<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_22_1915250</id>
	<title>Fuel Cell Marvel "Bloom Box" Gaining Momentum</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1266826620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Many sources are continuing to excitedly report on the latest in a long line of startups chasing the holy grail of power sources.  This incarnation, the "Bloom Box" from Bloom Energy, promises a <a href="http://www.dailytech.com/Is+the+Magic+Alternative+Energy+Bloom+Box+for+Real/article17752.htm">power-plant-in-a-box</a> that you can literally put in your backyard, and has received backing from companies like eBay, Google, Staples, FedEx, and Walmart.  CBS recently aired an <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml">exclusive interview</a> with K.R. Sridhar about his shiny new box.  <i>"So what is a Bloom Box exactly? Well, $700,000 to $800,000 will buy you a 'corporate sized' unit. Inside the box are a unique kind of fuel cell consisting of ceramic disks coated with green and black 'inks.' The inks somehow transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power, when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius.  To get a view of the cost and benefits, eBay installed 5 of the boxes nine months ago. It says it has saved $100,000 USD on energy since."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many sources are continuing to excitedly report on the latest in a long line of startups chasing the holy grail of power sources .
This incarnation , the " Bloom Box " from Bloom Energy , promises a power-plant-in-a-box that you can literally put in your backyard , and has received backing from companies like eBay , Google , Staples , FedEx , and Walmart .
CBS recently aired an exclusive interview with K.R .
Sridhar about his shiny new box .
" So what is a Bloom Box exactly ?
Well , $ 700,000 to $ 800,000 will buy you a 'corporate sized ' unit .
Inside the box are a unique kind of fuel cell consisting of ceramic disks coated with green and black 'inks .
' The inks somehow transform a stream of methane ( or other hydrocarbons ) and oxygen into power , when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius .
To get a view of the cost and benefits , eBay installed 5 of the boxes nine months ago .
It says it has saved $ 100,000 USD on energy since .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many sources are continuing to excitedly report on the latest in a long line of startups chasing the holy grail of power sources.
This incarnation, the "Bloom Box" from Bloom Energy, promises a power-plant-in-a-box that you can literally put in your backyard, and has received backing from companies like eBay, Google, Staples, FedEx, and Walmart.
CBS recently aired an exclusive interview with K.R.
Sridhar about his shiny new box.
"So what is a Bloom Box exactly?
Well, $700,000 to $800,000 will buy you a 'corporate sized' unit.
Inside the box are a unique kind of fuel cell consisting of ceramic disks coated with green and black 'inks.
' The inks somehow transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power, when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius.
To get a view of the cost and benefits, eBay installed 5 of the boxes nine months ago.
It says it has saved $100,000 USD on energy since.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236132</id>
	<title>So what's new about this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How  is this product different from other ceramic fuel cell units that have been used in the UK and Europe for years now?<br>eg http://www.cfcl.com.au/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this product different from other ceramic fuel cell units that have been used in the UK and Europe for years now ? eg http : //www.cfcl.com.au/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How  is this product different from other ceramic fuel cell units that have been used in the UK and Europe for years now?eg http://www.cfcl.com.au/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235352</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1266831960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In cars, the problem is that higher temperatures leads to Nitrogen Oxides, which contribute to smog.
<br> <br>
Since this thing burns Air and Fuel, he needs some secret sauce to keep the NOx compounds from forming, or some way to break them down after they are created.  Perhaps the Nitrogen won't pass whatever barrier that keeps the electrodes apart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In cars , the problem is that higher temperatures leads to Nitrogen Oxides , which contribute to smog .
Since this thing burns Air and Fuel , he needs some secret sauce to keep the NOx compounds from forming , or some way to break them down after they are created .
Perhaps the Nitrogen wo n't pass whatever barrier that keeps the electrodes apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In cars, the problem is that higher temperatures leads to Nitrogen Oxides, which contribute to smog.
Since this thing burns Air and Fuel, he needs some secret sauce to keep the NOx compounds from forming, or some way to break them down after they are created.
Perhaps the Nitrogen won't pass whatever barrier that keeps the electrodes apart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234972</id>
	<title>Poor investment for whom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm betting there were some hefty tax incentives at play in this decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm betting there were some hefty tax incentives at play in this decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm betting there were some hefty tax incentives at play in this decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235762</id>
	<title>Re:Evironmentally...more of the same?</title>
	<author>berzerke</author>
	<datestamp>1266833160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>They tried to gloss over it, but in the end it still takes in oxygen and releases CO2 while burning hydrocarbons...</i> </p><p>Yes, but it uses the much more carbon neutral fuel natural gas. Natural gas is easy to produce from plant biomass. Easier than ethanol or gasoline. It happens in swamps naturally. Even people can do it. Why just last night I was turning some baked beans I had for dinner into natural gas in my sleep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They tried to gloss over it , but in the end it still takes in oxygen and releases CO2 while burning hydrocarbons... Yes , but it uses the much more carbon neutral fuel natural gas .
Natural gas is easy to produce from plant biomass .
Easier than ethanol or gasoline .
It happens in swamps naturally .
Even people can do it .
Why just last night I was turning some baked beans I had for dinner into natural gas in my sleep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They tried to gloss over it, but in the end it still takes in oxygen and releases CO2 while burning hydrocarbons... Yes, but it uses the much more carbon neutral fuel natural gas.
Natural gas is easy to produce from plant biomass.
Easier than ethanol or gasoline.
It happens in swamps naturally.
Even people can do it.
Why just last night I was turning some baked beans I had for dinner into natural gas in my sleep.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237680</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>BillKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1266839760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from what other readers have noted (that getting a 5\% return is very optimitics right now), you are not counting long term savings.</p><p>That is to say, today we have 1st generation power units which cost 3,500,000$ and save 100,000$ a year. Investing that money in the bank will return you 175,000$, all right, 75,000$ more than buying the machines.</p><p>But if you buy the power units, you are investing in power unit technology. So if they get a lot of customers, assume in 5 years time the units will cost 1.000.000$ and save you 300.000$ a year, a 30\% ROI, no bank can compete with this. This is what happened with computer hardware, just look 20 years ago!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from what other readers have noted ( that getting a 5 \ % return is very optimitics right now ) , you are not counting long term savings.That is to say , today we have 1st generation power units which cost 3,500,000 $ and save 100,000 $ a year .
Investing that money in the bank will return you 175,000 $ , all right , 75,000 $ more than buying the machines.But if you buy the power units , you are investing in power unit technology .
So if they get a lot of customers , assume in 5 years time the units will cost 1.000.000 $ and save you 300.000 $ a year , a 30 \ % ROI , no bank can compete with this .
This is what happened with computer hardware , just look 20 years ago !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from what other readers have noted (that getting a 5\% return is very optimitics right now), you are not counting long term savings.That is to say, today we have 1st generation power units which cost 3,500,000$ and save 100,000$ a year.
Investing that money in the bank will return you 175,000$, all right, 75,000$ more than buying the machines.But if you buy the power units, you are investing in power unit technology.
So if they get a lot of customers, assume in 5 years time the units will cost 1.000.000$ and save you 300.000$ a year, a 30\% ROI, no bank can compete with this.
This is what happened with computer hardware, just look 20 years ago!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236156</id>
	<title>Re:How is this "green"?</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1266834360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, it's really only greener if they actually sell small "Bloom Boxes" to end-users rather than only to utility companies and large businesses.  The fact that they've spent ten years in secret development doesn't really bode well for this outcome.</p><p>The technology is safe and quiet and simple enough to put in every backyard.  Economical on-site, on-demand power generation is the lynchpin of a revolution in energy efficiency and green technologies, from solar and wind to bio-methanol and simple co-generation.</p><p>Large corporations have little incentive to adopt green energy technologies.  And governments will not take the necessary steps to ensure renewable and carbon-neutral energy is the norm.  But individuals who would rather invest in energy security and environmental responsibility than gamble with their retirement in risky financial markets could be the real drivers behind energy efficiency improvements and green energy adoption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , it 's really only greener if they actually sell small " Bloom Boxes " to end-users rather than only to utility companies and large businesses .
The fact that they 've spent ten years in secret development does n't really bode well for this outcome.The technology is safe and quiet and simple enough to put in every backyard .
Economical on-site , on-demand power generation is the lynchpin of a revolution in energy efficiency and green technologies , from solar and wind to bio-methanol and simple co-generation.Large corporations have little incentive to adopt green energy technologies .
And governments will not take the necessary steps to ensure renewable and carbon-neutral energy is the norm .
But individuals who would rather invest in energy security and environmental responsibility than gamble with their retirement in risky financial markets could be the real drivers behind energy efficiency improvements and green energy adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, it's really only greener if they actually sell small "Bloom Boxes" to end-users rather than only to utility companies and large businesses.
The fact that they've spent ten years in secret development doesn't really bode well for this outcome.The technology is safe and quiet and simple enough to put in every backyard.
Economical on-site, on-demand power generation is the lynchpin of a revolution in energy efficiency and green technologies, from solar and wind to bio-methanol and simple co-generation.Large corporations have little incentive to adopt green energy technologies.
And governments will not take the necessary steps to ensure renewable and carbon-neutral energy is the norm.
But individuals who would rather invest in energy security and environmental responsibility than gamble with their retirement in risky financial markets could be the real drivers behind energy efficiency improvements and green energy adoption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236166</id>
	<title>Re:Most of you are missing the point people!</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1266834360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ROI is a misleading concept.  You can't just figure ROI based on your PG&amp;E bill over 30 years time..</p></div><p>Really? Why not? The experts on Fox News do it all the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ROI is a misleading concept .
You ca n't just figure ROI based on your PG&amp;E bill over 30 years time..Really ?
Why not ?
The experts on Fox News do it all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROI is a misleading concept.
You can't just figure ROI based on your PG&amp;E bill over 30 years time..Really?
Why not?
The experts on Fox News do it all the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31255032</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>laddiebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1266942660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, you think invested money just returns magically? Invested money is all about taking proactive steps to generate enough welth for the investor and the investee. It just means someone else can generate more wealth (and possibly make more progress) with the money than you can. If you think you can do something better in 50 years' time, then you need capital and you play the long game. But your assertion is sort of like Zen: nonsense that sounds good until you think about it just a bit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , you think invested money just returns magically ?
Invested money is all about taking proactive steps to generate enough welth for the investor and the investee .
It just means someone else can generate more wealth ( and possibly make more progress ) with the money than you can .
If you think you can do something better in 50 years ' time , then you need capital and you play the long game .
But your assertion is sort of like Zen : nonsense that sounds good until you think about it just a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, you think invested money just returns magically?
Invested money is all about taking proactive steps to generate enough welth for the investor and the investee.
It just means someone else can generate more wealth (and possibly make more progress) with the money than you can.
If you think you can do something better in 50 years' time, then you need capital and you play the long game.
But your assertion is sort of like Zen: nonsense that sounds good until you think about it just a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235178</id>
	<title>Interesting but not yet revolutionary</title>
	<author>EriktheGreen</author>
	<datestamp>1266831420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is a neat idea... but the cost of the units is obviously prohibitive at the moment.  People (generalizing) will pay a bit more for guaranteed clean energy, especially if at some point it has little or no ongoing cost.  But they won't pay for something that has a 30 year break even unless the devices last that long without any significant maintenance (added cost).
</p><p>
If mass production brought the costs down, I could see this being an interesting alternative for folks not well served (in one way or another, including cost) by existing power utilities.  Provided of course the machine with its "secret" components doesn't create other problems, like being non recyclable, or being hazardous in some other way.
</p><p>
This is more revolutionary for the third world though.. any country without an existing power infrastructure or with a less than robust one could install a lower cost version of this unit at a lower price than creating a country wide power distribution network.  We may see a time in the near future where the third world countries are running off of these sorts of micro power plants while the US still gets its energy centrally, from big expensive power plants.
</p><p>
Green is good, but people won't do it unless it's cheap too.  We're kinda dumb that way.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a neat idea... but the cost of the units is obviously prohibitive at the moment .
People ( generalizing ) will pay a bit more for guaranteed clean energy , especially if at some point it has little or no ongoing cost .
But they wo n't pay for something that has a 30 year break even unless the devices last that long without any significant maintenance ( added cost ) .
If mass production brought the costs down , I could see this being an interesting alternative for folks not well served ( in one way or another , including cost ) by existing power utilities .
Provided of course the machine with its " secret " components does n't create other problems , like being non recyclable , or being hazardous in some other way .
This is more revolutionary for the third world though.. any country without an existing power infrastructure or with a less than robust one could install a lower cost version of this unit at a lower price than creating a country wide power distribution network .
We may see a time in the near future where the third world countries are running off of these sorts of micro power plants while the US still gets its energy centrally , from big expensive power plants .
Green is good , but people wo n't do it unless it 's cheap too .
We 're kinda dumb that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is a neat idea... but the cost of the units is obviously prohibitive at the moment.
People (generalizing) will pay a bit more for guaranteed clean energy, especially if at some point it has little or no ongoing cost.
But they won't pay for something that has a 30 year break even unless the devices last that long without any significant maintenance (added cost).
If mass production brought the costs down, I could see this being an interesting alternative for folks not well served (in one way or another, including cost) by existing power utilities.
Provided of course the machine with its "secret" components doesn't create other problems, like being non recyclable, or being hazardous in some other way.
This is more revolutionary for the third world though.. any country without an existing power infrastructure or with a less than robust one could install a lower cost version of this unit at a lower price than creating a country wide power distribution network.
We may see a time in the near future where the third world countries are running off of these sorts of micro power plants while the US still gets its energy centrally, from big expensive power plants.
Green is good, but people won't do it unless it's cheap too.
We're kinda dumb that way.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235164</id>
	<title>The Secret Ink...</title>
	<author>jeillah</author>
	<datestamp>1266831420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is made from Energizer Bunny blood!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is made from Energizer Bunny blood ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is made from Energizer Bunny blood!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238104</id>
	<title>Sounds as promising as cold fusion</title>
	<author>jd80026</author>
	<datestamp>1266841680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is it an "Investigative Journalism" show like 60 minutes will accept the explanation that the special ink painted over ceramic tiles makes energy? Presumably these guys have filed patents so why the utter lack of details? Also, why should people get excited about a power generation method that requires a fossil fuel as an input?  How is this green energy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it an " Investigative Journalism " show like 60 minutes will accept the explanation that the special ink painted over ceramic tiles makes energy ?
Presumably these guys have filed patents so why the utter lack of details ?
Also , why should people get excited about a power generation method that requires a fossil fuel as an input ?
How is this green energy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it an "Investigative Journalism" show like 60 minutes will accept the explanation that the special ink painted over ceramic tiles makes energy?
Presumably these guys have filed patents so why the utter lack of details?
Also, why should people get excited about a power generation method that requires a fossil fuel as an input?
How is this green energy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237372</id>
	<title>SRIDHAR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266838440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy is going to be big news one way or another:<br>Either a revolutionary or a total fraud.</p><p>Some odd indications:</p><p>natural gas, biogas,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Stahl: "solar?"<br>Sridhar: "solar" (solar gas?)</p><p>The Bloom box show very minimal heat dissipation accommodations, and I have serious doubts that it's running at 100\% efficiency.</p><p>Does NASA have any claims in case this is kosher?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy is going to be big news one way or another : Either a revolutionary or a total fraud.Some odd indications : natural gas , biogas , ...Stahl : " solar ?
" Sridhar : " solar " ( solar gas ?
) The Bloom box show very minimal heat dissipation accommodations , and I have serious doubts that it 's running at 100 \ % efficiency.Does NASA have any claims in case this is kosher ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy is going to be big news one way or another:Either a revolutionary or a total fraud.Some odd indications:natural gas, biogas, ...Stahl: "solar?
"Sridhar: "solar" (solar gas?
)The Bloom box show very minimal heat dissipation accommodations, and I have serious doubts that it's running at 100\% efficiency.Does NASA have any claims in case this is kosher?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235160</id>
	<title>Why won't the power companies buy them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266831420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone ever install the technology as a primary power source in a store or datacenter that had access to the power grid? If the technology is that good, the power companies will buy it and use it to generate the power themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone ever install the technology as a primary power source in a store or datacenter that had access to the power grid ?
If the technology is that good , the power companies will buy it and use it to generate the power themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone ever install the technology as a primary power source in a store or datacenter that had access to the power grid?
If the technology is that good, the power companies will buy it and use it to generate the power themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31264308</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>OldSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1265104320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want one for <a href="http://newswithnumbers.com/2010/02/24/a-bloombox-for-your-car/" title="newswithnumbers.com">my car</a> [newswithnumbers.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want one for my car [ newswithnumbers.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want one for my car [newswithnumbers.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372</id>
	<title>Fuel Cells, better than Natural Gas Electric PWR.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266832020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like this converts Natural Gas into electricity, what a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of our electrical power comes from Natural Gas being burned in motors that TURN generators.  They are either Turbines or conventional large internal combustion engines that turn those generators, the conventional way of turning chemical energy into electrical energy is very poor and a lot of energy is wasted as heat energy.   Sounds like these Boxes or "Heat Catalyzing Fuel Cells"  could be far more efficient and if can be scaled up could be used to stretch the fossil fuel buck a whole lot more and easily be scaled to bio fuels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like this converts Natural Gas into electricity , what a lot of people do n't realize is that a lot of our electrical power comes from Natural Gas being burned in motors that TURN generators .
They are either Turbines or conventional large internal combustion engines that turn those generators , the conventional way of turning chemical energy into electrical energy is very poor and a lot of energy is wasted as heat energy .
Sounds like these Boxes or " Heat Catalyzing Fuel Cells " could be far more efficient and if can be scaled up could be used to stretch the fossil fuel buck a whole lot more and easily be scaled to bio fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like this converts Natural Gas into electricity, what a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of our electrical power comes from Natural Gas being burned in motors that TURN generators.
They are either Turbines or conventional large internal combustion engines that turn those generators, the conventional way of turning chemical energy into electrical energy is very poor and a lot of energy is wasted as heat energy.
Sounds like these Boxes or "Heat Catalyzing Fuel Cells"  could be far more efficient and if can be scaled up could be used to stretch the fossil fuel buck a whole lot more and easily be scaled to bio fuels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237408</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1266838560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually a backup generator would be completely unnecessary in this scenario.  The reason you need a backup generator is because you are relying on grid power, and if it goes out you need to generate the electricity yourself.  If you are already generating the electricity the backup generator is redundant (and not in a good way).</p><p>Basically, if the fuel cell is good enough to reduce the size of your generator then it is good enough to eliminate it completely, because the generator is there for catastrophic failure and not supplimental power.  So if the fuel cell can handle the whole load all the time, then it can be made redundant itself without the need of a second type of generator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually a backup generator would be completely unnecessary in this scenario .
The reason you need a backup generator is because you are relying on grid power , and if it goes out you need to generate the electricity yourself .
If you are already generating the electricity the backup generator is redundant ( and not in a good way ) .Basically , if the fuel cell is good enough to reduce the size of your generator then it is good enough to eliminate it completely , because the generator is there for catastrophic failure and not supplimental power .
So if the fuel cell can handle the whole load all the time , then it can be made redundant itself without the need of a second type of generator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually a backup generator would be completely unnecessary in this scenario.
The reason you need a backup generator is because you are relying on grid power, and if it goes out you need to generate the electricity yourself.
If you are already generating the electricity the backup generator is redundant (and not in a good way).Basically, if the fuel cell is good enough to reduce the size of your generator then it is good enough to eliminate it completely, because the generator is there for catastrophic failure and not supplimental power.
So if the fuel cell can handle the whole load all the time, then it can be made redundant itself without the need of a second type of generator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239412</id>
	<title>best placement idea</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1266849360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People have captured and burned methane from enclosed cow barns and powered their farm plus extra but obviously burning it isn't the best idea (although I have no idea what this box does).  If you put one of these in a cow farm though, you'll probably have enough methane to power some serious stuff without having to build a compost heap under it.  The compost heap is basically inside the cow's stomach and all the methane is currently heading up into the atmosphere doing 1000x more damage per molecule as CO2 so we might as well turn it into semi-cleaner power.  I bet it'd put out more than all those cows running on cow sized hampster wheels even...hey, that's another good idea!  Install em both! lol.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People have captured and burned methane from enclosed cow barns and powered their farm plus extra but obviously burning it is n't the best idea ( although I have no idea what this box does ) .
If you put one of these in a cow farm though , you 'll probably have enough methane to power some serious stuff without having to build a compost heap under it .
The compost heap is basically inside the cow 's stomach and all the methane is currently heading up into the atmosphere doing 1000x more damage per molecule as CO2 so we might as well turn it into semi-cleaner power .
I bet it 'd put out more than all those cows running on cow sized hampster wheels even...hey , that 's another good idea !
Install em both !
lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have captured and burned methane from enclosed cow barns and powered their farm plus extra but obviously burning it isn't the best idea (although I have no idea what this box does).
If you put one of these in a cow farm though, you'll probably have enough methane to power some serious stuff without having to build a compost heap under it.
The compost heap is basically inside the cow's stomach and all the methane is currently heading up into the atmosphere doing 1000x more damage per molecule as CO2 so we might as well turn it into semi-cleaner power.
I bet it'd put out more than all those cows running on cow sized hampster wheels even...hey, that's another good idea!
Install em both!
lol.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236498</id>
	<title>Re:Some of us would</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1266835500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the fuels are not being combusted</p></div><p>This is a disingenuous claim.  The efficiency is higher, but the result is basically the same as 'combustion'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the fuels are not being combustedThis is a disingenuous claim .
The efficiency is higher , but the result is basically the same as 'combustion' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fuels are not being combustedThis is a disingenuous claim.
The efficiency is higher, but the result is basically the same as 'combustion'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241284</id>
	<title>ROI &amp; Generators</title>
	<author>ubeatha</author>
	<datestamp>1266866100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think if you look into it you'll find the companies purchasing these are probably replacing backup generators which have very high maintenance costs.   High enough to cover the early adopter premium.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if you look into it you 'll find the companies purchasing these are probably replacing backup generators which have very high maintenance costs .
High enough to cover the early adopter premium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if you look into it you'll find the companies purchasing these are probably replacing backup generators which have very high maintenance costs.
High enough to cover the early adopter premium.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241626</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>BlackSmithNZ</author>
	<datestamp>1266956100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Local New Zealand bank account; government guaranteed and a choice of conservative, profitable (mostly Australian owned) banks that all sailed through the Financial melt-down without any major concerns.</p><p>Six month to 1 year investment is about 5\% return. US dollar returns might change, but probably not a lot.</p><p>Easy when you know how.</p><p>But you would think a business like Google, EBay or whoever might be able to turn $1 investment in their business into a 5\% return. If not, why the hell would be people be risking investment into these businesses at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Local New Zealand bank account ; government guaranteed and a choice of conservative , profitable ( mostly Australian owned ) banks that all sailed through the Financial melt-down without any major concerns.Six month to 1 year investment is about 5 \ % return .
US dollar returns might change , but probably not a lot.Easy when you know how.But you would think a business like Google , EBay or whoever might be able to turn $ 1 investment in their business into a 5 \ % return .
If not , why the hell would be people be risking investment into these businesses at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Local New Zealand bank account; government guaranteed and a choice of conservative, profitable (mostly Australian owned) banks that all sailed through the Financial melt-down without any major concerns.Six month to 1 year investment is about 5\% return.
US dollar returns might change, but probably not a lot.Easy when you know how.But you would think a business like Google, EBay or whoever might be able to turn $1 investment in their business into a 5\% return.
If not, why the hell would be people be risking investment into these businesses at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235986</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel and Oxygen</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1266833820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excluding Solar, Nuclear, and Hydro, all power plants burn O2.  If anything, this burns less of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excluding Solar , Nuclear , and Hydro , all power plants burn O2 .
If anything , this burns less of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excluding Solar, Nuclear, and Hydro, all power plants burn O2.
If anything, this burns less of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241170</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1266864840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cool, they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.</p></div><p>Just like you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool , they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.Just like you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool, they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.Just like you!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241226</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1266865500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2 things. (I am not a banker but I have been to the bank, lol)</p><p>1) CDs are not at 5\%... that's crazy.  Bonds are at somewhere around 5\% but not CDs.</p><p>2) Don't forget capital gains taxes.</p><p>$100k profit != $100k saved.  If you save 100k, you saved having to earn the pre-tax income that, after taxes, is 100k.  If make 100k in profit, you will pay taxes on that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 things .
( I am not a banker but I have been to the bank , lol ) 1 ) CDs are not at 5 \ % ... that 's crazy .
Bonds are at somewhere around 5 \ % but not CDs.2 ) Do n't forget capital gains taxes. $ 100k profit ! = $ 100k saved .
If you save 100k , you saved having to earn the pre-tax income that , after taxes , is 100k .
If make 100k in profit , you will pay taxes on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 things.
(I am not a banker but I have been to the bank, lol)1) CDs are not at 5\%... that's crazy.
Bonds are at somewhere around 5\% but not CDs.2) Don't forget capital gains taxes.$100k profit != $100k saved.
If you save 100k, you saved having to earn the pre-tax income that, after taxes, is 100k.
If make 100k in profit, you will pay taxes on that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238224</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>columbiatch</author>
	<datestamp>1266842340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your calc is too simple.   If you're really gonna model time-value of money accurately, you're going to have to account for inflation, income tax, future energy costs, exchange rates, possibility of reserve currencies being switch from the US$ to other currencies, etc.

