alternative use.
Solar farms are also relatively less harmful to the immediate environment - you will see a lot more wildlife in and around a solar farm than you see inside the typical coal fired power plant.
Nobody thinks we would use lead batteries for grid scale energy storage.
More realistic low tech solutions are hydro - pump water up a mountain, thermal - store hot water or molten salt in underground caverns or compressed air in caverns.
A high tech solution would be flow batteries which are cool but still small scale and early stage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133306</id>
	<title>breeders</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1258490400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem is the lack of breeder reactors.  Without them, we're only using a few percent of the energy contained in Uranium.  It's a waste far worse than what we're doing with fossil fuels.</p><p>Why aren't we using breeder reactors?  Because the US declared a few decades back that they are a proliferation risk.   Why the US decided that isn't clear, since they really aren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is the lack of breeder reactors .
Without them , we 're only using a few percent of the energy contained in Uranium .
It 's a waste far worse than what we 're doing with fossil fuels.Why are n't we using breeder reactors ?
Because the US declared a few decades back that they are a proliferation risk .
Why the US decided that is n't clear , since they really are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is the lack of breeder reactors.
Without them, we're only using a few percent of the energy contained in Uranium.
It's a waste far worse than what we're doing with fossil fuels.Why aren't we using breeder reactors?
Because the US declared a few decades back that they are a proliferation risk.
Why the US decided that isn't clear, since they really aren't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130650</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258481040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cohen neglects decay of the uranium. Since uranium has a half-life of 4.46 billion years, about half will have decayed by his postulated 5 billion years.</p></div><p>I can't believe someone would counter a plan to provide energy for 5 billion years with "Nuh-uh! It's only good for 2.5 billion!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cohen neglects decay of the uranium .
Since uranium has a half-life of 4.46 billion years , about half will have decayed by his postulated 5 billion years.I ca n't believe someone would counter a plan to provide energy for 5 billion years with " Nuh-uh !
It 's only good for 2.5 billion !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cohen neglects decay of the uranium.
Since uranium has a half-life of 4.46 billion years, about half will have decayed by his postulated 5 billion years.I can't believe someone would counter a plan to provide energy for 5 billion years with "Nuh-uh!
It's only good for 2.5 billion!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131124</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1258483320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Peak Oil was really just the beginning. If nuclear energy were to take off, we would be out of uranium before the first year was over. This points to a deadly flaw in the use of natural resources as the basis for energy sources. If you have to mine it, drill it, or harvest it, you will always run the risk of running out of it.</p><p>Shit, you're right.  From now on, supernatural resources it is.  I'm heading to Home Depot after work today for my prayer-fueled power generator.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peak Oil was really just the beginning .
If nuclear energy were to take off , we would be out of uranium before the first year was over .
This points to a deadly flaw in the use of natural resources as the basis for energy sources .
If you have to mine it , drill it , or harvest it , you will always run the risk of running out of it.Shit , you 're right .
From now on , supernatural resources it is .
I 'm heading to Home Depot after work today for my prayer-fueled power generator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peak Oil was really just the beginning.
If nuclear energy were to take off, we would be out of uranium before the first year was over.
This points to a deadly flaw in the use of natural resources as the basis for energy sources.
If you have to mine it, drill it, or harvest it, you will always run the risk of running out of it.Shit, you're right.
From now on, supernatural resources it is.
I'm heading to Home Depot after work today for my prayer-fueled power generator.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129816</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1258477320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much none of that is correct, unfortunately. Thorium is more abundant than uranium, but not by such a massive factor. There's no fissile isotope of thorium, so we'd have to start them on uranium. Current reactors will not breed in the thorium cycle, and it's questionable to what extend this is practical. The waste lasts for hundreds of years, reprocessing and fabrication for thorium fuel is not developed and U-233 (which the fissile isotope in the thorium cycle) certainly could be used to make a nuclear weapon.</p><p>Fast breeders on the U-Pu cycle are closer to practicality.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality.'"</p></div><p>The people working on ITER clearly don't agree.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much none of that is correct , unfortunately .
Thorium is more abundant than uranium , but not by such a massive factor .
There 's no fissile isotope of thorium , so we 'd have to start them on uranium .
Current reactors will not breed in the thorium cycle , and it 's questionable to what extend this is practical .
The waste lasts for hundreds of years , reprocessing and fabrication for thorium fuel is not developed and U-233 ( which the fissile isotope in the thorium cycle ) certainly could be used to make a nuclear weapon.Fast breeders on the U-Pu cycle are closer to practicality .
" for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality .
' " The people working on ITER clearly do n't agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much none of that is correct, unfortunately.
Thorium is more abundant than uranium, but not by such a massive factor.
There's no fissile isotope of thorium, so we'd have to start them on uranium.
Current reactors will not breed in the thorium cycle, and it's questionable to what extend this is practical.
The waste lasts for hundreds of years, reprocessing and fabrication for thorium fuel is not developed and U-233 (which the fissile isotope in the thorium cycle) certainly could be used to make a nuclear weapon.Fast breeders on the U-Pu cycle are closer to practicality.
"for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality.
'"The people working on ITER clearly don't agree.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130332</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1258479540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to go out with wet hair in winter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to go out with wet hair in winter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to go out with wet hair in winter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130752</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1258481640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even with solar being taken seriously, you'd be using up a lot of land</p></div><p>Not really, to power the world with solar you would need something just the size of Germany and we have more then enough deserts where you could fit that in quite easily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with solar being taken seriously , you 'd be using up a lot of landNot really , to power the world with solar you would need something just the size of Germany and we have more then enough deserts where you could fit that in quite easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with solar being taken seriously, you'd be using up a lot of landNot really, to power the world with solar you would need something just the size of Germany and we have more then enough deserts where you could fit that in quite easily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130292</id>
	<title>Space?</title>
	<author>jlebrech</author>
	<datestamp>1258479420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can't harvest any oil from space, but I'm sure we could with Uranium?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't harvest any oil from space , but I 'm sure we could with Uranium ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't harvest any oil from space, but I'm sure we could with Uranium?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131148</id>
	<title>Oh Good Grief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258483440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NEA Redbook for 2004:</p><p>PROVEN Uranium reserves worldwide: about 4 million tons (current consumption rate of U worldwide is 60 000 tons per year =&gt; proven reserves at 80-130 $/kgU these proven reserves are enough for 65 years of use at the current consumption rate)</p><p>ESTIMATED Uranium reserves worldwide: about 16 million tons (current consumption rate of U worldwide is 60 000 tons per year =&gt; proven reserves at 80-130 $/kgU these proven reserves are enough for 265 years of use at the current consumption rate)</p><p>NON-CONVENTIONAL Uranium reserves worldwide (i.e. uranium contained in phosphates): an ADDITIONAL 22 million tons (representing an additional 365 years of use)</p><p>Uranium dissolved in sea water: about 4 billion tons (but more difficult and costly to retrieve).  The Japanese have one workable technique already, and they are researching another.</p><p>When we get generation 4 reactors going, it won't be just the U235 we can use (0.72\%) but U238 (the other 99\%), so multiply the duration by 100.  Then there is Thorium, which is three times as abundant in the crust, we haven't had enough use for it before to properly prospect for it.  India is seriously working on utilizing Thorium, it knows it has significant reserves, and has had trouble importing Uranium in the past.</p><p>And if Dr. Dittmat want to place bets against fusion, I'll put some money up. Polywell's chances are good, and Dense Plasma Focus looks like a fair bet, and there are others.  No magnetic confinement though, which is probably all he knows about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NEA Redbook for 2004 : PROVEN Uranium reserves worldwide : about 4 million tons ( current consumption rate of U worldwide is 60 000 tons per year = &gt; proven reserves at 80-130 $ /kgU these proven reserves are enough for 65 years of use at the current consumption rate ) ESTIMATED Uranium reserves worldwide : about 16 million tons ( current consumption rate of U worldwide is 60 000 tons per year = &gt; proven reserves at 80-130 $ /kgU these proven reserves are enough for 265 years of use at the current consumption rate ) NON-CONVENTIONAL Uranium reserves worldwide ( i.e .
uranium contained in phosphates ) : an ADDITIONAL 22 million tons ( representing an additional 365 years of use ) Uranium dissolved in sea water : about 4 billion tons ( but more difficult and costly to retrieve ) .
The Japanese have one workable technique already , and they are researching another.When we get generation 4 reactors going , it wo n't be just the U235 we can use ( 0.72 \ % ) but U238 ( the other 99 \ % ) , so multiply the duration by 100 .
