<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_01_0059211</id>
	<title>Caltech Makes Flexible, 86\% Efficient Solar Arrays</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267469160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>strredwolf writes <i>"Caltech has released a flexible solar array that <a href="http://media.caltech.edu/press\_releases/13325">converts 95\% of single-wavelength incandescent light and 86\% of all sunlight</a> into electricity. Instead of being flat-panel, they stand thin silicon wires in a plastic substrate that scatters the light onto them.  The total composition is 98\% plastic, 2\% wire &mdash; the amount of silicon used is 1/50th that of ordinary panels. So as soon as they can get these to market, solar could be very viable and cheap to produce."</i> <b>Update: 03/01 21:02 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://slashdot.org/~kdawson/">KD</a> </b>: Reader axelrosen points out evidence that the 80\%+ efficiency figure is wrong. MIT's Tech Review, in covering the Caltech announcement, says that the new panel's efficiency is <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24665/?a=f">in the 15\%-20\% range</a> &mdash; which is competitive with the current state of the art. And the Caltech panel should be far cheaper to manufacture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>strredwolf writes " Caltech has released a flexible solar array that converts 95 \ % of single-wavelength incandescent light and 86 \ % of all sunlight into electricity .
Instead of being flat-panel , they stand thin silicon wires in a plastic substrate that scatters the light onto them .
The total composition is 98 \ % plastic , 2 \ % wire    the amount of silicon used is 1/50th that of ordinary panels .
So as soon as they can get these to market , solar could be very viable and cheap to produce .
" Update : 03/01 21 : 02 GMT by KD : Reader axelrosen points out evidence that the 80 \ % + efficiency figure is wrong .
MIT 's Tech Review , in covering the Caltech announcement , says that the new panel 's efficiency is in the 15 \ % -20 \ % range    which is competitive with the current state of the art .
And the Caltech panel should be far cheaper to manufacture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>strredwolf writes "Caltech has released a flexible solar array that converts 95\% of single-wavelength incandescent light and 86\% of all sunlight into electricity.
Instead of being flat-panel, they stand thin silicon wires in a plastic substrate that scatters the light onto them.
The total composition is 98\% plastic, 2\% wire — the amount of silicon used is 1/50th that of ordinary panels.
So as soon as they can get these to market, solar could be very viable and cheap to produce.
" Update: 03/01 21:02 GMT by  KD : Reader axelrosen points out evidence that the 80\%+ efficiency figure is wrong.
MIT's Tech Review, in covering the Caltech announcement, says that the new panel's efficiency is in the 15\%-20\% range — which is competitive with the current state of the art.
And the Caltech panel should be far cheaper to manufacture.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314944</id>
	<title>Re:Will they float?</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1267454100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are parts of the oceans where storms are few and a lot of sunshine is available.  This concept looks interesting:  <a href="http://www.solar-islands.com/" title="solar-islands.com">http://www.solar-islands.com/</a> [solar-islands.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are parts of the oceans where storms are few and a lot of sunshine is available .
This concept looks interesting : http : //www.solar-islands.com/ [ solar-islands.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are parts of the oceans where storms are few and a lot of sunshine is available.
This concept looks interesting:  http://www.solar-islands.com/ [solar-islands.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316796</id>
	<title>from the ignore-kdawson-the-idiot dept.</title>
	<author>MrVictor</author>
	<datestamp>1267461600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The original article is poorly written (no, not even close to 86\% you stupid twats) and kdawson is equally foolish for echoing this garbage. This is why this site sucks. Brain-dead slashdot editors, time and time again, post shitty articles that make extraordinary claims which end up being completely false or misleading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original article is poorly written ( no , not even close to 86 \ % you stupid twats ) and kdawson is equally foolish for echoing this garbage .
This is why this site sucks .
Brain-dead slashdot editors , time and time again , post shitty articles that make extraordinary claims which end up being completely false or misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original article is poorly written (no, not even close to 86\% you stupid twats) and kdawson is equally foolish for echoing this garbage.
This is why this site sucks.
Brain-dead slashdot editors, time and time again, post shitty articles that make extraordinary claims which end up being completely false or misleading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319304</id>
	<title>Re:Wings don't help</title>
	<author>mnmlst</author>
	<datestamp>1267471020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The points here were: 1) The frog would use the wings to cushion his landing.  2) My neighbor hasn't shown me a cold fusion reactor yet.  Count me among those people hoping for cold fusion, solar power, hydrogen technologies, and so on to show enough progress to start moving us past petroleum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The points here were : 1 ) The frog would use the wings to cushion his landing .
2 ) My neighbor has n't shown me a cold fusion reactor yet .
Count me among those people hoping for cold fusion , solar power , hydrogen technologies , and so on to show enough progress to start moving us past petroleum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The points here were: 1) The frog would use the wings to cushion his landing.
2) My neighbor hasn't shown me a cold fusion reactor yet.
Count me among those people hoping for cold fusion, solar power, hydrogen technologies, and so on to show enough progress to start moving us past petroleum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317508</id>
	<title>Re:Predicted photovoltaic efficiency only 14.5\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267464120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally the truth is teased from the noise.  All a reporter need do now is fact check this, and post it to a real news site - except that now it's not news.  Sigh...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally the truth is teased from the noise .
All a reporter need do now is fact check this , and post it to a real news site - except that now it 's not news .
Sigh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally the truth is teased from the noise.
All a reporter need do now is fact check this, and post it to a real news site - except that now it's not news.
Sigh...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315038</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1267454820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That 90-100\% conversion efficiency isn't the whole story, either.  That term is what's referred to as quantum efficiency.  A shorthand way to think of Q.E. is to consider the probability that an absorbed photon will create an electron-hole pair.  But that isn't the same as the electricity harnessed; it is only a pre-requisite.  <br> <br>