This could be a savvy business decision; but it's up in the air given that rising future energy prices would make this a good decision vs. the Weimar Republic of America printing $ like they're going out of style (which they are).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your calc is too simple .
If you 're really gon na model time-value of money accurately , you 're going to have to account for inflation , income tax , future energy costs , exchange rates , possibility of reserve currencies being switch from the US $ to other currencies , etc .
This could be a savvy business decision ; but it 's up in the air given that rising future energy prices would make this a good decision vs. the Weimar Republic of America printing $ like they 're going out of style ( which they are ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your calc is too simple.
If you're really gonna model time-value of money accurately, you're going to have to account for inflation, income tax, future energy costs, exchange rates, possibility of reserve currencies being switch from the US$ to other currencies, etc.
This could be a savvy business decision; but it's up in the air given that rising future energy prices would make this a good decision vs. the Weimar Republic of America printing $ like they're going out of style (which they are).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31243748</id>
	<title>Hooray!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to have one of these hydrocarbon fuel cells when the price gets down around $5000 per home.  I could pull up to the TV with a big bowl of beans and watch Lucy in a create a carbon-neutral state!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to have one of these hydrocarbon fuel cells when the price gets down around $ 5000 per home .
I could pull up to the TV with a big bowl of beans and watch Lucy in a create a carbon-neutral state !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to have one of these hydrocarbon fuel cells when the price gets down around $5000 per home.
I could pull up to the TV with a big bowl of beans and watch Lucy in a create a carbon-neutral state!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238398</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>RedTeflon</author>
	<datestamp>1266843420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're forgetting about the seller listing &amp; paypal fees</p></div><p>
Dont forget the bloated shipping costs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting about the seller listing &amp; paypal fees Dont forget the bloated shipping costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting about the seller listing &amp; paypal fees
Dont forget the bloated shipping costs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240552</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Rorschach1</author>
	<datestamp>1266858300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Not doing anything' would be keeping your cash under the mattress.  In this case you're making money available to others who WILL do something useful with it.  Or at least something more monetarily productive than investing in fuel cells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Not doing anything ' would be keeping your cash under the mattress .
In this case you 're making money available to others who WILL do something useful with it .
Or at least something more monetarily productive than investing in fuel cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Not doing anything' would be keeping your cash under the mattress.
In this case you're making money available to others who WILL do something useful with it.
Or at least something more monetarily productive than investing in fuel cells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234978</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1266830880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that assumes that power costs don't go up or that they don't go up as fast as the cost of natural gas.<br>Also it makes you less relient on the grid so it can act as a massive UPS. For a place like EBay a backup generator is going to be a small power plant so over all it could be a huge win.<br>The on thing that I wonder about is that 1000c temperature. That seems really high to me but the story  is very short on details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that assumes that power costs do n't go up or that they do n't go up as fast as the cost of natural gas.Also it makes you less relient on the grid so it can act as a massive UPS .
For a place like EBay a backup generator is going to be a small power plant so over all it could be a huge win.The on thing that I wonder about is that 1000c temperature .
That seems really high to me but the story is very short on details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that assumes that power costs don't go up or that they don't go up as fast as the cost of natural gas.Also it makes you less relient on the grid so it can act as a massive UPS.
For a place like EBay a backup generator is going to be a small power plant so over all it could be a huge win.The on thing that I wonder about is that 1000c temperature.
That seems really high to me but the story  is very short on details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237594</id>
	<title>Already exists guys!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266839340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing new under the sun...move along...</p><p><a href="http://www.cfcl.com.au/" title="cfcl.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.cfcl.com.au/</a> [cfcl.com.au]</p><p>nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing new under the sun...move along...http : //www.cfcl.com.au/ [ cfcl.com.au ] nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing new under the sun...move along...http://www.cfcl.com.au/ [cfcl.com.au]nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236296</id>
	<title>Multipurpose?</title>
	<author>Eggbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1266834780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"the "Bloom Box" from Bloom Energy, promises a power-plant-in-a-box  that you can literally put in your backyard" <br>
"the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius" <br> <br>
Why put it outside? Put it inside and you can save money on heating bills as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" the " Bloom Box " from Bloom Energy , promises a power-plant-in-a-box that you can literally put in your backyard " " the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius " Why put it outside ?
Put it inside and you can save money on heating bills as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the "Bloom Box" from Bloom Energy, promises a power-plant-in-a-box  that you can literally put in your backyard" 
"the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius"  
Why put it outside?
Put it inside and you can save money on heating bills as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236202</id>
	<title>Terrible ROI</title>
	<author>G00F</author>
	<datestamp>1266834540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking nearly 30 years to break even.</p><p>Need to have it break even in 8 or less years, with a warranty at least twice as long, and an expected life of 3 times.</p><p>But something like this could be in use of water treatment plants, and factories that just burn off excess gases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking nearly 30 years to break even.Need to have it break even in 8 or less years , with a warranty at least twice as long , and an expected life of 3 times.But something like this could be in use of water treatment plants , and factories that just burn off excess gases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking nearly 30 years to break even.Need to have it break even in 8 or less years, with a warranty at least twice as long, and an expected life of 3 times.But something like this could be in use of water treatment plants, and factories that just burn off excess gases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237604</id>
	<title>Pig farmers rejoice!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266839400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets look at what this IS and what it ISN'T.</p><p>This is an ENERGY CONVERSION technology. It seems as though it takes an arbitrary hydrocarbon fuel and then converts the energy stored in the fuel into electricity. So, we can immediately see that comparing it to solar cells is not really comparing apples to apples. Solar cells also convert the energy in a fuel into electricity. However, in the case of solar cells, the fuel is sunlight. Sunlight is free and renewable. The same cannot be said for Hydrocarbons. Solar cells tap a renewable energy source. Bloom Boxes do not. Also, solar cells produce no biproducts whereas the Bloom Box produces carbon dioxide. If you buy into the culture of global warming and "carbon is evil" then this is a bad thing. Personally I find the science to be suspect. In any case, this technology is not "clean".</p><p>So far, we still need hydrocarbons. Now we're going to need enough to generate everyone's electricity too. No matter how much shale gas they say is out there, I'm not too comfortable with this idea. This does not solve our energy problems. It does not address the big issue around finding a NEW source of cheap FUEL. This provides a new way of consuming the fuel we already use. It would increase our dependence on hydrocarbons.</p><p>But, lets not burn down the factory yet. It could still be a very important technology although it is not a game changer.</p><p>So, why would we care about this technology? In fact, we already have machines that do exactly the same thing - gas turbines. Presumably this is very EFFICIENT energy conversion process. The only reference to efficiency that I can find is in the 60 minutes piece in which they say that the Bloom Box requires about 1/2 the natural gas required by a power plant to produce the same amount of electricity. If this is true, this unit has our best gas turbines beat by 100\%. That would be impressive. If we can get similar efficiency out of a household size unit that would be even more impressive, although unlikely. I'm sure somebody with a better background in thermodynamics can comment on that. I'll bet that some of the savings stem from the fact that transmission line losses are avoided. Nice idea. I imagine that pumping natural gas is a more energy efficient way of transporting energy (Does anybody have any numbers on that?</p><p>As for the money, never mind the 30 year payback period. Those numbers don't mean much. Right now they are hand building these in a factory that produces one a day...sounds a lot like a Rolls Royce to me. If they were cranking them out like Chevys, the math would be a lot different. The CEO wants to sell you one for $3000.00 for your home. And you'll save...what exactly? We don't know. If you could save 1/2 your electricity bill, the whole thing might make sense. That is, if natural gas prices don't double again in the next 15 minutes. We just don't have enough information yet. Persoanlly, I don;t like having to buy hydrocarbons for my car and my heat. The price swings too wildly. You just don;t know what it will cost next year.</p><p>If you're a pig farmer, or someone else with a lot of excess methane around, this could be good.</p><p>Otherwise, it may be an important advancement in fuel cell technology and will find many uses. It simply will not be "the" mainstream technology for generating electricity. The CEO's dream of putting one of these in every house...is exactly that...IMHO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets look at what this IS and what it IS N'T.This is an ENERGY CONVERSION technology .
It seems as though it takes an arbitrary hydrocarbon fuel and then converts the energy stored in the fuel into electricity .
So , we can immediately see that comparing it to solar cells is not really comparing apples to apples .
Solar cells also convert the energy in a fuel into electricity .
However , in the case of solar cells , the fuel is sunlight .
Sunlight is free and renewable .
The same can not be said for Hydrocarbons .
Solar cells tap a renewable energy source .
Bloom Boxes do not .
Also , solar cells produce no biproducts whereas the Bloom Box produces carbon dioxide .
If you buy into the culture of global warming and " carbon is evil " then this is a bad thing .
Personally I find the science to be suspect .
In any case , this technology is not " clean " .So far , we still need hydrocarbons .
Now we 're going to need enough to generate everyone 's electricity too .
No matter how much shale gas they say is out there , I 'm not too comfortable with this idea .
This does not solve our energy problems .
It does not address the big issue around finding a NEW source of cheap FUEL .
This provides a new way of consuming the fuel we already use .
It would increase our dependence on hydrocarbons.But , lets not burn down the factory yet .
It could still be a very important technology although it is not a game changer.So , why would we care about this technology ?
In fact , we already have machines that do exactly the same thing - gas turbines .
Presumably this is very EFFICIENT energy conversion process .
The only reference to efficiency that I can find is in the 60 minutes piece in which they say that the Bloom Box requires about 1/2 the natural gas required by a power plant to produce the same amount of electricity .
If this is true , this unit has our best gas turbines beat by 100 \ % .
That would be impressive .
If we can get similar efficiency out of a household size unit that would be even more impressive , although unlikely .
I 'm sure somebody with a better background in thermodynamics can comment on that .
I 'll bet that some of the savings stem from the fact that transmission line losses are avoided .
Nice idea .
I imagine that pumping natural gas is a more energy efficient way of transporting energy ( Does anybody have any numbers on that ? As for the money , never mind the 30 year payback period .
Those numbers do n't mean much .
Right now they are hand building these in a factory that produces one a day...sounds a lot like a Rolls Royce to me .
If they were cranking them out like Chevys , the math would be a lot different .
The CEO wants to sell you one for $ 3000.00 for your home .
And you 'll save...what exactly ?
We do n't know .
If you could save 1/2 your electricity bill , the whole thing might make sense .
That is , if natural gas prices do n't double again in the next 15 minutes .
We just do n't have enough information yet .
Persoanlly , I don ; t like having to buy hydrocarbons for my car and my heat .
The price swings too wildly .
You just don ; t know what it will cost next year.If you 're a pig farmer , or someone else with a lot of excess methane around , this could be good.Otherwise , it may be an important advancement in fuel cell technology and will find many uses .
It simply will not be " the " mainstream technology for generating electricity .
The CEO 's dream of putting one of these in every house...is exactly that...IMHO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets look at what this IS and what it ISN'T.This is an ENERGY CONVERSION technology.
It seems as though it takes an arbitrary hydrocarbon fuel and then converts the energy stored in the fuel into electricity.
So, we can immediately see that comparing it to solar cells is not really comparing apples to apples.
Solar cells also convert the energy in a fuel into electricity.
However, in the case of solar cells, the fuel is sunlight.
Sunlight is free and renewable.
The same cannot be said for Hydrocarbons.
Solar cells tap a renewable energy source.
Bloom Boxes do not.
Also, solar cells produce no biproducts whereas the Bloom Box produces carbon dioxide.
If you buy into the culture of global warming and "carbon is evil" then this is a bad thing.
Personally I find the science to be suspect.
In any case, this technology is not "clean".So far, we still need hydrocarbons.
Now we're going to need enough to generate everyone's electricity too.
No matter how much shale gas they say is out there, I'm not too comfortable with this idea.
This does not solve our energy problems.
It does not address the big issue around finding a NEW source of cheap FUEL.
This provides a new way of consuming the fuel we already use.
It would increase our dependence on hydrocarbons.But, lets not burn down the factory yet.
It could still be a very important technology although it is not a game changer.So, why would we care about this technology?
In fact, we already have machines that do exactly the same thing - gas turbines.
Presumably this is very EFFICIENT energy conversion process.
The only reference to efficiency that I can find is in the 60 minutes piece in which they say that the Bloom Box requires about 1/2 the natural gas required by a power plant to produce the same amount of electricity.
If this is true, this unit has our best gas turbines beat by 100\%.
That would be impressive.
If we can get similar efficiency out of a household size unit that would be even more impressive, although unlikely.
I'm sure somebody with a better background in thermodynamics can comment on that.
I'll bet that some of the savings stem from the fact that transmission line losses are avoided.
Nice idea.
I imagine that pumping natural gas is a more energy efficient way of transporting energy (Does anybody have any numbers on that?As for the money, never mind the 30 year payback period.
Those numbers don't mean much.
Right now they are hand building these in a factory that produces one a day...sounds a lot like a Rolls Royce to me.
If they were cranking them out like Chevys, the math would be a lot different.
The CEO wants to sell you one for $3000.00 for your home.
And you'll save...what exactly?
We don't know.
If you could save 1/2 your electricity bill, the whole thing might make sense.
That is, if natural gas prices don't double again in the next 15 minutes.
We just don't have enough information yet.
Persoanlly, I don;t like having to buy hydrocarbons for my car and my heat.
The price swings too wildly.
You just don;t know what it will cost next year.If you're a pig farmer, or someone else with a lot of excess methane around, this could be good.Otherwise, it may be an important advancement in fuel cell technology and will find many uses.
It simply will not be "the" mainstream technology for generating electricity.
The CEO's dream of putting one of these in every house...is exactly that...IMHO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238554</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266844260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note the use of the word "installed" which most people subconsciously read as "purchased".</p><p>eBay's ROI was probably infinity - in other words they were given freebies to puff up articles just like this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note the use of the word " installed " which most people subconsciously read as " purchased " .eBay 's ROI was probably infinity - in other words they were given freebies to puff up articles just like this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note the use of the word "installed" which most people subconsciously read as "purchased".eBay's ROI was probably infinity - in other words they were given freebies to puff up articles just like this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238488</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but backup diesel generators have a start time in the order of seconds, meaning you only have to have a relatively small amount of backup-battery supply. How long does it take for a Bloom-box to reach 1000 C?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but backup diesel generators have a start time in the order of seconds , meaning you only have to have a relatively small amount of backup-battery supply .
How long does it take for a Bloom-box to reach 1000 C ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but backup diesel generators have a start time in the order of seconds, meaning you only have to have a relatively small amount of backup-battery supply.
How long does it take for a Bloom-box to reach 1000 C?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235068</id>
	<title>Looks like the real thing this time!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266831120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact they are in use with major corporations means it's not snake oil. The only question is cost. The first units are very expensive because they are hand built but according to the inventor they use no rare or expensive materials. If that's true then the costs will drop like a rock once they are mass produced. Fuel cells are nothing new he's just come up with a cheap cell. Most will be skeptical but this time it seems real. We aren't talking about wild claims they are in use now and even at the early adopter price the users seem very happy with them. If they can drop the price even to twice his claim they'll be a bargain.</p><p>Also I see no reason they wouldn't work for a car. The cell size would be half what a whole house unit would be and they'd be light. Just switch to LP gas and you have an electric car with an excellent range and lightweight. If the pricing is right in ten years they could cost a fraction of what a battery pack does making an LP gas electric car even cheaper than a regular car and likely with a similar range. Yes I know infrastructure but here's a shocker, I can get LP tanks at a 7/11! They are readily available now! If you have a LP gas for heat and cooking you could fill up at home!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact they are in use with major corporations means it 's not snake oil .
The only question is cost .
The first units are very expensive because they are hand built but according to the inventor they use no rare or expensive materials .
If that 's true then the costs will drop like a rock once they are mass produced .
Fuel cells are nothing new he 's just come up with a cheap cell .
Most will be skeptical but this time it seems real .
We are n't talking about wild claims they are in use now and even at the early adopter price the users seem very happy with them .
If they can drop the price even to twice his claim they 'll be a bargain.Also I see no reason they would n't work for a car .
The cell size would be half what a whole house unit would be and they 'd be light .
Just switch to LP gas and you have an electric car with an excellent range and lightweight .
If the pricing is right in ten years they could cost a fraction of what a battery pack does making an LP gas electric car even cheaper than a regular car and likely with a similar range .
Yes I know infrastructure but here 's a shocker , I can get LP tanks at a 7/11 !
They are readily available now !
If you have a LP gas for heat and cooking you could fill up at home !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact they are in use with major corporations means it's not snake oil.
The only question is cost.
The first units are very expensive because they are hand built but according to the inventor they use no rare or expensive materials.
If that's true then the costs will drop like a rock once they are mass produced.
Fuel cells are nothing new he's just come up with a cheap cell.
Most will be skeptical but this time it seems real.
We aren't talking about wild claims they are in use now and even at the early adopter price the users seem very happy with them.
If they can drop the price even to twice his claim they'll be a bargain.Also I see no reason they wouldn't work for a car.
The cell size would be half what a whole house unit would be and they'd be light.
Just switch to LP gas and you have an electric car with an excellent range and lightweight.
If the pricing is right in ten years they could cost a fraction of what a battery pack does making an LP gas electric car even cheaper than a regular car and likely with a similar range.
Yes I know infrastructure but here's a shocker, I can get LP tanks at a 7/11!
They are readily available now!
If you have a LP gas for heat and cooking you could fill up at home!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31242872</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>sFurbo</author>
	<datestamp>1266929340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But investing in bonds is not "doing nothing", it is lending the money to others, who can use them to take proactive steps. So, if other people have a better idea at making a proactive step*, you are better off lending them the money to do that than you are to take your own proactive step. See, it is much more reasonable that way.
<br> <br>
* How proactive the step the other person is going to take is may vary according to your definition of proactive, but it is a step which yields a higher payback or cost reduction than your proactive step would have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But investing in bonds is not " doing nothing " , it is lending the money to others , who can use them to take proactive steps .
So , if other people have a better idea at making a proactive step * , you are better off lending them the money to do that than you are to take your own proactive step .
See , it is much more reasonable that way .
* How proactive the step the other person is going to take is may vary according to your definition of proactive , but it is a step which yields a higher payback or cost reduction than your proactive step would have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But investing in bonds is not "doing nothing", it is lending the money to others, who can use them to take proactive steps.
So, if other people have a better idea at making a proactive step*, you are better off lending them the money to do that than you are to take your own proactive step.
See, it is much more reasonable that way.
* How proactive the step the other person is going to take is may vary according to your definition of proactive, but it is a step which yields a higher payback or cost reduction than your proactive step would have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238880</id>
	<title>Re:Having traveled to lots of small Pacific island</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1266846300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's a decent market for low-pollution electricity generators for cells and transmission towers in the small archipelagos to serve small villages.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The problem you have here is price, third world islands cant afford 700K USD (yes, once mass production starts prices will come down and so forth but when, I have as much faith in the "market" as I do in the Easter Bunny). What these places need is a low fuel consuming generator (I'm being non-specific about the fuel), the biggest cost with maintaining diesel generators is that you have to ship relatively copious amounts of diesel there and most of these places don't have deep water ports so it has to be delivered by a small boat (maybe 20 barrels per boat, if it's not carrying anything else).<br> <br>

