<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_02_1330245</id>
	<title>Thorium, the Next Nuclear Fuel?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262447820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mrshermanoaks writes <i>"When the choices for developing nuclear energy were being made, we went with uranium because it had the byproduct of producing plutonium that could be weaponized. But <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff\_new\_nukes/all/1">thorium is safer and easier to work with, and may cause a lot fewer headaches</a>. 'It's abundant &mdash; the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff &mdash; and doesn't require costly processing. It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel. As it decays in a reactor core, its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel. The more neutrons per collision, the more energy generated, the less total fuel consumed, and the less radioactive nastiness left behind. Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab's finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction &mdash; the billiard balls colliding &mdash; happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes &mdash; slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.' So why are we not building these reactors?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mrshermanoaks writes " When the choices for developing nuclear energy were being made , we went with uranium because it had the byproduct of producing plutonium that could be weaponized .
But thorium is safer and easier to work with , and may cause a lot fewer headaches .
'It 's abundant    the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff    and does n't require costly processing .
It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel .
As it decays in a reactor core , its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel .
The more neutrons per collision , the more energy generated , the less total fuel consumed , and the less radioactive nastiness left behind .
Even better , Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor , one that would have zero risk of meltdown .
The design is based on the lab 's finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts .
This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor , where the nuclear chain reaction    the billiard balls colliding    happens .
The system makes the reactor self-regulating : When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes    slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl .
Any actinide can work in this method , but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup .
' So why are we not building these reactors ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mrshermanoaks writes "When the choices for developing nuclear energy were being made, we went with uranium because it had the byproduct of producing plutonium that could be weaponized.
But thorium is safer and easier to work with, and may cause a lot fewer headaches.
'It's abundant — the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff — and doesn't require costly processing.
It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel.
As it decays in a reactor core, its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel.
The more neutrons per collision, the more energy generated, the less total fuel consumed, and the less radioactive nastiness left behind.
Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown.
The design is based on the lab's finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts.
This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction — the billiard balls colliding — happens.
The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes — slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl.
Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.
' So why are we not building these reactors?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623602</id>
	<title>Waste is the real problem of nuclear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And not just the core material.  Do you know how much radioactive building must be disposed of when a nuclear plant is decommissioned?</p><p>Here's an NRC site detailing the time it takes to decommission a power plant (decades!):</p><p>http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html</p><p>Nuclear has many advantages, but the waste treatment plan must be fool-proof if we are to use this safely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And not just the core material .
Do you know how much radioactive building must be disposed of when a nuclear plant is decommissioned ? Here 's an NRC site detailing the time it takes to decommission a power plant ( decades !
) : http : //www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.htmlNuclear has many advantages , but the waste treatment plan must be fool-proof if we are to use this safely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not just the core material.
Do you know how much radioactive building must be disposed of when a nuclear plant is decommissioned?Here's an NRC site detailing the time it takes to decommission a power plant (decades!
):http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.htmlNuclear has many advantages, but the waste treatment plan must be fool-proof if we are to use this safely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625730</id>
	<title>More like the next Nuclear Fail</title>
	<author>SD-Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1262424600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suggest anyone seriously interested in our energy future to take the time to go through this report called "Technofixes" by CorporateWatch UK
<br>
<a href="http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=3126" title="corporatewatch.org.uk">http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=3126</a> [corporatewatch.org.uk]
<br>
According to this report, only wind and solar come out as having the potential to be both socially desirable and effective in combatting climate change. Hypothetical 4th generation nuclear reactors, even if decided upon, would be too little too late because it takes long to deploy at great up-front cost, and the waste problems remain unsolved (despite what you may hear about the magic of breeder reactors etc.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest anyone seriously interested in our energy future to take the time to go through this report called " Technofixes " by CorporateWatch UK http : //www.corporatewatch.org.uk/ ? lid = 3126 [ corporatewatch.org.uk ] According to this report , only wind and solar come out as having the potential to be both socially desirable and effective in combatting climate change .
Hypothetical 4th generation nuclear reactors , even if decided upon , would be too little too late because it takes long to deploy at great up-front cost , and the waste problems remain unsolved ( despite what you may hear about the magic of breeder reactors etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest anyone seriously interested in our energy future to take the time to go through this report called "Technofixes" by CorporateWatch UK

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=3126 [corporatewatch.org.uk]

According to this report, only wind and solar come out as having the potential to be both socially desirable and effective in combatting climate change.
Hypothetical 4th generation nuclear reactors, even if decided upon, would be too little too late because it takes long to deploy at great up-front cost, and the waste problems remain unsolved (despite what you may hear about the magic of breeder reactors etc.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622812</id>
	<title>Why not building them?</title>
	<author>BeerCat</author>
	<datestamp>1262451780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easier to prevaricate and then blame your political successors for lack of action than it is to decide to just get on with it.</p><p>Especially when there is no spare money to procure a wholly new reactor type.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easier to prevaricate and then blame your political successors for lack of action than it is to decide to just get on with it.Especially when there is no spare money to procure a wholly new reactor type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easier to prevaricate and then blame your political successors for lack of action than it is to decide to just get on with it.Especially when there is no spare money to procure a wholly new reactor type.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622984</id>
	<title>Why move to Thorium?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uranium is also abundant and safe, but it's a lot better known than thorium. Thorium is promising, but there's no need for an alternative nuclear fuel at the moment (and probably won't be for a very long time). The nuclear fuel isn't what caused the Chernobyl disaster, it was the reactor, and huge amounts of research has been invested into new uranium based reactors with all sorts of properties making them safer and cheaper.<br> <br>

Thorium looks good and should be researched, but with nuclear fuel we're spoiled for choice. The idea that we need to find a new nuclear fuel for safety or cost reasons only damages the chance of people getting behind the fine technology we have/are-developing now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uranium is also abundant and safe , but it 's a lot better known than thorium .
Thorium is promising , but there 's no need for an alternative nuclear fuel at the moment ( and probably wo n't be for a very long time ) .
The nuclear fuel is n't what caused the Chernobyl disaster , it was the reactor , and huge amounts of research has been invested into new uranium based reactors with all sorts of properties making them safer and cheaper .
Thorium looks good and should be researched , but with nuclear fuel we 're spoiled for choice .
The idea that we need to find a new nuclear fuel for safety or cost reasons only damages the chance of people getting behind the fine technology we have/are-developing now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uranium is also abundant and safe, but it's a lot better known than thorium.
Thorium is promising, but there's no need for an alternative nuclear fuel at the moment (and probably won't be for a very long time).
The nuclear fuel isn't what caused the Chernobyl disaster, it was the reactor, and huge amounts of research has been invested into new uranium based reactors with all sorts of properties making them safer and cheaper.
Thorium looks good and should be researched, but with nuclear fuel we're spoiled for choice.
The idea that we need to find a new nuclear fuel for safety or cost reasons only damages the chance of people getting behind the fine technology we have/are-developing now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628094</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>matty619</author>
	<datestamp>1262440560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a citation is required for such a statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a citation is required for such a statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a citation is required for such a statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623228</id>
	<title>Re:Gimmick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imho the problem is not primarily safety of operation, but safely storing radioactive wastes for thousands of years without the risk of contaminating the environment / water. Well, at least here in Germany they had contamination after a few decades, because their salt mine wasn't such a good place as they thought<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Ok, they didn't care much if it was safe I guess, it was only meant for testing purposes but got filled with lots of waste, when they wanted to get rid of it.<br>I wonder, how cheap nuclear power really is, if they include the billions of tax money that are spent to get rid of nuclear waste and cleaning up those places and repairing the damage, if something goes wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imho the problem is not primarily safety of operation , but safely storing radioactive wastes for thousands of years without the risk of contaminating the environment / water .
Well , at least here in Germany they had contamination after a few decades , because their salt mine was n't such a good place as they thought ... Ok , they did n't care much if it was safe I guess , it was only meant for testing purposes but got filled with lots of waste , when they wanted to get rid of it.I wonder , how cheap nuclear power really is , if they include the billions of tax money that are spent to get rid of nuclear waste and cleaning up those places and repairing the damage , if something goes wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imho the problem is not primarily safety of operation, but safely storing radioactive wastes for thousands of years without the risk of contaminating the environment / water.
Well, at least here in Germany they had contamination after a few decades, because their salt mine wasn't such a good place as they thought ... Ok, they didn't care much if it was safe I guess, it was only meant for testing purposes but got filled with lots of waste, when they wanted to get rid of it.I wonder, how cheap nuclear power really is, if they include the billions of tax money that are spent to get rid of nuclear waste and cleaning up those places and repairing the damage, if something goes wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623772</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1262456700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a lot of claims.  Do you have any cites for any of them?</p><p>The article say thorium does NOT have to be enriched.  A quick look at the the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes\_of\_thorium" title="wikipedia.org">isotopes of thorium</a> [wikipedia.org] wikipedia article confirms that Th-232 is the only isotope of any real abundance.  That's a bit of a major error on your part, and casts doubt on the reliability of the rest of your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a lot of claims .
Do you have any cites for any of them ? The article say thorium does NOT have to be enriched .
A quick look at the the isotopes of thorium [ wikipedia.org ] wikipedia article confirms that Th-232 is the only isotope of any real abundance .
That 's a bit of a major error on your part , and casts doubt on the reliability of the rest of your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a lot of claims.
Do you have any cites for any of them?The article say thorium does NOT have to be enriched.
A quick look at the the isotopes of thorium [wikipedia.org] wikipedia article confirms that Th-232 is the only isotope of any real abundance.
That's a bit of a major error on your part, and casts doubt on the reliability of the rest of your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214</id>
	<title>nuclear waste, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>36 comments so far, and only one mentioning the #1 problem of current nuclear technology: WASTE.</p><p>The problem is still unsolved but nobody cares about it. Meanwhile, we are cumulating tons of material which will be dangerously radioactive for many generations after ours.</p><p>If switching to thorium stops the generation of highly radioactive waste, we have the #1 good reason for doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>36 comments so far , and only one mentioning the # 1 problem of current nuclear technology : WASTE.The problem is still unsolved but nobody cares about it .
Meanwhile , we are cumulating tons of material which will be dangerously radioactive for many generations after ours.If switching to thorium stops the generation of highly radioactive waste , we have the # 1 good reason for doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>36 comments so far, and only one mentioning the #1 problem of current nuclear technology: WASTE.The problem is still unsolved but nobody cares about it.
Meanwhile, we are cumulating tons of material which will be dangerously radioactive for many generations after ours.If switching to thorium stops the generation of highly radioactive waste, we have the #1 good reason for doing so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623294</id>
	<title>Re:Only a bridge ore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow has the best kind of Thorium, and the safest of any nuc fuel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow has the best kind of Thorium , and the safest of any nuc fuel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow has the best kind of Thorium, and the safest of any nuc fuel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628338</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel cells?</title>
	<author>JetTredmont</author>
	<datestamp>1262443020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.</p></div><p>Two corrections:</p><p>1.  Hydrogen also exists in molecular form requiring extraction.  Palladium membranes, if they ever become commercially feasible, can pull hydrogen out of atmospheric air with very little energy input.  But, by and large, the only reliable way of getting hydrogen for mass fuel use is by electrolysis (splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen), which necessarily takes more energy than combining it back again (damned entropy!)</p><p>2.  The natural sources of energy include coal, oil and gas reserves (tertiary sources), but also direct sources solar energy, wind, geothermal, and secondary sources - biofuels.  Moving from tertiary to secondary or primary sources (wind is kinda a secondary source, but doesn't quite fit with the biofuels) reduces the impact of the use of the energy, increases the amount of energy available, and keeps us "within budget" because we can't use tomorrow's sunlight today (while we can obviously use all the oil in the earth).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.Two corrections : 1 .
Hydrogen also exists in molecular form requiring extraction .
Palladium membranes , if they ever become commercially feasible , can pull hydrogen out of atmospheric air with very little energy input .
But , by and large , the only reliable way of getting hydrogen for mass fuel use is by electrolysis ( splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen ) , which necessarily takes more energy than combining it back again ( damned entropy ! ) 2 .
The natural sources of energy include coal , oil and gas reserves ( tertiary sources ) , but also direct sources solar energy , wind , geothermal , and secondary sources - biofuels .
Moving from tertiary to secondary or primary sources ( wind is kinda a secondary source , but does n't quite fit with the biofuels ) reduces the impact of the use of the energy , increases the amount of energy available , and keeps us " within budget " because we ca n't use tomorrow 's sunlight today ( while we can obviously use all the oil in the earth ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.Two corrections:1.
Hydrogen also exists in molecular form requiring extraction.
Palladium membranes, if they ever become commercially feasible, can pull hydrogen out of atmospheric air with very little energy input.
But, by and large, the only reliable way of getting hydrogen for mass fuel use is by electrolysis (splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen), which necessarily takes more energy than combining it back again (damned entropy!)2.
The natural sources of energy include coal, oil and gas reserves (tertiary sources), but also direct sources solar energy, wind, geothermal, and secondary sources - biofuels.
Moving from tertiary to secondary or primary sources (wind is kinda a secondary source, but doesn't quite fit with the biofuels) reduces the impact of the use of the energy, increases the amount of energy available, and keeps us "within budget" because we can't use tomorrow's sunlight today (while we can obviously use all the oil in the earth).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624166</id>
	<title>Re:why bother</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm hugely in favour of solar and wind power, but evidently you need to understand "intermittency" and "storage" a little better.  Like what keeps the lights on after 5 cold still cloudy mid-winter days...</p><p>Rgds</p><p>Damon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hugely in favour of solar and wind power , but evidently you need to understand " intermittency " and " storage " a little better .
Like what keeps the lights on after 5 cold still cloudy mid-winter days...RgdsDamon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hugely in favour of solar and wind power, but evidently you need to understand "intermittency" and "storage" a little better.
Like what keeps the lights on after 5 cold still cloudy mid-winter days...RgdsDamon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625856</id>
	<title>Re:Only a bridge ore</title>
	<author>Lord of Hyphens</author>
	<datestamp>1262425440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thorium apparently also makes good <a href="http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Thorium\_Charge\_M" title="eveonline.com" rel="nofollow">railgun and particle blaster</a> [eveonline.com] ammunition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thorium apparently also makes good railgun and particle blaster [ eveonline.com ] ammunition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thorium apparently also makes good railgun and particle blaster [eveonline.com] ammunition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624944</id>
	<title>Total Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262463420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thorium reactions do produce weaponizable materials.</p><p>Thorium is harder to work with than uranium.</p><p>Uranium reactions are perfectly safe unless you're a retard.  The Russians were retards when they built Chernobyl.  Three Mile Island had no "disaster" and is still working today.  Even on it's worst day, TMI released less radioactive material into the atmosphere than a traditional fossil fuel burning power plant.</p><p>The byproducts of modern nuclear reactors are easier to handle and safer for the environment than the original uranium that came out of the ground.</p><p>Uranium is not anywhere close to running out.  It remains the most common heavy element by far.</p><p>All of that said, WE CAN BUILD BOTH!  Why do so many idiots think this is a case of one-or-the-other?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thorium reactions do produce weaponizable materials.Thorium is harder to work with than uranium.Uranium reactions are perfectly safe unless you 're a retard .
The Russians were retards when they built Chernobyl .
Three Mile Island had no " disaster " and is still working today .
Even on it 's worst day , TMI released less radioactive material into the atmosphere than a traditional fossil fuel burning power plant.The byproducts of modern nuclear reactors are easier to handle and safer for the environment than the original uranium that came out of the ground.Uranium is not anywhere close to running out .
It remains the most common heavy element by far.All of that said , WE CAN BUILD BOTH !
Why do so many idiots think this is a case of one-or-the-other ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thorium reactions do produce weaponizable materials.Thorium is harder to work with than uranium.Uranium reactions are perfectly safe unless you're a retard.
The Russians were retards when they built Chernobyl.
Three Mile Island had no "disaster" and is still working today.
Even on it's worst day, TMI released less radioactive material into the atmosphere than a traditional fossil fuel burning power plant.The byproducts of modern nuclear reactors are easier to handle and safer for the environment than the original uranium that came out of the ground.Uranium is not anywhere close to running out.
It remains the most common heavy element by far.All of that said, WE CAN BUILD BOTH!
Why do so many idiots think this is a case of one-or-the-other?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30633498</id>
	<title>Re:Gimmick</title>
	<author>herbierobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1262549940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are forgetting to consider the waste problem.  The other life threatening issues pale in comparison.  Waste from Uranium fueled reactors is dangerous for more than a million years -- I waded through the licensing materials for Yucca Mountain to find that little gem -- AFIK how much more than a million years is classified because the DOE doesn't want us to know.  The Yucca Mountain depository was canceled because any sane (and uncorrupted) engineer reading the plans realized it was brain-dead.</p><p>The claim by the thorium reactor proponents is that there is less waste and waste products are safe within a few hundred years.  If this is really true, they have a solution to the waste problem.  That is a huge deal.  Of course, it would be good to find confirmation of the waste claim:  Inquiring minds want to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are forgetting to consider the waste problem .
The other life threatening issues pale in comparison .
Waste from Uranium fueled reactors is dangerous for more than a million years -- I waded through the licensing materials for Yucca Mountain to find that little gem -- AFIK how much more than a million years is classified because the DOE does n't want us to know .
The Yucca Mountain depository was canceled because any sane ( and uncorrupted ) engineer reading the plans realized it was brain-dead.The claim by the thorium reactor proponents is that there is less waste and waste products are safe within a few hundred years .
If this is really true , they have a solution to the waste problem .
That is a huge deal .
Of course , it would be good to find confirmation of the waste claim : Inquiring minds want to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are forgetting to consider the waste problem.
The other life threatening issues pale in comparison.
Waste from Uranium fueled reactors is dangerous for more than a million years -- I waded through the licensing materials for Yucca Mountain to find that little gem -- AFIK how much more than a million years is classified because the DOE doesn't want us to know.
The Yucca Mountain depository was canceled because any sane (and uncorrupted) engineer reading the plans realized it was brain-dead.The claim by the thorium reactor proponents is that there is less waste and waste products are safe within a few hundred years.
If this is really true, they have a solution to the waste problem.
That is a huge deal.
Of course, it would be good to find confirmation of the waste claim:  Inquiring minds want to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625244</id>
	<title>Re:nuclear fusion anyone?</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1262465040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how about pouring more resources in nuclear fusion? Isn't it n times more efficient and m more clean?</p></div><p>Yes! For present values of 'n' less than or equal to 0.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how about pouring more resources in nuclear fusion ?
Is n't it n times more efficient and m more clean ? Yes !
For present values of 'n ' less than or equal to 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about pouring more resources in nuclear fusion?
Isn't it n times more efficient and m more clean?Yes!
For present values of 'n' less than or equal to 0.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624108</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Profoundly argued. I particularly like the subtle, "... go die in a fucking fire..."</p><p>You are a genius. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Profoundly argued .
I particularly like the subtle , " ... go die in a fucking fire... " You are a genius .
Do n't let anyone tell you otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Profoundly argued.
I particularly like the subtle, "... go die in a fucking fire..."You are a genius.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30636342</id>
	<title>It's the Navy, folks</title>
	<author>JustJohnny</author>
	<datestamp>1262528280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main reason virtually all of the reactors in the U.S. use enriched uranium in a pressurized light-water design is that that is the only reasonable kind of reactor to put into a submarine or an aircraft carrier. The people who designed all of our reactors based their training on Rickover's requirements for a reactor that is light enough to power something reasonably-sized that floats, won't blow up/melt down as long as a big group of able seaman maintain constant vigilance over it, and helps the military out by producing plutonium for bombs as part of its waste. Carbon-footprint, environmental impact, efficiency, long-term storage of waste, and the like are all things that were never on the table in the first place. And once the machinery was put in place to crank basically the same Navy design out over and over, the industry got stuck in a rut.

<p>
I don't drive a tank to work, and I don't have a Howitzer in my backyard. My electrical power shouldn't be generated by a reactor whose design is a leftover from the Navy's think-tank.
</p><p>
The people who say "OMG! Thorium leaves waste that is much more radioactive! Cooties!" are poorly-educated. The more radioactive nuclear materials are, the sooner they'll burn up and become something less icky. "The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long" (to quote Blade Runner). Highly-radioactive waste is the good kind, not the bad kind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason virtually all of the reactors in the U.S. use enriched uranium in a pressurized light-water design is that that is the only reasonable kind of reactor to put into a submarine or an aircraft carrier .
The people who designed all of our reactors based their training on Rickover 's requirements for a reactor that is light enough to power something reasonably-sized that floats , wo n't blow up/melt down as long as a big group of able seaman maintain constant vigilance over it , and helps the military out by producing plutonium for bombs as part of its waste .
Carbon-footprint , environmental impact , efficiency , long-term storage of waste , and the like are all things that were never on the table in the first place .
And once the machinery was put in place to crank basically the same Navy design out over and over , the industry got stuck in a rut .
I do n't drive a tank to work , and I do n't have a Howitzer in my backyard .
My electrical power should n't be generated by a reactor whose design is a leftover from the Navy 's think-tank .
The people who say " OMG !
Thorium leaves waste that is much more radioactive !
Cooties ! " are poorly-educated .
The more radioactive nuclear materials are , the sooner they 'll burn up and become something less icky .
" The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long " ( to quote Blade Runner ) .
Highly-radioactive waste is the good kind , not the bad kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason virtually all of the reactors in the U.S. use enriched uranium in a pressurized light-water design is that that is the only reasonable kind of reactor to put into a submarine or an aircraft carrier.
The people who designed all of our reactors based their training on Rickover's requirements for a reactor that is light enough to power something reasonably-sized that floats, won't blow up/melt down as long as a big group of able seaman maintain constant vigilance over it, and helps the military out by producing plutonium for bombs as part of its waste.
Carbon-footprint, environmental impact, efficiency, long-term storage of waste, and the like are all things that were never on the table in the first place.
And once the machinery was put in place to crank basically the same Navy design out over and over, the industry got stuck in a rut.
I don't drive a tank to work, and I don't have a Howitzer in my backyard.
My electrical power shouldn't be generated by a reactor whose design is a leftover from the Navy's think-tank.
The people who say "OMG!
Thorium leaves waste that is much more radioactive!
Cooties!" are poorly-educated.
The more radioactive nuclear materials are, the sooner they'll burn up and become something less icky.
"The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long" (to quote Blade Runner).
Highly-radioactive waste is the good kind, not the bad kind.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622856</id>
	<title>Outdated</title>
	<author>kjart</author>
	<datestamp>1262451960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pffft - nobody uses <a href="http://www.wowwiki.com/Thorium" title="wowwiki.com">Thorium</a> [wowwiki.com] anymore.

<br> <br>/duck</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pffft - nobody uses Thorium [ wowwiki.com ] anymore .
/duck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pffft - nobody uses Thorium [wowwiki.com] anymore.
/duck</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625084</id>
	<title>About Thorium Reactors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262464140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rule of thumb: If you read anything about nuclear phyics (nukular pysikcss) on slashdot, it is VERY probable (70\% is a very careful estimation)  it's uninformed or plainly wrong.</p><p>If my post below belongs to the 70+\% or 30-\% is up to you to decide but I'll write it anyway as I think I know a few very interesting things you might not have heard about (most of this is relatively recent research).</p><p>ADS: Accelerator Driven System and Thorium Reactor<br>You take a proton beam and aim it at a "target" in which the protons smash out neutrons (spallation). These neutrons now can get stuck in atoms around the target and become other elements (transmutation). If you use the "right" element it can happen that the new element becomes fissionable after having caught a neutron.<br>That is what happens in ONE version of a Thorium Reactor (a breeder): You shoot a neutron into 232-Th and get 233 Th (plus a gamma quant, but that's not interesting for now). This becomes 233 Pa after 22 minutes which again decays to 233 U with a halftime of 27 days.<br>This is the stuff you want for fission! After a while you get an equilibrium of elements in your reactor, thus you create as much new fuel with your incoming neutrons as you burn. Other isotopes you get have a high chance to become fissionable material sooner or later (in the chain of decay and neutron catching, you can get the fissionable materials 233 Th (15 barn, for those who know what a "barn" is. Higher number means higher probability of fisson), 233 U (532 b), U235 (580 b), 239 U (15 b), 238 Np (2100 b), 239 Pu (740 b)); for other elements that get created, you also get equilibriums as you go (for example, the Thorium reactor also creates bad, bad Pu, but as you also destroy as much as you create, the issue is not that bad and you only get very little of it that you have to dispose (for example, when you exchange old fuel for fresh one; this is a very important contrast to current reactors which create (based on their design) more and more and more Pu).</p><p>What is good about this?<br>The reactor itself is sub-critical, thus you NEED external neutrons from somewhere or it just dies down.<br>There is a lot of cheap Thorium around.<br>You get radioactive waste but after some 300 years, the radioactivity is less than the one of natural uranium ore. So, you somehow have to put the stuff away for a century and are relatively safe. That seems MUCH more managebale than putting the stuff away for...hum... 100.000 years.<br>You could use existing accelerator-technology.</p><p>What is bad?<br>A lot of research has still to be done about... all sorts of things. For example, we are years from good (strong and stable) enough proton beams. There are no decent materials that can be used as target (note you basically smash it with protons and then have thermic neutrons in it as well!) etc etc.<br>You also need a VERY stable accelerator. 1 GeV (we do have these today) with like 25-40 mA (ugghh... no) that are very, very stable (UGGHH! You can only tolerate fails that last seconds max and it also cannot happen often per year (once to twice per year if you also create electricity and like ten times of that if you only use the thing to burn waste); we are pretty far from that!)<br>You have lots of nasty, free neutrons that happily do not only activate your fuel but also... anything and everything that is near (you know, walls, the accelerator, everything). There also might be other waste, depending on the configuration (moderator etc) of the reactor.<br>The shape/kind/mix of the fuel is a VERY complex thing that I have to omit for now (one issue is a lot of He (you know alpha-particles) that that might deform your fuel-pellets or... stuff).</p><p>IF this thing works one day (ADS with a thorium reactor), you might even do much more than just use is as "normal nuclear reactor". You can mix in "other stuff" into the fuel and then "burn" that as well (the stuff catches neutrons and then becomes "something else" that you can fission nicely, thus "burn" the stuff. What is the "stuff" I talk about</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rule of thumb : If you read anything about nuclear phyics ( nukular pysikcss ) on slashdot , it is VERY probable ( 70 \ % is a very careful estimation ) it 's uninformed or plainly wrong.If my post below belongs to the 70 + \ % or 30- \ % is up to you to decide but I 'll write it anyway as I think I know a few very interesting things you might not have heard about ( most of this is relatively recent research ) .ADS : Accelerator Driven System and Thorium ReactorYou take a proton beam and aim it at a " target " in which the protons smash out neutrons ( spallation ) .
These neutrons now can get stuck in atoms around the target and become other elements ( transmutation ) .
If you use the " right " element it can happen that the new element becomes fissionable after having caught a neutron.That is what happens in ONE version of a Thorium Reactor ( a breeder ) : You shoot a neutron into 232-Th and get 233 Th ( plus a gamma quant , but that 's not interesting for now ) .
This becomes 233 Pa after 22 minutes which again decays to 233 U with a halftime of 27 days.This is the stuff you want for fission !
After a while you get an equilibrium of elements in your reactor , thus you create as much new fuel with your incoming neutrons as you burn .
Other isotopes you get have a high chance to become fissionable material sooner or later ( in the chain of decay and neutron catching , you can get the fissionable materials 233 Th ( 15 barn , for those who know what a " barn " is .
Higher number means higher probability of fisson ) , 233 U ( 532 b ) , U235 ( 580 b ) , 239 U ( 15 b ) , 238 Np ( 2100 b ) , 239 Pu ( 740 b ) ) ; for other elements that get created , you also get equilibriums as you go ( for example , the Thorium reactor also creates bad , bad Pu , but as you also destroy as much as you create , the issue is not that bad and you only get very little of it that you have to dispose ( for example , when you exchange old fuel for fresh one ; this is a very important contrast to current reactors which create ( based on their design ) more and more and more Pu ) .What is good about this ? The reactor itself is sub-critical , thus you NEED external neutrons from somewhere or it just dies down.There is a lot of cheap Thorium around.You get radioactive waste but after some 300 years , the radioactivity is less than the one of natural uranium ore. So , you somehow have to put the stuff away for a century and are relatively safe .
That seems MUCH more managebale than putting the stuff away for...hum... 100.000 years.You could use existing accelerator-technology.What is bad ? A lot of research has still to be done about... all sorts of things .
For example , we are years from good ( strong and stable ) enough proton beams .
There are no decent materials that can be used as target ( note you basically smash it with protons and then have thermic neutrons in it as well !
) etc etc.You also need a VERY stable accelerator .
1 GeV ( we do have these today ) with like 25-40 mA ( ugghh... no ) that are very , very stable ( UGGHH !
You can only tolerate fails that last seconds max and it also can not happen often per year ( once to twice per year if you also create electricity and like ten times of that if you only use the thing to burn waste ) ; we are pretty far from that !
) You have lots of nasty , free neutrons that happily do not only activate your fuel but also... anything and everything that is near ( you know , walls , the accelerator , everything ) .
There also might be other waste , depending on the configuration ( moderator etc ) of the reactor.The shape/kind/mix of the fuel is a VERY complex thing that I have to omit for now ( one issue is a lot of He ( you know alpha-particles ) that that might deform your fuel-pellets or... stuff ) .IF this thing works one day ( ADS with a thorium reactor ) , you might even do much more than just use is as " normal nuclear reactor " .
You can mix in " other stuff " into the fuel and then " burn " that as well ( the stuff catches neutrons and then becomes " something else " that you can fission nicely , thus " burn " the stuff .
What is the " stuff " I talk about</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rule of thumb: If you read anything about nuclear phyics (nukular pysikcss) on slashdot, it is VERY probable (70\% is a very careful estimation)  it's uninformed or plainly wrong.If my post below belongs to the 70+\% or 30-\% is up to you to decide but I'll write it anyway as I think I know a few very interesting things you might not have heard about (most of this is relatively recent research).ADS: Accelerator Driven System and Thorium ReactorYou take a proton beam and aim it at a "target" in which the protons smash out neutrons (spallation).
These neutrons now can get stuck in atoms around the target and become other elements (transmutation).
If you use the "right" element it can happen that the new element becomes fissionable after having caught a neutron.That is what happens in ONE version of a Thorium Reactor (a breeder): You shoot a neutron into 232-Th and get 233 Th (plus a gamma quant, but that's not interesting for now).
This becomes 233 Pa after 22 minutes which again decays to 233 U with a halftime of 27 days.This is the stuff you want for fission!
After a while you get an equilibrium of elements in your reactor, thus you create as much new fuel with your incoming neutrons as you burn.
Other isotopes you get have a high chance to become fissionable material sooner or later (in the chain of decay and neutron catching, you can get the fissionable materials 233 Th (15 barn, for those who know what a "barn" is.
Higher number means higher probability of fisson), 233 U (532 b), U235 (580 b), 239 U (15 b), 238 Np (2100 b), 239 Pu (740 b)); for other elements that get created, you also get equilibriums as you go (for example, the Thorium reactor also creates bad, bad Pu, but as you also destroy as much as you create, the issue is not that bad and you only get very little of it that you have to dispose (for example, when you exchange old fuel for fresh one; this is a very important contrast to current reactors which create (based on their design) more and more and more Pu).What is good about this?The reactor itself is sub-critical, thus you NEED external neutrons from somewhere or it just dies down.There is a lot of cheap Thorium around.You get radioactive waste but after some 300 years, the radioactivity is less than the one of natural uranium ore. So, you somehow have to put the stuff away for a century and are relatively safe.
That seems MUCH more managebale than putting the stuff away for...hum... 100.000 years.You could use existing accelerator-technology.What is bad?A lot of research has still to be done about... all sorts of things.
For example, we are years from good (strong and stable) enough proton beams.
There are no decent materials that can be used as target (note you basically smash it with protons and then have thermic neutrons in it as well!
) etc etc.You also need a VERY stable accelerator.
1 GeV (we do have these today) with like 25-40 mA (ugghh... no) that are very, very stable (UGGHH!
You can only tolerate fails that last seconds max and it also cannot happen often per year (once to twice per year if you also create electricity and like ten times of that if you only use the thing to burn waste); we are pretty far from that!
)You have lots of nasty, free neutrons that happily do not only activate your fuel but also... anything and everything that is near (you know, walls, the accelerator, everything).
There also might be other waste, depending on the configuration (moderator etc) of the reactor.The shape/kind/mix of the fuel is a VERY complex thing that I have to omit for now (one issue is a lot of He (you know alpha-particles) that that might deform your fuel-pellets or... stuff).IF this thing works one day (ADS with a thorium reactor), you might even do much more than just use is as "normal nuclear reactor".
You can mix in "other stuff" into the fuel and then "burn" that as well (the stuff catches neutrons and then becomes "something else" that you can fission nicely, thus "burn" the stuff.
What is the "stuff" I talk about</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630298</id>
	<title>Nope</title>
	<author>ifwm</author>
	<datestamp>1262509740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Which we will run out of in 10 years."</p><p>You're mistaken.</p><p><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1495612&amp;cid=30623318" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1495612&amp;cid=30623318</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Which we will run out of in 10 years .
" You 're mistaken.http : //science.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1495612&amp;cid = 30623318 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Which we will run out of in 10 years.
"You're mistaken.http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1495612&amp;cid=30623318 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624658</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1262461620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes but by that logic, we should ground all the planes, or stop using cars because there have been some disasters.  Important things are to learn from our mistakes, and ensure that the same mistakes do not happen again.  Cars get safer all the time because we use them, we learn new things, and we make them safer.  Seat belts, air bags, crumple zones are all examples of this.  We would have never discovered any of these things if it weren't for the fact that we drove cars.  If we refuse to make any nuclear power plants, we can never learn to make them better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but by that logic , we should ground all the planes , or stop using cars because there have been some disasters .
Important things are to learn from our mistakes , and ensure that the same mistakes do not happen again .
Cars get safer all the time because we use them , we learn new things , and we make them safer .
Seat belts , air bags , crumple zones are all examples of this .
We would have never discovered any of these things if it were n't for the fact that we drove cars .
If we refuse to make any nuclear power plants , we can never learn to make them better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but by that logic, we should ground all the planes, or stop using cars because there have been some disasters.
Important things are to learn from our mistakes, and ensure that the same mistakes do not happen again.
Cars get safer all the time because we use them, we learn new things, and we make them safer.
Seat belts, air bags, crumple zones are all examples of this.
We would have never discovered any of these things if it weren't for the fact that we drove cars.
If we refuse to make any nuclear power plants, we can never learn to make them better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627818</id>
	<title>Re:Why move to Thorium?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262438400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to your left neighbour and ask them what they think of building a new nuclear power plant and and uranium enrichment facility. Yeah you can try arguing "oh but it's clean now" "oh but it's safe now". They'll probably still mumble something like nuclear weapons under their breath.</p><p>Now go to your right neighbour and ask them what they think of building a new power plant harnessing a fuel that is safer, cleaner, and more efficient than uranium, promising to solve the worlds energy crisis and global warming at the same time.</p><p>The problem with nuclear power in the last 10 years has definitely not been the technology. The problem is the people in your electorate, the politicians who know that the dumb public will vote against them in spite if they so much as consider building more nuclear power plants, and naturally the greenies who still haven't pulled their heads out of the sand under Chernobyl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to your left neighbour and ask them what they think of building a new nuclear power plant and and uranium enrichment facility .
Yeah you can try arguing " oh but it 's clean now " " oh but it 's safe now " .
They 'll probably still mumble something like nuclear weapons under their breath.Now go to your right neighbour and ask them what they think of building a new power plant harnessing a fuel that is safer , cleaner , and more efficient than uranium , promising to solve the worlds energy crisis and global warming at the same time.The problem with nuclear power in the last 10 years has definitely not been the technology .
The problem is the people in your electorate , the politicians who know that the dumb public will vote against them in spite if they so much as consider building more nuclear power plants , and naturally the greenies who still have n't pulled their heads out of the sand under Chernobyl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to your left neighbour and ask them what they think of building a new nuclear power plant and and uranium enrichment facility.
Yeah you can try arguing "oh but it's clean now" "oh but it's safe now".
They'll probably still mumble something like nuclear weapons under their breath.Now go to your right neighbour and ask them what they think of building a new power plant harnessing a fuel that is safer, cleaner, and more efficient than uranium, promising to solve the worlds energy crisis and global warming at the same time.The problem with nuclear power in the last 10 years has definitely not been the technology.
The problem is the people in your electorate, the politicians who know that the dumb public will vote against them in spite if they so much as consider building more nuclear power plants, and naturally the greenies who still haven't pulled their heads out of the sand under Chernobyl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624326</id>
	<title>Re:nuclear fusion anyone?</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1262459580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think they've got 4 more miracles to achieve before it can show any real promise...</p><p>Val Kilmer isn't gonna save us on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think they 've got 4 more miracles to achieve before it can show any real promise...Val Kilmer is n't gon na save us on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think they've got 4 more miracles to achieve before it can show any real promise...Val Kilmer isn't gonna save us on this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623266</id>
	<title>anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The safety issue is one thing.   Another important issue<br>is  what to do about the waste products, which is short<br>lived for Thorium, compared to the long-lived products<br>from Uranium.  There is a problem with Yucca mountain<br>overflowing with nuclear waste.</p><p>See also the Google Tech Talk by Kirk Sorensen<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8<br>(1 hour 22 minutes)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The safety issue is one thing .
Another important issueis what to do about the waste products , which is shortlived for Thorium , compared to the long-lived productsfrom Uranium .
There is a problem with Yucca mountainoverflowing with nuclear waste.See also the Google Tech Talk by Kirk Sorensenhttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = AZR0UKxNPh8 ( 1 hour 22 minutes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The safety issue is one thing.
Another important issueis  what to do about the waste products, which is shortlived for Thorium, compared to the long-lived productsfrom Uranium.
There is a problem with Yucca mountainoverflowing with nuclear waste.See also the Google Tech Talk by Kirk Sorensenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8(1 hour 22 minutes)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623584</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel cells?</title>
	<author>ConceptJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1262455800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.</i></p><p>Too bad there's no hydrogen in the oceans... oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.Too bad there 's no hydrogen in the oceans... oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.Too bad there's no hydrogen in the oceans... oh, wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623084</id>
	<title>Re:20+ years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>India has Thorium reactors today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>India has Thorium reactors today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>India has Thorium reactors today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30643986</id>
	<title>Re:Only a bridge ore</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1262633880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG this is funny.</p><p>I just started playing the first toon I made in WOW that I had abandoned a long time ago. Anyway he was 57, and I got him to 58 quickly so I went to Outland but found that my Mining was only 245 so couldn't mine there. Well I didn't want to get too into quests there and not mine and have to go back, so I went back and started running around Searing Gorge mining Thorium. I made it just over 280 before getting fed up in disgust. That was this weekend.</p><p>I was just about to comment jokingly how much of bitch it is mining Thorium Ore a la WOW, when I read you comment. I can't believe I found out about this VIA Slashdot. It seems every patch makes every WOW article and website obsolete all the time.</p><p>Anyway I know I am off to Outlands tonight! Weee!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG this is funny.I just started playing the first toon I made in WOW that I had abandoned a long time ago .
Anyway he was 57 , and I got him to 58 quickly so I went to Outland but found that my Mining was only 245 so could n't mine there .
Well I did n't want to get too into quests there and not mine and have to go back , so I went back and started running around Searing Gorge mining Thorium .
I made it just over 280 before getting fed up in disgust .
That was this weekend.I was just about to comment jokingly how much of bitch it is mining Thorium Ore a la WOW , when I read you comment .
I ca n't believe I found out about this VIA Slashdot .
It seems every patch makes every WOW article and website obsolete all the time.Anyway I know I am off to Outlands tonight !
Weee !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG this is funny.I just started playing the first toon I made in WOW that I had abandoned a long time ago.
Anyway he was 57, and I got him to 58 quickly so I went to Outland but found that my Mining was only 245 so couldn't mine there.
Well I didn't want to get too into quests there and not mine and have to go back, so I went back and started running around Searing Gorge mining Thorium.
I made it just over 280 before getting fed up in disgust.
That was this weekend.I was just about to comment jokingly how much of bitch it is mining Thorium Ore a la WOW, when I read you comment.
I can't believe I found out about this VIA Slashdot.
It seems every patch makes every WOW article and website obsolete all the time.Anyway I know I am off to Outlands tonight!
Weee!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623932</id>
	<title>Thorium is the future...</title>
	<author>kaarigar</author>
	<datestamp>1262457540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently all the manufacturers of nuclear technologies and plans are non-thorium based - they have interest in their promoting their business. Thorium based reactors are definitely the future - India has been active in this area since a very very long time and has reportedly made quite a substantial inroads into its use and application. It is mainly motivated by the fact that it has to rely on the nuclear raw material from those few who would not sell it easily - a lot of diplomatic and political arm-twisting, conditions and business favors.

