<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_06_2313253</id>
	<title>Massive Solar Updraft Towers Planned For Arizona</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1262778720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MikeChino writes <i>"Australia-based EnviroMission Ltd recently announced plans to build <a href="http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/01/06/enviromission-plans-massive-solar-updraft-towers-for-arizona/">two solar updraft towers</a> that span hundreds of acres in La Paz County, Arizona. Solar updraft technology sounds promising enough: generate hot air with a giant greenhouse, channel the air into a chimney-like device, and let the warm wind turn a wind turbine to produce energy. The scale of the devices would be staggering &mdash; each plant would consist of a 2,400 foot chimney over a greenhouse measuring four square miles. The Southern California Public Power Authority has approved EnviroMission as a provider, although there&rsquo;s still plenty of work to be done before the $750 million, 200 megawatt project can begin."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MikeChino writes " Australia-based EnviroMission Ltd recently announced plans to build two solar updraft towers that span hundreds of acres in La Paz County , Arizona .
Solar updraft technology sounds promising enough : generate hot air with a giant greenhouse , channel the air into a chimney-like device , and let the warm wind turn a wind turbine to produce energy .
The scale of the devices would be staggering    each plant would consist of a 2,400 foot chimney over a greenhouse measuring four square miles .
The Southern California Public Power Authority has approved EnviroMission as a provider , although there    s still plenty of work to be done before the $ 750 million , 200 megawatt project can begin .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MikeChino writes "Australia-based EnviroMission Ltd recently announced plans to build two solar updraft towers that span hundreds of acres in La Paz County, Arizona.
Solar updraft technology sounds promising enough: generate hot air with a giant greenhouse, channel the air into a chimney-like device, and let the warm wind turn a wind turbine to produce energy.
The scale of the devices would be staggering — each plant would consist of a 2,400 foot chimney over a greenhouse measuring four square miles.
The Southern California Public Power Authority has approved EnviroMission as a provider, although there’s still plenty of work to be done before the $750 million, 200 megawatt project can begin.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678192</id>
	<title>Re:The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1262791560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Palo Verde nuclear power plant, also in Arizona, spans 4000 acres of<br>&gt; desert...</p><p>More like 100 acres of land actually used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Palo Verde nuclear power plant , also in Arizona , spans 4000 acres of &gt; desert...More like 100 acres of land actually used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Palo Verde nuclear power plant, also in Arizona, spans 4000 acres of&gt; desert...More like 100 acres of land actually used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30688390</id>
	<title>Re:$750 million for 200 MW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262862900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new nuke plant in Finland costs about 5 billion euros. It will generate 1600 MW with a capacity factor around 95\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new nuke plant in Finland costs about 5 billion euros .
It will generate 1600 MW with a capacity factor around 95 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new nuke plant in Finland costs about 5 billion euros.
It will generate 1600 MW with a capacity factor around 95\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680212</id>
	<title>Re:The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1262858640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if a solar updraft tower on this scale is proven to be viable, producing no greenhouse gases, nuclear waste, or other polluting waste materials, it could greatly help reduce our inevitable march to climate change disaster, including how we reclaim waste ground-level heat.</p><p>The desert of Arizona isn't a wasteland.  But I'll be damned if there isn't a heck of a lot of it left.  And unlike forests, we don't really rely upon them as heavily for our survival.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if a solar updraft tower on this scale is proven to be viable , producing no greenhouse gases , nuclear waste , or other polluting waste materials , it could greatly help reduce our inevitable march to climate change disaster , including how we reclaim waste ground-level heat.The desert of Arizona is n't a wasteland .
But I 'll be damned if there is n't a heck of a lot of it left .
And unlike forests , we do n't really rely upon them as heavily for our survival .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if a solar updraft tower on this scale is proven to be viable, producing no greenhouse gases, nuclear waste, or other polluting waste materials, it could greatly help reduce our inevitable march to climate change disaster, including how we reclaim waste ground-level heat.The desert of Arizona isn't a wasteland.
But I'll be damned if there isn't a heck of a lot of it left.
And unlike forests, we don't really rely upon them as heavily for our survival.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30687708</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1262859720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if you've been to Arizona, but land here isn't exactly a limited commodity.  There are massive stretches of land that are unused, in part because they aren't very habitable (i.e., 120+ degrees, no water).  It doesn't matter that you can put a nuke plant on the same site and get more energy, because we aren't interested in conserving space (it also turns out we've got the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo\_Verde\_Nuclear\_Generating\_Station" title="wikipedia.org">largest nuke plant</a> [wikipedia.org] in the country already).  We're interested in generating power efficiently and in a way that isn't going to completely ruin the environment, not conserving the huge patches of desert that no one lives on.</p><p>Also, did I mention how much water a nuke plant requires?  Did I mention we live in a desert?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you 've been to Arizona , but land here is n't exactly a limited commodity .
There are massive stretches of land that are unused , in part because they are n't very habitable ( i.e. , 120 + degrees , no water ) .
It does n't matter that you can put a nuke plant on the same site and get more energy , because we are n't interested in conserving space ( it also turns out we 've got the largest nuke plant [ wikipedia.org ] in the country already ) .
We 're interested in generating power efficiently and in a way that is n't going to completely ruin the environment , not conserving the huge patches of desert that no one lives on.Also , did I mention how much water a nuke plant requires ?
Did I mention we live in a desert ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you've been to Arizona, but land here isn't exactly a limited commodity.
There are massive stretches of land that are unused, in part because they aren't very habitable (i.e., 120+ degrees, no water).
It doesn't matter that you can put a nuke plant on the same site and get more energy, because we aren't interested in conserving space (it also turns out we've got the largest nuke plant [wikipedia.org] in the country already).
We're interested in generating power efficiently and in a way that isn't going to completely ruin the environment, not conserving the huge patches of desert that no one lives on.Also, did I mention how much water a nuke plant requires?
Did I mention we live in a desert?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677128</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1262783820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We should be trying to extract the thermal energy we already have</p></div> </blockquote><p> What precisely do you think they're trying to do?  Where do you think this thermal difference comes from exactly?  Every single process that generates usable electrical power generates thermal energy.  Simple thermodynamics dictates that a process must be less than 100\% efficient and must create more disorder than order.  So instead of converting coal and air into CO2, electrical power and heat; we're converting solar thermal energy into electrical power and waste heat.  The thermal energy is already there and is going to waste otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should be trying to extract the thermal energy we already have What precisely do you think they 're trying to do ?
Where do you think this thermal difference comes from exactly ?
Every single process that generates usable electrical power generates thermal energy .
Simple thermodynamics dictates that a process must be less than 100 \ % efficient and must create more disorder than order .
So instead of converting coal and air into CO2 , electrical power and heat ; we 're converting solar thermal energy into electrical power and waste heat .
The thermal energy is already there and is going to waste otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should be trying to extract the thermal energy we already have  What precisely do you think they're trying to do?
Where do you think this thermal difference comes from exactly?
Every single process that generates usable electrical power generates thermal energy.
Simple thermodynamics dictates that a process must be less than 100\% efficient and must create more disorder than order.
So instead of converting coal and air into CO2, electrical power and heat; we're converting solar thermal energy into electrical power and waste heat.
The thermal energy is already there and is going to waste otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30704172</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262968380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt. I think the capital expense is comparable.  What is the benefit here?</p><p>Regards,<br>Jason</p></div><p>Moichendizing!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...a la all the solar tower model kits they will sell in the lobby gift shop.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt .
I think the capital expense is comparable .
What is the benefit here ? Regards,JasonMoichendizing !
...a la all the solar tower model kits they will sell in the lobby gift shop .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt.
I think the capital expense is comparable.
What is the benefit here?Regards,JasonMoichendizing!
...a la all the solar tower model kits they will sell in the lobby gift shop.
:P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677956</id>
	<title>Re:Other turbine proposals...</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1262789460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More importantly, how do you deal with the fact that humid air is lighter than dry air?  You would need one hell of a temperature difference to overcome that fact...</p><p>A mile up, you would be lucky to find air that is 60F and 10\% RH, which would be about 13.25 cubic feet per lb dry air +8 grains.  If you fully saturate it by evaporating water, you only end up with 53F air and you have added 52 grains of water...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , how do you deal with the fact that humid air is lighter than dry air ?
You would need one hell of a temperature difference to overcome that fact...A mile up , you would be lucky to find air that is 60F and 10 \ % RH , which would be about 13.25 cubic feet per lb dry air + 8 grains .
If you fully saturate it by evaporating water , you only end up with 53F air and you have added 52 grains of water.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, how do you deal with the fact that humid air is lighter than dry air?
You would need one hell of a temperature difference to overcome that fact...A mile up, you would be lucky to find air that is 60F and 10\% RH, which would be about 13.25 cubic feet per lb dry air +8 grains.
If you fully saturate it by evaporating water, you only end up with 53F air and you have added 52 grains of water...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677544</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262786580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with building a 10\% scale device is that you can't find as many excuses for not actually, you know, building one.  This project is intended to extract money from investors and governments, not extract energy.  When the first one you want to build is ridiculously big, you really don't intend to build any.</p><p>For instance, in <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solartwo/index.html" title="ca.gov" rel="nofollow"> this solar thermal plant </a> [ca.gov] they built the first few to prove the concept.  Makes perfect sense if you're actually intending to generate power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with building a 10 \ % scale device is that you ca n't find as many excuses for not actually , you know , building one .
This project is intended to extract money from investors and governments , not extract energy .
When the first one you want to build is ridiculously big , you really do n't intend to build any.For instance , in this solar thermal plant [ ca.gov ] they built the first few to prove the concept .
Makes perfect sense if you 're actually intending to generate power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with building a 10\% scale device is that you can't find as many excuses for not actually, you know, building one.
This project is intended to extract money from investors and governments, not extract energy.
When the first one you want to build is ridiculously big, you really don't intend to build any.For instance, in  this solar thermal plant  [ca.gov] they built the first few to prove the concept.
Makes perfect sense if you're actually intending to generate power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30683116</id>
	<title>Could work out well if...</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1262882940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's hoping that the NIMBY-enviro-Nazi lobby in Arizona isn't nearly as asinine as it is in California who with the backing of a U.S. senator is attempting to kill off a game-changing solar project in favor of desert tortoises.  Plus, if it winds up in Arizona there will be the added benefit of getting money from California which is a fair trade for all the water they're stealing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's hoping that the NIMBY-enviro-Nazi lobby in Arizona is n't nearly as asinine as it is in California who with the backing of a U.S. senator is attempting to kill off a game-changing solar project in favor of desert tortoises .
Plus , if it winds up in Arizona there will be the added benefit of getting money from California which is a fair trade for all the water they 're stealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's hoping that the NIMBY-enviro-Nazi lobby in Arizona isn't nearly as asinine as it is in California who with the backing of a U.S. senator is attempting to kill off a game-changing solar project in favor of desert tortoises.
Plus, if it winds up in Arizona there will be the added benefit of getting money from California which is a fair trade for all the water they're stealing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677908</id>
	<title>Waste heat</title>
	<author>mesterha</author>
	<datestamp>1262789160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it interesting how this is essentially a way to use waste
heat generated by sunlight.  I wonder if the design takes extra
advantage of that fact.

</p><p>For example, one could have the fans drive long shafts to put the
generators closer to the cold air inlets.  Not only would this be
beneficial in keeping the generators cooler, the excess heat generated
would create even more power.  Another idea is to add some heat
intensive industrial process near the inlet.  The waste heat from the
facility would just add to the energy.  If the process runs on
electricity one could again boost the effective efficiency by using
the solar tower's electricity to power the process.  A computer center
might be a decent source of waste heat, but I don't know if silicon
technology gets hot enough to be practical.  Maybe if it's used in a
pretty cold environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting how this is essentially a way to use waste heat generated by sunlight .
I wonder if the design takes extra advantage of that fact .
For example , one could have the fans drive long shafts to put the generators closer to the cold air inlets .
Not only would this be beneficial in keeping the generators cooler , the excess heat generated would create even more power .
Another idea is to add some heat intensive industrial process near the inlet .
The waste heat from the facility would just add to the energy .
If the process runs on electricity one could again boost the effective efficiency by using the solar tower 's electricity to power the process .
A computer center might be a decent source of waste heat , but I do n't know if silicon technology gets hot enough to be practical .
Maybe if it 's used in a pretty cold environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting how this is essentially a way to use waste
heat generated by sunlight.
I wonder if the design takes extra
advantage of that fact.
For example, one could have the fans drive long shafts to put the
generators closer to the cold air inlets.
Not only would this be
beneficial in keeping the generators cooler, the excess heat generated
would create even more power.
Another idea is to add some heat
intensive industrial process near the inlet.
The waste heat from the
facility would just add to the energy.
If the process runs on
electricity one could again boost the effective efficiency by using
the solar tower's electricity to power the process.
A computer center
might be a decent source of waste heat, but I don't know if silicon
technology gets hot enough to be practical.
Maybe if it's used in a
pretty cold environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680746</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1262866920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt. I think the capital expense is comparable.  What is the benefit here?</p></div><p>The uranium from those 50 acres will quickly run out, and then you need 50 more acres to get more uranium. Sunlight is replenished for free every second of the day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt .
I think the capital expense is comparable .
What is the benefit here ? The uranium from those 50 acres will quickly run out , and then you need 50 more acres to get more uranium .
Sunlight is replenished for free every second of the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt.
I think the capital expense is comparable.
What is the benefit here?The uranium from those 50 acres will quickly run out, and then you need 50 more acres to get more uranium.
Sunlight is replenished for free every second of the day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30683530</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>Ferretman</author>
	<datestamp>1262884500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Totally concur Jason.
<br>
<br>
As *neat* as something like this is, it simply can't compete with the efficiency and size factor to be found with going nuclear.
<br>
<br>
Would I rather see these towers built than do nothing?  Yes.
<br>
<br>
Would I rather see a nice, compact nuclear plant built instead of these two towers?  Definitely yes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally concur Jason .
As * neat * as something like this is , it simply ca n't compete with the efficiency and size factor to be found with going nuclear .
Would I rather see these towers built than do nothing ?
Yes . Would I rather see a nice , compact nuclear plant built instead of these two towers ?
Definitely yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally concur Jason.
As *neat* as something like this is, it simply can't compete with the efficiency and size factor to be found with going nuclear.
Would I rather see these towers built than do nothing?
Yes.


Would I rather see a nice, compact nuclear plant built instead of these two towers?
Definitely yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678312</id>
	<title>Re:A better location</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262792880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Mr. Worthy,<br> <br>Thank you for your correspondence regarding solar air towers in Washington, DC.  I would like to take some time to expand upon my views on the subject.  Clean energy, especially solar energy, provides a gateway towards energy independence and a sustainable future.  To that end, I have sponsored multiple bills supporting clean energy utilizing solar sources, providing a variety of tax incentives to stimulate job growth in this vital sector and give us an edge in the global marketplace.  I trust local governments to come to the right conclusion regarding placement of solar facilities, and I support any efforts to move us to a carbon-neutral economy.  Thank you again for your correspondence, and I hope this has addressed your concerns.<br> <br>Sincerely,<br> <br>John Jackson<br>Representative, AZ-37</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Mr. Worthy , Thank you for your correspondence regarding solar air towers in Washington , DC .
I would like to take some time to expand upon my views on the subject .
Clean energy , especially solar energy , provides a gateway towards energy independence and a sustainable future .
To that end , I have sponsored multiple bills supporting clean energy utilizing solar sources , providing a variety of tax incentives to stimulate job growth in this vital sector and give us an edge in the global marketplace .