Then there is Thorium , which is three times as abundant in the crust , we have n't had enough use for it before to properly prospect for it .
India is seriously working on utilizing Thorium , it knows it has significant reserves , and has had trouble importing Uranium in the past.And if Dr. Dittmat want to place bets against fusion , I 'll put some money up .
Polywell 's chances are good , and Dense Plasma Focus looks like a fair bet , and there are others .
No magnetic confinement though , which is probably all he knows about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NEA Redbook for 2004:PROVEN Uranium reserves worldwide: about 4 million tons (current consumption rate of U worldwide is 60 000 tons per year =&gt; proven reserves at 80-130 $/kgU these proven reserves are enough for 65 years of use at the current consumption rate)ESTIMATED Uranium reserves worldwide: about 16 million tons (current consumption rate of U worldwide is 60 000 tons per year =&gt; proven reserves at 80-130 $/kgU these proven reserves are enough for 265 years of use at the current consumption rate)NON-CONVENTIONAL Uranium reserves worldwide (i.e.
uranium contained in phosphates): an ADDITIONAL 22 million tons (representing an additional 365 years of use)Uranium dissolved in sea water: about 4 billion tons (but more difficult and costly to retrieve).
The Japanese have one workable technique already, and they are researching another.When we get generation 4 reactors going, it won't be just the U235 we can use (0.72\%) but U238 (the other 99\%), so multiply the duration by 100.
Then there is Thorium, which is three times as abundant in the crust, we haven't had enough use for it before to properly prospect for it.
India is seriously working on utilizing Thorium, it knows it has significant reserves, and has had trouble importing Uranium in the past.And if Dr. Dittmat want to place bets against fusion, I'll put some money up.
Polywell's chances are good, and Dense Plasma Focus looks like a fair bet, and there are others.
No magnetic confinement though, which is probably all he knows about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130844</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1258482060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but you don't have to use solar panels to use solar energy. You can use good old mirrors to heat water and drive a turbine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but you do n't have to use solar panels to use solar energy .
You can use good old mirrors to heat water and drive a turbine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but you don't have to use solar panels to use solar energy.
You can use good old mirrors to heat water and drive a turbine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130926</id>
	<title>Peak Uranium?</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1258482360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peak Oil, Peak Uranium what else is peaking?  I guess right now it's time to go to Mars.  It doesn't preclude finding more deposits but it will take a few years for prospectors and then heavy mining interests to start exploiting those unexploited resources.</p><p>Well, on the good front we still have plenty of Coal, so no worries there right?  Choke, Cough, hey, is it getting hot or is that me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peak Oil , Peak Uranium what else is peaking ?
I guess right now it 's time to go to Mars .
It does n't preclude finding more deposits but it will take a few years for prospectors and then heavy mining interests to start exploiting those unexploited resources.Well , on the good front we still have plenty of Coal , so no worries there right ?
Choke , Cough , hey , is it getting hot or is that me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peak Oil, Peak Uranium what else is peaking?
I guess right now it's time to go to Mars.
It doesn't preclude finding more deposits but it will take a few years for prospectors and then heavy mining interests to start exploiting those unexploited resources.Well, on the good front we still have plenty of Coal, so no worries there right?
Choke, Cough, hey, is it getting hot or is that me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136962</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1258460400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>"for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality.'"</p></div></blockquote><p>The people working on ITER clearly don't agree.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, probably not.  But they're drawing paychecks from the project, so even beyond the obvious selection bias they have a vested interest in believing it will end up working.  Or at least professing such a belief.  But the last time I visited the ITER site it had the earliest possible commercial fusion reactor going live around the year 2050, with the cost/KWH of that plant many multiples of competing technologies.  Absent a string of unlikely breakthroughs it's pretty difficult to imagine a scenario in which commercially-viable magnetic-confinement fusion exists for decades after that.</p><p>Let me stress that:  <i>If everything goes right ITER (and follow-on projects) will develop an uneconomical way to generate power more than forty years in the future.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality .
' " The people working on ITER clearly do n't agree.Well , probably not .
But they 're drawing paychecks from the project , so even beyond the obvious selection bias they have a vested interest in believing it will end up working .
Or at least professing such a belief .
But the last time I visited the ITER site it had the earliest possible commercial fusion reactor going live around the year 2050 , with the cost/KWH of that plant many multiples of competing technologies .
Absent a string of unlikely breakthroughs it 's pretty difficult to imagine a scenario in which commercially-viable magnetic-confinement fusion exists for decades after that.Let me stress that : If everything goes right ITER ( and follow-on projects ) will develop an uneconomical way to generate power more than forty years in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality.
'"The people working on ITER clearly don't agree.Well, probably not.
But they're drawing paychecks from the project, so even beyond the obvious selection bias they have a vested interest in believing it will end up working.
Or at least professing such a belief.
But the last time I visited the ITER site it had the earliest possible commercial fusion reactor going live around the year 2050, with the cost/KWH of that plant many multiples of competing technologies.
Absent a string of unlikely breakthroughs it's pretty difficult to imagine a scenario in which commercially-viable magnetic-confinement fusion exists for decades after that.Let me stress that:  If everything goes right ITER (and follow-on projects) will develop an uneconomical way to generate power more than forty years in the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30142756</id>
	<title>accelerator driven subcritical reactors and waste</title>
	<author>jfb2252</author>
	<datestamp>1257087660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The International Committee on Future Accelerators periodically publishes "newsletters" with a theme.  The most recent newsletter is on the subject given above.  It may be obtained at</p><p><a href="http://www-bd.fnal.gov/icfabd/" title="fnal.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www-bd.fnal.gov/icfabd/</a> [fnal.gov]</p><p>The theme is "Accelerator Driven Sub-Critical Assemblies (ADS) and its challenge to accelerators." This is a topic that could have a deep impact on the future of our society. As we all know, developing clean energy and protecting the environment are two top priorities in countries around the world. ADS is an accelerator-based technology that may provide a viable solution to these major problems. Jiuqing collected 6 excellent articles in the theme section. They give a comprehensive review of this important accelerator field, including valuable lessons learned from the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The International Committee on Future Accelerators periodically publishes " newsletters " with a theme .
The most recent newsletter is on the subject given above .
It may be obtained athttp : //www-bd.fnal.gov/icfabd/ [ fnal.gov ] The theme is " Accelerator Driven Sub-Critical Assemblies ( ADS ) and its challenge to accelerators .
" This is a topic that could have a deep impact on the future of our society .
As we all know , developing clean energy and protecting the environment are two top priorities in countries around the world .
ADS is an accelerator-based technology that may provide a viable solution to these major problems .
Jiuqing collected 6 excellent articles in the theme section .
They give a comprehensive review of this important accelerator field , including valuable lessons learned from the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The International Committee on Future Accelerators periodically publishes "newsletters" with a theme.
The most recent newsletter is on the subject given above.
It may be obtained athttp://www-bd.fnal.gov/icfabd/ [fnal.gov]The theme is "Accelerator Driven Sub-Critical Assemblies (ADS) and its challenge to accelerators.
" This is a topic that could have a deep impact on the future of our society.
As we all know, developing clean energy and protecting the environment are two top priorities in countries around the world.
ADS is an accelerator-based technology that may provide a viable solution to these major problems.
Jiuqing collected 6 excellent articles in the theme section.
They give a comprehensive review of this important accelerator field, including valuable lessons learned from the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131234</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1258483740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even nuclear power is solar power.  All that Plutonium and Uranium and Thorium was of course born in the death throes of some supernova billions of years back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even nuclear power is solar power .
All that Plutonium and Uranium and Thorium was of course born in the death throes of some supernova billions of years back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even nuclear power is solar power.
All that Plutonium and Uranium and Thorium was of course born in the death throes of some supernova billions of years back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130936</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Fusion...</title>
	<author>mrogers</author>
	<datestamp>1258482420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Even after we learn how to build one that works, we'll still have the moderately colossal expense of building fusion plants.</i>
<p>
Remind me, is moderately collosal larger or smaller than somewhat ginormous?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even after we learn how to build one that works , we 'll still have the moderately colossal expense of building fusion plants .
Remind me , is moderately collosal larger or smaller than somewhat ginormous ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even after we learn how to build one that works, we'll still have the moderately colossal expense of building fusion plants.
