<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_142217</id>
	<title>"Green" Ice Resurfacing Machines Fail In Vancouver</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266330960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>lurking\_giant writes <i>"The Seattle Times is reporting that the Men's 500 meter speed-skating competition was delayed more than an hour Monday evening by the <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/talkofthegames/2011085755\_mechanical\_issues\_delay\_mens\_s.html">breakdown of the two ice grooming machines</a> at the skating oval. The real story is that the machines that failed were the latest state-of-the-art '<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/automobiles/01ICE.html">Resurfice Fume-Free Electric Groomers</a>' leased to the Olympics committee. An old, propane-powered Zamboni had to be brought out to fix the ice. This makes two nights in a row with ice resurfacing machine failures. If you're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs, at least test the things first."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>lurking \ _giant writes " The Seattle Times is reporting that the Men 's 500 meter speed-skating competition was delayed more than an hour Monday evening by the breakdown of the two ice grooming machines at the skating oval .
The real story is that the machines that failed were the latest state-of-the-art 'Resurfice Fume-Free Electric Groomers ' leased to the Olympics committee .
An old , propane-powered Zamboni had to be brought out to fix the ice .
This makes two nights in a row with ice resurfacing machine failures .
If you 're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs , at least test the things first .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lurking\_giant writes "The Seattle Times is reporting that the Men's 500 meter speed-skating competition was delayed more than an hour Monday evening by the breakdown of the two ice grooming machines at the skating oval.
The real story is that the machines that failed were the latest state-of-the-art 'Resurfice Fume-Free Electric Groomers' leased to the Olympics committee.
An old, propane-powered Zamboni had to be brought out to fix the ice.
This makes two nights in a row with ice resurfacing machine failures.
If you're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs, at least test the things first.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155438</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1266337560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on how the power is generated, of course. If it's something like coal, you're actually playing "efficiency of large-scale centralized power facilities".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on how the power is generated , of course .
If it 's something like coal , you 're actually playing " efficiency of large-scale centralized power facilities " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on how the power is generated, of course.
If it's something like coal, you're actually playing "efficiency of large-scale centralized power facilities".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158188</id>
	<title>Re:Deals with "Official Olympic Partners"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I heard (on TV, so no link)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Totally unfounded statement then. I hear a lot of shit on TV, much of it when one network is trashing another. So seeing as NBC have the Olympic contract I'd expect other networks to talk dirty. Want to be taken seriously, go spend a minute or two researching, provide links, else STFU.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyway, that, plus the fact that the band was only allowed to play 2 songs in the break, showed to me that the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise.</p></div><p>Huh? What band, what break? WTF are you talking about? Jeez, blame Canada is a fun sport but man you are clutching at straws here. I know Canada is boring in that it does things the "right" way, but so far there hasn't been a bombing like in Atlanta '96.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard ( on TV , so no link ) ...Totally unfounded statement then .
I hear a lot of shit on TV , much of it when one network is trashing another .
So seeing as NBC have the Olympic contract I 'd expect other networks to talk dirty .
Want to be taken seriously , go spend a minute or two researching , provide links , else STFU.Anyway , that , plus the fact that the band was only allowed to play 2 songs in the break , showed to me that the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise.Huh ?
What band , what break ?
WTF are you talking about ?
Jeez , blame Canada is a fun sport but man you are clutching at straws here .
I know Canada is boring in that it does things the " right " way , but so far there has n't been a bombing like in Atlanta '96 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard (on TV, so no link) ...Totally unfounded statement then.
I hear a lot of shit on TV, much of it when one network is trashing another.
So seeing as NBC have the Olympic contract I'd expect other networks to talk dirty.
Want to be taken seriously, go spend a minute or two researching, provide links, else STFU.Anyway, that, plus the fact that the band was only allowed to play 2 songs in the break, showed to me that the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise.Huh?
What band, what break?
WTF are you talking about?
Jeez, blame Canada is a fun sport but man you are clutching at straws here.
I know Canada is boring in that it does things the "right" way, but so far there hasn't been a bombing like in Atlanta '96.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155272</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1266336600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why they're <i>leasing</i> them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why they 're leasing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why they're leasing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054</id>
	<title>Green...  EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same, or in cases like this, to get nothing at all.</p><p>It's really a shame that people believe politics over science. It makes me a cynic. Someone obviously decided to buy these "green" ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing "their part" to help the environment. The problem is they were sold a lie. Not only were they sold a lie, but a non-functioning lie as well.</p><p>Seriously people, CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of. CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease. The <em> <strong>fact</strong> </em> is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same , or in cases like this , to get nothing at all.It 's really a shame that people believe politics over science .
It makes me a cynic .
Someone obviously decided to buy these " green " ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing " their part " to help the environment .
The problem is they were sold a lie .
Not only were they sold a lie , but a non-functioning lie as well.Seriously people , CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of .
CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease .
The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same, or in cases like this, to get nothing at all.It's really a shame that people believe politics over science.
It makes me a cynic.
Someone obviously decided to buy these "green" ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing "their part" to help the environment.
The problem is they were sold a lie.
Not only were they sold a lie, but a non-functioning lie as well.Seriously people, CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of.
CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease.
The  fact  is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155860</id>
	<title>Re:Electric devices are still powered by fossil fu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266339900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Green?  *chuckle*  They're still fossil fuel powered.  The grid is not magic.</p></div><p>Maybe not magic,</p><p>But according to several posters, Canadas grid is hydroelectric (somewhere between 60\%-98\%)</p><p>So only half of your statements aren't true<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Green ?
* chuckle * They 're still fossil fuel powered .
The grid is not magic.Maybe not magic,But according to several posters , Canadas grid is hydroelectric ( somewhere between 60 \ % -98 \ % ) So only half of your statements are n't true : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Green?
*chuckle*  They're still fossil fuel powered.
The grid is not magic.Maybe not magic,But according to several posters, Canadas grid is hydroelectric (somewhere between 60\%-98\%)So only half of your statements aren't true :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158364</id>
	<title>bigger issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bigger issue causing the 1.5 hour delay was when the back up was brought out, the ice crews forgot to remove the studs from the tires, which caused it to take chunks out of the ice. After fixing that issue, it caused a unfair advantage to the first half of the skaters (they got a lot longer break than the 2nd half would have) so the IOC had to determine if they should cancel the 2nd run, or delay or what to do about it.</p><p>The Zamboni was only the issue for about 30 minutes. The teams coaches were causing the issue for the majority of it.</p><p>Source: watching the event on TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bigger issue causing the 1.5 hour delay was when the back up was brought out , the ice crews forgot to remove the studs from the tires , which caused it to take chunks out of the ice .
After fixing that issue , it caused a unfair advantage to the first half of the skaters ( they got a lot longer break than the 2nd half would have ) so the IOC had to determine if they should cancel the 2nd run , or delay or what to do about it.The Zamboni was only the issue for about 30 minutes .
The teams coaches were causing the issue for the majority of it.Source : watching the event on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bigger issue causing the 1.5 hour delay was when the back up was brought out, the ice crews forgot to remove the studs from the tires, which caused it to take chunks out of the ice.
After fixing that issue, it caused a unfair advantage to the first half of the skaters (they got a lot longer break than the 2nd half would have) so the IOC had to determine if they should cancel the 2nd run, or delay or what to do about it.The Zamboni was only the issue for about 30 minutes.
The teams coaches were causing the issue for the majority of it.Source: watching the event on TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157172</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1266345360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even."</p><p>The smart, CHEAP way to slap a propane surfacer on the ass and call it Green would have been to tweak it to run on compressed hydrogen for the duration of the event and have a truckload of spare cylinders ready to go, even better if they are on a snazzy Green cart.</p><p>Standard valves and fittings (Western Enterprises if you do this yourself) plus a propane mixer tune and you are good to go. Fuck it, make Green forklifts and other support equipment while you are at it. Just ignore the diesel truck that delivers the cylinders...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even .
" The smart , CHEAP way to slap a propane surfacer on the ass and call it Green would have been to tweak it to run on compressed hydrogen for the duration of the event and have a truckload of spare cylinders ready to go , even better if they are on a snazzy Green cart.Standard valves and fittings ( Western Enterprises if you do this yourself ) plus a propane mixer tune and you are good to go .
Fuck it , make Green forklifts and other support equipment while you are at it .
Just ignore the diesel truck that delivers the cylinders.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.
"The smart, CHEAP way to slap a propane surfacer on the ass and call it Green would have been to tweak it to run on compressed hydrogen for the duration of the event and have a truckload of spare cylinders ready to go, even better if they are on a snazzy Green cart.Standard valves and fittings (Western Enterprises if you do this yourself) plus a propane mixer tune and you are good to go.
Fuck it, make Green forklifts and other support equipment while you are at it.
Just ignore the diesel truck that delivers the cylinders...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156564</id>
	<title>Re:Perceptions from Vancouver</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1266343440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a BC'er, I've been against it from the start. In spite of their prestige, the Olympic games have a profoundly negative effect on both the economy and the local environment. When you've just destroyed an entire forest, buying two "green" zambonis only adds insult to injury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a BC'er , I 've been against it from the start .
In spite of their prestige , the Olympic games have a profoundly negative effect on both the economy and the local environment .
When you 've just destroyed an entire forest , buying two " green " zambonis only adds insult to injury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a BC'er, I've been against it from the start.
In spite of their prestige, the Olympic games have a profoundly negative effect on both the economy and the local environment.
When you've just destroyed an entire forest, buying two "green" zambonis only adds insult to injury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155482</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266337800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Large scale electrical generation is more efficient than small-scale generation.  Plus the electric versions tend to be smaller and lighter.  You aren't moving the fuel and generation capability around, which also improves efficiency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Large scale electrical generation is more efficient than small-scale generation .
Plus the electric versions tend to be smaller and lighter .
You are n't moving the fuel and generation capability around , which also improves efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Large scale electrical generation is more efficient than small-scale generation.
Plus the electric versions tend to be smaller and lighter.
You aren't moving the fuel and generation capability around, which also improves efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155262</id>
	<title>Olympic Fail....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gah, the whole Olympic speed-skating competition is a giant fail already..</p><p>Very poor ice conditions, very high humidity in the stadium, ice that is cleaned/groomed only once a hour (wtf!) during contests, contests that have to be delayed because of machines breaking down, a 2 minute break between each next match.... puhlease....</p><p>I expected a whole lot more from the Canadians when it comes to ice-skating to be honest....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gah , the whole Olympic speed-skating competition is a giant fail already..Very poor ice conditions , very high humidity in the stadium , ice that is cleaned/groomed only once a hour ( wtf !
) during contests , contests that have to be delayed because of machines breaking down , a 2 minute break between each next match.... puhlease....I expected a whole lot more from the Canadians when it comes to ice-skating to be honest... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gah, the whole Olympic speed-skating competition is a giant fail already..Very poor ice conditions, very high humidity in the stadium, ice that is cleaned/groomed only once a hour (wtf!
) during contests, contests that have to be delayed because of machines breaking down, a 2 minute break between each next match.... puhlease....I expected a whole lot more from the Canadians when it comes to ice-skating to be honest....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155568</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1266338280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, starts like a good analogy.</p><p>But to be more accurate, you'd need to have that water comming in anything from doplets to gushes, into a funnel thats unpredictably changing it's diameter, periodically clogging up by freezing (at the exit) while some of the water may evaporate because it's boiling. While walking on a tightrope.</p><p>And you know that either spilling or letting the funnel run dry is going to kill you.</p><p>And so far, it's only the analogy for the natural CO2.</p><p>Now you have to take a lieak and the only possibility for that is said funnel. Blindfolded.</p><p>I guess thats closer to the actual state of climate research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , starts like a good analogy.But to be more accurate , you 'd need to have that water comming in anything from doplets to gushes , into a funnel thats unpredictably changing it 's diameter , periodically clogging up by freezing ( at the exit ) while some of the water may evaporate because it 's boiling .
While walking on a tightrope.And you know that either spilling or letting the funnel run dry is going to kill you.And so far , it 's only the analogy for the natural CO2.Now you have to take a lieak and the only possibility for that is said funnel .
Blindfolded.I guess thats closer to the actual state of climate research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, starts like a good analogy.But to be more accurate, you'd need to have that water comming in anything from doplets to gushes, into a funnel thats unpredictably changing it's diameter, periodically clogging up by freezing (at the exit) while some of the water may evaporate because it's boiling.
While walking on a tightrope.And you know that either spilling or letting the funnel run dry is going to kill you.And so far, it's only the analogy for the natural CO2.Now you have to take a lieak and the only possibility for that is said funnel.
Blindfolded.I guess thats closer to the actual state of climate research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155604</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1266338400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many ways power plants will still be running and generating pollution anyway.  I think extra power-usage vs. pollution generated may be a smaller increase.  vs. the power plants still polluting + a device that is polluting too.  Think about the extra power you car makes that you normally don't need. Heat, Noise, extra trust... So it does help to be electric.</p><p>Is it a utopian vision of 0 pollution.  No but it is a case the power plants produce 25\% more pollution which is less then the 40\% the non-electic vehicles generate.<br>As well we can get power form other sources too which allows for future upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many ways power plants will still be running and generating pollution anyway .
I think extra power-usage vs. pollution generated may be a smaller increase .
vs. the power plants still polluting + a device that is polluting too .
Think about the extra power you car makes that you normally do n't need .
Heat , Noise , extra trust... So it does help to be electric.Is it a utopian vision of 0 pollution .
No but it is a case the power plants produce 25 \ % more pollution which is less then the 40 \ % the non-electic vehicles generate.As well we can get power form other sources too which allows for future upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many ways power plants will still be running and generating pollution anyway.
I think extra power-usage vs. pollution generated may be a smaller increase.
vs. the power plants still polluting + a device that is polluting too.
Think about the extra power you car makes that you normally don't need.
Heat, Noise, extra trust... So it does help to be electric.Is it a utopian vision of 0 pollution.
No but it is a case the power plants produce 25\% more pollution which is less then the 40\% the non-electic vehicles generate.As well we can get power form other sources too which allows for future upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155044</id>
	<title>Coaches didn't like it</title>
	<author>stoolpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1266335400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that's the first time I've seen coaches come out and say their athletes wouldn't compete until conditions were improved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's the first time I 've seen coaches come out and say their athletes would n't compete until conditions were improved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's the first time I've seen coaches come out and say their athletes wouldn't compete until conditions were improved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31161008</id>
	<title>Other Perceptions from Vancouver</title>
	<author>Imazalil</author>
	<datestamp>1266318480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you are from Vancouver, you would know this is the warmest stretch of weather on record. Usually there is skiing on the local mountains well into late February.</p><p>The highway expansion up to whistler was way overdue, and getting the federal government to pay for part of it was a nice bonus. Yes, it's still our money, but I'd rather see it used here then keeping Quebec happy for once (No offense to anyone in Quebec, but it's true). Same with the Richmond SkyTrain. I'm sorry to say that a 100,000 trees means nothing to me, this is BC after all.</p><p>Homelessness sucks here, and the city/province/federal government should be doing more about, but this is a never ending problem, as soon as people are off the streets, there will be an influx from back east ('cause it's cold). It's a no win situation, and were this any other city the east side would have been bulldozed and gentrified many years ago. It would be nice to get some support from the federal government on this, rather then trying to shut down Insite over and over again.</p><p>On a related note - anyone know if there is a breakdown somewhere of how much cities (not just in canada) spend on things like homelessness, crime, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you are from Vancouver , you would know this is the warmest stretch of weather on record .
Usually there is skiing on the local mountains well into late February.The highway expansion up to whistler was way overdue , and getting the federal government to pay for part of it was a nice bonus .
Yes , it 's still our money , but I 'd rather see it used here then keeping Quebec happy for once ( No offense to anyone in Quebec , but it 's true ) .
Same with the Richmond SkyTrain .
I 'm sorry to say that a 100,000 trees means nothing to me , this is BC after all.Homelessness sucks here , and the city/province/federal government should be doing more about , but this is a never ending problem , as soon as people are off the streets , there will be an influx from back east ( 'cause it 's cold ) .
It 's a no win situation , and were this any other city the east side would have been bulldozed and gentrified many years ago .
It would be nice to get some support from the federal government on this , rather then trying to shut down Insite over and over again.On a related note - anyone know if there is a breakdown somewhere of how much cities ( not just in canada ) spend on things like homelessness , crime , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you are from Vancouver, you would know this is the warmest stretch of weather on record.
Usually there is skiing on the local mountains well into late February.The highway expansion up to whistler was way overdue, and getting the federal government to pay for part of it was a nice bonus.
Yes, it's still our money, but I'd rather see it used here then keeping Quebec happy for once (No offense to anyone in Quebec, but it's true).
Same with the Richmond SkyTrain.
I'm sorry to say that a 100,000 trees means nothing to me, this is BC after all.Homelessness sucks here, and the city/province/federal government should be doing more about, but this is a never ending problem, as soon as people are off the streets, there will be an influx from back east ('cause it's cold).
It's a no win situation, and were this any other city the east side would have been bulldozed and gentrified many years ago.
It would be nice to get some support from the federal government on this, rather then trying to shut down Insite over and over again.On a related note - anyone know if there is a breakdown somewhere of how much cities (not just in canada) spend on things like homelessness, crime, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158510</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>avandesande</author>
	<datestamp>1266350400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There aren't many inelastic systems in nature like the example you have given.</p><p>We know that water and plants will absorb co2 faster if there is more available.</p><p>Please state examples of how we have removed 'carbon sinks'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are n't many inelastic systems in nature like the example you have given.We know that water and plants will absorb co2 faster if there is more available.Please state examples of how we have removed 'carbon sinks'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There aren't many inelastic systems in nature like the example you have given.We know that water and plants will absorb co2 faster if there is more available.Please state examples of how we have removed 'carbon sinks'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155184</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>GIL\_Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1266336180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although to a certain extent you are correct, you aren't accounting for the scale of the operation. Now, I'm not saying all electric plants are clean - not by any means. However in a large plant it is much easier to have the correct systems in place to clean the exhaust air than it is with small gasoline engines (especially mobile ones like in a car as weight is much more of a consideration). So yes, the electric plants can certainly be a bit of the NIMBY and also the "out of sight, out of mind" that you mention. But really the scale they operate on can work towards better systems to prevent noxious emissions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although to a certain extent you are correct , you are n't accounting for the scale of the operation .
Now , I 'm not saying all electric plants are clean - not by any means .
However in a large plant it is much easier to have the correct systems in place to clean the exhaust air than it is with small gasoline engines ( especially mobile ones like in a car as weight is much more of a consideration ) .
So yes , the electric plants can certainly be a bit of the NIMBY and also the " out of sight , out of mind " that you mention .
But really the scale they operate on can work towards better systems to prevent noxious emissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although to a certain extent you are correct, you aren't accounting for the scale of the operation.
Now, I'm not saying all electric plants are clean - not by any means.
However in a large plant it is much easier to have the correct systems in place to clean the exhaust air than it is with small gasoline engines (especially mobile ones like in a car as weight is much more of a consideration).
So yes, the electric plants can certainly be a bit of the NIMBY and also the "out of sight, out of mind" that you mention.
But really the scale they operate on can work towards better systems to prevent noxious emissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158492</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1266350280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The  fact  is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans."
 <a href="http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php" title="usgs.gov" rel="nofollow">Complete and total lie. </a> [usgs.gov]</p> </div><p>Before anyone else mods this guy up without doing any reading at all, I would like to point out that this guy is a liar, and is quoting lies.