I trust local governments to come to the right conclusion regarding placement of solar facilities , and I support any efforts to move us to a carbon-neutral economy .
Thank you again for your correspondence , and I hope this has addressed your concerns .
Sincerely , John JacksonRepresentative , AZ-37</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Mr. Worthy, Thank you for your correspondence regarding solar air towers in Washington, DC.
I would like to take some time to expand upon my views on the subject.
Clean energy, especially solar energy, provides a gateway towards energy independence and a sustainable future.
To that end, I have sponsored multiple bills supporting clean energy utilizing solar sources, providing a variety of tax incentives to stimulate job growth in this vital sector and give us an edge in the global marketplace.
I trust local governments to come to the right conclusion regarding placement of solar facilities, and I support any efforts to move us to a carbon-neutral economy.
Thank you again for your correspondence, and I hope this has addressed your concerns.
Sincerely, John JacksonRepresentative, AZ-37</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604</id>
	<title>$750 million for 200 MW?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1262786940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone have the figures for the cost of conventional generating facilities that, you know... Work when the sun's not shining, too?</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone have the figures for the cost of conventional generating facilities that , you know... Work when the sun 's not shining , too ? -jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone have the figures for the cost of conventional generating facilities that, you know... Work when the sun's not shining, too?-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677280</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Weedhopper</author>
	<datestamp>1262784840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey genius, where do you think the thermal energy that's being collected came from and went to in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey genius , where do you think the thermal energy that 's being collected came from and went to in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey genius, where do you think the thermal energy that's being collected came from and went to in the first place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677694</id>
	<title>Super Flux Capacitor</title>
	<author>Simonetta</author>
	<datestamp>1262787720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A giant sun tower or two in Arizona is an interesting idea.  But it makes more sense to build a huge lightning capacitor.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There's this place in Arizona where lightning strikes are common and happen nearly every night.  Something in the atmosphere, the heat, and humidity.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; So why not dig a huge hole in the ground, fill it with aluminum foil and electrolytic, then quickly and carefully build a huge lightning rod.  The lightning will constantly arc to the giant million farad capacitor in the ground.  It gets recharged up every night and the 'supercap' powers a small city or suburb.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Electricity directly from the sky to your PC!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A giant sun tower or two in Arizona is an interesting idea .
But it makes more sense to build a huge lightning capacitor .
    There 's this place in Arizona where lightning strikes are common and happen nearly every night .
Something in the atmosphere , the heat , and humidity .
    So why not dig a huge hole in the ground , fill it with aluminum foil and electrolytic , then quickly and carefully build a huge lightning rod .
The lightning will constantly arc to the giant million farad capacitor in the ground .
It gets recharged up every night and the 'supercap ' powers a small city or suburb .
    Electricity directly from the sky to your PC !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A giant sun tower or two in Arizona is an interesting idea.
But it makes more sense to build a huge lightning capacitor.
    There's this place in Arizona where lightning strikes are common and happen nearly every night.
Something in the atmosphere, the heat, and humidity.
    So why not dig a huge hole in the ground, fill it with aluminum foil and electrolytic, then quickly and carefully build a huge lightning rod.
The lightning will constantly arc to the giant million farad capacitor in the ground.
It gets recharged up every night and the 'supercap' powers a small city or suburb.
    Electricity directly from the sky to your PC!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679564</id>
	<title>Parasails?</title>
	<author>gustep12</author>
	<datestamp>1262805600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming one could enter the tower above the turbines, wouldn't this be a nice way to launch with a paraglider?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming one could enter the tower above the turbines , would n't this be a nice way to launch with a paraglider ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming one could enter the tower above the turbines, wouldn't this be a nice way to launch with a paraglider?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681090</id>
	<title>Re:The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1262871240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone.</p></div><p>Really? Only 8 times? I've noticed that nuclear fanboys on slashdot always compare nuclear to the worst technology out there. It's less polluting than coal, and it uses less land than solar. If I'm to believe you guys, nuclear must be pretty awful technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone.Really ?
Only 8 times ?
I 've noticed that nuclear fanboys on slashdot always compare nuclear to the worst technology out there .
It 's less polluting than coal , and it uses less land than solar .
If I 'm to believe you guys , nuclear must be pretty awful technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone.Really?
Only 8 times?
I've noticed that nuclear fanboys on slashdot always compare nuclear to the worst technology out there.
It's less polluting than coal, and it uses less land than solar.
If I'm to believe you guys, nuclear must be pretty awful technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678892</id>
	<title>Very Suspicious Verily so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262797560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You guys do know this looks like something some ignorant independent inventor figured out, then the Australians got it from him (no royalties). Probably an American inventor. That way the millions go to Australia and makes the aborigines there look real smart, when all along it was the American who crossed the Finish Line eh? hahahahahaha I kill me. Watch the shells closer boys and you'll see they are being moved by Satan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys do know this looks like something some ignorant independent inventor figured out , then the Australians got it from him ( no royalties ) .
Probably an American inventor .
That way the millions go to Australia and makes the aborigines there look real smart , when all along it was the American who crossed the Finish Line eh ?
hahahahahaha I kill me .
Watch the shells closer boys and you 'll see they are being moved by Satan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys do know this looks like something some ignorant independent inventor figured out, then the Australians got it from him (no royalties).
Probably an American inventor.
That way the millions go to Australia and makes the aborigines there look real smart, when all along it was the American who crossed the Finish Line eh?
hahahahahaha I kill me.
Watch the shells closer boys and you'll see they are being moved by Satan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677198</id>
	<title>Re:Other turbine proposals...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1262784240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm skeptical, probably because I'm missing something...  How was the water supposed to get to the top?  Solar-powered pumps?  How do you get more energy from the downdraft than it took to pump up the water?</p><p>This tower idea may not go anywhere, but it is immediately obvious to me how it converts solar energy into mechanical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm skeptical , probably because I 'm missing something... How was the water supposed to get to the top ?
Solar-powered pumps ?
How do you get more energy from the downdraft than it took to pump up the water ? This tower idea may not go anywhere , but it is immediately obvious to me how it converts solar energy into mechanical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm skeptical, probably because I'm missing something...  How was the water supposed to get to the top?
Solar-powered pumps?
How do you get more energy from the downdraft than it took to pump up the water?This tower idea may not go anywhere, but it is immediately obvious to me how it converts solar energy into mechanical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679900</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262896380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is the benefit here?</p></div><p>Diversity of sources of energy production and diversity of research. Trying a different direction is good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the benefit here ? Diversity of sources of energy production and diversity of research .
Trying a different direction is good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the benefit here?Diversity of sources of energy production and diversity of research.
Trying a different direction is good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</id>
	<title>The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>sp3d2orbit</author>
	<datestamp>1262789820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The project will decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat for 200 megawatts output. Palo Verde nuclear power plant, also in Arizona, spans 4000 acres of desert and produces 3.2 gigawatts.</p><p>Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The project will decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat for 200 megawatts output .
Palo Verde nuclear power plant , also in Arizona , spans 4000 acres of desert and produces 3.2 gigawatts.Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The project will decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat for 200 megawatts output.
Palo Verde nuclear power plant, also in Arizona, spans 4000 acres of desert and produces 3.2 gigawatts.Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679082</id>
	<title>Re:Super Flux Capacitor</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1262799720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not in July and August.  <a href="http://geoplan.asu.edu/aztc/monsoon.html" title="asu.edu" rel="nofollow">http://geoplan.asu.edu/aztc/monsoon.html</a> [asu.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not in July and August .
http : //geoplan.asu.edu/aztc/monsoon.html [ asu.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not in July and August.
http://geoplan.asu.edu/aztc/monsoon.html [asu.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678228</id>
	<title>Consequences?</title>
	<author>snStarter</author>
	<datestamp>1262792040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I certainly sounds neat but what are the consequences of adding hot air that high above the ground? EIR? Is this thing understood at all? There are such things as unintended consequences and it's not like this is a phenomena that happens in nature all the time.</p><p>Just wanting folks to think things through a little?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly sounds neat but what are the consequences of adding hot air that high above the ground ?
EIR ? Is this thing understood at all ?
There are such things as unintended consequences and it 's not like this is a phenomena that happens in nature all the time.Just wanting folks to think things through a little ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly sounds neat but what are the consequences of adding hot air that high above the ground?
EIR? Is this thing understood at all?
There are such things as unintended consequences and it's not like this is a phenomena that happens in nature all the time.Just wanting folks to think things through a little?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30682932</id>
	<title>good idea, but still many issues to overcome</title>
	<author>gedw99</author>
	<datestamp>1262882220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. The energy calculatiosn were done by a German consulting company almost 6 years ago, and the numbers look good.<br>The software they wrote allows different sizes of systems to be inputted and metrics drawn out.</p><p>2. But there are a few issues.</p><p>a. The price of the tower both in energy and cost. The tower must be make out of concrete for structural reasons. A one kilometre high concrete tower is a very costly initial upfront cost.<br>Also the cost for cemenet is very high now and the carbon output is massive. Concrete is a hugely inefficient material both from an environmental and ecconomic viewpoint.</p><p>b. Its all or nothing. By this i mean that for a PV or thermal solar solution you can expand your farm at stages. This makes projects much more viable financially.<br>But the tower is monolithic.</p><p>I woudl like to see a design that is not monolithic, and i think it can be done. The concrete tower coudl be modular and extra height segments are just helicoptered in.<br>The greenhouse of course is modular, as are the water filled piping at the base of the greenhouse.</p><p>The other big advanateg and i what i think woudl help this technology make progress woudl be for it to be residential scale.<br>I dont knwo what the energy calcaultions woudl reveal on a 3 story high tower that is building integrated with a glase house around it.</p><p>As an architect i would like to see buildings designed for this, and the living spaces build around the tower.<br>Often you need a riser in a building anyway for your plumbing, ventilation and electrical. It makes the cost of all these service installations much cheaper when you have a central riser, and also makes upgrading MUCH easier also.</p><p>The first step is getting the German company that wrote the software on this to open source it. Then budding architects and engineers looking to do the numbers coudl see for themselves the viability of small scale versions.</p><p>Oh, and the last thing si that cooling a building using solar towers has been done for centuries. So its a very very smart way to design building in general.</p><p>In many projects i do, i almost always have a central tower for services and ventilation anyway, just because it makes everything else so much cheaper and easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
The energy calculatiosn were done by a German consulting company almost 6 years ago , and the numbers look good.The software they wrote allows different sizes of systems to be inputted and metrics drawn out.2 .
But there are a few issues.a .
The price of the tower both in energy and cost .
The tower must be make out of concrete for structural reasons .
A one kilometre high concrete tower is a very costly initial upfront cost.Also the cost for cemenet is very high now and the carbon output is massive .
Concrete is a hugely inefficient material both from an environmental and ecconomic viewpoint.b .
Its all or nothing .
By this i mean that for a PV or thermal solar solution you can expand your farm at stages .
This makes projects much more viable financially.But the tower is monolithic.I woudl like to see a design that is not monolithic , and i think it can be done .
The concrete tower coudl be modular and extra height segments are just helicoptered in.The greenhouse of course is modular , as are the water filled piping at the base of the greenhouse.The other big advanateg and i what i think woudl help this technology make progress woudl be for it to be residential scale.I dont knwo what the energy calcaultions woudl reveal on a 3 story high tower that is building integrated with a glase house around it.As an architect i would like to see buildings designed for this , and the living spaces build around the tower.Often you need a riser in a building anyway for your plumbing , ventilation and electrical .
It makes the cost of all these service installations much cheaper when you have a central riser , and also makes upgrading MUCH easier also.The first step is getting the German company that wrote the software on this to open source it .
Then budding architects and engineers looking to do the numbers coudl see for themselves the viability of small scale versions.Oh , and the last thing si that cooling a building using solar towers has been done for centuries .
So its a very very smart way to design building in general.In many projects i do , i almost always have a central tower for services and ventilation anyway , just because it makes everything else so much cheaper and easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
The energy calculatiosn were done by a German consulting company almost 6 years ago, and the numbers look good.The software they wrote allows different sizes of systems to be inputted and metrics drawn out.2.
But there are a few issues.a.
The price of the tower both in energy and cost.
The tower must be make out of concrete for structural reasons.
A one kilometre high concrete tower is a very costly initial upfront cost.Also the cost for cemenet is very high now and the carbon output is massive.
Concrete is a hugely inefficient material both from an environmental and ecconomic viewpoint.b.
Its all or nothing.
By this i mean that for a PV or thermal solar solution you can expand your farm at stages.
This makes projects much more viable financially.But the tower is monolithic.I woudl like to see a design that is not monolithic, and i think it can be done.
The concrete tower coudl be modular and extra height segments are just helicoptered in.The greenhouse of course is modular, as are the water filled piping at the base of the greenhouse.The other big advanateg and i what i think woudl help this technology make progress woudl be for it to be residential scale.I dont knwo what the energy calcaultions woudl reveal on a 3 story high tower that is building integrated with a glase house around it.As an architect i would like to see buildings designed for this, and the living spaces build around the tower.Often you need a riser in a building anyway for your plumbing, ventilation and electrical.
It makes the cost of all these service installations much cheaper when you have a central riser, and also makes upgrading MUCH easier also.The first step is getting the German company that wrote the software on this to open source it.
Then budding architects and engineers looking to do the numbers coudl see for themselves the viability of small scale versions.Oh, and the last thing si that cooling a building using solar towers has been done for centuries.
So its a very very smart way to design building in general.In many projects i do, i almost always have a central tower for services and ventilation anyway, just because it makes everything else so much cheaper and easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679330</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1262802480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're not proactively heating the earth's atmosphere.  All that heat that is going to be there was already going to be there because it's from the sun.  We're just channeling the hot air up through a tube on its way up, where it would go with or without the tube.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not proactively heating the earth 's atmosphere .
All that heat that is going to be there was already going to be there because it 's from the sun .
We 're just channeling the hot air up through a tube on its way up , where it would go with or without the tube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not proactively heating the earth's atmosphere.
All that heat that is going to be there was already going to be there because it's from the sun.
We're just channeling the hot air up through a tube on its way up, where it would go with or without the tube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678546</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>haruharaharu</author>
	<datestamp>1262794620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A giant greenhouse, designed to heat massive ammounts of air, and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere...</p><p>
So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth's atmosphere directly now?</p></div><p>It's not like we're adding any new heat, just channeling it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A giant greenhouse , designed to heat massive ammounts of air , and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere.. . So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth 's atmosphere directly now ? It 's not like we 're adding any new heat , just channeling it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A giant greenhouse, designed to heat massive ammounts of air, and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere...
So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth's atmosphere directly now?It's not like we're adding any new heat, just channeling it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680234</id>
	<title>Oblig Ranma 1/2 Reference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hiryu Shoten Ha!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hiryu Shoten Ha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hiryu Shoten Ha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679166</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1262800620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this a joke, I can't tell?<br>You don't need any goddamned fuel of any kind for the solar tower, you don't have any nuclear waste, it just runs itself, period.</p><p>Seriously are you joking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a joke , I ca n't tell ? You do n't need any goddamned fuel of any kind for the solar tower , you do n't have any nuclear waste , it just runs itself , period.Seriously are you joking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a joke, I can't tell?You don't need any goddamned fuel of any kind for the solar tower, you don't have any nuclear waste, it just runs itself, period.Seriously are you joking?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679466</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that this is not entirely true as an implementation of this concept would take steps to absorb much more of the light than the bare ground.  I would be surprised if the power extracted from the generators (which will end up in the atmosphere anyway when that power is used) exceeds the amount of light that used to reflect off into space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that this is not entirely true as an implementation of this concept would take steps to absorb much more of the light than the bare ground .