Remind me, is moderately collosal larger or smaller than somewhat ginormous?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132704</id>
	<title>I saw it coming</title>
	<author>kaffekaine</author>
	<datestamp>1258488480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People said I was crazy stockpiling Uranium in my basement, but who's laughing now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People said I was crazy stockpiling Uranium in my basement , but who 's laughing now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People said I was crazy stockpiling Uranium in my basement, but who's laughing now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131552</id>
	<title>How about some science</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1258484760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oops, he said "never". That makes it propaganda, not science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oops , he said " never " .
That makes it propaganda , not science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oops, he said "never".
That makes it propaganda, not science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129630</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1258476660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even with solar being taken seriously, you'd be using up a lot of land (hopefuly not arable) to be able to provide enough to satisfy household + industrial need.  Until we figure out a way to make solar more efficient, it will not be adopted in mass.  Wind is crappy and unreliable. With both solar and wind you need storage capacity, which requires led and other metals to be mined as well.</p><p>If all the world's households would switch to solar today, there wouldn't be enough led to manufacture batteries for long-time storage - granted it's recyclable.  When we are running out of led and zinc, what's next?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with solar being taken seriously , you 'd be using up a lot of land ( hopefuly not arable ) to be able to provide enough to satisfy household + industrial need .
Until we figure out a way to make solar more efficient , it will not be adopted in mass .
Wind is crappy and unreliable .
With both solar and wind you need storage capacity , which requires led and other metals to be mined as well.If all the world 's households would switch to solar today , there would n't be enough led to manufacture batteries for long-time storage - granted it 's recyclable .
When we are running out of led and zinc , what 's next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with solar being taken seriously, you'd be using up a lot of land (hopefuly not arable) to be able to provide enough to satisfy household + industrial need.
Until we figure out a way to make solar more efficient, it will not be adopted in mass.
Wind is crappy and unreliable.
With both solar and wind you need storage capacity, which requires led and other metals to be mined as well.If all the world's households would switch to solar today, there wouldn't be enough led to manufacture batteries for long-time storage - granted it's recyclable.
When we are running out of led and zinc, what's next?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30152216</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And there are other  alternatives in research besides Thorium, or Cesium. Thermonuclear fusion has been demonstrated on a small scale at RPI and Purdue,  using collapsing bubbles in acetone to generate the high pressures and temperatures. Polywell Fusion (uses Boron, if I remember correctly), and doesn't need the reactor shielding. Consider having one of these reactors on your  corner in place of the electric distribution substation that is there now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And there are other alternatives in research besides Thorium , or Cesium .
Thermonuclear fusion has been demonstrated on a small scale at RPI and Purdue , using collapsing bubbles in acetone to generate the high pressures and temperatures .
Polywell Fusion ( uses Boron , if I remember correctly ) , and does n't need the reactor shielding .
Consider having one of these reactors on your corner in place of the electric distribution substation that is there now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there are other  alternatives in research besides Thorium, or Cesium.
Thermonuclear fusion has been demonstrated on a small scale at RPI and Purdue,  using collapsing bubbles in acetone to generate the high pressures and temperatures.
Polywell Fusion (uses Boron, if I remember correctly), and doesn't need the reactor shielding.
Consider having one of these reactors on your  corner in place of the electric distribution substation that is there now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130700</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>geckipede</author>
	<datestamp>1258481340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Getting a new nuclear reactor from the "I've got a great idea" phase to the "It's producing power, hooray" phase can take more than a decade. Two decades would not be unheard of. Would you like to suggest how capitalism can squeeze that process safely down into three?<br> <br>The problem here is that there are hundreds of competing options for energy generation, all of which are incredibly expensive to set up and it is only obvious which one should be picked when it is too late to start. You can't invest in them all. Capitalism will go for the lowest risk option, which in this case has mostly been to stick with the status quo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting a new nuclear reactor from the " I 've got a great idea " phase to the " It 's producing power , hooray " phase can take more than a decade .
Two decades would not be unheard of .
Would you like to suggest how capitalism can squeeze that process safely down into three ?
The problem here is that there are hundreds of competing options for energy generation , all of which are incredibly expensive to set up and it is only obvious which one should be picked when it is too late to start .
You ca n't invest in them all .
Capitalism will go for the lowest risk option , which in this case has mostly been to stick with the status quo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting a new nuclear reactor from the "I've got a great idea" phase to the "It's producing power, hooray" phase can take more than a decade.
Two decades would not be unheard of.
Would you like to suggest how capitalism can squeeze that process safely down into three?
The problem here is that there are hundreds of competing options for energy generation, all of which are incredibly expensive to set up and it is only obvious which one should be picked when it is too late to start.
You can't invest in them all.
Capitalism will go for the lowest risk option, which in this case has mostly been to stick with the status quo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30139302</id>
	<title>I have one word for you "UraniumFutures"</title>
	<author>jrincayc</author>
	<datestamp>1258476300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you really think that there will be a severe shortage of uranium in 2013, you need to get into the uranium futures market.  Oct 2014 futures for Uranium are going for 47.50 right now.  <a href="http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/base/uranium.html" title="cmegroup.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/base/uranium.html</a> [cmegroup.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really think that there will be a severe shortage of uranium in 2013 , you need to get into the uranium futures market .
Oct 2014 futures for Uranium are going for 47.50 right now .
http : //www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/base/uranium.html [ cmegroup.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really think that there will be a severe shortage of uranium in 2013, you need to get into the uranium futures market.
Oct 2014 futures for Uranium are going for 47.50 right now.
http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/base/uranium.html [cmegroup.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129336</id>
	<title>Re:Alternative materials?</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1258475520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd have to re-enrich, which is the whole problem. We're not geared to do that on a large scale right now, and we won't be for a while.</p><p>Hopefully this will kick some asses into actually looking into re-enrichment. Most of the waste problems we have are due to our refusal to use the existing methods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd have to re-enrich , which is the whole problem .
We 're not geared to do that on a large scale right now , and we wo n't be for a while.Hopefully this will kick some asses into actually looking into re-enrichment .
Most of the waste problems we have are due to our refusal to use the existing methods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd have to re-enrich, which is the whole problem.
We're not geared to do that on a large scale right now, and we won't be for a while.Hopefully this will kick some asses into actually looking into re-enrichment.
Most of the waste problems we have are due to our refusal to use the existing methods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412</id>
	<title>Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>Dark Fire</author>
	<datestamp>1258475760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not build Thorium-based reactors instead?  The material is 100x more abundant.  The USA has an ample natural supply.  You get 10 times the energy because you don't have the 238 problem.  There is almost no waste and the byproducts decay within a human lifetime.  And you can't use them to make nuclear weapons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not build Thorium-based reactors instead ?
The material is 100x more abundant .
The USA has an ample natural supply .
You get 10 times the energy because you do n't have the 238 problem .
There is almost no waste and the byproducts decay within a human lifetime .
And you ca n't use them to make nuclear weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not build Thorium-based reactors instead?
The material is 100x more abundant.
The USA has an ample natural supply.
You get 10 times the energy because you don't have the 238 problem.
There is almost no waste and the byproducts decay within a human lifetime.
And you can't use them to make nuclear weapons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131002</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1258482780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But today's nuke plants are fission reactors, the sun is a fusion reactor.</p></div></blockquote><p>Uranium and thorium (and pretty much every other element with atomic number higher than 26) is a byproduct of supernovae.
</p><p>Which makes fission "solar power", but not from this particular star...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But today 's nuke plants are fission reactors , the sun is a fusion reactor.Uranium and thorium ( and pretty much every other element with atomic number higher than 26 ) is a byproduct of supernovae .
Which makes fission " solar power " , but not from this particular star.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But today's nuke plants are fission reactors, the sun is a fusion reactor.Uranium and thorium (and pretty much every other element with atomic number higher than 26) is a byproduct of supernovae.
Which makes fission "solar power", but not from this particular star...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136350</id>
	<title>Re:Alternative materials?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258457880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Hopefully this will kick some asses into actually looking into re-enrichment.</i></p><p>First let me state I don't believe we are going to be running out of fissible fuels for nuclear power plants anytime soon.  Having said that I hope this will kick asses and make people look more seriously at alternative energy sources from geothermal to wind.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this will kick some asses into actually looking into re-enrichment.First let me state I do n't believe we are going to be running out of fissible fuels for nuclear power plants anytime soon .
Having said that I hope this will kick asses and make people look more seriously at alternative energy sources from geothermal to wind .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this will kick some asses into actually looking into re-enrichment.First let me state I don't believe we are going to be running out of fissible fuels for nuclear power plants anytime soon.