You can read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_dioxide\_in\_Earth's\_atmosphere" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikipedia.org] to see why. I'll quote the relevant section:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <strong>Over 95\% of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropgenic.</strong> For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. In 1997, Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13\% and 40\% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[6][7][8] The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, but modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 teragrams (0.13-0.23 gigatonnes or 145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[9] which is less than 1\% of the amount released by human activities.[10]</p></div><p>Emphasis mine.</p><p>

Which maths are the liars using to turn 5\% into the majority? Multiple people have lied here claiming that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes and the ocean. It's clear after some very minor investigation that that is a lie, and in fact nature itself puts 95\% of the CO2 into the air; leaving humble man responsible for a meager 5\%.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans .
" Complete and total lie .
[ usgs.gov ] Before anyone else mods this guy up without doing any reading at all , I would like to point out that this guy is a liar , and is quoting lies .
You can read here [ wikipedia.org ] to see why .
I 'll quote the relevant section : Over 95 \ % of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropgenic .
For example , the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands , such as dead trees , results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year .
In 1997 , Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13 \ % and 40 \ % of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year .
[ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity , but modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 teragrams ( 0.13-0.23 gigatonnes or 145 million to 255 million short tons ) of carbon dioxide each year , [ 9 ] which is less than 1 \ % of the amount released by human activities .
[ 10 ] Emphasis mine .
Which maths are the liars using to turn 5 \ % into the majority ?
Multiple people have lied here claiming that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes and the ocean .
It 's clear after some very minor investigation that that is a lie , and in fact nature itself puts 95 \ % of the CO2 into the air ; leaving humble man responsible for a meager 5 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The  fact  is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.
"
 Complete and total lie.
[usgs.gov] Before anyone else mods this guy up without doing any reading at all, I would like to point out that this guy is a liar, and is quoting lies.
You can read here [wikipedia.org] to see why.
I'll quote the relevant section: Over 95\% of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropgenic.
For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year.
In 1997, Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13\% and 40\% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.
[6][7][8] The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, but modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 teragrams (0.13-0.23 gigatonnes or 145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[9] which is less than 1\% of the amount released by human activities.
[10]Emphasis mine.
Which maths are the liars using to turn 5\% into the majority?
Multiple people have lied here claiming that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes and the ocean.
It's clear after some very minor investigation that that is a lie, and in fact nature itself puts 95\% of the CO2 into the air; leaving humble man responsible for a meager 5\%.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155324</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is blatantly wrong.</p><p>From http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07\_02\_15.html</p><blockquote><div><p>Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.</p><p>This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I don't know where you're coming from with the oceans, but these days they act as carbon SINKS.</p><p>From http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html</p><blockquote><div><p>CO  2  moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO  2  gas pressure (pCO  2  ) between the atmosphere and oceans. For example, when the atmospheric pCO  2  is higher than the surface ocean, CO  2  diffuses across the air-sea boundary into the sea water.</p><p>The constant atmospheric CO  2  concentrations in the centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution suggest that the oceans released a small amount of CO  2  to the atmosphere to balance the carbon input from rivers. Today, this trend is reversed and the oceans must remove CO  2  added to the atmosphere from human activities, known as anthropogenic (humanderived) CO  2  .</p><p>In the 1980s, the oceans removed an estimated 2.0&#177;0.6 Pg of anthropogenic CO 2 each year. Because humans are producing CO 2 at an everincreasing rate, the average ocean removal rate increased to 2.4&#177;0.5 Pg of carbon each year in the 1990s.</p></div></blockquote><p>Also, like other people have said, it's better for your HEALTH to not have burning fossil fuels in an enclosed area. Don't believe me? Shut your doors and windows, unplug those carbon monoxide detectors, and fire up a lawnmower next to you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is blatantly wrong.From http : //hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07 \ _02 \ _15.htmlOur studies show that globally , volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.This seems like a huge amount of CO2 , but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy 's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center ( CDIAC ) website ( http : //cdiac.ornl.gov/ ) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective .
Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large , the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes .
Thus , not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity , it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value .
I do n't know where you 're coming from with the oceans , but these days they act as carbon SINKS.From http : //www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.htmlCO 2 moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO 2 gas pressure ( pCO 2 ) between the atmosphere and oceans .
For example , when the atmospheric pCO 2 is higher than the surface ocean , CO 2 diffuses across the air-sea boundary into the sea water.The constant atmospheric CO 2 concentrations in the centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution suggest that the oceans released a small amount of CO 2 to the atmosphere to balance the carbon input from rivers .
Today , this trend is reversed and the oceans must remove CO 2 added to the atmosphere from human activities , known as anthropogenic ( humanderived ) CO 2 .In the 1980s , the oceans removed an estimated 2.0   0.6 Pg of anthropogenic CO 2 each year .
Because humans are producing CO 2 at an everincreasing rate , the average ocean removal rate increased to 2.4   0.5 Pg of carbon each year in the 1990s.Also , like other people have said , it 's better for your HEALTH to not have burning fossil fuels in an enclosed area .
Do n't believe me ?
Shut your doors and windows , unplug those carbon monoxide detectors , and fire up a lawnmower next to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is blatantly wrong.From http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07\_02\_15.htmlOur studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective.
Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes.
Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
I don't know where you're coming from with the oceans, but these days they act as carbon SINKS.From http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.htmlCO  2  moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO  2  gas pressure (pCO  2  ) between the atmosphere and oceans.
For example, when the atmospheric pCO  2  is higher than the surface ocean, CO  2  diffuses across the air-sea boundary into the sea water.The constant atmospheric CO  2  concentrations in the centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution suggest that the oceans released a small amount of CO  2  to the atmosphere to balance the carbon input from rivers.
Today, this trend is reversed and the oceans must remove CO  2  added to the atmosphere from human activities, known as anthropogenic (humanderived) CO  2  .In the 1980s, the oceans removed an estimated 2.0±0.6 Pg of anthropogenic CO 2 each year.
Because humans are producing CO 2 at an everincreasing rate, the average ocean removal rate increased to 2.4±0.5 Pg of carbon each year in the 1990s.Also, like other people have said, it's better for your HEALTH to not have burning fossil fuels in an enclosed area.
Don't believe me?
Shut your doors and windows, unplug those carbon monoxide detectors, and fire up a lawnmower next to you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31163174</id>
	<title>Re:Electric devices are still powered by fossil fu</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1266329940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All manufacturing involves damage to the environment, and if we weren't making batteries it'd be something else. We can work on making manufacturing less damaging, but it's not going away.</p></div><p>Not going away?  In the US it mostly has, already.  Oh sure, all we did was move to somewhere else where lower labor costs are.  But the whole point of making do with less is less manufacturing, less consumption and less waste.</p><p>You'd be surprised how few manufactured products a Bandledeshi farmer uses in a year.  Or even sees.  So there are people living on the planet that are getting along fine without lots of manufactured stuff.</p><p>As Al Gore how much closer Americans should be getting to the lifestyle of a Bangledeshi farmer.  Think about it - no more obesity, no more Type II Diabetes, no more smog.  Maybe a lot more horse manure, but as the cities shrink that won't be much of a problem.  And the cities will shrink because (a) no more immigration - who'd want to come here then? and (b) who wants to bring children into a world like that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All manufacturing involves damage to the environment , and if we were n't making batteries it 'd be something else .
We can work on making manufacturing less damaging , but it 's not going away.Not going away ?
In the US it mostly has , already .
Oh sure , all we did was move to somewhere else where lower labor costs are .
But the whole point of making do with less is less manufacturing , less consumption and less waste.You 'd be surprised how few manufactured products a Bandledeshi farmer uses in a year .
Or even sees .
So there are people living on the planet that are getting along fine without lots of manufactured stuff.As Al Gore how much closer Americans should be getting to the lifestyle of a Bangledeshi farmer .
Think about it - no more obesity , no more Type II Diabetes , no more smog .
Maybe a lot more horse manure , but as the cities shrink that wo n't be much of a problem .
And the cities will shrink because ( a ) no more immigration - who 'd want to come here then ?
and ( b ) who wants to bring children into a world like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All manufacturing involves damage to the environment, and if we weren't making batteries it'd be something else.
We can work on making manufacturing less damaging, but it's not going away.Not going away?
In the US it mostly has, already.
Oh sure, all we did was move to somewhere else where lower labor costs are.
But the whole point of making do with less is less manufacturing, less consumption and less waste.You'd be surprised how few manufactured products a Bandledeshi farmer uses in a year.
Or even sees.
So there are people living on the planet that are getting along fine without lots of manufactured stuff.As Al Gore how much closer Americans should be getting to the lifestyle of a Bangledeshi farmer.
Think about it - no more obesity, no more Type II Diabetes, no more smog.
Maybe a lot more horse manure, but as the cities shrink that won't be much of a problem.
And the cities will shrink because (a) no more immigration - who'd want to come here then?
and (b) who wants to bring children into a world like that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155292</id>
	<title>Bad news for the anti-environmentalists too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the people gleefully cheering this news need to remember that one of their own ideology's primary claims is that we don't need to be "environmental" because technology will improve so much through efficiency that improvements will come naturally.  So far, as we have seen, it is still all the dirty old crap technologies that are more reliable, so the argument that they will improve through technology has so far failed pretty miserably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the people gleefully cheering this news need to remember that one of their own ideology 's primary claims is that we do n't need to be " environmental " because technology will improve so much through efficiency that improvements will come naturally .
So far , as we have seen , it is still all the dirty old crap technologies that are more reliable , so the argument that they will improve through technology has so far failed pretty miserably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the people gleefully cheering this news need to remember that one of their own ideology's primary claims is that we don't need to be "environmental" because technology will improve so much through efficiency that improvements will come naturally.
So far, as we have seen, it is still all the dirty old crap technologies that are more reliable, so the argument that they will improve through technology has so far failed pretty miserably.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155824</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266339660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do know that the proportion of professional historians who deny that the holocaust happened is larger than the number of professional scientists who disagree with the claim that the current warming event we are experiencing is anthropogenic.<br> <br>

The problem is that we are altering both ends of the CO2 cycle.  We are increasing the amount of CO2 being released while simultaneously decreasing the ability of nature to act as a carbon sink.<br> <br>

Oh, and you know that famous model thrown about by climate change deniers that shows CO2 levels trailing behind temperature increase?  That was absolutely true for every climate change event before this one.  The current event is the only one that shows CO2 levels climbing before temperature, indicating that CO2 is the forcer rather than a feedback in this event... supporting the hypothesis that AGW is a real phenomenon.<br> <br>

Now, there is some truth in your statement.  Many companies do sell blatant lies about their products being "green friendly" or whatever while they actually have a much higher risk profile.<br> <br>
-Compact fluorescent lights... sure, they use less electricity over the course of their lifetime, but the mercury in them is hella toxic once that lifetime is over.  Proper disposal or recycling is never included in the risk or cost profiles.<br> <br>
-The green push for hybrid or even full electric vehicles leading to an immense increase in demand for lithium... the mining of which is horribly water intensive and polluting.  Not to mention, lithium itself is highly toxic and corrosive, so would also need special handling at end of life.  For a rough estimate... replacing the current fleet of cars with hybrids using lithium batteries would require the mining of a minimum of one order of magnitude more lithium than has ever been mined.  Replacing that fleet with battery only electrics would require about two orders of magnitude more lithium than has ever been mined.  And then you'd have to replace the batteries in 5-10 years when they wear out.  Sure, some of them can be recycled, but the process is too toxic to do economically in a country with environmental protection laws, so we're back to poisoning poor people like we currently do with our electronic waste.<br> <br>
-Consumer solar panels?  They're filled with toxic sludge at end of life.<br> <br>
-Biodiesel?  It still takes more than one barrel of regular diesel to make one barrel of biodiesel.  And that's not including the water used in farming, the environmental damage from fertilizer and pesticide runoff, the habitat destroyed by converting to farmland, and so on.  Sure, a city with a million people produces enough waste grease to run a small handful of cars driven by hippies, but the economics of the situation requires that number of people to stay small, otherwise we're back to destroying habitat to grow the corn oil to make the biodiesel.<br> <br>

And don't even get me started on the hydrogen economy... that's just pure fail from the get go.<br> <br>