Levels of power generation do not matter, consumption is not that high. There are literally hundreds of inhabited islands without regular electricity in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philipines due to the cost of importing fuel for generators. Wind would be almost ideal for many of these places. The problem is always the initial costs, even maintenance costs are tiny in comparison.<br> <br>

Now for mining operations, this is good if output levels are high enough. I've been to operations in Mongolia and Tanzania where power generation is extremely costly due to the cost of shipping fuel there. If a corporate building in a city can save US$133,000 a year a remote mining operation can save 2-5 times as much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a decent market for low-pollution electricity generators for cells and transmission towers in the small archipelagos to serve small villages .
The problem you have here is price , third world islands cant afford 700K USD ( yes , once mass production starts prices will come down and so forth but when , I have as much faith in the " market " as I do in the Easter Bunny ) .
What these places need is a low fuel consuming generator ( I 'm being non-specific about the fuel ) , the biggest cost with maintaining diesel generators is that you have to ship relatively copious amounts of diesel there and most of these places do n't have deep water ports so it has to be delivered by a small boat ( maybe 20 barrels per boat , if it 's not carrying anything else ) .
Levels of power generation do not matter , consumption is not that high .
There are literally hundreds of inhabited islands without regular electricity in Thailand , Indonesia and the Philipines due to the cost of importing fuel for generators .
Wind would be almost ideal for many of these places .
The problem is always the initial costs , even maintenance costs are tiny in comparison .
Now for mining operations , this is good if output levels are high enough .
I 've been to operations in Mongolia and Tanzania where power generation is extremely costly due to the cost of shipping fuel there .
If a corporate building in a city can save US $ 133,000 a year a remote mining operation can save 2-5 times as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a decent market for low-pollution electricity generators for cells and transmission towers in the small archipelagos to serve small villages.
The problem you have here is price, third world islands cant afford 700K USD (yes, once mass production starts prices will come down and so forth but when, I have as much faith in the "market" as I do in the Easter Bunny).
What these places need is a low fuel consuming generator (I'm being non-specific about the fuel), the biggest cost with maintaining diesel generators is that you have to ship relatively copious amounts of diesel there and most of these places don't have deep water ports so it has to be delivered by a small boat (maybe 20 barrels per boat, if it's not carrying anything else).
Levels of power generation do not matter, consumption is not that high.
There are literally hundreds of inhabited islands without regular electricity in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philipines due to the cost of importing fuel for generators.
Wind would be almost ideal for many of these places.
The problem is always the initial costs, even maintenance costs are tiny in comparison.
Now for mining operations, this is good if output levels are high enough.
I've been to operations in Mongolia and Tanzania where power generation is extremely costly due to the cost of shipping fuel there.
If a corporate building in a city can save US$133,000 a year a remote mining operation can save 2-5 times as much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236694</id>
	<title>Regarding 30 Year ROI</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1266835980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For all the dotters that took the time to calculate the ROI of approximately 30 years, reading TFA reveals that the company is at least trying to address this longterm ROI.:<p><div class="quote"><p> So assuming the maximum cost -- $4M USD -- the investment on a Bloom Box would appear to take 30 years to recoup.</p></div><p>
According to the representative of the company itself (so read sales-pitch), current funding and R&amp;D rates are expected to drop the cost of the boxes significantly over the next few years:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mr. Sridhar hopes the funding that's being virtually thrown at him and his enigmatic box will help drive down costs to below $3,000 for a residential unit within 5 to 10 years.</p></div><p>
In fact, if you take time to read the whole article, which is a grand total of a whopping 12 short paragraphs, the entire thing reads like a, 'help the consumer make a decision,' cost analysis. That is to say, the article references the cost of solar panel installations currently (both by ebay and at a residential level).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>EBay says the five boxes generate more clean energy than the company's 3,000 solar panels (assuming a bulk cost of $200/panel, and additional expense that system would run around $1M USD, at a minimum).
<br>...<br>
Such costs could certainly make the technology competitive with solar systems which cost anywhere from $20,000-$70,000 USD for home installations.</p></div><p>
That said, I won't comment on the joy that we nerds take in performing our own simple math calculations to verify and or, 'discover,' various assertions made by a techie article. Nonetheless (all you must be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... jokes aside) the article was a pretty quick and simple read that discusses in a fairly competent manner whether or not the Bloom Box is hype or not. The final conclusion it draws, however, is terribly unhelpful:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So is the "magic" box a stud or a dud?  It's hard to tell.  About the only thing that's for sure is that Wednesday's announcement should be intriguing.</p></div><p>
So really, the apparent intent for the article, is that this is a press release being used to garner attention for an even more important press release to come in two days.
<br> <br>
Cheers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all the dotters that took the time to calculate the ROI of approximately 30 years , reading TFA reveals that the company is at least trying to address this longterm ROI .
: So assuming the maximum cost -- $ 4M USD -- the investment on a Bloom Box would appear to take 30 years to recoup .
According to the representative of the company itself ( so read sales-pitch ) , current funding and R&amp;D rates are expected to drop the cost of the boxes significantly over the next few years : Mr. Sridhar hopes the funding that 's being virtually thrown at him and his enigmatic box will help drive down costs to below $ 3,000 for a residential unit within 5 to 10 years .
In fact , if you take time to read the whole article , which is a grand total of a whopping 12 short paragraphs , the entire thing reads like a , 'help the consumer make a decision, ' cost analysis .
That is to say , the article references the cost of solar panel installations currently ( both by ebay and at a residential level ) .EBay says the five boxes generate more clean energy than the company 's 3,000 solar panels ( assuming a bulk cost of $ 200/panel , and additional expense that system would run around $ 1M USD , at a minimum ) .
.. . Such costs could certainly make the technology competitive with solar systems which cost anywhere from $ 20,000- $ 70,000 USD for home installations .
That said , I wo n't comment on the joy that we nerds take in performing our own simple math calculations to verify and or , 'discover, ' various assertions made by a techie article .
Nonetheless ( all you must be ... jokes aside ) the article was a pretty quick and simple read that discusses in a fairly competent manner whether or not the Bloom Box is hype or not .
The final conclusion it draws , however , is terribly unhelpful : So is the " magic " box a stud or a dud ?
It 's hard to tell .
About the only thing that 's for sure is that Wednesday 's announcement should be intriguing .
So really , the apparent intent for the article , is that this is a press release being used to garner attention for an even more important press release to come in two days .
Cheers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all the dotters that took the time to calculate the ROI of approximately 30 years, reading TFA reveals that the company is at least trying to address this longterm ROI.
: So assuming the maximum cost -- $4M USD -- the investment on a Bloom Box would appear to take 30 years to recoup.
According to the representative of the company itself (so read sales-pitch), current funding and R&amp;D rates are expected to drop the cost of the boxes significantly over the next few years:Mr. Sridhar hopes the funding that's being virtually thrown at him and his enigmatic box will help drive down costs to below $3,000 for a residential unit within 5 to 10 years.
In fact, if you take time to read the whole article, which is a grand total of a whopping 12 short paragraphs, the entire thing reads like a, 'help the consumer make a decision,' cost analysis.
That is to say, the article references the cost of solar panel installations currently (both by ebay and at a residential level).EBay says the five boxes generate more clean energy than the company's 3,000 solar panels (assuming a bulk cost of $200/panel, and additional expense that system would run around $1M USD, at a minimum).
...
Such costs could certainly make the technology competitive with solar systems which cost anywhere from $20,000-$70,000 USD for home installations.
That said, I won't comment on the joy that we nerds take in performing our own simple math calculations to verify and or, 'discover,' various assertions made by a techie article.
Nonetheless (all you must be ... jokes aside) the article was a pretty quick and simple read that discusses in a fairly competent manner whether or not the Bloom Box is hype or not.
The final conclusion it draws, however, is terribly unhelpful:So is the "magic" box a stud or a dud?
It's hard to tell.
About the only thing that's for sure is that Wednesday's announcement should be intriguing.
So really, the apparent intent for the article, is that this is a press release being used to garner attention for an even more important press release to come in two days.
Cheers.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237422</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266838620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dare you to find a safe bond or cd yielding 5\% right about now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dare you to find a safe bond or cd yielding 5 \ % right about now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dare you to find a safe bond or cd yielding 5\% right about now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241572</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266955380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, since the bloombox no doubt will be write off as industrial equipment, and industrial equipment can be write off in 12 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , since the bloombox no doubt will be write off as industrial equipment , and industrial equipment can be write off in 12 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, since the bloombox no doubt will be write off as industrial equipment, and industrial equipment can be write off in 12 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236936</id>
	<title>Re:Some of us would</title>
	<author>dnahelicase</author>
	<datestamp>1266836640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would gladly pay 3k to power my home and help reduce CO2 emissions. I realize there is also the cost of fuel but that can be bio fuel among others. In addition, the fuels are not being combusted.</p></div><p>This only works if the CO2 emissions it creates are less than the alternatives.  This seems to be more "green" in that it takes up less space than some alternatives and might require less environmentally harmful/rare materials.  If you mean it doesn't "combust" fuels because it doesn't light them on fire, you still need to realize that it takes a hydrocarbon and oxygen, and exhausts CO2.  This might be a major breakthrough in efficiency and fuel cell design, but it doesn't seem to be "alternative" or "zero-emmissions".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would gladly pay 3k to power my home and help reduce CO2 emissions .
I realize there is also the cost of fuel but that can be bio fuel among others .
In addition , the fuels are not being combusted.This only works if the CO2 emissions it creates are less than the alternatives .
This seems to be more " green " in that it takes up less space than some alternatives and might require less environmentally harmful/rare materials .
If you mean it does n't " combust " fuels because it does n't light them on fire , you still need to realize that it takes a hydrocarbon and oxygen , and exhausts CO2 .
This might be a major breakthrough in efficiency and fuel cell design , but it does n't seem to be " alternative " or " zero-emmissions " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would gladly pay 3k to power my home and help reduce CO2 emissions.
I realize there is also the cost of fuel but that can be bio fuel among others.
In addition, the fuels are not being combusted.This only works if the CO2 emissions it creates are less than the alternatives.
This seems to be more "green" in that it takes up less space than some alternatives and might require less environmentally harmful/rare materials.
If you mean it doesn't "combust" fuels because it doesn't light them on fire, you still need to realize that it takes a hydrocarbon and oxygen, and exhausts CO2.
This might be a major breakthrough in efficiency and fuel cell design, but it doesn't seem to be "alternative" or "zero-emmissions".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</id>
	<title>Worth it?</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1266830940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eBay says they installed 5 of the devices (at $700-800k each) nine months ago and have saved $100,000 since.  Doing the math, each device is saving them about $27k a year, meaning that it will take right around 28 years to recoup the investment.  Worse, the actual ROI on the purchase is a whopping 3.6\%, and that's assuming that natural gas prices don't increase since it is still burning gas as fuel.  Other than saving space, how is this better than solar panels which typically have a 15-20 year payoff period?</p><p>Ok, if the price quoted is before federal and state subsidies (California I would imagine has some pretty good clean energy grants), that might change the equations a bit.  But even if the price was cut in half, the ROI would only be 7.2 percent, I thought companies like eBay and Google tended to be a bit more aggressive with their investments than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eBay says they installed 5 of the devices ( at $ 700-800k each ) nine months ago and have saved $ 100,000 since .
Doing the math , each device is saving them about $ 27k a year , meaning that it will take right around 28 years to recoup the investment .
Worse , the actual ROI on the purchase is a whopping 3.6 \ % , and that 's assuming that natural gas prices do n't increase since it is still burning gas as fuel .
Other than saving space , how is this better than solar panels which typically have a 15-20 year payoff period ? Ok , if the price quoted is before federal and state subsidies ( California I would imagine has some pretty good clean energy grants ) , that might change the equations a bit .
But even if the price was cut in half , the ROI would only be 7.2 percent , I thought companies like eBay and Google tended to be a bit more aggressive with their investments than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eBay says they installed 5 of the devices (at $700-800k each) nine months ago and have saved $100,000 since.
Doing the math, each device is saving them about $27k a year, meaning that it will take right around 28 years to recoup the investment.
Worse, the actual ROI on the purchase is a whopping 3.6\%, and that's assuming that natural gas prices don't increase since it is still burning gas as fuel.
Other than saving space, how is this better than solar panels which typically have a 15-20 year payoff period?Ok, if the price quoted is before federal and state subsidies (California I would imagine has some pretty good clean energy grants), that might change the equations a bit.
But even if the price was cut in half, the ROI would only be 7.2 percent, I thought companies like eBay and Google tended to be a bit more aggressive with their investments than that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235694</id>
	<title>Not impressed</title>
	<author>thedbp</author>
	<datestamp>1266832980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5 boxes saved 100,000 in 9 months, that's 133,000/year saved for 5 boxes.  Per box that's 26,600/year.  At 700,000 bucks per box, it would take ~26.3 years for it to pay for itself.  That's a loooooong time to see ROI, and in the meantime, don't you think other, better methods would be developed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 boxes saved 100,000 in 9 months , that 's 133,000/year saved for 5 boxes .
Per box that 's 26,600/year .
At 700,000 bucks per box , it would take ~ 26.3 years for it to pay for itself .
That 's a loooooong time to see ROI , and in the meantime , do n't you think other , better methods would be developed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 boxes saved 100,000 in 9 months, that's 133,000/year saved for 5 boxes.
Per box that's 26,600/year.
At 700,000 bucks per box, it would take ~26.3 years for it to pay for itself.
That's a loooooong time to see ROI, and in the meantime, don't you think other, better methods would be developed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236992</id>
	<title>Waiting to see what's in their secret sauce</title>
	<author>coffeegoat</author>
	<datestamp>1266836880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This interested me enough to actually register (finally).  There is a bunch of really horrendous media coverage on Fuel Cells in general but it doesn't help that in the article they mix concepts from different types of fuel cells, different types of "green energy" and general marketing.</p><p>Fuel cells that chemically transform reactants via an electrochemical reaction to products and release bunch electric energy directly along the way.  You can think of it just like a battery that you keep putting more chemicals into.  All fuel cells transform hydrogen and other hydrocarbons into electric energy with a little heat, all of them, they're solid state energy conversion devices not magical boxes.  The big thing about solid oxide fuel cells is that they run at ridiculously high temps (600-1000C) so their reaction kinetics are tremendously faster than other kinds of fuel cells, they can self reform various fuels (natural gas, diesel, JP8, and they are tolerant to most containments (except usually sulfur and chromium).<br>However, the high temperature comes with a price, their interconnects degrade extraordinarily fast, sealing is a problem because of huge thermal expansion mismatches, and finally at 1000 degrees materials stability is a big problem.</p><p>As far as what they mentioned in the article, the "inks" are just catalyst layers, every fuel cell manufacturer and university uses those, everyone has their secret sauce.  The "beach" is probably YSZ, or yttrium stabilized zirconia, which is the standard.  The metal interconnects are coated with some conductive interconnects, no one would think of using platinum interconnects, they use that for catalysts on PEM fuel cells, it's totally unneccesary for SOFCS.</p><p>And if you're wondering, I'm doing graduate work on SOFCs, so we see this marketed crap in our field all the time, hopefully Bloom Energy has solved some of those problems I mentioned.<br>Other companies to check out:  CFCL, Ceres Power</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This interested me enough to actually register ( finally ) .
There is a bunch of really horrendous media coverage on Fuel Cells in general but it does n't help that in the article they mix concepts from different types of fuel cells , different types of " green energy " and general marketing.Fuel cells that chemically transform reactants via an electrochemical reaction to products and release bunch electric energy directly along the way .
You can think of it just like a battery that you keep putting more chemicals into .
All fuel cells transform hydrogen and other hydrocarbons into electric energy with a little heat , all of them , they 're solid state energy conversion devices not magical boxes .
The big thing about solid oxide fuel cells is that they run at ridiculously high temps ( 600-1000C ) so their reaction kinetics are tremendously faster than other kinds of fuel cells , they can self reform various fuels ( natural gas , diesel , JP8 , and they are tolerant to most containments ( except usually sulfur and chromium ) .However , the high temperature comes with a price , their interconnects degrade extraordinarily fast , sealing is a problem because of huge thermal expansion mismatches , and finally at 1000 degrees materials stability is a big problem.As far as what they mentioned in the article , the " inks " are just catalyst layers , every fuel cell manufacturer and university uses those , everyone has their secret sauce .
The " beach " is probably YSZ , or yttrium stabilized zirconia , which is the standard .
The metal interconnects are coated with some conductive interconnects , no one would think of using platinum interconnects , they use that for catalysts on PEM fuel cells , it 's totally unneccesary for SOFCS.And if you 're wondering , I 'm doing graduate work on SOFCs , so we see this marketed crap in our field all the time , hopefully Bloom Energy has solved some of those problems I mentioned.Other companies to check out : CFCL , Ceres Power</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This interested me enough to actually register (finally).
There is a bunch of really horrendous media coverage on Fuel Cells in general but it doesn't help that in the article they mix concepts from different types of fuel cells, different types of "green energy" and general marketing.Fuel cells that chemically transform reactants via an electrochemical reaction to products and release bunch electric energy directly along the way.
You can think of it just like a battery that you keep putting more chemicals into.
All fuel cells transform hydrogen and other hydrocarbons into electric energy with a little heat, all of them, they're solid state energy conversion devices not magical boxes.
The big thing about solid oxide fuel cells is that they run at ridiculously high temps (600-1000C) so their reaction kinetics are tremendously faster than other kinds of fuel cells, they can self reform various fuels (natural gas, diesel, JP8, and they are tolerant to most containments (except usually sulfur and chromium).However, the high temperature comes with a price, their interconnects degrade extraordinarily fast, sealing is a problem because of huge thermal expansion mismatches, and finally at 1000 degrees materials stability is a big problem.As far as what they mentioned in the article, the "inks" are just catalyst layers, every fuel cell manufacturer and university uses those, everyone has their secret sauce.
The "beach" is probably YSZ, or yttrium stabilized zirconia, which is the standard.
The metal interconnects are coated with some conductive interconnects, no one would think of using platinum interconnects, they use that for catalysts on PEM fuel cells, it's totally unneccesary for SOFCS.And if you're wondering, I'm doing graduate work on SOFCs, so we see this marketed crap in our field all the time, hopefully Bloom Energy has solved some of those problems I mentioned.Other companies to check out:  CFCL, Ceres Power</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235074</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>danbert8</author>
	<datestamp>1266831120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tax break costs just get passed around the population.  Looking at the actual cost to produce decides the economics.  Otherwise you're screwing others to make a profit yourself, which people hate about corporations, but seem to love about the government...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tax break costs just get passed around the population .
Looking at the actual cost to produce decides the economics .
Otherwise you 're screwing others to make a profit yourself , which people hate about corporations , but seem to love about the government.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tax break costs just get passed around the population.
Looking at the actual cost to produce decides the economics.
Otherwise you're screwing others to make a profit yourself, which people hate about corporations, but seem to love about the government...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239124</id>
	<title>Green is a colour!</title>
	<author>rusl</author>
	<datestamp>1266847680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And whatever we brand to be green IS green. Until recently green was associated with a different type of social lubricant. And therein lies the answer to the motive for calling this "Green."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And whatever we brand to be green IS green .
Until recently green was associated with a different type of social lubricant .
And therein lies the answer to the motive for calling this " Green .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And whatever we brand to be green IS green.
Until recently green was associated with a different type of social lubricant.
And therein lies the answer to the motive for calling this "Green.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237250</id>
	<title>Wait, methane and oxygen? In a box? I can do that!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266837900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only need<br>- a igniter<br>- a turbine<br>- a generator<br>Done.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p><p>Put it all in a box, and let&rsquo;s say it&rsquo;s... a... &ldquo;fuel cell&rdquo;.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only need- a igniter- a turbine- a generatorDone .
: DPut it all in a box , and let    s say it    s... a...    fuel cell    .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only need- a igniter- a turbine- a generatorDone.
:DPut it all in a box, and let’s say it’s... a... “fuel cell”.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235968</id>
	<title>Re:Why won't the power companies buy them?</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1266833760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A source of income coupled with backup power?  Right now, if you supply power to the grid, you get paid for it.  So if these things generate say 50KW per unit, and your needs are 100KW, then buy 3.  You get N+1 redundancy, as well as generating income (so long as the power company would pay more than the Nat-Gas costs in the first place).  The added income will help offset the cost of the units, and vastly reduce the break even time.<br> <br>If you were using grid power, you'd want N+1 backup generators as well.  Reliable generators aren't cheap.  Plus, they cost $$$ to have even when they are NOT running (Maintenance, etc).  If you could tackle 2 birds with one stone, why not do it?  Now, it's likely not to be economical to rip out an existing backup system now (unless it needs replacement), but if you're building a new DC, it's possible that this could make financial sense...</htmltext>
<tokenext>A source of income coupled with backup power ?
Right now , if you supply power to the grid , you get paid for it .
So if these things generate say 50KW per unit , and your needs are 100KW , then buy 3 .
You get N + 1 redundancy , as well as generating income ( so long as the power company would pay more than the Nat-Gas costs in the first place ) .
The added income will help offset the cost of the units , and vastly reduce the break even time .
If you were using grid power , you 'd want N + 1 backup generators as well .
Reliable generators are n't cheap .
Plus , they cost $ $ $ to have even when they are NOT running ( Maintenance , etc ) .
If you could tackle 2 birds with one stone , why not do it ?
Now , it 's likely not to be economical to rip out an existing backup system now ( unless it needs replacement ) , but if you 're building a new DC , it 's possible that this could make financial sense.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A source of income coupled with backup power?
Right now, if you supply power to the grid, you get paid for it.
So if these things generate say 50KW per unit, and your needs are 100KW, then buy 3.
You get N+1 redundancy, as well as generating income (so long as the power company would pay more than the Nat-Gas costs in the first place).
The added income will help offset the cost of the units, and vastly reduce the break even time.
If you were using grid power, you'd want N+1 backup generators as well.
Reliable generators aren't cheap.
Plus, they cost $$$ to have even when they are NOT running (Maintenance, etc).
If you could tackle 2 birds with one stone, why not do it?
Now, it's likely not to be economical to rip out an existing backup system now (unless it needs replacement), but if you're building a new DC, it's possible that this could make financial sense...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1266840480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me that is a sign of how broken the world is. You're better off not doing anything than actually taking a proactive step.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me that is a sign of how broken the world is .
You 're better off not doing anything than actually taking a proactive step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me that is a sign of how broken the world is.
You're better off not doing anything than actually taking a proactive step.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236830</id>
	<title>The real question:</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1266836340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real question is how efficient are these fuel cells, and how much do they cost per year to maintain?  If they are 70\% or more efficient they beat combined cycle generators, and fuel cells typically achieve this.  As long as they don't need to be replaced very often and the membranes are cheap to replace, this will work well.  You could combine this with an high-temperature electrolysis plant and use it to store wind or solar power.  That is one of the main things standing in the way of using alternative energy for base-load electric generation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is how efficient are these fuel cells , and how much do they cost per year to maintain ?
If they are 70 \ % or more efficient they beat combined cycle generators , and fuel cells typically achieve this .
As long as they do n't need to be replaced very often and the membranes are cheap to replace , this will work well .
You could combine this with an high-temperature electrolysis plant and use it to store wind or solar power .
That is one of the main things standing in the way of using alternative energy for base-load electric generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is how efficient are these fuel cells, and how much do they cost per year to maintain?
If they are 70\% or more efficient they beat combined cycle generators, and fuel cells typically achieve this.
As long as they don't need to be replaced very often and the membranes are cheap to replace, this will work well.
You could combine this with an high-temperature electrolysis plant and use it to store wind or solar power.
That is one of the main things standing in the way of using alternative energy for base-load electric generation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266832560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cool, they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.</p></div><p>That's if you only account for direct energy savings.</p><p>One important cost consideration is that this can be used to suplement/replace backup generators. Backup diesel systems are big, expensive, and (ideally) sit around doing nothing except during maintanence checks. A fuel cell can be run 24/7, meaning every penny you save from buying a (smaller) diesel backup and on fuel should get counted towards your cost savings.</p><p>Add in a healthy dollop of Federal/State subsidies and installing such tech makes good business sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool , they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.That 's if you only account for direct energy savings.One important cost consideration is that this can be used to suplement/replace backup generators .
Backup diesel systems are big , expensive , and ( ideally ) sit around doing nothing except during maintanence checks .
A fuel cell can be run 24/7 , meaning every penny you save from buying a ( smaller ) diesel backup and on fuel should get counted towards your cost savings.Add in a healthy dollop of Federal/State subsidies and installing such tech makes good business sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool, they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.That's if you only account for direct energy savings.One important cost consideration is that this can be used to suplement/replace backup generators.
Backup diesel systems are big, expensive, and (ideally) sit around doing nothing except during maintanence checks.
A fuel cell can be run 24/7, meaning every penny you save from buying a (smaller) diesel backup and on fuel should get counted towards your cost savings.Add in a healthy dollop of Federal/State subsidies and installing such tech makes good business sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31247390</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>perhaps over time if the tech were to become ubiquitous the manufacturing cost of '700,0000' whatever would perhaps drop down to a more reasonable amount. say 3/5k.. problem being entrenched interests in the energy sector..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>perhaps over time if the tech were to become ubiquitous the manufacturing cost of '700,0000 ' whatever would perhaps drop down to a more reasonable amount .
say 3/5k.. problem being entrenched interests in the energy sector. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perhaps over time if the tech were to become ubiquitous the manufacturing cost of '700,0000' whatever would perhaps drop down to a more reasonable amount.
say 3/5k.. problem being entrenched interests in the energy sector..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235302</id>
	<title>Was on 60 minutes.    Many companies make these</title>
	<author>zymano</author>
	<datestamp>1266831840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a fuel cell.  You can see vid at 60min website.</p><p>An analyst said GE will overtake them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a fuel cell .
You can see vid at 60min website.An analyst said GE will overtake them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a fuel cell.
You can see vid at 60min website.An analyst said GE will overtake them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31276560</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267131000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is providing capital to others by putting your money in a CD equivalent to "not doing anything"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is providing capital to others by putting your money in a CD equivalent to " not doing anything " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is providing capital to others by putting your money in a CD equivalent to "not doing anything"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236186</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1266834420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ROI is not the issue.</p><p>The issue is appeasing the Green God.</p><p>We used to appease the Sun God, then the son of God, now we've moved to the Green God.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ROI is not the issue.The issue is appeasing the Green God.We used to appease the Sun God , then the son of God , now we 've moved to the Green God .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROI is not the issue.The issue is appeasing the Green God.We used to appease the Sun God, then the son of God, now we've moved to the Green God.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234936</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1266830760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A box that converts hydrocarbons to energy?  What will they think of next?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A box that converts hydrocarbons to energy ?
What will they think of next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A box that converts hydrocarbons to energy?
What will they think of next?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31269444</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>cgraves</author>
	<datestamp>1267129740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid\_oxide\_fuel\_cell" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">solid oxide fuel cell</a> [wikipedia.org]. There is nothing magical. <br> <br>