The real reason US and other western nuclear powers want India to sign NTPT and CTBT by offering it nuclear fuel (for non-thorium based reactors) is also to make it agree to sign for access to its nuclear facility for overseeing its usage and security by the "watchdog" agencies and also to roll back and terminate its research reactors (which are instrumental in thorium research), and thereby either kill its research and/or gain access to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently all the manufacturers of nuclear technologies and plans are non-thorium based - they have interest in their promoting their business .
Thorium based reactors are definitely the future - India has been active in this area since a very very long time and has reportedly made quite a substantial inroads into its use and application .
It is mainly motivated by the fact that it has to rely on the nuclear raw material from those few who would not sell it easily - a lot of diplomatic and political arm-twisting , conditions and business favors .
The real reason US and other western nuclear powers want India to sign NTPT and CTBT by offering it nuclear fuel ( for non-thorium based reactors ) is also to make it agree to sign for access to its nuclear facility for overseeing its usage and security by the " watchdog " agencies and also to roll back and terminate its research reactors ( which are instrumental in thorium research ) , and thereby either kill its research and/or gain access to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently all the manufacturers of nuclear technologies and plans are non-thorium based - they have interest in their promoting their business.
Thorium based reactors are definitely the future - India has been active in this area since a very very long time and has reportedly made quite a substantial inroads into its use and application.
It is mainly motivated by the fact that it has to rely on the nuclear raw material from those few who would not sell it easily - a lot of diplomatic and political arm-twisting, conditions and business favors.
The real reason US and other western nuclear powers want India to sign NTPT and CTBT by offering it nuclear fuel (for non-thorium based reactors) is also to make it agree to sign for access to its nuclear facility for overseeing its usage and security by the "watchdog" agencies and also to roll back and terminate its research reactors (which are instrumental in thorium research), and thereby either kill its research and/or gain access to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623118</id>
	<title>Re:Gimmick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The big reasons, as mentioned in both the article and summary, are that thorium is more abundant than uranium, the resulting waste is smaller and less radioactive, and it can't be used as part of a process to create nuclear weapons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big reasons , as mentioned in both the article and summary , are that thorium is more abundant than uranium , the resulting waste is smaller and less radioactive , and it ca n't be used as part of a process to create nuclear weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big reasons, as mentioned in both the article and summary, are that thorium is more abundant than uranium, the resulting waste is smaller and less radioactive, and it can't be used as part of a process to create nuclear weapons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622792</id>
	<title>Cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because everyone that has nuclear reactors also builds bombs, so they go hand in hand, and cost less in the short run.  Even Iran wants nuclear power for this reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because everyone that has nuclear reactors also builds bombs , so they go hand in hand , and cost less in the short run .
Even Iran wants nuclear power for this reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because everyone that has nuclear reactors also builds bombs, so they go hand in hand, and cost less in the short run.
Even Iran wants nuclear power for this reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</id>
	<title>Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1262454540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such reactors may be less dangerous and the may produce less radioactive waste. But even though. They still produce radioactive waste, which we cannot handle. And it uses still a extremely limited resource.  We will eat up the reserves in no time. And it would be again a centralized energy production. We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely. And a large number of small generators are much less vulnerable to a total loss than one big one. Big technology is bad technology.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such reactors may be less dangerous and the may produce less radioactive waste .
But even though .
They still produce radioactive waste , which we can not handle .
And it uses still a extremely limited resource .
We will eat up the reserves in no time .
And it would be again a centralized energy production .
We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely .
And a large number of small generators are much less vulnerable to a total loss than one big one .
Big technology is bad technology .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such reactors may be less dangerous and the may produce less radioactive waste.
But even though.
They still produce radioactive waste, which we cannot handle.
And it uses still a extremely limited resource.
We will eat up the reserves in no time.
And it would be again a centralized energy production.
We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely.
And a large number of small generators are much less vulnerable to a total loss than one big one.
Big technology is bad technology.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30642206</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1262626620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone post a link to all these super patents that make infinite batteries and cars that get 500 miles per gallon?  I always hear about these patents - which are public - but I never see them.  I'm also amazed that countries that don't subscribe to patent law don't build these devices.  Or why the patent holders don't drop decide to start licensing those patents for absurd amounts of money and get rich while solving all the worlds ills.</p><p>Or wait.... could you really be saying that those magical patents don't actually exist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone post a link to all these super patents that make infinite batteries and cars that get 500 miles per gallon ?
I always hear about these patents - which are public - but I never see them .
I 'm also amazed that countries that do n't subscribe to patent law do n't build these devices .
Or why the patent holders do n't drop decide to start licensing those patents for absurd amounts of money and get rich while solving all the worlds ills.Or wait.... could you really be saying that those magical patents do n't actually exist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone post a link to all these super patents that make infinite batteries and cars that get 500 miles per gallon?
I always hear about these patents - which are public - but I never see them.
I'm also amazed that countries that don't subscribe to patent law don't build these devices.
Or why the patent holders don't drop decide to start licensing those patents for absurd amounts of money and get rich while solving all the worlds ills.Or wait.... could you really be saying that those magical patents don't actually exist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622828</id>
	<title>Perhaps the industry doesn't want a new process</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have already recovered their inversions in uranium technologies. Oh, and I think thorium doesn't provide weapon grade subproducts, does it?<p>
IMHO, this technology will finally come forward from outside the nuclear energy industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have already recovered their inversions in uranium technologies .
Oh , and I think thorium does n't provide weapon grade subproducts , does it ?
IMHO , this technology will finally come forward from outside the nuclear energy industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have already recovered their inversions in uranium technologies.
Oh, and I think thorium doesn't provide weapon grade subproducts, does it?
IMHO, this technology will finally come forward from outside the nuclear energy industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30644294</id>
	<title>I want this stuff to power my car</title>
	<author>Shompol</author>
	<datestamp>1262635260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One tank should last me to the Mars and back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One tank should last me to the Mars and back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One tank should last me to the Mars and back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623966</id>
	<title>Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>OFnow</author>
	<datestamp>1262457720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're not very good at handling the waste from coal either. Never stopped us from using it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not very good at handling the waste from coal either .
Never stopped us from using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not very good at handling the waste from coal either.
Never stopped us from using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629630</id>
	<title>Re:20+ years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>India has Thorium reactors today.</p></div><p>Wrong..if it had it wouldn't need the Indo-US nuclear deal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>India has Thorium reactors today.Wrong..if it had it would n't need the Indo-US nuclear deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>India has Thorium reactors today.Wrong..if it had it wouldn't need the Indo-US nuclear deal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623510</id>
	<title>Re:nuclear waste, anyone?</title>
	<author>HiddenCamper</author>
	<datestamp>1262455440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Waste is an interesting topic that we do have ideas how to solve. The technology isnt there yet, but its also not going to be '20 years off forever' like cold fusion is. Transmuting long lasting waste products reduces a large amount of stockpile. Reprocessing allows us to generate less total waste and reuse fuel we currently have. Breeding will allow us to take parts of our fuel and use increase efficiency of a ton of uranium. Unfortunately we havent gotten there yet. Currently fuel is stored in casks for long term storage. It is a very good storage method for the intermediate period (100-300 years at least), and hopefully we will be able to reuse or burn off a lot of the waste products in that time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Waste is an interesting topic that we do have ideas how to solve .
The technology isnt there yet , but its also not going to be '20 years off forever ' like cold fusion is .
Transmuting long lasting waste products reduces a large amount of stockpile .
Reprocessing allows us to generate less total waste and reuse fuel we currently have .
Breeding will allow us to take parts of our fuel and use increase efficiency of a ton of uranium .
Unfortunately we havent gotten there yet .
Currently fuel is stored in casks for long term storage .
It is a very good storage method for the intermediate period ( 100-300 years at least ) , and hopefully we will be able to reuse or burn off a lot of the waste products in that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waste is an interesting topic that we do have ideas how to solve.
The technology isnt there yet, but its also not going to be '20 years off forever' like cold fusion is.
Transmuting long lasting waste products reduces a large amount of stockpile.
Reprocessing allows us to generate less total waste and reuse fuel we currently have.
Breeding will allow us to take parts of our fuel and use increase efficiency of a ton of uranium.
Unfortunately we havent gotten there yet.
Currently fuel is stored in casks for long term storage.
It is a very good storage method for the intermediate period (100-300 years at least), and hopefully we will be able to reuse or burn off a lot of the waste products in that time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623704</id>
	<title>Re:nuclear fusion anyone?</title>
	<author>Bazman</author>
	<datestamp>1262456400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course - and commercial electricity production from nuclear fusion is only 20 years away. Just as it was in 1960...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course - and commercial electricity production from nuclear fusion is only 20 years away .
Just as it was in 1960.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course - and commercial electricity production from nuclear fusion is only 20 years away.
Just as it was in 1960...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628116</id>
	<title>Re:Why move to Thorium?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262440740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes there is.  iran wants nuclear power?  fine they can have something that can't be weaponized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes there is .
iran wants nuclear power ?
fine they can have something that ca n't be weaponized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes there is.
iran wants nuclear power?
fine they can have something that can't be weaponized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623534</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1262455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C, for European nuclear researchers. Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !</p></div><p>Why dont you setup a frequency harmonic between the deflector and the shield grid using warp field generator as a power flow ant.... blablabla?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am working on the very periphery of the problem , designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C , for European nuclear researchers .
Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes ! Why dont you setup a frequency harmonic between the deflector and the shield grid using warp field generator as a power flow ant.... blablabla ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C, for European nuclear researchers.
Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !Why dont you setup a frequency harmonic between the deflector and the shield grid using warp field generator as a power flow ant.... blablabla?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628644</id>
	<title>Re:nuclear waste, anyone?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262446800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is still unsolved but nobody cares about it. Meanwhile, we are cumulating tons of material which will be dangerously radioactive for many generations after ours.</p></div><p>1. Take a piece of paper.<br>2. Obtain the amount (volume) of nuclear waste produced world-wide per year; write it down.<br>3. Calculate the area required to store that waste.<br>4. Look up the combined area of uninhabited desert regions.<br>5. Realize that nuclear waste is, quite possibly, the last on the list of problems with current nuclear technology.<br>6. Build more nuclear plants, using any of the umpteen available safe designs in existence.<br>7. Profit!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is still unsolved but nobody cares about it .
Meanwhile , we are cumulating tons of material which will be dangerously radioactive for many generations after ours.1 .
Take a piece of paper.2 .
Obtain the amount ( volume ) of nuclear waste produced world-wide per year ; write it down.3 .
Calculate the area required to store that waste.4 .
Look up the combined area of uninhabited desert regions.5 .
Realize that nuclear waste is , quite possibly , the last on the list of problems with current nuclear technology.6 .
Build more nuclear plants , using any of the umpteen available safe designs in existence.7 .
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is still unsolved but nobody cares about it.
Meanwhile, we are cumulating tons of material which will be dangerously radioactive for many generations after ours.1.
Take a piece of paper.2.
Obtain the amount (volume) of nuclear waste produced world-wide per year; write it down.3.
Calculate the area required to store that waste.4.
Look up the combined area of uninhabited desert regions.5.
Realize that nuclear waste is, quite possibly, the last on the list of problems with current nuclear technology.6.
Build more nuclear plants, using any of the umpteen available safe designs in existence.7.
Profit!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894</id>
	<title>Gimmick</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1262452080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the one hand, modern uranium reactors (pebble bed, or even well-made light water reactors) are perfectly safe. Using thorium instead is at best a minor improvement.</p><p>On the other hand, if using a different fuel convinces members of the general public that nuclear power is safe, and allows the construction of new facilities in less than a decade, that's great, and worth it even if thorium is slightly inferior as a fuel. In short, it can be a PR win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand , modern uranium reactors ( pebble bed , or even well-made light water reactors ) are perfectly safe .
Using thorium instead is at best a minor improvement.On the other hand , if using a different fuel convinces members of the general public that nuclear power is safe , and allows the construction of new facilities in less than a decade , that 's great , and worth it even if thorium is slightly inferior as a fuel .
In short , it can be a PR win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand, modern uranium reactors (pebble bed, or even well-made light water reactors) are perfectly safe.
Using thorium instead is at best a minor improvement.On the other hand, if using a different fuel convinces members of the general public that nuclear power is safe, and allows the construction of new facilities in less than a decade, that's great, and worth it even if thorium is slightly inferior as a fuel.
In short, it can be a PR win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629070</id>
	<title>Re:Gimmick</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262451060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read the article, they also noted that liquid flouride thorium reactors also need to a <b>LOT</b> less physical space than current light-water uranium fuel reactors. This means construction costs will also be way lower, making these reactors much more economically viable in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read the article , they also noted that liquid flouride thorium reactors also need to a LOT less physical space than current light-water uranium fuel reactors .
This means construction costs will also be way lower , making these reactors much more economically viable in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read the article, they also noted that liquid flouride thorium reactors also need to a LOT less physical space than current light-water uranium fuel reactors.
This means construction costs will also be way lower, making these reactors much more economically viable in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627392</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1262435280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah that would be a problem in 300~500years if we can't find any new ways to produce energy...<br> <br>being conservative of our resources is nice and all but do SOME research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah that would be a problem in 300 ~ 500years if we ca n't find any new ways to produce energy... being conservative of our resources is nice and all but do SOME research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah that would be a problem in 300~500years if we can't find any new ways to produce energy... being conservative of our resources is nice and all but do SOME research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631316</id>
	<title>Hoopla</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262529900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Dad had the following comment to this posting...he worked in geophysics in the 60s...</p><p>Louis<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.......... this idea is NOT new !  We were discussing the use of Thorium in reactors back in the 60's.  The problem is that Thorium (in our rocks) is always found in association with Uranium, so the question was "what can we do with all of the Thorium tailings ?".  Well, the tailings still exist and are RADIOACTIVE !  In the Elliot Lake scenario, they were put in a hollow between two hills.  I overflew this when I was testing my newest airborne spectrometer, and MY METERS ALL WENT OFF SCALE !  Over time, some of the tailing were removed by groundwaters flowing into the nearby lake.  It was reported that the fish were born stunted.  I don'y know how true that is because the media never reported on it.</p><p>Time has passed, so now old news becomes new news.</p><p>Dad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Dad had the following comment to this posting...he worked in geophysics in the 60s...Louis .......... this idea is NOT new !
We were discussing the use of Thorium in reactors back in the 60 's .
The problem is that Thorium ( in our rocks ) is always found in association with Uranium , so the question was " what can we do with all of the Thorium tailings ? " .
Well , the tailings still exist and are RADIOACTIVE !
In the Elliot Lake scenario , they were put in a hollow between two hills .
I overflew this when I was testing my newest airborne spectrometer , and MY METERS ALL WENT OFF SCALE !
Over time , some of the tailing were removed by groundwaters flowing into the nearby lake .
It was reported that the fish were born stunted .
I don'y know how true that is because the media never reported on it.Time has passed , so now old news becomes new news.Dad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Dad had the following comment to this posting...he worked in geophysics in the 60s...Louis .......... this idea is NOT new !
We were discussing the use of Thorium in reactors back in the 60's.
The problem is that Thorium (in our rocks) is always found in association with Uranium, so the question was "what can we do with all of the Thorium tailings ?".
Well, the tailings still exist and are RADIOACTIVE !
In the Elliot Lake scenario, they were put in a hollow between two hills.
I overflew this when I was testing my newest airborne spectrometer, and MY METERS ALL WENT OFF SCALE !
Over time, some of the tailing were removed by groundwaters flowing into the nearby lake.
It was reported that the fish were born stunted.
I don'y know how true that is because the media never reported on it.Time has passed, so now old news becomes new news.Dad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623828</id>
	<title>Win/win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>that's great, and worth it even if thorium is slightly inferior as a fuel.</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>They mention that Thorium is "extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel" and "doesn't require costly processing", so it seems to be both cheaper and better.  It truly seems like a win/win situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's great , and worth it even if thorium is slightly inferior as a fuel .
  They mention that Thorium is " extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel " and " does n't require costly processing " , so it seems to be both cheaper and better .
It truly seems like a win/win situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's great, and worth it even if thorium is slightly inferior as a fuel.
  They mention that Thorium is "extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel" and "doesn't require costly processing", so it seems to be both cheaper and better.
It truly seems like a win/win situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623814</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>naasking</author>
	<datestamp>1262456940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away.</i></p><p>The designer of the molten salt Thorium reactors ran his reactor non-stop for over 10 years IIRC. This was in the 1960s. What is unproven exactly?</p><p><i>Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium,</i></p><p>Which we will <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/" title="technologyreview.com">run out of in 10 years</a> [technologyreview.com].</p><p><i>Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products,</i></p><p>And Uranium produces candy canes and puppies? If Thorium really is harder to refine or weaponize than Uranium, we'd be better off switching to Thorium, so you contradict yourself.</p><p>Also, Thorium reactions do not produce plutonium. The fact that Thorium reactions do not produce weaponized by products is one of its huge advantages, above and beyond its abundance and higher efficiency as nuclear fuel when compared to Uranium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By most accounts , a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away.The designer of the molten salt Thorium reactors ran his reactor non-stop for over 10 years IIRC .
This was in the 1960s .
What is unproven exactly ? Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium,Which we will run out of in 10 years [ technologyreview.com ] .Thorium will also produce dangerous , radioactive by products,And Uranium produces candy canes and puppies ?
If Thorium really is harder to refine or weaponize than Uranium , we 'd be better off switching to Thorium , so you contradict yourself.Also , Thorium reactions do not produce plutonium .
The fact that Thorium reactions do not produce weaponized by products is one of its huge advantages , above and beyond its abundance and higher efficiency as nuclear fuel when compared to Uranium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away.The designer of the molten salt Thorium reactors ran his reactor non-stop for over 10 years IIRC.
This was in the 1960s.
What is unproven exactly?Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium,Which we will run out of in 10 years [technologyreview.com].Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products,And Uranium produces candy canes and puppies?
If Thorium really is harder to refine or weaponize than Uranium, we'd be better off switching to Thorium, so you contradict yourself.Also, Thorium reactions do not produce plutonium.
The fact that Thorium reactions do not produce weaponized by products is one of its huge advantages, above and beyond its abundance and higher efficiency as nuclear fuel when compared to Uranium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632452</id>
	<title>Re:No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1262542440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are no switches for the idiot to flip. The fuel is already *melted*. If you have a fusion reactor, why the hell would i want energy from fission at all?
<br> <br>
Yes there could be a *fault*. But you can design it so that all physically possible faults result in no leaks to the outside world (as 3 mile island did). You can even design then so that all conceivable faults are easily dealt with after the fact and easy to clean up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no switches for the idiot to flip .
The fuel is already * melted * .
If you have a fusion reactor , why the hell would i want energy from fission at all ?
Yes there could be a * fault * .
But you can design it so that all physically possible faults result in no leaks to the outside world ( as 3 mile island did ) .
You can even design then so that all conceivable faults are easily dealt with after the fact and easy to clean up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no switches for the idiot to flip.
The fuel is already *melted*.
If you have a fusion reactor, why the hell would i want energy from fission at all?
Yes there could be a *fault*.
But you can design it so that all physically possible faults result in no leaks to the outside world (as 3 mile island did).
You can even design then so that all conceivable faults are easily dealt with after the fact and easy to clean up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623544</id>
	<title>CANDU</title>
	<author>johnkennethhunter</author>
	<datestamp>1262455560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've often read that a CANDU reactor is already designed for use of Thorium as a fuel, but compared to claims in this article, would prove to be an expensive way to burn this fuel.