Here's the real kicker: unless we find a way to get massive amounts of power cheaply, safely and soon, we are going to start running out of cheap fossil fuels.  Then global society is going to have to find a way to shed about 6 billion people when we revert to a subsistence agriculture way of life.  Historically that would have been achieved through starvation and violence.  Anyone have a better idea?  I suppose we could at least end the population increase by getting everyone in the world on Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know that the proportion of professional historians who deny that the holocaust happened is larger than the number of professional scientists who disagree with the claim that the current warming event we are experiencing is anthropogenic .
The problem is that we are altering both ends of the CO2 cycle .
We are increasing the amount of CO2 being released while simultaneously decreasing the ability of nature to act as a carbon sink .
Oh , and you know that famous model thrown about by climate change deniers that shows CO2 levels trailing behind temperature increase ?
That was absolutely true for every climate change event before this one .
The current event is the only one that shows CO2 levels climbing before temperature , indicating that CO2 is the forcer rather than a feedback in this event... supporting the hypothesis that AGW is a real phenomenon .
Now , there is some truth in your statement .
Many companies do sell blatant lies about their products being " green friendly " or whatever while they actually have a much higher risk profile .
-Compact fluorescent lights... sure , they use less electricity over the course of their lifetime , but the mercury in them is hella toxic once that lifetime is over .
Proper disposal or recycling is never included in the risk or cost profiles .
-The green push for hybrid or even full electric vehicles leading to an immense increase in demand for lithium... the mining of which is horribly water intensive and polluting .
Not to mention , lithium itself is highly toxic and corrosive , so would also need special handling at end of life .
For a rough estimate... replacing the current fleet of cars with hybrids using lithium batteries would require the mining of a minimum of one order of magnitude more lithium than has ever been mined .
Replacing that fleet with battery only electrics would require about two orders of magnitude more lithium than has ever been mined .
And then you 'd have to replace the batteries in 5-10 years when they wear out .
Sure , some of them can be recycled , but the process is too toxic to do economically in a country with environmental protection laws , so we 're back to poisoning poor people like we currently do with our electronic waste .
-Consumer solar panels ?
They 're filled with toxic sludge at end of life .
-Biodiesel ? It still takes more than one barrel of regular diesel to make one barrel of biodiesel .
And that 's not including the water used in farming , the environmental damage from fertilizer and pesticide runoff , the habitat destroyed by converting to farmland , and so on .
Sure , a city with a million people produces enough waste grease to run a small handful of cars driven by hippies , but the economics of the situation requires that number of people to stay small , otherwise we 're back to destroying habitat to grow the corn oil to make the biodiesel .
And do n't even get me started on the hydrogen economy... that 's just pure fail from the get go .
Here 's the real kicker : unless we find a way to get massive amounts of power cheaply , safely and soon , we are going to start running out of cheap fossil fuels .
Then global society is going to have to find a way to shed about 6 billion people when we revert to a subsistence agriculture way of life .
Historically that would have been achieved through starvation and violence .
Anyone have a better idea ?
I suppose we could at least end the population increase by getting everyone in the world on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know that the proportion of professional historians who deny that the holocaust happened is larger than the number of professional scientists who disagree with the claim that the current warming event we are experiencing is anthropogenic.
The problem is that we are altering both ends of the CO2 cycle.
We are increasing the amount of CO2 being released while simultaneously decreasing the ability of nature to act as a carbon sink.
Oh, and you know that famous model thrown about by climate change deniers that shows CO2 levels trailing behind temperature increase?
That was absolutely true for every climate change event before this one.
The current event is the only one that shows CO2 levels climbing before temperature, indicating that CO2 is the forcer rather than a feedback in this event... supporting the hypothesis that AGW is a real phenomenon.
Now, there is some truth in your statement.
Many companies do sell blatant lies about their products being "green friendly" or whatever while they actually have a much higher risk profile.
-Compact fluorescent lights... sure, they use less electricity over the course of their lifetime, but the mercury in them is hella toxic once that lifetime is over.
Proper disposal or recycling is never included in the risk or cost profiles.
-The green push for hybrid or even full electric vehicles leading to an immense increase in demand for lithium... the mining of which is horribly water intensive and polluting.
Not to mention, lithium itself is highly toxic and corrosive, so would also need special handling at end of life.
For a rough estimate... replacing the current fleet of cars with hybrids using lithium batteries would require the mining of a minimum of one order of magnitude more lithium than has ever been mined.
Replacing that fleet with battery only electrics would require about two orders of magnitude more lithium than has ever been mined.
And then you'd have to replace the batteries in 5-10 years when they wear out.
Sure, some of them can be recycled, but the process is too toxic to do economically in a country with environmental protection laws, so we're back to poisoning poor people like we currently do with our electronic waste.
-Consumer solar panels?
They're filled with toxic sludge at end of life.
-Biodiesel?  It still takes more than one barrel of regular diesel to make one barrel of biodiesel.
And that's not including the water used in farming, the environmental damage from fertilizer and pesticide runoff, the habitat destroyed by converting to farmland, and so on.
Sure, a city with a million people produces enough waste grease to run a small handful of cars driven by hippies, but the economics of the situation requires that number of people to stay small, otherwise we're back to destroying habitat to grow the corn oil to make the biodiesel.
And don't even get me started on the hydrogen economy... that's just pure fail from the get go.
Here's the real kicker: unless we find a way to get massive amounts of power cheaply, safely and soon, we are going to start running out of cheap fossil fuels.
Then global society is going to have to find a way to shed about 6 billion people when we revert to a subsistence agriculture way of life.
Historically that would have been achieved through starvation and violence.
Anyone have a better idea?
I suppose we could at least end the population increase by getting everyone in the world on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31162538</id>
	<title>Re:Olympic Fail....</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266326100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Very poor ice conditions, very high humidity in the stadium</p></div><p>We hereby welcome you to Spring Olympics 2010 in Vancouver!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very poor ice conditions , very high humidity in the stadiumWe hereby welcome you to Spring Olympics 2010 in Vancouver !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very poor ice conditions, very high humidity in the stadiumWe hereby welcome you to Spring Olympics 2010 in Vancouver!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155770</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1266339300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well yes, but if tomorrow the fume&amp;waste&amp;cost-free powerplant would be invented, you'd still have the exhausts of conventional cars.</p><p>And well yes, the other way round too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well yes , but if tomorrow the fume&amp;waste&amp;cost-free powerplant would be invented , you 'd still have the exhausts of conventional cars.And well yes , the other way round too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well yes, but if tomorrow the fume&amp;waste&amp;cost-free powerplant would be invented, you'd still have the exhausts of conventional cars.And well yes, the other way round too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157446</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1266346320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, because when the Olympics are over, they're just going to throw the rink and Zamboni in the landfill.
<br> <br>
Don't know if you've ever been someplace that hosted the Olympics, but those facilities stay around for a long time.  E.g., both Montreal and Lake Placid still use their facilities.  If you're spending billions on infrastructure, why skimp on the ice resurfacer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because when the Olympics are over , they 're just going to throw the rink and Zamboni in the landfill .
Do n't know if you 've ever been someplace that hosted the Olympics , but those facilities stay around for a long time .
E.g. , both Montreal and Lake Placid still use their facilities .
If you 're spending billions on infrastructure , why skimp on the ice resurfacer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because when the Olympics are over, they're just going to throw the rink and Zamboni in the landfill.
Don't know if you've ever been someplace that hosted the Olympics, but those facilities stay around for a long time.
E.g., both Montreal and Lake Placid still use their facilities.
If you're spending billions on infrastructure, why skimp on the ice resurfacer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158416</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1266349920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The smart, CHEAP way to slap a propane surfacer on the ass and call it Green would have been to tweak it to run on compressed hydrogen for the duration of the event and have a truckload of spare cylinders ready to go, even better if they are on a snazzy Green cart.</i></p><p>You could call that green, but it wouldn't be.  You'd just be wasting part of the energy of the natural gas that was used to make the hydrogen, and then wasting more energy compressing it and transporting it in big, heavy, low-capacity cylinders.</p><p>And if the answer is "electrolysis hydrogen" and "fuel cells, not only is it way more expensive, but it's about 1/3rd as efficient as just storing the electricity in batteries and using it directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The smart , CHEAP way to slap a propane surfacer on the ass and call it Green would have been to tweak it to run on compressed hydrogen for the duration of the event and have a truckload of spare cylinders ready to go , even better if they are on a snazzy Green cart.You could call that green , but it would n't be .
You 'd just be wasting part of the energy of the natural gas that was used to make the hydrogen , and then wasting more energy compressing it and transporting it in big , heavy , low-capacity cylinders.And if the answer is " electrolysis hydrogen " and " fuel cells , not only is it way more expensive , but it 's about 1/3rd as efficient as just storing the electricity in batteries and using it directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The smart, CHEAP way to slap a propane surfacer on the ass and call it Green would have been to tweak it to run on compressed hydrogen for the duration of the event and have a truckload of spare cylinders ready to go, even better if they are on a snazzy Green cart.You could call that green, but it wouldn't be.
You'd just be wasting part of the energy of the natural gas that was used to make the hydrogen, and then wasting more energy compressing it and transporting it in big, heavy, low-capacity cylinders.And if the answer is "electrolysis hydrogen" and "fuel cells, not only is it way more expensive, but it's about 1/3rd as efficient as just storing the electricity in batteries and using it directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156704</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1266343860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China is starting to use other sources though like the 3 gorges dam and nuke plants. FWIW some of those Canadian Nuke plants use heavy water as a moderator instead of plain water as the US does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China is starting to use other sources though like the 3 gorges dam and nuke plants .
FWIW some of those Canadian Nuke plants use heavy water as a moderator instead of plain water as the US does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is starting to use other sources though like the 3 gorges dam and nuke plants.
FWIW some of those Canadian Nuke plants use heavy water as a moderator instead of plain water as the US does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156154</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1266341520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All I was asking that the summary be more clear as to how much these things cost. It sounds blatantly one sided.</p> </div><p>So you're comparing the price per unit of a well-established technology with high sales volume with that of a newer one... And then you're surprised the new one is more expensive to purchase?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I was asking that the summary be more clear as to how much these things cost .
It sounds blatantly one sided .
So you 're comparing the price per unit of a well-established technology with high sales volume with that of a newer one... And then you 're surprised the new one is more expensive to purchase ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I was asking that the summary be more clear as to how much these things cost.
It sounds blatantly one sided.
So you're comparing the price per unit of a well-established technology with high sales volume with that of a newer one... And then you're surprised the new one is more expensive to purchase?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155462</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>victim</author>
	<datestamp>1266337680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In general large power plants are more efficient than small point of use engines, this is traded off against transmission losses and can end up either a win or a loss for total input energy.</p><p>For cleanliness, power plants run much cleaner than small point of use engines and they don't concentrate the adverse effects in close proximity with people. (You may need to pee, but don't do it in the pool.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In general large power plants are more efficient than small point of use engines , this is traded off against transmission losses and can end up either a win or a loss for total input energy.For cleanliness , power plants run much cleaner than small point of use engines and they do n't concentrate the adverse effects in close proximity with people .
( You may need to pee , but do n't do it in the pool .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general large power plants are more efficient than small point of use engines, this is traded off against transmission losses and can end up either a win or a loss for total input energy.For cleanliness, power plants run much cleaner than small point of use engines and they don't concentrate the adverse effects in close proximity with people.
(You may need to pee, but don't do it in the pool.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31164760</id>
	<title>You are missing the point</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1266341340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Electric Vehicles using 100\% Coal, even with its issues is about the same as using Gas, Diesel, or Natural Gas. I am NOT advocating using that. I am saying that the WORST that it will be is about the same. Now, as to the SO2 and NO(x), we scrub the majority of that out. Hg is a different story. Because of the scrubbers on the west, as well as mostly using "cleaner" coal (as in from the ground), the west pollutes less than countries like China. Right now, China puts out about 1/2 of the Hg that is emitted. Worse, it is growing, not slowing down.  Japan is suffering big from it. So is the pacific.
<br> <br>In the end, Electricity will come from many sources. Even in the US, we only use 48\% Coal (and dropping) and 20\% NG. That means that WORST CASE for  electric vehicles is that they are about 70\% of the pollution of ICE. That is a HUGE improvement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Electric Vehicles using 100 \ % Coal , even with its issues is about the same as using Gas , Diesel , or Natural Gas .
I am NOT advocating using that .
I am saying that the WORST that it will be is about the same .
Now , as to the SO2 and NO ( x ) , we scrub the majority of that out .
Hg is a different story .
Because of the scrubbers on the west , as well as mostly using " cleaner " coal ( as in from the ground ) , the west pollutes less than countries like China .
Right now , China puts out about 1/2 of the Hg that is emitted .
Worse , it is growing , not slowing down .
Japan is suffering big from it .
So is the pacific .
In the end , Electricity will come from many sources .
Even in the US , we only use 48 \ % Coal ( and dropping ) and 20 \ % NG .
That means that WORST CASE for electric vehicles is that they are about 70 \ % of the pollution of ICE .
That is a HUGE improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electric Vehicles using 100\% Coal, even with its issues is about the same as using Gas, Diesel, or Natural Gas.
I am NOT advocating using that.
I am saying that the WORST that it will be is about the same.
Now, as to the SO2 and NO(x), we scrub the majority of that out.
Hg is a different story.
Because of the scrubbers on the west, as well as mostly using "cleaner" coal (as in from the ground), the west pollutes less than countries like China.
Right now, China puts out about 1/2 of the Hg that is emitted.
Worse, it is growing, not slowing down.
Japan is suffering big from it.
So is the pacific.
In the end, Electricity will come from many sources.
Even in the US, we only use 48\% Coal (and dropping) and 20\% NG.
That means that WORST CASE for  electric vehicles is that they are about 70\% of the pollution of ICE.
That is a HUGE improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155484</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1266337800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"And the fact is saying that human CO2 emissions are "infinitesimal" is to miss the point entirely."<br>It is also a complete and total lie.<br> <br>"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. <b>Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes</b>--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And the fact is saying that human CO2 emissions are " infinitesimal " is to miss the point entirely .
" It is also a complete and total lie .
" Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes ( 145-255 million tons ) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year ( Gerlach , 1999 , 1992 ) .
This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes , about in equal amounts .
Emissions of CO2 by human activities , including fossil fuel burning , cement production , and gas flaring , amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year ( 24 billion tons ) [ ( Marland , et al. , 1998 ) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ( C ) , rather than CO2. ] .
Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea ( Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year ) !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And the fact is saying that human CO2 emissions are "infinitesimal" is to miss the point entirely.
"It is also a complete and total lie.
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992).
This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.
Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.].
Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155542</id>
	<title>How green is...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Airlifting the replacement Zamboni from Calgary???   Could they not find a propane powered Zamboni in Vancouver to use?</p><p>I think the design of the venue is to blame too.  The building was designed to acheive a LEED silver rating, which means they probably didn't overbuild their HVAC and ice refrigeration systems as much as in other buildings (or else they would have hurt their LEED score).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airlifting the replacement Zamboni from Calgary ? ? ?
Could they not find a propane powered Zamboni in Vancouver to use ? I think the design of the venue is to blame too .
The building was designed to acheive a LEED silver rating , which means they probably did n't overbuild their HVAC and ice refrigeration systems as much as in other buildings ( or else they would have hurt their LEED score ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airlifting the replacement Zamboni from Calgary???
Could they not find a propane powered Zamboni in Vancouver to use?I think the design of the venue is to blame too.
The building was designed to acheive a LEED silver rating, which means they probably didn't overbuild their HVAC and ice refrigeration systems as much as in other buildings (or else they would have hurt their LEED score).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1266336060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the electricity comes from 100\% pure coal, then it is nearly 100\% swap (assuming that all cars are kept tuned up). However, even with 100\% coal, you have a big advantage. You can<ol>
<li>dump the CO2 into the ground.</li>
<li>Run it through a green house.</li>
<li>Run it through an algae farm.</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ol><p>
Basically, it is much easier said to clean up a single source than millions of tiny ones.
 <br> <br>With that said, electricity is actually better, because few countries rely 100\% on Fossil Fuel for their Electricity. China probably has the most at more than 90\% Fossil Fueled (and growing). America is less than 50\% Coal (and dropping) with another 20\% Natural gas (rising, but not that fast). Vancouver has a lot of Coal, but they also have Hydro, and IIRC, they have a nuke there (???? not sure about that).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the electricity comes from 100 \ % pure coal , then it is nearly 100 \ % swap ( assuming that all cars are kept tuned up ) .
However , even with 100 \ % coal , you have a big advantage .
You can dump the CO2 into the ground .
Run it through a green house .
Run it through an algae farm .
etc . Basically , it is much easier said to clean up a single source than millions of tiny ones .
With that said , electricity is actually better , because few countries rely 100 \ % on Fossil Fuel for their Electricity .
China probably has the most at more than 90 \ % Fossil Fueled ( and growing ) .
America is less than 50 \ % Coal ( and dropping ) with another 20 \ % Natural gas ( rising , but not that fast ) .
Vancouver has a lot of Coal , but they also have Hydro , and IIRC , they have a nuke there ( ? ? ? ?
not sure about that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the electricity comes from 100\% pure coal, then it is nearly 100\% swap (assuming that all cars are kept tuned up).
However, even with 100\% coal, you have a big advantage.
You can
dump the CO2 into the ground.
Run it through a green house.
Run it through an algae farm.
etc.