I would be surprised if the power extracted from the generators ( which will end up in the atmosphere anyway when that power is used ) exceeds the amount of light that used to reflect off into space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that this is not entirely true as an implementation of this concept would take steps to absorb much more of the light than the bare ground.
I would be surprised if the power extracted from the generators (which will end up in the atmosphere anyway when that power is used) exceeds the amount of light that used to reflect off into space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022</id>
	<title>Yeah!</title>
	<author>Zebra\_X</author>
	<datestamp>1262783100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just what we need! More thermal energy in the atmosphere.</p><p>We should be trying to extract the thermal energy we already have - not creating more. Wind mills on mountains are a good start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what we need !
More thermal energy in the atmosphere.We should be trying to extract the thermal energy we already have - not creating more .
Wind mills on mountains are a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what we need!
More thermal energy in the atmosphere.We should be trying to extract the thermal energy we already have - not creating more.
Wind mills on mountains are a good start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678984</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>canadian\_right</author>
	<datestamp>1262798580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
A big green house, a chimney and a wind turbine are easier and cheaper to maintain than a nuclear power plant.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A big green house , a chimney and a wind turbine are easier and cheaper to maintain than a nuclear power plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A big green house, a chimney and a wind turbine are easier and cheaper to maintain than a nuclear power plant.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</id>
	<title>Green Energy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262788200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A giant greenhouse, designed to heat massive ammounts of air, and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere...<p>
So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth's atmosphere directly now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A giant greenhouse , designed to heat massive ammounts of air , and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere.. . So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth 's atmosphere directly now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A giant greenhouse, designed to heat massive ammounts of air, and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere...
So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth's atmosphere directly now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678810</id>
	<title>Re:$750 million for 200 MW?</title>
	<author>tompaulco</author>
	<datestamp>1262796780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too was wondering why they seem to be missing part of their units. When I look at other facilities, they specify MW-Hours. But I could believe that this project would really only generate 200 MW total.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too was wondering why they seem to be missing part of their units .
When I look at other facilities , they specify MW-Hours .
But I could believe that this project would really only generate 200 MW total .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too was wondering why they seem to be missing part of their units.
When I look at other facilities, they specify MW-Hours.
But I could believe that this project would really only generate 200 MW total.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680282</id>
	<title>Vapor</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1262860140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it is almost 10 years since I first read about it. At first I was very enthusiastic but now I am bored of the stories that talk about these towers at the future tense...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is almost 10 years since I first read about it .
At first I was very enthusiastic but now I am bored of the stories that talk about these towers at the future tense.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is almost 10 years since I first read about it.
At first I was very enthusiastic but now I am bored of the stories that talk about these towers at the future tense...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680652</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262865420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One could build one of these in the US of A - while the authorisation for a nuclear plant will probably stalled forever</p><p>
&nbsp; Also, this doesn't need cooling (while a nuclear plant needs lots of it), it doesn't contribute to global warming (while a nuclear plant does), is not a worthy target (one can destroy the tower easily, but they'll only have a broken tower).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Also, build times for a nuclear plant are enormous, and the plant will start producing when it's ready. Building tens of the solar towers will take as much and cost as much, but when the first one is ready, it will actually start produce electricity</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One could build one of these in the US of A - while the authorisation for a nuclear plant will probably stalled forever   Also , this does n't need cooling ( while a nuclear plant needs lots of it ) , it does n't contribute to global warming ( while a nuclear plant does ) , is not a worthy target ( one can destroy the tower easily , but they 'll only have a broken tower ) .
    Also , build times for a nuclear plant are enormous , and the plant will start producing when it 's ready .
Building tens of the solar towers will take as much and cost as much , but when the first one is ready , it will actually start produce electricity</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One could build one of these in the US of A - while the authorisation for a nuclear plant will probably stalled forever
  Also, this doesn't need cooling (while a nuclear plant needs lots of it), it doesn't contribute to global warming (while a nuclear plant does), is not a worthy target (one can destroy the tower easily, but they'll only have a broken tower).
    Also, build times for a nuclear plant are enormous, and the plant will start producing when it's ready.
Building tens of the solar towers will take as much and cost as much, but when the first one is ready, it will actually start produce electricity</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679562</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262805600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be silly. This thing is only 2400 feet tall and four square miles in footprint, not to mention it's only moving around air and heat that would already be there. Without the greenhouse roof the heat would still rise, just not through a small enough pipe that you can put a turbine in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be silly .
This thing is only 2400 feet tall and four square miles in footprint , not to mention it 's only moving around air and heat that would already be there .
Without the greenhouse roof the heat would still rise , just not through a small enough pipe that you can put a turbine in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be silly.
This thing is only 2400 feet tall and four square miles in footprint, not to mention it's only moving around air and heat that would already be there.
Without the greenhouse roof the heat would still rise, just not through a small enough pipe that you can put a turbine in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680916</id>
	<title>small scale pilot already done</title>
	<author>ProfBooty</author>
	<datestamp>1262869320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_updraft\_tower#Prototype\_in\_Spain" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_updraft\_tower#Prototype\_in\_Spain</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Prototype in Spain</p><p>In 1982 a small-scale experimental model of a solar chimney power plant was built under the direction of German engineer J&#246;rg Schlaich in Manzanares, Ciudad Real, 150 km south of Madrid, Spain; the project was funded by the German government.[10][11]</p><p>The chimney had a height of 195 metres and a diameter of 10 metres with a collection area (greenhouse) of 46,000 m (about 11 acres, or 244 m diameter) obtaining a maximum power output of about 50 kW. However, this was an experimental setup that was not intended for power generation. Instead, different materials were used for testing such as single or double glazing or plastic (which turned out not to be durable enough), and one section was used as an actual greenhouse, growing plants under the glass. During its operation, optimization data was collected on a second-by-second basis with 180 sensors measuring inside and outside temperature, humidity and wind speed.[12]</p><p>For the choice of materials, it was taken into consideration that such an inefficient but cheap plant would be ideal for third world countries with lots of space - the method is inefficient for land use but very efficient economically because of the low operating cost. So cheap materials were used on purpose to see how they would perform, such as a chimney built with iron plating only 1.25 mm thin and held up with guy ropes. For a commercial plant, a reinforced concrete tower would be a better choice.</p><p>This pilot power plant operated for approximately eight years but the chimney guy rods were not protected against corrosion and not expected to last longer than the intended test period of three years. So, not surprisingly, after eight years they had rusted through and broke in a storm, causing the tower to fall over. The plant was decommissioned in 1989.[13]</p><p>Based on the test results, it was estimated that a 100 MW plant would require a 1000 m tower and a greenhouse of 20 km2. Because the costs lie mainly in construction and not in operation (free 'fuel', little maintenance and only 7 personnel), the cost per energy is largely determined by interest rates and years of operation, varying from 5 eurocent per kWh for 4\% and 20 years to 15 eurocent per kWh for 12\% and 40 years.[14]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar \ _updraft \ _tower # Prototype \ _in \ _Spain [ wikipedia.org ] Prototype in SpainIn 1982 a small-scale experimental model of a solar chimney power plant was built under the direction of German engineer J   rg Schlaich in Manzanares , Ciudad Real , 150 km south of Madrid , Spain ; the project was funded by the German government .
[ 10 ] [ 11 ] The chimney had a height of 195 metres and a diameter of 10 metres with a collection area ( greenhouse ) of 46,000 m ( about 11 acres , or 244 m diameter ) obtaining a maximum power output of about 50 kW .
However , this was an experimental setup that was not intended for power generation .
Instead , different materials were used for testing such as single or double glazing or plastic ( which turned out not to be durable enough ) , and one section was used as an actual greenhouse , growing plants under the glass .
During its operation , optimization data was collected on a second-by-second basis with 180 sensors measuring inside and outside temperature , humidity and wind speed .
[ 12 ] For the choice of materials , it was taken into consideration that such an inefficient but cheap plant would be ideal for third world countries with lots of space - the method is inefficient for land use but very efficient economically because of the low operating cost .
So cheap materials were used on purpose to see how they would perform , such as a chimney built with iron plating only 1.25 mm thin and held up with guy ropes .
For a commercial plant , a reinforced concrete tower would be a better choice.This pilot power plant operated for approximately eight years but the chimney guy rods were not protected against corrosion and not expected to last longer than the intended test period of three years .
So , not surprisingly , after eight years they had rusted through and broke in a storm , causing the tower to fall over .
The plant was decommissioned in 1989 .
[ 13 ] Based on the test results , it was estimated that a 100 MW plant would require a 1000 m tower and a greenhouse of 20 km2 .
Because the costs lie mainly in construction and not in operation ( free 'fuel ' , little maintenance and only 7 personnel ) , the cost per energy is largely determined by interest rates and years of operation , varying from 5 eurocent per kWh for 4 \ % and 20 years to 15 eurocent per kWh for 12 \ % and 40 years .
[ 14 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_updraft\_tower#Prototype\_in\_Spain [wikipedia.org]Prototype in SpainIn 1982 a small-scale experimental model of a solar chimney power plant was built under the direction of German engineer Jörg Schlaich in Manzanares, Ciudad Real, 150 km south of Madrid, Spain; the project was funded by the German government.
[10][11]The chimney had a height of 195 metres and a diameter of 10 metres with a collection area (greenhouse) of 46,000 m (about 11 acres, or 244 m diameter) obtaining a maximum power output of about 50 kW.
However, this was an experimental setup that was not intended for power generation.
Instead, different materials were used for testing such as single or double glazing or plastic (which turned out not to be durable enough), and one section was used as an actual greenhouse, growing plants under the glass.
During its operation, optimization data was collected on a second-by-second basis with 180 sensors measuring inside and outside temperature, humidity and wind speed.
[12]For the choice of materials, it was taken into consideration that such an inefficient but cheap plant would be ideal for third world countries with lots of space - the method is inefficient for land use but very efficient economically because of the low operating cost.
So cheap materials were used on purpose to see how they would perform, such as a chimney built with iron plating only 1.25 mm thin and held up with guy ropes.
For a commercial plant, a reinforced concrete tower would be a better choice.This pilot power plant operated for approximately eight years but the chimney guy rods were not protected against corrosion and not expected to last longer than the intended test period of three years.
So, not surprisingly, after eight years they had rusted through and broke in a storm, causing the tower to fall over.
The plant was decommissioned in 1989.
[13]Based on the test results, it was estimated that a 100 MW plant would require a 1000 m tower and a greenhouse of 20 km2.
Because the costs lie mainly in construction and not in operation (free 'fuel', little maintenance and only 7 personnel), the cost per energy is largely determined by interest rates and years of operation, varying from 5 eurocent per kWh for 4\% and 20 years to 15 eurocent per kWh for 12\% and 40 years.
[14]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678072</id>
	<title>Hell, if it can work for Obama...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262790420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not for the Chicago PD? <a href="http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/chicago-police-scrap-entrance-exam-80790827.html" title="nbcchicago.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/chicago-police-scrap-entrance-exam-80790827.html</a> [nbcchicago.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not for the Chicago PD ?
http : //www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/chicago-police-scrap-entrance-exam-80790827.html [ nbcchicago.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not for the Chicago PD?
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/chicago-police-scrap-entrance-exam-80790827.html [nbcchicago.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679576</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1262805720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Green energy plants in Minnesota to generate cheap heat and light: $7 billion.
</p><p>Plane tickets, Minneapolis St. Paul to Phoenix departing tomorrow: $147 each or $767,397,771 for all 5,220,393 residents of Minnesota.
</p><p>I'm going to channel Sam Kinnison here: "Move to where the warm is!"  You are dangerously close to Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Green energy plants in Minnesota to generate cheap heat and light : $ 7 billion .
Plane tickets , Minneapolis St. Paul to Phoenix departing tomorrow : $ 147 each or $ 767,397,771 for all 5,220,393 residents of Minnesota .
I 'm going to channel Sam Kinnison here : " Move to where the warm is !
" You are dangerously close to Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Green energy plants in Minnesota to generate cheap heat and light: $7 billion.
Plane tickets, Minneapolis St. Paul to Phoenix departing tomorrow: $147 each or $767,397,771 for all 5,220,393 residents of Minnesota.
I'm going to channel Sam Kinnison here: "Move to where the warm is!
"  You are dangerously close to Canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018</id>
	<title>Efficiency</title>
	<author>pete-classic</author>
	<datestamp>1262783040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there some efficiency to be gained by building a four square mile device over, say, 2560 one acre devices?  Energy efficiency?  Cost?  It seems like there's a lot of risk in building one giant unit.</p><p>-Peter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some efficiency to be gained by building a four square mile device over , say , 2560 one acre devices ?
Energy efficiency ?
Cost ? It seems like there 's a lot of risk in building one giant unit.-Peter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some efficiency to be gained by building a four square mile device over, say, 2560 one acre devices?
Energy efficiency?
Cost?  It seems like there's a lot of risk in building one giant unit.-Peter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678554</id>
	<title>Re:The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1262794680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may be surprised to read that the Sonora desert is the second most diverse habitat in the world after the Amazon rain forest!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be surprised to read that the Sonora desert is the second most diverse habitat in the world after the Amazon rain forest !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be surprised to read that the Sonora desert is the second most diverse habitat in the world after the Amazon rain forest!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679474</id>
	<title>Re:The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1262804040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The project will decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat for 200 megawatts output.</p></div><p>It isn't clear to me that it <i>does</i> decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat. What they are doing is putting a clear roof over the desert, so that sunlight still reaches the ecological communities in the area, and efficiently conducting away the trapped heat (it is the product they are after, after all) so that the temperatures could be kept at normal. Clearly a means of distributing rain under the roof is needed (flip up panels when raining perhaps), if this solved then aside from a one-time installation of (probably) widely spaced support pillars what would the adverse ecological impact necessarily be? The roof would need to be opaque to far infrared light, but could be transparent to everything else (materials technology willing).</p><p>What would cause the decimation? (I am assuming you are using "decimation" in its modern sense, equivalent to annihilation, not the original sense of reduction by one-tenth.)</p><p>Conventional solar power approaches can harvest four times as much energy per square kilometer, but they completely shade the ground below the collecting surfaces which creates a far greater impact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The project will decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat for 200 megawatts output.It is n't clear to me that it does decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat .
What they are doing is putting a clear roof over the desert , so that sunlight still reaches the ecological communities in the area , and efficiently conducting away the trapped heat ( it is the product they are after , after all ) so that the temperatures could be kept at normal .
Clearly a means of distributing rain under the roof is needed ( flip up panels when raining perhaps ) , if this solved then aside from a one-time installation of ( probably ) widely spaced support pillars what would the adverse ecological impact necessarily be ?
The roof would need to be opaque to far infrared light , but could be transparent to everything else ( materials technology willing ) .What would cause the decimation ?
( I am assuming you are using " decimation " in its modern sense , equivalent to annihilation , not the original sense of reduction by one-tenth .
) Conventional solar power approaches can harvest four times as much energy per square kilometer , but they completely shade the ground below the collecting surfaces which creates a far greater impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The project will decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat for 200 megawatts output.It isn't clear to me that it does decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat.
What they are doing is putting a clear roof over the desert, so that sunlight still reaches the ecological communities in the area, and efficiently conducting away the trapped heat (it is the product they are after, after all) so that the temperatures could be kept at normal.
Clearly a means of distributing rain under the roof is needed (flip up panels when raining perhaps), if this solved then aside from a one-time installation of (probably) widely spaced support pillars what would the adverse ecological impact necessarily be?