It is presented like it is a brand new invention and that they are the only ones making the product, however R&amp;D on this technology has been going on <a href="http://americanhistory.si.edu/fuelcells/so/sofcmain.htm" title="si.edu" rel="nofollow">since the 1960s</a> [si.edu] by big companies like Westinghouse, GE, and tens of other companies all over the world.  DOE has a 10-year old still-active <a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/fuelcells/seca/" title="doe.gov" rel="nofollow">program</a> [doe.gov] dedicated just to SOFCs.  There is a <a href="http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=LjSBsqGdxvsC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PR11&amp;dq=\%22Singhal\%22+\%22High+temperature+solid+oxide+fuel+cells:+fundamentals,+...\%22+&amp;ots=RnYjThHg4D&amp;sig=F2EwKnJkiKxlwZJZ0JapK2cSDIQ#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">book</a> [google.com] about solid oxide fuel cells. <br> <br>

There is no platinum or other precious metals.  It is ceramic oxides and nickel, similar to alkaline cells except these run at much higher rates per unit area which promises to make them cheaper than other types of cells.  Read the links above for the materials.  The electrodes are "inks" only during manufacturing - they are heat treated to form stable solid materials.  Recently, developments in materials science has brought them close to commercialization (manufacturing cost and durability have been issues).  Of the perhaps 50 companies attempting to commercialize this technology, it seems that the Bloom company is just the one that happens to be funded by silicon valley investors.   <br> <br>