Basically, it is much easier said to clean up a single source than millions of tiny ones.
With that said, electricity is actually better, because few countries rely 100\% on Fossil Fuel for their Electricity.
China probably has the most at more than 90\% Fossil Fueled (and growing).
America is less than 50\% Coal (and dropping) with another 20\% Natural gas (rising, but not that fast).
Vancouver has a lot of Coal, but they also have Hydro, and IIRC, they have a nuke there (????
not sure about that).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155368</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1266337200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"British Columbia's current electricity supply resources are 90 per cent clean and new electricity generation plants will have zero net greenhouse gas emissions." - government of BC<br> <br>Interesting that you made a generalized argument based on an assumption that you didn't check. And ATM you 6 replies, not 1 pointed it out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/ many encouraging your tunnel vision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" British Columbia 's current electricity supply resources are 90 per cent clean and new electricity generation plants will have zero net greenhouse gas emissions .
" - government of BC Interesting that you made a generalized argument based on an assumption that you did n't check .
And ATM you 6 replies , not 1 pointed it out : / many encouraging your tunnel vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"British Columbia's current electricity supply resources are 90 per cent clean and new electricity generation plants will have zero net greenhouse gas emissions.
" - government of BC Interesting that you made a generalized argument based on an assumption that you didn't check.
And ATM you 6 replies, not 1 pointed it out :/ many encouraging your tunnel vision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155854</id>
	<title>Probably not in the Vancouver area...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1266339840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... they get a huge proportion of their power from hydroelectric. So it probably really is pretty green.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... they get a huge proportion of their power from hydroelectric .
So it probably really is pretty green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... they get a huge proportion of their power from hydroelectric.
So it probably really is pretty green.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158934</id>
	<title>Don't be an ingrate.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266352080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it that everyone loves to rag on the Olympic games? During such a big event it is inevitable that mistakes are made and things don't work as they are supposed to. But why does every little mistake have to be inflated to represent some kind of major moral or technical failure? Lets in stead try to focus on the amount of work and effort that people have put into making these games possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that everyone loves to rag on the Olympic games ?
During such a big event it is inevitable that mistakes are made and things do n't work as they are supposed to .
But why does every little mistake have to be inflated to represent some kind of major moral or technical failure ?
Lets in stead try to focus on the amount of work and effort that people have put into making these games possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that everyone loves to rag on the Olympic games?
During such a big event it is inevitable that mistakes are made and things don't work as they are supposed to.
But why does every little mistake have to be inflated to represent some kind of major moral or technical failure?
Lets in stead try to focus on the amount of work and effort that people have put into making these games possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156372</id>
	<title>Re:Perceptions from Vancouver</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>, the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the games</i></p><p>I've been up to Whistler once in the spring and that road was a) scary as hell to drive, b) extremely narrow, and c) didn't really have any towns around it.  It really needed an upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>, the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the gamesI 've been up to Whistler once in the spring and that road was a ) scary as hell to drive , b ) extremely narrow , and c ) did n't really have any towns around it .
It really needed an upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>, the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the gamesI've been up to Whistler once in the spring and that road was a) scary as hell to drive, b) extremely narrow, and c) didn't really have any towns around it.
It really needed an upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158400</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we've seen so many times before, the "savings" ignore the financing cost. In this case, $77k vs. $165k. The difference in the interest paid (or investment opportunity lost) dwarfs the claimed cost difference. Haldon Hills needs to hire an accountant to do this kind of study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we 've seen so many times before , the " savings " ignore the financing cost .
In this case , $ 77k vs. $ 165k. The difference in the interest paid ( or investment opportunity lost ) dwarfs the claimed cost difference .
Haldon Hills needs to hire an accountant to do this kind of study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we've seen so many times before, the "savings" ignore the financing cost.
In this case, $77k vs. $165k. The difference in the interest paid (or investment opportunity lost) dwarfs the claimed cost difference.
Haldon Hills needs to hire an accountant to do this kind of study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155312</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Alinabi</author>
	<datestamp>1266336780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, because this is Canada, not the US. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity\_sector\_in\_Canada" title="wikipedia.org">70\%</a> [wikipedia.org] of Canada's power generation is either hydro or nuclear. That figure is up to 89\% in British Columbia. So, in Canada electric=clean indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , because this is Canada , not the US .
70 \ % [ wikipedia.org ] of Canada 's power generation is either hydro or nuclear .
That figure is up to 89 \ % in British Columbia .
So , in Canada electric = clean indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, because this is Canada, not the US.
70\% [wikipedia.org] of Canada's power generation is either hydro or nuclear.
That figure is up to 89\% in British Columbia.
So, in Canada electric=clean indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158588</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1266350580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same, or in cases like this, to get nothing at all.</p><p>It's really a shame that people believe politics over science. It makes me a cynic. Someone obviously decided to buy these "green" ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing "their part" to help the environment. The problem is they were sold a lie. Not only were they sold a lie, but a non-functioning lie as well.</p><p>Seriously people, CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of. CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease. The <em> <strong>fact</strong> </em> is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.</p></div><p>Since the liars seem intent on modding all my posts on this thread troll, I'm replying to myself in the hopes that some truth gets through to the skeptics.</p><p>Nature itself is responsible for 95\% of the CO2 emissions, and humans get to claim responsibility for 5\%. Anyone saying that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes or the ocean is lying to your face.</p><p>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_dioxide\_in\_Earth's\_atmosphere#Sources\_of\_carbon\_dioxide" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_dioxide\_in\_Earth's\_atmosphere#Sources\_of\_carbon\_dioxide</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same , or in cases like this , to get nothing at all.It 's really a shame that people believe politics over science .
It makes me a cynic .
Someone obviously decided to buy these " green " ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing " their part " to help the environment .
The problem is they were sold a lie .
Not only were they sold a lie , but a non-functioning lie as well.Seriously people , CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of .
CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease .
The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.Since the liars seem intent on modding all my posts on this thread troll , I 'm replying to myself in the hopes that some truth gets through to the skeptics.Nature itself is responsible for 95 \ % of the CO2 emissions , and humans get to claim responsibility for 5 \ % .
Anyone saying that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes or the ocean is lying to your face .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon \ _dioxide \ _in \ _Earth 's \ _atmosphere # Sources \ _of \ _carbon \ _dioxide [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same, or in cases like this, to get nothing at all.It's really a shame that people believe politics over science.
It makes me a cynic.
Someone obviously decided to buy these "green" ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing "their part" to help the environment.
The problem is they were sold a lie.
Not only were they sold a lie, but a non-functioning lie as well.Seriously people, CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of.
CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease.
The  fact  is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.Since the liars seem intent on modding all my posts on this thread troll, I'm replying to myself in the hopes that some truth gets through to the skeptics.Nature itself is responsible for 95\% of the CO2 emissions, and humans get to claim responsibility for 5\%.
Anyone saying that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes or the ocean is lying to your face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_dioxide\_in\_Earth's\_atmosphere#Sources\_of\_carbon\_dioxide [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1266335940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.</p></div><p>All I was asking that the summary be more clear as to how much these things cost.  It sounds blatantly one sided.  <br> <br>

I'm not an expert on these machines but I did find <a href="http://www.haltonhills.ca/calendars/2009/R-2009-0060.pdf" title="haltonhills.ca">an analysis for the town of Halton Hills</a> [haltonhills.ca] which (on page four of that PDF) finds the per year cost of a natural gas ice resurfacer to be $14,225 versus $12,700 for an electric.  Note a different service life is assumed:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The fuel source comparison chart illustrates that the natural gas powered machines would cost an average of $14,225 per year based on an 8 year service life and the projected cost for an electric battery powered machine is an average of $12,700 per year based on a 16 year service life.</p></div><p>I don't know where they got these numbers but I'm assuming this guy did the footwork.  Even then, that report notes that the natural gas models have a history of performing satisfactorily and probably wasn't worth the $1,500/yr savings afforded by the electric model.  This is called being prudent.  <br> <br>