The roof would need to be opaque to far infrared light, but could be transparent to everything else (materials technology willing).What would cause the decimation?
(I am assuming you are using "decimation" in its modern sense, equivalent to annihilation, not the original sense of reduction by one-tenth.
)Conventional solar power approaches can harvest four times as much energy per square kilometer, but they completely shade the ground below the collecting surfaces which creates a far greater impact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984</id>
	<title>Do a small scale pilot first</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262782800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A 4 square mile greenhouse in the middle of the dessert? No, that shouldn't be expensive to maintain... and keep the glass panels clean and unbroken in!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A 4 square mile greenhouse in the middle of the dessert ?
No , that should n't be expensive to maintain... and keep the glass panels clean and unbroken in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 4 square mile greenhouse in the middle of the dessert?
No, that shouldn't be expensive to maintain... and keep the glass panels clean and unbroken in!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680258</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1262859540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're not short of land.<br>We have excesses of heat.</p><p>Uranium is of a fixed supply, is subject to market fluctuations as the supply decreases.<br>And oh yeah, there's that pesky pollution thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not short of land.We have excesses of heat.Uranium is of a fixed supply , is subject to market fluctuations as the supply decreases.And oh yeah , there 's that pesky pollution thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not short of land.We have excesses of heat.Uranium is of a fixed supply, is subject to market fluctuations as the supply decreases.And oh yeah, there's that pesky pollution thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677648</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262787300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just curious... would placing solar panels inside the greenhouse be of any use?  Do solar panels not work behind greenhouse glass?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious... would placing solar panels inside the greenhouse be of any use ?
Do solar panels not work behind greenhouse glass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious... would placing solar panels inside the greenhouse be of any use?
Do solar panels not work behind greenhouse glass?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681624</id>
	<title>add a BIG 2000 acre chimney for even more output.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262875560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could do that with the 4 plants, then throw the waste heat into the base of one of these 2000 acre large chimneys - so output would rise during the day.</p><p>This would have the benefit of making the reactors hard to find for any protesters...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could do that with the 4 plants , then throw the waste heat into the base of one of these 2000 acre large chimneys - so output would rise during the day.This would have the benefit of making the reactors hard to find for any protesters.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could do that with the 4 plants, then throw the waste heat into the base of one of these 2000 acre large chimneys - so output would rise during the day.This would have the benefit of making the reactors hard to find for any protesters...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679208</id>
	<title>First this IS solar</title>
	<author>Arker</author>
	<datestamp>1262801100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very annoying how many ignorant people throw around "solar" as a synonym for photovolta&#239;c.</p><p>Of course solar energy is actually responsible for all life on earth, and the ultimate source of power behind pretty much everything on the planet, but even solely in terms of conscious human implented technology solar energy is a broad field with photovolta&#239;cs being one small and relatively new and immature branch. Solar thermal technology is often far more efficient and less expensive, and just as much 'solar' as any other sort. The easiest and most efficient use is direct heating of water and air to displace the use of electricity to do the same job. Solar-thermal technologies also show some promise for power production, although this particular project looks to me far less likely to ever be useful than more conventional "power towers" which do not require such extravagances as 2400 foot chimneys (can you imagine the difficulty not just in building, but in maintaining that?) and convert solar energy to electricity using an extremely mature technology - the steam turbine.</p><p>The big savings for the forseeable future is still to be found not in using the sun to produce electricity at all, but simply to displace it. The $750million proposed cost of this plant (which is likely to increase several times before a single watt is ever produced by it) would be much better spent replacing electric water heaters with efficient solar water heaters, for instance. The 200 megawatts this plant is touted to eventually produce is only a little more than was displaced in the US in 2008 alone through installation of solar hot water heaters for domestic use alone (keeping in mind that market penetration for this technology in the US is still miniscule there is room for that to expand many times) and is only a little more than a quarter of what solar pool heating units displaced in the same year. Passive solar home design is another potential area of savings where the current market penetration is even lower, and the potential savings enormous.</p><p>Given the relative efficiencies and costs, it really makes no sense to me to be throwing all this money at speculative schemes for electrical generation while there remains so much more potential for displacement. Even confining this to the states where solar energy is most reliable and appropriate - the "sun belt" - the potential reduction in electrical usage is staggering and dwarfs what a project like this could possibly produce. One day when &gt;90\% of homes located between southern california and the florida/georgia/carolina coast have passive solar designs and thermosiphon hot water systems in place, THEN it might make sense to start throwing money at solar power generation on a large scale, but for the time being I just dont see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very annoying how many ignorant people throw around " solar " as a synonym for photovolta   c.Of course solar energy is actually responsible for all life on earth , and the ultimate source of power behind pretty much everything on the planet , but even solely in terms of conscious human implented technology solar energy is a broad field with photovolta   cs being one small and relatively new and immature branch .
Solar thermal technology is often far more efficient and less expensive , and just as much 'solar ' as any other sort .
The easiest and most efficient use is direct heating of water and air to displace the use of electricity to do the same job .
Solar-thermal technologies also show some promise for power production , although this particular project looks to me far less likely to ever be useful than more conventional " power towers " which do not require such extravagances as 2400 foot chimneys ( can you imagine the difficulty not just in building , but in maintaining that ?
) and convert solar energy to electricity using an extremely mature technology - the steam turbine.The big savings for the forseeable future is still to be found not in using the sun to produce electricity at all , but simply to displace it .
The $ 750million proposed cost of this plant ( which is likely to increase several times before a single watt is ever produced by it ) would be much better spent replacing electric water heaters with efficient solar water heaters , for instance .
The 200 megawatts this plant is touted to eventually produce is only a little more than was displaced in the US in 2008 alone through installation of solar hot water heaters for domestic use alone ( keeping in mind that market penetration for this technology in the US is still miniscule there is room for that to expand many times ) and is only a little more than a quarter of what solar pool heating units displaced in the same year .
Passive solar home design is another potential area of savings where the current market penetration is even lower , and the potential savings enormous.Given the relative efficiencies and costs , it really makes no sense to me to be throwing all this money at speculative schemes for electrical generation while there remains so much more potential for displacement .
Even confining this to the states where solar energy is most reliable and appropriate - the " sun belt " - the potential reduction in electrical usage is staggering and dwarfs what a project like this could possibly produce .
One day when &gt; 90 \ % of homes located between southern california and the florida/georgia/carolina coast have passive solar designs and thermosiphon hot water systems in place , THEN it might make sense to start throwing money at solar power generation on a large scale , but for the time being I just dont see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very annoying how many ignorant people throw around "solar" as a synonym for photovoltaïc.Of course solar energy is actually responsible for all life on earth, and the ultimate source of power behind pretty much everything on the planet, but even solely in terms of conscious human implented technology solar energy is a broad field with photovoltaïcs being one small and relatively new and immature branch.
Solar thermal technology is often far more efficient and less expensive, and just as much 'solar' as any other sort.
The easiest and most efficient use is direct heating of water and air to displace the use of electricity to do the same job.
Solar-thermal technologies also show some promise for power production, although this particular project looks to me far less likely to ever be useful than more conventional "power towers" which do not require such extravagances as 2400 foot chimneys (can you imagine the difficulty not just in building, but in maintaining that?
) and convert solar energy to electricity using an extremely mature technology - the steam turbine.The big savings for the forseeable future is still to be found not in using the sun to produce electricity at all, but simply to displace it.
The $750million proposed cost of this plant (which is likely to increase several times before a single watt is ever produced by it) would be much better spent replacing electric water heaters with efficient solar water heaters, for instance.
The 200 megawatts this plant is touted to eventually produce is only a little more than was displaced in the US in 2008 alone through installation of solar hot water heaters for domestic use alone (keeping in mind that market penetration for this technology in the US is still miniscule there is room for that to expand many times) and is only a little more than a quarter of what solar pool heating units displaced in the same year.
Passive solar home design is another potential area of savings where the current market penetration is even lower, and the potential savings enormous.Given the relative efficiencies and costs, it really makes no sense to me to be throwing all this money at speculative schemes for electrical generation while there remains so much more potential for displacement.
Even confining this to the states where solar energy is most reliable and appropriate - the "sun belt" - the potential reduction in electrical usage is staggering and dwarfs what a project like this could possibly produce.
One day when &gt;90\% of homes located between southern california and the florida/georgia/carolina coast have passive solar designs and thermosiphon hot water systems in place, THEN it might make sense to start throwing money at solar power generation on a large scale, but for the time being I just dont see it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678300</id>
	<title>Re:$750 million for 200 MW?</title>
	<author>slinches</author>
	<datestamp>1262792700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are days when the sun doesn't shine?  Seriously though, Arizona doesn't have too many overcast days and the production profile is similar to demand since the primary use of electricity is air conditioning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are days when the sun does n't shine ?
Seriously though , Arizona does n't have too many overcast days and the production profile is similar to demand since the primary use of electricity is air conditioning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are days when the sun doesn't shine?
Seriously though, Arizona doesn't have too many overcast days and the production profile is similar to demand since the primary use of electricity is air conditioning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096</id>
	<title>Other turbine proposals...</title>
	<author>catalina</author>
	<datestamp>1262783640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the 70s there was a proposal to build a very tall cylinder (1 mile or so), inject water mist at the top, and let the resulting downdraft drive a turbine a ground level.  Interesting idea, fairly well developed and into the engineering stage.  Of course, nobody funded actually building one. The engineer who designed it couldn't overcome the skeptics, and nobody thought it would be competitive with cheap natural gas/oil-fired generators.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 70s there was a proposal to build a very tall cylinder ( 1 mile or so ) , inject water mist at the top , and let the resulting downdraft drive a turbine a ground level .
Interesting idea , fairly well developed and into the engineering stage .
Of course , nobody funded actually building one .
The engineer who designed it could n't overcome the skeptics , and nobody thought it would be competitive with cheap natural gas/oil-fired generators.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 70s there was a proposal to build a very tall cylinder (1 mile or so), inject water mist at the top, and let the resulting downdraft drive a turbine a ground level.
Interesting idea, fairly well developed and into the engineering stage.
Of course, nobody funded actually building one.
The engineer who designed it couldn't overcome the skeptics, and nobody thought it would be competitive with cheap natural gas/oil-fired generators.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681788</id>
	<title>Outrageous cost per megawatt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262876520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$3750/kW is absolutely insane.</p><p>A Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plant costs $1000/kW...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 3750/kW is absolutely insane.A Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plant costs $ 1000/kW.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$3750/kW is absolutely insane.A Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plant costs $1000/kW...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680024</id>
	<title>Re:Other turbine proposals...</title>
	<author>serutan</author>
	<datestamp>1262855280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Injecting the water mist at the top require first pumping the water to the top of the tower. I don't see how you could get more energy out of letting the water fall back down without invoking perpetual motion. Is it because the mist cools the air mass and induces it to fall?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Injecting the water mist at the top require first pumping the water to the top of the tower .
I do n't see how you could get more energy out of letting the water fall back down without invoking perpetual motion .
Is it because the mist cools the air mass and induces it to fall ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Injecting the water mist at the top require first pumping the water to the top of the tower.
I don't see how you could get more energy out of letting the water fall back down without invoking perpetual motion.
Is it because the mist cools the air mass and induces it to fall?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677618</id>
	<title>Yeah, because...</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1262787060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...we sure don't know how to make windows that don't break easily. Ever hear of Plexiglass?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we sure do n't know how to make windows that do n't break easily .
Ever hear of Plexiglass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we sure don't know how to make windows that don't break easily.
Ever hear of Plexiglass?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</id>
	<title>Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262783580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt. I think the capital expense is comparable.  What is the benefit here?</p><p>Regards,<br>Jason</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt .
I think the capital expense is comparable .
What is the benefit here ? Regards,Jason</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt.
I think the capital expense is comparable.
What is the benefit here?Regards,Jason</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681078</id>
	<title>Re:Other turbine proposals...</title>
	<author>Richard Kirk</author>
	<datestamp>1262871000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember the downdraft proposal. It was all possible on energy terms. However, I think it has to lose out to the convective tower. The really neat bit about the convective tower is that all the turbines and active bits are down at the bottom where they are easily serviced, and the rest of the tower is just a static shape. The convective tower can then start generating power before the tower is topped off. With a very tall tower that can take years to build, this can be a major economic factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the downdraft proposal .
It was all possible on energy terms .
However , I think it has to lose out to the convective tower .
The really neat bit about the convective tower is that all the turbines and active bits are down at the bottom where they are easily serviced , and the rest of the tower is just a static shape .
The convective tower can then start generating power before the tower is topped off .
With a very tall tower that can take years to build , this can be a major economic factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the downdraft proposal.
It was all possible on energy terms.
However, I think it has to lose out to the convective tower.
The really neat bit about the convective tower is that all the turbines and active bits are down at the bottom where they are easily serviced, and the rest of the tower is just a static shape.
The convective tower can then start generating power before the tower is topped off.
With a very tall tower that can take years to build, this can be a major economic factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681040</id>
	<title>Re:Waste heat</title>
	<author>Calinous</author>
	<datestamp>1262870640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the 4 square miles facility envisioned, you would need 1 mile long shafts to put the generators outside the greenhouse.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If there is waste heat to be rid of, the solar chimney could have a smaller greenhouse for the same power, or the same greenhouse for more power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the 4 square miles facility envisioned , you would need 1 mile long shafts to put the generators outside the greenhouse .
      If there is waste heat to be rid of , the solar chimney could have a smaller greenhouse for the same power , or the same greenhouse for more power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the 4 square miles facility envisioned, you would need 1 mile long shafts to put the generators outside the greenhouse.
      If there is waste heat to be rid of, the solar chimney could have a smaller greenhouse for the same power, or the same greenhouse for more power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677862</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262788920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are ignoring the area required to mine, process and store the fuel. How big are uranium mines, the roads used to transport the uranium, the refining plants, the reprocessing plants, and the mountain that is needed to store the waste for several millenia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are ignoring the area required to mine , process and store the fuel .
How big are uranium mines , the roads used to transport the uranium , the refining plants , the reprocessing plants , and the mountain that is needed to store the waste for several millenia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are ignoring the area required to mine, process and store the fuel.
How big are uranium mines, the roads used to transport the uranium, the refining plants, the reprocessing plants, and the mountain that is needed to store the waste for several millenia?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677194</id>
	<title>Should be cheaper than solar</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1262784240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>4 square miles of solar panels in the desert? No that shouldn't be hard to expensive to maintain and keep all those uber expensive solar panels clean and unbroken</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 square miles of solar panels in the desert ?
No that should n't be hard to expensive to maintain and keep all those uber expensive solar panels clean and unbroken</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4 square miles of solar panels in the desert?
No that shouldn't be hard to expensive to maintain and keep all those uber expensive solar panels clean and unbroken</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677680</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>fizzup</author>
	<datestamp>1262787660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't clear to me that this plant will cool the air. A greenhouse has the effect of warming the earth, because solar radiation is transmitted, but thermal radiation that would have passed through the atmosphere is retained. You say that the thermal radiation heats the atmosphere, but that is not completely true. Some of it passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. The increase in absorption due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hypothesized to be a source of global client change. This hypothesis would be trivially proved false if all the thermal radiation from the Earth's surface heated the atmosphere. This greenhouse is certain to prevent more thermal radiation from escaping into space without absorption than the atmosphere on its own.</p><p>Furthermore, any heat that the turbine converts to electrical energy will be converted back to heat in a very short period of time by appliances connected to the grid and by line losses - nearly 100\% of it will be heat within a minute of conversion to electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't clear to me that this plant will cool the air .