The quantum efficiency of existing solar cells is also very high - approaching 100\%.  But a large fraction of those electron-hole pairs quickly recombine within the semiconductor.  In order to create usable electricity, the electron-hole pairs must be separated and collected before they recombine.  In a conventional solar cell, the separation is done by the internal semiconductor junction, and the collection is done by the metal electrodes on one or both faces.  This team, as far as I can tell from the press release, hasn't published numbers for this step of the process.<br> <br>

One can make a sort of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drake\_equation&amp;oldid=345976036" title="wikipedia.org">Drake Equation</a> [wikipedia.org] concerning the conversion of incident photons to usable electricity:<br> <br>

Number of incident photons above a minimum energy,<br>
times the percentage of photons that are absorbed by the active area of the solar cell,<br>
times the percentage that create electron-hole pairs (the quantum efficiency),<br>
times the percentage of electron-hole pairs that separate and make it to the electrodes before recombining.<br> <br>

Even then, this product isn't the same as the overall efficiency of the solar cell.  That just tells you the conversion of photons to electricity.  That's not the same as conversion of sunlight to electrical <i>power</i>.  This is because the energy contained within an electron-hole pair is a fixed quantity for a given solar cell construction.  Consider three photons: a red photon, a green photon, and a blue photon.  The red has the least energy; the blue has the most.  Let's say the solar cell's threshold energy is greater than the red photon's.  In this case, the red photon will generate no usable electrical energy.  The green photon and the blue photon will both create an electron-hole pair.  Here is the key point, however: although the blue photon is more energetic, it will create no more useful <i>electrical</i> energy than the green one.  The extra energy of the blue photon above and beyond the solar cell's threshold energy is, essentially, wasted.  This is a key limiting factor in photovoltaics today.  Some folks have gotten around this with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar\_cell&amp;oldid=346768476#Multiple-junction\_solar\_cells" title="wikipedia.org">multi-junction solar cells</a> [wikipedia.org], which can tune their (multiple) threshold energies to better utilize the solar spectrum.  But these are more exotic than silicon solar cells and find use almost exclusively in space applications (or solar racing vehicles) because of their cost.<br> <br>

So figuring out the "incident solar power in to useful electrical power out" efficiency of a solar cell is much, much more complicated than just absorbing photons.<br> <br>

This is not to say that the innovation in the article is worthless.  Far from it - it's a pretty neat and new development that will likely have good application.  But it isn't the "85\% efficient solar power!1!!" that some posters are jumping at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 90-100 \ % conversion efficiency is n't the whole story , either .
That term is what 's referred to as quantum efficiency .
A shorthand way to think of Q.E .
is to consider the probability that an absorbed photon will create an electron-hole pair .
But that is n't the same as the electricity harnessed ; it is only a pre-requisite .
The quantum efficiency of existing solar cells is also very high - approaching 100 \ % .
But a large fraction of those electron-hole pairs quickly recombine within the semiconductor .
In order to create usable electricity , the electron-hole pairs must be separated and collected before they recombine .
In a conventional solar cell , the separation is done by the internal semiconductor junction , and the collection is done by the metal electrodes on one or both faces .
This team , as far as I can tell from the press release , has n't published numbers for this step of the process .
One can make a sort of Drake Equation [ wikipedia.org ] concerning the conversion of incident photons to usable electricity : Number of incident photons above a minimum energy , times the percentage of photons that are absorbed by the active area of the solar cell , times the percentage that create electron-hole pairs ( the quantum efficiency ) , times the percentage of electron-hole pairs that separate and make it to the electrodes before recombining .
Even then , this product is n't the same as the overall efficiency of the solar cell .
That just tells you the conversion of photons to electricity .
That 's not the same as conversion of sunlight to electrical power .
This is because the energy contained within an electron-hole pair is a fixed quantity for a given solar cell construction .
Consider three photons : a red photon , a green photon , and a blue photon .
The red has the least energy ; the blue has the most .
Let 's say the solar cell 's threshold energy is greater than the red photon 's .
In this case , the red photon will generate no usable electrical energy .
The green photon and the blue photon will both create an electron-hole pair .
Here is the key point , however : although the blue photon is more energetic , it will create no more useful electrical energy than the green one .
The extra energy of the blue photon above and beyond the solar cell 's threshold energy is , essentially , wasted .
This is a key limiting factor in photovoltaics today .
Some folks have gotten around this with multi-junction solar cells [ wikipedia.org ] , which can tune their ( multiple ) threshold energies to better utilize the solar spectrum .
But these are more exotic than silicon solar cells and find use almost exclusively in space applications ( or solar racing vehicles ) because of their cost .
So figuring out the " incident solar power in to useful electrical power out " efficiency of a solar cell is much , much more complicated than just absorbing photons .
This is not to say that the innovation in the article is worthless .
Far from it - it 's a pretty neat and new development that will likely have good application .
But it is n't the " 85 \ % efficient solar power ! 1 ! !
" that some posters are jumping at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That 90-100\% conversion efficiency isn't the whole story, either.
That term is what's referred to as quantum efficiency.
A shorthand way to think of Q.E.
is to consider the probability that an absorbed photon will create an electron-hole pair.
But that isn't the same as the electricity harnessed; it is only a pre-requisite.
The quantum efficiency of existing solar cells is also very high - approaching 100\%.
But a large fraction of those electron-hole pairs quickly recombine within the semiconductor.
In order to create usable electricity, the electron-hole pairs must be separated and collected before they recombine.
In a conventional solar cell, the separation is done by the internal semiconductor junction, and the collection is done by the metal electrodes on one or both faces.
This team, as far as I can tell from the press release, hasn't published numbers for this step of the process.
One can make a sort of Drake Equation [wikipedia.org] concerning the conversion of incident photons to usable electricity: 