All I was saying is that I found the summary to be more than a little misleading in this respect.  It just gave me an "electric will never be viable" vibe that I didn't really care for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.All I was asking that the summary be more clear as to how much these things cost .
It sounds blatantly one sided .
I 'm not an expert on these machines but I did find an analysis for the town of Halton Hills [ haltonhills.ca ] which ( on page four of that PDF ) finds the per year cost of a natural gas ice resurfacer to be $ 14,225 versus $ 12,700 for an electric .
Note a different service life is assumed : The fuel source comparison chart illustrates that the natural gas powered machines would cost an average of $ 14,225 per year based on an 8 year service life and the projected cost for an electric battery powered machine is an average of $ 12,700 per year based on a 16 year service life.I do n't know where they got these numbers but I 'm assuming this guy did the footwork .
Even then , that report notes that the natural gas models have a history of performing satisfactorily and probably was n't worth the $ 1,500/yr savings afforded by the electric model .
This is called being prudent .
All I was saying is that I found the summary to be more than a little misleading in this respect .
It just gave me an " electric will never be viable " vibe that I did n't really care for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.All I was asking that the summary be more clear as to how much these things cost.
It sounds blatantly one sided.
I'm not an expert on these machines but I did find an analysis for the town of Halton Hills [haltonhills.ca] which (on page four of that PDF) finds the per year cost of a natural gas ice resurfacer to be $14,225 versus $12,700 for an electric.
Note a different service life is assumed:The fuel source comparison chart illustrates that the natural gas powered machines would cost an average of $14,225 per year based on an 8 year service life and the projected cost for an electric battery powered machine is an average of $12,700 per year based on a 16 year service life.I don't know where they got these numbers but I'm assuming this guy did the footwork.
Even then, that report notes that the natural gas models have a history of performing satisfactorily and probably wasn't worth the $1,500/yr savings afforded by the electric model.
This is called being prudent.
All I was saying is that I found the summary to be more than a little misleading in this respect.
It just gave me an "electric will never be viable" vibe that I didn't really care for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155392</id>
	<title>The new testing is releasing!</title>
	<author>eyepeepackets</author>
	<datestamp>1266337260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the Microsoft model: The release is the test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the Microsoft model : The release is the test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the Microsoft model: The release is the test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31160408</id>
	<title>Re:Deals with "Official Olympic Partners"</title>
	<author>Imazalil</author>
	<datestamp>1266315600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have heard that in the end they did use some other icing machine that was at the oval but not meant for use during the olympics, though no idea if it was the same brand as the 'official' ones. The ones that malfunctioned were already being used by the ring (for a good year now), they weren't brought in just for the Olympics (they got a paint job and some stickers), so there weren't any 'old' ones on hand.</p><p>Keeping to the rules might be because there were other events going on. I don't the few thousand people (don't know off hand the capacity) waiting outside for the next event would be very happy to hear 'sorry guys, the band wanted to get a full set in, we'll get to you in an hour and a half'.</p><p>Also, persons attending the skating even might have tickets to other events. Again, would you want to spend a few hundred on a ticket to miss the final races / finding out who actually won gold because you had to run to the next event because the band decided to play a full set?</p><p>Nevermind broadcast schedules, sponsor contracts (you bet the 'official' zamboni company would sue vanoc's ass if their product wasn't used), even some of the athletes had other events to attend. As mickey mouse as the games look, this isn't some county fair.</p><p>They, of course, could have brought the band back out out while sorting out the ice problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have heard that in the end they did use some other icing machine that was at the oval but not meant for use during the olympics , though no idea if it was the same brand as the 'official ' ones .
The ones that malfunctioned were already being used by the ring ( for a good year now ) , they were n't brought in just for the Olympics ( they got a paint job and some stickers ) , so there were n't any 'old ' ones on hand.Keeping to the rules might be because there were other events going on .
I do n't the few thousand people ( do n't know off hand the capacity ) waiting outside for the next event would be very happy to hear 'sorry guys , the band wanted to get a full set in , we 'll get to you in an hour and a half'.Also , persons attending the skating even might have tickets to other events .
Again , would you want to spend a few hundred on a ticket to miss the final races / finding out who actually won gold because you had to run to the next event because the band decided to play a full set ? Nevermind broadcast schedules , sponsor contracts ( you bet the 'official ' zamboni company would sue vanoc 's ass if their product was n't used ) , even some of the athletes had other events to attend .
As mickey mouse as the games look , this is n't some county fair.They , of course , could have brought the band back out out while sorting out the ice problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have heard that in the end they did use some other icing machine that was at the oval but not meant for use during the olympics, though no idea if it was the same brand as the 'official' ones.
The ones that malfunctioned were already being used by the ring (for a good year now), they weren't brought in just for the Olympics (they got a paint job and some stickers), so there weren't any 'old' ones on hand.Keeping to the rules might be because there were other events going on.
I don't the few thousand people (don't know off hand the capacity) waiting outside for the next event would be very happy to hear 'sorry guys, the band wanted to get a full set in, we'll get to you in an hour and a half'.Also, persons attending the skating even might have tickets to other events.
Again, would you want to spend a few hundred on a ticket to miss the final races / finding out who actually won gold because you had to run to the next event because the band decided to play a full set?Nevermind broadcast schedules, sponsor contracts (you bet the 'official' zamboni company would sue vanoc's ass if their product wasn't used), even some of the athletes had other events to attend.
As mickey mouse as the games look, this isn't some county fair.They, of course, could have brought the band back out out while sorting out the ice problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156814</id>
	<title>Nationlism is the problem</title>
	<author>RubberDogBone</author>
	<datestamp>1266344220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The much ballyhooed ice machines which failed, were Olympia-brand machines made in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... CANADA!   They are reasonably proud of their home grown ice machines.   It's something like having American baseballs or something.</p><p>Zamboni machines are made in... hockey-free Los Angeles.   Seriously.  Ice machines from SoCal.  And they are GOOD ice machines.</p><p>It has long been a sore spot north of the border that the national sport of Canada has been so dependent on a machine made elsewhere.  And while that may be OK for a mere hockey game, it's not OK for the grandest winter sports event of all time.  That one has to have national pride attached at every point and that means Vancouver has a native Canadian machine which conveniently has an Olympic name too.  (Surprised the IOC hasn't sued them for that actually).</p><p>It does not matter if the green machine actually, you know, WORKS and stuff.  It's national pride dammit!  You get the Canadian machine.</p><p>And keep an old reliable Zamboni in the pocket for the rescue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The much ballyhooed ice machines which failed , were Olympia-brand machines made in .... CANADA ! They are reasonably proud of their home grown ice machines .
It 's something like having American baseballs or something.Zamboni machines are made in... hockey-free Los Angeles .
Seriously. Ice machines from SoCal .
And they are GOOD ice machines.It has long been a sore spot north of the border that the national sport of Canada has been so dependent on a machine made elsewhere .
And while that may be OK for a mere hockey game , it 's not OK for the grandest winter sports event of all time .
That one has to have national pride attached at every point and that means Vancouver has a native Canadian machine which conveniently has an Olympic name too .
( Surprised the IOC has n't sued them for that actually ) .It does not matter if the green machine actually , you know , WORKS and stuff .
It 's national pride dammit !
You get the Canadian machine.And keep an old reliable Zamboni in the pocket for the rescue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The much ballyhooed ice machines which failed, were Olympia-brand machines made in .... CANADA!   They are reasonably proud of their home grown ice machines.
It's something like having American baseballs or something.Zamboni machines are made in... hockey-free Los Angeles.
Seriously.  Ice machines from SoCal.
And they are GOOD ice machines.It has long been a sore spot north of the border that the national sport of Canada has been so dependent on a machine made elsewhere.
And while that may be OK for a mere hockey game, it's not OK for the grandest winter sports event of all time.
That one has to have national pride attached at every point and that means Vancouver has a native Canadian machine which conveniently has an Olympic name too.
(Surprised the IOC hasn't sued them for that actually).It does not matter if the green machine actually, you know, WORKS and stuff.
It's national pride dammit!
You get the Canadian machine.And keep an old reliable Zamboni in the pocket for the rescue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155728</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266339120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"British Columbia's current electricity supply resources are 90 per cent clean and new electricity generation plants will have zero net greenhouse gas emissions."</i> <br>
That is not physically possible. It is only nominally possible from a publicity perspective by ignoring greenhouse gas put off by manufacturing the items in use or by making the greenhouse gases "somebody else's problem" by buying carbon offsets or otherwise giving your pollution problem away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" British Columbia 's current electricity supply resources are 90 per cent clean and new electricity generation plants will have zero net greenhouse gas emissions .
" That is not physically possible .
It is only nominally possible from a publicity perspective by ignoring greenhouse gas put off by manufacturing the items in use or by making the greenhouse gases " somebody else 's problem " by buying carbon offsets or otherwise giving your pollution problem away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"British Columbia's current electricity supply resources are 90 per cent clean and new electricity generation plants will have zero net greenhouse gas emissions.
" 
That is not physically possible.
It is only nominally possible from a publicity perspective by ignoring greenhouse gas put off by manufacturing the items in use or by making the greenhouse gases "somebody else's problem" by buying carbon offsets or otherwise giving your pollution problem away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156988</id>
	<title>Re:Electric devices are still powered by fossil fu</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1266344820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except, as has been noted repeatedly here, most of the electric power in British Colombia is hydroelectric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except , as has been noted repeatedly here , most of the electric power in British Colombia is hydroelectric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except, as has been noted repeatedly here, most of the electric power in British Colombia is hydroelectric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155600</id>
	<title>At the games?</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1266338400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well in this case the games are in BC, Canada. The local power company is "BC Hydro," thusly named because a large portion of power they produce comes from hydroelectric dams.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well in this case the games are in BC , Canada .
The local power company is " BC Hydro , " thusly named because a large portion of power they produce comes from hydroelectric dams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well in this case the games are in BC, Canada.
The local power company is "BC Hydro," thusly named because a large portion of power they produce comes from hydroelectric dams.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155564</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same, or in cases like this, to get nothing at all.</p><p>It's really a shame that people believe politics over science. It makes me a cynic. Someone obviously decided to buy these "green" ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing "their part" to help the environment. The problem is they were sold a lie. Not only were they sold a lie, but a non-functioning lie as well.</p><p>Seriously people, CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of. CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease. The <em> <strong>fact</strong> </em> is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.</p></div><p>The people who bought the electric zams, which are actually pretty common, probably made the decision to reduce the carbon monoxide and particulate emissions that are not so great for the health of spectators in enclosed ice arenas.</p><p>Also, you made a blunder in your CO2 rant.  The argument that CO2 emissions aren't bad is supposed to be, "increased CO2 doesn't lead to significantly more global warming," not "humans don't significantly affect CO2 levels."  The reason for this is that contention 1 may be true, while contention 2 (yours) is demonstrably false.  Note the ~25\% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the last 50 years shown <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna\_Loa\_Carbon\_Dioxide-en.svg" title="wikipedia.org">here</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same , or in cases like this , to get nothing at all.It 's really a shame that people believe politics over science .
It makes me a cynic .
Someone obviously decided to buy these " green " ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing " their part " to help the environment .
The problem is they were sold a lie .
Not only were they sold a lie , but a non-functioning lie as well.Seriously people , CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of .
CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease .
The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.The people who bought the electric zams , which are actually pretty common , probably made the decision to reduce the carbon monoxide and particulate emissions that are not so great for the health of spectators in enclosed ice arenas.Also , you made a blunder in your CO2 rant .
The argument that CO2 emissions are n't bad is supposed to be , " increased CO2 does n't lead to significantly more global warming , " not " humans do n't significantly affect CO2 levels .
" The reason for this is that contention 1 may be true , while contention 2 ( yours ) is demonstrably false .
Note the ~ 25 \ % increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the last 50 years shown here [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same, or in cases like this, to get nothing at all.It's really a shame that people believe politics over science.
It makes me a cynic.
Someone obviously decided to buy these "green" ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing "their part" to help the environment.
The problem is they were sold a lie.
Not only were they sold a lie, but a non-functioning lie as well.Seriously people, CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of.
CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease.
The  fact  is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.The people who bought the electric zams, which are actually pretty common, probably made the decision to reduce the carbon monoxide and particulate emissions that are not so great for the health of spectators in enclosed ice arenas.Also, you made a blunder in your CO2 rant.
The argument that CO2 emissions aren't bad is supposed to be, "increased CO2 doesn't lead to significantly more global warming," not "humans don't significantly affect CO2 levels.
"  The reason for this is that contention 1 may be true, while contention 2 (yours) is demonstrably false.
Note the ~25\% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the last 50 years shown here [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157108</id>
	<title>Re:Deals with "Official Olympic Partners"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>....the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise</p></div><p>As a resident of Vancouver who is not affiliated with the Olympics in any way whatsoever, I think I can say that it's not that we're strict on the rules...  It's that the Olympics are incredibly bureaucratic.  I've seen all sorts of ridiculous things happen around here all in the name of "accommodating the Olympics in 2010."</p><p>Welcome world!  Just remember, that you've worn out your welcome in another week-and-a-half...  Go home.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>....the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too preciseAs a resident of Vancouver who is not affiliated with the Olympics in any way whatsoever , I think I can say that it 's not that we 're strict on the rules... It 's that the Olympics are incredibly bureaucratic .
I 've seen all sorts of ridiculous things happen around here all in the name of " accommodating the Olympics in 2010 .
" Welcome world !
Just remember , that you 've worn out your welcome in another week-and-a-half... Go home .
: -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ....the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too preciseAs a resident of Vancouver who is not affiliated with the Olympics in any way whatsoever, I think I can say that it's not that we're strict on the rules...  It's that the Olympics are incredibly bureaucratic.
I've seen all sorts of ridiculous things happen around here all in the name of "accommodating the Olympics in 2010.
"Welcome world!
Just remember, that you've worn out your welcome in another week-and-a-half...  Go home.
:-P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158632</id>
	<title>My immediate thought because of the tagline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266350820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank god it wasn't a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue\_ice\_(aircraft)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Blue Ice</a> [wikipedia.org] machi!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank god it was n't a Blue Ice [ wikipedia.org ] machi !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank god it wasn't a Blue Ice [wikipedia.org] machi!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31163184</id>
	<title>Like low-flow toilets ...</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266330000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that you have to flush three times in a row, and clog more often regardless.</p><p>(Note: I've seen some low-flow designs that work better than others. But as a reflexive "if you don't get this $thing, it's because you hate mother earth" often overlooks the long-term picture. Making, transporting, installing household appliances -- or Zambonis, for that matter -- in good working order may have some worthwhile benefits, including psychic, but it means of degree of waste in itself.)</p><p>timothy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that you have to flush three times in a row , and clog more often regardless .
( Note : I 've seen some low-flow designs that work better than others .
But as a reflexive " if you do n't get this $ thing , it 's because you hate mother earth " often overlooks the long-term picture .
Making , transporting , installing household appliances -- or Zambonis , for that matter -- in good working order may have some worthwhile benefits , including psychic , but it means of degree of waste in itself .
) timothy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that you have to flush three times in a row, and clog more often regardless.
(Note: I've seen some low-flow designs that work better than others.
But as a reflexive "if you don't get this $thing, it's because you hate mother earth" often overlooks the long-term picture.
Making, transporting, installing household appliances -- or Zambonis, for that matter -- in good working order may have some worthwhile benefits, including psychic, but it means of degree of waste in itself.
)timothy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155342</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1266337020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really does depend.  Sometimes it really is just pollution-shifting, although you could argue that discharging aerosols in the middle of nowhere is better for human health than discharging them in the middle of the city.  Either way they're diluted to parts-per-septillions in the atmosphere or whatever, but before that they exist in concentrated levels either around people or around trees.</p><p>The other factor, which is potentially large, is efficiency.  Thermodynamics dictates that the efficiency of any heat engine is fundamentally limited by the temperates it operates across.  A power plant can operate on very large temperature differences, while a mobile or locally-deployed generation device usually cannot.  Also, a power plant can use exotic emissions-control equipment far more efficiently than a mobile device of some kind.</p><p>So, even after taking into account the coal/etc used to generate electricity, an electric car can still be more green than a gas-powered car (just looking at operational impact - manufacturing impact is a whole different kettle of fish).</p><p>Then factor in that there are a lot more practical green options for large-scale electricity generation than for portable generation, and you now have a pretty solid case for running more stuff from the grid.  You're not going to find wind-powered cars, but you can charge a battery from wind power.</p><p>All that said, I agree that we need to be honest about true costs and impacts when we talk about "green technology" - otherwise we just end up having a movement hijacked by various interests (just look at corn-based ethanol fuel).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really does depend .
Sometimes it really is just pollution-shifting , although you could argue that discharging aerosols in the middle of nowhere is better for human health than discharging them in the middle of the city .
Either way they 're diluted to parts-per-septillions in the atmosphere or whatever , but before that they exist in concentrated levels either around people or around trees.The other factor , which is potentially large , is efficiency .
Thermodynamics dictates that the efficiency of any heat engine is fundamentally limited by the temperates it operates across .
A power plant can operate on very large temperature differences , while a mobile or locally-deployed generation device usually can not .
Also , a power plant can use exotic emissions-control equipment far more efficiently than a mobile device of some kind.So , even after taking into account the coal/etc used to generate electricity , an electric car can still be more green than a gas-powered car ( just looking at operational impact - manufacturing impact is a whole different kettle of fish ) .Then factor in that there are a lot more practical green options for large-scale electricity generation than for portable generation , and you now have a pretty solid case for running more stuff from the grid .
You 're not going to find wind-powered cars , but you can charge a battery from wind power.All that said , I agree that we need to be honest about true costs and impacts when we talk about " green technology " - otherwise we just end up having a movement hijacked by various interests ( just look at corn-based ethanol fuel ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really does depend.
Sometimes it really is just pollution-shifting, although you could argue that discharging aerosols in the middle of nowhere is better for human health than discharging them in the middle of the city.
Either way they're diluted to parts-per-septillions in the atmosphere or whatever, but before that they exist in concentrated levels either around people or around trees.The other factor, which is potentially large, is efficiency.
Thermodynamics dictates that the efficiency of any heat engine is fundamentally limited by the temperates it operates across.
A power plant can operate on very large temperature differences, while a mobile or locally-deployed generation device usually cannot.
Also, a power plant can use exotic emissions-control equipment far more efficiently than a mobile device of some kind.So, even after taking into account the coal/etc used to generate electricity, an electric car can still be more green than a gas-powered car (just looking at operational impact - manufacturing impact is a whole different kettle of fish).Then factor in that there are a lot more practical green options for large-scale electricity generation than for portable generation, and you now have a pretty solid case for running more stuff from the grid.
You're not going to find wind-powered cars, but you can charge a battery from wind power.All that said, I agree that we need to be honest about true costs and impacts when we talk about "green technology" - otherwise we just end up having a movement hijacked by various interests (just look at corn-based ethanol fuel).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155156</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>Skreems</author>