Of course, a CANDU reactor can burn up old warheads and even the waste a PWR leaves behind, so I have my doubts any of the 7 countries using that reactor would need to switch to a Thorium cycle. By then, perhaps even more ingenious ways to extract power from Thorium may be discovered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've often read that a CANDU reactor is already designed for use of Thorium as a fuel , but compared to claims in this article , would prove to be an expensive way to burn this fuel .
Of course , a CANDU reactor can burn up old warheads and even the waste a PWR leaves behind , so I have my doubts any of the 7 countries using that reactor would need to switch to a Thorium cycle .
By then , perhaps even more ingenious ways to extract power from Thorium may be discovered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've often read that a CANDU reactor is already designed for use of Thorium as a fuel, but compared to claims in this article, would prove to be an expensive way to burn this fuel.
Of course, a CANDU reactor can burn up old warheads and even the waste a PWR leaves behind, so I have my doubts any of the 7 countries using that reactor would need to switch to a Thorium cycle.
By then, perhaps even more ingenious ways to extract power from Thorium may be discovered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30634046</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262512020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My brother, a physicist, says:</p><p>"The description you sent is a hack and not valid as written.</p><p>Thorium is a well known fertile fuel for secondary nuclear energy production.  The American Scientist, a (non-research oriented) physics journal, had a good article on this topic back in 2003 (see attached). "</p><p>Now what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My brother , a physicist , says : " The description you sent is a hack and not valid as written.Thorium is a well known fertile fuel for secondary nuclear energy production .
The American Scientist , a ( non-research oriented ) physics journal , had a good article on this topic back in 2003 ( see attached ) .
" Now what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My brother, a physicist, says:"The description you sent is a hack and not valid as written.Thorium is a well known fertile fuel for secondary nuclear energy production.
The American Scientist, a (non-research oriented) physics journal, had a good article on this topic back in 2003 (see attached).
"Now what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626286</id>
	<title>Re:Surprise! Business model problems...</title>
	<author>Idarubicin</author>
	<datestamp>1262428200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...no need to refine the Thorium fuel, which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Fuel enrichment isn't a flat requirement for uranium reactors.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurised\_heavy\_water\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org">Heavy water reactors</a> [wikipedia.org] (in use in Canada, India, and elsewhere for more than forty years) do not require isotope-enriched fuel.  The cost of heavy water is offset by the savings on fuel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...no need to refine the Thorium fuel , which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money.. . Fuel enrichment is n't a flat requirement for uranium reactors .
Heavy water reactors [ wikipedia.org ] ( in use in Canada , India , and elsewhere for more than forty years ) do not require isotope-enriched fuel .
The cost of heavy water is offset by the savings on fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...no need to refine the Thorium fuel, which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money...
Fuel enrichment isn't a flat requirement for uranium reactors.
Heavy water reactors [wikipedia.org] (in use in Canada, India, and elsewhere for more than forty years) do not require isotope-enriched fuel.
The cost of heavy water is offset by the savings on fuel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628828</id>
	<title>Re:Because nuclear is still "scary"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262448660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why, incidentally, we'd need scientific propaganda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why , incidentally , we 'd need scientific propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why, incidentally, we'd need scientific propaganda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627344</id>
	<title>AGW, Believing Scientists</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1262435040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>After the release of the ClimateGate emails from the CRU, East-Anglia, I have been looking myself at some of the data, including the recently re-collated Siberian data and and weather observation station data from US and Europe. From a previously neutral position, I have rapidly concluded that the CRU presentation is fraudulent and the data, at best, indicates a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.6 dC per century over the last 100 years. Mann, Jones and IPCC results can only be replicated by completely Cherry Picking the data. The Hockey Stick is horseshit. Also CO2 levels lag, not lead temperature.<br><br>AGW is a scam to persuade the population to pay more for energy, and Carbon Trading schemes, which have similar validity to CDOs.<br><br>I know, from personal knowledge, that Oil Companies regularly understate reserves, talk up risks and Peak-Oil, and fail to build reserve refining capacity in order to elevate the oil price. At USD 23.00 per barrel most US and European Oil Co(s) make a reasonable commercial profit, tax paid to producer countries. Two sets of books are normal.<br><br>Bert Rutan, the aeronautical engineer, has also come to the same conclusion and published his interim analysis here,<br>http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.Intro.AGW.b.pdf<br><br>Common sense tells you we are being lied to, and on a grand scale.<br><br>Thorium Fission Reactors, Fusion Reactors and Geothermal Taps and another 6 technologies are all feasible real re-newables which are not compromised by higher cost, and do not involve diverting plant crops to fuel, thereby putting up the cost of food.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After the release of the ClimateGate emails from the CRU , East-Anglia , I have been looking myself at some of the data , including the recently re-collated Siberian data and and weather observation station data from US and Europe .
From a previously neutral position , I have rapidly concluded that the CRU presentation is fraudulent and the data , at best , indicates a .6 dC per century over the last 100 years .
Mann , Jones and IPCC results can only be replicated by completely Cherry Picking the data .
The Hockey Stick is horseshit .
Also CO2 levels lag , not lead temperature.AGW is a scam to persuade the population to pay more for energy , and Carbon Trading schemes , which have similar validity to CDOs.I know , from personal knowledge , that Oil Companies regularly understate reserves , talk up risks and Peak-Oil , and fail to build reserve refining capacity in order to elevate the oil price .
At USD 23.00 per barrel most US and European Oil Co ( s ) make a reasonable commercial profit , tax paid to producer countries .
Two sets of books are normal.Bert Rutan , the aeronautical engineer , has also come to the same conclusion and published his interim analysis here,http : //rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.Intro.AGW.b.pdfCommon sense tells you we are being lied to , and on a grand scale.Thorium Fission Reactors , Fusion Reactors and Geothermal Taps and another 6 technologies are all feasible real re-newables which are not compromised by higher cost , and do not involve diverting plant crops to fuel , thereby putting up the cost of food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the release of the ClimateGate emails from the CRU, East-Anglia, I have been looking myself at some of the data, including the recently re-collated Siberian data and and weather observation station data from US and Europe.
From a previously neutral position, I have rapidly concluded that the CRU presentation is fraudulent and the data, at best, indicates a .6 dC per century over the last 100 years.
Mann, Jones and IPCC results can only be replicated by completely Cherry Picking the data.
The Hockey Stick is horseshit.
Also CO2 levels lag, not lead temperature.AGW is a scam to persuade the population to pay more for energy, and Carbon Trading schemes, which have similar validity to CDOs.I know, from personal knowledge, that Oil Companies regularly understate reserves, talk up risks and Peak-Oil, and fail to build reserve refining capacity in order to elevate the oil price.
At USD 23.00 per barrel most US and European Oil Co(s) make a reasonable commercial profit, tax paid to producer countries.
Two sets of books are normal.Bert Rutan, the aeronautical engineer, has also come to the same conclusion and published his interim analysis here,http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.Intro.AGW.b.pdfCommon sense tells you we are being lied to, and on a grand scale.Thorium Fission Reactors, Fusion Reactors and Geothermal Taps and another 6 technologies are all feasible real re-newables which are not compromised by higher cost, and do not involve diverting plant crops to fuel, thereby putting up the cost of food.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622788</id>
	<title>So it works like the internet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A series of tubes?  I bet the dump trucks can bring it in, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A series of tubes ?
I bet the dump trucks can bring it in , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A series of tubes?
I bet the dump trucks can bring it in, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625852</id>
	<title>Re:Why move to Thorium?</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1262425440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm, how would you make a nuclear weapon using Thorium?   If the answer is, "you wouldn't," then that makes Thorium a better choice than uranium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm , how would you make a nuclear weapon using Thorium ?
If the answer is , " you would n't , " then that makes Thorium a better choice than uranium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm, how would you make a nuclear weapon using Thorium?
If the answer is, "you wouldn't," then that makes Thorium a better choice than uranium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628848</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>electricprof</author>
	<datestamp>1262449020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is true in the US, but there are other countries that have built quite a few nuclear reactors.  France comes to mind.  I'd like to know if thorium is being used in reactors anywhere in the world?  Is the US the only country with large stockpiles of thorium?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true in the US , but there are other countries that have built quite a few nuclear reactors .
France comes to mind .
I 'd like to know if thorium is being used in reactors anywhere in the world ?
Is the US the only country with large stockpiles of thorium ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true in the US, but there are other countries that have built quite a few nuclear reactors.
France comes to mind.
I'd like to know if thorium is being used in reactors anywhere in the world?
Is the US the only country with large stockpiles of thorium?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623326</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1262454540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and <strong>neutron fluxes </strong>!</em> </p></div>
</blockquote><p>Isn&rsquo;t that what a flux capacitor is for?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !
Isn    t that what a flux capacitor is for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !
Isn’t that what a flux capacitor is for?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632962</id>
	<title>Re:Only a bridge ore</title>
	<author>Boldoran</author>
	<datestamp>1262545860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now we need one for Dwarf Fortress</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we need one for Dwarf Fortress</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we need one for Dwarf Fortress</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because a number of groups with rather different goals have one thing in common.</p><p>Sustainable nuclear power is a threat to their pocketbooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because a number of groups with rather different goals have one thing in common.Sustainable nuclear power is a threat to their pocketbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because a number of groups with rather different goals have one thing in common.Sustainable nuclear power is a threat to their pocketbooks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625240</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1262465040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>- No new nuclear plants have been built in 30-ish years.</p></div></blockquote><p>In the US.  Many places elsewhere have been building them right along.</p><blockquote><div><p>- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it. It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed, especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies</p></div></blockquote><p>Global Warming is changing a lot of opinions really fast among the environmentally-minded.  Solar technology is still an order of magnitude too expensive/inefficient and still suffers severely from the lack of an adequate energy storage technology for the over half the time when it's DARK outside.  Fuel cells can't be a primary energy source--the hydrogen has to come from somewhere, bunkie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- No new nuclear plants have been built in 30-ish years.In the US .
Many places elsewhere have been building them right along.- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it .
It 'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed , especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologiesGlobal Warming is changing a lot of opinions really fast among the environmentally-minded .
Solar technology is still an order of magnitude too expensive/inefficient and still suffers severely from the lack of an adequate energy storage technology for the over half the time when it 's DARK outside .
Fuel cells ca n't be a primary energy source--the hydrogen has to come from somewhere , bunkie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- No new nuclear plants have been built in 30-ish years.In the US.
Many places elsewhere have been building them right along.- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it.
It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed, especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologiesGlobal Warming is changing a lot of opinions really fast among the environmentally-minded.
Solar technology is still an order of magnitude too expensive/inefficient and still suffers severely from the lack of an adequate energy storage technology for the over half the time when it's DARK outside.
Fuel cells can't be a primary energy source--the hydrogen has to come from somewhere, bunkie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629352</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>CrazyChinaman</author>
	<datestamp>1262454660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You also have to factor in the costs for equipment that can handle water heated by a reactor that hot.  Current PWRs heat primary water (stuff that touches the reactor) to ~550F / 2200PSIG.  Which is fed through a steam generator that heats clean water into [saturated] steam that can be sent through a turbine to generate power.
Then you'd need SGs that can transfer heat from the super hot water to the secondary side...which is kind of a crazy delta T.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You also have to factor in the costs for equipment that can handle water heated by a reactor that hot .
Current PWRs heat primary water ( stuff that touches the reactor ) to ~ 550F / 2200PSIG .
Which is fed through a steam generator that heats clean water into [ saturated ] steam that can be sent through a turbine to generate power .
Then you 'd need SGs that can transfer heat from the super hot water to the secondary side...which is kind of a crazy delta T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also have to factor in the costs for equipment that can handle water heated by a reactor that hot.
Current PWRs heat primary water (stuff that touches the reactor) to ~550F / 2200PSIG.
Which is fed through a steam generator that heats clean water into [saturated] steam that can be sent through a turbine to generate power.
Then you'd need SGs that can transfer heat from the super hot water to the secondary side...which is kind of a crazy delta T.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625872</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1262425560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Public skepticism about nuclear energy claims may be overblown, but it's also been well-earned.</p></div></blockquote><p>It should be noted that anti-nuke hysteria was strong well before either Chernobyl (moderately serious) or TMI (total non-issue, except to the insurance company who had to pay for a new reactor).
</p><p>Those events did not cause the hysteria, they merely confirmed pre-existing hysteria (which developed with no real basis other than the KGB's disinformation campaign).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Public skepticism about nuclear energy claims may be overblown , but it 's also been well-earned.It should be noted that anti-nuke hysteria was strong well before either Chernobyl ( moderately serious ) or TMI ( total non-issue , except to the insurance company who had to pay for a new reactor ) .
Those events did not cause the hysteria , they merely confirmed pre-existing hysteria ( which developed with no real basis other than the KGB 's disinformation campaign ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public skepticism about nuclear energy claims may be overblown, but it's also been well-earned.It should be noted that anti-nuke hysteria was strong well before either Chernobyl (moderately serious) or TMI (total non-issue, except to the insurance company who had to pay for a new reactor).
Those events did not cause the hysteria, they merely confirmed pre-existing hysteria (which developed with no real basis other than the KGB's disinformation campaign).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626996</id>
	<title>Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>fireylord</author>
	<datestamp>1262432820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thorium is not an extremely limited resource, and if you rtfa you'd note the fact that the hl wastes from this degrade way faster than uranium reactions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>thorium is not an extremely limited resource , and if you rtfa you 'd note the fact that the hl wastes from this degrade way faster than uranium reactions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thorium is not an extremely limited resource, and if you rtfa you'd note the fact that the hl wastes from this degrade way faster than uranium reactions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1262455020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because 'Big-Uranium' bought up all the patents and made them secret.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>......  Just like 'Big-Oil" bought up the super-dooper battery patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because 'Big-Uranium ' bought up all the patents and made them secret .
...... Just like 'Big-Oil " bought up the super-dooper battery patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because 'Big-Uranium' bought up all the patents and made them secret.
......  Just like 'Big-Oil" bought up the super-dooper battery patents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629216</id>
	<title>Re:Wired Article Errors and Omissions</title>
	<author>hughperkins</author>
	<datestamp>1262452860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually you can start the process with any fast neutron source, including a particle accelerator.  You don't need blocks of plutonium lying around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually you can start the process with any fast neutron source , including a particle accelerator .
You do n't need blocks of plutonium lying around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually you can start the process with any fast neutron source, including a particle accelerator.
You don't need blocks of plutonium lying around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624988</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel cells?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1262463660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I had point, I'd mod you back into the stone age.  Then I'd make a time machine, travel back to the stone age, and bash your ape-man father's head in with a rock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had point , I 'd mod you back into the stone age .
Then I 'd make a time machine , travel back to the stone age , and bash your ape-man father 's head in with a rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had point, I'd mod you back into the stone age.
Then I'd make a time machine, travel back to the stone age, and bash your ape-man father's head in with a rock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625288</id>
	<title>So why are we not building these reactors?</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1262465340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that carbon plumbing is required and the only form of carbon they have tried, graphite, has a problem with swelling and turning to carbon black under neutron bombardment so it loses its structural integrity.</p><p>Fortunately there is a solution to this problem:  <a href="http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=2070" title="energyfromthorium.com">glassy carbon plumbing</a> [energyfromthorium.com].</p><p>Unfortunately, the capital markets have failed to put money in the hands of even a few of the right kind of people.</p><p>It may be the most important tool for saving the planet is the guillotine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that carbon plumbing is required and the only form of carbon they have tried , graphite , has a problem with swelling and turning to carbon black under neutron bombardment so it loses its structural integrity.Fortunately there is a solution to this problem : glassy carbon plumbing [ energyfromthorium.com ] .Unfortunately , the capital markets have failed to put money in the hands of even a few of the right kind of people.It may be the most important tool for saving the planet is the guillotine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that carbon plumbing is required and the only form of carbon they have tried, graphite, has a problem with swelling and turning to carbon black under neutron bombardment so it loses its structural integrity.Fortunately there is a solution to this problem:  glassy carbon plumbing [energyfromthorium.com].Unfortunately, the capital markets have failed to put money in the hands of even a few of the right kind of people.It may be the most important tool for saving the planet is the guillotine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623570</id>
	<title>why bother</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuclear power is a really bad idea for two reasons
1) all the energy we need can come from solar and wind
Thorium may be "inherently safe" but having tons of super hot, possibly corrosive and toxic (HF, hydrofluoric acid is super corrosive and toxic) fluoride salts doesn't really sound like a good place to start.

so, if you had the control of how to spend, say,10 billion dollars (and that is probably a minimum to bring a new reactor technology on line) to develop new nukes, or better solar panels, which way would you go ?

2) it helps spread nuclear weapons technology
there is also an issue about nuclear weapons. Building the complex infrastructure to manufacture, test an store nuculear weapons requires a huge amount of expertise in how to handle radioactive materials. I think it obvious that it is easier to aquire this expertise if ou have a civilian nuclear power  industry. Say for just storing vry radioactive waste - you need to know how to monitor it so workers are safe, you need special shielded drums, etc ect

Civilian nuclear power = more nuclear weapons</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power is a really bad idea for two reasons 1 ) all the energy we need can come from solar and wind Thorium may be " inherently safe " but having tons of super hot , possibly corrosive and toxic ( HF , hydrofluoric acid is super corrosive and toxic ) fluoride salts does n't really sound like a good place to start .
so , if you had the control of how to spend , say,10 billion dollars ( and that is probably a minimum to bring a new reactor technology on line ) to develop new nukes , or better solar panels , which way would you go ?
2 ) it helps spread nuclear weapons technology there is also an issue about nuclear weapons .
Building the complex infrastructure to manufacture , test an store nuculear weapons requires a huge amount of expertise in how to handle radioactive materials .
I think it obvious that it is easier to aquire this expertise if ou have a civilian nuclear power industry .
Say for just storing vry radioactive waste - you need to know how to monitor it so workers are safe , you need special shielded drums , etc ect Civilian nuclear power = more nuclear weapons</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear power is a really bad idea for two reasons
1) all the energy we need can come from solar and wind
Thorium may be "inherently safe" but having tons of super hot, possibly corrosive and toxic (HF, hydrofluoric acid is super corrosive and toxic) fluoride salts doesn't really sound like a good place to start.
so, if you had the control of how to spend, say,10 billion dollars (and that is probably a minimum to bring a new reactor technology on line) to develop new nukes, or better solar panels, which way would you go ?
2) it helps spread nuclear weapons technology
there is also an issue about nuclear weapons.
Building the complex infrastructure to manufacture, test an store nuculear weapons requires a huge amount of expertise in how to handle radioactive materials.
I think it obvious that it is easier to aquire this expertise if ou have a civilian nuclear power  industry.
Say for just storing vry radioactive waste - you need to know how to monitor it so workers are safe, you need special shielded drums, etc ect

Civilian nuclear power = more nuclear weapons</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876</id>
	<title>zero-risk?</title>
	<author>reub2000</author>
	<datestamp>1262452020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many times have we designed things that are supposed to be unsinkable or infallible and then had them sink or fail? If there is a radioactive material being used in the plant, then there is a chance that some of it will leak out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times have we designed things that are supposed to be unsinkable or infallible and then had them sink or fail ?
If there is a radioactive material being used in the plant , then there is a chance that some of it will leak out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times have we designed things that are supposed to be unsinkable or infallible and then had them sink or fail?
If there is a radioactive material being used in the plant, then there is a chance that some of it will leak out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623038</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262452860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer small chance of it leaking out (which happened only once) more than the routine of "leaking" it out into biosphere on a daily basis, in the amounts no nuclear power plant will match. As do coal-fired plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer small chance of it leaking out ( which happened only once ) more than the routine of " leaking " it out into biosphere on a daily basis , in the amounts no nuclear power plant will match .
As do coal-fired plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer small chance of it leaking out (which happened only once) more than the routine of "leaking" it out into biosphere on a daily basis, in the amounts no nuclear power plant will match.
As do coal-fired plants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623664</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1262456160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worth noting that, unlike Intelligent Design or the flat-earthers, the public's fear of nuclear power does have some basis in reality. There have been extremely serious nuclear accidents -- Chernobyl being the worst of them so far -- and the energy industry is about as honest about the risks of energy technologies in general as the tobacco industry is about the health risks of smoking. Public skepticism about nuclear energy claims may be overblown, but it's also been well-earned.</p><p>Personally, I'd like to see more of the newer reactor designs put into practice, but even so, the hair on the back of my neck stands up every time some politician bloviates about "over-regulation". Technologies that can render large swaths of the landscape uninhabitable in the worst-case scenario need extensive (and well-enforced) regulations, especially when the private industrial sector that will be running them is as notoriously corrupt as the energy industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting that , unlike Intelligent Design or the flat-earthers , the public 's fear of nuclear power does have some basis in reality .
There have been extremely serious nuclear accidents -- Chernobyl being the worst of them so far -- and the energy industry is about as honest about the risks of energy technologies in general as the tobacco industry is about the health risks of smoking .
Public skepticism about nuclear energy claims may be overblown , but it 's also been well-earned.Personally , I 'd like to see more of the newer reactor designs put into practice , but even so , the hair on the back of my neck stands up every time some politician bloviates about " over-regulation " .
Technologies that can render large swaths of the landscape uninhabitable in the worst-case scenario need extensive ( and well-enforced ) regulations , especially when the private industrial sector that will be running them is as notoriously corrupt as the energy industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting that, unlike Intelligent Design or the flat-earthers, the public's fear of nuclear power does have some basis in reality.
There have been extremely serious nuclear accidents -- Chernobyl being the worst of them so far -- and the energy industry is about as honest about the risks of energy technologies in general as the tobacco industry is about the health risks of smoking.
Public skepticism about nuclear energy claims may be overblown, but it's also been well-earned.Personally, I'd like to see more of the newer reactor designs put into practice, but even so, the hair on the back of my neck stands up every time some politician bloviates about "over-regulation".
Technologies that can render large swaths of the landscape uninhabitable in the worst-case scenario need extensive (and well-enforced) regulations, especially when the private industrial sector that will be running them is as notoriously corrupt as the energy industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626674</id>
	<title>Safety</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262430540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Molten fluoride salts are not known for safe handling.  They attack metal, glass, plastics and ceramics.  They react with water to form HF.  Graphite does not weld easily and has some problems with absorbing high doses of neutrons. We should study it enough at least  to see whether it could come on line before fusion. I don't see it being cheaper than wind or solar but it is base load power and could help us process spent fuel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Molten fluoride salts are not known for safe handling .
They attack metal , glass , plastics and ceramics .
They react with water to form HF .
Graphite does not weld easily and has some problems with absorbing high doses of neutrons .
We should study it enough at least to see whether it could come on line before fusion .
I do n't see it being cheaper than wind or solar but it is base load power and could help us process spent fuel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Molten fluoride salts are not known for safe handling.
They attack metal, glass, plastics and ceramics.
They react with water to form HF.
Graphite does not weld easily and has some problems with absorbing high doses of neutrons.
We should study it enough at least  to see whether it could come on line before fusion.
I don't see it being cheaper than wind or solar but it is base load power and could help us process spent fuel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628708</id>
	<title>Re:No US commercial reactor with thorium I found</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262447580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no surprise here, as U.S. had fallen behind nuclear power tech quite a bit lately. The most recent nuclear reactor brought online in U.S. was Watts Bar, in 1996 - its construction started in 1973. If you go by date on which construction began, the most recent one is River Bend, 1977. In other words, the most up-to-date commercial reactor in U.S. was built according to the plans drawn up over 30 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no surprise here , as U.S. had fallen behind nuclear power tech quite a bit lately .
The most recent nuclear reactor brought online in U.S. was Watts Bar , in 1996 - its construction started in 1973 .
If you go by date on which construction began , the most recent one is River Bend , 1977 .
In other words , the most up-to-date commercial reactor in U.S. was built according to the plans drawn up over 30 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no surprise here, as U.S. had fallen behind nuclear power tech quite a bit lately.
The most recent nuclear reactor brought online in U.S. was Watts Bar, in 1996 - its construction started in 1973.
If you go by date on which construction began, the most recent one is River Bend, 1977.
In other words, the most up-to-date commercial reactor in U.S. was built according to the plans drawn up over 30 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630046</id>
	<title>bombs baby, bombs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262549100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its the bombs that people want, not the power.  Power, shmower.  Who cares.  A bit of electricity here and there.  Big deal.  Now a nuclear blast, well that comes in with a bang!  Noone has to use a fallout shelter with electricity, now do they?  NO.  But a bomb, well its da bomb!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the bombs that people want , not the power .
Power , shmower .
Who cares .
A bit of electricity here and there .
Big deal .
Now a nuclear blast , well that comes in with a bang !
Noone has to use a fallout shelter with electricity , now do they ?
NO. But a bomb , well its da bomb !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the bombs that people want, not the power.
Power, shmower.
Who cares.
A bit of electricity here and there.
Big deal.
Now a nuclear blast, well that comes in with a bang!
Noone has to use a fallout shelter with electricity, now do they?
NO.  But a bomb, well its da bomb!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630716</id>
	<title>it's the storage stupid</title>
	<author>Soudis</author>
	<datestamp>1262517900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many people here talk about how safe or how cheap it is to use either thorium or uranium. The real problems however are not plant safety or cost, but how to store the huge amounts of nuclear waste. Most of it needs to be stored thousands of years until it's finally safe. There is still no way of doing that, the material is stored in old salt mines without knowing if this will last long enough. Until 1994 it was even legal to just drop it into the sea. This year it was discovered that from the 90s on (until this year!) France was shipping it's nuclear waste to Siberia, where it was stored on a old parking lot. In Italy nuclear waste was packed on old ships by the mafia which then were sank in the mediterranean or atlantic sea. And I'm pretty sure that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Uranium or thorium, nuclear energy is NOT the future, it's a serious threat to our (grand) children!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people here talk about how safe or how cheap it is to use either thorium or uranium .
The real problems however are not plant safety or cost , but how to store the huge amounts of nuclear waste .
Most of it needs to be stored thousands of years until it 's finally safe .
There is still no way of doing that , the material is stored in old salt mines without knowing if this will last long enough .
Until 1994 it was even legal to just drop it into the sea .
This year it was discovered that from the 90s on ( until this year !
) France was shipping it 's nuclear waste to Siberia , where it was stored on a old parking lot .
In Italy nuclear waste was packed on old ships by the mafia which then were sank in the mediterranean or atlantic sea .
And I 'm pretty sure that this is just the tip of the iceberg .
Uranium or thorium , nuclear energy is NOT the future , it 's a serious threat to our ( grand ) children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people here talk about how safe or how cheap it is to use either thorium or uranium.
The real problems however are not plant safety or cost, but how to store the huge amounts of nuclear waste.
Most of it needs to be stored thousands of years until it's finally safe.
There is still no way of doing that, the material is stored in old salt mines without knowing if this will last long enough.
Until 1994 it was even legal to just drop it into the sea.
This year it was discovered that from the 90s on (until this year!
) France was shipping it's nuclear waste to Siberia, where it was stored on a old parking lot.
In Italy nuclear waste was packed on old ships by the mafia which then were sank in the mediterranean or atlantic sea.
And I'm pretty sure that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Uranium or thorium, nuclear energy is NOT the future, it's a serious threat to our (grand) children!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630540</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262514480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other reason was also mentioned in the summary. You can continue making weapons with the uranium crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other reason was also mentioned in the summary .
You can continue making weapons with the uranium crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other reason was also mentioned in the summary.
You can continue making weapons with the uranium crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627732</id>
	<title>Re:Because nuclear is still "scary"</title>
	<author>nadaou</author>
	<datestamp>1262437740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Propaganda &gt; Science</p></div></blockquote><p>yeah, but science has a much longer half-life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Propaganda &gt; Scienceyeah , but science has a much longer half-life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Propaganda &gt; Scienceyeah, but science has a much longer half-life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628852</id>
	<title>Re:Surprise! Business model problems...</title>
	<author>CrazyChinaman</author>
	<datestamp>1262449020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The power companies themselves do not refine fuel. They don't design reactors. Everything in a nuclear power plant is bought and installed. All they do is run the equipment.<br>You've got to convince Westinghouse (fuel and reactors), Areva (fuel), and several other secondary companies (need equipment to deal with superheated steam, instead of merely saturated).<br>If you gave the actual power companies a cost effective and vetted thorium plant design, they would take it. But until then, everyone's eyes are set on Westinghouse's AP-1000 design for the next decade or two.<br>The fact that thorium takes less processing should encourage fuel makers because it's less work for them, while still selling fuel at a profit. But like a poster said, the actual fuel cost isn't why a nuke plant is hard to build. It takes 15-20 billion to build a 2-reactor plant right now. Getting that kind of funding is what's keeping them from being built.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The power companies themselves do not refine fuel .
They do n't design reactors .
Everything in a nuclear power plant is bought and installed .
All they do is run the equipment.You 've got to convince Westinghouse ( fuel and reactors ) , Areva ( fuel ) , and several other secondary companies ( need equipment to deal with superheated steam , instead of merely saturated ) .If you gave the actual power companies a cost effective and vetted thorium plant design , they would take it .
But until then , everyone 's eyes are set on Westinghouse 's AP-1000 design for the next decade or two.The fact that thorium takes less processing should encourage fuel makers because it 's less work for them , while still selling fuel at a profit .
But like a poster said , the actual fuel cost is n't why a nuke plant is hard to build .
It takes 15-20 billion to build a 2-reactor plant right now .
Getting that kind of funding is what 's keeping them from being built .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The power companies themselves do not refine fuel.
They don't design reactors.
Everything in a nuclear power plant is bought and installed.
All they do is run the equipment.You've got to convince Westinghouse (fuel and reactors), Areva (fuel), and several other secondary companies (need equipment to deal with superheated steam, instead of merely saturated).If you gave the actual power companies a cost effective and vetted thorium plant design, they would take it.
But until then, everyone's eyes are set on Westinghouse's AP-1000 design for the next decade or two.The fact that thorium takes less processing should encourage fuel makers because it's less work for them, while still selling fuel at a profit.
But like a poster said, the actual fuel cost isn't why a nuke plant is hard to build.
It takes 15-20 billion to build a 2-reactor plant right now.
Getting that kind of funding is what's keeping them from being built.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623080</id>
	<title>nuclear fusion anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how about pouring more resources in nuclear fusion? Isn't it n times more efficient and m more clean?</htmltext>
<tokenext>how about pouring more resources in nuclear fusion ?
Is n't it n times more efficient and m more clean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about pouring more resources in nuclear fusion?
Isn't it n times more efficient and m more clean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626230</id>
	<title>Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262427900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies</p> </div><p> This goal can be achieved by creating an energy market where the generating companies are separate from the transmission companies. The customer can then choose the suitable method of production.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and to produce the energy more safely</p></div><p> The more generators, the more maintenance. Avoiding a single point of failure one creates multiple points of failure, with potentially substandard maintenance.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Big technology is bad technology.</p></div><p> Physics is sometimes the limiting factor. Just observe the size of the ITER test reactor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies This goal can be achieved by creating an energy market where the generating companies are separate from the transmission companies .
The customer can then choose the suitable method of production.and to produce the energy more safely The more generators , the more maintenance .
Avoiding a single point of failure one creates multiple points of failure , with potentially substandard maintenance.Big technology is bad technology .
Physics is sometimes the limiting factor .
Just observe the size of the ITER test reactor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies  This goal can be achieved by creating an energy market where the generating companies are separate from the transmission companies.
The customer can then choose the suitable method of production.and to produce the energy more safely The more generators, the more maintenance.
Avoiding a single point of failure one creates multiple points of failure, with potentially substandard maintenance.Big technology is bad technology.
Physics is sometimes the limiting factor.
Just observe the size of the ITER test reactor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623852</id>
	<title>No US commercial reactor with thorium I found</title>
	<author>mrflash818</author>
	<datestamp>1262457180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html" title="world-nuclear.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html</a> [world-nuclear.org]</p><p>Seems there are zero commercial thorium-only reactors in the United States.</p><p>So, now I am wondering if the idea sounds great on paper, but is unable to be made a commercial reality.</p><p>Seem that if it was so easy to do, someone would have done it by now, as generating electricity for a utility seems a win-win in terms of profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html [ world-nuclear.org ] Seems there are zero commercial thorium-only reactors in the United States.So , now I am wondering if the idea sounds great on paper , but is unable to be made a commercial reality.Seem that if it was so easy to do , someone would have done it by now , as generating electricity for a utility seems a win-win in terms of profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html [world-nuclear.org]Seems there are zero commercial thorium-only reactors in the United States.So, now I am wondering if the idea sounds great on paper, but is unable to be made a commercial reality.Seem that if it was so easy to do, someone would have done it by now, as generating electricity for a utility seems a win-win in terms of profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631032</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1262524980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And there is an infinite supply of oil?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there is an infinite supply of oil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there is an infinite supply of oil?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629418</id>
	<title>Re:Wired Article Errors and Omissions</title>
	<author>CrazyChinaman</author>
	<datestamp>1262455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what I thought (Th being fertile) I couldn't remember for sure, but didn't have time to go look it up yet.  I can't believe they left out that cruicial tidbit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I thought ( Th being fertile ) I could n't remember for sure , but did n't have time to go look it up yet .
I ca n't believe they left out that cruicial tidbit : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I thought (Th being fertile) I couldn't remember for sure, but didn't have time to go look it up yet.
I can't believe they left out that cruicial tidbit :/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628282</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262442360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1700 C radioactive molten fluorides? Material technology indeed! What's going to contain that for any reasonable length of time? (I'm not using sketchy logic to say it isn't possible, I'm genuinely curious).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1700 C radioactive molten fluorides ?
Material technology indeed !
What 's going to contain that for any reasonable length of time ?
( I 'm not using sketchy logic to say it is n't possible , I 'm genuinely curious ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1700 C radioactive molten fluorides?
Material technology indeed!
What's going to contain that for any reasonable length of time?
(I'm not using sketchy logic to say it isn't possible, I'm genuinely curious).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625308</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1262465460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>great link, thx!</htmltext>
<tokenext>great link , thx !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>great link, thx!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30664168</id>
	<title>Re:Because nuclear is still "scary"</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262702940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps different terminology will help. Ask instead how safe the megatons of CO2 from coal fired plants makes them feel. How safe is it to shut down your heater in the dead of winter when the cost goes too high? Perhaps we should figure out how much radon is emitted by the radium coal plants release into the atmosphere (it's important, radium is the stuff that makes cool watches, radon is the "invisible killer" in your basement).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps different terminology will help .
Ask instead how safe the megatons of CO2 from coal fired plants makes them feel .
How safe is it to shut down your heater in the dead of winter when the cost goes too high ?
Perhaps we should figure out how much radon is emitted by the radium coal plants release into the atmosphere ( it 's important , radium is the stuff that makes cool watches , radon is the " invisible killer " in your basement ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps different terminology will help.
Ask instead how safe the megatons of CO2 from coal fired plants makes them feel.
How safe is it to shut down your heater in the dead of winter when the cost goes too high?
Perhaps we should figure out how much radon is emitted by the radium coal plants release into the atmosphere (it's important, radium is the stuff that makes cool watches, radon is the "invisible killer" in your basement).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624606</id>
	<title>Not As Much Room For Corruption</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262461380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>           A lot of big players must really enjoy the contracts for building complex nuclear reactors. Make them better and simpler and these middlemen will not make as much money. You can bet that your local power company and the entire coal industry would be willing to kill anyone coming up with small, safe, efficient modes of power production or delivery.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If you think that paragraph is paranoia at work consider how many people the coal industry has been known to murder in the past. Time does not change greedy people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of big players must really enjoy the contracts for building complex nuclear reactors .
Make them better and simpler and these middlemen will not make as much money .
You can bet that your local power company and the entire coal industry would be willing to kill anyone coming up with small , safe , efficient modes of power production or delivery .
                      If you think that paragraph is paranoia at work consider how many people the coal industry has been known to murder in the past .
Time does not change greedy people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>           A lot of big players must really enjoy the contracts for building complex nuclear reactors.
Make them better and simpler and these middlemen will not make as much money.
You can bet that your local power company and the entire coal industry would be willing to kill anyone coming up with small, safe, efficient modes of power production or delivery.
                      If you think that paragraph is paranoia at work consider how many people the coal industry has been known to murder in the past.
Time does not change greedy people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630232</id>
	<title>Re:Only a bridge ore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262551800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HAHAHA!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HAHAHA ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HAHAHA!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986</id>
	<title>Only a bridge ore</title>
	<author>wembley fraggle</author>
	<datestamp>1262452500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days, people only mine Thorium while they're working on getting their skill up to the Fel Iron and outlands level. One thing worth noting is that somewhere in the past few patches, they've made it so you can mine Fel Iron at 275, which is pretty nice. No more running around the Eastern Plaguelands looking for Rich Thorium Nodes for those last few points when you'd rather be in Hellfire Peninsula.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days , people only mine Thorium while they 're working on getting their skill up to the Fel Iron and outlands level .
One thing worth noting is that somewhere in the past few patches , they 've made it so you can mine Fel Iron at 275 , which is pretty nice .
No more running around the Eastern Plaguelands looking for Rich Thorium Nodes for those last few points when you 'd rather be in Hellfire Peninsula .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days, people only mine Thorium while they're working on getting their skill up to the Fel Iron and outlands level.
One thing worth noting is that somewhere in the past few patches, they've made it so you can mine Fel Iron at 275, which is pretty nice.
No more running around the Eastern Plaguelands looking for Rich Thorium Nodes for those last few points when you'd rather be in Hellfire Peninsula.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629018</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262450460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But thorium is more widely available. Indeed, I'm sure India would be interested in the liquid flouride thorium reactor because only Australia has more proven thorium reserves than any other country on Earth, and that makes it very viable as a fuel for nuclear reactors to power India's rapidly growing economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But thorium is more widely available .
Indeed , I 'm sure India would be interested in the liquid flouride thorium reactor because only Australia has more proven thorium reserves than any other country on Earth , and that makes it very viable as a fuel for nuclear reactors to power India 's rapidly growing economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But thorium is more widely available.
Indeed, I'm sure India would be interested in the liquid flouride thorium reactor because only Australia has more proven thorium reserves than any other country on Earth, and that makes it very viable as a fuel for nuclear reactors to power India's rapidly growing economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623908</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>Count\_Froggy</author>
	<datestamp>1262457420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are several countries in the Middle East who want new forms of reliable power and don't want to be targets for terrorists. <br>
Thorium has the potential to generate power cheaply and without bomb-making potential; unlike uramium.  As to the 'enrichment' question, once separated as a metal from the ores (a basic technology every metal needs to be recovered from the ground in any quantity), Thorium does not need enrichment.  The primary isotope for nuclear fuel usage is the +90\% content component.  There are technical issues to solve, but the main issue to the willingness to concider nuclear power and forgo bombs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several countries in the Middle East who want new forms of reliable power and do n't want to be targets for terrorists .
Thorium has the potential to generate power cheaply and without bomb-making potential ; unlike uramium .
As to the 'enrichment ' question , once separated as a metal from the ores ( a basic technology every metal needs to be recovered from the ground in any quantity ) , Thorium does not need enrichment .
The primary isotope for nuclear fuel usage is the + 90 \ % content component .
There are technical issues to solve , but the main issue to the willingness to concider nuclear power and forgo bombs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several countries in the Middle East who want new forms of reliable power and don't want to be targets for terrorists.
Thorium has the potential to generate power cheaply and without bomb-making potential; unlike uramium.
As to the 'enrichment' question, once separated as a metal from the ores (a basic technology every metal needs to be recovered from the ground in any quantity), Thorium does not need enrichment.
The primary isotope for nuclear fuel usage is the +90\% content component.
There are technical issues to solve, but the main issue to the willingness to concider nuclear power and forgo bombs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632204</id>
	<title>Sunlight is thin...</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1262539980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I question the "All the power we need can come from solar and wind."