A greenhouse has the effect of warming the earth , because solar radiation is transmitted , but thermal radiation that would have passed through the atmosphere is retained .
You say that the thermal radiation heats the atmosphere , but that is not completely true .
Some of it passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed .
The increase in absorption due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hypothesized to be a source of global client change .
This hypothesis would be trivially proved false if all the thermal radiation from the Earth 's surface heated the atmosphere .
This greenhouse is certain to prevent more thermal radiation from escaping into space without absorption than the atmosphere on its own.Furthermore , any heat that the turbine converts to electrical energy will be converted back to heat in a very short period of time by appliances connected to the grid and by line losses - nearly 100 \ % of it will be heat within a minute of conversion to electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't clear to me that this plant will cool the air.
A greenhouse has the effect of warming the earth, because solar radiation is transmitted, but thermal radiation that would have passed through the atmosphere is retained.
You say that the thermal radiation heats the atmosphere, but that is not completely true.
Some of it passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed.
The increase in absorption due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hypothesized to be a source of global client change.
This hypothesis would be trivially proved false if all the thermal radiation from the Earth's surface heated the atmosphere.
This greenhouse is certain to prevent more thermal radiation from escaping into space without absorption than the atmosphere on its own.Furthermore, any heat that the turbine converts to electrical energy will be converted back to heat in a very short period of time by appliances connected to the grid and by line losses - nearly 100\% of it will be heat within a minute of conversion to electricity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30682262</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262879040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind mills do not work that way!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind mills do not work that way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind mills do not work that way!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677588</id>
	<title>Re:Other turbine proposals...</title>
	<author>snowraver1</author>
	<datestamp>1262786880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When water converts to it's water vapour state it absorbs energy.  This would create a cooling effect drawing the cold, heavy air down the tube.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When water converts to it 's water vapour state it absorbs energy .
This would create a cooling effect drawing the cold , heavy air down the tube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When water converts to it's water vapour state it absorbs energy.
This would create a cooling effect drawing the cold, heavy air down the tube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681002</id>
	<title>Re:Do a small scale pilot first</title>
	<author>Richard Kirk</author>
	<datestamp>1262870340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A smaller scale device was built in Spain in the 1980's: see <a href="http://sciencehack.com/videos/view/XCGVTYtJEFk" title="sciencehack.com">http://sciencehack.com/videos/view/XCGVTYtJEFk</a> [sciencehack.com] for a video. However, these plants get more energy efficient the bigger they get, so a small one is not that interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A smaller scale device was built in Spain in the 1980 's : see http : //sciencehack.com/videos/view/XCGVTYtJEFk [ sciencehack.com ] for a video .
However , these plants get more energy efficient the bigger they get , so a small one is not that interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A smaller scale device was built in Spain in the 1980's: see http://sciencehack.com/videos/view/XCGVTYtJEFk [sciencehack.com] for a video.
However, these plants get more energy efficient the bigger they get, so a small one is not that interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680870</id>
	<title>Better still</title>
	<author>bytesex</author>
	<datestamp>1262868480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Combine with desalination plant.  Paste in Sahara desert.  Use water for drinking and irrigation.  Profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Combine with desalination plant .
Paste in Sahara desert .
Use water for drinking and irrigation .
Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Combine with desalination plant.
Paste in Sahara desert.
Use water for drinking and irrigation.
Profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678542</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>raodin</author>
	<datestamp>1262794620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2400ft is hardly the "upper atmosphere."</htmltext>
<tokenext>2400ft is hardly the " upper atmosphere .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2400ft is hardly the "upper atmosphere.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678588</id>
	<title>I live near Phoenix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262794980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will never get built.</p><p>Even a very small wind will topple anything that goes up that high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will never get built.Even a very small wind will topple anything that goes up that high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will never get built.Even a very small wind will topple anything that goes up that high.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30684414</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Epi-man</author>
	<datestamp>1262887740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, I haven't seen anyone look at this yet, but I may have missed it.  I just put a solar array on my house, so the idea of electrical energy from the sun is fresh in my mind.  Let's look at the numbers.  They are looking at 200 MW for $750 M, or at a cost of $3.75/W.  In doing this, they plan to use 4 square miles, and generate under 20 W/m^2.  Now that is truly pathetic?!  On a sunny day, my panels produce well over 130 W/m^2, and that is AC watts, therefore taking into account all the losses in the inversion.  The cost of my installation was under $7/W, and is already done...making power!  Today is a crumby, cloudy, cold day yet my panels are still producing ~24 W/m^2!  Why is this even being discussed as an option???  Do they think they can increase their efficiencies?  It seems to me they are going to be equally dependent on solar radiation as my panels are, yet my panels are crushing them in terms of output, now, today, let alone in a few years when the solar cells efficiencies are double what my panels' are.  What does SCPPA know that I am missing????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I have n't seen anyone look at this yet , but I may have missed it .
I just put a solar array on my house , so the idea of electrical energy from the sun is fresh in my mind .
Let 's look at the numbers .
They are looking at 200 MW for $ 750 M , or at a cost of $ 3.75/W .
In doing this , they plan to use 4 square miles , and generate under 20 W/m ^ 2 .
Now that is truly pathetic ? !
On a sunny day , my panels produce well over 130 W/m ^ 2 , and that is AC watts , therefore taking into account all the losses in the inversion .
The cost of my installation was under $ 7/W , and is already done...making power !
Today is a crumby , cloudy , cold day yet my panels are still producing ~ 24 W/m ^ 2 !
Why is this even being discussed as an option ? ? ?
Do they think they can increase their efficiencies ?
It seems to me they are going to be equally dependent on solar radiation as my panels are , yet my panels are crushing them in terms of output , now , today , let alone in a few years when the solar cells efficiencies are double what my panels ' are .
What does SCPPA know that I am missing ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I haven't seen anyone look at this yet, but I may have missed it.
I just put a solar array on my house, so the idea of electrical energy from the sun is fresh in my mind.
Let's look at the numbers.
They are looking at 200 MW for $750 M, or at a cost of $3.75/W.
In doing this, they plan to use 4 square miles, and generate under 20 W/m^2.
Now that is truly pathetic?!
On a sunny day, my panels produce well over 130 W/m^2, and that is AC watts, therefore taking into account all the losses in the inversion.
The cost of my installation was under $7/W, and is already done...making power!
Today is a crumby, cloudy, cold day yet my panels are still producing ~24 W/m^2!
Why is this even being discussed as an option???
Do they think they can increase their efficiencies?
It seems to me they are going to be equally dependent on solar radiation as my panels are, yet my panels are crushing them in terms of output, now, today, let alone in a few years when the solar cells efficiencies are double what my panels' are.
What does SCPPA know that I am missing???
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680444</id>
	<title>cloud generation, gliders</title>
	<author>cazzazullu</author>
	<datestamp>1262862180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't such a concentrated injection of hot air high in the sky generate a massive cloud cover right above the solar installation? Must be fun to fly in the neighborhood of these things with a glider though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't such a concentrated injection of hot air high in the sky generate a massive cloud cover right above the solar installation ?
Must be fun to fly in the neighborhood of these things with a glider though : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't such a concentrated injection of hot air high in the sky generate a massive cloud cover right above the solar installation?
Must be fun to fly in the neighborhood of these things with a glider though :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30682894</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now how exactly is this a troll?? Or were you just disagreeing, and lacked arguments because you were <em>wrong</em>. So you could not answer, but instead just moderated me down by any means? Well, that does make only you look like jerks, moderators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now how exactly is this a troll ? ?
Or were you just disagreeing , and lacked arguments because you were wrong .
So you could not answer , but instead just moderated me down by any means ?
Well , that does make only you look like jerks , moderators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now how exactly is this a troll??
Or were you just disagreeing, and lacked arguments because you were wrong.
So you could not answer, but instead just moderated me down by any means?
Well, that does make only you look like jerks, moderators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679608</id>
	<title>What kind of nonsense is this question?</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1262806260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a greenhouse.  It has no heaters other than concentrating the sun's warmth.  Have you and the moderators lost all sense of reality, forgotten what words mean, gone cuckoo?</p><p>Every time I think I've met and accounted for those idiots who confound my idiot-proof programs, I find that nature is preparing the batch right under my nose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a greenhouse .
It has no heaters other than concentrating the sun 's warmth .
Have you and the moderators lost all sense of reality , forgotten what words mean , gone cuckoo ? Every time I think I 've met and accounted for those idiots who confound my idiot-proof programs , I find that nature is preparing the batch right under my nose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a greenhouse.
It has no heaters other than concentrating the sun's warmth.
Have you and the moderators lost all sense of reality, forgotten what words mean, gone cuckoo?Every time I think I've met and accounted for those idiots who confound my idiot-proof programs, I find that nature is preparing the batch right under my nose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677262</id>
	<title>Re:Do a small scale pilot first</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1262784780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A 4 square mile greenhouse in the middle of the dessert?</p></div><p>I, for one, will not stand up to these people interrupting dessert!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A 4 square mile greenhouse in the middle of the dessert ? I , for one , will not stand up to these people interrupting dessert !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 4 square mile greenhouse in the middle of the dessert?I, for one, will not stand up to these people interrupting dessert!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678130</id>
	<title>Re:A better location</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262791020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680168</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262857560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong! See solar-thermic power plants. Which also make much more sense than fucking with the climate by creating a massive updraft and even more global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong !
See solar-thermic power plants .
Which also make much more sense than fucking with the climate by creating a massive updraft and even more global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong!
See solar-thermic power plants.
Which also make much more sense than fucking with the climate by creating a massive updraft and even more global warming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678442</id>
	<title>Re:The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many acres do the mines which supply the Palo Verde power plan cover?<br>could the area under this project be used in some way? like as a green house or something? not that you need green houses in the desert but hey you could irrigate it or something *shrug*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many acres do the mines which supply the Palo Verde power plan cover ? could the area under this project be used in some way ?
like as a green house or something ?
not that you need green houses in the desert but hey you could irrigate it or something * shrug *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many acres do the mines which supply the Palo Verde power plan cover?could the area under this project be used in some way?
like as a green house or something?
not that you need green houses in the desert but hey you could irrigate it or something *shrug*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30683694</id>
	<title>Re:cloud generation, gliders</title>
	<author>Klaatu01</author>
	<datestamp>1262885040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The convective solar power towers are a really cool idea to me, and it reminds me of the Condensers in the first Star Wars movie (Luke on Tattooine).<p>

I do not remember where I first read of these towers, and as such like to think I was one of the first people to think of them!  Therefore it is a shame that I do not have an engineering degree to go along with such a brilliant idea!</p><p>

I wonder if the desert dwelling lizards and other critters would seek shelter under the canopy of the tower?</p><p>

~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The convective solar power towers are a really cool idea to me , and it reminds me of the Condensers in the first Star Wars movie ( Luke on Tattooine ) .
I do not remember where I first read of these towers , and as such like to think I was one of the first people to think of them !
Therefore it is a shame that I do not have an engineering degree to go along with such a brilliant idea !
I wonder if the desert dwelling lizards and other critters would seek shelter under the canopy of the tower ?
~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The convective solar power towers are a really cool idea to me, and it reminds me of the Condensers in the first Star Wars movie (Luke on Tattooine).
I do not remember where I first read of these towers, and as such like to think I was one of the first people to think of them!
Therefore it is a shame that I do not have an engineering degree to go along with such a brilliant idea!
I wonder if the desert dwelling lizards and other critters would seek shelter under the canopy of the tower?
~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681488</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1262874600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But seriously, this is essentially harvesting energy that's going to waste.  Since we're using it to turn turbines and extract energy out of it, technically, it ought to result in a net cooling of the air rather than a heating</p></div><p>Yes, until you consider that they are <i>probably</i> going to do something to that greenhouse to maximise its heat production (such as painting the entire ground area black or somesuch), so it's not going to be the same as an equal area of varied nature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But seriously , this is essentially harvesting energy that 's going to waste .
Since we 're using it to turn turbines and extract energy out of it , technically , it ought to result in a net cooling of the air rather than a heatingYes , until you consider that they are probably going to do something to that greenhouse to maximise its heat production ( such as painting the entire ground area black or somesuch ) , so it 's not going to be the same as an equal area of varied nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But seriously, this is essentially harvesting energy that's going to waste.
Since we're using it to turn turbines and extract energy out of it, technically, it ought to result in a net cooling of the air rather than a heatingYes, until you consider that they are probably going to do something to that greenhouse to maximise its heat production (such as painting the entire ground area black or somesuch), so it's not going to be the same as an equal area of varied nature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678700</id>
	<title>Why AZ and not AU?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this thing is so great why aren't they building it in their own backyard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this thing is so great why are n't they building it in their own backyard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this thing is so great why aren't they building it in their own backyard?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677310</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1262785080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The capital required to construct a nuclear power plant is nothing next to its decommissioning costs, and there is not an unlimited supply of nuclear fuel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The capital required to construct a nuclear power plant is nothing next to its decommissioning costs , and there is not an unlimited supply of nuclear fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The capital required to construct a nuclear power plant is nothing next to its decommissioning costs, and there is not an unlimited supply of nuclear fuel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>CyberBill</author>
	<datestamp>1262783580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This DOES (essentially) reduce thermal energy in the atmosphere.<br> <br>

Typically, the solar energy just heats up the ground, and also bounces around in the atmosphere and heats it up.  This thing works by trapping the energy in a small area (greenhouse) and then using some of that heat to generate electricity.  By the time the air is pumped out into the open atmosphere, it has less heat energy than if the thing wasn't there to begin with.<br> <br>

This really boils down to being just like a photovoltaic panel.  Rather than the Sun wasting its energy heating up the atmosphere, we use the energy to make electricity... which we then waste by turning electricity back into heat which heats up the atmosphere.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This DOES ( essentially ) reduce thermal energy in the atmosphere .
Typically , the solar energy just heats up the ground , and also bounces around in the atmosphere and heats it up .
This thing works by trapping the energy in a small area ( greenhouse ) and then using some of that heat to generate electricity .
By the time the air is pumped out into the open atmosphere , it has less heat energy than if the thing was n't there to begin with .
This really boils down to being just like a photovoltaic panel .
Rather than the Sun wasting its energy heating up the atmosphere , we use the energy to make electricity... which we then waste by turning electricity back into heat which heats up the atmosphere .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This DOES (essentially) reduce thermal energy in the atmosphere.
Typically, the solar energy just heats up the ground, and also bounces around in the atmosphere and heats it up.
This thing works by trapping the energy in a small area (greenhouse) and then using some of that heat to generate electricity.
By the time the air is pumped out into the open atmosphere, it has less heat energy than if the thing wasn't there to begin with.
This really boils down to being just like a photovoltaic panel.
Rather than the Sun wasting its energy heating up the atmosphere, we use the energy to make electricity... which we then waste by turning electricity back into heat which heats up the atmosphere.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928</id>
	<title>A better location</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262782440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should build it in Washington DC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should build it in Washington DC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should build it in Washington DC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30684364</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>yabos</author>
	<datestamp>1262887500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think that's going to be a problem.  The towers are 2400 feet tall and that is not considered the upper atmosphere.  Typically the temperature gradient is ~2 degrees Celsius drop per 1000 feet you go up, assuming the air is fairly stable at the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that 's going to be a problem .
The towers are 2400 feet tall and that is not considered the upper atmosphere .
Typically the temperature gradient is ~ 2 degrees Celsius drop per 1000 feet you go up , assuming the air is fairly stable at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that's going to be a problem.
The towers are 2400 feet tall and that is not considered the upper atmosphere.