	<datestamp>1266336000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Source?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31171430</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electric is fine but..... We'll need to build more nuclear power plants to keep up with demand if electric cars ever become popular.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electric is fine but..... We 'll need to build more nuclear power plants to keep up with demand if electric cars ever become popular .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electric is fine but..... We'll need to build more nuclear power plants to keep up with demand if electric cars ever become popular.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156034</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>dr-suess-fan</author>
	<datestamp>1266340860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What seldom gets mentioned is that most internal combustion vehicles get is 25\% efficiency
"under the hood". </p><p>Even if you're electricity supply is 100\% coal, electrical plants are probably 90\% or better efficient at turning heat into electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What seldom gets mentioned is that most internal combustion vehicles get is 25 \ % efficiency " under the hood " .
Even if you 're electricity supply is 100 \ % coal , electrical plants are probably 90 \ % or better efficient at turning heat into electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What seldom gets mentioned is that most internal combustion vehicles get is 25\% efficiency
"under the hood".
Even if you're electricity supply is 100\% coal, electrical plants are probably 90\% or better efficient at turning heat into electricity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155456</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>temojen</author>
	<datestamp>1266337620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BC produces so much Hydroelectric power we export most of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BC produces so much Hydroelectric power we export most of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BC produces so much Hydroelectric power we export most of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31159880</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>telso</author>
	<datestamp>1266313440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's probably the first time I've ever said this, but I <em>am</em> an expert on these machines, as I drive one for a living.  One of the main reasons rinks still prefer natural gas (or even propane) is that those ice resurfacers have what are essentially internal combustion engines, which reduces repair costs, because the cities that own them usually have many spare parts around and the employees that work for the city usually know a lot more about ICEs than electric engines.<br>
<br>
Further, eight years seems a little short for a natural gas machine; our last one (propane, actually) went 15-20 years (and we still use it to take out the ice in April and when our main one breaks down (man, it's a PITA to drive)) and our newer one is still going strong after nearly 10 years, and given its 3,800 hours of use, we probably won't be replacing it till near the end of the decade (barring unexpected problems), hopefully when electric motors are more competitive.<br>
<br>
Lastly (not a reply to you, but to others), so long as your ventilation system is decent (which I would assume an Olympic oval's is), and it's actually used properly, air quality in an arena using a natural gas resurfacer is essentially the same as that in one using an electric resurfacer.  If our arena didn't pass with the flying colours it got and instead got the massive fail 4 Glaces got I'd be suing my city (or getting our union to do it) immediately; I'm sure Olympic spectators have nothing to worry about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably the first time I 've ever said this , but I am an expert on these machines , as I drive one for a living .
One of the main reasons rinks still prefer natural gas ( or even propane ) is that those ice resurfacers have what are essentially internal combustion engines , which reduces repair costs , because the cities that own them usually have many spare parts around and the employees that work for the city usually know a lot more about ICEs than electric engines .
Further , eight years seems a little short for a natural gas machine ; our last one ( propane , actually ) went 15-20 years ( and we still use it to take out the ice in April and when our main one breaks down ( man , it 's a PITA to drive ) ) and our newer one is still going strong after nearly 10 years , and given its 3,800 hours of use , we probably wo n't be replacing it till near the end of the decade ( barring unexpected problems ) , hopefully when electric motors are more competitive .
Lastly ( not a reply to you , but to others ) , so long as your ventilation system is decent ( which I would assume an Olympic oval 's is ) , and it 's actually used properly , air quality in an arena using a natural gas resurfacer is essentially the same as that in one using an electric resurfacer .
If our arena did n't pass with the flying colours it got and instead got the massive fail 4 Glaces got I 'd be suing my city ( or getting our union to do it ) immediately ; I 'm sure Olympic spectators have nothing to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably the first time I've ever said this, but I am an expert on these machines, as I drive one for a living.
One of the main reasons rinks still prefer natural gas (or even propane) is that those ice resurfacers have what are essentially internal combustion engines, which reduces repair costs, because the cities that own them usually have many spare parts around and the employees that work for the city usually know a lot more about ICEs than electric engines.
Further, eight years seems a little short for a natural gas machine; our last one (propane, actually) went 15-20 years (and we still use it to take out the ice in April and when our main one breaks down (man, it's a PITA to drive)) and our newer one is still going strong after nearly 10 years, and given its 3,800 hours of use, we probably won't be replacing it till near the end of the decade (barring unexpected problems), hopefully when electric motors are more competitive.
Lastly (not a reply to you, but to others), so long as your ventilation system is decent (which I would assume an Olympic oval's is), and it's actually used properly, air quality in an arena using a natural gas resurfacer is essentially the same as that in one using an electric resurfacer.
If our arena didn't pass with the flying colours it got and instead got the massive fail 4 Glaces got I'd be suing my city (or getting our union to do it) immediately; I'm sure Olympic spectators have nothing to worry about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155146</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the fact is saying that human CO2 emissions are "infinitesimal" is to miss the point entirely.</p><p>An analogy (that does not involve cars). Imagine the balance between CO2 sources and sinks is like a funnel. Into this funnel, you pour one litre per second of liquid. The funnel can allow up to 1 litre per second to leave, too. Therefore, the level of liquid in the funnel remains the same although 1 litre per second is constantly being added. However, add an infinitesimal increase, let's say, just 0.1\% more - just one mililitre extra per second, and as sure as night follows day, the level in the funnel increases and eventually it will overflow. What is more, what we have done is effectively not only added more liquid to the funnel, we have also constricted the exit (by removing carbon sinks). The rate compared to other things is totally irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is - is the CO2 being added at a rate higher than which it is being removed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the fact is saying that human CO2 emissions are " infinitesimal " is to miss the point entirely.An analogy ( that does not involve cars ) .
Imagine the balance between CO2 sources and sinks is like a funnel .
Into this funnel , you pour one litre per second of liquid .
The funnel can allow up to 1 litre per second to leave , too .
Therefore , the level of liquid in the funnel remains the same although 1 litre per second is constantly being added .
However , add an infinitesimal increase , let 's say , just 0.1 \ % more - just one mililitre extra per second , and as sure as night follows day , the level in the funnel increases and eventually it will overflow .
What is more , what we have done is effectively not only added more liquid to the funnel , we have also constricted the exit ( by removing carbon sinks ) .
The rate compared to other things is totally irrelevant .
The only thing that 's relevant is - is the CO2 being added at a rate higher than which it is being removed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the fact is saying that human CO2 emissions are "infinitesimal" is to miss the point entirely.An analogy (that does not involve cars).
Imagine the balance between CO2 sources and sinks is like a funnel.
Into this funnel, you pour one litre per second of liquid.
The funnel can allow up to 1 litre per second to leave, too.
Therefore, the level of liquid in the funnel remains the same although 1 litre per second is constantly being added.
However, add an infinitesimal increase, let's say, just 0.1\% more - just one mililitre extra per second, and as sure as night follows day, the level in the funnel increases and eventually it will overflow.
What is more, what we have done is effectively not only added more liquid to the funnel, we have also constricted the exit (by removing carbon sinks).
The rate compared to other things is totally irrelevant.
The only thing that's relevant is - is the CO2 being added at a rate higher than which it is being removed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155632</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1266338640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NET?</p><p>It's just bringing back the CO2 that was bound in biomass (and finally coal) in prehistoric ages?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NET ? It 's just bringing back the CO2 that was bound in biomass ( and finally coal ) in prehistoric ages ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NET?It's just bringing back the CO2 that was bound in biomass (and finally coal) in prehistoric ages?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155432</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266337560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends upon where you are.   The games are in Canada, where electrical production is about 60\% renewable.  In the US it is 7\%; the remainder of the world (ie. not US) is about 21\%.</p><p>So, in most of the world it makes a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends upon where you are .
The games are in Canada , where electrical production is about 60 \ % renewable .
In the US it is 7 \ % ; the remainder of the world ( ie .
not US ) is about 21 \ % .So , in most of the world it makes a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends upon where you are.
The games are in Canada, where electrical production is about 60\% renewable.
In the US it is 7\%; the remainder of the world (ie.
not US) is about 21\%.So, in most of the world it makes a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155390</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1266337260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is often a big difference in efficiency between the power station and a small portable engine.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal\_efficiency" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal\_efficiency</a> [wikipedia.org] gives a decent summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is often a big difference in efficiency between the power station and a small portable engine .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal \ _efficiency [ wikipedia.org ] gives a decent summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is often a big difference in efficiency between the power station and a small portable engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal\_efficiency [wikipedia.org] gives a decent summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31161296</id>
	<title>The Olympic games are already on?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266319680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who cares for the Olympic games so much,<br>that he would have never known, were it not for this &ldquo;article&rdquo;?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who cares for the Olympic games so much,that he would have never known , were it not for this    article    ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who cares for the Olympic games so much,that he would have never known, were it not for this “article”?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155086</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole Green movement is "Feel Good" Games. The other posters have hit the nail on the head. Electric is needed because you can not expel CO in an enclosed area. Something that is so obvious. However, everyone will feel good my labeling it "Green"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole Green movement is " Feel Good " Games .
The other posters have hit the nail on the head .
Electric is needed because you can not expel CO in an enclosed area .
Something that is so obvious .
However , everyone will feel good my labeling it " Green "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole Green movement is "Feel Good" Games.
The other posters have hit the nail on the head.
Electric is needed because you can not expel CO in an enclosed area.
Something that is so obvious.
However, everyone will feel good my labeling it "Green"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>DarKnyht</author>
	<datestamp>1266335340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So like a lot of 'green' things they are designed to save you money in the long run.  Like paying out your ass for CFL bulbs or installing a windmill.  Granted that's over 29,000 floods you'd need to recoup the eighty grand, it's a bit misleading to say it's more expensive.  The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans (you know, where you get your revenues from).  I mean, fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row?</p></div><p>I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So like a lot of 'green ' things they are designed to save you money in the long run .
Like paying out your ass for CFL bulbs or installing a windmill .
Granted that 's over 29,000 floods you 'd need to recoup the eighty grand , it 's a bit misleading to say it 's more expensive .
The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans ( you know , where you get your revenues from ) .
I mean , fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row ? I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So like a lot of 'green' things they are designed to save you money in the long run.
Like paying out your ass for CFL bulbs or installing a windmill.
Granted that's over 29,000 floods you'd need to recoup the eighty grand, it's a bit misleading to say it's more expensive.
The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans (you know, where you get your revenues from).
I mean, fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row?I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156118</id>
	<title>Electric Zamboni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266341400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zamboni has had electrics for a long time.</p><p>I've been watching US College hockey for a long time.  Most rinks have a Zamboni.  They last a long time.  I've seen a few new ones and usually the go electric because the propane ones generate CO2 and that's not good indoors.  I've seen rinks add a 2nd Zamboni for faster resurfacing between periods too.</p><p>Zamboni isn't the only maker of ice resurfacers.  I bet most rinks in the US are Zamboni though.  I remember Union College in Schenectedy had another brand.</p><p>FWIW Clarkson University gave Mr Zamboni and honorary degree in 1988 in recognition of his engineering achivement in creating the ice resurfacer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zamboni has had electrics for a long time.I 've been watching US College hockey for a long time .
Most rinks have a Zamboni .
They last a long time .
I 've seen a few new ones and usually the go electric because the propane ones generate CO2 and that 's not good indoors .
I 've seen rinks add a 2nd Zamboni for faster resurfacing between periods too.Zamboni is n't the only maker of ice resurfacers .
I bet most rinks in the US are Zamboni though .
I remember Union College in Schenectedy had another brand.FWIW Clarkson University gave Mr Zamboni and honorary degree in 1988 in recognition of his engineering achivement in creating the ice resurfacer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zamboni has had electrics for a long time.I've been watching US College hockey for a long time.
Most rinks have a Zamboni.
They last a long time.
I've seen a few new ones and usually the go electric because the propane ones generate CO2 and that's not good indoors.
I've seen rinks add a 2nd Zamboni for faster resurfacing between periods too.Zamboni isn't the only maker of ice resurfacers.
I bet most rinks in the US are Zamboni though.
I remember Union College in Schenectedy had another brand.FWIW Clarkson University gave Mr Zamboni and honorary degree in 1988 in recognition of his engineering achivement in creating the ice resurfacer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156062</id>
	<title>They jinxed the rink!</title>
	<author>TheHawke</author>
	<datestamp>1266341040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't use a Zamboni to do the ice with, so the gods demanded the return of the Zamboni by destroying the infidel machine.</p><p>Everyone knows you always use a Zamboni, or you insult the gods of the ice by using anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't use a Zamboni to do the ice with , so the gods demanded the return of the Zamboni by destroying the infidel machine.Everyone knows you always use a Zamboni , or you insult the gods of the ice by using anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't use a Zamboni to do the ice with, so the gods demanded the return of the Zamboni by destroying the infidel machine.Everyone knows you always use a Zamboni, or you insult the gods of the ice by using anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155576</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1266338340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Vancouver has a lot of Coal, but they also have Hydro, and IIRC, they have a nuke there</p> </div><p>COMPLETELY wrong.  Power in Vancouver is over 90\% hydroelectric with the vast majority of the remainder natural gas and a small fraction diesel.  They have NO coal, and BC (the province ) has no nuclear reactors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vancouver has a lot of Coal , but they also have Hydro , and IIRC , they have a nuke there COMPLETELY wrong .
Power in Vancouver is over 90 \ % hydroelectric with the vast majority of the remainder natural gas and a small fraction diesel .
They have NO coal , and BC ( the province ) has no nuclear reactors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vancouver has a lot of Coal, but they also have Hydro, and IIRC, they have a nuke there COMPLETELY wrong.
Power in Vancouver is over 90\% hydroelectric with the vast majority of the remainder natural gas and a small fraction diesel.
They have NO coal, and BC (the province ) has no nuclear reactors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157350</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1266345960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh, let us look at it.</p><p>there is a lot of deep time data around co2 and temperature.  co2 varies and there is a correlation with temperature.  given the labatory effects of co2, you might think causation.  and on this data set you probably do not much hsve to worry about the genocidialists getting a data fraud.</p><p>of course, if the buy causation, you are not getting to the lag time with this data.  insolation has increased 25\% but there seems to be a lag time in excess of billions of years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>best i can tell, if there was something like awg and the data was actually good, there is not a clue on the lag time.</p><p>on size of the co2 input by humans, which is really what I wanted to comment on, the big thing here is kind of the emotional reaction to how the  numbers are stated.</p><p>Well, I guess we also have to note that figuring out by direct measurements global co2 load is tricky.  You might think the measurements are easy and i suppose it is, but the numbers  bounce all over the place.</p><p>so 25\% increase in co2 recently.  In terms of percent of atmosphere the difference is not impressive.  In terms of the total co2 in the co2 cycle, it is not impressive.  I seem to recall a claim that suggests to me the 25\% increase is a 2\% increase in the cycle load.  not impressive, but it might be important but it is not obviously important</p><p>in just a simple minded way, the awg machine is over.  science types who had feared to buck the party line are speaking up.  two major governments have cslled foul on the "science".  more interesting is why just now.</p><p>awg as a strategic element was crushed at copenhagen.  this is a big battle won.  but with, oh, vaguely, the collapse of the eurozone, the war is pretty much over.  the bad guys were always going to lose, but now it is highly likely the good guys will win.  so be happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh , let us look at it.there is a lot of deep time data around co2 and temperature .
co2 varies and there is a correlation with temperature .
given the labatory effects of co2 , you might think causation .
and on this data set you probably do not much hsve to worry about the genocidialists getting a data fraud.of course , if the buy causation , you are not getting to the lag time with this data .
insolation has increased 25 \ % but there seems to be a lag time in excess of billions of years : - ) best i can tell , if there was something like awg and the data was actually good , there is not a clue on the lag time.on size of the co2 input by humans , which is really what I wanted to comment on , the big thing here is kind of the emotional reaction to how the numbers are stated.Well , I guess we also have to note that figuring out by direct measurements global co2 load is tricky .
You might think the measurements are easy and i suppose it is , but the numbers bounce all over the place.so 25 \ % increase in co2 recently .
In terms of percent of atmosphere the difference is not impressive .
In terms of the total co2 in the co2 cycle , it is not impressive .
I seem to recall a claim that suggests to me the 25 \ % increase is a 2 \ % increase in the cycle load .
not impressive , but it might be important but it is not obviously importantin just a simple minded way , the awg machine is over .
science types who had feared to buck the party line are speaking up .
two major governments have cslled foul on the " science " .
more interesting is why just now.awg as a strategic element was crushed at copenhagen .
this is a big battle won .
but with , oh , vaguely , the collapse of the eurozone , the war is pretty much over .
the bad guys were always going to lose , but now it is highly likely the good guys will win .
so be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh, let us look at it.there is a lot of deep time data around co2 and temperature.
co2 varies and there is a correlation with temperature.
given the labatory effects of co2, you might think causation.
and on this data set you probably do not much hsve to worry about the genocidialists getting a data fraud.of course, if the buy causation, you are not getting to the lag time with this data.
insolation has increased 25\% but there seems to be a lag time in excess of billions of years :-)best i can tell, if there was something like awg and the data was actually good, there is not a clue on the lag time.on size of the co2 input by humans, which is really what I wanted to comment on, the big thing here is kind of the emotional reaction to how the  numbers are stated.Well, I guess we also have to note that figuring out by direct measurements global co2 load is tricky.
You might think the measurements are easy and i suppose it is, but the numbers  bounce all over the place.so 25\% increase in co2 recently.
In terms of percent of atmosphere the difference is not impressive.
In terms of the total co2 in the co2 cycle, it is not impressive.
I seem to recall a claim that suggests to me the 25\% increase is a 2\% increase in the cycle load.
not impressive, but it might be important but it is not obviously importantin just a simple minded way, the awg machine is over.
science types who had feared to buck the party line are speaking up.
two major governments have cslled foul on the "science".
more interesting is why just now.awg as a strategic element was crushed at copenhagen.
this is a big battle won.
but with, oh, vaguely, the collapse of the eurozone, the war is pretty much over.
the bad guys were always going to lose, but now it is highly likely the good guys will win.
so be happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155552</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1266338160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the power is in most cases still being generated by coal or oil fired power stations in most countries, so aren't you just playing "out of sight, out of mind" games with the pollution ?</p></div><p>In BC (the province Vancouver is in), over 90\% of the power produced is hydroelectric.  Their thermal generating capacity is primarily natural gas, with a small fraction diesel.  They have little if any coal or oil burning generating stations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the power is in most cases still being generated by coal or oil fired power stations in most countries , so are n't you just playing " out of sight , out of mind " games with the pollution ? In BC ( the province Vancouver is in ) , over 90 \ % of the power produced is hydroelectric .
Their thermal generating capacity is primarily natural gas , with a small fraction diesel .
They have little if any coal or oil burning generating stations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the power is in most cases still being generated by coal or oil fired power stations in most countries, so aren't you just playing "out of sight, out of mind" games with the pollution ?In BC (the province Vancouver is in), over 90\% of the power produced is hydroelectric.
Their thermal generating capacity is primarily natural gas, with a small fraction diesel.
They have little if any coal or oil burning generating stations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155354</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1266337080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>The  fact  is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.</em>