This is not to say the technology is not exciting and potentially can improve our use of fossil fuels.  The same cells can also be run in the <a href="http://www.risoe.dk/Research/sustainable\_energy/fuel\_cells.aspx" title="risoe.dk" rel="nofollow">reverse direction as electrolyzers</a> [risoe.dk], applying renewable/nuclear (non-fossil) electricity to split water and carbon dioxide to create fuels (<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=electrolysis+CO2+H2O+Risoe" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">link1</a> [google.com] <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=electrolysis+CO2+H2O+INL" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">link2</a> [google.com]).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a solid oxide fuel cell [ wikipedia.org ] .
There is nothing magical .
It is presented like it is a brand new invention and that they are the only ones making the product , however R&amp;D on this technology has been going on since the 1960s [ si.edu ] by big companies like Westinghouse , GE , and tens of other companies all over the world .
DOE has a 10-year old still-active program [ doe.gov ] dedicated just to SOFCs .
There is a book [ google.com ] about solid oxide fuel cells .
There is no platinum or other precious metals .
It is ceramic oxides and nickel , similar to alkaline cells except these run at much higher rates per unit area which promises to make them cheaper than other types of cells .
Read the links above for the materials .
The electrodes are " inks " only during manufacturing - they are heat treated to form stable solid materials .
Recently , developments in materials science has brought them close to commercialization ( manufacturing cost and durability have been issues ) .
Of the perhaps 50 companies attempting to commercialize this technology , it seems that the Bloom company is just the one that happens to be funded by silicon valley investors .
This is not to say the technology is not exciting and potentially can improve our use of fossil fuels .
The same cells can also be run in the reverse direction as electrolyzers [ risoe.dk ] , applying renewable/nuclear ( non-fossil ) electricity to split water and carbon dioxide to create fuels ( link1 [ google.com ] link2 [ google.com ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a solid oxide fuel cell [wikipedia.org].
There is nothing magical.
It is presented like it is a brand new invention and that they are the only ones making the product, however R&amp;D on this technology has been going on since the 1960s [si.edu] by big companies like Westinghouse, GE, and tens of other companies all over the world.
DOE has a 10-year old still-active program [doe.gov] dedicated just to SOFCs.
There is a book [google.com] about solid oxide fuel cells.
There is no platinum or other precious metals.
It is ceramic oxides and nickel, similar to alkaline cells except these run at much higher rates per unit area which promises to make them cheaper than other types of cells.
Read the links above for the materials.
The electrodes are "inks" only during manufacturing - they are heat treated to form stable solid materials.
Recently, developments in materials science has brought them close to commercialization (manufacturing cost and durability have been issues).
Of the perhaps 50 companies attempting to commercialize this technology, it seems that the Bloom company is just the one that happens to be funded by silicon valley investors.
This is not to say the technology is not exciting and potentially can improve our use of fossil fuels.
The same cells can also be run in the reverse direction as electrolyzers [risoe.dk], applying renewable/nuclear (non-fossil) electricity to split water and carbon dioxide to create fuels (link1 [google.com] link2 [google.com]).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236014</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1266833880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Energy prices can go up or down. If you want to bet on the cost of energy going up, there are much easier and less-risky financial instruments you could buy with a click of the mouse--no million dollar mystery box required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy prices can go up or down .
If you want to bet on the cost of energy going up , there are much easier and less-risky financial instruments you could buy with a click of the mouse--no million dollar mystery box required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy prices can go up or down.
If you want to bet on the cost of energy going up, there are much easier and less-risky financial instruments you could buy with a click of the mouse--no million dollar mystery box required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240868</id>
	<title>Re:Emergency Generators</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1266861480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Economies of scale in electricity production are not necessarily beneficial enough to make up for the loss of 30-60\% of the input energy as waste heat, along with another 5\% of the produced electricity in transmission, along with mark-ups from all the middle-men along the way and, as you point out, potential supply disruptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Economies of scale in electricity production are not necessarily beneficial enough to make up for the loss of 30-60 \ % of the input energy as waste heat , along with another 5 \ % of the produced electricity in transmission , along with mark-ups from all the middle-men along the way and , as you point out , potential supply disruptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economies of scale in electricity production are not necessarily beneficial enough to make up for the loss of 30-60\% of the input energy as waste heat, along with another 5\% of the produced electricity in transmission, along with mark-ups from all the middle-men along the way and, as you point out, potential supply disruptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31245640</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>highlander76</author>
	<datestamp>1266946680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are right - companies like those are a bit more aggressive in their investments. Perhaps they saved money having to build out a new power substation or power plant? And don't forget one other thing companies pay huge money for - publicity!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right - companies like those are a bit more aggressive in their investments .
Perhaps they saved money having to build out a new power substation or power plant ?
And do n't forget one other thing companies pay huge money for - publicity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right - companies like those are a bit more aggressive in their investments.
Perhaps they saved money having to build out a new power substation or power plant?
And don't forget one other thing companies pay huge money for - publicity!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240568</id>
	<title>Tokyo Gas EneFarm?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266858480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tokyo Gas has been putting in natural gas fuelcell/waterheater hybrids in the tokyo area for the last year or so. They clearly are recouping some energy by doing water heating (japan typically has on-demand style natural gas water heaters). They must have overcome some of the mechanical stability and ceramic brittleness issues, since japan is earthquake prone. These are home residential units in volume production now, and probably getting a sweet subsidy from the government. What makes these jokers think they can beat someone earlier to market? If they are after the big boys like GE in making datacenter multimegawatts installations, they can think again. I say they should go for broke and set their sights on being a topping cycle combustor for a microturbine generator manufacturer like Capstone. Direct electric production via fuelcell, indirect via microturbine running off of fuel rich fuelcell exhaust, and low grade thermal recovery for water heating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tokyo Gas has been putting in natural gas fuelcell/waterheater hybrids in the tokyo area for the last year or so .
They clearly are recouping some energy by doing water heating ( japan typically has on-demand style natural gas water heaters ) .
They must have overcome some of the mechanical stability and ceramic brittleness issues , since japan is earthquake prone .
These are home residential units in volume production now , and probably getting a sweet subsidy from the government .
What makes these jokers think they can beat someone earlier to market ?
If they are after the big boys like GE in making datacenter multimegawatts installations , they can think again .
I say they should go for broke and set their sights on being a topping cycle combustor for a microturbine generator manufacturer like Capstone .
Direct electric production via fuelcell , indirect via microturbine running off of fuel rich fuelcell exhaust , and low grade thermal recovery for water heating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tokyo Gas has been putting in natural gas fuelcell/waterheater hybrids in the tokyo area for the last year or so.
They clearly are recouping some energy by doing water heating (japan typically has on-demand style natural gas water heaters).
They must have overcome some of the mechanical stability and ceramic brittleness issues, since japan is earthquake prone.
These are home residential units in volume production now, and probably getting a sweet subsidy from the government.
What makes these jokers think they can beat someone earlier to market?
If they are after the big boys like GE in making datacenter multimegawatts installations, they can think again.
I say they should go for broke and set their sights on being a topping cycle combustor for a microturbine generator manufacturer like Capstone.
Direct electric production via fuelcell, indirect via microturbine running off of fuel rich fuelcell exhaust, and low grade thermal recovery for water heating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237322</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel Cells, better than Natural Gas Electric PW</title>
	<author>NetNed</author>
	<datestamp>1266838140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm no expert but from what I have seen in dealing with (manufacturer of parts for) similar fuel cell technology that also uses methane is that they struggle to reach even 50\% efficiency from parts used of methane. 40\% is the norm. Most times the only reason a company is using it is because of subsidies that the government gives them from using such a "green" technology. So maybe if you include government handouts it might be cost effective at some of the outlandish prices I have seen on these units.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no expert but from what I have seen in dealing with ( manufacturer of parts for ) similar fuel cell technology that also uses methane is that they struggle to reach even 50 \ % efficiency from parts used of methane .
40 \ % is the norm .
Most times the only reason a company is using it is because of subsidies that the government gives them from using such a " green " technology .
So maybe if you include government handouts it might be cost effective at some of the outlandish prices I have seen on these units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no expert but from what I have seen in dealing with (manufacturer of parts for) similar fuel cell technology that also uses methane is that they struggle to reach even 50\% efficiency from parts used of methane.
40\% is the norm.
Most times the only reason a company is using it is because of subsidies that the government gives them from using such a "green" technology.
So maybe if you include government handouts it might be cost effective at some of the outlandish prices I have seen on these units.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236260</id>
	<title>Isn't this old news...sort of</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something similar covered by slashdot almost 10 years ago, tech didn't go anywhere then either.<br><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/00/09/18/0047202/Get-Off-The-Grid-GE-Announces-Home-Fuel-Cells" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/00/09/18/0047202/Get-Off-The-Grid-GE-Announces-Home-Fuel-Cells</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something similar covered by slashdot almost 10 years ago , tech did n't go anywhere then either.http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/00/09/18/0047202/Get-Off-The-Grid-GE-Announces-Home-Fuel-Cells [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something similar covered by slashdot almost 10 years ago, tech didn't go anywhere then either.http://tech.slashdot.org/story/00/09/18/0047202/Get-Off-The-Grid-GE-Announces-Home-Fuel-Cells [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235730</id>
	<title>obligatory...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cubert: Your explanations are pure weapons grade balognium. It's all impossible.
Professor Farnsworth: Nothing is impossible. Not if you can imagine it. That's what being a scientist is all about.
Cubert: No, that's what being a magical elf is all about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cubert : Your explanations are pure weapons grade balognium .
It 's all impossible .
Professor Farnsworth : Nothing is impossible .
Not if you can imagine it .
That 's what being a scientist is all about .
Cubert : No , that 's what being a magical elf is all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cubert: Your explanations are pure weapons grade balognium.
It's all impossible.
Professor Farnsworth: Nothing is impossible.
Not if you can imagine it.
That's what being a scientist is all about.
Cubert: No, that's what being a magical elf is all about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239270</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266848580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the first marketed IBM microcomputer, the 5100, cost roughly $20,000 in 1975, which is about $80,000 in today's dollars.</p><p>The point isn't that it's taking 30 years to get an ROI.  The point is that it's currently not mass produced and it <i>gets</i> an ROI at all.  Also that eBay, Google, Staples, Wal-Mart and others are buying them.  Yes, we need to see if it will move to mass production and become more cost effective and we need to see if the units are reliable over the long haul, but so far this product looks more compelling than most eco-fuel stories I see on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the first marketed IBM microcomputer , the 5100 , cost roughly $ 20,000 in 1975 , which is about $ 80,000 in today 's dollars.The point is n't that it 's taking 30 years to get an ROI .
The point is that it 's currently not mass produced and it gets an ROI at all .
Also that eBay , Google , Staples , Wal-Mart and others are buying them .
Yes , we need to see if it will move to mass production and become more cost effective and we need to see if the units are reliable over the long haul , but so far this product looks more compelling than most eco-fuel stories I see on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the first marketed IBM microcomputer, the 5100, cost roughly $20,000 in 1975, which is about $80,000 in today's dollars.The point isn't that it's taking 30 years to get an ROI.
The point is that it's currently not mass produced and it gets an ROI at all.
Also that eBay, Google, Staples, Wal-Mart and others are buying them.
Yes, we need to see if it will move to mass production and become more cost effective and we need to see if the units are reliable over the long haul, but so far this product looks more compelling than most eco-fuel stories I see on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241712</id>
	<title>Fuel Cells, better in a disaster.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266956880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sounds like these Boxes or "Heat Catalyzing Fuel Cells" could be far more efficient and if can be scaled up could be used to stretch the fossil fuel buck a whole lot more and easily be scaled to bio fuels."</p><p>One thing I think some have forgotten is that fuel cells fit well into a redundant and fault-tolerant electric system. How easy is it to knock out one power plant and how many get affected? How about a bunch of fuel-cells scattered throughout the countryside?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sounds like these Boxes or " Heat Catalyzing Fuel Cells " could be far more efficient and if can be scaled up could be used to stretch the fossil fuel buck a whole lot more and easily be scaled to bio fuels .
" One thing I think some have forgotten is that fuel cells fit well into a redundant and fault-tolerant electric system .
How easy is it to knock out one power plant and how many get affected ?
How about a bunch of fuel-cells scattered throughout the countryside ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sounds like these Boxes or "Heat Catalyzing Fuel Cells" could be far more efficient and if can be scaled up could be used to stretch the fossil fuel buck a whole lot more and easily be scaled to bio fuels.
"One thing I think some have forgotten is that fuel cells fit well into a redundant and fault-tolerant electric system.
How easy is it to knock out one power plant and how many get affected?
How about a bunch of fuel-cells scattered throughout the countryside?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236790</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1266836220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>eBay says they installed 5 of the devices (at $700-800k each) nine months ago and have saved $100,000 since.</p></div></blockquote><p>Now, maybe it's just me, but the likelihood of a large tech company buying something like this (they're beta-testers) with no gain sounds unlikely.</p><p>We are told that each unit costs around 700,000 dollars. The guy from eBay didn't say "we paid 700,000 for one". Just how much they're saving in energy costs. For all we know, eBay is an investor in the BloomBox and working as unpaid quality testers. I.e. they invest 50 million dollars in the company, and in addition to 50 mill in stocks, they get to buy some test units at a significant discount. Same for Google and FedEx. Who knows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>eBay says they installed 5 of the devices ( at $ 700-800k each ) nine months ago and have saved $ 100,000 since.Now , maybe it 's just me , but the likelihood of a large tech company buying something like this ( they 're beta-testers ) with no gain sounds unlikely.We are told that each unit costs around 700,000 dollars .
The guy from eBay did n't say " we paid 700,000 for one " .
Just how much they 're saving in energy costs .
For all we know , eBay is an investor in the BloomBox and working as unpaid quality testers .
I.e. they invest 50 million dollars in the company , and in addition to 50 mill in stocks , they get to buy some test units at a significant discount .
Same for Google and FedEx .
Who knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eBay says they installed 5 of the devices (at $700-800k each) nine months ago and have saved $100,000 since.Now, maybe it's just me, but the likelihood of a large tech company buying something like this (they're beta-testers) with no gain sounds unlikely.We are told that each unit costs around 700,000 dollars.
The guy from eBay didn't say "we paid 700,000 for one".
Just how much they're saving in energy costs.
For all we know, eBay is an investor in the BloomBox and working as unpaid quality testers.
I.e. they invest 50 million dollars in the company, and in addition to 50 mill in stocks, they get to buy some test units at a significant discount.
Same for Google and FedEx.
Who knows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238370</id>
	<title>Efficiency of SOFC Reaction</title>
	<author>oldsaint</author>
	<datestamp>1266843300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oxidation of any hydrocarbon is an electrochemical reaction - an exchange of electrons between fuel and oxidizer.  In an "ordinary" oxidation reaction, the electron exchange is completely internal, and the only product is heat.  That heat is converted to electric power through a series of mechanical means, e.g., heating water to steam, using the expansion of stem to push a turbine, using the turbine in a magnetic field to create electricity.  It wastes a lot of the energy of the original oxidation reaction.  In a solid oxide fuel cell, the electron exchange is captured through an external circuit, making it significantly more efficient as a generator of electricity.  This is why, for example, Google reports using half of the natural gas for the same electrical output.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oxidation of any hydrocarbon is an electrochemical reaction - an exchange of electrons between fuel and oxidizer .
In an " ordinary " oxidation reaction , the electron exchange is completely internal , and the only product is heat .
That heat is converted to electric power through a series of mechanical means , e.g. , heating water to steam , using the expansion of stem to push a turbine , using the turbine in a magnetic field to create electricity .
It wastes a lot of the energy of the original oxidation reaction .
In a solid oxide fuel cell , the electron exchange is captured through an external circuit , making it significantly more efficient as a generator of electricity .
This is why , for example , Google reports using half of the natural gas for the same electrical output .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oxidation of any hydrocarbon is an electrochemical reaction - an exchange of electrons between fuel and oxidizer.
In an "ordinary" oxidation reaction, the electron exchange is completely internal, and the only product is heat.
That heat is converted to electric power through a series of mechanical means, e.g., heating water to steam, using the expansion of stem to push a turbine, using the turbine in a magnetic field to create electricity.
It wastes a lot of the energy of the original oxidation reaction.
In a solid oxide fuel cell, the electron exchange is captured through an external circuit, making it significantly more efficient as a generator of electricity.
This is why, for example, Google reports using half of the natural gas for the same electrical output.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235740</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1266833100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You are forgetting the tax breaks the state of CA and the feds give you for going green. In the end a unit costs around $400k which cuts the time to 15 years.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, basically, they can get an acceptable ROI as long as all the rest of us pay for half of their system for them?  Sounds like a bargain....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are forgetting the tax breaks the state of CA and the feds give you for going green .
In the end a unit costs around $ 400k which cuts the time to 15 years.So , basically , they can get an acceptable ROI as long as all the rest of us pay for half of their system for them ?
Sounds like a bargain... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are forgetting the tax breaks the state of CA and the feds give you for going green.
In the end a unit costs around $400k which cuts the time to 15 years.So, basically, they can get an acceptable ROI as long as all the rest of us pay for half of their system for them?
Sounds like a bargain....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31243596</id>
	<title>Multiple questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266935640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe someone can help me with these questions.</p><p>"...when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius."<br>1. How do you heat the box up to 1000 degrees? Is it sold in a self-heating unit or do I need to find a big oven? (I'm assuming it's self heating.)<br>2. If the unit doesn't work until it reaches 1000 degrees, where does it get the power to heat itself? Drawn from the electrical grid? Chemical warmers?</p><p>Other posters mentioned the tax incentives of using this (or another) fuel cell.<br>3. What happens when the tax incentives stop? My only experience with tax incentives is a program to stimulate ownership of downtown real estate. Once the tax incentive period is up, people move to the 'burbs. So if the tax incentive for this technology is cut, what would happen? (That's really general, I know, so feel free to skip answering this one.)</p><p>"The inks somehow transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power."<br>4. So if I have a septic system I could have my own infinite supply of power?<br>5. Since every up has a down and every left has a right, I assume that I could pump power into one end of this thing and get methane and oxygen out of it so I have plenty of breathable air in my spaceship. (And methane, which I could maybe use to power a generator, or store and use to create a greenhouse effect on Mars.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someone can help me with these questions .
" ...when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius. " 1 .
How do you heat the box up to 1000 degrees ?
Is it sold in a self-heating unit or do I need to find a big oven ?
( I 'm assuming it 's self heating. ) 2 .
If the unit does n't work until it reaches 1000 degrees , where does it get the power to heat itself ?
Drawn from the electrical grid ?
Chemical warmers ? Other posters mentioned the tax incentives of using this ( or another ) fuel cell.3 .
What happens when the tax incentives stop ?
My only experience with tax incentives is a program to stimulate ownership of downtown real estate .
Once the tax incentive period is up , people move to the 'burbs .
So if the tax incentive for this technology is cut , what would happen ?
( That 's really general , I know , so feel free to skip answering this one .
) " The inks somehow transform a stream of methane ( or other hydrocarbons ) and oxygen into power. " 4 .
So if I have a septic system I could have my own infinite supply of power ? 5 .
Since every up has a down and every left has a right , I assume that I could pump power into one end of this thing and get methane and oxygen out of it so I have plenty of breathable air in my spaceship .
( And methane , which I could maybe use to power a generator , or store and use to create a greenhouse effect on Mars .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someone can help me with these questions.
"...when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius."1.
How do you heat the box up to 1000 degrees?
Is it sold in a self-heating unit or do I need to find a big oven?
(I'm assuming it's self heating.)2.
If the unit doesn't work until it reaches 1000 degrees, where does it get the power to heat itself?
Drawn from the electrical grid?
Chemical warmers?Other posters mentioned the tax incentives of using this (or another) fuel cell.3.
What happens when the tax incentives stop?
My only experience with tax incentives is a program to stimulate ownership of downtown real estate.
Once the tax incentive period is up, people move to the 'burbs.
So if the tax incentive for this technology is cut, what would happen?
(That's really general, I know, so feel free to skip answering this one.
)"The inks somehow transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power."4.
So if I have a septic system I could have my own infinite supply of power?5.
Since every up has a down and every left has a right, I assume that I could pump power into one end of this thing and get methane and oxygen out of it so I have plenty of breathable air in my spaceship.
(And methane, which I could maybe use to power a generator, or store and use to create a greenhouse effect on Mars.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235820</id>
	<title>scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this has scam written all over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this has scam written all over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this has scam written all over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>assantisz</author>
	<datestamp>1266830880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are forgetting the tax breaks the state of CA and the feds give you for going green. In the end a unit costs around $400k which cuts the time to 15 years. All that said, though, I hope money is not the only motivation why anybody would look into alternative energy sources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are forgetting the tax breaks the state of CA and the feds give you for going green .
In the end a unit costs around $ 400k which cuts the time to 15 years .
All that said , though , I hope money is not the only motivation why anybody would look into alternative energy sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are forgetting the tax breaks the state of CA and the feds give you for going green.
In the end a unit costs around $400k which cuts the time to 15 years.
All that said, though, I hope money is not the only motivation why anybody would look into alternative energy sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238062</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel Cells, better than Natural Gas Electric PW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266841440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> nope, not far more efficient. Mildly better in theory, worse in practice. Since they are distributed they should be using the waste heat, but evidently from the 60 min story they are not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nope , not far more efficient .
Mildly better in theory , worse in practice .
Since they are distributed they should be using the waste heat , but evidently from the 60 min story they are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> nope, not far more efficient.
Mildly better in theory, worse in practice.
Since they are distributed they should be using the waste heat, but evidently from the 60 min story they are not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236292</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting but not yet revolutionary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 3rd-world already has these things -- they're called "Diesel generators". They take hydrocarbon fuels and turn them into electricity. This is just a slightly more efficient device for doing the same thing. At some point if they can make their fuel cells cheaper than a Diesel gen-set, it could be a nice, low-maintenance power supply for 3rd-world nations.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 3rd-world already has these things -- they 're called " Diesel generators " .
They take hydrocarbon fuels and turn them into electricity .
This is just a slightly more efficient device for doing the same thing .
At some point if they can make their fuel cells cheaper than a Diesel gen-set , it could be a nice , low-maintenance power supply for 3rd-world nations.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 3rd-world already has these things -- they're called "Diesel generators".
They take hydrocarbon fuels and turn them into electricity.
This is just a slightly more efficient device for doing the same thing.
At some point if they can make their fuel cells cheaper than a Diesel gen-set, it could be a nice, low-maintenance power supply for 3rd-world nations.dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237026</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>FatAlb3rt</author>
	<datestamp>1266837000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Btw, AC should also mention that he still thinks that blank DVDs cost $20, ya know, since that was the going price when they were first released.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Btw , AC should also mention that he still thinks that blank DVDs cost $ 20 , ya know , since that was the going price when they were first released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Btw, AC should also mention that he still thinks that blank DVDs cost $20, ya know, since that was the going price when they were first released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31246026</id>
	<title>Re:Emergency Generators</title>
	<author>barfy</author>
	<datestamp>1266947820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The grid is not an abstraction layer, it is friction to the system.  7.2\% loss just to transmission.  The second problem is one of amount of electricity.  The grid is limited in the amount of electricity that can be held.</p><p>Something like this, allows expansion by moving generation closer to the consumer.  A quieter and smaller alternative to turbines.  Moving them even closer, into the house, can represent the quietest and most reliable version, using already existing natural gas distribution.</p><p>Not everywhere, but as you de-grid some, it releases the grid for other growth, and that growth == improved standard of living and wealth for the local populace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The grid is not an abstraction layer , it is friction to the system .
7.2 \ % loss just to transmission .
The second problem is one of amount of electricity .
The grid is limited in the amount of electricity that can be held.Something like this , allows expansion by moving generation closer to the consumer .
A quieter and smaller alternative to turbines .
Moving them even closer , into the house , can represent the quietest and most reliable version , using already existing natural gas distribution.Not everywhere , but as you de-grid some , it releases the grid for other growth , and that growth = = improved standard of living and wealth for the local populace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The grid is not an abstraction layer, it is friction to the system.
7.2\% loss just to transmission.
The second problem is one of amount of electricity.
The grid is limited in the amount of electricity that can be held.Something like this, allows expansion by moving generation closer to the consumer.
A quieter and smaller alternative to turbines.
Moving them even closer, into the house, can represent the quietest and most reliable version, using already existing natural gas distribution.Not everywhere, but as you de-grid some, it releases the grid for other growth, and that growth == improved standard of living and wealth for the local populace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239904</id>
	<title>great!</title>
	<author>cas2000</author>
	<datestamp>1266852720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just what i want in my back yard - a machine running at 1000 degrees C.</p><p>the only question is - does it come with a set of bbq tools and a removable hot plate for easy cleaning?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just what i want in my back yard - a machine running at 1000 degrees C.the only question is - does it come with a set of bbq tools and a removable hot plate for easy cleaning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just what i want in my back yard - a machine running at 1000 degrees C.the only question is - does it come with a set of bbq tools and a removable hot plate for easy cleaning?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237374</id>
	<title>I can dream....</title>
	<author>J4</author>
	<datestamp>1266838440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They \_really\_ oughta put these things on every landfill and use the methane from decomposition for fuel.</p><p>Especially good for parks built on a decommissioned landfill. Now you got cheap electricity for the park that only gets<br>cheaper as time goes on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They \ _really \ _ oughta put these things on every landfill and use the methane from decomposition for fuel.Especially good for parks built on a decommissioned landfill .
Now you got cheap electricity for the park that only getscheaper as time goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They \_really\_ oughta put these things on every landfill and use the methane from decomposition for fuel.Especially good for parks built on a decommissioned landfill.
Now you got cheap electricity for the park that only getscheaper as time goes on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236314</id>
	<title>Google to sell Bloom power?</title>
	<author>Chuckles08</author>
	<datestamp>1266834900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's an interesting read by Erik Sherman in his <a href="http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10005456/google-just-brokering-power-or-creating-and-selling-it/" title="bnet.com" rel="nofollow">blog</a> [bnet.com] that ponders the question of whether Google might buy a bunch of these and start selling the extra power as a utility. <p>Interesting timing, since now they have the go ahead to do so...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an interesting read by Erik Sherman in his blog [ bnet.com ] that ponders the question of whether Google might buy a bunch of these and start selling the extra power as a utility .
Interesting timing , since now they have the go ahead to do so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an interesting read by Erik Sherman in his blog [bnet.com] that ponders the question of whether Google might buy a bunch of these and start selling the extra power as a utility.
Interesting timing, since now they have the go ahead to do so...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236178</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>Jace Harker</author>
	<datestamp>1266834420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on the description in the OP, this sounds like just a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel\_cell#High\_temperature\_fuel\_cells" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">high temperature solid oxide fuel cell</a> [wikipedia.org].  There's nothing particularly revolutionary about that.  It still emits carbon dioxide, and it still requires fuel.  Presumably you would feed it with some kind of "carbon neutral" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio\_Fuel" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">biofuel</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>So my question is: why the hype?  How is the "Bloom Box" any better than installing a traditional <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine-generator" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">generator</a> [wikipedia.org] powered with biogas?  From a practical perspective they seem to do roughly the same thing: take in fuel and spit out electricity and carbon dioxide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the description in the OP , this sounds like just a high temperature solid oxide fuel cell [ wikipedia.org ] .
There 's nothing particularly revolutionary about that .
It still emits carbon dioxide , and it still requires fuel .
Presumably you would feed it with some kind of " carbon neutral " biofuel [ wikipedia.org ] .So my question is : why the hype ?
How is the " Bloom Box " any better than installing a traditional generator [ wikipedia.org ] powered with biogas ?
From a practical perspective they seem to do roughly the same thing : take in fuel and spit out electricity and carbon dioxide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the description in the OP, this sounds like just a high temperature solid oxide fuel cell [wikipedia.org].
There's nothing particularly revolutionary about that.
It still emits carbon dioxide, and it still requires fuel.
Presumably you would feed it with some kind of "carbon neutral" biofuel [wikipedia.org].So my question is: why the hype?
How is the "Bloom Box" any better than installing a traditional generator [wikipedia.org] powered with biogas?
From a practical perspective they seem to do roughly the same thing: take in fuel and spit out electricity and carbon dioxide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237716</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266839880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are other factors to consider, such as inflation and rising energy costs. There will be a big difference 30 years from now, just as there is a big difference between today and 1980. What looks like a  $133,333 a year savings right now would grow in the future. The ROI could very well end up in the solar panel 15-20 year payoff period. As noted in the interview, the Bloom Box provides much more energy than solar panels.</p><p>The main point for me is the big boys are taking the plunge ahead of us. They are going to want to see results and if Bloom can deliver, and make it more efficient, then we might finally have some reasonable clean energy producing devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other factors to consider , such as inflation and rising energy costs .
There will be a big difference 30 years from now , just as there is a big difference between today and 1980 .
What looks like a $ 133,333 a year savings right now would grow in the future .
The ROI could very well end up in the solar panel 15-20 year payoff period .
As noted in the interview , the Bloom Box provides much more energy than solar panels.The main point for me is the big boys are taking the plunge ahead of us .
They are going to want to see results and if Bloom can deliver , and make it more efficient , then we might finally have some reasonable clean energy producing devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other factors to consider, such as inflation and rising energy costs.
There will be a big difference 30 years from now, just as there is a big difference between today and 1980.
What looks like a  $133,333 a year savings right now would grow in the future.
The ROI could very well end up in the solar panel 15-20 year payoff period.
As noted in the interview, the Bloom Box provides much more energy than solar panels.The main point for me is the big boys are taking the plunge ahead of us.
They are going to want to see results and if Bloom can deliver, and make it more efficient, then we might finally have some reasonable clean energy producing devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235940</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel and Oxygen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's really not a concern at all. The only reason we're able to have a real impact on CO2 is because it started at around 0.038\% of the atmosphere. O2 is 21\% of the atmosphere. We don't have anywhere near the capacity to affect the levels of O2 in the air.</p><p>That, and if this process uses less of the same fuel than the equivalent combustion process would, then it should use less oxygen than the equivalent combustion process would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's really not a concern at all .
The only reason we 're able to have a real impact on CO2 is because it started at around 0.038 \ % of the atmosphere .
O2 is 21 \ % of the atmosphere .
We do n't have anywhere near the capacity to affect the levels of O2 in the air.That , and if this process uses less of the same fuel than the equivalent combustion process would , then it should use less oxygen than the equivalent combustion process would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's really not a concern at all.
The only reason we're able to have a real impact on CO2 is because it started at around 0.038\% of the atmosphere.
O2 is 21\% of the atmosphere.
We don't have anywhere near the capacity to affect the levels of O2 in the air.That, and if this process uses less of the same fuel than the equivalent combustion process would, then it should use less oxygen than the equivalent combustion process would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237304</id>
	<title>Mixed review</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1266838140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cleaner than Coal. Can be used in mobile applications (i.e. semi's, cars, etc) if you ignore the costs. In a home/business, the heat can be used to heat AND cool the home.<br> <br>
However, the first thought is, how long does it last? If it never dies, and a home version cost 50K or less, then it is VERY useful. OTH, if it dies every 10 years (or more likely in 6 months ), then it is a rip-off at just about any price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cleaner than Coal .
Can be used in mobile applications ( i.e .
semi 's , cars , etc ) if you ignore the costs .
In a home/business , the heat can be used to heat AND cool the home .
However , the first thought is , how long does it last ?
If it never dies , and a home version cost 50K or less , then it is VERY useful .
OTH , if it dies every 10 years ( or more likely in 6 months ) , then it is a rip-off at just about any price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cleaner than Coal.
Can be used in mobile applications (i.e.
semi's, cars, etc) if you ignore the costs.
In a home/business, the heat can be used to heat AND cool the home.
However, the first thought is, how long does it last?
If it never dies, and a home version cost 50K or less, then it is VERY useful.
OTH, if it dies every 10 years (or more likely in 6 months ), then it is a rip-off at just about any price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234846</id>
	<title>Yo dwag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear you like bloom in your bloom so we put bloom in your bloom so you can bloom while you bloom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear you like bloom in your bloom so we put bloom in your bloom so you can bloom while you bloom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear you like bloom in your bloom so we put bloom in your bloom so you can bloom while you bloom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234832</id>
	<title>FP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Notimetrfafristpost</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Notimetrfafristpost</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notimetrfafristpost</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237270</id>
	<title>Anaerobic Digesters</title>
	<author>weiserfireman</author>
	<datestamp>1266837960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you assume the natural gas comes from fossil sources, this isn't very green.</p><p>If it is powered from the gas from an Anaerobic Digester, it becomes a carbon neutral energy source.   Very green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you assume the natural gas comes from fossil sources , this is n't very green.If it is powered from the gas from an Anaerobic Digester , it becomes a carbon neutral energy source .
Very green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you assume the natural gas comes from fossil sources, this isn't very green.If it is powered from the gas from an Anaerobic Digester, it becomes a carbon neutral energy source.
Very green.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235736</id>
	<title>Re:Some of us would</title>
	<author>Chuckles08</author>
	<datestamp>1266833040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would gladly pay 3k to power my home and help reduce CO2 emissions. I realize there is also the cost of fuel but that can be bio fuel among others. In addition, the fuels are not being combusted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would gladly pay 3k to power my home and help reduce CO2 emissions .
I realize there is also the cost of fuel but that can be bio fuel among others .
In addition , the fuels are not being combusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would gladly pay 3k to power my home and help reduce CO2 emissions.
I realize there is also the cost of fuel but that can be bio fuel among others.
In addition, the fuels are not being combusted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235668</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1266832860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, a fuel cell is just like a perpetual motion machine.</p><p>Well aside from it being a pretty simple chemical reaction that consumes the fuel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , a fuel cell is just like a perpetual motion machine.Well aside from it being a pretty simple chemical reaction that consumes the fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, a fuel cell is just like a perpetual motion machine.Well aside from it being a pretty simple chemical reaction that consumes the fuel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235746</id>
	<title>Most of you are missing the point people!</title>
	<author>nickdwaters</author>
	<datestamp>1266833100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>ROI is a misleading concept.  You can't just figure ROI based on your PG&amp;E bill over 30 years time. With traditional energy production methods costs have historically been subsidized and not even fully account for ecologic damage.  Energy production costs do not include costs associated with recovering from previous CO2 emissions.  What will the full cost be?  It will have to include costs associated with cleanup from radioactive waste treatment, land, homes, and other associated economic losses due to rising sea levels, and so on.  Cost of energy as it currently is produced will prove to be incredibly expensive.

1) Natural gas is the most abundant and clean burning hydrocarbon on the planet.

2) It is clean burning, meaning it will not release as any waste hydrocarbons or as much CO2 into the atmosphere.  ergo "green"

3) It is a new technology.  As demand rises, costs will come down.