Typically the temperature gradient is ~2 degrees Celsius drop per 1000 feet you go up, assuming the air is fairly stable at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678550</id>
	<title>Re:Super Flux Capacitor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262794680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Humidity, in Arizona?

You've GOT to be joking!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humidity , in Arizona ?
You 've GOT to be joking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humidity, in Arizona?
You've GOT to be joking!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677650</id>
	<title>Re:Do a small scale pilot first</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1262787300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>as opposed to the maintence in a coal fired power station or nuclear, it'd be a hell of a lot less actually.<p>
making it work is the problem, these guys have nothing but a track record of failure and doing nothing. i don't oppose spending money on idea's, but there has to be more then endless studies that go no where.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as opposed to the maintence in a coal fired power station or nuclear , it 'd be a hell of a lot less actually .
making it work is the problem , these guys have nothing but a track record of failure and doing nothing .
i do n't oppose spending money on idea 's , but there has to be more then endless studies that go no where .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as opposed to the maintence in a coal fired power station or nuclear, it'd be a hell of a lot less actually.
making it work is the problem, these guys have nothing but a track record of failure and doing nothing.
i don't oppose spending money on idea's, but there has to be more then endless studies that go no where.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677422</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262785740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, hate to mention it to you , but this is using energy already available, not changing matter to energy, or using combustables.   Sunshine is Free !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , hate to mention it to you , but this is using energy already available , not changing matter to energy , or using combustables .
Sunshine is Free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, hate to mention it to you , but this is using energy already available, not changing matter to energy, or using combustables.
Sunshine is Free !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679238</id>
	<title>anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262801520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem of overpopulation is already solved.<br>Their are many fast agents (Chemical Bio, Nuclear) as well as naturally acting slow ones (Famine, Pestalince, etc.),</p><p>When the time comes the soloution will apply quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem of overpopulation is already solved.Their are many fast agents ( Chemical Bio , Nuclear ) as well as naturally acting slow ones ( Famine , Pestalince , etc .
) ,When the time comes the soloution will apply quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem of overpopulation is already solved.Their are many fast agents (Chemical Bio, Nuclear) as well as naturally acting slow ones (Famine, Pestalince, etc.
),When the time comes the soloution will apply quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678770</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>Skreems</author>
	<datestamp>1262796480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least some of it would have ended up at ground level anyway, as opposed to the 0\% of heat that would have existed without us intervening with, say, a nuclear reactor, which works on the exact same principle (turbines convert heat to electricity). A surprisingly large number of human power sources work by extracting energy from a heat differential.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least some of it would have ended up at ground level anyway , as opposed to the 0 \ % of heat that would have existed without us intervening with , say , a nuclear reactor , which works on the exact same principle ( turbines convert heat to electricity ) .
A surprisingly large number of human power sources work by extracting energy from a heat differential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least some of it would have ended up at ground level anyway, as opposed to the 0\% of heat that would have existed without us intervening with, say, a nuclear reactor, which works on the exact same principle (turbines convert heat to electricity).
A surprisingly large number of human power sources work by extracting energy from a heat differential.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679766</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1262894700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could be wrong (its been a long time since atmospheric chemistry 101) but last I checked warm air wasn't a greenhouse gas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could be wrong ( its been a long time since atmospheric chemistry 101 ) but last I checked warm air was n't a greenhouse gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could be wrong (its been a long time since atmospheric chemistry 101) but last I checked warm air wasn't a greenhouse gas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679214</id>
	<title>That's so old it's new: in Analog SF in the 60's</title>
	<author>stnls\_steel\_mouse</author>
	<datestamp>1262801100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Analog science fiction magazine had a story about these back in the sixties.  The guy who invented them was named 'Short' so they were called 'Short Stacks'.</p><p>Man, I'm trying to find a citation but just can't come up with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Analog science fiction magazine had a story about these back in the sixties .
The guy who invented them was named 'Short ' so they were called 'Short Stacks'.Man , I 'm trying to find a citation but just ca n't come up with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Analog science fiction magazine had a story about these back in the sixties.
The guy who invented them was named 'Short' so they were called 'Short Stacks'.Man, I'm trying to find a citation but just can't come up with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30684976</id>
	<title>Re:$750 million for 200 MW?</title>
	<author>nroets</author>
	<datestamp>1262890020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The cost per Watt of the new Medupi coal fired power station will be very similar at (+-$18b for 4800MW) but it will be able to operate at that capacity 24/7.<br>
<br>
The solar tower will sell most of it's electricity when the price is at it's highest: In summer when all the air condition units are running.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost per Watt of the new Medupi coal fired power station will be very similar at ( + - $ 18b for 4800MW ) but it will be able to operate at that capacity 24/7 .
The solar tower will sell most of it 's electricity when the price is at it 's highest : In summer when all the air condition units are running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost per Watt of the new Medupi coal fired power station will be very similar at (+-$18b for 4800MW) but it will be able to operate at that capacity 24/7.
The solar tower will sell most of it's electricity when the price is at it's highest: In summer when all the air condition units are running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30688024</id>
	<title>Re:The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1262861400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does that include the total space required to mine for uranium over the life of the power plant? This project is renewable energy -- once it's built, it won't require any fuel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that include the total space required to mine for uranium over the life of the power plant ?
This project is renewable energy -- once it 's built , it wo n't require any fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that include the total space required to mine for uranium over the life of the power plant?
This project is renewable energy -- once it's built, it won't require any fuel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30686436</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>Klaatu01</author>
	<datestamp>1262896920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already create urban "heat islands" that cause afternoon rainstorms in places like Atlanta, so I do no think these towers do anything that has not been done already.  They seem to be a brilliant idea that should have been stumbled upon decades ago!</p><p>The thermal updrafts now feed into thunderstorm cells and all of that energy essentially goes to waste, but with this technology constructed in the right locations perhaps the benefit would be two fold: Energy from the uplifting air, and essentially being able to control (or at least influence) the local weather in the area around the tower.  I'm not climatologist but it seems like a little multidisciplinary collaboration could really pay off in big ways (i.e. where droughts seems to never end and where excessive rain/flooding is a problem).</p><p>If it is possible to build a tower and funnel hot air upwards, couldn't we also build a giant cone to take advantage of cold air falling? -- I guess this must get into pressure gradients and all sorts of other science... so I'll stop typing now.</p><p>"How many other brilliant concepts are just waiting for an untrained eye to look at them differently?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already create urban " heat islands " that cause afternoon rainstorms in places like Atlanta , so I do no think these towers do anything that has not been done already .
They seem to be a brilliant idea that should have been stumbled upon decades ago ! The thermal updrafts now feed into thunderstorm cells and all of that energy essentially goes to waste , but with this technology constructed in the right locations perhaps the benefit would be two fold : Energy from the uplifting air , and essentially being able to control ( or at least influence ) the local weather in the area around the tower .
I 'm not climatologist but it seems like a little multidisciplinary collaboration could really pay off in big ways ( i.e .
where droughts seems to never end and where excessive rain/flooding is a problem ) .If it is possible to build a tower and funnel hot air upwards , could n't we also build a giant cone to take advantage of cold air falling ?
-- I guess this must get into pressure gradients and all sorts of other science... so I 'll stop typing now .
" How many other brilliant concepts are just waiting for an untrained eye to look at them differently ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already create urban "heat islands" that cause afternoon rainstorms in places like Atlanta, so I do no think these towers do anything that has not been done already.
They seem to be a brilliant idea that should have been stumbled upon decades ago!The thermal updrafts now feed into thunderstorm cells and all of that energy essentially goes to waste, but with this technology constructed in the right locations perhaps the benefit would be two fold: Energy from the uplifting air, and essentially being able to control (or at least influence) the local weather in the area around the tower.
I'm not climatologist but it seems like a little multidisciplinary collaboration could really pay off in big ways (i.e.
where droughts seems to never end and where excessive rain/flooding is a problem).If it is possible to build a tower and funnel hot air upwards, couldn't we also build a giant cone to take advantage of cold air falling?
-- I guess this must get into pressure gradients and all sorts of other science... so I'll stop typing now.
"How many other brilliant concepts are just waiting for an untrained eye to look at them differently?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679742</id>
	<title>You have GOT to be kidding!</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262894400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2000 Acres for 200MW?!</p><p>You can use a old Los Angeles Class submarine <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org">nuclear reactor</a> [wikipedia.org] that is tiny ( it fit in a cylindrical section that was 33' by about 33') yet produced 148 TMW ( Thermal MegaWatts ) and this space contained the reactor itself, steam generators, primary coolant pumps, primary coolant expansion chambers then entire primary system </p><p>Now admittedly it had the volume and temperature difference of the ocean to condense the steam, but let me tell ya, even when injection temps where hovering in the low 80's it performed flawlessly for years and years on end.</p><p>Now EFPH ( effective full power hours ) was limited because the core was so tiny (however it did run on 97.3\% Uranium) , but you could crank the thing at 100\% of their thermal rating for about 3 years before is was time to re-core.  Now of course no submarine runs around at 100\% rated thermal power or anywhere near it all the time so the cores lasted for 15 years or longer.</p><p>So 10 of these little plants could pump out 1.5GW and take up about a football field less condensing towers.  Because you have 10 of them at a station you can throttle the station down in 1/10th increments when demand is low and bring the station back up to rated power in a big hurry just by having the turbines spinning at a very slow speed and drawing very little from the core(s) and given that you might stretch the cores to 5 years or better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2000 Acres for 200MW ?
! You can use a old Los Angeles Class submarine nuclear reactor [ wikipedia.org ] that is tiny ( it fit in a cylindrical section that was 33 ' by about 33 ' ) yet produced 148 TMW ( Thermal MegaWatts ) and this space contained the reactor itself , steam generators , primary coolant pumps , primary coolant expansion chambers then entire primary system Now admittedly it had the volume and temperature difference of the ocean to condense the steam , but let me tell ya , even when injection temps where hovering in the low 80 's it performed flawlessly for years and years on end.Now EFPH ( effective full power hours ) was limited because the core was so tiny ( however it did run on 97.3 \ % Uranium ) , but you could crank the thing at 100 \ % of their thermal rating for about 3 years before is was time to re-core .
Now of course no submarine runs around at 100 \ % rated thermal power or anywhere near it all the time so the cores lasted for 15 years or longer.So 10 of these little plants could pump out 1.5GW and take up about a football field less condensing towers .
Because you have 10 of them at a station you can throttle the station down in 1/10th increments when demand is low and bring the station back up to rated power in a big hurry just by having the turbines spinning at a very slow speed and drawing very little from the core ( s ) and given that you might stretch the cores to 5 years or better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2000 Acres for 200MW?
!You can use a old Los Angeles Class submarine nuclear reactor [wikipedia.org] that is tiny ( it fit in a cylindrical section that was 33' by about 33') yet produced 148 TMW ( Thermal MegaWatts ) and this space contained the reactor itself, steam generators, primary coolant pumps, primary coolant expansion chambers then entire primary system Now admittedly it had the volume and temperature difference of the ocean to condense the steam, but let me tell ya, even when injection temps where hovering in the low 80's it performed flawlessly for years and years on end.Now EFPH ( effective full power hours ) was limited because the core was so tiny (however it did run on 97.3\% Uranium) , but you could crank the thing at 100\% of their thermal rating for about 3 years before is was time to re-core.
Now of course no submarine runs around at 100\% rated thermal power or anywhere near it all the time so the cores lasted for 15 years or longer.So 10 of these little plants could pump out 1.5GW and take up about a football field less condensing towers.
Because you have 10 of them at a station you can throttle the station down in 1/10th increments when demand is low and bring the station back up to rated power in a big hurry just by having the turbines spinning at a very slow speed and drawing very little from the core(s) and given that you might stretch the cores to 5 years or better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678784</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>qval</author>
	<datestamp>1262796600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The next 1 gigawatt nuclear plant built in the west will cost 5-10 Billion dollars. Look at Finland's effort:  <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html</a> [nytimes.com]  three years or more behind schedule and easily 50\% over budget. The economics and short work schedules are what make renewables more attractive than these hulking plants designed with the 1960s mindset. Smaller plants have much lower impact if they go down, and can usually get back online faster than a large coal plant (1 day) or a nuke (1-4 weeks).

I used to like nukes, being a technocrat, but the economics don't work out. They actually never worked out. Over the history of the grid, total capital expenditures have been roughly equally divided between generation (power plants), transmission (high voltage, long distance lines) and distribution (the lower voltage lines on wood poles bespoiling your suburb). In fact, transmission was 10-20\% more than the other two, which tells you the problem with giant wind farms in the Dakotas. The exception to this was the 1970s, when our current fleet of nukes was built, and generation took up almost 50\% of that CapEx pie.

So be happy that your utilities are encouraging everyone to save energy rather than build new plants, because we need end use efficiency to get us more cold beers and hot showers for less energy, before we need more power plants, nukes included.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The next 1 gigawatt nuclear plant built in the west will cost 5-10 Billion dollars .
Look at Finland 's effort : http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html [ nytimes.com ] three years or more behind schedule and easily 50 \ % over budget .
The economics and short work schedules are what make renewables more attractive than these hulking plants designed with the 1960s mindset .
Smaller plants have much lower impact if they go down , and can usually get back online faster than a large coal plant ( 1 day ) or a nuke ( 1-4 weeks ) .
I used to like nukes , being a technocrat , but the economics do n't work out .
They actually never worked out .
Over the history of the grid , total capital expenditures have been roughly equally divided between generation ( power plants ) , transmission ( high voltage , long distance lines ) and distribution ( the lower voltage lines on wood poles bespoiling your suburb ) .
In fact , transmission was 10-20 \ % more than the other two , which tells you the problem with giant wind farms in the Dakotas .
The exception to this was the 1970s , when our current fleet of nukes was built , and generation took up almost 50 \ % of that CapEx pie .
So be happy that your utilities are encouraging everyone to save energy rather than build new plants , because we need end use efficiency to get us more cold beers and hot showers for less energy , before we need more power plants , nukes included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next 1 gigawatt nuclear plant built in the west will cost 5-10 Billion dollars.
Look at Finland's effort:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html [nytimes.com]  three years or more behind schedule and easily 50\% over budget.
The economics and short work schedules are what make renewables more attractive than these hulking plants designed with the 1960s mindset.
Smaller plants have much lower impact if they go down, and can usually get back online faster than a large coal plant (1 day) or a nuke (1-4 weeks).
I used to like nukes, being a technocrat, but the economics don't work out.
They actually never worked out.
Over the history of the grid, total capital expenditures have been roughly equally divided between generation (power plants), transmission (high voltage, long distance lines) and distribution (the lower voltage lines on wood poles bespoiling your suburb).
In fact, transmission was 10-20\% more than the other two, which tells you the problem with giant wind farms in the Dakotas.
The exception to this was the 1970s, when our current fleet of nukes was built, and generation took up almost 50\% of that CapEx pie.
So be happy that your utilities are encouraging everyone to save energy rather than build new plants, because we need end use efficiency to get us more cold beers and hot showers for less energy, before we need more power plants, nukes included.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677698</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262787720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At 1kw/m^2, the input power is over 10 Gwatts.  That means the power efficiency is less than 2\%.<br>And people complain about the area needed for photovoltaic sites?  Ridiculous!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At 1kw/m ^ 2 , the input power is over 10 Gwatts .
That means the power efficiency is less than 2 \ % .And people complain about the area needed for photovoltaic sites ?
Ridiculous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At 1kw/m^2, the input power is over 10 Gwatts.
That means the power efficiency is less than 2\%.And people complain about the area needed for photovoltaic sites?