<br> <br>

Not quite.  <a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What\_is\_the\_amount\_of\_co2\_produced\_by\_volcano's\_in\_relation\_to\_that\_produced\_by\_man" title="answers.com">Read on McDuff</a> [answers.com].  And look, <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans" title="scientificamerican.com">even more refutation</a> [scientificamerican.com].

<br> <br>

Are we done with this canard yet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans .
Not quite .
Read on McDuff [ answers.com ] .
And look , even more refutation [ scientificamerican.com ] .
Are we done with this canard yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The  fact  is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.
Not quite.
Read on McDuff [answers.com].
And look, even more refutation [scientificamerican.com].
Are we done with this canard yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155252</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1266336420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's really a shame that people believe politics over science.</p></div><p>You are confusing "green marketing" with science. The first one happens to be full of crap, but well, what do you expect from marketing? That however doesn't make the issue they peddle to a non-issue, climate scientist will tell you quite the opposite, CO2 is an issue and current evidence points to a man made climate change, go watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo" title="youtube.com">this</a> [youtube.com] and educate yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really a shame that people believe politics over science.You are confusing " green marketing " with science .
The first one happens to be full of crap , but well , what do you expect from marketing ?
That however does n't make the issue they peddle to a non-issue , climate scientist will tell you quite the opposite , CO2 is an issue and current evidence points to a man made climate change , go watch this [ youtube.com ] and educate yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really a shame that people believe politics over science.You are confusing "green marketing" with science.
The first one happens to be full of crap, but well, what do you expect from marketing?
That however doesn't make the issue they peddle to a non-issue, climate scientist will tell you quite the opposite, CO2 is an issue and current evidence points to a man made climate change, go watch this [youtube.com] and educate yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154928</id>
	<title>There's Always...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266334680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Stephen Colbert's snow drive! If enough people mail in snow, they should be covered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Stephen Colbert 's snow drive !
If enough people mail in snow , they should be covered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Stephen Colbert's snow drive!
If enough people mail in snow, they should be covered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155476</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>snowraver1</author>
	<datestamp>1266337740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly, you have never been to a real arena.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , you have never been to a real arena .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, you have never been to a real arena.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156834</id>
	<title>Re:Electric devices are still powered by fossil fu</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1266344280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You also have to replace nothing. </i></p><p>Except all the devices that don't run off of grid power.  Which is what they're doing here.  <i>After</i> you've switched to using electricity for power, <i>then</i> any environmental improvements to the grid are automatically incorporated into your electric devices.</p><p>This is why switching to electric vehicles makes sense even in the context of electricity that currently comes from unclean sources.  Not that it does in Vancouver, apparently.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p><i>Batteries are horrible for the environment. What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?</i></p><p>All manufacturing involves damage to the environment, and if we weren't making batteries it'd be something else.  We can work on making manufacturing less damaging, but it's not going away.</p><p>Anyway, you should be recycling your batteries, not disposing of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You also have to replace nothing .
Except all the devices that do n't run off of grid power .
Which is what they 're doing here .
After you 've switched to using electricity for power , then any environmental improvements to the grid are automatically incorporated into your electric devices.This is why switching to electric vehicles makes sense even in the context of electricity that currently comes from unclean sources .
Not that it does in Vancouver , apparently .
; ) Batteries are horrible for the environment .
What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal ? All manufacturing involves damage to the environment , and if we were n't making batteries it 'd be something else .
We can work on making manufacturing less damaging , but it 's not going away.Anyway , you should be recycling your batteries , not disposing of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also have to replace nothing.
Except all the devices that don't run off of grid power.
Which is what they're doing here.
After you've switched to using electricity for power, then any environmental improvements to the grid are automatically incorporated into your electric devices.This is why switching to electric vehicles makes sense even in the context of electricity that currently comes from unclean sources.
Not that it does in Vancouver, apparently.
;)Batteries are horrible for the environment.
What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?All manufacturing involves damage to the environment, and if we weren't making batteries it'd be something else.
We can work on making manufacturing less damaging, but it's not going away.Anyway, you should be recycling your batteries, not disposing of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31164678</id>
	<title>Nope.</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1266340680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is already taken into consideration. Basically, the worst case scenario is better than the best case ICE situation. The motors do not require transmissions and run at near 100\% efficiency. Batteries have a high efficiency, though they are economically expensive.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric\_power\_transmission#Losses" title="wikipedia.org"> The biggest loses in electricity is transmissions, but that is still 7\% or so.</a> [wikipedia.org] And THAT will be changed over the next decade (in the west) to be less.
<br>
 OTH, ICE OPERATE BELOW 40\% (typically 25\%) with a lose of  60-75\%. That does not include the loses in areas such as moving the fuel around, vapors, etc. The loses of moving the fuel and vapors alone are more than 5\%.
<br> <br>So the answer is, that fossil fuel can never improve much even if using Natural Gas, Diesel or hydrogen (of which more than 95\% is from Methane because it is much cheaper). OTH, Electricical devices WILL continue to improve because of cost of Storage and Transmission will drop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is already taken into consideration .
Basically , the worst case scenario is better than the best case ICE situation .
The motors do not require transmissions and run at near 100 \ % efficiency .
Batteries have a high efficiency , though they are economically expensive .
The biggest loses in electricity is transmissions , but that is still 7 \ % or so .
[ wikipedia.org ] And THAT will be changed over the next decade ( in the west ) to be less .
OTH , ICE OPERATE BELOW 40 \ % ( typically 25 \ % ) with a lose of 60-75 \ % .
That does not include the loses in areas such as moving the fuel around , vapors , etc .
The loses of moving the fuel and vapors alone are more than 5 \ % .
So the answer is , that fossil fuel can never improve much even if using Natural Gas , Diesel or hydrogen ( of which more than 95 \ % is from Methane because it is much cheaper ) .
OTH , Electricical devices WILL continue to improve because of cost of Storage and Transmission will drop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is already taken into consideration.
Basically, the worst case scenario is better than the best case ICE situation.
The motors do not require transmissions and run at near 100\% efficiency.
Batteries have a high efficiency, though they are economically expensive.
The biggest loses in electricity is transmissions, but that is still 7\% or so.
[wikipedia.org] And THAT will be changed over the next decade (in the west) to be less.
OTH, ICE OPERATE BELOW 40\% (typically 25\%) with a lose of  60-75\%.
That does not include the loses in areas such as moving the fuel around, vapors, etc.
The loses of moving the fuel and vapors alone are more than 5\%.
So the answer is, that fossil fuel can never improve much even if using Natural Gas, Diesel or hydrogen (of which more than 95\% is from Methane because it is much cheaper).
OTH, Electricical devices WILL continue to improve because of cost of Storage and Transmission will drop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155032</id>
	<title>Deals with "Official Olympic Partners"</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1266335340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard (on TV, so no link) that they weren't allowed to use the old machines because those are not official Olympic partners...</p><p>Even the engine (which isn't visible to the audience) had to be made by an Olympic partner.</p><p>Anyway, that, plus the fact that the band was only allowed to play 2 songs in the break, showed to me that the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise. The organisation seemed so afraid of problems by unexpected events by people that when the machines broke down, all creativity and initiative was smothered under a blanket of Bureaucracy On Ice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard ( on TV , so no link ) that they were n't allowed to use the old machines because those are not official Olympic partners...Even the engine ( which is n't visible to the audience ) had to be made by an Olympic partner.Anyway , that , plus the fact that the band was only allowed to play 2 songs in the break , showed to me that the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise .
The organisation seemed so afraid of problems by unexpected events by people that when the machines broke down , all creativity and initiative was smothered under a blanket of Bureaucracy On Ice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard (on TV, so no link) that they weren't allowed to use the old machines because those are not official Olympic partners...Even the engine (which isn't visible to the audience) had to be made by an Olympic partner.Anyway, that, plus the fact that the band was only allowed to play 2 songs in the break, showed to me that the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise.
The organisation seemed so afraid of problems by unexpected events by people that when the machines broke down, all creativity and initiative was smothered under a blanket of Bureaucracy On Ice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155620</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1266338580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.</p></div><p>I live near an Olympic ice skating training facility.  One of only eleven 400 meter indoor ovals in the world, so they say.  Its 18 years old.</p><p>29000 / resurface 4 times a day / 365 train every day = 19.8 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.I live near an Olympic ice skating training facility .
One of only eleven 400 meter indoor ovals in the world , so they say .
Its 18 years old.29000 / resurface 4 times a day / 365 train every day = 19.8 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.I live near an Olympic ice skating training facility.
One of only eleven 400 meter indoor ovals in the world, so they say.
Its 18 years old.29000 / resurface 4 times a day / 365 train every day = 19.8 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155524</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1266337920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The  fact  is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans."<br> <a href="http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php" title="usgs.gov">Complete and total lie. </a> [usgs.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans .
" Complete and total lie .
[ usgs.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The  fact  is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.
" Complete and total lie.
[usgs.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155178</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is partly true, but electricity can be generated much more efficiently by these central power plants, than every single device having it's own combustion engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is partly true , but electricity can be generated much more efficiently by these central power plants , than every single device having it 's own combustion engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is partly true, but electricity can be generated much more efficiently by these central power plants, than every single device having it's own combustion engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155968</id>
	<title>Re:Perceptions from Vancouver</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266340500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Add to that the "Hydrogen buses" athletes uses.... (which was bought x2-3 the price if a normal buses)... Thoses buses need hydrogen to run, and this hydrogen come from Qu&#233;bec... they truck-it from Qu&#233;bec to Vancouver (more than 2000km lol) using a plain old truck which make more co2 than normal buses... That's GREEN lol.<br>http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-vehicles/hydrogen-buses-arriving-for-2010-vancouver-winter-olympics/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add to that the " Hydrogen buses " athletes uses.... ( which was bought x2-3 the price if a normal buses ) ... Thoses buses need hydrogen to run , and this hydrogen come from Qu   bec... they truck-it from Qu   bec to Vancouver ( more than 2000km lol ) using a plain old truck which make more co2 than normal buses... That 's GREEN lol.http : //www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-vehicles/hydrogen-buses-arriving-for-2010-vancouver-winter-olympics/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add to that the "Hydrogen buses" athletes uses.... (which was bought x2-3 the price if a normal buses)... Thoses buses need hydrogen to run, and this hydrogen come from Québec... they truck-it from Québec to Vancouver (more than 2000km lol) using a plain old truck which make more co2 than normal buses... That's GREEN lol.http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-vehicles/hydrogen-buses-arriving-for-2010-vancouver-winter-olympics/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696</id>
	<title>Perceptions from Vancouver</title>
	<author>Doviende</author>
	<datestamp>1266338940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's amusing to me that the world sees Vancouver as promoting these "green" olympic technologies, but we here in Vancouver are not fooled by the greenwashing (well, at least some of us).  It's been nice and warm here lately, as is usual in Vancouver in the winter, so in order to keep snow on the local mountain where some of the skiing and snowboarding events are, they have to truck it in from another mountain that's quite some distance away.  Then they use helicopters to bring the snow from where the dump trucks are, to the event location.  The snowboarding halfpipe is actually constructed using hay bales stacked like lego blocks, and then they apply snow on top like icing on a cake.  Any idea what the carbon footprint is of a helicopter bringing snow to the top of a mountain is?  or the mining trucks used to haul it around?<br><br>Then there are the ~100,000 trees cleared for olympic venues, the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the games, the construction of huge buildings for various events at a time when homelessness has been increasing for years.  The whole thing is a big PR scam, but for the past few weeks it seems like most of the vancouverites on facebook have been abuzz about how silly the whole thing is....except the opening ceremonies for some reason...everyone got all weirdly patriotic about that, which is unusual for Canadians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amusing to me that the world sees Vancouver as promoting these " green " olympic technologies , but we here in Vancouver are not fooled by the greenwashing ( well , at least some of us ) .
It 's been nice and warm here lately , as is usual in Vancouver in the winter , so in order to keep snow on the local mountain where some of the skiing and snowboarding events are , they have to truck it in from another mountain that 's quite some distance away .
Then they use helicopters to bring the snow from where the dump trucks are , to the event location .
The snowboarding halfpipe is actually constructed using hay bales stacked like lego blocks , and then they apply snow on top like icing on a cake .
Any idea what the carbon footprint is of a helicopter bringing snow to the top of a mountain is ?
or the mining trucks used to haul it around ? Then there are the ~ 100,000 trees cleared for olympic venues , the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the games , the construction of huge buildings for various events at a time when homelessness has been increasing for years .
The whole thing is a big PR scam , but for the past few weeks it seems like most of the vancouverites on facebook have been abuzz about how silly the whole thing is....except the opening ceremonies for some reason...everyone got all weirdly patriotic about that , which is unusual for Canadians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amusing to me that the world sees Vancouver as promoting these "green" olympic technologies, but we here in Vancouver are not fooled by the greenwashing (well, at least some of us).
It's been nice and warm here lately, as is usual in Vancouver in the winter, so in order to keep snow on the local mountain where some of the skiing and snowboarding events are, they have to truck it in from another mountain that's quite some distance away.
Then they use helicopters to bring the snow from where the dump trucks are, to the event location.
The snowboarding halfpipe is actually constructed using hay bales stacked like lego blocks, and then they apply snow on top like icing on a cake.
Any idea what the carbon footprint is of a helicopter bringing snow to the top of a mountain is?
or the mining trucks used to haul it around?Then there are the ~100,000 trees cleared for olympic venues, the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the games, the construction of huge buildings for various events at a time when homelessness has been increasing for years.
The whole thing is a big PR scam, but for the past few weeks it seems like most of the vancouverites on facebook have been abuzz about how silly the whole thing is....except the opening ceremonies for some reason...everyone got all weirdly patriotic about that, which is unusual for Canadians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156150</id>
	<title>What does that spell?</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1266341520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>F</b>inally<br>
<b>A</b>nother<br>
<b>I</b>ndustrial<br>
<b>L</b>eap!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally Another Industrial Leap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally
Another
Industrial
Leap!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938</id>
	<title>Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266334740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>From the linked NYTimes article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Electric resurfacers are also cheaper to run &mdash; about 25 cents a flood, Mr. Schlupp said, compared with at least $3 for a propane-powered flood and at least $4 for gasoline. The drawback is the cost of the electric machine, which he said would sell for about $160,000, twice the price of a propane model.</p></div><p>So like a lot of 'green' things they are designed to save you money in the long run.  Like paying out your ass for CFL bulbs or installing a windmill.  Granted that's over 29,000 floods you'd need to recoup the eighty grand, it's a bit misleading to say it's more expensive.  The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans (you know, where you get your revenues from).  I mean, fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row?</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... at least test the things first.</p></div><p>Again, from the NYTimes article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mr. Hainault said that so far the machines had run, well, smoothly.</p></div><p>Sounds like they tested them to me. The Seattle Times article is either wrong or confusing when they say that the Zambonis also had problems:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's the second straight day there have been issues here treating the ice between sessions --- yesterday it was the women's 3,000. <b>Problems with that Zamboni left only one available for today, and then that one that began to have problems.</b> The Zamboni left some piles of slush in the turn near where I am sitting --- which is also the front straightaway.</p></div><p>The Resurfice Olympia models appeared to be the electrics with the Zambonis being the gas fed ice resurfacers.  So are they saying they had problems with the Zambonis just as much as the Resurfice Olympia models?  Or are they using Zamboni in place of "ice resurfacer" like Kleenex and Frisbee?  <br> <br>  I would bet they were having problems with temperatures.  I've been to Capitals hockey games were breaks between periods went long since the abnormally high temperatures caused problems with the Zambonis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs ... From the linked NYTimes article : Electric resurfacers are also cheaper to run    about 25 cents a flood , Mr. Schlupp said , compared with at least $ 3 for a propane-powered flood and at least $ 4 for gasoline .
The drawback is the cost of the electric machine , which he said would sell for about $ 160,000 , twice the price of a propane model.So like a lot of 'green ' things they are designed to save you money in the long run .
Like paying out your ass for CFL bulbs or installing a windmill .
Granted that 's over 29,000 floods you 'd need to recoup the eighty grand , it 's a bit misleading to say it 's more expensive .
The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans ( you know , where you get your revenues from ) .
I mean , fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row ?
... at least test the things first.Again , from the NYTimes article : Mr. Hainault said that so far the machines had run , well , smoothly.Sounds like they tested them to me .
The Seattle Times article is either wrong or confusing when they say that the Zambonis also had problems : It 's the second straight day there have been issues here treating the ice between sessions --- yesterday it was the women 's 3,000 .
Problems with that Zamboni left only one available for today , and then that one that began to have problems .
The Zamboni left some piles of slush in the turn near where I am sitting --- which is also the front straightaway.The Resurfice Olympia models appeared to be the electrics with the Zambonis being the gas fed ice resurfacers .
So are they saying they had problems with the Zambonis just as much as the Resurfice Olympia models ?
Or are they using Zamboni in place of " ice resurfacer " like Kleenex and Frisbee ?
I would bet they were having problems with temperatures .
I 've been to Capitals hockey games were breaks between periods went long since the abnormally high temperatures caused problems with the Zambonis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs ... From the linked NYTimes article:Electric resurfacers are also cheaper to run — about 25 cents a flood, Mr. Schlupp said, compared with at least $3 for a propane-powered flood and at least $4 for gasoline.
The drawback is the cost of the electric machine, which he said would sell for about $160,000, twice the price of a propane model.So like a lot of 'green' things they are designed to save you money in the long run.
Like paying out your ass for CFL bulbs or installing a windmill.
Granted that's over 29,000 floods you'd need to recoup the eighty grand, it's a bit misleading to say it's more expensive.
The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans (you know, where you get your revenues from).
I mean, fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row?
... at least test the things first.Again, from the NYTimes article:Mr. Hainault said that so far the machines had run, well, smoothly.Sounds like they tested them to me.
The Seattle Times article is either wrong or confusing when they say that the Zambonis also had problems:It's the second straight day there have been issues here treating the ice between sessions --- yesterday it was the women's 3,000.
Problems with that Zamboni left only one available for today, and then that one that began to have problems.
The Zamboni left some piles of slush in the turn near where I am sitting --- which is also the front straightaway.The Resurfice Olympia models appeared to be the electrics with the Zambonis being the gas fed ice resurfacers.
So are they saying they had problems with the Zambonis just as much as the Resurfice Olympia models?
Or are they using Zamboni in place of "ice resurfacer" like Kleenex and Frisbee?
I would bet they were having problems with temperatures.
I've been to Capitals hockey games were breaks between periods went long since the abnormally high temperatures caused problems with the Zambonis.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155836</id>
	<title>Sort of a silly comment</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1266339780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly, no matter what sort of machine the Olympic Committee obtained, if they just bought them new and kept them, they would have wasted a huge amount of money. One of two things is going on here: either a) they bought these machines and intend to resell them, or more likely b) they've leased them for some limited term. In either case, SOMEBODY is going to be using them long enough to where the investment to buy them will pay off. It's not like they're going to be scrapped after the Olympics. And either way, the net cost to the Olympic Committee != the purchase price.</p><p>And I'm with the other commenters on the underlying cause: I'll bet the real problem is with the refrigeration of the ice itself, not the Olympia/Zamboni machines. There's no way they're ALL failing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , no matter what sort of machine the Olympic Committee obtained , if they just bought them new and kept them , they would have wasted a huge amount of money .
One of two things is going on here : either a ) they bought these machines and intend to resell them , or more likely b ) they 've leased them for some limited term .
In either case , SOMEBODY is going to be using them long enough to where the investment to buy them will pay off .
It 's not like they 're going to be scrapped after the Olympics .
And either way , the net cost to the Olympic Committee ! = the purchase price.And I 'm with the other commenters on the underlying cause : I 'll bet the real problem is with the refrigeration of the ice itself , not the Olympia/Zamboni machines .
There 's no way they 're ALL failing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, no matter what sort of machine the Olympic Committee obtained, if they just bought them new and kept them, they would have wasted a huge amount of money.
One of two things is going on here: either a) they bought these machines and intend to resell them, or more likely b) they've leased them for some limited term.
In either case, SOMEBODY is going to be using them long enough to where the investment to buy them will pay off.
It's not like they're going to be scrapped after the Olympics.
And either way, the net cost to the Olympic Committee != the purchase price.And I'm with the other commenters on the underlying cause: I'll bet the real problem is with the refrigeration of the ice itself, not the Olympia/Zamboni machines.
There's no way they're ALL failing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</id>
	<title>Green ?</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1266335220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always confused about "green" electrical devices.</p><p>I mean, the power is in most cases still being generated by coal or oil fired power stations in most countries, so aren't you just playing "out of sight, out of mind" games with the pollution ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always confused about " green " electrical devices.I mean , the power is in most cases still being generated by coal or oil fired power stations in most countries , so are n't you just playing " out of sight , out of mind " games with the pollution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always confused about "green" electrical devices.I mean, the power is in most cases still being generated by coal or oil fired power stations in most countries, so aren't you just playing "out of sight, out of mind" games with the pollution ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156530</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>anegg</author>
	<datestamp>1266343320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I was reading the article fairly objectively, and I didn't see any blatant one-sided reporting.  The use of the term "cost" when applied to a piece of equipment is often used to express the initial capital expenditure required to aquire a piece of equipment.  The term "total cost of ownership" (TCO) is the term often used to provide an overall lifetime cost.  The way the term "cost" was used in the article was consistent with the ordinary use of the term.
</p><p>For example, I installed a geothermal HVAC system in my house last year.  When I talk about the "cost" of the system, I refer to how much money I paid the contractor who installed the system.  Since the "cost" of the system was about twice that of a comparable non-geothermal system, I certainly expect the quality (i.e., performance and repair rate) of the system to be no more than that of a convential system.  I think that was the only point being made about the "cost" of the electric ice resurfacers.
</p><p>Total cost of ownership is a separate issue which often (unfortunately) seems to be a required part of the ROI analysis for "green" technologies.  I think the issue with the electric ice resurfacers breaking down and not performing well bears close examination, because my personal experience with green technologies (i.e., my geothermal system) is that the payback analysis involved in the TCO is generally optimistic (i.e., you don't save as much as initially estimated), the initial acquisition costs are optimistic (i.e., it costs more than the initial estimates), failures with the "green" systems are more likely to occur, and correcting those failures is more expensive than with traditional technologies.  As we gain more experience with green technologies this may change, but adopters should go into the experience with their eyes wide open or else we may see a negative backlash that hinders adoption rather than encourages it.  In my case I made sure I had a 10 year parts and labor warranty on the entire system from a single provider (to avoid finger pointing) which has already helped me avoid $1000 in unexpected repair costs.
</p><p>I was watching the Olympic coverage on TV and I saw the ice surface that was at issue.  It was completely unacceptable for the competition at hand.  Whether the fault lies with the capabilities of the electric resurfacers, with a random failure, or in some other area, I don't know but am interested in finding out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I was reading the article fairly objectively , and I did n't see any blatant one-sided reporting .
The use of the term " cost " when applied to a piece of equipment is often used to express the initial capital expenditure required to aquire a piece of equipment .
The term " total cost of ownership " ( TCO ) is the term often used to provide an overall lifetime cost .
The way the term " cost " was used in the article was consistent with the ordinary use of the term .
For example , I installed a geothermal HVAC system in my house last year .
When I talk about the " cost " of the system , I refer to how much money I paid the contractor who installed the system .
Since the " cost " of the system was about twice that of a comparable non-geothermal system , I certainly expect the quality ( i.e. , performance and repair rate ) of the system to be no more than that of a convential system .
I think that was the only point being made about the " cost " of the electric ice resurfacers .
Total cost of ownership is a separate issue which often ( unfortunately ) seems to be a required part of the ROI analysis for " green " technologies .
I think the issue with the electric ice resurfacers breaking down and not performing well bears close examination , because my personal experience with green technologies ( i.e. , my geothermal system ) is that the payback analysis involved in the TCO is generally optimistic ( i.e. , you do n't save as much as initially estimated ) , the initial acquisition costs are optimistic ( i.e. , it costs more than the initial estimates ) , failures with the " green " systems are more likely to occur , and correcting those failures is more expensive than with traditional technologies .
As we gain more experience with green technologies this may change , but adopters should go into the experience with their eyes wide open or else we may see a negative backlash that hinders adoption rather than encourages it .
In my case I made sure I had a 10 year parts and labor warranty on the entire system from a single provider ( to avoid finger pointing ) which has already helped me avoid $ 1000 in unexpected repair costs .
I was watching the Olympic coverage on TV and I saw the ice surface that was at issue .
It was completely unacceptable for the competition at hand .
Whether the fault lies with the capabilities of the electric resurfacers , with a random failure , or in some other area , I do n't know but am interested in finding out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I was reading the article fairly objectively, and I didn't see any blatant one-sided reporting.
The use of the term "cost" when applied to a piece of equipment is often used to express the initial capital expenditure required to aquire a piece of equipment.
The term "total cost of ownership" (TCO) is the term often used to provide an overall lifetime cost.
The way the term "cost" was used in the article was consistent with the ordinary use of the term.
For example, I installed a geothermal HVAC system in my house last year.
When I talk about the "cost" of the system, I refer to how much money I paid the contractor who installed the system.
Since the "cost" of the system was about twice that of a comparable non-geothermal system, I certainly expect the quality (i.e., performance and repair rate) of the system to be no more than that of a convential system.
I think that was the only point being made about the "cost" of the electric ice resurfacers.
Total cost of ownership is a separate issue which often (unfortunately) seems to be a required part of the ROI analysis for "green" technologies.
I think the issue with the electric ice resurfacers breaking down and not performing well bears close examination, because my personal experience with green technologies (i.e., my geothermal system) is that the payback analysis involved in the TCO is generally optimistic (i.e., you don't save as much as initially estimated), the initial acquisition costs are optimistic (i.e., it costs more than the initial estimates), failures with the "green" systems are more likely to occur, and correcting those failures is more expensive than with traditional technologies.
As we gain more experience with green technologies this may change, but adopters should go into the experience with their eyes wide open or else we may see a negative backlash that hinders adoption rather than encourages it.
In my case I made sure I had a 10 year parts and labor warranty on the entire system from a single provider (to avoid finger pointing) which has already helped me avoid $1000 in unexpected repair costs.
I was watching the Olympic coverage on TV and I saw the ice surface that was at issue.
It was completely unacceptable for the competition at hand.
Whether the fault lies with the capabilities of the electric resurfacers, with a random failure, or in some other area, I don't know but am interested in finding out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31159346</id>
	<title>Re:Summary &amp; Article Leave a Bit to Be Desired</title>
	<author>shoehornjob</author>
	<datestamp>1266310800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah but they don't belong to the Olympic Committee. Didn't you RTFA? They were leasing them from another company for the games thus the other company needs to run them x amount of floods to recoup the cost.<br><br>zamboni macaroni phony balony my little pony</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but they do n't belong to the Olympic Committee .
Did n't you RTFA ?
They were leasing them from another company for the games thus the other company needs to run them x amount of floods to recoup the cost.zamboni macaroni phony balony my little pony</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but they don't belong to the Olympic Committee.
Didn't you RTFA?
They were leasing them from another company for the games thus the other company needs to run them x amount of floods to recoup the cost.zamboni macaroni phony balony my little pony</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155494</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1266337860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>It's easier to make large scale devices more efficient or to replace them with ones that don't emit whatever the thing is you don't like this decade.</p><p>So it's a valid step if you want "greenness".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.It 's easier to make large scale devices more efficient or to replace them with ones that do n't emit whatever the thing is you do n't like this decade.So it 's a valid step if you want " greenness " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.It's easier to make large scale devices more efficient or to replace them with ones that don't emit whatever the thing is you don't like this decade.So it's a valid step if you want "greenness".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155518</id>
	<title>I think you've all missed an important point</title>
	<author>tcampb01</author>
	<datestamp>1266337920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These machines were not creating <em>any</em> greenhouse gases while they were broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These machines were not creating any greenhouse gases while they were broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These machines were not creating any greenhouse gases while they were broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155376</id>
	<title>Re:Olympic Fail....</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1266337200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, it's Vancouver.  Vancouverites aren't quite sure what ice is.  They've heard it's frozen water, but really, if the copious amounts of rain that fall on Vancouver froze that would really hurt, wouldn't it?</p><p>Apparently this thing called ice exists on top of those mountains you can see from the city, and there's lots of it on the other side of them on the "prairies," but those are just rumours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , it 's Vancouver .
Vancouverites are n't quite sure what ice is .
They 've heard it 's frozen water , but really , if the copious amounts of rain that fall on Vancouver froze that would really hurt , would n't it ? Apparently this thing called ice exists on top of those mountains you can see from the city , and there 's lots of it on the other side of them on the " prairies , " but those are just rumours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, it's Vancouver.
Vancouverites aren't quite sure what ice is.
They've heard it's frozen water, but really, if the copious amounts of rain that fall on Vancouver froze that would really hurt, wouldn't it?Apparently this thing called ice exists on top of those mountains you can see from the city, and there's lots of it on the other side of them on the "prairies," but those are just rumours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155662</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1266338760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typically, fixed electrical plants are more efficient, since they don't have to worry about power to weight ratios or power to volume ratios, and they run at a relatively constant load level that they can be optimized for.</p><p>They also typically have significantly more emissions controls than vehicle engines do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typically , fixed electrical plants are more efficient , since they do n't have to worry about power to weight ratios or power to volume ratios , and they run at a relatively constant load level that they can be optimized for.They also typically have significantly more emissions controls than vehicle engines do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typically, fixed electrical plants are more efficient, since they don't have to worry about power to weight ratios or power to volume ratios, and they run at a relatively constant load level that they can be optimized for.They also typically have significantly more emissions controls than vehicle engines do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31161220</id>
	<title>OT'ish: I can't believe they didn't have</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1266319380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>propane ones as backups! The whole green thing is a farce. The hydrogen fuel for the buses is shipped from Quebec. Shipping H2 via petroleum fuel is blatantly stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>propane ones as backups !
The whole green thing is a farce .
The hydrogen fuel for the buses is shipped from Quebec .
Shipping H2 via petroleum fuel is blatantly stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>propane ones as backups!
The whole green thing is a farce.
The hydrogen fuel for the buses is shipped from Quebec.
Shipping H2 via petroleum fuel is blatantly stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155862</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1266339900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A hotter atmosphere dumps heat faster.</p><p>The funnel is not a static thing.</p><p>(This doesn't mean that CO2 emissions are not (potentially) problematic, it would be best to keep the environment 'comfortable' for as many humans as possible, it just points out the problem with any sort of facile analysis of the situation)</p><p>((potentially) because the results really aren't in on the long term consequences (especially when various control measures are factored in))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A hotter atmosphere dumps heat faster.The funnel is not a static thing .
( This does n't mean that CO2 emissions are not ( potentially ) problematic , it would be best to keep the environment 'comfortable ' for as many humans as possible , it just points out the problem with any sort of facile analysis of the situation ) ( ( potentially ) because the results really are n't in on the long term consequences ( especially when various control measures are factored in ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A hotter atmosphere dumps heat faster.The funnel is not a static thing.
(This doesn't mean that CO2 emissions are not (potentially) problematic, it would be best to keep the environment 'comfortable' for as many humans as possible, it just points out the problem with any sort of facile analysis of the situation)((potentially) because the results really aren't in on the long term consequences (especially when various control measures are factored in))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155416</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1266337440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Generating all the power we need at centralized power plants is typically more efficient than running a bunch of small motors everywhere. Not to mention that most non-polluting energy sources can only be exploited on a large scale. No one is going to have a personal hydroelectric dam, and a windmill to power your home has horrible efficiency- note how turbines have only been getting bigger lately. Solar panels are starting to get cheap enough for home use, but they still depreciate too quickly to be all that green when you consider the materials they are made out of.<br> <br>