Having said that I hope this will kick asses and make people look more seriously at alternative energy sources from geothermal to wind.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30140992</id>
	<title>Re:Never become a reality</title>
	<author>sunspot42</author>
	<datestamp>1257067380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It works in the Sun, so to say it could never work here ignores the fact that the sun works.</i></p><p>The sun works because it's, well, the sun.  Just because something works deep inside the sun doesn't mean it'll ever work on the surface of the earth, at least in any form that'll return more energy in a controlled manner than we dump into it.</p><p>I mean, thinking works really well inside the human brain, but just because your brain can think doesn't mean your ass ever will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works in the Sun , so to say it could never work here ignores the fact that the sun works.The sun works because it 's , well , the sun .
Just because something works deep inside the sun does n't mean it 'll ever work on the surface of the earth , at least in any form that 'll return more energy in a controlled manner than we dump into it.I mean , thinking works really well inside the human brain , but just because your brain can think does n't mean your ass ever will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works in the Sun, so to say it could never work here ignores the fact that the sun works.The sun works because it's, well, the sun.
Just because something works deep inside the sun doesn't mean it'll ever work on the surface of the earth, at least in any form that'll return more energy in a controlled manner than we dump into it.I mean, thinking works really well inside the human brain, but just because your brain can think doesn't mean your ass ever will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132746</id>
	<title>CANDU: Thorium and Breeder Reactors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258488600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU\_reactor/" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU\_reactor/</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>A type of PHWR. They normally used natural uranium, but can also use a wide range of fuels such as (and not limited to) spent enriched uranium, thorium, plutonium/uranium mix.</p><p>They are currently generating commercial power in Canada, Korea, China, Romania, Argentina, Pakistan and reversed engineered versions in India.</p><p>They have their fair share of disadvantages, but obviously there are benefits to not sharing fuel with the PWR/BWR crowded market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU \ _reactor/ [ wikipedia.org ] A type of PHWR .
They normally used natural uranium , but can also use a wide range of fuels such as ( and not limited to ) spent enriched uranium , thorium , plutonium/uranium mix.They are currently generating commercial power in Canada , Korea , China , Romania , Argentina , Pakistan and reversed engineered versions in India.They have their fair share of disadvantages , but obviously there are benefits to not sharing fuel with the PWR/BWR crowded market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU\_reactor/ [wikipedia.org]A type of PHWR.
They normally used natural uranium, but can also use a wide range of fuels such as (and not limited to) spent enriched uranium, thorium, plutonium/uranium mix.They are currently generating commercial power in Canada, Korea, China, Romania, Argentina, Pakistan and reversed engineered versions in India.They have their fair share of disadvantages, but obviously there are benefits to not sharing fuel with the PWR/BWR crowded market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136082</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258456860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of the whole biofuels debacle. Random internet pundits claiming that we could just grow our way out of our energy crisis and then surprise, when someone finally starts listening to the internet crazies, it turns out to be completely unworkable.</p><p>Now, I'm not saying that Thorium definitely won't work out but I suspect there's no grant conspiracy to stop it being used, it's just that devil is in the details and those you know about such details have obviously decided it's not ready to replace Uranium yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the whole biofuels debacle .
Random internet pundits claiming that we could just grow our way out of our energy crisis and then surprise , when someone finally starts listening to the internet crazies , it turns out to be completely unworkable.Now , I 'm not saying that Thorium definitely wo n't work out but I suspect there 's no grant conspiracy to stop it being used , it 's just that devil is in the details and those you know about such details have obviously decided it 's not ready to replace Uranium yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the whole biofuels debacle.
Random internet pundits claiming that we could just grow our way out of our energy crisis and then surprise, when someone finally starts listening to the internet crazies, it turns out to be completely unworkable.Now, I'm not saying that Thorium definitely won't work out but I suspect there's no grant conspiracy to stop it being used, it's just that devil is in the details and those you know about such details have obviously decided it's not ready to replace Uranium yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130414</id>
	<title>Re:Use Thorium-based reactors instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258479960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And you can't use them to make nuclear weapons.</i></p><p>That sounds like a challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you ca n't use them to make nuclear weapons.That sounds like a challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you can't use them to make nuclear weapons.That sounds like a challenge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136466</id>
	<title>Re:Something just seemed subtly wrong with it...</title>
	<author>kuzb</author>
	<datestamp>1258458360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd follow the money and look at where it leads.  It wouldn't surprise me to find that this guy is in the pocket of a coalition of uranium mining companies are attempting to scare people in to paying more for uranium.  It worked pretty well for oil and gas companies after all.</p><p>It's the same story all the time.  We're running out of X, Y, and Z.  We will run out of it by .  When that time rolls around, somehow we're still using the stuff, and it doesn't seem to be that we're running out.  It's just more expensive now, because of all the hype given to the idea that it's running out.</p><p>I'm not saying that we couldn't possibly be running out of something non-renewable, but every time a scientist cries wolf and is wrong, it makes it harder to believe the next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd follow the money and look at where it leads .
It would n't surprise me to find that this guy is in the pocket of a coalition of uranium mining companies are attempting to scare people in to paying more for uranium .
It worked pretty well for oil and gas companies after all.It 's the same story all the time .
We 're running out of X , Y , and Z. We will run out of it by .
When that time rolls around , somehow we 're still using the stuff , and it does n't seem to be that we 're running out .
It 's just more expensive now , because of all the hype given to the idea that it 's running out.I 'm not saying that we could n't possibly be running out of something non-renewable , but every time a scientist cries wolf and is wrong , it makes it harder to believe the next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd follow the money and look at where it leads.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that this guy is in the pocket of a coalition of uranium mining companies are attempting to scare people in to paying more for uranium.
It worked pretty well for oil and gas companies after all.It's the same story all the time.
We're running out of X, Y, and Z.  We will run out of it by .
When that time rolls around, somehow we're still using the stuff, and it doesn't seem to be that we're running out.
It's just more expensive now, because of all the hype given to the idea that it's running out.I'm not saying that we couldn't possibly be running out of something non-renewable, but every time a scientist cries wolf and is wrong, it makes it harder to believe the next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133374</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258490640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm more cynical.  I doubt the market will adapt.  Instead, it would behave just like oil.  Stable countries with large uranium deposits will end up richer, and other areas that are not as stable will have wars fought over the mines as the US, China, and Russia all vie for their future energy needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more cynical .
I doubt the market will adapt .
Instead , it would behave just like oil .
Stable countries with large uranium deposits will end up richer , and other areas that are not as stable will have wars fought over the mines as the US , China , and Russia all vie for their future energy needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more cynical.
I doubt the market will adapt.
Instead, it would behave just like oil.
Stable countries with large uranium deposits will end up richer, and other areas that are not as stable will have wars fought over the mines as the US, China, and Russia all vie for their future energy needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129512</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>agentgonzo</author>
	<datestamp>1258476120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ATTENTION WORLD GOVERNMENTS:<br>
Fund. Fucking. Thorium. Fuel. Cycle. Research.</p></div><p>They've already done the first two items on your list. Thorium should be next.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ATTENTION WORLD GOVERNMENTS : Fund .
Fucking. Thorium .
Fuel. Cycle .
Research.They 've already done the first two items on your list .
Thorium should be next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATTENTION WORLD GOVERNMENTS:
Fund.
Fucking. Thorium.
Fuel. Cycle.
Research.They've already done the first two items on your list.
Thorium should be next.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133736</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Fusion...</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1258448760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not have a problem with a capitalist getting rich doing useful things with new tech, particularly if he has funded some R&amp;D.  But for the free marketers out there, both RIAA and the old Bell Labs are capitalist, and we note casinos also.  Face it, there are capitalists and then are capitalists.  And not paying recent attention to the difference is how we got in our current mess.  Anyway, slashdotters like disruptive tech.</p><p>As far as unlimited energy is concerned, I think the universe does not much like abiotic singularities.  On the other hand, as you increase energy density, you get interesting phenomena.  But I think you were saying relatively unlimited energy.  I am not sure what the right logical word is, but suppose we had 1000x more energy.  The world standard of living would be appreciably higher and if we were sensible, there would be a higher cultural level, and that would translate into new tech, which would enable more energy production.  Oh, and if we had 1000x more energy, the effective price of energy, as part of the cost of living, would go down, so in a proper sense it is cheaper, ignoring any increased efficiency in energy production.  But you cannot ignore that.</p><p>There is however an implicit assumption that physics is infinite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not have a problem with a capitalist getting rich doing useful things with new tech , particularly if he has funded some R&amp;D .