Ridiculous!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679660</id>
	<title>Re:Other turbine proposals...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262806980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's because it would take at least as much energy rasing water up 1 mile to put in the cylinder as would be obtained from it falling down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's because it would take at least as much energy rasing water up 1 mile to put in the cylinder as would be obtained from it falling down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's because it would take at least as much energy rasing water up 1 mile to put in the cylinder as would be obtained from it falling down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677702</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1262787720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This DOES (essentially) reduce thermal energy in the atmosphere.</p></div><p>Possibly, but someone would have to run the numbers to make certain.  Personally, I have my doubts, at least about the <i>direct</i> reduction in thermal energy.  A lot of the solar energy that reaches the Earth is normally reflected away without being converted into heat, particularly in cloudless, bright-floored desert areas.  This project would instead convert much of that energy into heat and then dissipate it into the atmosphere.  They say right in the OP that it uses a greenhouse concept, and if you had a really large number of these, it would essentially cause a global greenhouse effect without involving any greenhouse gases.</p><p>On the other hand, a net reduction of thermal energy in the atmosphere could arise from a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions made possible by the use of these facilities, i.e., an <i>indirect</i> benefit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This DOES ( essentially ) reduce thermal energy in the atmosphere.Possibly , but someone would have to run the numbers to make certain .
Personally , I have my doubts , at least about the direct reduction in thermal energy .
A lot of the solar energy that reaches the Earth is normally reflected away without being converted into heat , particularly in cloudless , bright-floored desert areas .
This project would instead convert much of that energy into heat and then dissipate it into the atmosphere .
They say right in the OP that it uses a greenhouse concept , and if you had a really large number of these , it would essentially cause a global greenhouse effect without involving any greenhouse gases.On the other hand , a net reduction of thermal energy in the atmosphere could arise from a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions made possible by the use of these facilities , i.e. , an indirect benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This DOES (essentially) reduce thermal energy in the atmosphere.Possibly, but someone would have to run the numbers to make certain.
Personally, I have my doubts, at least about the direct reduction in thermal energy.
A lot of the solar energy that reaches the Earth is normally reflected away without being converted into heat, particularly in cloudless, bright-floored desert areas.
This project would instead convert much of that energy into heat and then dissipate it into the atmosphere.
They say right in the OP that it uses a greenhouse concept, and if you had a really large number of these, it would essentially cause a global greenhouse effect without involving any greenhouse gases.On the other hand, a net reduction of thermal energy in the atmosphere could arise from a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions made possible by the use of these facilities, i.e., an indirect benefit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677794</id>
	<title>Re:$750 million for 200 MW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262788380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>too lazy to look up real sources or format, but here are some ideas:</p><p>1.6-2 mil per MW construction for coal : ~350 mil for the same power level.  ( http://www.jcmiras.net/surge/p83.htm )</p><p>$11 per MW-hr for buying the coal : 200 MW is peak power under full sun. Maybe 5 hours per day average of the course of a year gives 5*200*360 = 360,000 MW-hrs per year =&gt; 4 mil. per year operating costs saved. Should break even ~100 years, but if I'm too pessimistic by a factor of 3 than it should be about the same, that and you can currently charge more for 'clean' power, maintenance will also be a big factor.<br>( http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>too lazy to look up real sources or format , but here are some ideas : 1.6-2 mil per MW construction for coal : ~ 350 mil for the same power level .
( http : //www.jcmiras.net/surge/p83.htm ) $ 11 per MW-hr for buying the coal : 200 MW is peak power under full sun .
Maybe 5 hours per day average of the course of a year gives 5 * 200 * 360 = 360,000 MW-hrs per year = &gt; 4 mil .
per year operating costs saved .
Should break even ~ 100 years , but if I 'm too pessimistic by a factor of 3 than it should be about the same , that and you can currently charge more for 'clean ' power , maintenance will also be a big factor .
( http : //www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>too lazy to look up real sources or format, but here are some ideas:1.6-2 mil per MW construction for coal : ~350 mil for the same power level.
( http://www.jcmiras.net/surge/p83.htm )$11 per MW-hr for buying the coal : 200 MW is peak power under full sun.
Maybe 5 hours per day average of the course of a year gives 5*200*360 = 360,000 MW-hrs per year =&gt; 4 mil.
per year operating costs saved.
Should break even ~100 years, but if I'm too pessimistic by a factor of 3 than it should be about the same, that and you can currently charge more for 'clean' power, maintenance will also be a big factor.
( http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677342</id>
	<title>physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262785260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>energy</p></div></blockquote><p>You keep using that word...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>energyYou keep using that word.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>energyYou keep using that word...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678488</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262794140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might I suggest that instead of dumping the warm air into the upper atmosphere, we pump it to Minnesota?  Please?</p><p>But seriously, this is essentially harvesting energy that's going to waste.  Since we're using it to turn turbines and extract energy out of it, technically, it ought to result in a net cooling of the air rather than a heating (although when you consider the waste heat when the energy is used, it probably all balances out in the end -- well, it would have to, wouldn't it, unless you're suggesting the conservation of energy is being violated somewhere).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might I suggest that instead of dumping the warm air into the upper atmosphere , we pump it to Minnesota ?
Please ? But seriously , this is essentially harvesting energy that 's going to waste .
Since we 're using it to turn turbines and extract energy out of it , technically , it ought to result in a net cooling of the air rather than a heating ( although when you consider the waste heat when the energy is used , it probably all balances out in the end -- well , it would have to , would n't it , unless you 're suggesting the conservation of energy is being violated somewhere ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might I suggest that instead of dumping the warm air into the upper atmosphere, we pump it to Minnesota?
Please?But seriously, this is essentially harvesting energy that's going to waste.
Since we're using it to turn turbines and extract energy out of it, technically, it ought to result in a net cooling of the air rather than a heating (although when you consider the waste heat when the energy is used, it probably all balances out in the end -- well, it would have to, wouldn't it, unless you're suggesting the conservation of energy is being violated somewhere).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30685152</id>
	<title>Re:The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262890860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about using giant magnifying glass roof on a smaller building?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about using giant magnifying glass roof on a smaller building ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about using giant magnifying glass roof on a smaller building?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679018</id>
	<title>evaporation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262799000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>evaporation of water would cool the air causing it to be more dense and sink down the tower.  Just guessing, but sounds like what they were thinking of.  I'm tempted to run the numbers, but maybe I can just ask wolfram alpha if it will work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>evaporation of water would cool the air causing it to be more dense and sink down the tower .
Just guessing , but sounds like what they were thinking of .
I 'm tempted to run the numbers , but maybe I can just ask wolfram alpha if it will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>evaporation of water would cool the air causing it to be more dense and sink down the tower.
Just guessing, but sounds like what they were thinking of.
I'm tempted to run the numbers, but maybe I can just ask wolfram alpha if it will work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679890</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>fbjon</author>
	<datestamp>1262896260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A giant greenhouse, designed to heat massive ammounts of air, and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere...

So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth's atmosphere directly now?</p></div><p>Dumping hot air into the upper atmosphere cools the Earth. As air is circulated higher up it more readily radiates energy out into space, bypassing some fraction of the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A giant greenhouse , designed to heat massive ammounts of air , and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere.. . So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth 's atmosphere directly now ? Dumping hot air into the upper atmosphere cools the Earth .
As air is circulated higher up it more readily radiates energy out into space , bypassing some fraction of the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A giant greenhouse, designed to heat massive ammounts of air, and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere...

So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth's atmosphere directly now?Dumping hot air into the upper atmosphere cools the Earth.
As air is circulated higher up it more readily radiates energy out into space, bypassing some fraction of the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30683688</id>
	<title>Re:First this IS solar</title>
	<author>DuckDodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1262885040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't displace coal use by making your appliances more efficient.  <br> <br>
But further, when a resource becomes cheaper people often use more of it.  When gas spiked two years ago, a number of car shoppers shifted to more economical vehicles.  Between that and the economic slowdown, demand for oil dropped just a little.  But it was enough for the price of oil to drop significantly... and a consumer trends almost immediately switched back to buying larger vehicles because they could afford them again. <br> <br>
Look at homes - with better practices in insulation, more efficient appliances, and more efficient heating systems, electrical and heating costs dropped.   How did people react? <i>By building bigger homes.</i> <br> <br>
If you really want people to use energy efficiently and not expand their use, you need to use taxes, price floors, or some other methods to keep energy costs high.   It might work, but it will be wildly unpopular and regressive (i.e. hurt poor people the most).</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't displace coal use by making your appliances more efficient .
But further , when a resource becomes cheaper people often use more of it .
When gas spiked two years ago , a number of car shoppers shifted to more economical vehicles .
Between that and the economic slowdown , demand for oil dropped just a little .
But it was enough for the price of oil to drop significantly... and a consumer trends almost immediately switched back to buying larger vehicles because they could afford them again .
Look at homes - with better practices in insulation , more efficient appliances , and more efficient heating systems , electrical and heating costs dropped .
How did people react ?
By building bigger homes .
If you really want people to use energy efficiently and not expand their use , you need to use taxes , price floors , or some other methods to keep energy costs high .
It might work , but it will be wildly unpopular and regressive ( i.e .
hurt poor people the most ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't displace coal use by making your appliances more efficient.
But further, when a resource becomes cheaper people often use more of it.
When gas spiked two years ago, a number of car shoppers shifted to more economical vehicles.
Between that and the economic slowdown, demand for oil dropped just a little.
But it was enough for the price of oil to drop significantly... and a consumer trends almost immediately switched back to buying larger vehicles because they could afford them again.
Look at homes - with better practices in insulation, more efficient appliances, and more efficient heating systems, electrical and heating costs dropped.
How did people react?
By building bigger homes.
If you really want people to use energy efficiently and not expand their use, you need to use taxes, price floors, or some other methods to keep energy costs high.
It might work, but it will be wildly unpopular and regressive (i.e.
hurt poor people the most).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678342</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Land costs are negligible for this project.<br>2. Nuclear plants need a source of water for cooling. It's expensive to site them in the middle of the desert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Land costs are negligible for this project.2 .
Nuclear plants need a source of water for cooling .
It 's expensive to site them in the middle of the desert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Land costs are negligible for this project.2.
Nuclear plants need a source of water for cooling.
It's expensive to site them in the middle of the desert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677814</id>
	<title>1.21 gigawatts?</title>
	<author>Thundarr Trollgrim</author>
	<datestamp>1262788560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How will we generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity we need?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How will we generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity we need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will we generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity we need?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30703914</id>
	<title>Re:First this IS solar</title>
	<author>CharlieKotan</author>
	<datestamp>1262966460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I agree with your comments about electric hot water heaters.  That also applies to natural gas or propane hot water heaters.
</p><p>
Another extremely annoying issue is that, at least in my neck of the woods (NoCal), I can't buy a gas hot water heater without a pilot light!  24x7 that light helps heat my water, but I'll bet well over half of the energy goes out the flue, wasting me a couple of hundred dollars a year.
</p><p>
I've been told it's the fault of Underwriter Labs, who haven't the first clue about engineering, it seems.  A fail-safe igniter with flame, heat, and gas sensors and a micro-controller should be simple to build and test.  Even if it adds $50 to the price of a hot water heater, that cost should easily be paid back in a year.  And the same for gas heaters and furnaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your comments about electric hot water heaters .
That also applies to natural gas or propane hot water heaters .
Another extremely annoying issue is that , at least in my neck of the woods ( NoCal ) , I ca n't buy a gas hot water heater without a pilot light !
24x7 that light helps heat my water , but I 'll bet well over half of the energy goes out the flue , wasting me a couple of hundred dollars a year .
I 've been told it 's the fault of Underwriter Labs , who have n't the first clue about engineering , it seems .
A fail-safe igniter with flame , heat , and gas sensors and a micro-controller should be simple to build and test .
Even if it adds $ 50 to the price of a hot water heater , that cost should easily be paid back in a year .
And the same for gas heaters and furnaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I agree with your comments about electric hot water heaters.
That also applies to natural gas or propane hot water heaters.
Another extremely annoying issue is that, at least in my neck of the woods (NoCal), I can't buy a gas hot water heater without a pilot light!
24x7 that light helps heat my water, but I'll bet well over half of the energy goes out the flue, wasting me a couple of hundred dollars a year.
I've been told it's the fault of Underwriter Labs, who haven't the first clue about engineering, it seems.
A fail-safe igniter with flame, heat, and gas sensors and a micro-controller should be simple to build and test.
Even if it adds $50 to the price of a hot water heater, that cost should easily be paid back in a year.
And the same for gas heaters and furnaces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677430</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262785860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Land use is not exactly a big issue in Arizona...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Land use is not exactly a big issue in Arizona.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Land use is not exactly a big issue in Arizona...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679808</id>
	<title>Re:The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262895240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reconsider your argument about land use; the solar updraft panels are in the air catching heat from a greenhouse. True, greenhouses are a form of terra-forming and would change the ecology of the environment but just think about what you could grow inside the greenhouses... You can produce clean air, thermal energy, and healthy food all at the same time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reconsider your argument about land use ; the solar updraft panels are in the air catching heat from a greenhouse .
True , greenhouses are a form of terra-forming and would change the ecology of the environment but just think about what you could grow inside the greenhouses... You can produce clean air , thermal energy , and healthy food all at the same time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reconsider your argument about land use; the solar updraft panels are in the air catching heat from a greenhouse.
True, greenhouses are a form of terra-forming and would change the ecology of the environment but just think about what you could grow inside the greenhouses... You can produce clean air, thermal energy, and healthy food all at the same time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680250</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>fotoguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1262859420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you have an efficient power plant but it is away from any population center, do you l[o]ose in transmission what you gain in efficiency?<br>
<br>
For automobiles, I always wonder about refining fuel and getting it the gas tank where the foul, inefficient internal combustion engine works almost directly on the wheels.<br>
<br>
Alternatively, for a plugin car, if you had an efficient power plant out in the des[s]ert, you would lo[o]se a certain amount of energy by the time you filled up your car's batteries with 48V DC High-Test.

Are there good rules of thumb for when transmission los[s]es outweigh efficiency gains?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have an efficient power plant but it is away from any population center , do you l [ o ] ose in transmission what you gain in efficiency ?
For automobiles , I always wonder about refining fuel and getting it the gas tank where the foul , inefficient internal combustion engine works almost directly on the wheels .
Alternatively , for a plugin car , if you had an efficient power plant out in the des [ s ] ert , you would lo [ o ] se a certain amount of energy by the time you filled up your car 's batteries with 48V DC High-Test .
Are there good rules of thumb for when transmission los [ s ] es outweigh efficiency gains ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have an efficient power plant but it is away from any population center, do you l[o]ose in transmission what you gain in efficiency?
For automobiles, I always wonder about refining fuel and getting it the gas tank where the foul, inefficient internal combustion engine works almost directly on the wheels.
Alternatively, for a plugin car, if you had an efficient power plant out in the des[s]ert, you would lo[o]se a certain amount of energy by the time you filled up your car's batteries with 48V DC High-Test.
Are there good rules of thumb for when transmission los[s]es outweigh efficiency gains?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680720</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Calinous</author>
	<datestamp>1262866680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They will replace the light brown/orange/whatever of the desert with something black, to trap more heat. This will double the heat that stays on Earth (and is not reflected to space)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They will replace the light brown/orange/whatever of the desert with something black , to trap more heat .
This will double the heat that stays on Earth ( and is not reflected to space )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will replace the light brown/orange/whatever of the desert with something black, to trap more heat.