According to wiki
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_energy\_resources\_and\_consumption" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_energy\_resources\_and\_consumption</a> [wikipedia.org]

we use an average of 1.5 Terawatts.

A square kilometer has a million square meters.
Sunlight runs about 250 W/m2 when averaged over 24 hours.

Assume 25\% efficient solar cells, and a 50\% placement rate. (Leaving aisles for service, etc)

So our million m2 is now 125,000 m2
Our power/km2 is 31 MW

So to get 1.5 TW requires just under half a  million square kilometers.


Hmm.

Wind turbines currently come in 5 MW chunks, and have an average utilization of about 30\%.  So about 700 turbines per GW. 700,000 turbines per TW or about a million turbines.

This totally ignores the storage problem.


High altitude wind power may work, but we have no practice with 25 kilometer long kite strings.


I don't think there is any one-size-fits-all solution.

We have to explore all energy technologies, and get a lot better an energy use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I question the " All the power we need can come from solar and wind .
" According to wiki http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World \ _energy \ _resources \ _and \ _consumption [ wikipedia.org ] we use an average of 1.5 Terawatts .
A square kilometer has a million square meters .
Sunlight runs about 250 W/m2 when averaged over 24 hours .
Assume 25 \ % efficient solar cells , and a 50 \ % placement rate .
( Leaving aisles for service , etc ) So our million m2 is now 125,000 m2 Our power/km2 is 31 MW So to get 1.5 TW requires just under half a million square kilometers .
Hmm . Wind turbines currently come in 5 MW chunks , and have an average utilization of about 30 \ % .
So about 700 turbines per GW .
700,000 turbines per TW or about a million turbines .
This totally ignores the storage problem .
High altitude wind power may work , but we have no practice with 25 kilometer long kite strings .
I do n't think there is any one-size-fits-all solution .
We have to explore all energy technologies , and get a lot better an energy use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I question the "All the power we need can come from solar and wind.
"

According to wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_energy\_resources\_and\_consumption [wikipedia.org]

we use an average of 1.5 Terawatts.
A square kilometer has a million square meters.
Sunlight runs about 250 W/m2 when averaged over 24 hours.
Assume 25\% efficient solar cells, and a 50\% placement rate.
(Leaving aisles for service, etc)

So our million m2 is now 125,000 m2
Our power/km2 is 31 MW

So to get 1.5 TW requires just under half a  million square kilometers.
Hmm.

Wind turbines currently come in 5 MW chunks, and have an average utilization of about 30\%.
So about 700 turbines per GW.
700,000 turbines per TW or about a million turbines.
This totally ignores the storage problem.
High altitude wind power may work, but we have no practice with 25 kilometer long kite strings.
I don't think there is any one-size-fits-all solution.
We have to explore all energy technologies, and get a lot better an energy use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622824</id>
	<title>20+ years</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1262451840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't expect any thorium based reactors any time soon.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't expect any thorium based reactors any time soon .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't expect any thorium based reactors any time soon.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629118</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1262451660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leak out, sure (if, for example, somebody hit the reactor with a bomb). How dangerous would it be? Well, you've probably heard of the Three Mile Island "disaster" (worst commercial reactor incident in US history). That reactor (of a type which was not passively safe, the way these would be) had some of its radioactive material "leak out" which certainly wasn't a good thing, but have you ever looked into how much damage it caused?</p><p>Death toll from direct exposure: 0. Not a single worker, nor anybody in the town<br>Death toll from increased cancer incidence: estimated at possibly as high as 2 (impossible to measure exactly, no noticeable spike)<br>Estimated average radiation exposure for people within 10 miles: a chest X-ray<br>Estimated maximum exposure for any one person: roughly the same as four months worth of background radiation exposure by the average US citizen</p><p>This was decades ago, and we've learned a *lot* of lessons from it. The control scheme at the plant was bad, the workers were poorly trained, the equipment had a known problem (a critical valve that tended to stick), regulatory oversight was much lower than today, and the design of the reactor itself was vastly inferior to those we know how to build now. In over half a century of nuclear power, this is the worst event that has happened in the USA. <b>Almost everything that *could* go wrong did... and the end fewer people died than one might expect from the average car accident.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leak out , sure ( if , for example , somebody hit the reactor with a bomb ) .
How dangerous would it be ?
Well , you 've probably heard of the Three Mile Island " disaster " ( worst commercial reactor incident in US history ) .
That reactor ( of a type which was not passively safe , the way these would be ) had some of its radioactive material " leak out " which certainly was n't a good thing , but have you ever looked into how much damage it caused ? Death toll from direct exposure : 0 .
Not a single worker , nor anybody in the townDeath toll from increased cancer incidence : estimated at possibly as high as 2 ( impossible to measure exactly , no noticeable spike ) Estimated average radiation exposure for people within 10 miles : a chest X-rayEstimated maximum exposure for any one person : roughly the same as four months worth of background radiation exposure by the average US citizenThis was decades ago , and we 've learned a * lot * of lessons from it .
The control scheme at the plant was bad , the workers were poorly trained , the equipment had a known problem ( a critical valve that tended to stick ) , regulatory oversight was much lower than today , and the design of the reactor itself was vastly inferior to those we know how to build now .
In over half a century of nuclear power , this is the worst event that has happened in the USA .
Almost everything that * could * go wrong did... and the end fewer people died than one might expect from the average car accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leak out, sure (if, for example, somebody hit the reactor with a bomb).
How dangerous would it be?
Well, you've probably heard of the Three Mile Island "disaster" (worst commercial reactor incident in US history).
That reactor (of a type which was not passively safe, the way these would be) had some of its radioactive material "leak out" which certainly wasn't a good thing, but have you ever looked into how much damage it caused?Death toll from direct exposure: 0.
Not a single worker, nor anybody in the townDeath toll from increased cancer incidence: estimated at possibly as high as 2 (impossible to measure exactly, no noticeable spike)Estimated average radiation exposure for people within 10 miles: a chest X-rayEstimated maximum exposure for any one person: roughly the same as four months worth of background radiation exposure by the average US citizenThis was decades ago, and we've learned a *lot* of lessons from it.
The control scheme at the plant was bad, the workers were poorly trained, the equipment had a known problem (a critical valve that tended to stick), regulatory oversight was much lower than today, and the design of the reactor itself was vastly inferior to those we know how to build now.
In over half a century of nuclear power, this is the worst event that has happened in the USA.
Almost everything that *could* go wrong did... and the end fewer people died than one might expect from the average car accident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632544</id>
	<title>Re:More like the next Nuclear Fail</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1262543100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much wind and solar do you need to replace *current* nuclear power? A crap load that will sit around over half the time doing *nothing*.<br> <br> Wind and solar have little chance doing much in 20 years time for the simple reason no one wants to pay that much for power (and we can't build that much stuff that quickly), and we are not investing in large energy storage that would also cost a fortune and again spend much of its time doing nothing. And they are not  "free" in any sense and "socially desirable" really means build it somewhere else.
<br> <br>
Nuclear is your only hope of replacing fossil fuels in the near future. Anything else is 20 years away. And what the hell is wrong with 20 years anyway, its not that long, aren't we suppose to be putting our short sightedness behind us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much wind and solar do you need to replace * current * nuclear power ?
A crap load that will sit around over half the time doing * nothing * .
Wind and solar have little chance doing much in 20 years time for the simple reason no one wants to pay that much for power ( and we ca n't build that much stuff that quickly ) , and we are not investing in large energy storage that would also cost a fortune and again spend much of its time doing nothing .
And they are not " free " in any sense and " socially desirable " really means build it somewhere else .
Nuclear is your only hope of replacing fossil fuels in the near future .
Anything else is 20 years away .
And what the hell is wrong with 20 years anyway , its not that long , are n't we suppose to be putting our short sightedness behind us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much wind and solar do you need to replace *current* nuclear power?
A crap load that will sit around over half the time doing *nothing*.
Wind and solar have little chance doing much in 20 years time for the simple reason no one wants to pay that much for power (and we can't build that much stuff that quickly), and we are not investing in large energy storage that would also cost a fortune and again spend much of its time doing nothing.
And they are not  "free" in any sense and "socially desirable" really means build it somewhere else.
Nuclear is your only hope of replacing fossil fuels in the near future.
Anything else is 20 years away.
And what the hell is wrong with 20 years anyway, its not that long, aren't we suppose to be putting our short sightedness behind us?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625620</id>
	<title>Re:Wired Article Errors and Omissions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262423940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ISTR that a team led by Carlo Rubbia was looking into the prospect of developing accelerator-driven thorium reactoes - no other fissiles required...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ISTR that a team led by Carlo Rubbia was looking into the prospect of developing accelerator-driven thorium reactoes - no other fissiles required.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISTR that a team led by Carlo Rubbia was looking into the prospect of developing accelerator-driven thorium reactoes - no other fissiles required...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623884</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1262457360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason "1/2" of the people don't trust scientists is because they were seduced by governmental money....or be put out of business. Over time, no matter who you are, money like this will erode your integrity.</p><p>Much like media; despite covering up anti-democrat stories, people actually *caught* stealing money and voting for several more years, with no mention on their news outlets....some news orgs contend that "corporations by their nature must be conservative, and so it's ok we're liberal for balance".  [Nevermind they are owned by corporations, too.]</p><p>The media also played a central role in stomping out nuclear power.  Just like The Hindenburg Disaster shut down commercial, lighter-than-air travel, Three Mile Island (and the associated "China Syndrome" movie from the same people) has just almost shut us down, compared to France.  France gets 70\% of their electricity from nukes; we get like 15-17, I believe.</p><p>And when people don't listen about STD's, it's because they're young and stupid. The media (again) has sold them the lie that contraception is 100\%, so it must be safe to screw with wild abandon.  SINCE IT ISN'T, they create more miserable people with no 'parents' to raise them, just one...possibly two kids to change diapers, the process repeats.</p><p>What's broken here isn't scientific notion: it's because of it.</p><p>I used to think it CRUEL to piss on an pregnant unmarried mother. "How mean is that?" I thought.  But now that nearly 40\% of our babies are born this way, I think I was wrong.  That 40\% becomes prison population and/or welfare cases, because they didn't get the necessary training to be competent adults.</p><p>There's a biological reason virginity (physical in women, physcological in men) has value, and it was called out something like 5,000 years ago.  IT WORKS. Virginity isn't something you bring home like a party favor. It's *the* reason why more than half the marriages end in divorce.</p><p>Science isn't perfect; never has been. But one policy, *when*followed*properly* has lead broken, beaten civilizations to rule the world, change the maps and invent wondrous things: Christian morality.</p><p>You just have to study it, is all.  The book won't read itself!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason " 1/2 " of the people do n't trust scientists is because they were seduced by governmental money....or be put out of business .
Over time , no matter who you are , money like this will erode your integrity.Much like media ; despite covering up anti-democrat stories , people actually * caught * stealing money and voting for several more years , with no mention on their news outlets....some news orgs contend that " corporations by their nature must be conservative , and so it 's ok we 're liberal for balance " .
[ Nevermind they are owned by corporations , too .
] The media also played a central role in stomping out nuclear power .
Just like The Hindenburg Disaster shut down commercial , lighter-than-air travel , Three Mile Island ( and the associated " China Syndrome " movie from the same people ) has just almost shut us down , compared to France .
France gets 70 \ % of their electricity from nukes ; we get like 15-17 , I believe.And when people do n't listen about STD 's , it 's because they 're young and stupid .
The media ( again ) has sold them the lie that contraception is 100 \ % , so it must be safe to screw with wild abandon .
SINCE IT IS N'T , they create more miserable people with no 'parents ' to raise them , just one...possibly two kids to change diapers , the process repeats.What 's broken here is n't scientific notion : it 's because of it.I used to think it CRUEL to piss on an pregnant unmarried mother .
" How mean is that ?
" I thought .
But now that nearly 40 \ % of our babies are born this way , I think I was wrong .
That 40 \ % becomes prison population and/or welfare cases , because they did n't get the necessary training to be competent adults.There 's a biological reason virginity ( physical in women , physcological in men ) has value , and it was called out something like 5,000 years ago .
IT WORKS .
Virginity is n't something you bring home like a party favor .
It 's * the * reason why more than half the marriages end in divorce.Science is n't perfect ; never has been .
But one policy , * when * followed * properly * has lead broken , beaten civilizations to rule the world , change the maps and invent wondrous things : Christian morality.You just have to study it , is all .
The book wo n't read itself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason "1/2" of the people don't trust scientists is because they were seduced by governmental money....or be put out of business.
Over time, no matter who you are, money like this will erode your integrity.Much like media; despite covering up anti-democrat stories, people actually *caught* stealing money and voting for several more years, with no mention on their news outlets....some news orgs contend that "corporations by their nature must be conservative, and so it's ok we're liberal for balance".
[Nevermind they are owned by corporations, too.
]The media also played a central role in stomping out nuclear power.
Just like The Hindenburg Disaster shut down commercial, lighter-than-air travel, Three Mile Island (and the associated "China Syndrome" movie from the same people) has just almost shut us down, compared to France.
France gets 70\% of their electricity from nukes; we get like 15-17, I believe.And when people don't listen about STD's, it's because they're young and stupid.
The media (again) has sold them the lie that contraception is 100\%, so it must be safe to screw with wild abandon.
SINCE IT ISN'T, they create more miserable people with no 'parents' to raise them, just one...possibly two kids to change diapers, the process repeats.What's broken here isn't scientific notion: it's because of it.I used to think it CRUEL to piss on an pregnant unmarried mother.
"How mean is that?
" I thought.
But now that nearly 40\% of our babies are born this way, I think I was wrong.
That 40\% becomes prison population and/or welfare cases, because they didn't get the necessary training to be competent adults.There's a biological reason virginity (physical in women, physcological in men) has value, and it was called out something like 5,000 years ago.
IT WORKS.
Virginity isn't something you bring home like a party favor.
It's *the* reason why more than half the marriages end in divorce.Science isn't perfect; never has been.
But one policy, *when*followed*properly* has lead broken, beaten civilizations to rule the world, change the maps and invent wondrous things: Christian morality.You just have to study it, is all.
The book won't read itself!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627518</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262436180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't make a patent secret.  That is the entire point of a patent: The design and function is made a public record in exchange for a limited time monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't make a patent secret .
That is the entire point of a patent : The design and function is made a public record in exchange for a limited time monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't make a patent secret.
That is the entire point of a patent: The design and function is made a public record in exchange for a limited time monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628112</id>
	<title>Re:Surprise! Business model problems...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262440740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten\_salt\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [wikipedia.org] (see the section called "Fuel cycle concerns"), because there is no need to refine the Thorium fuel, which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money, they would need to change their business model to cope. We all know how much companies like to do that.</p><p>So, you combine the politicians' lack of desire to risk being associated with nuclear power, and the entrenched industry's lack of interest in the business model, and it's suddenly easy to explain.</p></div><p>I'm not a capitalist myself, but I can appreciate that Capitalists are quite good at optimizing their profits. At some point if you are correct that uranium is becoming scarce and expensive it will become cost effective to switch to alternatives. I of course realize that these same capitalists are quite adept at shifting costs like environmental damage, spent fuel disposing, etc to others but that can't go on indefinitely. At some point the true costs of a particular technology becomes unavoidable.</p><p>To put it another way, the "invisible hand" of market forces invariably affects even the most powerful companies. For example, at one time the railroad barons dominated economic life in this country (think Stanford University) but few remember this today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this [ wikipedia.org ] ( see the section called " Fuel cycle concerns " ) , because there is no need to refine the Thorium fuel , which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money , they would need to change their business model to cope .
We all know how much companies like to do that.So , you combine the politicians ' lack of desire to risk being associated with nuclear power , and the entrenched industry 's lack of interest in the business model , and it 's suddenly easy to explain.I 'm not a capitalist myself , but I can appreciate that Capitalists are quite good at optimizing their profits .
At some point if you are correct that uranium is becoming scarce and expensive it will become cost effective to switch to alternatives .
I of course realize that these same capitalists are quite adept at shifting costs like environmental damage , spent fuel disposing , etc to others but that ca n't go on indefinitely .
At some point the true costs of a particular technology becomes unavoidable.To put it another way , the " invisible hand " of market forces invariably affects even the most powerful companies .
For example , at one time the railroad barons dominated economic life in this country ( think Stanford University ) but few remember this today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this [wikipedia.org] (see the section called "Fuel cycle concerns"), because there is no need to refine the Thorium fuel, which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money, they would need to change their business model to cope.
We all know how much companies like to do that.So, you combine the politicians' lack of desire to risk being associated with nuclear power, and the entrenched industry's lack of interest in the business model, and it's suddenly easy to explain.I'm not a capitalist myself, but I can appreciate that Capitalists are quite good at optimizing their profits.
At some point if you are correct that uranium is becoming scarce and expensive it will become cost effective to switch to alternatives.
I of course realize that these same capitalists are quite adept at shifting costs like environmental damage, spent fuel disposing, etc to others but that can't go on indefinitely.
At some point the true costs of a particular technology becomes unavoidable.To put it another way, the "invisible hand" of market forces invariably affects even the most powerful companies.
For example, at one time the railroad barons dominated economic life in this country (think Stanford University) but few remember this today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623738</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>elsJake</author>
	<datestamp>1262456520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No new plants , but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cernavod\%C4\%83\_Nuclear\_Power\_Plant" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">new units</a> [wikipedia.org] inside existing plants have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No new plants , but new units [ wikipedia.org ] inside existing plants have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No new plants , but new units [wikipedia.org] inside existing plants have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629746</id>
	<title>India's Vision of Nuclear Technology</title>
	<author>sdisegno</author>
	<datestamp>1262459580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As mentioned by other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ters india has been working on nuclear reactors using thorium fuel for quite some time. </p><p> <em>"India is estimated to have a reserve of 2.25 lakh tonnes of Thorium, with an electricity generation potential of 1,55,000 gig watt-years, against just 61,000 tonnes of uranium, with an electricity generation potential of up to 42,000 gig watt-years only.

The use of thorium for power generation had been a dream of the country's nuclear scientists as it would help make the nuclear programme all the more autonomous." </em>~ <a href="http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/05/stories/2007010511500100.htm" title="hindu.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/05/stories/2007010511500100.htm</a> [hindu.com] </p><p>Among other things, nuclear scientists in India also believe that nuclear power will be the "primary source of power for the future":</p><p> <em>"Right now we are talking of nuclear power as an electricity source, and it will be an important electricity source for a long time to come. Very soon we will reach a situation where the energy source, such as oil and gas, will be in short supply. As our energy use grows, we will have to tap all our energy resources such as hydro, coal, oil and gas. It looks to me that there will be a stress on all these sources. </em> </p><p> <em>Our nuclear energy sources, particularly from thorium, are vast. Our technology focus at the moment is how to generate electricity from thorium. What about a point of time when the general energy sources are stretched? The question then is from where will we get the energy for transportation? From where will we get the energy for industrial processes? Just as we get crude oil, and refine it into energy products such as petrol, diesel, kerosene, naphtha, etc., I think the day is not far off when we will have to look at nuclear energy as the primary energy source. </em></p><p><em><em> <em>So the question is, using nuclear energy can you produce hydrogen? Or can you facilitate pyro-chemical or pyro-metallurgical processes. In all these, the important thing is the temperature at which the energy is available. In the PHWRs, you get energy at 300C, and in the FBR at 500C. But for other applications - energy conversion applications - you require energy at 1000C. This is a technology development challenge and this is something we have begun doing (Compact High Temperature Reactor) so that in the years to come, we can look at nuclear energy as a primary energy source. </em></em></em></p><p><em><em><em><em> <em>So, the first thrust area is to increase the share of nuclear power in the electricity generated. The second is to expand the source of nuclear power as the primary energy source. The third is what we can do in the area of agriculture. Thanks to the Green Revolution, we are better placed in agricultural output. Even so, oilseeds and pulses are areas that require more attention. That is where the strong point of BARC is - the mutant seeds developed in BARC. It is more focussed on oilseeds and pulses." <em>~ <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl2104/stories/20040227003810000.htm" title="thehindu.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl2104/stories/20040227003810000.htm</a> [thehindu.com]</em></em></em></em></em></em> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As mentioned by other /.ters india has been working on nuclear reactors using thorium fuel for quite some time .
" India is estimated to have a reserve of 2.25 lakh tonnes of Thorium , with an electricity generation potential of 1,55,000 gig watt-years , against just 61,000 tonnes of uranium , with an electricity generation potential of up to 42,000 gig watt-years only .
The use of thorium for power generation had been a dream of the country 's nuclear scientists as it would help make the nuclear programme all the more autonomous .
" ~ http : //www.hindu.com/2007/01/05/stories/2007010511500100.htm [ hindu.com ] Among other things , nuclear scientists in India also believe that nuclear power will be the " primary source of power for the future " : " Right now we are talking of nuclear power as an electricity source , and it will be an important electricity source for a long time to come .
Very soon we will reach a situation where the energy source , such as oil and gas , will be in short supply .
As our energy use grows , we will have to tap all our energy resources such as hydro , coal , oil and gas .
It looks to me that there will be a stress on all these sources .
Our nuclear energy sources , particularly from thorium , are vast .
Our technology focus at the moment is how to generate electricity from thorium .
What about a point of time when the general energy sources are stretched ?
The question then is from where will we get the energy for transportation ?
From where will we get the energy for industrial processes ?
Just as we get crude oil , and refine it into energy products such as petrol , diesel , kerosene , naphtha , etc. , I think the day is not far off when we will have to look at nuclear energy as the primary energy source .
So the question is , using nuclear energy can you produce hydrogen ?
Or can you facilitate pyro-chemical or pyro-metallurgical processes .
In all these , the important thing is the temperature at which the energy is available .
In the PHWRs , you get energy at 300C , and in the FBR at 500C .
But for other applications - energy conversion applications - you require energy at 1000C .
This is a technology development challenge and this is something we have begun doing ( Compact High Temperature Reactor ) so that in the years to come , we can look at nuclear energy as a primary energy source .
So , the first thrust area is to increase the share of nuclear power in the electricity generated .
The second is to expand the source of nuclear power as the primary energy source .
The third is what we can do in the area of agriculture .
Thanks to the Green Revolution , we are better placed in agricultural output .
Even so , oilseeds and pulses are areas that require more attention .
That is where the strong point of BARC is - the mutant seeds developed in BARC .
It is more focussed on oilseeds and pulses .
" ~ http : //www.thehindu.com/fline/fl2104/stories/20040227003810000.htm [ thehindu.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As mentioned by other /.ters india has been working on nuclear reactors using thorium fuel for quite some time.
"India is estimated to have a reserve of 2.25 lakh tonnes of Thorium, with an electricity generation potential of 1,55,000 gig watt-years, against just 61,000 tonnes of uranium, with an electricity generation potential of up to 42,000 gig watt-years only.
The use of thorium for power generation had been a dream of the country's nuclear scientists as it would help make the nuclear programme all the more autonomous.
" ~ http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/05/stories/2007010511500100.htm [hindu.com] Among other things, nuclear scientists in India also believe that nuclear power will be the "primary source of power for the future": "Right now we are talking of nuclear power as an electricity source, and it will be an important electricity source for a long time to come.
Very soon we will reach a situation where the energy source, such as oil and gas, will be in short supply.
As our energy use grows, we will have to tap all our energy resources such as hydro, coal, oil and gas.
It looks to me that there will be a stress on all these sources.
Our nuclear energy sources, particularly from thorium, are vast.
Our technology focus at the moment is how to generate electricity from thorium.
What about a point of time when the general energy sources are stretched?
The question then is from where will we get the energy for transportation?
From where will we get the energy for industrial processes?
Just as we get crude oil, and refine it into energy products such as petrol, diesel, kerosene, naphtha, etc., I think the day is not far off when we will have to look at nuclear energy as the primary energy source.
So the question is, using nuclear energy can you produce hydrogen?
Or can you facilitate pyro-chemical or pyro-metallurgical processes.
In all these, the important thing is the temperature at which the energy is available.
In the PHWRs, you get energy at 300C, and in the FBR at 500C.
But for other applications - energy conversion applications - you require energy at 1000C.
This is a technology development challenge and this is something we have begun doing (Compact High Temperature Reactor) so that in the years to come, we can look at nuclear energy as a primary energy source.
So, the first thrust area is to increase the share of nuclear power in the electricity generated.
The second is to expand the source of nuclear power as the primary energy source.
The third is what we can do in the area of agriculture.
Thanks to the Green Revolution, we are better placed in agricultural output.
Even so, oilseeds and pulses are areas that require more attention.
That is where the strong point of BARC is - the mutant seeds developed in BARC.
It is more focussed on oilseeds and pulses.
" ~ http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl2104/stories/20040227003810000.htm [thehindu.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626180</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1262427540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll happily take a hundred years worth of thorium-based nuclear power over fossil fuel based solutions. Guess what? Technology will have advanced significantly by then, and we'll be using something else anyhow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll happily take a hundred years worth of thorium-based nuclear power over fossil fuel based solutions .
Guess what ?
Technology will have advanced significantly by then , and we 'll be using something else anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll happily take a hundred years worth of thorium-based nuclear power over fossil fuel based solutions.
Guess what?
Technology will have advanced significantly by then, and we'll be using something else anyhow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624530</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Fuel cells are great if you want everyone to drive a car as expensive as a Porsche, albeit with the performance of a Pinto.
</p><p>
State enforced birth control is the biggest abortion in the history of man.
</p><p>
What do you think the USS Seawolf and USS Virginia class run on? Pink unicorns? Not all nuclear reactors are for civilian power generation.
</p><p>
TMI was contained, Chernobyl used a reactor design which was not used outside of Comecon.
</p><p>
Solar can be nice but still is not cheap enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuel cells are great if you want everyone to drive a car as expensive as a Porsche , albeit with the performance of a Pinto .
State enforced birth control is the biggest abortion in the history of man .
What do you think the USS Seawolf and USS Virginia class run on ?
Pink unicorns ?
Not all nuclear reactors are for civilian power generation .
TMI was contained , Chernobyl used a reactor design which was not used outside of Comecon .
Solar can be nice but still is not cheap enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Fuel cells are great if you want everyone to drive a car as expensive as a Porsche, albeit with the performance of a Pinto.
State enforced birth control is the biggest abortion in the history of man.
What do you think the USS Seawolf and USS Virginia class run on?
Pink unicorns?
Not all nuclear reactors are for civilian power generation.
TMI was contained, Chernobyl used a reactor design which was not used outside of Comecon.
Solar can be nice but still is not cheap enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626312</id>
	<title>Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>wardred</author>
	<datestamp>1262428320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're in a rural environment, setting up a decentralized energy production MAY make sense.  Most of the US's population - I can't speak about the rest of the world as I don't know - is located in the highly developed coastlines and other metropolises where decentralized energy doesn't really make as much sense.  These metropolises need a lot of energy all the time.  Also, people mean different things when they talk about decentralized energy production.  Some mean smaller energy companies, some mean self production.  Self production for most of us isn't an option, either because of location restrictions or because of the high start up and potentially high maintenance costs.  I'm also leery of millions of homes connected to the grid generating their own energy.  Who maintains all the disparate systems?  Heck, who makes sure they were all setup properly to begin with?  Most people currently purchasing renewables for self production put a fair amount of research into them, but if there's some sort of mandate to get X\% of people to self produce energy, i'm pretty sure we're going to run into a maintenance mess.  Maybe not with the first home owner, but what about the second, or third?</p><p>Also, the efficiency of smaller plants is usually not the same as the efficiency for much larger plants.  To be off grid requires batteries and the loss of energy when storing or retrieving the energy from the batteries.  Wind turbines are a perfect example of larger is better.  Larger swept area greatly increases the energy harvested from the wind.  A much taller tower gets you higher wind speeds.  The same can be said about any sort of fossil fuel based production.  The individual units aren't as efficient.  When talking of decentralized plants, a larger plant probably takes nearly the same amount of overhead, once it's built, than a smaller one, and there are fewer power lines to run.</p><p>Much as I hate to admit it, for many things large corporations actually make sense.  They can build bigger, more efficient plants be it traditional fossil fuel plants, larger wind turbines, mass amounts of solar cells, nuclear plants, manufacturing, or what have you.  They are not the be all, end all for everything.  Many new technologies actually come from smaller companies, but it's hard to argue with the efficiencies of scale of larger companies once it's figured out how to produce whatever it is that they're making.</p><p>Also, for the green revolution it makes more sense to make your stationary energy production as efficient as possible, as opposed to trying to get cars totally off of fossil fuels.  It doesn't have the energy density problems that autos have.  I don't know if thorium is the answer, or breeder reactors, but either of these would work for the electric grid's base load and get us off of natural gas or coal to produce the same amount of energy.  Most of our alternatives for base load, including renewables, have their own problems.  Energy availability with wind and / or solar, as well as getting the production sites approved in the first place.  Coal is exceptionally dirty, and fairly expensive to make cleaner.  Natural gas is used a lot hear, but now you're back to fossil fuels.  (I don't see getting rid of all of these plants as they run turbines that handle the spikes in the load.)</p><p>There is one thing most of us can do to help energy production and that's to ask for more energy efficient appliances, even if they cost a bit more.  I think England has a 1 watt initiative - all consumer electronics must go to a 1 watt standby state.  It's incredible the amount of energy that's wasted for our appliances when they're sitting there idle, and the technology isn't hard to implement.  Heck, it should be easier to implement then the stupid DRM that most our products are forced to use.  Further, we can ask that our PC and Console manufacturers make things so that the auto power management even while we're using them works properly.  Most PCs sit there chewing up much more energy than they need, even when we're not playing the l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're in a rural environment , setting up a decentralized energy production MAY make sense .
Most of the US 's population - I ca n't speak about the rest of the world as I do n't know - is located in the highly developed coastlines and other metropolises where decentralized energy does n't really make as much sense .
These metropolises need a lot of energy all the time .
Also , people mean different things when they talk about decentralized energy production .
Some mean smaller energy companies , some mean self production .
Self production for most of us is n't an option , either because of location restrictions or because of the high start up and potentially high maintenance costs .
I 'm also leery of millions of homes connected to the grid generating their own energy .
Who maintains all the disparate systems ?
Heck , who makes sure they were all setup properly to begin with ?
Most people currently purchasing renewables for self production put a fair amount of research into them , but if there 's some sort of mandate to get X \ % of people to self produce energy , i 'm pretty sure we 're going to run into a maintenance mess .
Maybe not with the first home owner , but what about the second , or third ? Also , the efficiency of smaller plants is usually not the same as the efficiency for much larger plants .
To be off grid requires batteries and the loss of energy when storing or retrieving the energy from the batteries .
Wind turbines are a perfect example of larger is better .
Larger swept area greatly increases the energy harvested from the wind .
A much taller tower gets you higher wind speeds .
The same can be said about any sort of fossil fuel based production .
The individual units are n't as efficient .
When talking of decentralized plants , a larger plant probably takes nearly the same amount of overhead , once it 's built , than a smaller one , and there are fewer power lines to run.Much as I hate to admit it , for many things large corporations actually make sense .
They can build bigger , more efficient plants be it traditional fossil fuel plants , larger wind turbines , mass amounts of solar cells , nuclear plants , manufacturing , or what have you .
They are not the be all , end all for everything .
Many new technologies actually come from smaller companies , but it 's hard to argue with the efficiencies of scale of larger companies once it 's figured out how to produce whatever it is that they 're making.Also , for the green revolution it makes more sense to make your stationary energy production as efficient as possible , as opposed to trying to get cars totally off of fossil fuels .
It does n't have the energy density problems that autos have .
I do n't know if thorium is the answer , or breeder reactors , but either of these would work for the electric grid 's base load and get us off of natural gas or coal to produce the same amount of energy .
Most of our alternatives for base load , including renewables , have their own problems .
Energy availability with wind and / or solar , as well as getting the production sites approved in the first place .
Coal is exceptionally dirty , and fairly expensive to make cleaner .
Natural gas is used a lot hear , but now you 're back to fossil fuels .
( I do n't see getting rid of all of these plants as they run turbines that handle the spikes in the load .
) There is one thing most of us can do to help energy production and that 's to ask for more energy efficient appliances , even if they cost a bit more .
I think England has a 1 watt initiative - all consumer electronics must go to a 1 watt standby state .
It 's incredible the amount of energy that 's wasted for our appliances when they 're sitting there idle , and the technology is n't hard to implement .
Heck , it should be easier to implement then the stupid DRM that most our products are forced to use .
Further , we can ask that our PC and Console manufacturers make things so that the auto power management even while we 're using them works properly .
Most PCs sit there chewing up much more energy than they need , even when we 're not playing the l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're in a rural environment, setting up a decentralized energy production MAY make sense.
Most of the US's population - I can't speak about the rest of the world as I don't know - is located in the highly developed coastlines and other metropolises where decentralized energy doesn't really make as much sense.
These metropolises need a lot of energy all the time.
Also, people mean different things when they talk about decentralized energy production.
Some mean smaller energy companies, some mean self production.
Self production for most of us isn't an option, either because of location restrictions or because of the high start up and potentially high maintenance costs.
I'm also leery of millions of homes connected to the grid generating their own energy.
Who maintains all the disparate systems?
Heck, who makes sure they were all setup properly to begin with?
Most people currently purchasing renewables for self production put a fair amount of research into them, but if there's some sort of mandate to get X\% of people to self produce energy, i'm pretty sure we're going to run into a maintenance mess.
Maybe not with the first home owner, but what about the second, or third?Also, the efficiency of smaller plants is usually not the same as the efficiency for much larger plants.
To be off grid requires batteries and the loss of energy when storing or retrieving the energy from the batteries.
Wind turbines are a perfect example of larger is better.
Larger swept area greatly increases the energy harvested from the wind.
A much taller tower gets you higher wind speeds.
The same can be said about any sort of fossil fuel based production.
The individual units aren't as efficient.
When talking of decentralized plants, a larger plant probably takes nearly the same amount of overhead, once it's built, than a smaller one, and there are fewer power lines to run.Much as I hate to admit it, for many things large corporations actually make sense.
They can build bigger, more efficient plants be it traditional fossil fuel plants, larger wind turbines, mass amounts of solar cells, nuclear plants, manufacturing, or what have you.
They are not the be all, end all for everything.
Many new technologies actually come from smaller companies, but it's hard to argue with the efficiencies of scale of larger companies once it's figured out how to produce whatever it is that they're making.Also, for the green revolution it makes more sense to make your stationary energy production as efficient as possible, as opposed to trying to get cars totally off of fossil fuels.
It doesn't have the energy density problems that autos have.
I don't know if thorium is the answer, or breeder reactors, but either of these would work for the electric grid's base load and get us off of natural gas or coal to produce the same amount of energy.
Most of our alternatives for base load, including renewables, have their own problems.
Energy availability with wind and / or solar, as well as getting the production sites approved in the first place.
Coal is exceptionally dirty, and fairly expensive to make cleaner.
Natural gas is used a lot hear, but now you're back to fossil fuels.
(I don't see getting rid of all of these plants as they run turbines that handle the spikes in the load.
)There is one thing most of us can do to help energy production and that's to ask for more energy efficient appliances, even if they cost a bit more.
I think England has a 1 watt initiative - all consumer electronics must go to a 1 watt standby state.
It's incredible the amount of energy that's wasted for our appliances when they're sitting there idle, and the technology isn't hard to implement.
Heck, it should be easier to implement then the stupid DRM that most our products are forced to use.
Further, we can ask that our PC and Console manufacturers make things so that the auto power management even while we're using them works properly.
Most PCs sit there chewing up much more energy than they need, even when we're not playing the l</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626428</id>
	<title>Re:Gimmick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262429040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't discount storage of waste materials. The State of California has a ban on the building of reactors until the waste storage problem is solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't discount storage of waste materials .
The State of California has a ban on the building of reactors until the waste storage problem is solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't discount storage of waste materials.
The State of California has a ban on the building of reactors until the waste storage problem is solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623656</id>
	<title>India's thorium reactors.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>India has Thorium reactors today.</p></div><p>Really? Can you show me a photo of a commercially operating (today) Thorium reactor?</p><p>There are certainly designs and plans and prototypes and test reactors.<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>India has Thorium reactors today.Really ?
Can you show me a photo of a commercially operating ( today ) Thorium reactor ? There are certainly designs and plans and prototypes and test reactors .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>India has Thorium reactors today.Really?
Can you show me a photo of a commercially operating (today) Thorium reactor?There are certainly designs and plans and prototypes and test reactors.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627446</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1262435700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mmmm how can the both patent it and keep it secret?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmmm how can the both patent it and keep it secret ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmmm how can the both patent it and keep it secret?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623312</id>
	<title>Re:nuclear fusion anyone?</title>
	<author>mudetroit</author>
	<datestamp>1262454480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I won't disagree that I would like to see more money pushed at fusion, it is hard to say that it is more efficient when we haven't been able to build a plant that can be continuously energy positive yet. Fission reactors are more practical in the short term.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I wo n't disagree that I would like to see more money pushed at fusion , it is hard to say that it is more efficient when we have n't been able to build a plant that can be continuously energy positive yet .
Fission reactors are more practical in the short term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I won't disagree that I would like to see more money pushed at fusion, it is hard to say that it is more efficient when we haven't been able to build a plant that can be continuously energy positive yet.
Fission reactors are more practical in the short term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623176</id>
	<title>Canadian CANDU reactors can use Thorium</title>
	<author>ameline</author>
	<datestamp>1262453700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the subject says, there is already a proven and safe reactor design that can use the thorium fuel cycle.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the subject says , there is already a proven and safe reactor design that can use the thorium fuel cycle .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the subject says, there is already a proven and safe reactor design that can use the thorium fuel cycle.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30637374</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1262538540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eerrggghh, made an arse of myself with the double but.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eerrggghh , made an arse of myself with the double but .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eerrggghh, made an arse of myself with the double but.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623560</id>
	<title>Check Google Tech Talks / YouTube for more info</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1262455680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several hour-long talks on the history and potential of Thorium as a nuclear fuel. Very interesting stuff.<br>I've long been opposed to relying on nuclear power but after looking at the info on Thorium, I'm starting to have<br>second thoughts.<br>Whether or not it pans out, I'm afraid that nothing short of a catastrophe of some kind will lead to its adoption.<br>It's very hard to unseat the entrenched industries, especially in North America, so coal and uranium won't<br>suddenly disappear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several hour-long talks on the history and potential of Thorium as a nuclear fuel .
Very interesting stuff.I 've long been opposed to relying on nuclear power but after looking at the info on Thorium , I 'm starting to havesecond thoughts.Whether or not it pans out , I 'm afraid that nothing short of a catastrophe of some kind will lead to its adoption.It 's very hard to unseat the entrenched industries , especially in North America , so coal and uranium won'tsuddenly disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several hour-long talks on the history and potential of Thorium as a nuclear fuel.
Very interesting stuff.I've long been opposed to relying on nuclear power but after looking at the info on Thorium, I'm starting to havesecond thoughts.Whether or not it pans out, I'm afraid that nothing short of a catastrophe of some kind will lead to its adoption.It's very hard to unseat the entrenched industries, especially in North America, so coal and uranium won'tsuddenly disappear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628844</id>
	<title>Re:Only a bridge ore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262448960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Came for this.  Leaving satisfied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Came for this .
Leaving satisfied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Came for this.
Leaving satisfied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628752</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1262447880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you prefer coal a far more dangerous industry responsible for countless deaths?</p><p>No thanks I prefer the safety of Nuclear power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you prefer coal a far more dangerous industry responsible for countless deaths ? No thanks I prefer the safety of Nuclear power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you prefer coal a far more dangerous industry responsible for countless deaths?No thanks I prefer the safety of Nuclear power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625804</id>
	<title>Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1262425140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, those running the governments of this planet by and large believe in the axiom "Give me control over the air-supply of the planet and I could care less about what laws you write." They do not like "decentralized" sources of energy because then they can not extort the public for every last red cent for electricity. Between their own avarice and the greed of power companies, we will continue to live in a world where the sources that provide electricity are constantly under threat of attack, or lack of availability. Personally, I am awaiting the end of oil and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/or coal with glee!.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , those running the governments of this planet by and large believe in the axiom " Give me control over the air-supply of the planet and I could care less about what laws you write .
" They do not like " decentralized " sources of energy because then they can not extort the public for every last red cent for electricity .
Between their own avarice and the greed of power companies , we will continue to live in a world where the sources that provide electricity are constantly under threat of attack , or lack of availability .
Personally , I am awaiting the end of oil and /or coal with glee ! .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, those running the governments of this planet by and large believe in the axiom "Give me control over the air-supply of the planet and I could care less about what laws you write.
" They do not like "decentralized" sources of energy because then they can not extort the public for every last red cent for electricity.
Between their own avarice and the greed of power companies, we will continue to live in a world where the sources that provide electricity are constantly under threat of attack, or lack of availability.
Personally, I am awaiting the end of oil and /or coal with glee!.
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623990</id>
	<title>We don't have the reactors due to B.A.N.A.N.A.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>B.A.N.A.N.A. - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.</p><p>Unfortunately there is a lack of new atomic reactors, refineries, wind turbines, solar farms, and anything else to do with the production of power, because any time you want to build one, you get sued.</p><p>Greenpeace and all the other anti-human population nutjobs will for and try to kill your plant in the planning stages, long before you've got a permit.  Then assuming you can buy off enough local and state politicians to get through the first few planning stages, you'll immediately get sued again.  This time it be on the legal grounds of "Think Of The Children" and involve showing how you're attempting to poison babies everywhere within 50 or 100 miles.  The fact that even a full blown Chernobyl is safe at 100 miles away is not going to deter this group.  Rationality, public need, all gone.  Many of these groups DO NOT want a solution to the energy problem.  They see it as a population problem, to be corrected by energy shortages.  They see it as a 'do with having less' problem, to be solved by getting back into graces of some imaginary "Mother Earth."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>B.A.N.A.N.A .
- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.Unfortunately there is a lack of new atomic reactors , refineries , wind turbines , solar farms , and anything else to do with the production of power , because any time you want to build one , you get sued.Greenpeace and all the other anti-human population nutjobs will for and try to kill your plant in the planning stages , long before you 've got a permit .
Then assuming you can buy off enough local and state politicians to get through the first few planning stages , you 'll immediately get sued again .
This time it be on the legal grounds of " Think Of The Children " and involve showing how you 're attempting to poison babies everywhere within 50 or 100 miles .
The fact that even a full blown Chernobyl is safe at 100 miles away is not going to deter this group .
Rationality , public need , all gone .
Many of these groups DO NOT want a solution to the energy problem .
They see it as a population problem , to be corrected by energy shortages .
They see it as a 'do with having less ' problem , to be solved by getting back into graces of some imaginary " Mother Earth .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>B.A.N.A.N.A.
- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.Unfortunately there is a lack of new atomic reactors, refineries, wind turbines, solar farms, and anything else to do with the production of power, because any time you want to build one, you get sued.Greenpeace and all the other anti-human population nutjobs will for and try to kill your plant in the planning stages, long before you've got a permit.
Then assuming you can buy off enough local and state politicians to get through the first few planning stages, you'll immediately get sued again.
This time it be on the legal grounds of "Think Of The Children" and involve showing how you're attempting to poison babies everywhere within 50 or 100 miles.
The fact that even a full blown Chernobyl is safe at 100 miles away is not going to deter this group.
Rationality, public need, all gone.
Many of these groups DO NOT want a solution to the energy problem.
They see it as a population problem, to be corrected by energy shortages.
They see it as a 'do with having less' problem, to be solved by getting back into graces of some imaginary "Mother Earth.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30637460</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262539380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't trust the nonsense report from the Norwegian governmental department that you've obviously read: de er en gjeng tullinger (they're a bunch of fools) who want to avoid anything that resembles practical and tangible solutions while they're busy fleecing and destroying a society drowning in mediocrity and self-destructive ultra-naive snillisme ("good-ism"/"kind-ism"). The only kind of work the leftists approve of is the make-work kind of work where they think they can continue to inflate their base of support (it has worked for half a century so why would they stop now?).</p><p>Please don't vote for them (Ap, SV, or Sp) or those far too close for comfort ("R&#248;dt og r&#248;kla", H, and V --quite astonishing mix really) since we and everybody else on this planet need something much better in and from our governments. And yeah it's that same old "contrarian" party so many seem to love to hate and spite which yet again has shown and continues to show far more interest in attempting to actually do something worthwhile (FrP). That's the only party in Norway that is open to anything nuclear beyond that old test reactor, or for that matter the only party that is seriously acknowledging any of the problems people in our country face instead of hiding the issues under torrents of worthless platitudes.</p><p>Rant over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't trust the nonsense report from the Norwegian governmental department that you 've obviously read : de er en gjeng tullinger ( they 're a bunch of fools ) who want to avoid anything that resembles practical and tangible solutions while they 're busy fleecing and destroying a society drowning in mediocrity and self-destructive ultra-naive snillisme ( " good-ism " / " kind-ism " ) .
The only kind of work the leftists approve of is the make-work kind of work where they think they can continue to inflate their base of support ( it has worked for half a century so why would they stop now ?
) .Please do n't vote for them ( Ap , SV , or Sp ) or those far too close for comfort ( " R   dt og r   kla " , H , and V --quite astonishing mix really ) since we and everybody else on this planet need something much better in and from our governments .
And yeah it 's that same old " contrarian " party so many seem to love to hate and spite which yet again has shown and continues to show far more interest in attempting to actually do something worthwhile ( FrP ) .
That 's the only party in Norway that is open to anything nuclear beyond that old test reactor , or for that matter the only party that is seriously acknowledging any of the problems people in our country face instead of hiding the issues under torrents of worthless platitudes.Rant over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't trust the nonsense report from the Norwegian governmental department that you've obviously read: de er en gjeng tullinger (they're a bunch of fools) who want to avoid anything that resembles practical and tangible solutions while they're busy fleecing and destroying a society drowning in mediocrity and self-destructive ultra-naive snillisme ("good-ism"/"kind-ism").
The only kind of work the leftists approve of is the make-work kind of work where they think they can continue to inflate their base of support (it has worked for half a century so why would they stop now?
).Please don't vote for them (Ap, SV, or Sp) or those far too close for comfort ("Rødt og røkla", H, and V --quite astonishing mix really) since we and everybody else on this planet need something much better in and from our governments.
And yeah it's that same old "contrarian" party so many seem to love to hate and spite which yet again has shown and continues to show far more interest in attempting to actually do something worthwhile (FrP).
That's the only party in Norway that is open to anything nuclear beyond that old test reactor, or for that matter the only party that is seriously acknowledging any of the problems people in our country face instead of hiding the issues under torrents of worthless platitudes.Rant over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624416</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1262460060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's only so much coal in the world as well. But we have been burning it for centuries and there is still more.
<p>
There's only so much carbon fibre in the world to make windmills too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only so much coal in the world as well .
But we have been burning it for centuries and there is still more .
There 's only so much carbon fibre in the world to make windmills too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only so much coal in the world as well.
But we have been burning it for centuries and there is still more.
There's only so much carbon fibre in the world to make windmills too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623426</id>
	<title>Not wrong, but somewhat misleading</title>
	<author>HiddenCamper</author>
	<datestamp>1262455080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article seems a little misleading.
The article makes it appear that just by using thorium, it is possible to get better fuel efficiency (burnup). The reality is that the article is talking about using liquid fluoride based reactors, a technology that we havent been able to make commercial use of yet, and it is unlikely we will see those types of reactors for many years. Comparing liquid fluoride reactors to any type of light water reactor (the kind in use in the US) is like comparing the gas mileage for a car to an airplane. They use different fuel types due to design, and you wouldnt buy a hummer just because the car salesman says it gets better gas mileage than an airplane. The article should talk about the difference between LWRs and gen4 reactors, and how by using a gen4 reactor you can make efficient use of thorium, expanding our fuel options and reducing proliferation threats.