But for the free marketers out there , both RIAA and the old Bell Labs are capitalist , and we note casinos also .
Face it , there are capitalists and then are capitalists .
And not paying recent attention to the difference is how we got in our current mess .
Anyway , slashdotters like disruptive tech.As far as unlimited energy is concerned , I think the universe does not much like abiotic singularities .
On the other hand , as you increase energy density , you get interesting phenomena .
But I think you were saying relatively unlimited energy .
I am not sure what the right logical word is , but suppose we had 1000x more energy .
The world standard of living would be appreciably higher and if we were sensible , there would be a higher cultural level , and that would translate into new tech , which would enable more energy production .
Oh , and if we had 1000x more energy , the effective price of energy , as part of the cost of living , would go down , so in a proper sense it is cheaper , ignoring any increased efficiency in energy production .
But you can not ignore that.There is however an implicit assumption that physics is infinite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not have a problem with a capitalist getting rich doing useful things with new tech, particularly if he has funded some R&amp;D.
But for the free marketers out there, both RIAA and the old Bell Labs are capitalist, and we note casinos also.
Face it, there are capitalists and then are capitalists.
And not paying recent attention to the difference is how we got in our current mess.
Anyway, slashdotters like disruptive tech.As far as unlimited energy is concerned, I think the universe does not much like abiotic singularities.
On the other hand, as you increase energy density, you get interesting phenomena.
But I think you were saying relatively unlimited energy.
I am not sure what the right logical word is, but suppose we had 1000x more energy.
The world standard of living would be appreciably higher and if we were sensible, there would be a higher cultural level, and that would translate into new tech, which would enable more energy production.
Oh, and if we had 1000x more energy, the effective price of energy, as part of the cost of living, would go down, so in a proper sense it is cheaper, ignoring any increased efficiency in energy production.
But you cannot ignore that.There is however an implicit assumption that physics is infinite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30142872</id>
	<title>Re:Alternative materials?</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1257088260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html" title="stanford.edu">Bah</a> [stanford.edu]. Focusing on current uranium production ignores the large number of uranium mines which were closed in the past years due to cheaper uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons being used, making the before mentioned mines uneconomic. Uranium got so cheap it put a damper into fuel reprocessing into plutonium and similar research. You need so little uranium to generate electricity (check the energy density of uranium compared to coal for e.g.) that even if the price increased several times it would have next to no impact on electricity prices. This is all old hat and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium\_market" title="wikipedia.org">well known</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah [ stanford.edu ] .
Focusing on current uranium production ignores the large number of uranium mines which were closed in the past years due to cheaper uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons being used , making the before mentioned mines uneconomic .
Uranium got so cheap it put a damper into fuel reprocessing into plutonium and similar research .
You need so little uranium to generate electricity ( check the energy density of uranium compared to coal for e.g .
) that even if the price increased several times it would have next to no impact on electricity prices .
This is all old hat and well known [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah [stanford.edu].
Focusing on current uranium production ignores the large number of uranium mines which were closed in the past years due to cheaper uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons being used, making the before mentioned mines uneconomic.
Uranium got so cheap it put a damper into fuel reprocessing into plutonium and similar research.
You need so little uranium to generate electricity (check the energy density of uranium compared to coal for e.g.
) that even if the price increased several times it would have next to no impact on electricity prices.
This is all old hat and well known [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130214</id>
	<title>Re:Alternative materials?</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1258479120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can attribute the lack of progress on breeder reactors to Jimmy Carter when he killed the Clinch River breeder reactor project. The anti-nuke crowd proclaimed this a great victory....errr...or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can attribute the lack of progress on breeder reactors to Jimmy Carter when he killed the Clinch River breeder reactor project .
The anti-nuke crowd proclaimed this a great victory....errr...or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can attribute the lack of progress on breeder reactors to Jimmy Carter when he killed the Clinch River breeder reactor project.
The anti-nuke crowd proclaimed this a great victory....errr...or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130998</id>
	<title>Time will prove him wrong about fusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258482720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No idea why he is so fusion sceptic. Fusion is just a matter of scale. An apollo like fusion program would give us a fusion power plant before the end of the next decade. Once it is shown it's working it will become commercial feasible sooner or later anyway, depending on how fast we run out of other energy sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No idea why he is so fusion sceptic .
Fusion is just a matter of scale .
An apollo like fusion program would give us a fusion power plant before the end of the next decade .
Once it is shown it 's working it will become commercial feasible sooner or later anyway , depending on how fast we run out of other energy sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No idea why he is so fusion sceptic.
Fusion is just a matter of scale.
An apollo like fusion program would give us a fusion power plant before the end of the next decade.
Once it is shown it's working it will become commercial feasible sooner or later anyway, depending on how fast we run out of other energy sources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141004</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>senselesswaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257067500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, why isn't anyone talking about the horror of peak silicon!

The vast bulk of material in a solar panel by weight is silicon in the form of solar cells and glass. It's the second most abundant element in the Earth's crust so we will run out of it just before we run out of oxygen.

There are other rarer elements in solar panels such as silver for example, but only very small amounts are used and people are working hard to find cheap (i.e. common &amp; abundant) replacements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , why is n't anyone talking about the horror of peak silicon !
The vast bulk of material in a solar panel by weight is silicon in the form of solar cells and glass .
It 's the second most abundant element in the Earth 's crust so we will run out of it just before we run out of oxygen .
There are other rarer elements in solar panels such as silver for example , but only very small amounts are used and people are working hard to find cheap ( i.e .
common &amp; abundant ) replacements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, why isn't anyone talking about the horror of peak silicon!
The vast bulk of material in a solar panel by weight is silicon in the form of solar cells and glass.
It's the second most abundant element in the Earth's crust so we will run out of it just before we run out of oxygen.
There are other rarer elements in solar panels such as silver for example, but only very small amounts are used and people are working hard to find cheap (i.e.
common &amp; abundant) replacements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129860</id>
	<title>Never become a reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It works in the Sun, so to say it could never work here ignores the fact that the sun works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works in the Sun , so to say it could never work here ignores the fact that the sun works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works in the Sun, so to say it could never work here ignores the fact that the sun works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130880</id>
	<title>Good thing John McCain lost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258482180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John McCain wanted to build &gt;100 nuclear power plants. Like many politicians, he was not aware of the availability of fuel...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John McCain wanted to build &gt; 100 nuclear power plants .
Like many politicians , he was not aware of the availability of fuel.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John McCain wanted to build &gt;100 nuclear power plants.
Like many politicians, he was not aware of the availability of fuel...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30149078</id>
	<title>solar power</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257072000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Even with solar being taken seriously, you'd be using up a lot of land (hopefuly not arable) to be able to provide enough to satisfy household + industrial need.</i></p><p>Just as almost everyone else does, you're concentrating on the One Big Energy Source instead of looking at what sources can be harvested in different locations.  The "Economist" has the article <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=9804148" title="economist.com"> A new look at solar power</a> [economist.com] about a solar farm in the Mojave Desert in CA.  Both it and the article <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sunny-outlook-sunshine-provide-electricity" title="scientificamerican.com">Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity?</a> [scientificamerican.com] says it produces 350 megawatts of energy, enough to power 90,000 homes.  According to the SciAm article using the technology available in 2006 building solar farms on a piece of land 92 miles squared in Nevada, that's just 10&amp; the Bureau of Land Management's land, would produce almost all of the electricity of the US.</p><p>That's just solar power.  The <a href="http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/atlas\_index.html" title="nrel.gov">Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States</a> [nrel.gov] details the wind potential of different regions of the US.  The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to supply all of the 48 continuous states with electricity.  Then there's geothermal, which is a baseload provider, hydroelectric, and tidal power sources.  One geothermal power plant on Hawaii's Big Island provides <a href="http://geothermal.marin.org/GEOpresentation/sld062.htm" title="marin.org">25\%</a> [marin.org] of the island's electricity.  Geothermal generated <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/geothermal/" title="ca.gov">13 terawatts hours</a> [ca.gov] of electricity in California.  Combine these with a rebuilt smart national electric grid, which needs to be done anyways, and almost every coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear power plant can be closed.  Until the bulk energy storage problem is solved some plants can be kept running for more of the baseload.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with solar being taken seriously , you 'd be using up a lot of land ( hopefuly not arable ) to be able to provide enough to satisfy household + industrial need.Just as almost everyone else does , you 're concentrating on the One Big Energy Source instead of looking at what sources can be harvested in different locations .