This will double the heat that stays on Earth (and is not reflected to space)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680118</id>
	<title>Was supposed to happen here in Aus</title>
	<author>solanum</author>
	<datestamp>1262856720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was living in Mildura until recently and we had a great hoo-ha for a couple of years about the multiple square km glasshouse they were going to build locally (at Wentworth if I recall correctly - the next town along the Murray).  It's v hot there (regularly above 40C), v sunny (less than 300 mm rain annually) so an ideal spot for this sort of thing.  However, it never happened, the next we heard they were going to build a smaller scale pilot (seems like it would be sensible to have thought of that first), and still nothing happened.  I've never heard them say they weren't going to build anything, but it looks like that is the result.</p><p>In other words, don't hold your breath for this to actually happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was living in Mildura until recently and we had a great hoo-ha for a couple of years about the multiple square km glasshouse they were going to build locally ( at Wentworth if I recall correctly - the next town along the Murray ) .
It 's v hot there ( regularly above 40C ) , v sunny ( less than 300 mm rain annually ) so an ideal spot for this sort of thing .
However , it never happened , the next we heard they were going to build a smaller scale pilot ( seems like it would be sensible to have thought of that first ) , and still nothing happened .
I 've never heard them say they were n't going to build anything , but it looks like that is the result.In other words , do n't hold your breath for this to actually happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was living in Mildura until recently and we had a great hoo-ha for a couple of years about the multiple square km glasshouse they were going to build locally (at Wentworth if I recall correctly - the next town along the Murray).
It's v hot there (regularly above 40C), v sunny (less than 300 mm rain annually) so an ideal spot for this sort of thing.
However, it never happened, the next we heard they were going to build a smaller scale pilot (seems like it would be sensible to have thought of that first), and still nothing happened.
I've never heard them say they weren't going to build anything, but it looks like that is the result.In other words, don't hold your breath for this to actually happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678428</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>50 acres? Bah!  Nuke plants require large coolant reservoirs, security, and safety perimeters often racking up many thousands of acres of surrounding land.</p><p>Empirical evidence rules, check out the actual footprints here:</p><p>http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at\_a\_glance/reactors/palo\_verde.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>50 acres ?
Bah ! Nuke plants require large coolant reservoirs , security , and safety perimeters often racking up many thousands of acres of surrounding land.Empirical evidence rules , check out the actual footprints here : http : //www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at \ _a \ _glance/reactors/palo \ _verde.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>50 acres?
Bah!  Nuke plants require large coolant reservoirs, security, and safety perimeters often racking up many thousands of acres of surrounding land.Empirical evidence rules, check out the actual footprints here:http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at\_a\_glance/reactors/palo\_verde.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678814</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1262796840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt. I think the capital expense is comparable. What is the benefit here?</p></div><p>Much lower operational costs.
</p><ol>
<li>All nuclear plant technologies are dependent on relatively costly feedstock. Sunlight is free.</li>
<li>Uranium based nuclear plant technologies, which are the only ones we know how to build, have relatively expensive post production costs and end of life costs. There are no post production costs for sunlight. End of life costs for the solar chimney are comparable with tearing down a large building with a glass facade.</li>
</ol><p>This could have been different, if the nuclear power industry had bothered to do any significant research on alternatives to uranium and plutonium. Apparently in theory a thorium reactor would have very low post production costs, much lower feedstock costs, and be safer as well, since it could be easily designed to avoid a runaway reaction. But the nuclear power industry seems to have been consistently more concerned with matters of marketing rather than working out better engineering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt .
I think the capital expense is comparable .
What is the benefit here ? Much lower operational costs .
All nuclear plant technologies are dependent on relatively costly feedstock .
Sunlight is free .
Uranium based nuclear plant technologies , which are the only ones we know how to build , have relatively expensive post production costs and end of life costs .
There are no post production costs for sunlight .
End of life costs for the solar chimney are comparable with tearing down a large building with a glass facade .
This could have been different , if the nuclear power industry had bothered to do any significant research on alternatives to uranium and plutonium .
Apparently in theory a thorium reactor would have very low post production costs , much lower feedstock costs , and be safer as well , since it could be easily designed to avoid a runaway reaction .
But the nuclear power industry seems to have been consistently more concerned with matters of marketing rather than working out better engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt.
I think the capital expense is comparable.
What is the benefit here?Much lower operational costs.
All nuclear plant technologies are dependent on relatively costly feedstock.
Sunlight is free.
Uranium based nuclear plant technologies, which are the only ones we know how to build, have relatively expensive post production costs and end of life costs.
There are no post production costs for sunlight.
End of life costs for the solar chimney are comparable with tearing down a large building with a glass facade.
This could have been different, if the nuclear power industry had bothered to do any significant research on alternatives to uranium and plutonium.
Apparently in theory a thorium reactor would have very low post production costs, much lower feedstock costs, and be safer as well, since it could be easily designed to avoid a runaway reaction.
But the nuclear power industry seems to have been consistently more concerned with matters of marketing rather than working out better engineering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680562</id>
	<title>Re:Waste heat</title>
	<author>plastbox</author>
	<datestamp>1262864100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about solar panels? In true slashdot tradition I have yet to RTFA, but the summary doesn't really say anything about the planned flooring within the greenhouse. I remember reading that direct, mid-day sunlight delivers roughly 1KW/square meter, so if they cover the floor of their greenhouse with typical 14-15\% effective solar panels they'd get an extra 1,5GW of electricity produced at peak sun.</p><p>Wait.. 1,5GW? That can't be right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about solar panels ?
In true slashdot tradition I have yet to RTFA , but the summary does n't really say anything about the planned flooring within the greenhouse .
I remember reading that direct , mid-day sunlight delivers roughly 1KW/square meter , so if they cover the floor of their greenhouse with typical 14-15 \ % effective solar panels they 'd get an extra 1,5GW of electricity produced at peak sun.Wait.. 1,5GW ? That ca n't be right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about solar panels?
In true slashdot tradition I have yet to RTFA, but the summary doesn't really say anything about the planned flooring within the greenhouse.
I remember reading that direct, mid-day sunlight delivers roughly 1KW/square meter, so if they cover the floor of their greenhouse with typical 14-15\% effective solar panels they'd get an extra 1,5GW of electricity produced at peak sun.Wait.. 1,5GW? That can't be right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677742</id>
	<title>Re:Should be cheaper than solar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262787960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are no solar panels mentioned in the article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no solar panels mentioned in the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no solar panels mentioned in the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681938</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1262877480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A major factor in the efficiency is the height of the tower.  A taller tower has lower air pressure and temperature at the top so with the same amount of heated air at ground level you get more energy.  So it is best to spend money on one huge tower and put a big area of glass around it.  Of course beyond a certain point the size gets too large and engineering problems increase the cost and difficulty at a much faster rate than the efficiency gain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A major factor in the efficiency is the height of the tower .
A taller tower has lower air pressure and temperature at the top so with the same amount of heated air at ground level you get more energy .
So it is best to spend money on one huge tower and put a big area of glass around it .
Of course beyond a certain point the size gets too large and engineering problems increase the cost and difficulty at a much faster rate than the efficiency gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A major factor in the efficiency is the height of the tower.
A taller tower has lower air pressure and temperature at the top so with the same amount of heated air at ground level you get more energy.
So it is best to spend money on one huge tower and put a big area of glass around it.
Of course beyond a certain point the size gets too large and engineering problems increase the cost and difficulty at a much faster rate than the efficiency gain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678808</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>quanticle</author>
	<datestamp>1262796780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have stated, 2400 feet isn't "upper atmosphere".  Heck, there are places in Arizona that have a higher <i>natural</i> elevation than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have stated , 2400 feet is n't " upper atmosphere " .
Heck , there are places in Arizona that have a higher natural elevation than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have stated, 2400 feet isn't "upper atmosphere".
Heck, there are places in Arizona that have a higher natural elevation than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679754</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1262894580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A giant greenhouse, designed to heat massive ammounts of air, and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere...</p><p>
So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth's atmosphere directly now?</p></div><p>Don't confuse controlled convection with global warming.  The ground everywhere always absorbs sunlight, which heats it and the air near the ground.  That air then ruses upwards.  All they are doing is putting a roof over the hot ground to channel the air into a turbine.  It's analogous to building a dam in a river to harness potential energy that is normally wasted.  The earth doesn't absorb any more energy than it normally would... unless they are lowering the albedo of the ground under the greenhouse.  Of course, it would be more efficient for them to paint the ground black.       </p><p>If they did color the ground, you would have increased global energy absorption.  (Much like you get frmo using solar panels...)  But you would also be generating CO2 free energy, so you could burn less coal.  In the end, lowering CO2 values would win out, since with less greenhouse gases in the air, the more heat would be radiated back out to space.  And that is ignoring the carbon savings from not having to mine as many coal or hydrocarbons.  </p><p>They should put these over parking lots in hot areas of the world.  Or maybe we could just put a big one over Texas.  They all use air conditioning there anyway, so they would never know the difference.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A giant greenhouse , designed to heat massive ammounts of air , and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere.. . So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth 's atmosphere directly now ? Do n't confuse controlled convection with global warming .
The ground everywhere always absorbs sunlight , which heats it and the air near the ground .
That air then ruses upwards .
All they are doing is putting a roof over the hot ground to channel the air into a turbine .
It 's analogous to building a dam in a river to harness potential energy that is normally wasted .
The earth does n't absorb any more energy than it normally would... unless they are lowering the albedo of the ground under the greenhouse .
Of course , it would be more efficient for them to paint the ground black .
If they did color the ground , you would have increased global energy absorption .
( Much like you get frmo using solar panels... ) But you would also be generating CO2 free energy , so you could burn less coal .
In the end , lowering CO2 values would win out , since with less greenhouse gases in the air , the more heat would be radiated back out to space .
And that is ignoring the carbon savings from not having to mine as many coal or hydrocarbons .
They should put these over parking lots in hot areas of the world .
Or maybe we could just put a big one over Texas .
They all use air conditioning there anyway , so they would never know the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A giant greenhouse, designed to heat massive ammounts of air, and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere...
So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth's atmosphere directly now?Don't confuse controlled convection with global warming.
The ground everywhere always absorbs sunlight, which heats it and the air near the ground.
That air then ruses upwards.
All they are doing is putting a roof over the hot ground to channel the air into a turbine.
It's analogous to building a dam in a river to harness potential energy that is normally wasted.
The earth doesn't absorb any more energy than it normally would... unless they are lowering the albedo of the ground under the greenhouse.
Of course, it would be more efficient for them to paint the ground black.
If they did color the ground, you would have increased global energy absorption.
(Much like you get frmo using solar panels...)  But you would also be generating CO2 free energy, so you could burn less coal.
In the end, lowering CO2 values would win out, since with less greenhouse gases in the air, the more heat would be radiated back out to space.
And that is ignoring the carbon savings from not having to mine as many coal or hydrocarbons.
They should put these over parking lots in hot areas of the world.
Or maybe we could just put a big one over Texas.
They all use air conditioning there anyway, so they would never know the difference.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679402</id>
	<title>Re:The desert isn't a wasteland</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many acres will be wasteland when your reactor goes critical</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many acres will be wasteland when your reactor goes critical</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many acres will be wasteland when your reactor goes critical</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677386</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1262785500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is there some efficiency to be gained by building a four square mile device over, say, 2560 one acre devices?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, by the bucketload.  Thermal solutions of all kinds scale up - that is twice the size gives you a lot more than twice the energy.  One example is that you can have an enormous rotor that works at low wind speeds because there is so much moving air while a small one can't move at all.  Another is in large units where you get power from steam several turbines can be used to get a lot more energy out of the steam while in small units you can only spin one.<br>Photovoltaics don't scale up - double the area and you only get double the power.  That's why the nuke lobby liked comparing their 1960s dinosaurs to photovoltaics since eventually there has to be a scale where nearly anything thermal will pull ahead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some efficiency to be gained by building a four square mile device over , say , 2560 one acre devices ? Yes , by the bucketload .
Thermal solutions of all kinds scale up - that is twice the size gives you a lot more than twice the energy .
One example is that you can have an enormous rotor that works at low wind speeds because there is so much moving air while a small one ca n't move at all .
Another is in large units where you get power from steam several turbines can be used to get a lot more energy out of the steam while in small units you can only spin one.Photovoltaics do n't scale up - double the area and you only get double the power .
That 's why the nuke lobby liked comparing their 1960s dinosaurs to photovoltaics since eventually there has to be a scale where nearly anything thermal will pull ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some efficiency to be gained by building a four square mile device over, say, 2560 one acre devices?Yes, by the bucketload.
Thermal solutions of all kinds scale up - that is twice the size gives you a lot more than twice the energy.
One example is that you can have an enormous rotor that works at low wind speeds because there is so much moving air while a small one can't move at all.
Another is in large units where you get power from steam several turbines can be used to get a lot more energy out of the steam while in small units you can only spin one.Photovoltaics don't scale up - double the area and you only get double the power.
That's why the nuke lobby liked comparing their 1960s dinosaurs to photovoltaics since eventually there has to be a scale where nearly anything thermal will pull ahead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678866</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262797260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt. I think the capital expense is comparable. What is the benefit here?</p></div><p>Nuclear plants consume nuclear fuel and produce nuclear waste. While it's possible to build new types of reactor to mitigate this problem, it's not happening.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt .
I think the capital expense is comparable .
What is the benefit here ? Nuclear plants consume nuclear fuel and produce nuclear waste .
While it 's possible to build new types of reactor to mitigate this problem , it 's not happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt.
I think the capital expense is comparable.
What is the benefit here?Nuclear plants consume nuclear fuel and produce nuclear waste.
While it's possible to build new types of reactor to mitigate this problem, it's not happening.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677890</id>
	<title>Re:Do a small scale pilot first</title>
	<author>carlhaagen</author>
	<datestamp>1262789040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a pretty big pilot, entirely successful one, built in Spain at the end of the 80s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a pretty big pilot , entirely successful one , built in Spain at the end of the 80s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a pretty big pilot, entirely successful one, built in Spain at the end of the 80s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30837524</id>
	<title>Re:Green Energy?</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1263981900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Calling 2400 feet AGL "the upper atmosphere" is like calling Denver residents "space tourists."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling 2400 feet AGL " the upper atmosphere " is like calling Denver residents " space tourists .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling 2400 feet AGL "the upper atmosphere" is like calling Denver residents "space tourists.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680188</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1262858100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck making 2,560 2,400 foot chimmneys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck making 2,560 2,400 foot chimmneys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck making 2,560 2,400 foot chimmneys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678262</id>
	<title>What crops are they growing?</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1262792340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like can they grow some marijuana or somethign, it could pay for itself.....</p><p>Greed weed for green energy, let the silly pot heads who want to save the earth subsidize the saving of th earth and get high at the same time, win-win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like can they grow some marijuana or somethign , it could pay for itself.....Greed weed for green energy , let the silly pot heads who want to save the earth subsidize the saving of th earth and get high at the same time , win-win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like can they grow some marijuana or somethign, it could pay for itself.....Greed weed for green energy, let the silly pot heads who want to save the earth subsidize the saving of th earth and get high at the same time, win-win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30682894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30837524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30686436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30682262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30687708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30684364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30684976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30688024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30683694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30685152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30683688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30683530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30688390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30703914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30704172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2313253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30683688
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30703914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680168
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30682894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30688390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30684976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30683530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30687708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30704172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30676928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30686436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679890
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30837524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30684364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30682262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30683694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30677908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30680212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30681090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30685152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30679402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30688024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30678700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2313253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2313253.30684414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