When thorium fuel is used in an LWR, you actually get much worse fuel economy (about 5\% to 10\% at best compared to traditional uranium cycles), for the same cost.

Wikipedia's thorium fuel cycle has some pretty good information about thorium in LWRs.
<a href="http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE\_1450\_web.pdf" title="iaea.org" rel="nofollow">http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE\_1450\_web.pdf</a> [iaea.org] is a great document prepared for the IAEA and has some good bullet points about thorium viability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seems a little misleading .
The article makes it appear that just by using thorium , it is possible to get better fuel efficiency ( burnup ) .
The reality is that the article is talking about using liquid fluoride based reactors , a technology that we havent been able to make commercial use of yet , and it is unlikely we will see those types of reactors for many years .
Comparing liquid fluoride reactors to any type of light water reactor ( the kind in use in the US ) is like comparing the gas mileage for a car to an airplane .
They use different fuel types due to design , and you wouldnt buy a hummer just because the car salesman says it gets better gas mileage than an airplane .
The article should talk about the difference between LWRs and gen4 reactors , and how by using a gen4 reactor you can make efficient use of thorium , expanding our fuel options and reducing proliferation threats .
When thorium fuel is used in an LWR , you actually get much worse fuel economy ( about 5 \ % to 10 \ % at best compared to traditional uranium cycles ) , for the same cost .
Wikipedia 's thorium fuel cycle has some pretty good information about thorium in LWRs .
http : //www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE \ _1450 \ _web.pdf [ iaea.org ] is a great document prepared for the IAEA and has some good bullet points about thorium viability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seems a little misleading.
The article makes it appear that just by using thorium, it is possible to get better fuel efficiency (burnup).
The reality is that the article is talking about using liquid fluoride based reactors, a technology that we havent been able to make commercial use of yet, and it is unlikely we will see those types of reactors for many years.
Comparing liquid fluoride reactors to any type of light water reactor (the kind in use in the US) is like comparing the gas mileage for a car to an airplane.
They use different fuel types due to design, and you wouldnt buy a hummer just because the car salesman says it gets better gas mileage than an airplane.
The article should talk about the difference between LWRs and gen4 reactors, and how by using a gen4 reactor you can make efficient use of thorium, expanding our fuel options and reducing proliferation threats.
When thorium fuel is used in an LWR, you actually get much worse fuel economy (about 5\% to 10\% at best compared to traditional uranium cycles), for the same cost.
Wikipedia's thorium fuel cycle has some pretty good information about thorium in LWRs.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE\_1450\_web.pdf [iaea.org] is a great document prepared for the IAEA and has some good bullet points about thorium viability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623010</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah true but so what who cares. I live relatively close Chernobyl the effects of that meltdown has been way overestimated. New research on the matter shows that we where of by 10-100 times in our estimations on the effects of Chernobyl. Nuclear is not nice to humans but it's not such a big deal to our environment. Animal in Chernobyl shows to be at good health, they are in-fact more immune against cancer than animals living in less radiated areas. If we humans want a clean environment and still have the energy there is not many other choices to go with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah true but so what who cares .
I live relatively close Chernobyl the effects of that meltdown has been way overestimated .
New research on the matter shows that we where of by 10-100 times in our estimations on the effects of Chernobyl .
Nuclear is not nice to humans but it 's not such a big deal to our environment .
Animal in Chernobyl shows to be at good health , they are in-fact more immune against cancer than animals living in less radiated areas .
If we humans want a clean environment and still have the energy there is not many other choices to go with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah true but so what who cares.
I live relatively close Chernobyl the effects of that meltdown has been way overestimated.
New research on the matter shows that we where of by 10-100 times in our estimations on the effects of Chernobyl.
Nuclear is not nice to humans but it's not such a big deal to our environment.
Animal in Chernobyl shows to be at good health, they are in-fact more immune against cancer than animals living in less radiated areas.
If we humans want a clean environment and still have the energy there is not many other choices to go with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623034</id>
	<title>Re:Gimmick</title>
	<author>Suki I</author>
	<datestamp>1262452800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the one hand, modern uranium reactors (pebble bed, or even well-made light water reactors) are perfectly safe. Using thorium instead is at best a minor improvement.</p></div><p>Same I was thinking.  Saw something, years ago, where solid fuel pellets were assembled into rods and had the same effect as what the article describes in the liquid too.  If they heat too much the pellets expand but do not rupture the tube and the reaction slows down.

Isn't there a  Someone notes <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1495612&amp;cid=30622886" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">a reactor in India that uses thorium already.</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand , modern uranium reactors ( pebble bed , or even well-made light water reactors ) are perfectly safe .
Using thorium instead is at best a minor improvement.Same I was thinking .
Saw something , years ago , where solid fuel pellets were assembled into rods and had the same effect as what the article describes in the liquid too .
If they heat too much the pellets expand but do not rupture the tube and the reaction slows down .
Is n't there a Someone notes a reactor in India that uses thorium already .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand, modern uranium reactors (pebble bed, or even well-made light water reactors) are perfectly safe.
Using thorium instead is at best a minor improvement.Same I was thinking.
Saw something, years ago, where solid fuel pellets were assembled into rods and had the same effect as what the article describes in the liquid too.
If they heat too much the pellets expand but do not rupture the tube and the reaction slows down.
Isn't there a  Someone notes a reactor in India that uses thorium already.
[slashdot.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624144</id>
	<title>Why do people think nuclear energy is safe?</title>
	<author>quakemeister</author>
	<datestamp>1262458500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is NOT safe. It may be *safer* than some other choices (radiation release from fossil fuels is substantially higher than nuclear powered generators), but it is a stretch to call a technology that produces deadly by-products that last in some cases millions of years (plutonium) "safe".</p><p>The DOE funds research into nuclear in the BILLIONS, versus *even safer* energy tech like wind and solar. In fact, the DOE budget for clean renewable energy was in the millions while nuclear was in the billions. Why is this? Perhaps because of that nasty other side of nuclear - weapons.</p><p>Nuclear ran by a stable governmental agency *might* be capable of limiting and controlling weapons tech for itself and leaking to another country - I don't think this has happened yet. How safe can nuclear really be (Chernobyl and 3 mile aside) if by definition it helps other groups develop nuclear weapons?</p><p>Meanwhile, wind and solar are really on the cusp of being marketable *right now*. No nasty weapons tech by-product. No more waste disposal problem, etc. Just shift a few $bil to where we should be putting it and we are there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is NOT safe .
It may be * safer * than some other choices ( radiation release from fossil fuels is substantially higher than nuclear powered generators ) , but it is a stretch to call a technology that produces deadly by-products that last in some cases millions of years ( plutonium ) " safe " .The DOE funds research into nuclear in the BILLIONS , versus * even safer * energy tech like wind and solar .
In fact , the DOE budget for clean renewable energy was in the millions while nuclear was in the billions .
Why is this ?
Perhaps because of that nasty other side of nuclear - weapons.Nuclear ran by a stable governmental agency * might * be capable of limiting and controlling weapons tech for itself and leaking to another country - I do n't think this has happened yet .
How safe can nuclear really be ( Chernobyl and 3 mile aside ) if by definition it helps other groups develop nuclear weapons ? Meanwhile , wind and solar are really on the cusp of being marketable * right now * .
No nasty weapons tech by-product .
No more waste disposal problem , etc .
Just shift a few $ bil to where we should be putting it and we are there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is NOT safe.
It may be *safer* than some other choices (radiation release from fossil fuels is substantially higher than nuclear powered generators), but it is a stretch to call a technology that produces deadly by-products that last in some cases millions of years (plutonium) "safe".The DOE funds research into nuclear in the BILLIONS, versus *even safer* energy tech like wind and solar.
In fact, the DOE budget for clean renewable energy was in the millions while nuclear was in the billions.
Why is this?
Perhaps because of that nasty other side of nuclear - weapons.Nuclear ran by a stable governmental agency *might* be capable of limiting and controlling weapons tech for itself and leaking to another country - I don't think this has happened yet.
How safe can nuclear really be (Chernobyl and 3 mile aside) if by definition it helps other groups develop nuclear weapons?Meanwhile, wind and solar are really on the cusp of being marketable *right now*.
No nasty weapons tech by-product.
No more waste disposal problem, etc.
Just shift a few $bil to where we should be putting it and we are there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627140</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>sillybilly</author>
	<datestamp>1262433660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, no kidding! Most current reactors based on steam operate at about 200C, where there are plenty of structural materials that last decades . Temperatures near 1000C-2500C are an order of magnitude more thermodynamicaly efficient, but the very reason it's not currently done, is the construction material technology. Even in nonnuclear, such as natural gas or solar thermal, temperatures over 1000C would be better, but there is the same issue of consctruction material technology. One advancement that has become commonplace is the CNG plants, combined natural gas, where there is first a high temperature turbine stage before the conventional turbine technology, which ups the thermodynamic efficiency from about 30\% useful work/70\% waste heat, to 60\% useful work, 40\% waste heat - basically doubling the amount of electricity one gets from a mcf of natural gas. But that is relatively easy, because we have ultrahigh temperature turbine blades from military research on airplanes. Regular power companies have a hard time finding the money to look for new stuff, they are more concerned with making money TODAY, with what's proven and tested, so a bank will loan them the money to build a billion dollar contraption and amortize it over 30 years. The military does not have to jump such hoops, it's understood that what they are into is totally uncertain and without guarantees, but in military one cannot afford yesterday's proven and tried technology if there is something more cutting edge today. Power/energy company advances have to be sponsored/pushed by either obama/epa/nasa/military, a regular power company is simpy in the business of getting things done, not in looking for new stuff. These days however, they are swimming in so much cash from oil prices, maybe they can afford to run a research department as a luxury item. There is two sides to everything, even to nasty oil company business practices and ridiculous profits - now they can afford to do research, and build something even without a bank loan.<br> <br>
In any case, at very high temperatures, I'm more comfortable thinking about a solid object glowing white surrounded by an inert cooling gas like helium or argon, or even nitrogen or hydrogen (in non neutron appications, such as solar concentrators). Similar to an incandescent lightbulb, compared to a lightbulb that has a liquid salt as the glowing element. Solid objects also expand and contract with temperature, just like liquid salts, but they stay put, in the center of the reactor, and expensive thermal materials that need to be in immediate contact with them don't have to be used. The types of accidents and control issues that arise with liquid salts, with all their corrosion issues, they just leave one with an eerie feeling. A hot inert fluid such as argon, even in case of a catastrophic failure, is relatively safe to escape, and won't attack structural materials. The solids themselves stay contained in case of a failure, in case they stay solid. Chernobyl had liquid magma flowing out, a liquid meltdown. I don't know if there are any safe structural materials that sufficiently resist molten fluoride attack. Graphite is such a thing, but it's not very strong mechanically, so something like graphite lined tungsten or niobium/molybdenum alloys would be something to try, but even so the salt diffuses through the graphite to the metal. So, again, in the case of an incandescent bulb, the direct location fixing, solid contact, between the filament and something else is in a very limited, and cooled region, and regular glass can be used for the bulb surface because the contact happens through a gas or vacuum. Similarly a solids based pebble bed reactor would only need the bottom plate holding up the pebbels to be of some super material, also coolable, because the rest of the hot stuff would be insulated away by the bottom layer of pebbles. In case you're dealing with a liquid, the full containment material has to be the expensive stuff, or even cooled in a dynamic equilibrium just right. In case of molten salts, the cooling wil</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , no kidding !
Most current reactors based on steam operate at about 200C , where there are plenty of structural materials that last decades .
Temperatures near 1000C-2500C are an order of magnitude more thermodynamicaly efficient , but the very reason it 's not currently done , is the construction material technology .
Even in nonnuclear , such as natural gas or solar thermal , temperatures over 1000C would be better , but there is the same issue of consctruction material technology .
One advancement that has become commonplace is the CNG plants , combined natural gas , where there is first a high temperature turbine stage before the conventional turbine technology , which ups the thermodynamic efficiency from about 30 \ % useful work/70 \ % waste heat , to 60 \ % useful work , 40 \ % waste heat - basically doubling the amount of electricity one gets from a mcf of natural gas .
But that is relatively easy , because we have ultrahigh temperature turbine blades from military research on airplanes .
Regular power companies have a hard time finding the money to look for new stuff , they are more concerned with making money TODAY , with what 's proven and tested , so a bank will loan them the money to build a billion dollar contraption and amortize it over 30 years .
The military does not have to jump such hoops , it 's understood that what they are into is totally uncertain and without guarantees , but in military one can not afford yesterday 's proven and tried technology if there is something more cutting edge today .
Power/energy company advances have to be sponsored/pushed by either obama/epa/nasa/military , a regular power company is simpy in the business of getting things done , not in looking for new stuff .
These days however , they are swimming in so much cash from oil prices , maybe they can afford to run a research department as a luxury item .
There is two sides to everything , even to nasty oil company business practices and ridiculous profits - now they can afford to do research , and build something even without a bank loan .
In any case , at very high temperatures , I 'm more comfortable thinking about a solid object glowing white surrounded by an inert cooling gas like helium or argon , or even nitrogen or hydrogen ( in non neutron appications , such as solar concentrators ) .
Similar to an incandescent lightbulb , compared to a lightbulb that has a liquid salt as the glowing element .
Solid objects also expand and contract with temperature , just like liquid salts , but they stay put , in the center of the reactor , and expensive thermal materials that need to be in immediate contact with them do n't have to be used .
The types of accidents and control issues that arise with liquid salts , with all their corrosion issues , they just leave one with an eerie feeling .
A hot inert fluid such as argon , even in case of a catastrophic failure , is relatively safe to escape , and wo n't attack structural materials .
The solids themselves stay contained in case of a failure , in case they stay solid .
Chernobyl had liquid magma flowing out , a liquid meltdown .
I do n't know if there are any safe structural materials that sufficiently resist molten fluoride attack .
Graphite is such a thing , but it 's not very strong mechanically , so something like graphite lined tungsten or niobium/molybdenum alloys would be something to try , but even so the salt diffuses through the graphite to the metal .
So , again , in the case of an incandescent bulb , the direct location fixing , solid contact , between the filament and something else is in a very limited , and cooled region , and regular glass can be used for the bulb surface because the contact happens through a gas or vacuum .
Similarly a solids based pebble bed reactor would only need the bottom plate holding up the pebbels to be of some super material , also coolable , because the rest of the hot stuff would be insulated away by the bottom layer of pebbles .
In case you 're dealing with a liquid , the full containment material has to be the expensive stuff , or even cooled in a dynamic equilibrium just right .
In case of molten salts , the cooling wil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, no kidding!
Most current reactors based on steam operate at about 200C, where there are plenty of structural materials that last decades .
Temperatures near 1000C-2500C are an order of magnitude more thermodynamicaly efficient, but the very reason it's not currently done, is the construction material technology.
Even in nonnuclear, such as natural gas or solar thermal, temperatures over 1000C would be better, but there is the same issue of consctruction material technology.
One advancement that has become commonplace is the CNG plants, combined natural gas, where there is first a high temperature turbine stage before the conventional turbine technology, which ups the thermodynamic efficiency from about 30\% useful work/70\% waste heat, to 60\% useful work, 40\% waste heat - basically doubling the amount of electricity one gets from a mcf of natural gas.
But that is relatively easy, because we have ultrahigh temperature turbine blades from military research on airplanes.
Regular power companies have a hard time finding the money to look for new stuff, they are more concerned with making money TODAY, with what's proven and tested, so a bank will loan them the money to build a billion dollar contraption and amortize it over 30 years.
The military does not have to jump such hoops, it's understood that what they are into is totally uncertain and without guarantees, but in military one cannot afford yesterday's proven and tried technology if there is something more cutting edge today.
Power/energy company advances have to be sponsored/pushed by either obama/epa/nasa/military, a regular power company is simpy in the business of getting things done, not in looking for new stuff.
These days however, they are swimming in so much cash from oil prices, maybe they can afford to run a research department as a luxury item.
There is two sides to everything, even to nasty oil company business practices and ridiculous profits - now they can afford to do research, and build something even without a bank loan.
In any case, at very high temperatures, I'm more comfortable thinking about a solid object glowing white surrounded by an inert cooling gas like helium or argon, or even nitrogen or hydrogen (in non neutron appications, such as solar concentrators).
Similar to an incandescent lightbulb, compared to a lightbulb that has a liquid salt as the glowing element.
Solid objects also expand and contract with temperature, just like liquid salts, but they stay put, in the center of the reactor, and expensive thermal materials that need to be in immediate contact with them don't have to be used.
The types of accidents and control issues that arise with liquid salts, with all their corrosion issues, they just leave one with an eerie feeling.
A hot inert fluid such as argon, even in case of a catastrophic failure, is relatively safe to escape, and won't attack structural materials.
The solids themselves stay contained in case of a failure, in case they stay solid.
Chernobyl had liquid magma flowing out, a liquid meltdown.
I don't know if there are any safe structural materials that sufficiently resist molten fluoride attack.
Graphite is such a thing, but it's not very strong mechanically, so something like graphite lined tungsten or niobium/molybdenum alloys would be something to try, but even so the salt diffuses through the graphite to the metal.
So, again, in the case of an incandescent bulb, the direct location fixing, solid contact, between the filament and something else is in a very limited, and cooled region, and regular glass can be used for the bulb surface because the contact happens through a gas or vacuum.
Similarly a solids based pebble bed reactor would only need the bottom plate holding up the pebbels to be of some super material, also coolable, because the rest of the hot stuff would be insulated away by the bottom layer of pebbles.
In case you're dealing with a liquid, the full containment material has to be the expensive stuff, or even cooled in a dynamic equilibrium just right.
In case of molten salts, the cooling wil</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632062</id>
	<title>Re:nuclear waste, anyone?</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1262538600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My limited understanding is that waste is a political + NIMBY problem, not a technology problem.

  Set the rods in a cooling pond for 5-10 years for the short lifespan radiation to exhaust itself,

Melt the rest into glass, and cast as glass bricks.

Dip coat the outside of the bricks in another quarter inch of non-radioactive glass to prevent surface leaching.

Park in a dry rock formation.


OR

Drop the glass bricks in a deep subduction zone.