My gut is telling me that true ROI all things considered would be 5-10 years, not 30.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ROI is a misleading concept .
You ca n't just figure ROI based on your PG&amp;E bill over 30 years time .
With traditional energy production methods costs have historically been subsidized and not even fully account for ecologic damage .
Energy production costs do not include costs associated with recovering from previous CO2 emissions .
What will the full cost be ?
It will have to include costs associated with cleanup from radioactive waste treatment , land , homes , and other associated economic losses due to rising sea levels , and so on .
Cost of energy as it currently is produced will prove to be incredibly expensive .
1 ) Natural gas is the most abundant and clean burning hydrocarbon on the planet .
2 ) It is clean burning , meaning it will not release as any waste hydrocarbons or as much CO2 into the atmosphere .
ergo " green " 3 ) It is a new technology .
As demand rises , costs will come down .
My gut is telling me that true ROI all things considered would be 5-10 years , not 30 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROI is a misleading concept.
You can't just figure ROI based on your PG&amp;E bill over 30 years time.
With traditional energy production methods costs have historically been subsidized and not even fully account for ecologic damage.
Energy production costs do not include costs associated with recovering from previous CO2 emissions.
What will the full cost be?
It will have to include costs associated with cleanup from radioactive waste treatment, land, homes, and other associated economic losses due to rising sea levels, and so on.
Cost of energy as it currently is produced will prove to be incredibly expensive.
1) Natural gas is the most abundant and clean burning hydrocarbon on the planet.
2) It is clean burning, meaning it will not release as any waste hydrocarbons or as much CO2 into the atmosphere.
ergo "green"

3) It is a new technology.
As demand rises, costs will come down.
My gut is telling me that true ROI all things considered would be 5-10 years, not 30.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237654</id>
	<title>Slashdot Pundits Know ALL (once again...)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266839640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it's great to see how the all knowing Slashdot Pundits can completely dismiss a technology with almost no information.
I hate to be spoil sport but let's look at what we do know. (Actually I LOVE being a spoil sport on Slashdot, but never mind.)
<p>
-------
</p><p>
Look at the initial client list: eBay, Google, Staples, FedEx, and Walmart. Clearly a bunch of looser companies with no technical expertise who can easily be taken in by a smooth talker who is selling a fake product that will never deliver. (Sarcasm.)
</p><p>
The inventor: "Mr. Sridhar originally invented a similar device when he was working for NASA designing infrastructure for a
prospective Mars colony". I know you all have an irrational hatred of NASA, but they do send spacecraft all over the solar system and help keep the ISS manned and in orbit.  So it is at least possible that Mr. Sridhar is a smart guy who has done something interesting.
</p><p>
The technology: "The discs are produced from baked sand and then painted on each side with the special ink.  In between the discs an inexpensive metal (not platinum) is placed."  So <em>just maybe</em> he has figured out how to reduce costs by using materials less expensive then semiconductor grade silicon an precious metals. This obviously leads to the Slashdot consensus that he is wrong.
</p><p>
Current cost vs. long term cost: "Mr. Sridhar hopes the funding that's being virtually thrown at him and his enigmatic box will help
drive down costs to below $3,000 for a residential unit within 5 to 10 years."  The current "useless" price of $800,000 for an industrial unit means he has failed, and his projection of better prices in the future with mass production and further development is unfounded. Clearly decreasing prices of newly introduced technology never occur, according to Slashdot Pundits .
</p><p>
Yep, the Slashdot Pundits are 100\% right in trash talking this effort. The could do something much better themselves, but they are all far to busy doing the impotant business of living in their parents basements, playing WoW and posting on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's great to see how the all knowing Slashdot Pundits can completely dismiss a technology with almost no information .
I hate to be spoil sport but let 's look at what we do know .
( Actually I LOVE being a spoil sport on Slashdot , but never mind .
) ------- Look at the initial client list : eBay , Google , Staples , FedEx , and Walmart .
Clearly a bunch of looser companies with no technical expertise who can easily be taken in by a smooth talker who is selling a fake product that will never deliver .
( Sarcasm. ) The inventor : " Mr. Sridhar originally invented a similar device when he was working for NASA designing infrastructure for a prospective Mars colony " .
I know you all have an irrational hatred of NASA , but they do send spacecraft all over the solar system and help keep the ISS manned and in orbit .
So it is at least possible that Mr. Sridhar is a smart guy who has done something interesting .
The technology : " The discs are produced from baked sand and then painted on each side with the special ink .
In between the discs an inexpensive metal ( not platinum ) is placed .
" So just maybe he has figured out how to reduce costs by using materials less expensive then semiconductor grade silicon an precious metals .
This obviously leads to the Slashdot consensus that he is wrong .
Current cost vs. long term cost : " Mr. Sridhar hopes the funding that 's being virtually thrown at him and his enigmatic box will help drive down costs to below $ 3,000 for a residential unit within 5 to 10 years .
" The current " useless " price of $ 800,000 for an industrial unit means he has failed , and his projection of better prices in the future with mass production and further development is unfounded .
Clearly decreasing prices of newly introduced technology never occur , according to Slashdot Pundits .
Yep , the Slashdot Pundits are 100 \ % right in trash talking this effort .
The could do something much better themselves , but they are all far to busy doing the impotant business of living in their parents basements , playing WoW and posting on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's great to see how the all knowing Slashdot Pundits can completely dismiss a technology with almost no information.
I hate to be spoil sport but let's look at what we do know.
(Actually I LOVE being a spoil sport on Slashdot, but never mind.
)

-------

Look at the initial client list: eBay, Google, Staples, FedEx, and Walmart.
Clearly a bunch of looser companies with no technical expertise who can easily be taken in by a smooth talker who is selling a fake product that will never deliver.
(Sarcasm.)