The " Economist " has the article A new look at solar power [ economist.com ] about a solar farm in the Mojave Desert in CA .
Both it and the article Sunny Outlook : Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity ? [ scientificamerican.com ] says it produces 350 megawatts of energy , enough to power 90,000 homes .
According to the SciAm article using the technology available in 2006 building solar farms on a piece of land 92 miles squared in Nevada , that 's just 10&amp; the Bureau of Land Management 's land , would produce almost all of the electricity of the US.That 's just solar power .
The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States [ nrel.gov ] details the wind potential of different regions of the US .
The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to supply all of the 48 continuous states with electricity .
Then there 's geothermal , which is a baseload provider , hydroelectric , and tidal power sources .
One geothermal power plant on Hawaii 's Big Island provides 25 \ % [ marin.org ] of the island 's electricity .
Geothermal generated 13 terawatts hours [ ca.gov ] of electricity in California .
Combine these with a rebuilt smart national electric grid , which needs to be done anyways , and almost every coal , Natural Gas , and Nuclear power plant can be closed .
Until the bulk energy storage problem is solved some plants can be kept running for more of the baseload .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with solar being taken seriously, you'd be using up a lot of land (hopefuly not arable) to be able to provide enough to satisfy household + industrial need.Just as almost everyone else does, you're concentrating on the One Big Energy Source instead of looking at what sources can be harvested in different locations.
The "Economist" has the article  A new look at solar power [economist.com] about a solar farm in the Mojave Desert in CA.
Both it and the article Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity? [scientificamerican.com] says it produces 350 megawatts of energy, enough to power 90,000 homes.
According to the SciAm article using the technology available in 2006 building solar farms on a piece of land 92 miles squared in Nevada, that's just 10&amp; the Bureau of Land Management's land, would produce almost all of the electricity of the US.That's just solar power.
The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States [nrel.gov] details the wind potential of different regions of the US.
The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to supply all of the 48 continuous states with electricity.
Then there's geothermal, which is a baseload provider, hydroelectric, and tidal power sources.
One geothermal power plant on Hawaii's Big Island provides 25\% [marin.org] of the island's electricity.
Geothermal generated 13 terawatts hours [ca.gov] of electricity in California.
Combine these with a rebuilt smart national electric grid, which needs to be done anyways, and almost every coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear power plant can be closed.
Until the bulk energy storage problem is solved some plants can be kept running for more of the baseload.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30138136</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258467120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, the oracle said the sun would go down</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , the oracle said the sun would go down</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, the oracle said the sun would go down</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132072</id>
	<title>It Is Just a Matter of Price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258486380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Sweden, there is said to be a whole mountain of uranium; enough to supply all the world's reactors for 100 years.   World wide there are numerous other low-grade sources.</p><p>The trouble is, that these are low grade ores and it costs more to extract the uranium.</p><p>The point is there is a continuous curve (sorry I don't have that curve to show you)of the size of uranium supply versus the cost of extracting it. Therefore, it is not a matter of uranium shortage it is a question of energy costs.</p><p>Since nuclear power is so saddled with the sky high cost of meeting safety and environmental requirements, I'm not sure how much uranium contributes to the total cost. If uranium is only 10\% of the cost of a Mwh, then doubling the cost of uranium adds only 10\% to the cost.  Perhaps another slashdotter can post the actual cost breakdowns for today's nukes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Sweden , there is said to be a whole mountain of uranium ; enough to supply all the world 's reactors for 100 years .
World wide there are numerous other low-grade sources.The trouble is , that these are low grade ores and it costs more to extract the uranium.The point is there is a continuous curve ( sorry I do n't have that curve to show you ) of the size of uranium supply versus the cost of extracting it .
Therefore , it is not a matter of uranium shortage it is a question of energy costs.Since nuclear power is so saddled with the sky high cost of meeting safety and environmental requirements , I 'm not sure how much uranium contributes to the total cost .
If uranium is only 10 \ % of the cost of a Mwh , then doubling the cost of uranium adds only 10 \ % to the cost .
Perhaps another slashdotter can post the actual cost breakdowns for today 's nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Sweden, there is said to be a whole mountain of uranium; enough to supply all the world's reactors for 100 years.
World wide there are numerous other low-grade sources.The trouble is, that these are low grade ores and it costs more to extract the uranium.The point is there is a continuous curve (sorry I don't have that curve to show you)of the size of uranium supply versus the cost of extracting it.
Therefore, it is not a matter of uranium shortage it is a question of energy costs.Since nuclear power is so saddled with the sky high cost of meeting safety and environmental requirements, I'm not sure how much uranium contributes to the total cost.
If uranium is only 10\% of the cost of a Mwh, then doubling the cost of uranium adds only 10\% to the cost.
Perhaps another slashdotter can post the actual cost breakdowns for today's nukes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378</id>
	<title>Re:I mention this</title>
	<author>LSD-OBS</author>
	<datestamp>1258475700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seconded.</p><p>ATTENTION WORLD GOVERNMENTS:<br>Fund. Fucking. Thorium. Fuel. Cycle. Research.</p><p>PLEASE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seconded.ATTENTION WORLD GOVERNMENTS : Fund .
Fucking. Thorium .
Fuel. Cycle .
Research.PLEASE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seconded.ATTENTION WORLD GOVERNMENTS:Fund.
Fucking. Thorium.
Fuel. Cycle.
Research.PLEASE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129814</id>
	<title>OH NOES !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The immutable economic laws of supply and demand strike again !!!</p><p>Panic !!! Government subsidies !!! H1-B miners now !!!</p><p>(rollz eyez)</p><p>Pay mine engineers and miners more money and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... guess what?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you'll have more unranium.</p><p>Buck, up, world corporate greed-meisters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The immutable economic laws of supply and demand strike again ! !
! Panic ! ! !
Government subsidies ! ! !
H1-B miners now ! ! !
( rollz eyez ) Pay mine engineers and miners more money and ... guess what ?
... you 'll have more unranium.Buck , up , world corporate greed-meisters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The immutable economic laws of supply and demand strike again !!
!Panic !!!
Government subsidies !!!
H1-B miners now !!!
(rollz eyez)Pay mine engineers and miners more money and ... guess what?
... you'll have more unranium.Buck, up, world corporate greed-meisters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130030</id>
	<title>Odd way to summarize good news</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1258478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why re-invent the wheel, why re-invent the sun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why re-invent the wheel , why re-invent the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why re-invent the wheel, why re-invent the sun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129962</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Solar" doesn't mean "Photo-voltaic panels".</p><p>For example, you can take a bunch of mirrors and focus the light falling on a wide area onto a transparent segment of pipe. Boil water, turn turbine, make electricity. No panels.</p><p>Alternately, don't use water: Instead have a  cycle of molten salt (most of the pipes buried underground) and every day pump some more heat into the mixture. It'll help smooth out day/night variations, and you just use the stored heat to boil water on a separate cycle whenever you want power "on tap".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Solar " does n't mean " Photo-voltaic panels " .For example , you can take a bunch of mirrors and focus the light falling on a wide area onto a transparent segment of pipe .
Boil water , turn turbine , make electricity .
No panels.Alternately , do n't use water : Instead have a cycle of molten salt ( most of the pipes buried underground ) and every day pump some more heat into the mixture .
It 'll help smooth out day/night variations , and you just use the stored heat to boil water on a separate cycle whenever you want power " on tap " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Solar" doesn't mean "Photo-voltaic panels".For example, you can take a bunch of mirrors and focus the light falling on a wide area onto a transparent segment of pipe.
Boil water, turn turbine, make electricity.
No panels.Alternately, don't use water: Instead have a  cycle of molten salt (most of the pipes buried underground) and every day pump some more heat into the mixture.