We handle chemical materials that are far more toxic than radioactive materials on a routine basis.  AND they don't have the courtesy to degrade.  They are poisonous forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My limited understanding is that waste is a political + NIMBY problem , not a technology problem .
Set the rods in a cooling pond for 5-10 years for the short lifespan radiation to exhaust itself , Melt the rest into glass , and cast as glass bricks .
Dip coat the outside of the bricks in another quarter inch of non-radioactive glass to prevent surface leaching .
Park in a dry rock formation .
OR Drop the glass bricks in a deep subduction zone .
We handle chemical materials that are far more toxic than radioactive materials on a routine basis .
AND they do n't have the courtesy to degrade .
They are poisonous forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My limited understanding is that waste is a political + NIMBY problem, not a technology problem.
Set the rods in a cooling pond for 5-10 years for the short lifespan radiation to exhaust itself,

Melt the rest into glass, and cast as glass bricks.
Dip coat the outside of the bricks in another quarter inch of non-radioactive glass to prevent surface leaching.
Park in a dry rock formation.
OR

Drop the glass bricks in a deep subduction zone.
We handle chemical materials that are far more toxic than radioactive materials on a routine basis.
AND they don't have the courtesy to degrade.
They are poisonous forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624536</id>
	<title>Re:Gimmick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this some arbitrary statement with no backup material at all insightful?  Is this insightful:</p><p>With the potential for vacum energy extraction in the coming decades, history will show that pumping money into developing thorium reactors was silly as nuclear energy was just a temporary stop gap measure.  Far better of would society have been if the money had been spent on developing a better massage table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this some arbitrary statement with no backup material at all insightful ?
Is this insightful : With the potential for vacum energy extraction in the coming decades , history will show that pumping money into developing thorium reactors was silly as nuclear energy was just a temporary stop gap measure .
Far better of would society have been if the money had been spent on developing a better massage table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this some arbitrary statement with no backup material at all insightful?
Is this insightful:With the potential for vacum energy extraction in the coming decades, history will show that pumping money into developing thorium reactors was silly as nuclear energy was just a temporary stop gap measure.
Far better of would society have been if the money had been spent on developing a better massage table.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626102</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1262427120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away...</p></div></blockquote><p>Boy, that sounds familiar <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_fusion" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_fusion</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By most accounts , a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away...Boy , that sounds familiar http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear \ _fusion [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away...Boy, that sounds familiar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_fusion [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628724</id>
	<title>Re:No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262447640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anytime there's a chain reaction, there's a chance for it becoming uncontrolled, however miniscule. You just need to find the right idiot to flip the wrong switches. The only way to have no chance of an uncontrolled chain reaction is not having a chain reaction in the first place</p></div><p>Have you ever heard of that ground-breaking engineering concept called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_feedback" title="wikipedia.org">"negative feedback loop"</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime there 's a chain reaction , there 's a chance for it becoming uncontrolled , however miniscule .
You just need to find the right idiot to flip the wrong switches .
The only way to have no chance of an uncontrolled chain reaction is not having a chain reaction in the first placeHave you ever heard of that ground-breaking engineering concept called " negative feedback loop " [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime there's a chain reaction, there's a chance for it becoming uncontrolled, however miniscule.
You just need to find the right idiot to flip the wrong switches.
The only way to have no chance of an uncontrolled chain reaction is not having a chain reaction in the first placeHave you ever heard of that ground-breaking engineering concept called "negative feedback loop" [wikipedia.org]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622982</id>
	<title>stupid questions at ends of articles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So why are we not building these reactors?"</p><p>This is a dumb choice of audience to ask that question.  The one or two<br>nuclear scientists who already know the data are too smart to post here,<br>knowing that the rest of the google-capable nerds will "contribute" by drowning<br>them out.</p><p>Why do YOU think every article hase to end with a perfunctory "... and how do YOU<br>feel about this?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." question?</p><p>I can't believe I spent time writing this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So why are we not building these reactors ?
" This is a dumb choice of audience to ask that question .
The one or twonuclear scientists who already know the data are too smart to post here,knowing that the rest of the google-capable nerds will " contribute " by drowningthem out.Why do YOU think every article hase to end with a perfunctory " ... and how do YOUfeel about this ?
... " question ? I ca n't believe I spent time writing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So why are we not building these reactors?
"This is a dumb choice of audience to ask that question.
The one or twonuclear scientists who already know the data are too smart to post here,knowing that the rest of the google-capable nerds will "contribute" by drowningthem out.Why do YOU think every article hase to end with a perfunctory "... and how do YOUfeel about this?
..." question?I can't believe I spent time writing this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623144</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How many times have we designed things that are supposed to be unsinkable or infallible and then had them sink or fail? If there is a radioactive material being used in the plant, then there is a chance that some of it will leak out.</p></div><p>See, it's fucking dimwits like you that talk about 7-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard\_deviation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">sigma</a> [wikipedia.org] events as if they're 3-sigma events that keep us using fucking <b>coal</b>, with its <b>100\% probability</b> of <i>continuously</i> releasing radioactive materials into the atmosphere.  Get a fucking education, or failing that, go die in a fucking fire, you goddamn Luddite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times have we designed things that are supposed to be unsinkable or infallible and then had them sink or fail ?
If there is a radioactive material being used in the plant , then there is a chance that some of it will leak out.See , it 's fucking dimwits like you that talk about 7-sigma [ wikipedia.org ] events as if they 're 3-sigma events that keep us using fucking coal , with its 100 \ % probability of continuously releasing radioactive materials into the atmosphere .
Get a fucking education , or failing that , go die in a fucking fire , you goddamn Luddite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times have we designed things that are supposed to be unsinkable or infallible and then had them sink or fail?
If there is a radioactive material being used in the plant, then there is a chance that some of it will leak out.See, it's fucking dimwits like you that talk about 7-sigma [wikipedia.org] events as if they're 3-sigma events that keep us using fucking coal, with its 100\% probability of continuously releasing radioactive materials into the atmosphere.
Get a fucking education, or failing that, go die in a fucking fire, you goddamn Luddite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628872</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>francium de neobie</author>
	<datestamp>1262449140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many times have we lit fires that were supposed to be safe but burnt down the forest? If there's a chance the fire can spread through surrounding vegetation, then there is a chance of a forest fire.<br> <br>
So, what do I say? Cooked food is evil. Let's just do it the old, risk-free way - eat things raw.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times have we lit fires that were supposed to be safe but burnt down the forest ?
If there 's a chance the fire can spread through surrounding vegetation , then there is a chance of a forest fire .
So , what do I say ?
Cooked food is evil .
Let 's just do it the old , risk-free way - eat things raw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times have we lit fires that were supposed to be safe but burnt down the forest?
If there's a chance the fire can spread through surrounding vegetation, then there is a chance of a forest fire.
So, what do I say?
Cooked food is evil.
Let's just do it the old, risk-free way - eat things raw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628460</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>cheekyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262444580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me, a lot of scientists dont believe in the humans causing global warming con either.<br>And a lot of the scientists on the UN panels are mostly beurocrats and not real climatologists.</p><p>There is lots of U, its just that its inside seawater and harder relatively to process than rocky ores.</p><p>If humans need to live, they will dig anywhere to find whatever they need , ignoring all greenies/laws, paper law books dont stop bullets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me , a lot of scientists dont believe in the humans causing global warming con either.And a lot of the scientists on the UN panels are mostly beurocrats and not real climatologists.There is lots of U , its just that its inside seawater and harder relatively to process than rocky ores.If humans need to live , they will dig anywhere to find whatever they need , ignoring all greenies/laws , paper law books dont stop bullets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me, a lot of scientists dont believe in the humans causing global warming con either.And a lot of the scientists on the UN panels are mostly beurocrats and not real climatologists.There is lots of U, its just that its inside seawater and harder relatively to process than rocky ores.If humans need to live, they will dig anywhere to find whatever they need , ignoring all greenies/laws, paper law books dont stop bullets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626850</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1262431860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Chernobyl being the worst of them so far</p></div></blockquote><p>It should be noted that Chernobyl was a) a design never used in the west because of its obvious safety flaws and b) then subjected to a testing protocol that in the west would've gotten the person proposing it locked up as a lunatic who was a danger to himself and others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chernobyl being the worst of them so farIt should be noted that Chernobyl was a ) a design never used in the west because of its obvious safety flaws and b ) then subjected to a testing protocol that in the west would 've gotten the person proposing it locked up as a lunatic who was a danger to himself and others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chernobyl being the worst of them so farIt should be noted that Chernobyl was a) a design never used in the west because of its obvious safety flaws and b) then subjected to a testing protocol that in the west would've gotten the person proposing it locked up as a lunatic who was a danger to himself and others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623318</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1262454480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>yes, U is getting in short supply now</p></div></blockquote><p> <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html" title="world-nuclear.org">Not true</a> [world-nuclear.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , U is getting in short supply now Not true [ world-nuclear.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, U is getting in short supply now Not true [world-nuclear.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623292</id>
	<title>Thorium tubes</title>
	<author>delvsional</author>
	<datestamp>1262454360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what happens when the thorium leaks out of small holes in the tubes from cracks or fme intrusion and pools in the bottom of the core? It can't melt down because it's already melted. This is why a meltdown is so bad, because you can't control how many bricks are in the pile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens when the thorium leaks out of small holes in the tubes from cracks or fme intrusion and pools in the bottom of the core ?
It ca n't melt down because it 's already melted .
This is why a meltdown is so bad , because you ca n't control how many bricks are in the pile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens when the thorium leaks out of small holes in the tubes from cracks or fme intrusion and pools in the bottom of the core?
It can't melt down because it's already melted.
This is why a meltdown is so bad, because you can't control how many bricks are in the pile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625178</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel cells?</title>
	<author>jheath314</author>
	<datestamp>1262464740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yes, please tell me more about how you're going to burn the hydrogen from seawater to gain net energy when it is already in an oxidized state.</p><p>Learn basic chemistry before trying to contribute to chemistry-related topics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes , please tell me more about how you 're going to burn the hydrogen from seawater to gain net energy when it is already in an oxidized state.Learn basic chemistry before trying to contribute to chemistry-related topics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes, please tell me more about how you're going to burn the hydrogen from seawater to gain net energy when it is already in an oxidized state.Learn basic chemistry before trying to contribute to chemistry-related topics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624726</id>
	<title>Re:Wired Article Errors and Omissions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262462040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Wired Magazine article presents a false picture of the development of nuclear power and leaves out some crucial facts about thorium reactors.</p></div></blockquote><p>I was just about to whip off with a really smartass "why should we believe you on Slashdot" comment, then I realized who you are.</p><p>Thanks for the information Mr. Sublette. I had just read the Wired article, and like many I took it at face value since I didn't have time to research the issue nor the background in physics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wired Magazine article presents a false picture of the development of nuclear power and leaves out some crucial facts about thorium reactors.I was just about to whip off with a really smartass " why should we believe you on Slashdot " comment , then I realized who you are.Thanks for the information Mr. Sublette. I had just read the Wired article , and like many I took it at face value since I did n't have time to research the issue nor the background in physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wired Magazine article presents a false picture of the development of nuclear power and leaves out some crucial facts about thorium reactors.I was just about to whip off with a really smartass "why should we believe you on Slashdot" comment, then I realized who you are.Thanks for the information Mr. Sublette. I had just read the Wired article, and like many I took it at face value since I didn't have time to research the issue nor the background in physics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625348</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>rainer\_d</author>
	<datestamp>1262465700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Animals usually  have a shorter life-span and breed more generations in a shorter time than humans.<br>Thus, their gene-pool throws-out the cancer-ridden "evolutionary errors" much quicker.<br>I guess we could do simliar if<br>
&nbsp; - we completely abolished birth-control<br>
&nbsp; - helped natural selection by denying medical supply to the sick (whatever their age)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Animals usually have a shorter life-span and breed more generations in a shorter time than humans.Thus , their gene-pool throws-out the cancer-ridden " evolutionary errors " much quicker.I guess we could do simliar if   - we completely abolished birth-control   - helped natural selection by denying medical supply to the sick ( whatever their age )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Animals usually  have a shorter life-span and breed more generations in a shorter time than humans.Thus, their gene-pool throws-out the cancer-ridden "evolutionary errors" much quicker.I guess we could do simliar if
  - we completely abolished birth-control
  - helped natural selection by denying medical supply to the sick (whatever their age)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623748</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people opposed to nuclear power are not generally the ones you stereotyped as not believers in evolution, global warming, birth control/STDs.<br> <br>
The people opposed to nuclear power generally ARE those who believe in evolution, global warming, and birth control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people opposed to nuclear power are not generally the ones you stereotyped as not believers in evolution , global warming , birth control/STDs .
The people opposed to nuclear power generally ARE those who believe in evolution , global warming , and birth control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people opposed to nuclear power are not generally the ones you stereotyped as not believers in evolution, global warming, birth control/STDs.
The people opposed to nuclear power generally ARE those who believe in evolution, global warming, and birth control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</id>
	<title>Because...</title>
	<author>perrin</author>
	<datestamp>1262452980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The debate has been ranging here in Norway lately, since we hold a lot of the world's known reserves of the stuff (as opposed to many wild guesswork assumptions about possible reserves around the world). The reason why not more reactors are built is quite simply because the technology is not there yet. By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away. It is a very complicated technology, and more difficult to engineer safely than uranium reactors that we currently know a lot about. Several studies, for instance from MIT, cast doubt on whether thorium reactors will even be cost effective. Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium, and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly. Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products, and if you have enrichment capabilities for thorium, it is not a far step further to produce weaponized plutonium.</p><p>So it may be the future, but apparently no silver bullet.</p><p>All this is IANANP (I Am Not a Nuclear Physicist) so I guess someone reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ can answer this better than me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The debate has been ranging here in Norway lately , since we hold a lot of the world 's known reserves of the stuff ( as opposed to many wild guesswork assumptions about possible reserves around the world ) .
The reason why not more reactors are built is quite simply because the technology is not there yet .
By most accounts , a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away .
It is a very complicated technology , and more difficult to engineer safely than uranium reactors that we currently know a lot about .
Several studies , for instance from MIT , cast doubt on whether thorium reactors will even be cost effective .
Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium , and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly .
Thorium will also produce dangerous , radioactive by products , and if you have enrichment capabilities for thorium , it is not a far step further to produce weaponized plutonium.So it may be the future , but apparently no silver bullet.All this is IANANP ( I Am Not a Nuclear Physicist ) so I guess someone reading ./ can answer this better than me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The debate has been ranging here in Norway lately, since we hold a lot of the world's known reserves of the stuff (as opposed to many wild guesswork assumptions about possible reserves around the world).
The reason why not more reactors are built is quite simply because the technology is not there yet.
By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away.
It is a very complicated technology, and more difficult to engineer safely than uranium reactors that we currently know a lot about.
Several studies, for instance from MIT, cast doubt on whether thorium reactors will even be cost effective.
Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium, and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly.
Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products, and if you have enrichment capabilities for thorium, it is not a far step further to produce weaponized plutonium.So it may be the future, but apparently no silver bullet.All this is IANANP (I Am Not a Nuclear Physicist) so I guess someone reading ./ can answer this better than me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623910</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>Eric S. Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1262457420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i>especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>How would fuel cells have anything to do with keeping nukes unpopular?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies How would fuel cells have anything to do with keeping nukes unpopular ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies How would fuel cells have anything to do with keeping nukes unpopular?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624198</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>malign</author>
	<datestamp>1262458800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thorium? are we not on to saronite yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thorium ?
are we not on to saronite yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thorium?
are we not on to saronite yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625608</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1262423880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">breeder reactors?</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>...breeder reactors ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...breeder reactors?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623820</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Obama administration and Congress under Pelosi have made it clear that along with <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101503112.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">wiping out the health insurance industry</a> [washingtonpost.com], their vision for "Green Eeconomy" includes a massive wealth transfer from big corporations to <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-05-obama-admin-teams-with-grassroots-groups-to-green-the-block/" title="grist.org" rel="nofollow">their constituents</a> [grist.org].   Nuclear power doesn't fit into their vision for the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Obama administration and Congress under Pelosi have made it clear that along with wiping out the health insurance industry [ washingtonpost.com ] , their vision for " Green Eeconomy " includes a massive wealth transfer from big corporations to their constituents [ grist.org ] .
Nuclear power does n't fit into their vision for the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Obama administration and Congress under Pelosi have made it clear that along with wiping out the health insurance industry [washingtonpost.com], their vision for "Green Eeconomy" includes a massive wealth transfer from big corporations to their constituents [grist.org].
Nuclear power doesn't fit into their vision for the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sustainable nuclear power is...</p></div></blockquote><p>...an oxymoron. There's only so much Thorium in the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sustainable nuclear power is......an oxymoron .
There 's only so much Thorium in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sustainable nuclear power is......an oxymoron.
There's only so much Thorium in the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625674</id>
	<title>Why?  Quite simple.</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1262424300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uneducated people see or hear the word "nuclear" and think "OH MY EFFING GAWD!  WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" or think China Syndrome which is typical Hollywood bunk or think CHERNOBYL! EVERYBODY PANIC!  Or just as bad, some do-gooder senator decides that a few desert tortoises are more valuable than a solar farm in a fairly remote area that would go a long way to solving California's electricity needs, or as bad as the NIMBYs who kill off a wind farm in another remote desert area because the power lines would have to cross the desert.  You can't have it both ways, people.  *facepalm*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uneducated people see or hear the word " nuclear " and think " OH MY EFFING GAWD !
WE 'RE ALL GON NA DIE !
" or think China Syndrome which is typical Hollywood bunk or think CHERNOBYL !
EVERYBODY PANIC !
Or just as bad , some do-gooder senator decides that a few desert tortoises are more valuable than a solar farm in a fairly remote area that would go a long way to solving California 's electricity needs , or as bad as the NIMBYs who kill off a wind farm in another remote desert area because the power lines would have to cross the desert .
You ca n't have it both ways , people .
* facepalm *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uneducated people see or hear the word "nuclear" and think "OH MY EFFING GAWD!
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
" or think China Syndrome which is typical Hollywood bunk or think CHERNOBYL!
EVERYBODY PANIC!
Or just as bad, some do-gooder senator decides that a few desert tortoises are more valuable than a solar farm in a fairly remote area that would go a long way to solving California's electricity needs, or as bad as the NIMBYs who kill off a wind farm in another remote desert area because the power lines would have to cross the desert.
You can't have it both ways, people.
*facepalm*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625582</id>
	<title>Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262423760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is pretty obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Don't you think that if decentralized small scale energy production was in any way profitable that it would be done? Are you even aware of the kind of efficiency boost many processes get when scaled up? There is no way you can even get near the efficiency of a big power plant. Only combined heat and power can do this in small scale and you have to have some way to put the heat in use (pretty darn complicated during summer...).</p><p>There is no small scale way to produce energy in an efficient way at a competitive price FULL STOP. If you know one consider yourself lucky for soon being the richest human being on this planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is pretty obvious that you do n't know what you are talking about .
Do n't you think that if decentralized small scale energy production was in any way profitable that it would be done ?
Are you even aware of the kind of efficiency boost many processes get when scaled up ?
There is no way you can even get near the efficiency of a big power plant .
Only combined heat and power can do this in small scale and you have to have some way to put the heat in use ( pretty darn complicated during summer... ) .There is no small scale way to produce energy in an efficient way at a competitive price FULL STOP .
If you know one consider yourself lucky for soon being the richest human being on this planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is pretty obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.
Don't you think that if decentralized small scale energy production was in any way profitable that it would be done?
Are you even aware of the kind of efficiency boost many processes get when scaled up?
There is no way you can even get near the efficiency of a big power plant.
Only combined heat and power can do this in small scale and you have to have some way to put the heat in use (pretty darn complicated during summer...).There is no small scale way to produce energy in an efficient way at a competitive price FULL STOP.
If you know one consider yourself lucky for soon being the richest human being on this planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954</id>
	<title>Problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C, for European nuclear researchers. Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am working on the very periphery of the problem , designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C , for European nuclear researchers .
Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C, for European nuclear researchers.
Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</id>
	<title>Why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- 1/2 the country doesn't believe what scientists tell them: evolution, global warming, birth control/STDs.  Why believe them now?</p><p>- No new nuclear plants have been built in 30-ish years.</p><p>- uranium was thought to be pretty much endless, so why do more research into thorium? (yes, U is getting in short supply now)</p><p>- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it.  It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed, especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- 1/2 the country does n't believe what scientists tell them : evolution , global warming , birth control/STDs .
Why believe them now ? - No new nuclear plants have been built in 30-ish years.- uranium was thought to be pretty much endless , so why do more research into thorium ?
( yes , U is getting in short supply now ) - nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it .
It 'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed , especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- 1/2 the country doesn't believe what scientists tell them: evolution, global warming, birth control/STDs.
Why believe them now?- No new nuclear plants have been built in 30-ish years.- uranium was thought to be pretty much endless, so why do more research into thorium?
(yes, U is getting in short supply now)- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it.
It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed, especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623666</id>
	<title>Re:Gimmick</title>
	<author>naasking</author>
	<datestamp>1262456160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thorium is a significant efficiency improvement over Uranium or Plutonium reactors, and this is disregarding the safety improvements inherent to a salt-based reactor. I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude it's a minor improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thorium is a significant efficiency improvement over Uranium or Plutonium reactors , and this is disregarding the safety improvements inherent to a salt-based reactor .
I 'm not sure how you could possibly conclude it 's a minor improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thorium is a significant efficiency improvement over Uranium or Plutonium reactors, and this is disregarding the safety improvements inherent to a salt-based reactor.
I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude it's a minor improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626332</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>epiteo</author>
	<datestamp>1262428440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the enrichment process is more difficult and costly</p></div><p>What enrichment process?
Do you mean the chemical extraction of Thorium? How could that be expensive compared to cost of enriching U-235?
<br>
There is only one kind of Thorium (Th-232) when you mine it.
Turning it to U-233 requires neutrons but you are supposed to get enough extra of those when you burn the U-233 to make it economical.
<br>
Best explanation of the process I have seen: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the enrichment process is more difficult and costlyWhat enrichment process ?
Do you mean the chemical extraction of Thorium ?
How could that be expensive compared to cost of enriching U-235 ?
There is only one kind of Thorium ( Th-232 ) when you mine it .
Turning it to U-233 requires neutrons but you are supposed to get enough extra of those when you burn the U-233 to make it economical .
Best explanation of the process I have seen : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = AZR0UKxNPh8 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the enrichment process is more difficult and costlyWhat enrichment process?
Do you mean the chemical extraction of Thorium?
How could that be expensive compared to cost of enriching U-235?
There is only one kind of Thorium (Th-232) when you mine it.
Turning it to U-233 requires neutrons but you are supposed to get enough extra of those when you burn the U-233 to make it economical.
Best explanation of the process I have seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8 [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623528</id>
	<title>Re:Canadian CANDU reactors can use Thorium</title>
	<author>HiddenCamper</author>
	<datestamp>1262455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Candu reactors wont be allowed in the US because the NRC does not like open fuel loading and does not like reactors with positive reactivity coefficients. It's kind of sad, because we could take the used fuel from a US reactor and put it in a candu and run it for another couple years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Candu reactors wont be allowed in the US because the NRC does not like open fuel loading and does not like reactors with positive reactivity coefficients .
It 's kind of sad , because we could take the used fuel from a US reactor and put it in a candu and run it for another couple years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Candu reactors wont be allowed in the US because the NRC does not like open fuel loading and does not like reactors with positive reactivity coefficients.
It's kind of sad, because we could take the used fuel from a US reactor and put it in a candu and run it for another couple years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625092</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1262464260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to break it to you, but there are only so many years that the sun will be burning and the wind will be blowing. So these aren't sustainable either, right? The truth is, there is a practical method for extracting Uranium and Thorium from sea water. Japanese research shows we could do this for about $120/kg of Uranium - which, if burned completely in a reactor produces a great deal of energy. Since Thorium is more abundant, it should be cheaper.</p><p>

And the nice thing is that even if we used seawater Uranium to provide 100\% of the world's energy (inc. transportation),  the rivers of the world would still be adding more Uranium to the oceans each year than we could ever remove. So nuclear fission is not indefinitely sustainable. It's only sustainable as long as rivers keep running to the sea, which is on the same order of magnitude as the life cycle of sun-type stars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to break it to you , but there are only so many years that the sun will be burning and the wind will be blowing .
So these are n't sustainable either , right ?
The truth is , there is a practical method for extracting Uranium and Thorium from sea water .
Japanese research shows we could do this for about $ 120/kg of Uranium - which , if burned completely in a reactor produces a great deal of energy .
Since Thorium is more abundant , it should be cheaper .
And the nice thing is that even if we used seawater Uranium to provide 100 \ % of the world 's energy ( inc. transportation ) , the rivers of the world would still be adding more Uranium to the oceans each year than we could ever remove .
So nuclear fission is not indefinitely sustainable .
It 's only sustainable as long as rivers keep running to the sea , which is on the same order of magnitude as the life cycle of sun-type stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to break it to you, but there are only so many years that the sun will be burning and the wind will be blowing.
So these aren't sustainable either, right?
The truth is, there is a practical method for extracting Uranium and Thorium from sea water.
Japanese research shows we could do this for about $120/kg of Uranium - which, if burned completely in a reactor produces a great deal of energy.
Since Thorium is more abundant, it should be cheaper.
And the nice thing is that even if we used seawater Uranium to provide 100\% of the world's energy (inc. transportation),  the rivers of the world would still be adding more Uranium to the oceans each year than we could ever remove.
So nuclear fission is not indefinitely sustainable.
It's only sustainable as long as rivers keep running to the sea, which is on the same order of magnitude as the life cycle of sun-type stars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629706</id>
	<title>Idiot</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1262459040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idiot writes: "the enrichment process is more difficult and costly"</p><p>This is so ignorant it not only brings the rest of the unsupported assertions into question, it indicates the poster is an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idiot writes : " the enrichment process is more difficult and costly " This is so ignorant it not only brings the rest of the unsupported assertions into question , it indicates the poster is an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idiot writes: "the enrichment process is more difficult and costly"This is so ignorant it not only brings the rest of the unsupported assertions into question, it indicates the poster is an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630192</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1262551200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>- uranium was thought to be pretty much endless, so why do more research into thorium? (yes, U is getting in short supply now)</p></div></blockquote><p>
The uranium fuel cycle requires refinement of U235 (which also happens to be the first step to making an atomic a bomb) and leads down a path which creates weapons-grade plutonium (an alternate material for making an atomic bomb).  The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium\_fuel\_cycle" title="wikipedia.org">thorium fuel cycle</a> [wikipedia.org] does not have this problem.</p><blockquote><div><p>- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it. It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed,</p></div></blockquote><p>
Measured by <a href="http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/PSI\_Report/ENSAD98.pdf" title="web.psi.ch">deaths per GW-years of electricity generated</a> [web.psi.ch]  (p. 241, fig 7.2.7), nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation man has invented.  And yes, that stat includes Chernobyl. In terms of injuries per GW-years (p. 248, fig 7.3.4), nuclear is about the same as gas, oil, and hydro (coal is the safest).  The public perception that nuclear power is dangerous is a myth perpetuated primarily by anti-nuclear and anti-development (mostly environmental) interests who quickly realized their main causes could be severely undercut by the establishment of nuclear power as a clean and cheap form of energy.</p><blockquote><div><p> especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies</p></div></blockquote><p>
Solar is just about the <i>worst</i> energy-producing technology currently at our disposal.  In a global survey of installed power systems, its <a href="http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/ElecCost.pdf" title="iea.org">cost per MWh</a> [iea.org] (p. 122, fig 1) is roughly 10x-15x more than coal.  Even wind does significantly better at 3x.  Yeah it's great to dream, but solar is probably going to need another 50+ years of research and development before it's able to take over our wide-scale power generation needs economically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- uranium was thought to be pretty much endless , so why do more research into thorium ?
( yes , U is getting in short supply now ) The uranium fuel cycle requires refinement of U235 ( which also happens to be the first step to making an atomic a bomb ) and leads down a path which creates weapons-grade plutonium ( an alternate material for making an atomic bomb ) .
The thorium fuel cycle [ wikipedia.org ] does not have this problem.- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it .
It 'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed , Measured by deaths per GW-years of electricity generated [ web.psi.ch ] ( p. 241 , fig 7.2.7 ) , nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation man has invented .
And yes , that stat includes Chernobyl .
In terms of injuries per GW-years ( p. 248 , fig 7.3.4 ) , nuclear is about the same as gas , oil , and hydro ( coal is the safest ) .
The public perception that nuclear power is dangerous is a myth perpetuated primarily by anti-nuclear and anti-development ( mostly environmental ) interests who quickly realized their main causes could be severely undercut by the establishment of nuclear power as a clean and cheap form of energy .
especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies Solar is just about the worst energy-producing technology currently at our disposal .
In a global survey of installed power systems , its cost per MWh [ iea.org ] ( p. 122 , fig 1 ) is roughly 10x-15x more than coal .
Even wind does significantly better at 3x .
Yeah it 's great to dream , but solar is probably going to need another 50 + years of research and development before it 's able to take over our wide-scale power generation needs economically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- uranium was thought to be pretty much endless, so why do more research into thorium?
(yes, U is getting in short supply now)
The uranium fuel cycle requires refinement of U235 (which also happens to be the first step to making an atomic a bomb) and leads down a path which creates weapons-grade plutonium (an alternate material for making an atomic bomb).
The thorium fuel cycle [wikipedia.org] does not have this problem.- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it.
It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed,
Measured by deaths per GW-years of electricity generated [web.psi.ch]  (p. 241, fig 7.2.7), nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation man has invented.
And yes, that stat includes Chernobyl.
In terms of injuries per GW-years (p. 248, fig 7.3.4), nuclear is about the same as gas, oil, and hydro (coal is the safest).
The public perception that nuclear power is dangerous is a myth perpetuated primarily by anti-nuclear and anti-development (mostly environmental) interests who quickly realized their main causes could be severely undercut by the establishment of nuclear power as a clean and cheap form of energy.
especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies
Solar is just about the worst energy-producing technology currently at our disposal.
In a global survey of installed power systems, its cost per MWh [iea.org] (p. 122, fig 1) is roughly 10x-15x more than coal.
Even wind does significantly better at 3x.
Yeah it's great to dream, but solar is probably going to need another 50+ years of research and development before it's able to take over our wide-scale power generation needs economically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623332</id>
	<title>Re:Gimmick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the one hand, modern uranium reactors (pebble bed, or even well-made light water reactors) are perfectly safe.</p></div><p>the reaction process for modern uranium reactors may be safe, but their waste is not.  This is, in my view, the primary benefit of breeder reactors.  Their  waste is only dangerous for hundreds of years, not millenia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand , modern uranium reactors ( pebble bed , or even well-made light water reactors ) are perfectly safe.the reaction process for modern uranium reactors may be safe , but their waste is not .
This is , in my view , the primary benefit of breeder reactors .
Their waste is only dangerous for hundreds of years , not millenia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand, modern uranium reactors (pebble bed, or even well-made light water reactors) are perfectly safe.the reaction process for modern uranium reactors may be safe, but their waste is not.
This is, in my view, the primary benefit of breeder reactors.
Their  waste is only dangerous for hundreds of years, not millenia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623288</id>
	<title>Too safe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pseudo ecologists will never allow a nuclear design that is safe, efficient and environmentally friendly. After all, if such a design was implemented then they wouldn't have any arguments left against nuclear plants which would lead to more nuclear plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pseudo ecologists will never allow a nuclear design that is safe , efficient and environmentally friendly .
After all , if such a design was implemented then they would n't have any arguments left against nuclear plants which would lead to more nuclear plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pseudo ecologists will never allow a nuclear design that is safe, efficient and environmentally friendly.
After all, if such a design was implemented then they wouldn't have any arguments left against nuclear plants which would lead to more nuclear plants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629672</id>
	<title>Offer the tchnology to Iran.</title>
	<author>brainproxy</author>
	<datestamp>1262458800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See if they take it.