I agree that "green" marketing often ignores the impact of the power source, but in general green technology can still come out ahead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generating all the power we need at centralized power plants is typically more efficient than running a bunch of small motors everywhere .
Not to mention that most non-polluting energy sources can only be exploited on a large scale .
No one is going to have a personal hydroelectric dam , and a windmill to power your home has horrible efficiency- note how turbines have only been getting bigger lately .
Solar panels are starting to get cheap enough for home use , but they still depreciate too quickly to be all that green when you consider the materials they are made out of .
I agree that " green " marketing often ignores the impact of the power source , but in general green technology can still come out ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generating all the power we need at centralized power plants is typically more efficient than running a bunch of small motors everywhere.
Not to mention that most non-polluting energy sources can only be exploited on a large scale.
No one is going to have a personal hydroelectric dam, and a windmill to power your home has horrible efficiency- note how turbines have only been getting bigger lately.
Solar panels are starting to get cheap enough for home use, but they still depreciate too quickly to be all that green when you consider the materials they are made out of.
I agree that "green" marketing often ignores the impact of the power source, but in general green technology can still come out ahead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155192</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this point: Yes, it is "out of sight, out of mind". That will change.</p><p>By centralizing the electricity generation we have one large item to make more "green" instead of many thousands of smaller items. Chances are that the power company has their gear in better shape than most of the households near me, although they are still burning sulfur laden coal.</p><p>My local power company is also investigating tide, wind, and other means of going green. Although I can do that too, the cost for that experiment is prohibitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point : Yes , it is " out of sight , out of mind " .
That will change.By centralizing the electricity generation we have one large item to make more " green " instead of many thousands of smaller items .
Chances are that the power company has their gear in better shape than most of the households near me , although they are still burning sulfur laden coal.My local power company is also investigating tide , wind , and other means of going green .
Although I can do that too , the cost for that experiment is prohibitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point: Yes, it is "out of sight, out of mind".
That will change.By centralizing the electricity generation we have one large item to make more "green" instead of many thousands of smaller items.
Chances are that the power company has their gear in better shape than most of the households near me, although they are still burning sulfur laden coal.My local power company is also investigating tide, wind, and other means of going green.
Although I can do that too, the cost for that experiment is prohibitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155466</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1266337680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. OTOH, a lot of power is lost during transport from the central plant to the consuming device.</p><p>Basicly we have three fields here:</p><p>1) "Greener" energy usage (no local fumes)<br>2) "Greener" energy production (Windmills vs. whatever)<br>3) "Greener" energy transport and storage</p><p>It's the weakest link that defines overall "greenlieness" amongst these three. (anything else is just shifting from local pollution to remote pollution)</p><p>And in addition to these three we have efficiency. Any gain in that directly goes to the total "Green"-Result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
OTOH , a lot of power is lost during transport from the central plant to the consuming device.Basicly we have three fields here : 1 ) " Greener " energy usage ( no local fumes ) 2 ) " Greener " energy production ( Windmills vs. whatever ) 3 ) " Greener " energy transport and storageIt 's the weakest link that defines overall " greenlieness " amongst these three .
( anything else is just shifting from local pollution to remote pollution ) And in addition to these three we have efficiency .
Any gain in that directly goes to the total " Green " -Result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
OTOH, a lot of power is lost during transport from the central plant to the consuming device.Basicly we have three fields here:1) "Greener" energy usage (no local fumes)2) "Greener" energy production (Windmills vs. whatever)3) "Greener" energy transport and storageIt's the weakest link that defines overall "greenlieness" amongst these three.
(anything else is just shifting from local pollution to remote pollution)And in addition to these three we have efficiency.
Any gain in that directly goes to the total "Green"-Result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155474</id>
	<title>Re:Green... EPIC FAILURE</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1266337740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read this and Re-Educate yourself:  <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/" title="washingtontimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/</a> [washingtontimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read this and Re-Educate yourself : http : //www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/ [ washingtontimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read this and Re-Educate yourself:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/ [washingtontimes.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155046</id>
	<title>In my day...</title>
	<author>bbbaldie</author>
	<datestamp>1266335460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We were just glad to have ice to skate on at all!--Hans Brinker</htmltext>
<tokenext>We were just glad to have ice to skate on at all ! --Hans Brinker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were just glad to have ice to skate on at all!--Hans Brinker</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158648</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1266350880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes. OTOH, a lot of power is lost during transport from the central plant to the consuming device.</i></p><p>Score 4, Insightful?  Sorry, but electricity transmission in the US averages <a href="http://climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf" title="climatetechnology.gov">92.8\% efficient</a> [climatetechnology.gov].</p><p><i>anything else is just shifting from local pollution to remote pollution</i></p><p>Making pollution more remote *is* a good thing.  Many pollutants have relatively short atmospheric lifespans.  The further they are from people on average and the higher altitude they're emitted at, the better.  Furthermore, power plants are more efficient than ICEs.  And they have big, central scrubbers.  And only half of our power in the US is coal (less elsewhere); the next leading sources are nuclear, natural gas, hydro, and wind.  And coal's share is falling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
OTOH , a lot of power is lost during transport from the central plant to the consuming device.Score 4 , Insightful ?
Sorry , but electricity transmission in the US averages 92.8 \ % efficient [ climatetechnology.gov ] .anything else is just shifting from local pollution to remote pollutionMaking pollution more remote * is * a good thing .
Many pollutants have relatively short atmospheric lifespans .
The further they are from people on average and the higher altitude they 're emitted at , the better .
Furthermore , power plants are more efficient than ICEs .
And they have big , central scrubbers .
And only half of our power in the US is coal ( less elsewhere ) ; the next leading sources are nuclear , natural gas , hydro , and wind .
And coal 's share is falling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
OTOH, a lot of power is lost during transport from the central plant to the consuming device.Score 4, Insightful?
Sorry, but electricity transmission in the US averages 92.8\% efficient [climatetechnology.gov].anything else is just shifting from local pollution to remote pollutionMaking pollution more remote *is* a good thing.
Many pollutants have relatively short atmospheric lifespans.
The further they are from people on average and the higher altitude they're emitted at, the better.
Furthermore, power plants are more efficient than ICEs.
And they have big, central scrubbers.
And only half of our power in the US is coal (less elsewhere); the next leading sources are nuclear, natural gas, hydro, and wind.
And coal's share is falling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157258</id>
	<title>Re:Perceptions from Vancouver</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the games...</p></div><p>I hear that they highway up to Whistler is the least busy it's ever been.  Those few people I know that have passes think it's fantastic.  Their travel times have been dramatically shortened.</p><p>So if it's not busy now, we needed that four lane highway...  Why?  Oh yeah, because the politicians have homes up at Whistler.  (This is not a known fact, but I would not be surprised.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the games...I hear that they highway up to Whistler is the least busy it 's ever been .
Those few people I know that have passes think it 's fantastic .
Their travel times have been dramatically shortened.So if it 's not busy now , we needed that four lane highway... Why ? Oh yeah , because the politicians have homes up at Whistler .
( This is not a known fact , but I would not be surprised .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the games...I hear that they highway up to Whistler is the least busy it's ever been.
Those few people I know that have passes think it's fantastic.
Their travel times have been dramatically shortened.So if it's not busy now, we needed that four lane highway...  Why?  Oh yeah, because the politicians have homes up at Whistler.
(This is not a known fact, but I would not be surprised.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155326</id>
	<title>I dunno about green ice... but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't eat yellow snow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't eat yellow snow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't eat yellow snow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155722</id>
	<title>Mechanical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266339120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The failures appeared to me to be of a mechanical nature... nothing to do with the "green" aspects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The failures appeared to me to be of a mechanical nature... nothing to do with the " green " aspects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The failures appeared to me to be of a mechanical nature... nothing to do with the "green" aspects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155522</id>
	<title>Electric devices are still powered by fossil fuels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266337920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Green?  *chuckle*  They're still fossil fuel powered.  The grid is not magic.  The electricity doesn't magically come from the hole in the wall.  There's a whole infrastructure behind that hole and that infrastructure runs on fossil fuels.</p><p>Clean the source and every single electrical device you own becomes green with zero work on your part.  You also have to replace nothing.  Batteries are horrible for the environment.  What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?</p><p>Can't we get over this fear of nuclear power yet?  Please?  For the good of humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Green ?
* chuckle * They 're still fossil fuel powered .
The grid is not magic .
The electricity does n't magically come from the hole in the wall .
There 's a whole infrastructure behind that hole and that infrastructure runs on fossil fuels.Clean the source and every single electrical device you own becomes green with zero work on your part .
You also have to replace nothing .
Batteries are horrible for the environment .
What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal ? Ca n't we get over this fear of nuclear power yet ?
Please ? For the good of humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Green?
*chuckle*  They're still fossil fuel powered.
The grid is not magic.
The electricity doesn't magically come from the hole in the wall.
There's a whole infrastructure behind that hole and that infrastructure runs on fossil fuels.Clean the source and every single electrical device you own becomes green with zero work on your part.
You also have to replace nothing.
Batteries are horrible for the environment.
What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?Can't we get over this fear of nuclear power yet?
Please?  For the good of humanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156128</id>
	<title>Re:Green ?</title>
	<author>lwriemen</author>
	<datestamp>1266341400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, even with 100\% coal, you have a big advantage. You can

   1. dump the CO2 into the ground.
   2. Run it through a green house.
   3. Run it through an algae farm.
   4. etc.</p></div><p>but you can't restore the removed mountain tops and restore the destroyed ecosystems. You also need to account for the Hg, SO2, and NO(x) emissions, and the waste dumped into the waterways.</p><p>Sorry, but there is no such thing as "clean coal".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , even with 100 \ % coal , you have a big advantage .
You can 1. dump the CO2 into the ground .
2. Run it through a green house .
3. Run it through an algae farm .
4. etc.but you ca n't restore the removed mountain tops and restore the destroyed ecosystems .
You also need to account for the Hg , SO2 , and NO ( x ) emissions , and the waste dumped into the waterways.Sorry , but there is no such thing as " clean coal " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, even with 100\% coal, you have a big advantage.
You can

   1. dump the CO2 into the ground.
2. Run it through a green house.
3. Run it through an algae farm.
4. etc.but you can't restore the removed mountain tops and restore the destroyed ecosystems.
You also need to account for the Hg, SO2, and NO(x) emissions, and the waste dumped into the waterways.Sorry, but there is no such thing as "clean coal".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156912</id>
	<title>Re:Electric devices are still powered by fossil fu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must be American.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be American.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155572</id>
	<title>Problems, problems, problems...</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1266338280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A dead Luger, broken Zamboni, what's next a near fatal curling accident????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A dead Luger , broken Zamboni , what 's next a near fatal curling accident ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A dead Luger, broken Zamboni, what's next a near fatal curling accident???
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157392</id>
	<title>I wanna drive</title>
	<author>g0bshiTe</author>
	<datestamp>1266346080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a Zamboni!</htmltext>
<tokenext>a Zamboni !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a Zamboni!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31161008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31171430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31164760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31159880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31162538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31160408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31159346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31164678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31163174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_142217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31160408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31164760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155466
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31164678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31161008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31161296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31162538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31163174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31154938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158400
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31159880
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31171430
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156530
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31156154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31159346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31157172
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31158416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_142217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_142217.31155542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