It'll help smooth out day/night variations, and you just use the stored heat to boil water on a separate cycle whenever you want power "on tap".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131742</id>
	<title>Something just seemed subtly wrong with it...</title>
	<author>dentin</author>
	<datestamp>1258485360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first read through this article when it was first posted on the oil drum weeks ago, and at the time it just seemed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wrong, somehow.  I've since spent a lot of time doing my own research and reading on the topics, and I feel Dr. Dittmar has been intellectually dishonest in at least a few areas.  Further, the organization of the article is terrible, mixing sections and topics in a confusing fashion.  I suspect this is intentional.</p><p>Prime examples of issues in the article:</p><p>
&nbsp; - He uses nonstandard terminology with respect to breeding gain, and in several places uses phrases such as 'has only a maximum theoretical breeding gain of 0.7' in a context that implies that anything below 1.0 is not self-sustaining.  Once armed with a better understanding of the terminology I was able to put his comments into proper context, but this just made the negative spin obvious instead of allowing it to slip under the radar.</p><p>
&nbsp; - He makes the claim that no thorium breeder has ever reached breakeven, when in fact the very first one assembled had a net gain after operation.</p><p>
&nbsp; - He makes the claim that no currently online breeder reactors are at breakeven, combined with claims that breeder reactors are a huge proliferation concern, neglecting the fact that most currently operational breeders were designed explicitly to have slightly less than breakeven gain precisely to address proliferation concerns.</p><p>In short, while he may be competent and he may be very experienced, there is a clear agenda behind this.  The paper contains a substantial amount of spin and FUD, and further is organized in such a fashion as to make it difficult to analyze.  I would firmly lump it into the 'armchair FUD' category instead of 'unbiased scientific position paper'.  YMMV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first read through this article when it was first posted on the oil drum weeks ago , and at the time it just seemed ... wrong , somehow .
I 've since spent a lot of time doing my own research and reading on the topics , and I feel Dr. Dittmar has been intellectually dishonest in at least a few areas .
Further , the organization of the article is terrible , mixing sections and topics in a confusing fashion .
I suspect this is intentional.Prime examples of issues in the article :   - He uses nonstandard terminology with respect to breeding gain , and in several places uses phrases such as 'has only a maximum theoretical breeding gain of 0.7 ' in a context that implies that anything below 1.0 is not self-sustaining .
Once armed with a better understanding of the terminology I was able to put his comments into proper context , but this just made the negative spin obvious instead of allowing it to slip under the radar .
  - He makes the claim that no thorium breeder has ever reached breakeven , when in fact the very first one assembled had a net gain after operation .
  - He makes the claim that no currently online breeder reactors are at breakeven , combined with claims that breeder reactors are a huge proliferation concern , neglecting the fact that most currently operational breeders were designed explicitly to have slightly less than breakeven gain precisely to address proliferation concerns.In short , while he may be competent and he may be very experienced , there is a clear agenda behind this .
The paper contains a substantial amount of spin and FUD , and further is organized in such a fashion as to make it difficult to analyze .
I would firmly lump it into the 'armchair FUD ' category instead of 'unbiased scientific position paper' .
YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first read through this article when it was first posted on the oil drum weeks ago, and at the time it just seemed ... wrong, somehow.
I've since spent a lot of time doing my own research and reading on the topics, and I feel Dr. Dittmar has been intellectually dishonest in at least a few areas.
Further, the organization of the article is terrible, mixing sections and topics in a confusing fashion.
I suspect this is intentional.Prime examples of issues in the article:
  - He uses nonstandard terminology with respect to breeding gain, and in several places uses phrases such as 'has only a maximum theoretical breeding gain of 0.7' in a context that implies that anything below 1.0 is not self-sustaining.
Once armed with a better understanding of the terminology I was able to put his comments into proper context, but this just made the negative spin obvious instead of allowing it to slip under the radar.
  - He makes the claim that no thorium breeder has ever reached breakeven, when in fact the very first one assembled had a net gain after operation.
  - He makes the claim that no currently online breeder reactors are at breakeven, combined with claims that breeder reactors are a huge proliferation concern, neglecting the fact that most currently operational breeders were designed explicitly to have slightly less than breakeven gain precisely to address proliferation concerns.In short, while he may be competent and he may be very experienced, there is a clear agenda behind this.
The paper contains a substantial amount of spin and FUD, and further is organized in such a fashion as to make it difficult to analyze.
I would firmly lump it into the 'armchair FUD' category instead of 'unbiased scientific position paper'.
YMMV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30148294</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257068400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A lot of natural resources go into Solar panels. Resources that need to be mined.</i></p><p>Those resources are recyclable.  Unfortunately a little bit is lost every time something is recycled.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of natural resources go into Solar panels .
Resources that need to be mined.Those resources are recyclable .
Unfortunately a little bit is lost every time something is recycled .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of natural resources go into Solar panels.
Resources that need to be mined.Those resources are recyclable.
Unfortunately a little bit is lost every time something is recycled.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129700</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Fusion...</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1258476900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fortunately, you are mistaken.</p><p>"More energy out than in" is not a goal unique to fusion.  It is the goal for fusion because it describes <i>every</i> viable power plant.  A gadget that doesn't put out more energy than you put into it isn't a power plant.</p><p>The only reason this isn't a violation of thermodynamics is that when we say "more energy out than in", we're not counting the energy bound up in the fuel we put in.  The long-term expense associated with energy from a given source is the availability of the fuel.  (A bit more complex than that for wind, hydro, solar - there it's about plant upkeep since the fuel is free but fixed in quantity for a given plant setup.)</p><p>Bottom line, we're using coal, oil, natural gas, and even uranium at a rate based on econimic viability (subject to politics and manipulation).  We can produce X amount of oil at $Y/unit.  Add some sort of fusion fuel to the economy, and what happens depends on how much of that fuel you can produce at $Y/unit or below.  Of course, $Y is going to trend upward as long as we keep using oil (and coal, and natural gas, etc.).</p><p>If, as many seem to believe, we can figure out sources of fusion fuel that produce more energy than we need at (or maybe even near) $Y/unit, then there will be an energy revolution; but the cost of those new fuels will never be 0, so even though we might be able to produce as much as we have demand for, it will still cost and the investors will indeed get paid off in the process.</p><p>The hurdles are technical (and to some extent political), not economic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately , you are mistaken .
" More energy out than in " is not a goal unique to fusion .
It is the goal for fusion because it describes every viable power plant .
A gadget that does n't put out more energy than you put into it is n't a power plant.The only reason this is n't a violation of thermodynamics is that when we say " more energy out than in " , we 're not counting the energy bound up in the fuel we put in .
The long-term expense associated with energy from a given source is the availability of the fuel .
( A bit more complex than that for wind , hydro , solar - there it 's about plant upkeep since the fuel is free but fixed in quantity for a given plant setup .
) Bottom line , we 're using coal , oil , natural gas , and even uranium at a rate based on econimic viability ( subject to politics and manipulation ) .
We can produce X amount of oil at $ Y/unit .
Add some sort of fusion fuel to the economy , and what happens depends on how much of that fuel you can produce at $ Y/unit or below .
Of course , $ Y is going to trend upward as long as we keep using oil ( and coal , and natural gas , etc .
) .If , as many seem to believe , we can figure out sources of fusion fuel that produce more energy than we need at ( or maybe even near ) $ Y/unit , then there will be an energy revolution ; but the cost of those new fuels will never be 0 , so even though we might be able to produce as much as we have demand for , it will still cost and the investors will indeed get paid off in the process.The hurdles are technical ( and to some extent political ) , not economic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately, you are mistaken.
"More energy out than in" is not a goal unique to fusion.
It is the goal for fusion because it describes every viable power plant.
A gadget that doesn't put out more energy than you put into it isn't a power plant.The only reason this isn't a violation of thermodynamics is that when we say "more energy out than in", we're not counting the energy bound up in the fuel we put in.
The long-term expense associated with energy from a given source is the availability of the fuel.
(A bit more complex than that for wind, hydro, solar - there it's about plant upkeep since the fuel is free but fixed in quantity for a given plant setup.
)Bottom line, we're using coal, oil, natural gas, and even uranium at a rate based on econimic viability (subject to politics and manipulation).
We can produce X amount of oil at $Y/unit.
Add some sort of fusion fuel to the economy, and what happens depends on how much of that fuel you can produce at $Y/unit or below.
Of course, $Y is going to trend upward as long as we keep using oil (and coal, and natural gas, etc.
).If, as many seem to believe, we can figure out sources of fusion fuel that produce more energy than we need at (or maybe even near) $Y/unit, then there will be an energy revolution; but the cost of those new fuels will never be 0, so even though we might be able to produce as much as we have demand for, it will still cost and the investors will indeed get paid off in the process.The hurdles are technical (and to some extent political), not economic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129398</id>
	<title>Supply equals demand</title>
	<author>zvonik</author>
	<datestamp>1258475700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; So supply equals demand and supports the current price. News at 11:00?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium\_mining\_in\_Utah" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium\_mining\_in\_Utah</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>"All of Utah&rsquo;s numerous uranium mines closed prior to 2000, because of low uranium prices."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  So supply equals demand and supports the current price .