The inventor: "Mr. Sridhar originally invented a similar device when he was working for NASA designing infrastructure for a
prospective Mars colony".
I know you all have an irrational hatred of NASA, but they do send spacecraft all over the solar system and help keep the ISS manned and in orbit.
So it is at least possible that Mr. Sridhar is a smart guy who has done something interesting.
The technology: "The discs are produced from baked sand and then painted on each side with the special ink.
In between the discs an inexpensive metal (not platinum) is placed.
"  So just maybe he has figured out how to reduce costs by using materials less expensive then semiconductor grade silicon an precious metals.
This obviously leads to the Slashdot consensus that he is wrong.
Current cost vs. long term cost: "Mr. Sridhar hopes the funding that's being virtually thrown at him and his enigmatic box will help
drive down costs to below $3,000 for a residential unit within 5 to 10 years.
"  The current "useless" price of $800,000 for an industrial unit means he has failed, and his projection of better prices in the future with mass production and further development is unfounded.
Clearly decreasing prices of newly introduced technology never occur, according to Slashdot Pundits .
Yep, the Slashdot Pundits are 100\% right in trash talking this effort.
The could do something much better themselves, but they are all far to busy doing the impotant business of living in their parents basements, playing WoW and posting on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238794</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1266845820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might have some trouble with a few grand, but 3.5 million dollars that you plan to park for years might have a bit more negotiating power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might have some trouble with a few grand , but 3.5 million dollars that you plan to park for years might have a bit more negotiating power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might have some trouble with a few grand, but 3.5 million dollars that you plan to park for years might have a bit more negotiating power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235812</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel and Oxygen</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1266833280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know it's hard to believe, but the invention of the combustion engine didn't cause us all to suffocate from lack of O2. You've both over thought and under understood the issue. Remember, most power comes from combustion, which requires O2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's hard to believe , but the invention of the combustion engine did n't cause us all to suffocate from lack of O2 .
You 've both over thought and under understood the issue .
Remember , most power comes from combustion , which requires O2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's hard to believe, but the invention of the combustion engine didn't cause us all to suffocate from lack of O2.
You've both over thought and under understood the issue.
Remember, most power comes from combustion, which requires O2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238962</id>
	<title>Re:Some of us would</title>
	<author>Kymermosst</author>
	<datestamp>1266846840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In addition, the fuels are not being combusted.</i></p><p>What difference does that make?    Combustion of fuel = heat + CO2 + NOx.   Catalytic conversion of fuel = heat + CO2 + NOx only slightly more efficiently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition , the fuels are not being combusted.What difference does that make ?
Combustion of fuel = heat + CO2 + NOx .
Catalytic conversion of fuel = heat + CO2 + NOx only slightly more efficiently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition, the fuels are not being combusted.What difference does that make?
Combustion of fuel = heat + CO2 + NOx.
Catalytic conversion of fuel = heat + CO2 + NOx only slightly more efficiently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238030</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>grqb</author>
	<datestamp>1266841200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just a solid oxide fuel cell. The only magic is that Bloom Energy is able to market them.</p><p>The inks are made out of ceramic/metal powders, probably either sprayed or screen printed to make a typical sandwich type solid oxide fuel cell (or maybe a ceramic tube). It's a standard way of making solid oxide fuel cells. Electrical efficiency is likely 40-50\%, total efficiency (assuming they are able to recover some waste heat and, for example, heat hot water) would be around 80\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just a solid oxide fuel cell .
The only magic is that Bloom Energy is able to market them.The inks are made out of ceramic/metal powders , probably either sprayed or screen printed to make a typical sandwich type solid oxide fuel cell ( or maybe a ceramic tube ) .
It 's a standard way of making solid oxide fuel cells .
Electrical efficiency is likely 40-50 \ % , total efficiency ( assuming they are able to recover some waste heat and , for example , heat hot water ) would be around 80 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just a solid oxide fuel cell.
The only magic is that Bloom Energy is able to market them.The inks are made out of ceramic/metal powders, probably either sprayed or screen printed to make a typical sandwich type solid oxide fuel cell (or maybe a ceramic tube).
It's a standard way of making solid oxide fuel cells.
Electrical efficiency is likely 40-50\%, total efficiency (assuming they are able to recover some waste heat and, for example, heat hot water) would be around 80\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1266835560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to count opportunity costs.  5 boxes at $700,000 dollars would cost 3.5 million dollars.  Assuming safe and conservative bond / CD investments at \%5, they could earn $175,000 dollars per year at very low risk.  That 100k dollar 9 month "savings" is actually costing them a total net loss of 41k dollars.  It's better for them to just keep the money in a bank account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to count opportunity costs .
5 boxes at $ 700,000 dollars would cost 3.5 million dollars .
Assuming safe and conservative bond / CD investments at \ % 5 , they could earn $ 175,000 dollars per year at very low risk .
That 100k dollar 9 month " savings " is actually costing them a total net loss of 41k dollars .
It 's better for them to just keep the money in a bank account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to count opportunity costs.
5 boxes at $700,000 dollars would cost 3.5 million dollars.
Assuming safe and conservative bond / CD investments at \%5, they could earn $175,000 dollars per year at very low risk.
That 100k dollar 9 month "savings" is actually costing them a total net loss of 41k dollars.
It's better for them to just keep the money in a bank account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235190</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>danbert8</author>
	<datestamp>1266831480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that is assuming power costs don't go up, but like I said it also doesn't include the time value of money.  So it will pay itself off in 30 years if the increase in energy cost matched the inflation rate, which I don't think is too unreasonable seeming how a large portion of inflation is tied to the cost of energy.  Natural gas as a fuel will explode (figuratively and literally) in the next decade if there isn't a carbon tax.  I would bet the price of natural gas will either match inflation or fall relative to the CPI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that is assuming power costs do n't go up , but like I said it also does n't include the time value of money .
So it will pay itself off in 30 years if the increase in energy cost matched the inflation rate , which I do n't think is too unreasonable seeming how a large portion of inflation is tied to the cost of energy .
Natural gas as a fuel will explode ( figuratively and literally ) in the next decade if there is n't a carbon tax .
I would bet the price of natural gas will either match inflation or fall relative to the CPI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that is assuming power costs don't go up, but like I said it also doesn't include the time value of money.
So it will pay itself off in 30 years if the increase in energy cost matched the inflation rate, which I don't think is too unreasonable seeming how a large portion of inflation is tied to the cost of energy.
Natural gas as a fuel will explode (figuratively and literally) in the next decade if there isn't a carbon tax.
I would bet the price of natural gas will either match inflation or fall relative to the CPI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239440</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1266849600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ignoring the problems people are pointing out about your assumptions around bond return rates and inflation, If you just put the money in the bank and count up interest, you aren't buying power which is the whole reason for the exercise. So in addition to the erosion of your investment returns from inflation, you also are paying out some sum to buy the energy you need, further eroding your investment stake. Also, any good corporate tax accountant will depreciate the hell out of the bloom boxes on taxes, so I am not sure that your suggestion is quite a good as it sounds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the problems people are pointing out about your assumptions around bond return rates and inflation , If you just put the money in the bank and count up interest , you are n't buying power which is the whole reason for the exercise .
So in addition to the erosion of your investment returns from inflation , you also are paying out some sum to buy the energy you need , further eroding your investment stake .
Also , any good corporate tax accountant will depreciate the hell out of the bloom boxes on taxes , so I am not sure that your suggestion is quite a good as it sounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring the problems people are pointing out about your assumptions around bond return rates and inflation, If you just put the money in the bank and count up interest, you aren't buying power which is the whole reason for the exercise.
So in addition to the erosion of your investment returns from inflation, you also are paying out some sum to buy the energy you need, further eroding your investment stake.
Also, any good corporate tax accountant will depreciate the hell out of the bloom boxes on taxes, so I am not sure that your suggestion is quite a good as it sounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234966</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're forgetting about the seller listing &amp; paypal fees</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting about the seller listing &amp; paypal fees</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting about the seller listing &amp; paypal fees</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234850</id>
	<title>mm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gaining momentum..  just attach a generator and queue the  duck-and-cover themesong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gaining momentum.. just attach a generator and queue the duck-and-cover themesong : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gaining momentum..  just attach a generator and queue the  duck-and-cover themesong :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236960</id>
	<title>I love how they presented it on 60 Minutes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266836760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In that they had to dumb it down for the dummies. "This is silicon- sand- like you would find on any beach in the world!" Leslie Stahl: "Really? Sand? You're kidding!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In that they had to dumb it down for the dummies .
" This is silicon- sand- like you would find on any beach in the world !
" Leslie Stahl : " Really ?
Sand ? You 're kidding !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that they had to dumb it down for the dummies.
"This is silicon- sand- like you would find on any beach in the world!
" Leslie Stahl: "Really?
Sand? You're kidding!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31250676</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266920880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hold it, I thought in the video they said they were getting a 50\% discount, thanks for the CA state on subsidies for "green-tech".
<br>
<br>
Hence, they could recoup costs in less than half that time, where as it will take the CA resident about 28yrs to coup costs on value it never realized...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hold it , I thought in the video they said they were getting a 50 \ % discount , thanks for the CA state on subsidies for " green-tech " .
Hence , they could recoup costs in less than half that time , where as it will take the CA resident about 28yrs to coup costs on value it never realized.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hold it, I thought in the video they said they were getting a 50\% discount, thanks for the CA state on subsidies for "green-tech".
Hence, they could recoup costs in less than half that time, where as it will take the CA resident about 28yrs to coup costs on value it never realized...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239172</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266847920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fuel cell is useless for backup power; it takes 4-8 hours to get up to temperature depending on the size and technology.  Incremental size increases for a diesel engine are a rounding error.</p><p>Companies are doing this in anticipation of carbon offsets and to tell their shareholders that they are working to be more green.  Occasionally, you can do something useful with the "waste heat" from the units which makes them slightly more attractive... but not often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fuel cell is useless for backup power ; it takes 4-8 hours to get up to temperature depending on the size and technology .
Incremental size increases for a diesel engine are a rounding error.Companies are doing this in anticipation of carbon offsets and to tell their shareholders that they are working to be more green .
Occasionally , you can do something useful with the " waste heat " from the units which makes them slightly more attractive... but not often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fuel cell is useless for backup power; it takes 4-8 hours to get up to temperature depending on the size and technology.
Incremental size increases for a diesel engine are a rounding error.Companies are doing this in anticipation of carbon offsets and to tell their shareholders that they are working to be more green.
Occasionally, you can do something useful with the "waste heat" from the units which makes them slightly more attractive... but not often.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240390</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266856740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no idea what you are talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no idea what you are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no idea what you are talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238834</id>
	<title>1000c ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266846120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so let me get this straight, this amazing new generator takes in gas and burns it. it's that called a fucking combustion engine?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so let me get this straight , this amazing new generator takes in gas and burns it .
it 's that called a fucking combustion engine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so let me get this straight, this amazing new generator takes in gas and burns it.
it's that called a fucking combustion engine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236994</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>lordgopher</author>
	<datestamp>1266836880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Question CH4 + Fuel cell = O2 + Electricity what kind of alchemy is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Question CH4 + Fuel cell = O2 + Electricity what kind of alchemy is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question CH4 + Fuel cell = O2 + Electricity what kind of alchemy is that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238404</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Add in a healthy dollop of Federal/State subsidies and installing such tech makes good business sense.</p></div><p>Good business sense, but not good economic sense.  They will make good economic sense when the costs are competitive with other forms of electricity without subsidies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Add in a healthy dollop of Federal/State subsidies and installing such tech makes good business sense.Good business sense , but not good economic sense .
They will make good economic sense when the costs are competitive with other forms of electricity without subsidies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add in a healthy dollop of Federal/State subsidies and installing such tech makes good business sense.Good business sense, but not good economic sense.
They will make good economic sense when the costs are competitive with other forms of electricity without subsidies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235612</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266832740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their 2006 patents cover making a solid oxide fuel cell using ytria stabilized zirconia applied to a porous ceramic support.  This is not really new technology as you can see from this 2002 news article about Lawrence Berkeley Labs developing such cells:  http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fuel-cells.html.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their 2006 patents cover making a solid oxide fuel cell using ytria stabilized zirconia applied to a porous ceramic support .
This is not really new technology as you can see from this 2002 news article about Lawrence Berkeley Labs developing such cells : http : //www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fuel-cells.html .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their 2006 patents cover making a solid oxide fuel cell using ytria stabilized zirconia applied to a porous ceramic support.
This is not really new technology as you can see from this 2002 news article about Lawrence Berkeley Labs developing such cells:  http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fuel-cells.html.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240976</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1266862800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To me that is a sign of how broken the world is. You're better off not doing anything than actually taking a proactive step.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>There's a reason you get interest for saving money: your bank can then go put it to use, presumably a better one than you could have at a lesser return.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me that is a sign of how broken the world is .
You 're better off not doing anything than actually taking a proactive step .
There 's a reason you get interest for saving money : your bank can then go put it to use , presumably a better one than you could have at a lesser return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me that is a sign of how broken the world is.
You're better off not doing anything than actually taking a proactive step.
There's a reason you get interest for saving money: your bank can then go put it to use, presumably a better one than you could have at a lesser return.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31242078</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1266918120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that they probably financed it, at a low rate, being an early adopter.  The money is still actually in investments making money.</p><p>Of course its possible they already accounted for the cost per month of the unit.</p><p>I'm making random assumptions of course, but so are you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that they probably financed it , at a low rate , being an early adopter .
The money is still actually in investments making money.Of course its possible they already accounted for the cost per month of the unit.I 'm making random assumptions of course , but so are you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that they probably financed it, at a low rate, being an early adopter.
The money is still actually in investments making money.Of course its possible they already accounted for the cost per month of the unit.I'm making random assumptions of course, but so are you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235304</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>Byzantine</author>
	<datestamp>1266831840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the <i>60 Minutes</i> piece last night, the $800k <em>is</em> before subsidies, which bring the price per unit down to around $400k-$500k.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the 60 Minutes piece last night , the $ 800k is before subsidies , which bring the price per unit down to around $ 400k- $ 500k .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the 60 Minutes piece last night, the $800k is before subsidies, which bring the price per unit down to around $400k-$500k.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235466</id>
	<title>Re:How is this "green"?</title>
	<author>Yosho-sama</author>
	<datestamp>1266832380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the company: these devices can burn natural gasses that are plant derived as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the company : these devices can burn natural gasses that are plant derived as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the company: these devices can burn natural gasses that are plant derived as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235784</id>
	<title>Hot</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1266833220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1000 degrees Celsius! That is hot, dam hot.<br>OK not enough to melt steel or aluminum, but still freaking hot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1000 degrees Celsius !
That is hot , dam hot.OK not enough to melt steel or aluminum , but still freaking hot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1000 degrees Celsius!
That is hot, dam hot.OK not enough to melt steel or aluminum, but still freaking hot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236324</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: "One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there's a 30 percent federal tax break because it's a "green" technology. In other words: the price is cut in half."</p><p>So make that 15 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state , and there 's a 30 percent federal tax break because it 's a " green " technology .
In other words : the price is cut in half .
" So make that 15 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there's a 30 percent federal tax break because it's a "green" technology.
In other words: the price is cut in half.
"So make that 15 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238786</id>
	<title>I power my Segway from a Bloom Box!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about paying for itself, it's about eating your own dog food. Bloom Energy, Google, Yahoo, Segway, all financed from the same cabal of VCs, and the way you score revenue in that business is to trade each other your stuff and then count the trades as revenue in both directions. Kind of like two real estate guys selling each other the same two condos, until the price is bid up to a level worthy for sale to some suck^H^H^H^H other investor. Hey, it worked in 1999, why not now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about paying for itself , it 's about eating your own dog food .
Bloom Energy , Google , Yahoo , Segway , all financed from the same cabal of VCs , and the way you score revenue in that business is to trade each other your stuff and then count the trades as revenue in both directions .
Kind of like two real estate guys selling each other the same two condos , until the price is bid up to a level worthy for sale to some suck ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H other investor .
Hey , it worked in 1999 , why not now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about paying for itself, it's about eating your own dog food.
Bloom Energy, Google, Yahoo, Segway, all financed from the same cabal of VCs, and the way you score revenue in that business is to trade each other your stuff and then count the trades as revenue in both directions.
Kind of like two real estate guys selling each other the same two condos, until the price is bid up to a level worthy for sale to some suck^H^H^H^H other investor.
Hey, it worked in 1999, why not now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237712</id>
	<title>Running on water</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266839880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I didn't read TFA, but I read some articles about this before. Seems like this originated from a device to make oxygen on foreign planets, which means that they where probably splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. So what sounds interesting to me would be to run two devices coupled together, where one would produce hydrogen from wind/solar when available, and the other then burn hydrogen and/or FOSSIL\_FUEL\_FLAVOUR\_OF\_THE\_DAY if hydrogen supply is not enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I did n't read TFA , but I read some articles about this before .
Seems like this originated from a device to make oxygen on foreign planets , which means that they where probably splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen .
So what sounds interesting to me would be to run two devices coupled together , where one would produce hydrogen from wind/solar when available , and the other then burn hydrogen and/or FOSSIL \ _FUEL \ _FLAVOUR \ _OF \ _THE \ _DAY if hydrogen supply is not enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I didn't read TFA, but I read some articles about this before.
Seems like this originated from a device to make oxygen on foreign planets, which means that they where probably splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.
So what sounds interesting to me would be to run two devices coupled together, where one would produce hydrogen from wind/solar when available, and the other then burn hydrogen and/or FOSSIL\_FUEL\_FLAVOUR\_OF\_THE\_DAY if hydrogen supply is not enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</id>
	<title>About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool, they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool , they will pay for themselves in about 30 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool, they will pay for themselves in about 30 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240856</id>
	<title>A Letter to Edison International</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1266861360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wrote my check for my Energy Bill to Edison of Southern California.  In the memo part of the check I wrote, "I Support Bloom Boxes.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote my check for my Energy Bill to Edison of Southern California .
In the memo part of the check I wrote , " I Support Bloom Boxes .
: -P "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote my check for my Energy Bill to Edison of Southern California.
In the memo part of the check I wrote, "I Support Bloom Boxes.
:-P"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236358</id>
	<title>It's a bomb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266835080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Methane, O2, 1000 degrees Celcius plus electricity - perfect recipe for a disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Methane , O2 , 1000 degrees Celcius plus electricity - perfect recipe for a disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Methane, O2, 1000 degrees Celcius plus electricity - perfect recipe for a disaster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240238</id>
	<title>I want a little one for a travel trailer.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1266855600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Travel trailers (and some remote sites where grid power is not practical) tend to have several appliances powered by propane being burned to produce heat:  Refrigerator, furnace, and water heater are typical.</p><p>But they have a real problem coming up with electrical power - to control these appliances and for other loads - lighting, electronics, etc.  They resort to deep-cycle lead-acid batteries (charged from line power or the vehicle when being towed) or a propane-powered engine with a generator.  For considerably more bux they can have solar panels and charge controllers mounted to run them on extended stays at remote sites - IF they're sunny.</p><p>Seems to me that replacing the burner in one or more of these appliances with a small model of one of these devices and using the waste heat for the original heating job could provide plenty of charging power "for free".  The fuel's energy still ends up mostly as waste heat which isn't "waste" for the original appliance.  The fuel burns hotter an the fuel cell uses the drop across the first several hundred degrees to make juice, after which the appliance (which didn't need the heat at such a high temperature) uses the rest.  The fuel consumption would be only slightly more than the original appliance, rather than the much greater consumption of the appliance plus a separate generator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Travel trailers ( and some remote sites where grid power is not practical ) tend to have several appliances powered by propane being burned to produce heat : Refrigerator , furnace , and water heater are typical.But they have a real problem coming up with electrical power - to control these appliances and for other loads - lighting , electronics , etc .
They resort to deep-cycle lead-acid batteries ( charged from line power or the vehicle when being towed ) or a propane-powered engine with a generator .
For considerably more bux they can have solar panels and charge controllers mounted to run them on extended stays at remote sites - IF they 're sunny.Seems to me that replacing the burner in one or more of these appliances with a small model of one of these devices and using the waste heat for the original heating job could provide plenty of charging power " for free " .
The fuel 's energy still ends up mostly as waste heat which is n't " waste " for the original appliance .
The fuel burns hotter an the fuel cell uses the drop across the first several hundred degrees to make juice , after which the appliance ( which did n't need the heat at such a high temperature ) uses the rest .
The fuel consumption would be only slightly more than the original appliance , rather than the much greater consumption of the appliance plus a separate generator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Travel trailers (and some remote sites where grid power is not practical) tend to have several appliances powered by propane being burned to produce heat:  Refrigerator, furnace, and water heater are typical.But they have a real problem coming up with electrical power - to control these appliances and for other loads - lighting, electronics, etc.
They resort to deep-cycle lead-acid batteries (charged from line power or the vehicle when being towed) or a propane-powered engine with a generator.
For considerably more bux they can have solar panels and charge controllers mounted to run them on extended stays at remote sites - IF they're sunny.Seems to me that replacing the burner in one or more of these appliances with a small model of one of these devices and using the waste heat for the original heating job could provide plenty of charging power "for free".
The fuel's energy still ends up mostly as waste heat which isn't "waste" for the original appliance.
The fuel burns hotter an the fuel cell uses the drop across the first several hundred degrees to make juice, after which the appliance (which didn't need the heat at such a high temperature) uses the rest.
The fuel consumption would be only slightly more than the original appliance, rather than the much greater consumption of the appliance plus a separate generator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235640</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1266832800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So do solar panels. And people have been refining solar panel technology for a couple of decades. I bet you the next generation of these Bloom boxes will have a far better ROI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So do solar panels .
And people have been refining solar panel technology for a couple of decades .
I bet you the next generation of these Bloom boxes will have a far better ROI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So do solar panels.
And people have been refining solar panel technology for a couple of decades.
I bet you the next generation of these Bloom boxes will have a far better ROI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238802</id>
	<title>The Bay Area grid is full</title>
	<author>wsanders</author>
	<datestamp>1266845880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also (besides the approx 50\% effective discount from tax credits, etc) the Bay Area grid is tapped out, full, at capacity. There are colos that are only using 50\% of their floor area because they cannot get enough electricity to power any more cabinets.</p><p>When fuel cell technology takes off in Texas or eastern Oregon or Nevada, then I'll be convinced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also ( besides the approx 50 \ % effective discount from tax credits , etc ) the Bay Area grid is tapped out , full , at capacity .
There are colos that are only using 50 \ % of their floor area because they can not get enough electricity to power any more cabinets.When fuel cell technology takes off in Texas or eastern Oregon or Nevada , then I 'll be convinced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also (besides the approx 50\% effective discount from tax credits, etc) the Bay Area grid is tapped out, full, at capacity.
There are colos that are only using 50\% of their floor area because they cannot get enough electricity to power any more cabinets.When fuel cell technology takes off in Texas or eastern Oregon or Nevada, then I'll be convinced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236420</id>
	<title>Snake oil hucksterism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266835260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like snake oil to me. Hype up a mysterious technology, get investors, bail...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like snake oil to me .
Hype up a mysterious technology , get investors , bail.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like snake oil to me.
Hype up a mysterious technology, get investors, bail...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235756</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1266833160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, aside from the appeal of "no moving parts", how does this device (fuel cell) improve on a sterling engine turning an alternator?  With a sterling you can switch from a combustion heat source to a concentrated solar heat source on sunny days and for a lot less than $800,000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , aside from the appeal of " no moving parts " , how does this device ( fuel cell ) improve on a sterling engine turning an alternator ?
With a sterling you can switch from a combustion heat source to a concentrated solar heat source on sunny days and for a lot less than $ 800,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, aside from the appeal of "no moving parts", how does this device (fuel cell) improve on a sterling engine turning an alternator?
With a sterling you can switch from a combustion heat source to a concentrated solar heat source on sunny days and for a lot less than $800,000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241192</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>sapphire wyvern</author>
	<datestamp>1266865080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. It's a sign that this "proactive" step generates less value than that money could generate when invested elsewhere (as the bank will do) even *after* the bank and the owners of the alternative investment have taken their cuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
It 's a sign that this " proactive " step generates less value than that money could generate when invested elsewhere ( as the bank will do ) even * after * the bank and the owners of the alternative investment have taken their cuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
It's a sign that this "proactive" step generates less value than that money could generate when invested elsewhere (as the bank will do) even *after* the bank and the owners of the alternative investment have taken their cuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235424</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>John Meacham</author>
	<datestamp>1266832200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it means we don't have to spend tax dollars on new power distribution infrastructure, then it can be a net win. It is entirely possible ebay's power requirements were overloading what the grid had to offer at that location.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it means we do n't have to spend tax dollars on new power distribution infrastructure , then it can be a net win .
It is entirely possible ebay 's power requirements were overloading what the grid had to offer at that location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it means we don't have to spend tax dollars on new power distribution infrastructure, then it can be a net win.
It is entirely possible ebay's power requirements were overloading what the grid had to offer at that location.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31247978</id>
	<title>Re:Emergency Generators</title>
	<author>CrazyChinaman</author>
	<datestamp>1266954660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think these would do well as emergency power gen.  Emergency back-ups are generally something you want to come online fast.  So that your battery power UPSs can keep your vital systems up while you get power back to them.  From what I understand, these fuel cells have an operating temp of 1000C, so unless you keep them warmed, or the start-up time is suprisingly short, these wouldn't do well.
Our emergency diesels can come up to power and start to take on a load in under 15 seconds.  And they're huge...I could stand in a combustion chamber.  We have two 16 cylinder, four stroke, turbocharged, V-type engine with a continuous rating of 9074 hp at 450 rpm.  It'll spin the genny for 6500 kW at 6.9 kV...
Now THAT's an emergency backup generator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think these would do well as emergency power gen. Emergency back-ups are generally something you want to come online fast .
So that your battery power UPSs can keep your vital systems up while you get power back to them .
From what I understand , these fuel cells have an operating temp of 1000C , so unless you keep them warmed , or the start-up time is suprisingly short , these would n't do well .
Our emergency diesels can come up to power and start to take on a load in under 15 seconds .
And they 're huge...I could stand in a combustion chamber .
We have two 16 cylinder , four stroke , turbocharged , V-type engine with a continuous rating of 9074 hp at 450 rpm .
It 'll spin the genny for 6500 kW at 6.9 kV.. . Now THAT 's an emergency backup generator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think these would do well as emergency power gen.  Emergency back-ups are generally something you want to come online fast.
So that your battery power UPSs can keep your vital systems up while you get power back to them.
From what I understand, these fuel cells have an operating temp of 1000C, so unless you keep them warmed, or the start-up time is suprisingly short, these wouldn't do well.
Our emergency diesels can come up to power and start to take on a load in under 15 seconds.
And they're huge...I could stand in a combustion chamber.
We have two 16 cylinder, four stroke, turbocharged, V-type engine with a continuous rating of 9074 hp at 450 rpm.
It'll spin the genny for 6500 kW at 6.9 kV...
Now THAT's an emergency backup generator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240230</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1266855480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless of course they actually need the power, and see this as a way of saving money on the power consumption they all ready need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless of course they actually need the power , and see this as a way of saving money on the power consumption they all ready need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless of course they actually need the power, and see this as a way of saving money on the power consumption they all ready need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235342</id>
	<title>Fuel and Oxygen</title>
	<author>emagery</author>
	<datestamp>1266831960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay okay... so this is a 'green' technology.  The 60 minutes report I saw had it cutting one source of fuel for one entity (some campus and using natural gas) down by 50\%.  That, in itself is great.... but wait.  Oxygen and 'fuel' are used.  I realize that concern about too much CO2 in the air is one thing, but there is also the issue of too little O2 in the air.  It is not a life-threatening issue yet, but could potentially be with all the combustion of fuels, declining forests and, now, these miracle machines.  How much O2 do they consume?  What'll happen when there's pentillions of them doing their thing all around the world?  A lot of the consequences of industrialism were not immediately foreseen... but this time around, this one makes me wonder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay okay... so this is a 'green ' technology .
The 60 minutes report I saw had it cutting one source of fuel for one entity ( some campus and using natural gas ) down by 50 \ % .
That , in itself is great.... but wait .
Oxygen and 'fuel ' are used .
I realize that concern about too much CO2 in the air is one thing , but there is also the issue of too little O2 in the air .
It is not a life-threatening issue yet , but could potentially be with all the combustion of fuels , declining forests and , now , these miracle machines .
How much O2 do they consume ?
What 'll happen when there 's pentillions of them doing their thing all around the world ?
A lot of the consequences of industrialism were not immediately foreseen... but this time around , this one makes me wonder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay okay... so this is a 'green' technology.
The 60 minutes report I saw had it cutting one source of fuel for one entity (some campus and using natural gas) down by 50\%.
That, in itself is great.... but wait.
Oxygen and 'fuel' are used.
I realize that concern about too much CO2 in the air is one thing, but there is also the issue of too little O2 in the air.
It is not a life-threatening issue yet, but could potentially be with all the combustion of fuels, declining forests and, now, these miracle machines.
How much O2 do they consume?
What'll happen when there's pentillions of them doing their thing all around the world?
A lot of the consequences of industrialism were not immediately foreseen... but this time around, this one makes me wonder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236122</id>
	<title>Anyone see a problem here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In essence, a company can buy a mini-power station.  These units produce power no more efficiently, no more "greenly", and really no better than their full scale counterparts.  If the benefit is anything other than independence from the power grid, I fail to see the point.<br>If these units are indeed cheaper in the long run than buying power (which I highly doubt), then it'd be worthwhile for the power companies to investigate what they are doing wrong before more competition starts spring up all over the place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In essence , a company can buy a mini-power station .
These units produce power no more efficiently , no more " greenly " , and really no better than their full scale counterparts .
If the benefit is anything other than independence from the power grid , I fail to see the point.If these units are indeed cheaper in the long run than buying power ( which I highly doubt ) , then it 'd be worthwhile for the power companies to investigate what they are doing wrong before more competition starts spring up all over the place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In essence, a company can buy a mini-power station.
These units produce power no more efficiently, no more "greenly", and really no better than their full scale counterparts.
If the benefit is anything other than independence from the power grid, I fail to see the point.If these units are indeed cheaper in the long run than buying power (which I highly doubt), then it'd be worthwhile for the power companies to investigate what they are doing wrong before more competition starts spring up all over the place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237920</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Fieryphoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1266840660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The companies in California got theirs subsidized to the tune of 50\%. That means they would only have earned $87,500, and thus come out ahead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The companies in California got theirs subsidized to the tune of 50 \ % .
That means they would only have earned $ 87,500 , and thus come out ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The companies in California got theirs subsidized to the tune of 50\%.
That means they would only have earned $87,500, and thus come out ahead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235458</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>bloobloo</author>
	<datestamp>1266832320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with high temperature operation of combustion engines is that you generate lots of NOx, which you don't want unless you like smog. If you can carry out the reaction at high temperatures and prevent oxidation of nitrogen, then you've got a significant improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with high temperature operation of combustion engines is that you generate lots of NOx , which you do n't want unless you like smog .
If you can carry out the reaction at high temperatures and prevent oxidation of nitrogen , then you 've got a significant improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with high temperature operation of combustion engines is that you generate lots of NOx, which you don't want unless you like smog.
If you can carry out the reaction at high temperatures and prevent oxidation of nitrogen, then you've got a significant improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240560</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>stewartm0205</author>
	<datestamp>1266858420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you assume that fuel cost stays the same and the cost of the fuel cell won't decrease. Both assumption are wrong. This is the beginning of the learning curve for the fuel cell. Cost will quickly decrease. And the cost of natural gas will increase with time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you assume that fuel cost stays the same and the cost of the fuel cell wo n't decrease .
Both assumption are wrong .
This is the beginning of the learning curve for the fuel cell .
Cost will quickly decrease .
And the cost of natural gas will increase with time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you assume that fuel cost stays the same and the cost of the fuel cell won't decrease.
Both assumption are wrong.
This is the beginning of the learning curve for the fuel cell.
Cost will quickly decrease.
And the cost of natural gas will increase with time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235682</id>
	<title>Works like this...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1266832920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, $700,000 to $800,000 will buy you a 'corporate sized' unit. Inside the box are a unique kind of fuel cell consisting of ceramic disks coated with green and black 'inks.' The inks somehow transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power, when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Green and black inks, so it's coated with that $800k in singles?  Close the damper and I'm sure they and the methane will burn for a really long time.  Also, I'm not sure I want something running at 1,000 C in my back yard, though I'd be popular for cookouts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , $ 700,000 to $ 800,000 will buy you a 'corporate sized ' unit .
Inside the box are a unique kind of fuel cell consisting of ceramic disks coated with green and black 'inks .
' The inks somehow transform a stream of methane ( or other hydrocarbons ) and oxygen into power , when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius .
Green and black inks , so it 's coated with that $ 800k in singles ?
Close the damper and I 'm sure they and the methane will burn for a really long time .
Also , I 'm not sure I want something running at 1,000 C in my back yard , though I 'd be popular for cookouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, $700,000 to $800,000 will buy you a 'corporate sized' unit.
Inside the box are a unique kind of fuel cell consisting of ceramic disks coated with green and black 'inks.
' The inks somehow transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power, when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius.
Green and black inks, so it's coated with that $800k in singles?
Close the damper and I'm sure they and the methane will burn for a really long time.
Also, I'm not sure I want something running at 1,000 C in my back yard, though I'd be popular for cookouts.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237376</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266838440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the world as run by socialist environmentalists.  It makes all kinds of sense, provided you don't look too closely or have too much money ("too much" subject to redefinition as required.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the world as run by socialist environmentalists .
It makes all kinds of sense , provided you do n't look too closely or have too much money ( " too much " subject to redefinition as required .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the world as run by socialist environmentalists.
It makes all kinds of sense, provided you don't look too closely or have too much money ("too much" subject to redefinition as required.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236386</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel Cells, better than Natural Gas Electric PW</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1266835140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if can be scaled up</p></div><p>The benefit is not in scaling up, but in scaling down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if can be scaled upThe benefit is not in scaling up , but in scaling down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if can be scaled upThe benefit is not in scaling up, but in scaling down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236248</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting but not yet revolutionary</title>
	<author>GeodesicGnome</author>
	<datestamp>1266834600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same aspect that makes this interesting for the 3rd world makes it interesting for homeland security:  removal of the need for a massive (and vulnerable) distribution grid.  Just make sure the fuel for these things isn't all natural gas piped in through the same network of pipes.  It would be nice to get rid of those massive power outages every time there's a big storm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same aspect that makes this interesting for the 3rd world makes it interesting for homeland security : removal of the need for a massive ( and vulnerable ) distribution grid .
Just make sure the fuel for these things is n't all natural gas piped in through the same network of pipes .
It would be nice to get rid of those massive power outages every time there 's a big storm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same aspect that makes this interesting for the 3rd world makes it interesting for homeland security:  removal of the need for a massive (and vulnerable) distribution grid.
Just make sure the fuel for these things isn't all natural gas piped in through the same network of pipes.
It would be nice to get rid of those massive power outages every time there's a big storm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235956</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming the units last that long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming the units last that long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming the units last that long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237430</id>
	<title>Re:Most of you are missing the point people!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266838620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, one has to calculate all the effects it has on everything.</p><p>But your logic about methane is strongly flawed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As demand rises, costs will come down.</p></div><p>You mean like the price of oil comes down with the rising demand?<br>And you mean like oil was extremely abundant, 100 years ago? ^^</p><p>Wait a couple of decades, and the methane is gone. It will be much faster than expected, because growth is exponential.</p><p>The thing is: It is simply no long-term solution. It&rsquo;s just using up yet another resource, without thinking more than around the next corner.</p><p>There really is only one resource that we can use that way: Plain sunlight.<br>That&rsquo;s it.<br>Everything else we use, must be renewed with the use of sunlight. Trees, land, chemicals, water, air, wind,... Everything.</p><p>Which is harder than it looks, because one has to keep the natural cycles in balance. Even those inside our body. Or else something will die, that we won&rsquo;t be able to renew with sunlight.</p><p>But it&rsquo;s actually a very cool concept: Zero-effect industry / economy.<br>Not in the short term, but in the long term.<br>Similar to how in quantum physics, something impossible can exist, as long as it does&rsquo;t exist for too long. The net effect is still zero.</p><p>And I think, this will be the next big thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , one has to calculate all the effects it has on everything.But your logic about methane is strongly flawed.As demand rises , costs will come down.You mean like the price of oil comes down with the rising demand ? And you mean like oil was extremely abundant , 100 years ago ?
^ ^ Wait a couple of decades , and the methane is gone .
It will be much faster than expected , because growth is exponential.The thing is : It is simply no long-term solution .
It    s just using up yet another resource , without thinking more than around the next corner.There really is only one resource that we can use that way : Plain sunlight.That    s it.Everything else we use , must be renewed with the use of sunlight .
Trees , land , chemicals , water , air , wind,... Everything.Which is harder than it looks , because one has to keep the natural cycles in balance .
Even those inside our body .
Or else something will die , that we won    t be able to renew with sunlight.But it    s actually a very cool concept : Zero-effect industry / economy.Not in the short term , but in the long term.Similar to how in quantum physics , something impossible can exist , as long as it does    t exist for too long .
The net effect is still zero.And I think , this will be the next big thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, one has to calculate all the effects it has on everything.But your logic about methane is strongly flawed.As demand rises, costs will come down.You mean like the price of oil comes down with the rising demand?And you mean like oil was extremely abundant, 100 years ago?
^^Wait a couple of decades, and the methane is gone.
It will be much faster than expected, because growth is exponential.The thing is: It is simply no long-term solution.
It’s just using up yet another resource, without thinking more than around the next corner.There really is only one resource that we can use that way: Plain sunlight.That’s it.Everything else we use, must be renewed with the use of sunlight.
Trees, land, chemicals, water, air, wind,... Everything.Which is harder than it looks, because one has to keep the natural cycles in balance.
Even those inside our body.
Or else something will die, that we won’t be able to renew with sunlight.But it’s actually a very cool concept: Zero-effect industry / economy.Not in the short term, but in the long term.Similar to how in quantum physics, something impossible can exist, as long as it does’t exist for too long.
The net effect is still zero.And I think, this will be the next big thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235726</id>
	<title>Looks like a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell</title>
	<author>Big\_Breaker</author>
	<datestamp>1266833040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See the wiki entry here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOFC</p><p>The "inks" are probably catalysts that make the cell work better or at a lower temperature.  My guess is that the inks help crack the hydrocarbon fuel.</p><p>Solid oxide fuel cells are a bit like the low temperature hydrogen PEM cells.  Two chemical reagents on opposite sides of a membrane really want to come together.  That potential is harvested by a conductors.  High temperature fuel cells, like SOFCs, can use hydrocarbon fuels because they can crack the carbon chain on the membrane surface and use the resulting hydrogen (and elemental carbon) to react with oxygen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See the wiki entry here : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOFCThe " inks " are probably catalysts that make the cell work better or at a lower temperature .
My guess is that the inks help crack the hydrocarbon fuel.Solid oxide fuel cells are a bit like the low temperature hydrogen PEM cells .
Two chemical reagents on opposite sides of a membrane really want to come together .
That potential is harvested by a conductors .
High temperature fuel cells , like SOFCs , can use hydrocarbon fuels because they can crack the carbon chain on the membrane surface and use the resulting hydrogen ( and elemental carbon ) to react with oxygen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See the wiki entry here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOFCThe "inks" are probably catalysts that make the cell work better or at a lower temperature.
My guess is that the inks help crack the hydrocarbon fuel.Solid oxide fuel cells are a bit like the low temperature hydrogen PEM cells.
Two chemical reagents on opposite sides of a membrane really want to come together.
That potential is harvested by a conductors.
High temperature fuel cells, like SOFCs, can use hydrocarbon fuels because they can crack the carbon chain on the membrane surface and use the resulting hydrogen (and elemental carbon) to react with oxygen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239470</id>
	<title>Re:How is this "green"?</title>
	<author>Surt</author>
	<datestamp>1266849780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Methane, being about the worst greenhouse gas (in any plentiful quantity), is a really great thing to get rid of.  So yes, very green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Methane , being about the worst greenhouse gas ( in any plentiful quantity ) , is a really great thing to get rid of .
So yes , very green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Methane, being about the worst greenhouse gas (in any plentiful quantity), is a really great thing to get rid of.
So yes, very green.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235072</id>
	<title>How is this "green"?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1266831120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might save money but how is this technology greener?</p><p>To me it sounds like they're burning methane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might save money but how is this technology greener ? To me it sounds like they 're burning methane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might save money but how is this technology greener?To me it sounds like they're burning methane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237636</id>
	<title>And natural gas prices rocket....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266839580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if he can make these things cheep, and available all over the world, we'll push the price of natural gas up, and any other fuel source.  But this does look like a good addition to the line-up of technologies that we'll be reliant on for the next 40 years to meet our desired carbon footprint goals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if he can make these things cheep , and available all over the world , we 'll push the price of natural gas up , and any other fuel source .
But this does look like a good addition to the line-up of technologies that we 'll be reliant on for the next 40 years to meet our desired carbon footprint goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if he can make these things cheep, and available all over the world, we'll push the price of natural gas up, and any other fuel source.
But this does look like a good addition to the line-up of technologies that we'll be reliant on for the next 40 years to meet our desired carbon footprint goals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880</id>
	<title>Payback period?</title>
	<author>danbert8</author>
	<datestamp>1266830520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so 5 units at 800,000 is 4 million.  If they save 100,000/9 months, that's 133,333/year.  So it'll only take them 30 years to repay the cost, assuming that money has no time value of course.  Sounds like a poor investment to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so 5 units at 800,000 is 4 million .
If they save 100,000/9 months , that 's 133,333/year .
So it 'll only take them 30 years to repay the cost , assuming that money has no time value of course .
Sounds like a poor investment to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so 5 units at 800,000 is 4 million.
If they save 100,000/9 months, that's 133,333/year.
So it'll only take them 30 years to repay the cost, assuming that money has no time value of course.
Sounds like a poor investment to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235530</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266832500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other than saving space, how is this better than solar panels which typically have a 15-20 year payoff period?</p></div><p>It runs their servers when there's a rolling blackout and the sun isn't shining.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than saving space , how is this better than solar panels which typically have a 15-20 year payoff period ? It runs their servers when there 's a rolling blackout and the sun is n't shining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than saving space, how is this better than solar panels which typically have a 15-20 year payoff period?It runs their servers when there's a rolling blackout and the sun isn't shining.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237530</id>
	<title>Re:Most of you are missing the point people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266839040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot. There was a recent shift in capitalism.</p><p>As demand rises, costs will rise as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot .
There was a recent shift in capitalism.As demand rises , costs will rise as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot.
There was a recent shift in capitalism.As demand rises, costs will rise as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237770</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266840060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It maybe a bargain.  If PG&amp;E has to run dirty on demand power plants if these aren't used, then the net gains in improved health<br>may indeed save the state money.  If the actual cost of generation (pollution caused health problems) are included we could make<br>better decisions on whether this is a deal or not.  The information given isn't enough to make that determination.  Or, you're already<br>subsidizing electricity generation, oil companies and all polluters (to some degree even yourself -- depending on how much you drive).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It maybe a bargain .
If PG&amp;E has to run dirty on demand power plants if these are n't used , then the net gains in improved healthmay indeed save the state money .
If the actual cost of generation ( pollution caused health problems ) are included we could makebetter decisions on whether this is a deal or not .
The information given is n't enough to make that determination .
Or , you 're alreadysubsidizing electricity generation , oil companies and all polluters ( to some degree even yourself -- depending on how much you drive ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It maybe a bargain.
If PG&amp;E has to run dirty on demand power plants if these aren't used, then the net gains in improved healthmay indeed save the state money.
If the actual cost of generation (pollution caused health problems) are included we could makebetter decisions on whether this is a deal or not.
The information given isn't enough to make that determination.
Or, you're alreadysubsidizing electricity generation, oil companies and all polluters (to some degree even yourself -- depending on how much you drive).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235116</id>
	<title>Re:Magic</title>
	<author>NEDHead</author>
	<datestamp>1266831240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, at least it is operating at a high temp, much higher than internal combustion.  That may be the main source of increased efficiency.  Back in the day when Chrysler and others were working on turbines for cars, high temp operation was a main goal - and stumbling block.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least it is operating at a high temp , much higher than internal combustion .
That may be the main source of increased efficiency .
Back in the day when Chrysler and others were working on turbines for cars , high temp operation was a main goal - and stumbling block .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least it is operating at a high temp, much higher than internal combustion.
That may be the main source of increased efficiency.
Back in the day when Chrysler and others were working on turbines for cars, high temp operation was a main goal - and stumbling block.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240676</id>
	<title>Re:I power my Segway from a Bloom Box!</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1266859500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should mod this up.  It's absolutely true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should mod this up .
It 's absolutely true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should mod this up.
It's absolutely true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234990</id>
	<title>(Only) saves transmission costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It still turns gas into electricity like a powerplant, it still produces CO2 like a gas fired powerplant, the efficiency is a big question but is probably higher (direct electron transmission vs comustion) which however assumes 100\% utilisation; you save the power cost of transmission but incur the cost of gas transport. In conclusion: Hm, interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It still turns gas into electricity like a powerplant , it still produces CO2 like a gas fired powerplant , the efficiency is a big question but is probably higher ( direct electron transmission vs comustion ) which however assumes 100 \ % utilisation ; you save the power cost of transmission but incur the cost of gas transport .
In conclusion : Hm , interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still turns gas into electricity like a powerplant, it still produces CO2 like a gas fired powerplant, the efficiency is a big question but is probably higher (direct electron transmission vs comustion) which however assumes 100\% utilisation; you save the power cost of transmission but incur the cost of gas transport.
In conclusion: Hm, interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235264</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266831720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people of CA should be thrilled that while their taxes go up and state employees get furloughed they are helping to fund the energy usage of companies making huge profits. Just pointing out that tax breaks and incentives don't come from leprechauns and the end of the rainbow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people of CA should be thrilled that while their taxes go up and state employees get furloughed they are helping to fund the energy usage of companies making huge profits .
Just pointing out that tax breaks and incentives do n't come from leprechauns and the end of the rainbow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people of CA should be thrilled that while their taxes go up and state employees get furloughed they are helping to fund the energy usage of companies making huge profits.
Just pointing out that tax breaks and incentives don't come from leprechauns and the end of the rainbow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234948</id>
	<title>Beowulf cluster of power?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b><i>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </i></b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>         </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
          </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235814</id>
	<title>Having traveled to lots of small Pacific islands</title>
	<author>Aargau</author>
	<datestamp>1266833280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a decent market for low-pollution electricity generators for cells and transmission towers in the small archipelagos to serve small villages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a decent market for low-pollution electricity generators for cells and transmission towers in the small archipelagos to serve small villages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a decent market for low-pollution electricity generators for cells and transmission towers in the small archipelagos to serve small villages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235260</id>
	<title>Retro</title>
	<author>NEDHead</author>
	<datestamp>1266831660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll be in line when it can fit on my shoulder, and I can dance in my plaid bellbottoms and funky shades</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be in line when it can fit on my shoulder , and I can dance in my plaid bellbottoms and funky shades</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be in line when it can fit on my shoulder, and I can dance in my plaid bellbottoms and funky shades</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236320</id>
	<title>Emergency Generators</title>
	<author>Etherized</author>
	<datestamp>1266834900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see much appeal to these devices as regular sources of electricity; you still need hydrocarbon delivery (natural gas), you still give off CO2. It would make much more sense to do all the nasty hydrocarbon-to-electricty bits at a central location and use the grid to get the power to people. The grid is an abstraction layer; you don't have to care how the power is generated, you just end up with the results. The power plants themselves gain on economies of scale and can swap out their infrastructure gradually for future better technologies without the end user having to care. If these fuel cells are so great, they could be crammed into plants and put on the grid.</p><p>I do, however, see one very attractive use case: emergency power generation. Assuming your natural gas lines aren't interrupted (or you store your own NG supply on site), if you have one of these things around, you have backup power when the grid "goes away." This only makes sense if the price point gets low enough, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see much appeal to these devices as regular sources of electricity ; you still need hydrocarbon delivery ( natural gas ) , you still give off CO2 .
It would make much more sense to do all the nasty hydrocarbon-to-electricty bits at a central location and use the grid to get the power to people .
The grid is an abstraction layer ; you do n't have to care how the power is generated , you just end up with the results .
The power plants themselves gain on economies of scale and can swap out their infrastructure gradually for future better technologies without the end user having to care .
If these fuel cells are so great , they could be crammed into plants and put on the grid.I do , however , see one very attractive use case : emergency power generation .
Assuming your natural gas lines are n't interrupted ( or you store your own NG supply on site ) , if you have one of these things around , you have backup power when the grid " goes away .
" This only makes sense if the price point gets low enough , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see much appeal to these devices as regular sources of electricity; you still need hydrocarbon delivery (natural gas), you still give off CO2.
It would make much more sense to do all the nasty hydrocarbon-to-electricty bits at a central location and use the grid to get the power to people.
The grid is an abstraction layer; you don't have to care how the power is generated, you just end up with the results.
The power plants themselves gain on economies of scale and can swap out their infrastructure gradually for future better technologies without the end user having to care.
If these fuel cells are so great, they could be crammed into plants and put on the grid.I do, however, see one very attractive use case: emergency power generation.
Assuming your natural gas lines aren't interrupted (or you store your own NG supply on site), if you have one of these things around, you have backup power when the grid "goes away.
" This only makes sense if the price point gets low enough, of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235126</id>
	<title>Evironmentally...more of the same?</title>
	<author>Saishuuheiki</author>
	<datestamp>1266831300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They tried to gloss over it, but in the end it still takes in oxygen and releases CO2 while burning hydrocarbons. Sounds more like a more efficient version of current power systems than a alternative energy source.</p><p>The only upsides I can see is possible improvement in efficiency, decrease of cost, and less loss in transmission (since theoretically it's closer to whatever is using the power than a power plant). Now since they haven't actually given us any details on how these, I can't consider it a revolution.</p><p>That's not to say it wouldn't be good to buy some stock when it IPOs...just it may not be a good idea to hold it long</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They tried to gloss over it , but in the end it still takes in oxygen and releases CO2 while burning hydrocarbons .
Sounds more like a more efficient version of current power systems than a alternative energy source.The only upsides I can see is possible improvement in efficiency , decrease of cost , and less loss in transmission ( since theoretically it 's closer to whatever is using the power than a power plant ) .
Now since they have n't actually given us any details on how these , I ca n't consider it a revolution.That 's not to say it would n't be good to buy some stock when it IPOs...just it may not be a good idea to hold it long</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tried to gloss over it, but in the end it still takes in oxygen and releases CO2 while burning hydrocarbons.
Sounds more like a more efficient version of current power systems than a alternative energy source.The only upsides I can see is possible improvement in efficiency, decrease of cost, and less loss in transmission (since theoretically it's closer to whatever is using the power than a power plant).
Now since they haven't actually given us any details on how these, I can't consider it a revolution.That's not to say it wouldn't be good to buy some stock when it IPOs...just it may not be a good idea to hold it long</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237054</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266837060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the write off for "Good Will" from this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the write off for " Good Will " from this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the write off for "Good Will" from this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930</id>
	<title>Magic</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1266830760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They give no explanation of how it works. "The inks <strong>somehow</strong> transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power, when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius." Where have I heard claims like this before? Oh yeah from the proponents of various perpetual motion machines. <br>Of course, people have been turning hydrocarbons and oxygen into power at well below 1,000 degrees Celsius for a long time now. It's called a combustion engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They give no explanation of how it works .
" The inks somehow transform a stream of methane ( or other hydrocarbons ) and oxygen into power , when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius .
" Where have I heard claims like this before ?
Oh yeah from the proponents of various perpetual motion machines .
Of course , people have been turning hydrocarbons and oxygen into power at well below 1,000 degrees Celsius for a long time now .
It 's called a combustion engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They give no explanation of how it works.
"The inks somehow transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power, when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius.
" Where have I heard claims like this before?
Oh yeah from the proponents of various perpetual motion machines.
Of course, people have been turning hydrocarbons and oxygen into power at well below 1,000 degrees Celsius for a long time now.
It's called a combustion engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240418</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266856920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're also forgetting that the early adopters pay a big premium on the technology so the price can come down later and make these a more viable energy source.  Good for the producer, good for the adopter and if it works out, good for everybody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're also forgetting that the early adopters pay a big premium on the technology so the price can come down later and make these a more viable energy source .
Good for the producer , good for the adopter and if it works out , good for everybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're also forgetting that the early adopters pay a big premium on the technology so the price can come down later and make these a more viable energy source.
Good for the producer, good for the adopter and if it works out, good for everybody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238042</id>
	<title>Re:Environmentally...more of the same?</title>
	<author>legio\_noctis</author>
	<datestamp>1266841320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fact, this could be seen as even worse for the environment than the current process. Seeing as we<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/are/ going to run out of oil/gas at some point, having a more efficient way of using them just increases the time before this occurs. The idea that these devices are more environmentally friendly is a false one, as they will have the same eventual net impact (having used the same amount of methane as would have been anyway). However, I'm sure that this incorrect idea is the impression the public will get, both from marketing and wishful thinking. This could lead to delayed development of genuinely green power sources as the public are fooled into thinking that they are no longer necessary, causing more damage in the long term.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , this could be seen as even worse for the environment than the current process .
Seeing as we /are/ going to run out of oil/gas at some point , having a more efficient way of using them just increases the time before this occurs .
The idea that these devices are more environmentally friendly is a false one , as they will have the same eventual net impact ( having used the same amount of methane as would have been anyway ) .
However , I 'm sure that this incorrect idea is the impression the public will get , both from marketing and wishful thinking .
This could lead to delayed development of genuinely green power sources as the public are fooled into thinking that they are no longer necessary , causing more damage in the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, this could be seen as even worse for the environment than the current process.
Seeing as we /are/ going to run out of oil/gas at some point, having a more efficient way of using them just increases the time before this occurs.
The idea that these devices are more environmentally friendly is a false one, as they will have the same eventual net impact (having used the same amount of methane as would have been anyway).
However, I'm sure that this incorrect idea is the impression the public will get, both from marketing and wishful thinking.
This could lead to delayed development of genuinely green power sources as the public are fooled into thinking that they are no longer necessary, causing more damage in the long term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234954</id>
	<title>What makes it run?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly powers these boxes? The details in the given article are really vague...Also if it produces waste, how is it any better than traditional power generation techniques?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly powers these boxes ?
The details in the given article are really vague...Also if it produces waste , how is it any better than traditional power generation techniques ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly powers these boxes?
The details in the given article are really vague...Also if it produces waste, how is it any better than traditional power generation techniques?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236908</id>
	<title>Re:Payback period?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266836580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And next time there's a need for rolling blackouts in California, they can maybe instead call Google and ask them to turn on all their generators, saving all those taxpayers a huge inconvenience.</p><p>Subsidizing new technology so it can reach critical mass is an investment in California's future.  It's not that much different than funding deep space exploration, which a lot of folks seem to think is a good use of funds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And next time there 's a need for rolling blackouts in California , they can maybe instead call Google and ask them to turn on all their generators , saving all those taxpayers a huge inconvenience.Subsidizing new technology so it can reach critical mass is an investment in California 's future .
It 's not that much different than funding deep space exploration , which a lot of folks seem to think is a good use of funds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And next time there's a need for rolling blackouts in California, they can maybe instead call Google and ask them to turn on all their generators, saving all those taxpayers a huge inconvenience.Subsidizing new technology so it can reach critical mass is an investment in California's future.
It's not that much different than funding deep space exploration, which a lot of folks seem to think is a good use of funds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237426</id>
	<title>Re:About $2K savings per month</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1266838620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why not run a <a href="http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=206981&amp;x=7&amp;f=236383" title="cat.com">gas generator</a> [cat.com]?</p><p>Quite a few municipalities are already buying them for landfill gas and sewage gas. And they'll run a whole let dirtier fuel than I imagine these will. China bought a ton of them to burn methane from coal mines.</p><p>I wish they gave hard units on what these black boxes can do, but for $4.5M you could have 3 - <a href="http://www.cat.com/cda/components/securedFile/displaySecuredFileServletJSP?languageId=7&amp;fileId=698952" title="cat.com">6.5 MW generators</a> [cat.com] (PDF).</p><p>19.5MW of power for $4.5M, something tells me that these things don't generate 19.5MW of power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why not run a gas generator [ cat.com ] ? Quite a few municipalities are already buying them for landfill gas and sewage gas .
And they 'll run a whole let dirtier fuel than I imagine these will .
China bought a ton of them to burn methane from coal mines.I wish they gave hard units on what these black boxes can do , but for $ 4.5M you could have 3 - 6.5 MW generators [ cat.com ] ( PDF ) .19.5MW of power for $ 4.5M , something tells me that these things do n't generate 19.5MW of power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why not run a gas generator [cat.com]?Quite a few municipalities are already buying them for landfill gas and sewage gas.
And they'll run a whole let dirtier fuel than I imagine these will.
China bought a ton of them to burn methane from coal mines.I wish they gave hard units on what these black boxes can do, but for $4.5M you could have 3 - 6.5 MW generators [cat.com] (PDF).19.5MW of power for $4.5M, something tells me that these things don't generate 19.5MW of power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236446</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel Cells, better than Natural Gas Electric PW</title>
	<author>slashkitty</author>
	<datestamp>1266835320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen no claims that it "could be far more efficient" than natural gas power plants.  Current combined cycle natural gas power plants (turbine and steam heat recovery) get near 60\%.  Meanwhile, fuel cells, along with consumer grade natural gas power units are around 30\% efficient in practice.  I've heard no specific claims of their efficiency, but I don't imagine that it's over 60\%.  While it would be a great improvement on home fired units, it's by no means revolutionary.