If they do, win/win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>See if they take it .
If they do , win/win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See if they take it.
If they do, win/win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623274</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262454180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called fail-safe, it's an engineering concept that mitigates the damage of a failure.  You don't design the system to never fail, but if it fails have a catastrophy (like what happened with the Titanic), you design it so when failure approaches the system shuts itself down and contains itself by its very nature.</p><p>When you have an opportunity to use the physical properties of the material you are working with to design the fail-safe system, you are in an ideal situation.</p><p>The system described in the summery would be fail-safe, making a run-away reaction like Chernobyl impossible.</p><p>And yes, there is always a chance radiation can leak, there is also a chance the earth will be hit by an asteroid tomorrow. It isn't very likely, though, is it?  In fact, the chance is so remote you'd be a fool to live your life afraid of it.  With the risk so small, the reward far out-weighs it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called fail-safe , it 's an engineering concept that mitigates the damage of a failure .
You do n't design the system to never fail , but if it fails have a catastrophy ( like what happened with the Titanic ) , you design it so when failure approaches the system shuts itself down and contains itself by its very nature.When you have an opportunity to use the physical properties of the material you are working with to design the fail-safe system , you are in an ideal situation.The system described in the summery would be fail-safe , making a run-away reaction like Chernobyl impossible.And yes , there is always a chance radiation can leak , there is also a chance the earth will be hit by an asteroid tomorrow .
It is n't very likely , though , is it ?
In fact , the chance is so remote you 'd be a fool to live your life afraid of it .
With the risk so small , the reward far out-weighs it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called fail-safe, it's an engineering concept that mitigates the damage of a failure.
You don't design the system to never fail, but if it fails have a catastrophy (like what happened with the Titanic), you design it so when failure approaches the system shuts itself down and contains itself by its very nature.When you have an opportunity to use the physical properties of the material you are working with to design the fail-safe system, you are in an ideal situation.The system described in the summery would be fail-safe, making a run-away reaction like Chernobyl impossible.And yes, there is always a chance radiation can leak, there is also a chance the earth will be hit by an asteroid tomorrow.
It isn't very likely, though, is it?
In fact, the chance is so remote you'd be a fool to live your life afraid of it.
With the risk so small, the reward far out-weighs it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30642012</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1262625900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do people forget coal disasters because they are so common?  Perhaps we need more nuclear disasters, so that they all blend together in people's minds and they treat them as common place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do people forget coal disasters because they are so common ?
Perhaps we need more nuclear disasters , so that they all blend together in people 's minds and they treat them as common place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do people forget coal disasters because they are so common?
Perhaps we need more nuclear disasters, so that they all blend together in people's minds and they treat them as common place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623092</id>
	<title>Tubes?</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1262453220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tubes and "billiard balls"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... weren't 'em trucks?</p><p>P.S. I think "series of tubes" to be one of the best simplification of the 'net ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tubes and " billiard balls " ... were n't 'em trucks ? P.S .
I think " series of tubes " to be one of the best simplification of the 'net ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tubes and "billiard balls" ... weren't 'em trucks?P.S.
I think "series of tubes" to be one of the best simplification of the 'net ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624740</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1262462100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because a number of groups with rather different goals have one thing in common.</p></div><p>Or they just don't like nuclear power, mostly due to ignorance and irrational fears, because they are basing their objections on the technology of the 1950s rather than the newer and safer alternatives available today. These people tend to favor what I like to call "hair shirt" solutions to climate change which emphasize mandatory conservation, forced reductions in use and other even less palatable suggestions of the "smelly hippie" variety. Eventually they will be forced to choose between lesser evils and nuclear power is the only currently available option that is even remotely viable for replacement of fossil fuels in non-transportation roles. Even Al Gore admits this in his recent book (although I thought that he was slightly biased "against" in his presentation of Nuclear Energy; especially compared to more upbeat chapters on wind and solar energy which, while useful, cannot supply the majority of our energy needs).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because a number of groups with rather different goals have one thing in common.Or they just do n't like nuclear power , mostly due to ignorance and irrational fears , because they are basing their objections on the technology of the 1950s rather than the newer and safer alternatives available today .
These people tend to favor what I like to call " hair shirt " solutions to climate change which emphasize mandatory conservation , forced reductions in use and other even less palatable suggestions of the " smelly hippie " variety .
Eventually they will be forced to choose between lesser evils and nuclear power is the only currently available option that is even remotely viable for replacement of fossil fuels in non-transportation roles .
Even Al Gore admits this in his recent book ( although I thought that he was slightly biased " against " in his presentation of Nuclear Energy ; especially compared to more upbeat chapters on wind and solar energy which , while useful , can not supply the majority of our energy needs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because a number of groups with rather different goals have one thing in common.Or they just don't like nuclear power, mostly due to ignorance and irrational fears, because they are basing their objections on the technology of the 1950s rather than the newer and safer alternatives available today.
These people tend to favor what I like to call "hair shirt" solutions to climate change which emphasize mandatory conservation, forced reductions in use and other even less palatable suggestions of the "smelly hippie" variety.
Eventually they will be forced to choose between lesser evils and nuclear power is the only currently available option that is even remotely viable for replacement of fossil fuels in non-transportation roles.
Even Al Gore admits this in his recent book (although I thought that he was slightly biased "against" in his presentation of Nuclear Energy; especially compared to more upbeat chapters on wind and solar energy which, while useful, cannot supply the majority of our energy needs).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624890</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>senselesswaster</author>
	<datestamp>1262463060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enrichment means increasing the ratio of the U-235 isotope (which is the fissile fuel for the reactor) to the non-fissile U-238 which is not fissile. Uranium as mined is only about 0.7\% U-235. This is not enough to sustain a nuclear chain reaction so it is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched\_uranium" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">enriched to 3~5\% for used in most power reactors</a> [wikipedia.org]. This is why 99.3\% of all the refined uranium is of no use for power generation in typical reactors (it is called depleted uranium). This is also why people who talk about "peak uranium" should be careful to specify U-235, there is plenty of U-238.</p><p>Thorium does not need to be "enriched". A thorium reactor first converts Th-232 to U-233 which is fissile. All of the Th-232 can potentially be converted to U-233.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enrichment means increasing the ratio of the U-235 isotope ( which is the fissile fuel for the reactor ) to the non-fissile U-238 which is not fissile .
Uranium as mined is only about 0.7 \ % U-235 .
This is not enough to sustain a nuclear chain reaction so it is enriched to 3 ~ 5 \ % for used in most power reactors [ wikipedia.org ] .
This is why 99.3 \ % of all the refined uranium is of no use for power generation in typical reactors ( it is called depleted uranium ) .
This is also why people who talk about " peak uranium " should be careful to specify U-235 , there is plenty of U-238.Thorium does not need to be " enriched " .
A thorium reactor first converts Th-232 to U-233 which is fissile .
All of the Th-232 can potentially be converted to U-233 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enrichment means increasing the ratio of the U-235 isotope (which is the fissile fuel for the reactor) to the non-fissile U-238 which is not fissile.
Uranium as mined is only about 0.7\% U-235.
This is not enough to sustain a nuclear chain reaction so it is enriched to 3~5\% for used in most power reactors [wikipedia.org].
This is why 99.3\% of all the refined uranium is of no use for power generation in typical reactors (it is called depleted uranium).
This is also why people who talk about "peak uranium" should be careful to specify U-235, there is plenty of U-238.Thorium does not need to be "enriched".
A thorium reactor first converts Th-232 to U-233 which is fissile.
All of the Th-232 can potentially be converted to U-233.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626084</id>
	<title>Re:Why move to Thorium?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262426940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasn't the reactor. Yes, there is a possibility of meltdown in graphite modulated plants, but they are still around and they are safe if you don't disable the safety systems and crank it up to 11 just to see what happens. That's what caused the disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't the reactor .
Yes , there is a possibility of meltdown in graphite modulated plants , but they are still around and they are safe if you do n't disable the safety systems and crank it up to 11 just to see what happens .
That 's what caused the disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't the reactor.
Yes, there is a possibility of meltdown in graphite modulated plants, but they are still around and they are safe if you don't disable the safety systems and crank it up to 11 just to see what happens.
That's what caused the disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624156</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262458560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C</p></div><p>That actually sound much scarier than some radioactivity from bits of metal.  Plain 'ol fluorine gas at STP is already very nasty.</p><p>I wish you luck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 CThat actually sound much scarier than some radioactivity from bits of metal .
Plain 'ol fluorine gas at STP is already very nasty.I wish you luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 CThat actually sound much scarier than some radioactivity from bits of metal.
Plain 'ol fluorine gas at STP is already very nasty.I wish you luck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623716</id>
	<title>Sometimes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes you can get thorium around uranus</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes you can get thorium around uranus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes you can get thorium around uranus</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631530</id>
	<title>Wind Mills and Electric Solar Panels are Alchemy</title>
	<author>Dr.Ruud</author>
	<datestamp>1262532600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind Mills and Electric Solar Panels are the Alchemy of our Age.</p><p>Don't let their green image fool you, the "hidden costs" are big.<br>Even in the few cases where their appliances are somewhat practical, we have real alternatives available.</p><p>Why take energy from moving Air, when you have moving Water?<br>Why use the thin rays from above (Fire), when you have a molten core (Earth) below?</p><p>Let's build (clean) geothermal systems.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geothermal\_hotspots.JPG" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geothermal\_hotspots.JPG</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Photovoltaics can do some:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar\_land\_area.png" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar\_land\_area.png</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>but Solar Thermal Power Plants already do it better:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol\_1" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol\_1</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada\_Solar\_One" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada\_Solar\_One</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Let's let them move the water:<br><a href="http://www.livescience.com/animals/090729-jellyfish-mixers.html" title="livescience.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.livescience.com/animals/090729-jellyfish-mixers.html</a> [livescience.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind Mills and Electric Solar Panels are the Alchemy of our Age.Do n't let their green image fool you , the " hidden costs " are big.Even in the few cases where their appliances are somewhat practical , we have real alternatives available.Why take energy from moving Air , when you have moving Water ? Why use the thin rays from above ( Fire ) , when you have a molten core ( Earth ) below ? Let 's build ( clean ) geothermal systems.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Geothermal \ _hotspots.JPG [ wikipedia.org ] Photovoltaics can do some :     http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Solar \ _land \ _area.png [ wikipedia.org ] but Solar Thermal Power Plants already do it better :     http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol \ _1 [ wikipedia.org ]     http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada \ _Solar \ _One [ wikipedia.org ] Let 's let them move the water : http : //www.livescience.com/animals/090729-jellyfish-mixers.html [ livescience.com ] ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind Mills and Electric Solar Panels are the Alchemy of our Age.Don't let their green image fool you, the "hidden costs" are big.Even in the few cases where their appliances are somewhat practical, we have real alternatives available.Why take energy from moving Air, when you have moving Water?Why use the thin rays from above (Fire), when you have a molten core (Earth) below?Let's build (clean) geothermal systems.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geothermal\_hotspots.JPG [wikipedia.org]Photovoltaics can do some:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar\_land\_area.png [wikipedia.org]but Solar Thermal Power Plants already do it better:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol\_1 [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada\_Solar\_One [wikipedia.org]Let's let them move the water:http://www.livescience.com/animals/090729-jellyfish-mixers.html [livescience.com] ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632600</id>
	<title>Re:Because nuclear is still "scary"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262543460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the people in your class couldn't be convinced of the safety of nuclear power, then they are on the same level as the woman who told reporters that she was more afraid of "man-made" radiation from Three Mile Island than she was of the "natural" Radon gas that was prevalent in her community.  Statistically speaking, TMI resulted in about 1 additional death to cancer than what would have occurred from natural radiation.  It's about as rational as the ban on DDT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the people in your class could n't be convinced of the safety of nuclear power , then they are on the same level as the woman who told reporters that she was more afraid of " man-made " radiation from Three Mile Island than she was of the " natural " Radon gas that was prevalent in her community .
Statistically speaking , TMI resulted in about 1 additional death to cancer than what would have occurred from natural radiation .
It 's about as rational as the ban on DDT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the people in your class couldn't be convinced of the safety of nuclear power, then they are on the same level as the woman who told reporters that she was more afraid of "man-made" radiation from Three Mile Island than she was of the "natural" Radon gas that was prevalent in her community.
Statistically speaking, TMI resulted in about 1 additional death to cancer than what would have occurred from natural radiation.
It's about as rational as the ban on DDT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626956</id>
	<title>Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262432580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are on drugs or brain damaged.  You honestly believe that a large number of generators is actually an improvement over one large nuclear facility?</p><p>
&nbsp; You can't argue with that sort of stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are on drugs or brain damaged .
You honestly believe that a large number of generators is actually an improvement over one large nuclear facility ?
  You ca n't argue with that sort of stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are on drugs or brain damaged.
You honestly believe that a large number of generators is actually an improvement over one large nuclear facility?
  You can't argue with that sort of stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628988</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[...] hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C, for European nuclear researchers.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is 1652-3092 F, for American nuclear researchers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C , for European nuclear researchers.This is 1652-3092 F , for American nuclear researchers .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C, for European nuclear researchers.This is 1652-3092 F, for American nuclear researchers ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623068</id>
	<title>Surprise! Business model problems...</title>
	<author>dfay</author>
	<datestamp>1262453040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten\_salt\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org">this</a> [wikipedia.org] (see the section called "Fuel cycle concerns"), because there is no need to refine the Thorium fuel, which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money, they would need to change their business model to cope. We all know how much companies like to do that.</p><p>So, you combine the politicians' lack of desire to risk being associated with nuclear power, and the entrenched industry's lack of interest in the business model, and it's suddenly easy to explain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this [ wikipedia.org ] ( see the section called " Fuel cycle concerns " ) , because there is no need to refine the Thorium fuel , which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money , they would need to change their business model to cope .
We all know how much companies like to do that.So , you combine the politicians ' lack of desire to risk being associated with nuclear power , and the entrenched industry 's lack of interest in the business model , and it 's suddenly easy to explain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this [wikipedia.org] (see the section called "Fuel cycle concerns"), because there is no need to refine the Thorium fuel, which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money, they would need to change their business model to cope.
We all know how much companies like to do that.So, you combine the politicians' lack of desire to risk being associated with nuclear power, and the entrenched industry's lack of interest in the business model, and it's suddenly easy to explain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623802</id>
	<title>Re:nuclear waste, anyone?</title>
	<author>dogmatixpsych</author>
	<datestamp>1262456880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If waste is a concern then reprocess the waste and use it again. Nuclear waste is only a problem because politics made it a problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If waste is a concern then reprocess the waste and use it again .
Nuclear waste is only a problem because politics made it a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If waste is a concern then reprocess the waste and use it again.
Nuclear waste is only a problem because politics made it a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624232</id>
	<title>infrastructure</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1262458980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Primary reason there is limited interest in thorium, right now.  Infrastructure.  Ore processing, refining, isotope separation, fuel rod manufacturing infrastructure.  Most existing fission reactors rely on an U 235 / U238/ Pu 239 fuel.  Industrial scale processing in the countries that process fuel is all set up for uranium and plutonium processing.  It would cost 10's of billions of dollars / euro / rubles / yen / yuan / or what have you, to build the necessary facilities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Primary reason there is limited interest in thorium , right now .
Infrastructure. Ore processing , refining , isotope separation , fuel rod manufacturing infrastructure .
Most existing fission reactors rely on an U 235 / U238/ Pu 239 fuel .
Industrial scale processing in the countries that process fuel is all set up for uranium and plutonium processing .
It would cost 10 's of billions of dollars / euro / rubles / yen / yuan / or what have you , to build the necessary facilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Primary reason there is limited interest in thorium, right now.
Infrastructure.  Ore processing, refining, isotope separation, fuel rod manufacturing infrastructure.
Most existing fission reactors rely on an U 235 / U238/ Pu 239 fuel.
Industrial scale processing in the countries that process fuel is all set up for uranium and plutonium processing.
It would cost 10's of billions of dollars / euro / rubles / yen / yuan / or what have you, to build the necessary facilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30642146</id>
	<title>Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1262626440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They still produce radioactive waste, which we cannot handle.</p> </div><p>Why not?  Most of the world handles the waste by storing it in water tanks until it is safe to bury.  If you are afraid of burying it remember: the fuel came from the ground.  And it is better than the place we put the radioactive by-products of coal burning - we dump that into the atmosphere.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And it uses still a extremely limited resource. We will eat up the reserves in no time.</p></div><p>If you read through the comments, they point out that we actually are not running out of uranium, and thorium is even more plentiful.  And we have nuclear reactors that are 50 times more efficient than our old ones due to fuel recycling.  So... no end in sight.  Plus: we obviously have limited supplies of coal.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We want a decentralized energy production</p> </div><p>That will be nice when it happens.  I think that will come with things like solar and wind.  But for now they aren't enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They still produce radioactive waste , which we can not handle .
Why not ?
Most of the world handles the waste by storing it in water tanks until it is safe to bury .
If you are afraid of burying it remember : the fuel came from the ground .
And it is better than the place we put the radioactive by-products of coal burning - we dump that into the atmosphere.And it uses still a extremely limited resource .
We will eat up the reserves in no time.If you read through the comments , they point out that we actually are not running out of uranium , and thorium is even more plentiful .
And we have nuclear reactors that are 50 times more efficient than our old ones due to fuel recycling .
So... no end in sight .
Plus : we obviously have limited supplies of coal.We want a decentralized energy production That will be nice when it happens .
I think that will come with things like solar and wind .
But for now they are n't enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still produce radioactive waste, which we cannot handle.
Why not?
Most of the world handles the waste by storing it in water tanks until it is safe to bury.
If you are afraid of burying it remember: the fuel came from the ground.
And it is better than the place we put the radioactive by-products of coal burning - we dump that into the atmosphere.And it uses still a extremely limited resource.
We will eat up the reserves in no time.If you read through the comments, they point out that we actually are not running out of uranium, and thorium is even more plentiful.
And we have nuclear reactors that are 50 times more efficient than our old ones due to fuel recycling.
So... no end in sight.
Plus: we obviously have limited supplies of coal.We want a decentralized energy production That will be nice when it happens.
I think that will come with things like solar and wind.
But for now they aren't enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629802</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the question we need to be asking is why are we not making places like IRAN use this type of fuel so they can't blow us up!!!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the question we need to be asking is why are we not making places like IRAN use this type of fuel so they ca n't blow us up ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the question we need to be asking is why are we not making places like IRAN use this type of fuel so they can't blow us up!!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631834</id>
	<title>Re:No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262536020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you could design away the possibility of positive feedback in power output, doesn't mean you can design away risk.<br>There will always be significant risk involved in nuclear technologies of any stripe due to the high energy density of nuclear fuels and isotopes. There is no chain reaction involved in a doctor accidentally administering too much Cobalt-60 to your eye.</p><p>"Safe" is a relative term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you could design away the possibility of positive feedback in power output , does n't mean you can design away risk.There will always be significant risk involved in nuclear technologies of any stripe due to the high energy density of nuclear fuels and isotopes .
There is no chain reaction involved in a doctor accidentally administering too much Cobalt-60 to your eye .
" Safe " is a relative term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you could design away the possibility of positive feedback in power output, doesn't mean you can design away risk.There will always be significant risk involved in nuclear technologies of any stripe due to the high energy density of nuclear fuels and isotopes.
There is no chain reaction involved in a doctor accidentally administering too much Cobalt-60 to your eye.
"Safe" is a relative term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626112</id>
	<title>Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1262427180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They still produce radioactive waste, which we cannot handle.</i> <br>
<br>
Where did you get the idea that we can't handle it, other than pointless fear-mongering from babbling political blowhards?  The US has vast areas of desert where we've been test-detonating nuclear weapons for decades.  Blast a huge hole miles deep out in the middle of nowhere, line it with concrete, and dump the waste.  It's not going anywhere and even if it did, who cares, it's miles beneath the surface.  And that's just off the top of my head.  <br>
<br>
Meanwhile, burning coal releases radiation as well, plus tons of smoke containing all kinds of vile pollutants, but we're happy to just release that freely to the atmosphere and not worry about it?  It's this kind of idiotic thinking that got us where we are.  <br>
<br>
<i>We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely.</i> <br>
<br>
Did it occur to you that the economies of scale mean that centralising power generation and distribution is a lot more safe and efficient and cheap than each neighborhood having their own reactor or coal plant or whatever?  Until we have <a href="http://bttf.wikia.com/wiki/Mr.\_Fusion" title="wikia.com">Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactors</a> [wikia.com] that can be put in every basement or utility closet, it makes no sense to decentralise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They still produce radioactive waste , which we can not handle .
Where did you get the idea that we ca n't handle it , other than pointless fear-mongering from babbling political blowhards ?
The US has vast areas of desert where we 've been test-detonating nuclear weapons for decades .
Blast a huge hole miles deep out in the middle of nowhere , line it with concrete , and dump the waste .
It 's not going anywhere and even if it did , who cares , it 's miles beneath the surface .
And that 's just off the top of my head .
Meanwhile , burning coal releases radiation as well , plus tons of smoke containing all kinds of vile pollutants , but we 're happy to just release that freely to the atmosphere and not worry about it ?
It 's this kind of idiotic thinking that got us where we are .
We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely .
Did it occur to you that the economies of scale mean that centralising power generation and distribution is a lot more safe and efficient and cheap than each neighborhood having their own reactor or coal plant or whatever ?
Until we have Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactors [ wikia.com ] that can be put in every basement or utility closet , it makes no sense to decentralise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still produce radioactive waste, which we cannot handle.
Where did you get the idea that we can't handle it, other than pointless fear-mongering from babbling political blowhards?
The US has vast areas of desert where we've been test-detonating nuclear weapons for decades.
Blast a huge hole miles deep out in the middle of nowhere, line it with concrete, and dump the waste.
It's not going anywhere and even if it did, who cares, it's miles beneath the surface.
And that's just off the top of my head.
Meanwhile, burning coal releases radiation as well, plus tons of smoke containing all kinds of vile pollutants, but we're happy to just release that freely to the atmosphere and not worry about it?
It's this kind of idiotic thinking that got us where we are.
We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely.
Did it occur to you that the economies of scale mean that centralising power generation and distribution is a lot more safe and efficient and cheap than each neighborhood having their own reactor or coal plant or whatever?
Until we have Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactors [wikia.com] that can be put in every basement or utility closet, it makes no sense to decentralise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625632</id>
	<title>That's completely wrong.</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1262424000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a nuclear physicist either, but I can tell that you don't understand much about this issue. The most obvious mistake you make is what you said about enrichment. Whaa?? A ten second search would reveal to you that the reactor-relevant Thorium is Th-232. So do we need to enrich natural Thorium to get Th-232? God damn it, look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia!</a> [wikipedia.org]. What is the abundance of Th-232 in natural Thorium? You will find the answer is: 100\%. So the comment about enriching is 100\% bullshit. I suspect deliberate FUD, maybe not originating with you, but it's sad to see this kind of crap circulating in Norway. Is that like the Kansas of Europe?</p><p>

Second, there have already been several research reactors, not 20 years in the future but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport\_Atomic\_Power\_Station" title="wikipedia.org">over 50 years in the past</a> [wikipedia.org]. Guess what? It worked great. Yeah, we could build them better now. India is doing it.</p><p>

Third, the debate in Norway is, I presume, not about whether you will use Thorium reactors domestically to produce power. You get almost all you need from hydro, which is a great, clean energy source. The debate is rather about whether you will export Thorium to countries that want to also produce clean power but don't have mountains and rivers like yours. That Norwegians are having a debate about this is a little sickening to me - as though you might have a moral problem with selling this clean fuel to the world, but you're perfectly happy being the third largest exporter of oil, behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia. I think the debate you should be having is about the morality of feeding the world's oil addiction. But instead of just contributing to this problem you are also deliberately putting the brakes on one of its most plausible solutions? If I were Norwegian, I'd be ashamed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a nuclear physicist either , but I can tell that you do n't understand much about this issue .
The most obvious mistake you make is what you said about enrichment .
Whaa ? ? A ten second search would reveal to you that the reactor-relevant Thorium is Th-232 .
So do we need to enrich natural Thorium to get Th-232 ?
God damn it , look at Wikipedia !
[ wikipedia.org ] . What is the abundance of Th-232 in natural Thorium ?
You will find the answer is : 100 \ % .
So the comment about enriching is 100 \ % bullshit .
I suspect deliberate FUD , maybe not originating with you , but it 's sad to see this kind of crap circulating in Norway .
Is that like the Kansas of Europe ?
Second , there have already been several research reactors , not 20 years in the future but over 50 years in the past [ wikipedia.org ] .
Guess what ?
It worked great .
Yeah , we could build them better now .
India is doing it .
Third , the debate in Norway is , I presume , not about whether you will use Thorium reactors domestically to produce power .
You get almost all you need from hydro , which is a great , clean energy source .
The debate is rather about whether you will export Thorium to countries that want to also produce clean power but do n't have mountains and rivers like yours .
That Norwegians are having a debate about this is a little sickening to me - as though you might have a moral problem with selling this clean fuel to the world , but you 're perfectly happy being the third largest exporter of oil , behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia .
I think the debate you should be having is about the morality of feeding the world 's oil addiction .
But instead of just contributing to this problem you are also deliberately putting the brakes on one of its most plausible solutions ?
If I were Norwegian , I 'd be ashamed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a nuclear physicist either, but I can tell that you don't understand much about this issue.
The most obvious mistake you make is what you said about enrichment.
Whaa?? A ten second search would reveal to you that the reactor-relevant Thorium is Th-232.
So do we need to enrich natural Thorium to get Th-232?
God damn it, look at Wikipedia!
[wikipedia.org]. What is the abundance of Th-232 in natural Thorium?
You will find the answer is: 100\%.
So the comment about enriching is 100\% bullshit.
I suspect deliberate FUD, maybe not originating with you, but it's sad to see this kind of crap circulating in Norway.
Is that like the Kansas of Europe?
Second, there have already been several research reactors, not 20 years in the future but over 50 years in the past [wikipedia.org].
Guess what?
It worked great.
Yeah, we could build them better now.
India is doing it.
Third, the debate in Norway is, I presume, not about whether you will use Thorium reactors domestically to produce power.
You get almost all you need from hydro, which is a great, clean energy source.
The debate is rather about whether you will export Thorium to countries that want to also produce clean power but don't have mountains and rivers like yours.
That Norwegians are having a debate about this is a little sickening to me - as though you might have a moral problem with selling this clean fuel to the world, but you're perfectly happy being the third largest exporter of oil, behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia.
I think the debate you should be having is about the morality of feeding the world's oil addiction.
But instead of just contributing to this problem you are also deliberately putting the brakes on one of its most plausible solutions?
If I were Norwegian, I'd be ashamed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623896</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 1/2 the country that doesn't believe what scientists tell them are the same 1/2 the country that has been pushing for nuclear power as a solution to energy independance, and the same that nominated 2 presidents who pronounced it nucular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1/2 the country that does n't believe what scientists tell them are the same 1/2 the country that has been pushing for nuclear power as a solution to energy independance , and the same that nominated 2 presidents who pronounced it nucular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1/2 the country that doesn't believe what scientists tell them are the same 1/2 the country that has been pushing for nuclear power as a solution to energy independance, and the same that nominated 2 presidents who pronounced it nucular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627788</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1262438160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623826</id>
	<title>Re:Canadian CANDU reactors can use Thorium</title>
	<author>andy1307</author>
	<datestamp>1262457000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank god for the Canadians and their CAN-DU attitude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank god for the Canadians and their CAN-DU attitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank god for the Canadians and their CAN-DU attitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628666</id>
	<title>Re:why bother</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262447160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>all the energy we need can come from solar and wind</p></div><p>Are you one of those "back to trees and caves" Greenpeace guys? Do you, perhaps, think that Earth could use a few billion less humans, and in short order?</p><p>'cause that's about the only scenario in which we can realistically need no more energy than what can be covered by wind/solar, worldwide. Now, some regions can get away with wind and/or solar alone, some regions can also get away with hydro, or geothermal and tidal - but as a generic solution, it doesn't cut it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all the energy we need can come from solar and windAre you one of those " back to trees and caves " Greenpeace guys ?
Do you , perhaps , think that Earth could use a few billion less humans , and in short order ?
'cause that 's about the only scenario in which we can realistically need no more energy than what can be covered by wind/solar , worldwide .
Now , some regions can get away with wind and/or solar alone , some regions can also get away with hydro , or geothermal and tidal - but as a generic solution , it does n't cut it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all the energy we need can come from solar and windAre you one of those "back to trees and caves" Greenpeace guys?
Do you, perhaps, think that Earth could use a few billion less humans, and in short order?
'cause that's about the only scenario in which we can realistically need no more energy than what can be covered by wind/solar, worldwide.
Now, some regions can get away with wind and/or solar alone, some regions can also get away with hydro, or geothermal and tidal - but as a generic solution, it doesn't cut it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624242</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1262459040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you're not qualified as a nuclear physicist, I'd like to see your references.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you 're not qualified as a nuclear physicist , I 'd like to see your references .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you're not qualified as a nuclear physicist, I'd like to see your references.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624074</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>matt4077</author>
	<datestamp>1262458320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, it's the green energy companies conspiring against Siemens, Westinghouse, GE and Shell day on slashdot. I love those days. Full of wit and imagination!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , it 's the green energy companies conspiring against Siemens , Westinghouse , GE and Shell day on slashdot .
I love those days .
Full of wit and imagination !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, it's the green energy companies conspiring against Siemens, Westinghouse, GE and Shell day on slashdot.
I love those days.
Full of wit and imagination!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30647664</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>GabriellaKat</author>
	<datestamp>1262605740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; </p><p>- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it.  It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed, especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies</p></div><p>Not true also. The original "hippies" are all behind nuclear power now. They all want us to go and build them.


<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]

as shown by this article and a few others I dont feel like Bing'ing right now</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; - nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it .
It 'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed , especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologiesNot true also .
The original " hippies " are all behind nuclear power now .
They all want us to go and build them .
http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html [ washingtonpost.com ] as shown by this article and a few others I dont feel like Bing'ing right now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; - nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it.
It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed, especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologiesNot true also.
The original "hippies" are all behind nuclear power now.
They all want us to go and build them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html [washingtonpost.com]