News at 11 : 00 ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium \ _mining \ _in \ _Utah [ wikipedia.org ] " All of Utah    s numerous uranium mines closed prior to 2000 , because of low uranium prices .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  So supply equals demand and supports the current price.
News at 11:00?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium\_mining\_in\_Utah [wikipedia.org]"All of Utah’s numerous uranium mines closed prior to 2000, because of low uranium prices.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130050</id>
	<title>So fix it</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1258478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Build an industrial-scale mass spectrometer.  Dump in trash, concrete, and rock.  Frequently empty the buckets that the fissionables land in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Build an industrial-scale mass spectrometer .
Dump in trash , concrete , and rock .
Frequently empty the buckets that the fissionables land in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Build an industrial-scale mass spectrometer.
Dump in trash, concrete, and rock.
Frequently empty the buckets that the fissionables land in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30137306</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258462140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't believe someone would counter a plan to provide energy for 5 billion years with "Nuh-uh! It's only good for 2.5 billion!"</p></div><p>how long have you been here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe someone would counter a plan to provide energy for 5 billion years with " Nuh-uh !
It 's only good for 2.5 billion !
" how long have you been here at / .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe someone would counter a plan to provide energy for 5 billion years with "Nuh-uh!
It's only good for 2.5 billion!
"how long have you been here at /.
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130078</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravity</p></div></blockquote><p>I'll take the bait. Suppose you have a mass (which is bending space-time due to gravity, as all masses do), how do you construct something around it that will emit a beam of photons forever in some direction with constant intensity (which is obviously something you can do if you have an unlimited amount of energy)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravityI 'll take the bait .
Suppose you have a mass ( which is bending space-time due to gravity , as all masses do ) , how do you construct something around it that will emit a beam of photons forever in some direction with constant intensity ( which is obviously something you can do if you have an unlimited amount of energy ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is literally an unlimited amount of energy in the form of space-time bending due to gravityI'll take the bait.
Suppose you have a mass (which is bending space-time due to gravity, as all masses do), how do you construct something around it that will emit a beam of photons forever in some direction with constant intensity (which is obviously something you can do if you have an unlimited amount of energy)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130840</id>
	<title>Re:The folly of natural resource-based energy</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258482000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why there are people working on using more common materials for solar panels. And people are devolping alternatives to silica. (which seems weird since i thought it was common in sand)<br> <br>
On a related note I wonder if we would use all the iron on the planet's crust if we tried to replace all of our energy needs with wind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why there are people working on using more common materials for solar panels .
And people are devolping alternatives to silica .
( which seems weird since i thought it was common in sand ) On a related note I wonder if we would use all the iron on the planet 's crust if we tried to replace all of our energy needs with wind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why there are people working on using more common materials for solar panels.
And people are devolping alternatives to silica.
(which seems weird since i thought it was common in sand) 
On a related note I wonder if we would use all the iron on the planet's crust if we tried to replace all of our energy needs with wind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30140780</id>
	<title>Supply constraint?</title>
	<author>shplorb</author>
	<datestamp>1257107580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I can't be bothered to read the PDF, I take it the good doctor hasn't heard of a little thing called ODX?</p><p>It's short for Olympic Dam eXpansion, a project by the world's largest mining company, BHP Billiton, to create the largest mine the world has ever seen. We're talking about an open cut mine that will eventually be over one kilometre deep and multiple kilometres in diameter where they'll be shifting more than one tonne of ore out of it every second, 24/7 for 100 years or more. They keep upgrading the reserve estimates because they haven't found the true extent of the ore deposit, which alone accounts for something like 30\% of known reserves. Currently the mine produces around 5,000 tonnes each year, which isn't the largest (Ranger in the Northern Territory is) but if the expansion goes ahead on the scale they're planning then it will be spitting out much, much more.</p><p>Then there's some other large deposits in Western Australia that are only now being developed as a change of government has seen the ban on Uranium mining lifted. It's even worse in the eastern states of Australia, as they have prohibited even exploring for uranium. Hooray for the luddite Labor party! The party that is okay in South Australia and federally to be mining and exporting it, but not using it here and won't even entertain discussion of the pros and cons of Australia adopting nuclear energy.</p><p>So if there's a shortage then the price will rise (which it did in the last few years because of fears of running out of the cheap bombs) and that will spur miners to start mining already known deposits that couldn't be mined profitably at lower prices. It will also spur further exploration and eventually the price will rise high enough that it becomes more economical to reprocess spent fuel, which is apparently 90-95\% still good.</p><p>There's enough Uranium out there that we'll never run out for centuries, and then there's Thorium if fusion continues to forever be 40 years away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I ca n't be bothered to read the PDF , I take it the good doctor has n't heard of a little thing called ODX ? It 's short for Olympic Dam eXpansion , a project by the world 's largest mining company , BHP Billiton , to create the largest mine the world has ever seen .
We 're talking about an open cut mine that will eventually be over one kilometre deep and multiple kilometres in diameter where they 'll be shifting more than one tonne of ore out of it every second , 24/7 for 100 years or more .
They keep upgrading the reserve estimates because they have n't found the true extent of the ore deposit , which alone accounts for something like 30 \ % of known reserves .
Currently the mine produces around 5,000 tonnes each year , which is n't the largest ( Ranger in the Northern Territory is ) but if the expansion goes ahead on the scale they 're planning then it will be spitting out much , much more.Then there 's some other large deposits in Western Australia that are only now being developed as a change of government has seen the ban on Uranium mining lifted .
It 's even worse in the eastern states of Australia , as they have prohibited even exploring for uranium .
Hooray for the luddite Labor party !
The party that is okay in South Australia and federally to be mining and exporting it , but not using it here and wo n't even entertain discussion of the pros and cons of Australia adopting nuclear energy.So if there 's a shortage then the price will rise ( which it did in the last few years because of fears of running out of the cheap bombs ) and that will spur miners to start mining already known deposits that could n't be mined profitably at lower prices .
It will also spur further exploration and eventually the price will rise high enough that it becomes more economical to reprocess spent fuel , which is apparently 90-95 \ % still good.There 's enough Uranium out there that we 'll never run out for centuries , and then there 's Thorium if fusion continues to forever be 40 years away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I can't be bothered to read the PDF, I take it the good doctor hasn't heard of a little thing called ODX?It's short for Olympic Dam eXpansion, a project by the world's largest mining company, BHP Billiton, to create the largest mine the world has ever seen.
We're talking about an open cut mine that will eventually be over one kilometre deep and multiple kilometres in diameter where they'll be shifting more than one tonne of ore out of it every second, 24/7 for 100 years or more.
They keep upgrading the reserve estimates because they haven't found the true extent of the ore deposit, which alone accounts for something like 30\% of known reserves.
Currently the mine produces around 5,000 tonnes each year, which isn't the largest (Ranger in the Northern Territory is) but if the expansion goes ahead on the scale they're planning then it will be spitting out much, much more.Then there's some other large deposits in Western Australia that are only now being developed as a change of government has seen the ban on Uranium mining lifted.
It's even worse in the eastern states of Australia, as they have prohibited even exploring for uranium.
Hooray for the luddite Labor party!
The party that is okay in South Australia and federally to be mining and exporting it, but not using it here and won't even entertain discussion of the pros and cons of Australia adopting nuclear energy.So if there's a shortage then the price will rise (which it did in the last few years because of fears of running out of the cheap bombs) and that will spur miners to start mining already known deposits that couldn't be mined profitably at lower prices.
It will also spur further exploration and eventually the price will rise high enough that it becomes more economical to reprocess spent fuel, which is apparently 90-95\% still good.There's enough Uranium out there that we'll never run out for centuries, and then there's Thorium if fusion continues to forever be 40 years away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30134220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30137554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30148410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30144452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30137306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30135870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30137914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30138708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30148294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30152216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30134422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30135262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30138136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30149078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30142872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30134954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30140992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_157231_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30138136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129438
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130252
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130422
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131234
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30138708
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30134422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129868
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133374
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130700
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30135262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30142872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30133736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30136962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30152216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30140992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30149078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30137914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30148294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131698
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30141038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30148410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30135870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30137554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30134954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130650
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30137306
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30144452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30131124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30134220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30129270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30130026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_157231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_157231.30132072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