In fact, the complete lack of data they showed is a huge red flag, and I won't even be trusting their claims until they are independently verified.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen no claims that it " could be far more efficient " than natural gas power plants .
Current combined cycle natural gas power plants ( turbine and steam heat recovery ) get near 60 \ % .
Meanwhile , fuel cells , along with consumer grade natural gas power units are around 30 \ % efficient in practice .
I 've heard no specific claims of their efficiency , but I do n't imagine that it 's over 60 \ % .
While it would be a great improvement on home fired units , it 's by no means revolutionary .
In fact , the complete lack of data they showed is a huge red flag , and I wo n't even be trusting their claims until they are independently verified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen no claims that it "could be far more efficient" than natural gas power plants.
Current combined cycle natural gas power plants (turbine and steam heat recovery) get near 60\%.
Meanwhile, fuel cells, along with consumer grade natural gas power units are around 30\% efficient in practice.
I've heard no specific claims of their efficiency, but I don't imagine that it's over 60\%.
While it would be a great improvement on home fired units, it's by no means revolutionary.
In fact, the complete lack of data they showed is a huge red flag, and I won't even be trusting their claims until they are independently verified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239954</id>
	<title>Try using the cost he has proposed.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1266853140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are looking at the cost of the test systems.</p><p>He's saying that a 1 kw unit will cost $3,000, last 30 years, and be twice as efficient as a conventional gas generator (so around 80\%).  That means he expects it to produce 260,000 kWh of electricity in it's lifetime, while consuming about 30,000 cubic meters of natural gas.  If you assume that natural gas will cost about 50 cents per cubic meter, while electricity will cost 12 cents per kWh, you get about $15,000 operating cost for this system ($18,000 including the cost of the unit itself), while simply buying the electricity off the grid would cost you about $30,000.</p><p>Even if the units end up costing $15,000 for a 1kW unit, it will be cost competitive with grid power!</p><p>So yeah, this system is cost competitive with grid power.  Impossible you say?  No, because it is twice as efficient at converting chemical energy into electrical power!  The high initial costs are balanced by the phenomenal energy efficiency, and the long proposed lifespan of the units.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are looking at the cost of the test systems.He 's saying that a 1 kw unit will cost $ 3,000 , last 30 years , and be twice as efficient as a conventional gas generator ( so around 80 \ % ) .
That means he expects it to produce 260,000 kWh of electricity in it 's lifetime , while consuming about 30,000 cubic meters of natural gas .
If you assume that natural gas will cost about 50 cents per cubic meter , while electricity will cost 12 cents per kWh , you get about $ 15,000 operating cost for this system ( $ 18,000 including the cost of the unit itself ) , while simply buying the electricity off the grid would cost you about $ 30,000.Even if the units end up costing $ 15,000 for a 1kW unit , it will be cost competitive with grid power ! So yeah , this system is cost competitive with grid power .
Impossible you say ?
No , because it is twice as efficient at converting chemical energy into electrical power !
The high initial costs are balanced by the phenomenal energy efficiency , and the long proposed lifespan of the units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are looking at the cost of the test systems.He's saying that a 1 kw unit will cost $3,000, last 30 years, and be twice as efficient as a conventional gas generator (so around 80\%).
That means he expects it to produce 260,000 kWh of electricity in it's lifetime, while consuming about 30,000 cubic meters of natural gas.
If you assume that natural gas will cost about 50 cents per cubic meter, while electricity will cost 12 cents per kWh, you get about $15,000 operating cost for this system ($18,000 including the cost of the unit itself), while simply buying the electricity off the grid would cost you about $30,000.Even if the units end up costing $15,000 for a 1kW unit, it will be cost competitive with grid power!So yeah, this system is cost competitive with grid power.
Impossible you say?
No, because it is twice as efficient at converting chemical energy into electrical power!
The high initial costs are balanced by the phenomenal energy efficiency, and the long proposed lifespan of the units.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236056</id>
	<title>Same as solar panels and wind turbines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However. As backup generators they might be useful.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However .
As backup generators they might be useful .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>However.
As backup generators they might be useful.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241668</id>
	<title>Not a very good ROI</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1266956520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5 Boxes cost $4,000,000 and returned $100,000 in five months which means it takes 16.67 years to cover the cost of your investment. I think the boxes need to get a little cheaper before they will become economically feasible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 Boxes cost $ 4,000,000 and returned $ 100,000 in five months which means it takes 16.67 years to cover the cost of your investment .
I think the boxes need to get a little cheaper before they will become economically feasible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 Boxes cost $4,000,000 and returned $100,000 in five months which means it takes 16.67 years to cover the cost of your investment.
I think the boxes need to get a little cheaper before they will become economically feasible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31247978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31247390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31242078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31264308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31242872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31276560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31269444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31246026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31250676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31255032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31245640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1915250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31264308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31269444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237878
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241192
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240552
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31276560
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240976
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31242872
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31255032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241626
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31247390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31242078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235740
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237770
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235072
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239470
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31239124
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235466
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235424
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240418
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31234966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31237716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31250676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31238554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31241572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31245640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31236320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31247978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31240868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31246026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1915250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1915250.31235682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