as shown by this article and a few others I dont feel like Bing'ing right now
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624060</id>
	<title>No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1262458200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anytime there's a chain reaction, there's a chance for it becoming uncontrolled, however miniscule. You just need to find the right idiot to flip the wrong switches.<p>
The only way to have no chance of an uncontrolled chain reaction is not having a chain reaction in the first place, e.g. like in a fusion reactor, or using the neutrons from a fusion reactor to split fission fuel. No chain reaction, so just stop the neutron source and you only have decay heat to deal with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime there 's a chain reaction , there 's a chance for it becoming uncontrolled , however miniscule .
You just need to find the right idiot to flip the wrong switches .
The only way to have no chance of an uncontrolled chain reaction is not having a chain reaction in the first place , e.g .
like in a fusion reactor , or using the neutrons from a fusion reactor to split fission fuel .
No chain reaction , so just stop the neutron source and you only have decay heat to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime there's a chain reaction, there's a chance for it becoming uncontrolled, however miniscule.
You just need to find the right idiot to flip the wrong switches.
The only way to have no chance of an uncontrolled chain reaction is not having a chain reaction in the first place, e.g.
like in a fusion reactor, or using the neutrons from a fusion reactor to split fission fuel.
No chain reaction, so just stop the neutron source and you only have decay heat to deal with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628826</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1262448660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have plenty of Uranium here in Australia. But we also have uneducated anti-nuclear coal loving hippies, so there is a ban on uranium mining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have plenty of Uranium here in Australia .
But we also have uneducated anti-nuclear coal loving hippies , so there is a ban on uranium mining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have plenty of Uranium here in Australia.
But we also have uneducated anti-nuclear coal loving hippies, so there is a ban on uranium mining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627674</id>
	<title>Re:nuclear waste, anyone?</title>
	<author>GravityStar</author>
	<datestamp>1262437260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sack up and reprocess the waste into fuel. Done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sack up and reprocess the waste into fuel .
Done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sack up and reprocess the waste into fuel.
Done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623314</id>
	<title>mod do3N</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">reaper Nor do the Any parting shoT, 3hich allows MAKES ME SICK JUST</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>reaper Nor do the Any parting shoT , 3hich allows MAKES ME SICK JUST [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reaper Nor do the Any parting shoT, 3hich allows MAKES ME SICK JUST [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628320</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1262442780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK I forgot the &lt;HUMOR&gt; tags.  I thought the use of the phrase 'super-dooper' might have been enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK I forgot the tags .
I thought the use of the phrase 'super-dooper ' might have been enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK I forgot the  tags.
I thought the use of the phrase 'super-dooper' might have been enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631164</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>Dogtanian</author>
	<datestamp>1262527620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products,</p></div><p>And Uranium produces candy canes and puppies?</p></div><p>Yes, of course it does! Unfortunately they're *highly radioactive* candy canes and puppies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thorium will also produce dangerous , radioactive by products,And Uranium produces candy canes and puppies ? Yes , of course it does !
Unfortunately they 're * highly radioactive * candy canes and puppies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products,And Uranium produces candy canes and puppies?Yes, of course it does!
Unfortunately they're *highly radioactive* candy canes and puppies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623006</id>
	<title>Because nuclear is still "scary"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I brought this article up in my government class a few weeks ago (we spend more time discussing what the government is doing than how it's set up), and I couldn't convince a single person that this new kind of reactor was safe. Let's face it: years of not building reactors combined with years of scare tactics from our government about other countries building reactors can't be undone with science. Propaganda &gt; Science</htmltext>
<tokenext>I brought this article up in my government class a few weeks ago ( we spend more time discussing what the government is doing than how it 's set up ) , and I could n't convince a single person that this new kind of reactor was safe .
Let 's face it : years of not building reactors combined with years of scare tactics from our government about other countries building reactors ca n't be undone with science .
Propaganda &gt; Science</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I brought this article up in my government class a few weeks ago (we spend more time discussing what the government is doing than how it's set up), and I couldn't convince a single person that this new kind of reactor was safe.
Let's face it: years of not building reactors combined with years of scare tactics from our government about other countries building reactors can't be undone with science.
Propaganda &gt; Science</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629922</id>
	<title>Re:Only a bridge ore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262461500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but back in the day, there was a decent chance to get some Arcanite! DO you know how much that's worth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but back in the day , there was a decent chance to get some Arcanite !
DO you know how much that 's worth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but back in the day, there was a decent chance to get some Arcanite!
DO you know how much that's worth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623002</id>
	<title>Leaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there is a chance that some [radioactivity] will leak out.</p></div></blockquote><p>Err, yes. Why didn't I realize that before? You've really opened my eyes. Radioactivity can get into the environment! OH MY GOD! LET'S BAN <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium" title="wikipedia.org">SMOKE DETECTORS</a> [wikipedia.org]. THEY CONTAIN TEH RADIOACTIVITY.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is a chance that some [ radioactivity ] will leak out.Err , yes .
Why did n't I realize that before ?
You 've really opened my eyes .
Radioactivity can get into the environment !
OH MY GOD !
LET 'S BAN SMOKE DETECTORS [ wikipedia.org ] .
THEY CONTAIN TEH RADIOACTIVITY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is a chance that some [radioactivity] will leak out.Err, yes.
Why didn't I realize that before?
You've really opened my eyes.
Radioactivity can get into the environment!
OH MY GOD!
LET'S BAN SMOKE DETECTORS [wikipedia.org].
THEY CONTAIN TEH RADIOACTIVITY.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632412</id>
	<title>Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1262541900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely.</p></div><p>Sounds nice on paper. The bottom line is that it doest work. We use too much power, with physics of scale, you can't compete with mass produced power. I will get my power cheaper than you by not doing that.
<br> <br>
Next is the problem of generating power from what? Gas? Coal? Solar? wind? This won't work without some serious power storage and some serious over generation to "secure supply". Just ask some people who live far away from the grid.
<br> <br>
Finally your facts about nuclear are not very accurate. Once through cycles that the US is obsessed with is not the norm and incredibly wasteful (seems to be the American way). The reactor stated here fixes many of these problems to very manageable levels. For example pressure water reactors get a burn up of fuel in the 20\% range (Optimistically). Molten salt(with any fuel) gets 100\%. Molten salt can even run on PWR waste nicely, and reduce the amount of long term waste by a factor of 10. Using Th is better since U233 tends to produce nicer waste, and will be reasonably safe in about 100 years, and there is much much less of it. There is more than enough U and Th to last 1000s years if we breed and reprocess.
<br> <br>
In fact a 1GW power station could hold 100 years of waste in a reasonably small area that can be co located . After that the stuff that went in first can be taken out. This avoids transportation issues.
<br> <br>
Finally there are many things that we deal with routinely that are just as bad  in industry. DDTs don't ever become safe. Ever. Yes we should have a waste solution as part of moving back to nuclear, but its not the boogie man. And we should burn most of the waste we have rather than bury it. Finally we must realistically asses the costs (environmental and financial) of the different options. Even the most extreme greenies are are not using less energy and it needs to come from somewhere.
<br> <br>
Oh an interesting side note. Molten salt reactors are easily scaled down and up. So small "community" based power stations are theoretically  possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely.Sounds nice on paper .
The bottom line is that it doest work .
We use too much power , with physics of scale , you ca n't compete with mass produced power .
I will get my power cheaper than you by not doing that .
Next is the problem of generating power from what ?
Gas ? Coal ?
Solar ? wind ?
This wo n't work without some serious power storage and some serious over generation to " secure supply " .
Just ask some people who live far away from the grid .
Finally your facts about nuclear are not very accurate .
Once through cycles that the US is obsessed with is not the norm and incredibly wasteful ( seems to be the American way ) .
The reactor stated here fixes many of these problems to very manageable levels .
For example pressure water reactors get a burn up of fuel in the 20 \ % range ( Optimistically ) .
Molten salt ( with any fuel ) gets 100 \ % .
Molten salt can even run on PWR waste nicely , and reduce the amount of long term waste by a factor of 10 .
Using Th is better since U233 tends to produce nicer waste , and will be reasonably safe in about 100 years , and there is much much less of it .
There is more than enough U and Th to last 1000s years if we breed and reprocess .
In fact a 1GW power station could hold 100 years of waste in a reasonably small area that can be co located .
After that the stuff that went in first can be taken out .
This avoids transportation issues .
Finally there are many things that we deal with routinely that are just as bad in industry .
DDTs do n't ever become safe .
Ever. Yes we should have a waste solution as part of moving back to nuclear , but its not the boogie man .
And we should burn most of the waste we have rather than bury it .
Finally we must realistically asses the costs ( environmental and financial ) of the different options .
Even the most extreme greenies are are not using less energy and it needs to come from somewhere .
Oh an interesting side note .
Molten salt reactors are easily scaled down and up .
So small " community " based power stations are theoretically possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely.Sounds nice on paper.
The bottom line is that it doest work.
We use too much power, with physics of scale, you can't compete with mass produced power.
I will get my power cheaper than you by not doing that.
Next is the problem of generating power from what?
Gas? Coal?
Solar? wind?
This won't work without some serious power storage and some serious over generation to "secure supply".
Just ask some people who live far away from the grid.
Finally your facts about nuclear are not very accurate.
Once through cycles that the US is obsessed with is not the norm and incredibly wasteful (seems to be the American way).
The reactor stated here fixes many of these problems to very manageable levels.
For example pressure water reactors get a burn up of fuel in the 20\% range (Optimistically).
Molten salt(with any fuel) gets 100\%.
Molten salt can even run on PWR waste nicely, and reduce the amount of long term waste by a factor of 10.
Using Th is better since U233 tends to produce nicer waste, and will be reasonably safe in about 100 years, and there is much much less of it.
There is more than enough U and Th to last 1000s years if we breed and reprocess.
In fact a 1GW power station could hold 100 years of waste in a reasonably small area that can be co located .
After that the stuff that went in first can be taken out.
This avoids transportation issues.
Finally there are many things that we deal with routinely that are just as bad  in industry.
DDTs don't ever become safe.
Ever. Yes we should have a waste solution as part of moving back to nuclear, but its not the boogie man.
And we should burn most of the waste we have rather than bury it.
Finally we must realistically asses the costs (environmental and financial) of the different options.
Even the most extreme greenies are are not using less energy and it needs to come from somewhere.
Oh an interesting side note.
Molten salt reactors are easily scaled down and up.
So small "community" based power stations are theoretically  possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624886</id>
	<title>No wonder its so expensive</title>
	<author>Daswolfen</author>
	<datestamp>1262463060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... in the Auction House. At least on my server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... in the Auction House .
At least on my server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... in the Auction House.
At least on my server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626040</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>BruceSchaller</author>
	<datestamp>1262426640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium, and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly.</i> </p></div><p>Sorry, there is only one naturally occurring isotope of Thorium, therefore there is no enrichment to do.</p><p>

It will however be necessary to kick start a reactor running pure thorium with something else.  You can't just build up a mountain of the stuff and get a reaction going.  I think that Thorium is great from a PR perspective because it's not Uranium!  People are so scared of what they can't see it's crazy.</p><p>

Nuclear power isn't as complicated as one might think.  It all comes down to something that can boil water, to drive a turbine....pretty similar to what you do when you drive to work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium , and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly .
Sorry , there is only one naturally occurring isotope of Thorium , therefore there is no enrichment to do .
It will however be necessary to kick start a reactor running pure thorium with something else .
You ca n't just build up a mountain of the stuff and get a reaction going .
I think that Thorium is great from a PR perspective because it 's not Uranium !
People are so scared of what they ca n't see it 's crazy .
Nuclear power is n't as complicated as one might think .
It all comes down to something that can boil water , to drive a turbine....pretty similar to what you do when you drive to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium, and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly.
Sorry, there is only one naturally occurring isotope of Thorium, therefore there is no enrichment to do.
It will however be necessary to kick start a reactor running pure thorium with something else.
You can't just build up a mountain of the stuff and get a reaction going.
I think that Thorium is great from a PR perspective because it's not Uranium!
People are so scared of what they can't see it's crazy.
Nuclear power isn't as complicated as one might think.
It all comes down to something that can boil water, to drive a turbine....pretty similar to what you do when you drive to work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630862</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>LandGator</author>
	<datestamp>1262520780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>perrin (891) babbled:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The debate has been ranging here in Norway lately, since we hold a lot of the world's known reserves of the stuff (as opposed to many wild guesswork assumptions about possible reserves around the world). The reason why not more reactors are built is quite simply because the technology is not there yet. By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away.</p></div><p>

Those accounts neglect the functional prototypes already built, such as the one which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt\_Reactor\_Experiment" title="wikipedia.org">first lit up at Oak Ridge in 1965.</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>It is a very complicated technology, and more difficult to engineer safely than uranium reactors that we currently know a lot about. Several studies, for instance from MIT, cast doubt on whether thorium reactors will even be cost effective. Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium, and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly.</p> </div><p>

Enrichment? Bull-pucky. All you need is garden-variety thorium, no discrimination between isotopes is required. The same stuff that's been in Coleman lantern mantles for decades works just dandy. And, to improve the cold startup issue, add a Farnsworth Fusor (yeah, Philo T. Farnsworth, the inventory of practical TV) to generate neutrons cheaply from deuterium, neutrons to speed up startup.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products,</p></div><p>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt\_Reactor\_Experiment#Fuel.2Fprimary\_coolant" title="wikipedia.org">"The high reactivity of fluorine traps most fission reaction byproducts."</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>

Which you keep in the reactor and burn up, for unlike Generation I-III reactors, you can keep using thorium fuel in a molten salt reactor far longer than in a uranium-fueled PWR or BWR and thereby burn off the high-level fission daughter products, extracting much more power from the fuel and simultaneously greatly reducing waste to be stored. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt\_Reactor\_Experiment#Results" title="wikipedia.org">"The bulk of the fission product elements remained stable in the salt. Additions of uranium and plutonium to the salt during operation were quick and uneventful, and recovery of uranium by fluorination was efficient."</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p> and if you have enrichment capabilities for thorium, it is not a far step further to produce weaponized plutonium.</p></div><p>

Straw man. No enrichment is required.</p><p>

Chuck Hansen's THE SWORDS OF ARMAGEDDON is just one instructive source I've read on atomics. Better to light your lamps with nuke power than to curse the darkness, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>perrin ( 891 ) babbled : The debate has been ranging here in Norway lately , since we hold a lot of the world 's known reserves of the stuff ( as opposed to many wild guesswork assumptions about possible reserves around the world ) .
The reason why not more reactors are built is quite simply because the technology is not there yet .
By most accounts , a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away .
Those accounts neglect the functional prototypes already built , such as the one which first lit up at Oak Ridge in 1965 .
[ wikipedia.org ] It is a very complicated technology , and more difficult to engineer safely than uranium reactors that we currently know a lot about .
Several studies , for instance from MIT , cast doubt on whether thorium reactors will even be cost effective .
Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium , and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly .
Enrichment ? Bull-pucky .
All you need is garden-variety thorium , no discrimination between isotopes is required .
The same stuff that 's been in Coleman lantern mantles for decades works just dandy .
And , to improve the cold startup issue , add a Farnsworth Fusor ( yeah , Philo T. Farnsworth , the inventory of practical TV ) to generate neutrons cheaply from deuterium , neutrons to speed up startup.Thorium will also produce dangerous , radioactive by products , " The high reactivity of fluorine traps most fission reaction byproducts .
" [ wikipedia.org ] Which you keep in the reactor and burn up , for unlike Generation I-III reactors , you can keep using thorium fuel in a molten salt reactor far longer than in a uranium-fueled PWR or BWR and thereby burn off the high-level fission daughter products , extracting much more power from the fuel and simultaneously greatly reducing waste to be stored .
" The bulk of the fission product elements remained stable in the salt .
Additions of uranium and plutonium to the salt during operation were quick and uneventful , and recovery of uranium by fluorination was efficient .
" [ wikipedia.org ] and if you have enrichment capabilities for thorium , it is not a far step further to produce weaponized plutonium .
Straw man .
No enrichment is required .
Chuck Hansen 's THE SWORDS OF ARMAGEDDON is just one instructive source I 've read on atomics .
Better to light your lamps with nuke power than to curse the darkness , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perrin (891) babbled:The debate has been ranging here in Norway lately, since we hold a lot of the world's known reserves of the stuff (as opposed to many wild guesswork assumptions about possible reserves around the world).
The reason why not more reactors are built is quite simply because the technology is not there yet.
By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away.
Those accounts neglect the functional prototypes already built, such as the one which first lit up at Oak Ridge in 1965.
[wikipedia.org] It is a very complicated technology, and more difficult to engineer safely than uranium reactors that we currently know a lot about.
Several studies, for instance from MIT, cast doubt on whether thorium reactors will even be cost effective.
Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium, and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly.
Enrichment? Bull-pucky.
All you need is garden-variety thorium, no discrimination between isotopes is required.
The same stuff that's been in Coleman lantern mantles for decades works just dandy.
And, to improve the cold startup issue, add a Farnsworth Fusor (yeah, Philo T. Farnsworth, the inventory of practical TV) to generate neutrons cheaply from deuterium, neutrons to speed up startup.Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products,

"The high reactivity of fluorine traps most fission reaction byproducts.
" [wikipedia.org] 

Which you keep in the reactor and burn up, for unlike Generation I-III reactors, you can keep using thorium fuel in a molten salt reactor far longer than in a uranium-fueled PWR or BWR and thereby burn off the high-level fission daughter products, extracting much more power from the fuel and simultaneously greatly reducing waste to be stored.
"The bulk of the fission product elements remained stable in the salt.
Additions of uranium and plutonium to the salt during operation were quick and uneventful, and recovery of uranium by fluorination was efficient.
" [wikipedia.org]  and if you have enrichment capabilities for thorium, it is not a far step further to produce weaponized plutonium.
Straw man.
No enrichment is required.
Chuck Hansen's THE SWORDS OF ARMAGEDDON is just one instructive source I've read on atomics.
Better to light your lamps with nuke power than to curse the darkness, eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624484</id>
	<title>Nuclear stigma?</title>
	<author>govt-serpent</author>
	<datestamp>1262460600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say let's call it Metal Power Plants instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say let 's call it Metal Power Plants instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say let's call it Metal Power Plants instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623414</id>
	<title>Molten Fluoride Salts?</title>
	<author>eagle52997</author>
	<datestamp>1262455020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"So why are we not building these reactors?"

Yeah, cause its always a good idea to work with large quantities of molten fluoride salts.  I think I've got some materials right here in my shop that would work perfectly fine with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" So why are we not building these reactors ?
" Yeah , cause its always a good idea to work with large quantities of molten fluoride salts .
I think I 've got some materials right here in my shop that would work perfectly fine with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So why are we not building these reactors?
"

Yeah, cause its always a good idea to work with large quantities of molten fluoride salts.
I think I've got some materials right here in my shop that would work perfectly fine with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623708</id>
	<title>Wired Article Errors and Omissions</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1262456400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Wired Magazine article presents a false picture of the development of nuclear power and leaves out some crucial facts about thorium reactors. A key fact about thorium reactors mentioned no where in the article: you can't build a reactor, load it with thorium alone, and have it work. It will sit there producing no power forever. This because thorium is only the breeding material and is not fissile. To get the reactor to produce power the thorium has to be mixed with plutonium or U-233 bred in some uranium fueled reactor somewhere, or with highly enriched U-235. In other words - the reactor has to be loaded with bomb-usable material and there has to be a lot of it, enough for hundreds of weapons.<p>This is part of why the whole quasi-conspiratorial story of "why we didn't go with thorium in the first place" is utter nonsense. It was not because "we wanted bombs instead" and were prejudiced against "superior thorium", it is because only if you have an established nuclear industry cranking out materials usable in bombs by the thousands can you build these reactors in the first place. Either you must have natural/low enriched uranium reactors to produce plutonium, or you need large amounts of highly enriched uranium (prime bomb material) to load into thorium breeders.</p><p>Also unacknowledged is that the particular type of reactor being promoted, the molten fluoride salt reactor, was and is a complex technology that requires substantial additional development. Only one single reactor of this kind was ever built, and it was an 8 megawatt (thermal) materials test reactor, not a power reactor. We are looking at many years of additional development before construction can start on a prototype full scale power reactor. I agree that this technology should be further pursued, and it may turn out more successful that plutonium breeders (no successful power plants have been built, just several failures) but it is by no means guaranteed.</p><p>Hyman Rickover, by the way, was interested in light water uranium fueled reactors because they are a good technology for powering submarines, <b>not</b> because they produce plutonium (they are lousy plutonium producers, the yield is low and the material produced has terrible properties for bombs).</p><p>Check out the 2005 IAEA survey document (http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/IAEA-TECDOC-1450.pdf) for a good summary of the thorium technology options and prospects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wired Magazine article presents a false picture of the development of nuclear power and leaves out some crucial facts about thorium reactors .
A key fact about thorium reactors mentioned no where in the article : you ca n't build a reactor , load it with thorium alone , and have it work .
It will sit there producing no power forever .
This because thorium is only the breeding material and is not fissile .
To get the reactor to produce power the thorium has to be mixed with plutonium or U-233 bred in some uranium fueled reactor somewhere , or with highly enriched U-235 .
In other words - the reactor has to be loaded with bomb-usable material and there has to be a lot of it , enough for hundreds of weapons.This is part of why the whole quasi-conspiratorial story of " why we did n't go with thorium in the first place " is utter nonsense .
It was not because " we wanted bombs instead " and were prejudiced against " superior thorium " , it is because only if you have an established nuclear industry cranking out materials usable in bombs by the thousands can you build these reactors in the first place .
Either you must have natural/low enriched uranium reactors to produce plutonium , or you need large amounts of highly enriched uranium ( prime bomb material ) to load into thorium breeders.Also unacknowledged is that the particular type of reactor being promoted , the molten fluoride salt reactor , was and is a complex technology that requires substantial additional development .
Only one single reactor of this kind was ever built , and it was an 8 megawatt ( thermal ) materials test reactor , not a power reactor .
We are looking at many years of additional development before construction can start on a prototype full scale power reactor .
I agree that this technology should be further pursued , and it may turn out more successful that plutonium breeders ( no successful power plants have been built , just several failures ) but it is by no means guaranteed.Hyman Rickover , by the way , was interested in light water uranium fueled reactors because they are a good technology for powering submarines , not because they produce plutonium ( they are lousy plutonium producers , the yield is low and the material produced has terrible properties for bombs ) .Check out the 2005 IAEA survey document ( http : //www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/IAEA-TECDOC-1450.pdf ) for a good summary of the thorium technology options and prospects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wired Magazine article presents a false picture of the development of nuclear power and leaves out some crucial facts about thorium reactors.
A key fact about thorium reactors mentioned no where in the article: you can't build a reactor, load it with thorium alone, and have it work.
It will sit there producing no power forever.
This because thorium is only the breeding material and is not fissile.
To get the reactor to produce power the thorium has to be mixed with plutonium or U-233 bred in some uranium fueled reactor somewhere, or with highly enriched U-235.
In other words - the reactor has to be loaded with bomb-usable material and there has to be a lot of it, enough for hundreds of weapons.This is part of why the whole quasi-conspiratorial story of "why we didn't go with thorium in the first place" is utter nonsense.
It was not because "we wanted bombs instead" and were prejudiced against "superior thorium", it is because only if you have an established nuclear industry cranking out materials usable in bombs by the thousands can you build these reactors in the first place.
Either you must have natural/low enriched uranium reactors to produce plutonium, or you need large amounts of highly enriched uranium (prime bomb material) to load into thorium breeders.Also unacknowledged is that the particular type of reactor being promoted, the molten fluoride salt reactor, was and is a complex technology that requires substantial additional development.
Only one single reactor of this kind was ever built, and it was an 8 megawatt (thermal) materials test reactor, not a power reactor.
We are looking at many years of additional development before construction can start on a prototype full scale power reactor.
I agree that this technology should be further pursued, and it may turn out more successful that plutonium breeders (no successful power plants have been built, just several failures) but it is by no means guaranteed.Hyman Rickover, by the way, was interested in light water uranium fueled reactors because they are a good technology for powering submarines, not because they produce plutonium (they are lousy plutonium producers, the yield is low and the material produced has terrible properties for bombs).Check out the 2005 IAEA survey document (http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/IAEA-TECDOC-1450.pdf) for a good summary of the thorium technology options and prospects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628786</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1262448240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We currently only use a small fraction of a percent of the energy in our Uranium fuels, and we only use a small percentage of Uranium (U235) in the majority of our current reactors. With full reprocessing (something that no nation currently does, as it's more expensive than just mining more even with the costs of storing un-reprocessed waste) we have enough fissionable fuels for breeder reactors to produce our current global electricity demand for roughly a billion (or milliard, i.e. 109) years. That's many times longer than the human race has existed thus far.</p><p>Granted, energy demand is constantly increasing, and a lot of the fuel is hard to extract (there's lots of Uranium in the oceans, but it's in very low concentration). Even so, we have decades of fuel available at current technologies and current price points. Thorium reactors would extend that by a factor of about 4, without even getting into breeder reactors or reprocessing. After a couple of centuries, we'll either have working fusion , vastly better mining technology, or vastly better reprocessing capability (this is already being worked on, via several approaches). That's not a major crisis, by any means - that long ago, we were still using coal-fired steam.</p><p>I suppose it depends on how you define "sustainable" though; eventually the sun will burn out and then your solar, wind, and hydro powers won't work anymore either. At the current rate of consumption though (roughly 15\% of global electricity usage) we would *still* have plenty of fissionable fuel. That's sustainable enough for me.</p><p>Sources:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission\_power#Conventional\_fuel\_resources" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission\_power#Conventional\_fuel\_resources</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html" title="stanford.edu">http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html</a> [stanford.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We currently only use a small fraction of a percent of the energy in our Uranium fuels , and we only use a small percentage of Uranium ( U235 ) in the majority of our current reactors .
With full reprocessing ( something that no nation currently does , as it 's more expensive than just mining more even with the costs of storing un-reprocessed waste ) we have enough fissionable fuels for breeder reactors to produce our current global electricity demand for roughly a billion ( or milliard , i.e .
109 ) years .
That 's many times longer than the human race has existed thus far.Granted , energy demand is constantly increasing , and a lot of the fuel is hard to extract ( there 's lots of Uranium in the oceans , but it 's in very low concentration ) .
Even so , we have decades of fuel available at current technologies and current price points .
Thorium reactors would extend that by a factor of about 4 , without even getting into breeder reactors or reprocessing .
After a couple of centuries , we 'll either have working fusion , vastly better mining technology , or vastly better reprocessing capability ( this is already being worked on , via several approaches ) .
That 's not a major crisis , by any means - that long ago , we were still using coal-fired steam.I suppose it depends on how you define " sustainable " though ; eventually the sun will burn out and then your solar , wind , and hydro powers wo n't work anymore either .
At the current rate of consumption though ( roughly 15 \ % of global electricity usage ) we would * still * have plenty of fissionable fuel .
That 's sustainable enough for me.Sources : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission \ _power # Conventional \ _fuel \ _resources [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html [ stanford.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We currently only use a small fraction of a percent of the energy in our Uranium fuels, and we only use a small percentage of Uranium (U235) in the majority of our current reactors.
With full reprocessing (something that no nation currently does, as it's more expensive than just mining more even with the costs of storing un-reprocessed waste) we have enough fissionable fuels for breeder reactors to produce our current global electricity demand for roughly a billion (or milliard, i.e.
109) years.
That's many times longer than the human race has existed thus far.Granted, energy demand is constantly increasing, and a lot of the fuel is hard to extract (there's lots of Uranium in the oceans, but it's in very low concentration).
Even so, we have decades of fuel available at current technologies and current price points.
Thorium reactors would extend that by a factor of about 4, without even getting into breeder reactors or reprocessing.
After a couple of centuries, we'll either have working fusion , vastly better mining technology, or vastly better reprocessing capability (this is already being worked on, via several approaches).
That's not a major crisis, by any means - that long ago, we were still using coal-fired steam.I suppose it depends on how you define "sustainable" though; eventually the sun will burn out and then your solar, wind, and hydro powers won't work anymore either.
At the current rate of consumption though (roughly 15\% of global electricity usage) we would *still* have plenty of fissionable fuel.
That's sustainable enough for me.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission\_power#Conventional\_fuel\_resources [wikipedia.org]http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html [stanford.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625200</id>
	<title>Re:zero-risk?</title>
	<author>orzetto</author>
	<datestamp>1262464860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think <em>you</em> need a "fucking education", sir.</p><p>Radioactivity is a concentration problem. Radioactivity, just like chemical pollution, is dangerous only beyond a certain threshold: we are right now exposed to cosmic rays, but that is not a cause of cancer, because our bodies can handle that level of radioactivity: they evolved for millions of years in this environment.</p><p>Coal plants may well generate a large cumulative amount of radioactivity, but since that is so highly dispersed, that has no adverse effects whatsoever (which cannot be said of other by-products of coal plants).</p><p>Please occlude the fornication up and refrain from parroting factoids of dubious parentage when the discussion is about arguments you do not understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you need a " fucking education " , sir.Radioactivity is a concentration problem .
Radioactivity , just like chemical pollution , is dangerous only beyond a certain threshold : we are right now exposed to cosmic rays , but that is not a cause of cancer , because our bodies can handle that level of radioactivity : they evolved for millions of years in this environment.Coal plants may well generate a large cumulative amount of radioactivity , but since that is so highly dispersed , that has no adverse effects whatsoever ( which can not be said of other by-products of coal plants ) .Please occlude the fornication up and refrain from parroting factoids of dubious parentage when the discussion is about arguments you do not understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you need a "fucking education", sir.Radioactivity is a concentration problem.
Radioactivity, just like chemical pollution, is dangerous only beyond a certain threshold: we are right now exposed to cosmic rays, but that is not a cause of cancer, because our bodies can handle that level of radioactivity: they evolved for millions of years in this environment.Coal plants may well generate a large cumulative amount of radioactivity, but since that is so highly dispersed, that has no adverse effects whatsoever (which cannot be said of other by-products of coal plants).Please occlude the fornication up and refrain from parroting factoids of dubious parentage when the discussion is about arguments you do not understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623538</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>considering it's in TFA. &gt;. I JUST read the same thing in wired....</p><p>either way, to break down the article (which i'm assuming its correct, but IANA Numclear physicist either) -- its is AT LEAST 20-50\% more efficient, requires NO buffer zone(because it is self regulating for heat... so no melt down), and has extremely little for biproducts at the end of it's cycle.</p><p>According to the wired article I read in the mag., the entire reason the US went with uranium as oppossed to thorium is BECAUSE they wanted the biproducts for weapons in the day (cold war). The cold war was the reason.</p><p>Other than that there is already a group running amuck trying to at least partically convert the current reactors to take a little thorium in their loads, which makes them something like 20\% more effectient at making electricity and does not leave stuff behind to make bombs from.</p><p>so that is the point. change of directives from absolute power generation w/o biproducts instead of the cold war nuclear security issues.</p><p>The tech has been around since the time they started to think about the uranium reactors, so it's not new...more like forgotten tech. It looks awesomely promising should you read the wired article.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...which i can't link because of where I am posting from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>considering it 's in TFA .
&gt; . I JUST read the same thing in wired....either way , to break down the article ( which i 'm assuming its correct , but IANA Numclear physicist either ) -- its is AT LEAST 20-50 \ % more efficient , requires NO buffer zone ( because it is self regulating for heat... so no melt down ) , and has extremely little for biproducts at the end of it 's cycle.According to the wired article I read in the mag. , the entire reason the US went with uranium as oppossed to thorium is BECAUSE they wanted the biproducts for weapons in the day ( cold war ) .
The cold war was the reason.Other than that there is already a group running amuck trying to at least partically convert the current reactors to take a little thorium in their loads , which makes them something like 20 \ % more effectient at making electricity and does not leave stuff behind to make bombs from.so that is the point .
change of directives from absolute power generation w/o biproducts instead of the cold war nuclear security issues.The tech has been around since the time they started to think about the uranium reactors , so it 's not new...more like forgotten tech .
It looks awesomely promising should you read the wired article .
...which i ca n't link because of where I am posting from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>considering it's in TFA.
&gt;. I JUST read the same thing in wired....either way, to break down the article (which i'm assuming its correct, but IANA Numclear physicist either) -- its is AT LEAST 20-50\% more efficient, requires NO buffer zone(because it is self regulating for heat... so no melt down), and has extremely little for biproducts at the end of it's cycle.According to the wired article I read in the mag., the entire reason the US went with uranium as oppossed to thorium is BECAUSE they wanted the biproducts for weapons in the day (cold war).
The cold war was the reason.Other than that there is already a group running amuck trying to at least partically convert the current reactors to take a little thorium in their loads, which makes them something like 20\% more effectient at making electricity and does not leave stuff behind to make bombs from.so that is the point.
change of directives from absolute power generation w/o biproducts instead of the cold war nuclear security issues.The tech has been around since the time they started to think about the uranium reactors, so it's not new...more like forgotten tech.
It looks awesomely promising should you read the wired article.
...which i can't link because of where I am posting from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623260</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1262454120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds like a fiendishly difficult problem. What materials are you using for it? It seems like you'd have to basically use ceramics and... tungsten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds like a fiendishly difficult problem .
What materials are you using for it ?
It seems like you 'd have to basically use ceramics and... tungsten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds like a fiendishly difficult problem.
What materials are you using for it?
It seems like you'd have to basically use ceramics and... tungsten.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630428</id>
	<title>Other writing on the subject</title>
	<author>beachdog</author>
	<datestamp>1262512320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is another writer who is developing a nuclear reactor based low-CO2 future scenario. Read it carefully, his book is an interesting exploration, but not "the solution".</p><p>Thorium for reactors, and the larger context of using nuclear electric generation to replace CO2 emitting coal generation is discussed in:</p><p>Whole Earth Discipline An Eco-pragmatist Manifesto<br>by Stewart Brand</p><p>Here is an online book that organizes a huge spectrum of CO2 reduction schemes. This is worth reading for gaining perspective on just what fraction of the CO2 problem might be addressed using nuclear electricity generation.</p><p>David MacKay: Without Hot Air</p><p><a href="http://www.withouthotair.com/" title="withouthotair.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.withouthotair.com/</a> [withouthotair.com]</p><p>Just yesterday I wished to make some progress toward a low carbon lifestyle. I started up my van [ 243,000 miles at 22.7 miles/gallon x 7 lb of carbon per gallon of gas x 3 lb of CO2 per pound of carbon ] and thought oops did I just emit 224,000 pounds of CO2?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is another writer who is developing a nuclear reactor based low-CO2 future scenario .
Read it carefully , his book is an interesting exploration , but not " the solution " .Thorium for reactors , and the larger context of using nuclear electric generation to replace CO2 emitting coal generation is discussed in : Whole Earth Discipline An Eco-pragmatist Manifestoby Stewart BrandHere is an online book that organizes a huge spectrum of CO2 reduction schemes .
This is worth reading for gaining perspective on just what fraction of the CO2 problem might be addressed using nuclear electricity generation.David MacKay : Without Hot Airhttp : //www.withouthotair.com/ [ withouthotair.com ] Just yesterday I wished to make some progress toward a low carbon lifestyle .
I started up my van [ 243,000 miles at 22.7 miles/gallon x 7 lb of carbon per gallon of gas x 3 lb of CO2 per pound of carbon ] and thought oops did I just emit 224,000 pounds of CO2 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is another writer who is developing a nuclear reactor based low-CO2 future scenario.
Read it carefully, his book is an interesting exploration, but not "the solution".Thorium for reactors, and the larger context of using nuclear electric generation to replace CO2 emitting coal generation is discussed in:Whole Earth Discipline An Eco-pragmatist Manifestoby Stewart BrandHere is an online book that organizes a huge spectrum of CO2 reduction schemes.
This is worth reading for gaining perspective on just what fraction of the CO2 problem might be addressed using nuclear electricity generation.David MacKay: Without Hot Airhttp://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]Just yesterday I wished to make some progress toward a low carbon lifestyle.
I started up my van [ 243,000 miles at 22.7 miles/gallon x 7 lb of carbon per gallon of gas x 3 lb of CO2 per pound of carbon ] and thought oops did I just emit 224,000 pounds of CO2?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624224</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1262458980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluoride... Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !</p></div><p>So... hows the neutron flux capacitor coming along?  I think once that's taken care of buffering radioactive molten flouride should be a cinch!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am working on the very periphery of the problem , designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluoride... Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes ! So... hows the neutron flux capacitor coming along ?
I think once that 's taken care of buffering radioactive molten flouride should be a cinch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluoride... Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !So... hows the neutron flux capacitor coming along?
I think once that's taken care of buffering radioactive molten flouride should be a cinch!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630710</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>LandGator</author>
	<datestamp>1262517660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; - 1/2 the country doesn't believe what scientists tell them: evolution, global warming, birth control/STDs. Why believe them now?

It's proven that half of all folks are below average.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; - 1/2 the country does n't believe what scientists tell them : evolution , global warming , birth control/STDs .
Why believe them now ?
It 's proven that half of all folks are below average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; - 1/2 the country doesn't believe what scientists tell them: evolution, global warming, birth control/STDs.
Why believe them now?
It's proven that half of all folks are below average.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624042</id>
	<title>The obvious answer...</title>
	<author>jkiller</author>
	<datestamp>1262458140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are we forgetting Tylium?  Easily mine-able and can spool your FTL drive.  Endless benefits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we forgetting Tylium ?
Easily mine-able and can spool your FTL drive .
Endless benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we forgetting Tylium?
Easily mine-able and can spool your FTL drive.
Endless benefits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623284</id>
	<title>Fuel cells?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Fuel cells may replace batteries but they do not generate electricity and are thus irrelevant to the current discussion. People keep thinking that the so called 'Hydrogen economy' is a solution of energy production. It is NOT. Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuel cells may replace batteries but they do not generate electricity and are thus irrelevant to the current discussion .
People keep thinking that the so called 'Hydrogen economy ' is a solution of energy production .
It is NOT .
Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Fuel cells may replace batteries but they do not generate electricity and are thus irrelevant to the current discussion.
People keep thinking that the so called 'Hydrogen economy' is a solution of energy production.
It is NOT.
Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30664168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30642206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30642146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30633498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30647664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30643986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30637374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30634046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30642012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30637460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_1330245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30637374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30643986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623584
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624988
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30642012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30647664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30664168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30637460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30633498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30634046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30630540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30624416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30631032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30629802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30622812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30627518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30628094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30642206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_1330245.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30623966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30642146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30626230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30632412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_1330245.30625582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