Number of incident photons above a minimum energy,
times the percentage of photons that are absorbed by the active area of the solar cell,
times the percentage that create electron-hole pairs (the quantum efficiency),
times the percentage of electron-hole pairs that separate and make it to the electrodes before recombining.
Even then, this product isn't the same as the overall efficiency of the solar cell.
That just tells you the conversion of photons to electricity.
That's not the same as conversion of sunlight to electrical power.
This is because the energy contained within an electron-hole pair is a fixed quantity for a given solar cell construction.
Consider three photons: a red photon, a green photon, and a blue photon.
The red has the least energy; the blue has the most.
Let's say the solar cell's threshold energy is greater than the red photon's.
In this case, the red photon will generate no usable electrical energy.
The green photon and the blue photon will both create an electron-hole pair.
Here is the key point, however: although the blue photon is more energetic, it will create no more useful electrical energy than the green one.
The extra energy of the blue photon above and beyond the solar cell's threshold energy is, essentially, wasted.
This is a key limiting factor in photovoltaics today.
Some folks have gotten around this with multi-junction solar cells [wikipedia.org], which can tune their (multiple) threshold energies to better utilize the solar spectrum.
But these are more exotic than silicon solar cells and find use almost exclusively in space applications (or solar racing vehicles) because of their cost.
So figuring out the "incident solar power in to useful electrical power out" efficiency of a solar cell is much, much more complicated than just absorbing photons.
This is not to say that the innovation in the article is worthless.
Far from it - it's a pretty neat and new development that will likely have good application.
But it isn't the "85\% efficient solar power!1!!
" that some posters are jumping at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317462</id>
	<title>Wings don't help</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1267464000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The frog still gets the same effect when hopping.  Also, you might want to start crossing cold fusion off the auto-mock list:  <a href="http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf" title="lenr-canr.org">http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf</a> [lenr-canr.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The frog still gets the same effect when hopping .
Also , you might want to start crossing cold fusion off the auto-mock list : http : //www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf [ lenr-canr.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The frog still gets the same effect when hopping.
Also, you might want to start crossing cold fusion off the auto-mock list:  http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf [lenr-canr.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312660</id>
	<title>And these are available in stores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267473600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's that? A concept in search of venture capital? Oh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's that ?
A concept in search of venture capital ?
Oh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's that?
A concept in search of venture capital?
Oh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317284</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>linuxpyro</author>
	<datestamp>1267463340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a typical residential setting in say the suburbs, this is true.  However there are times when things aren't so cut and dry.  For instance, with a small power system you can get some backup power when the grid goes down.  The ability to communicate and run your refrigerator in, say, a hurricane-induced blackout makes the system more valuable than simply what it can displace from your electric bill each month.  A more efficient (and cheaper) technology would make a small solar power backup system closer to a gas generator as far as ease of use and energy density.</p><p>And then of course there are the cases when it's a choice between solar and paying a ton to bring the grid in, in which case quite a few people do find solar (or other small-scale RE) cheaper.  In such cases where having the utility poles need to be installed cheaper solar will make the RE option a lot more attractive, spurring early adoption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a typical residential setting in say the suburbs , this is true .
However there are times when things are n't so cut and dry .
For instance , with a small power system you can get some backup power when the grid goes down .
The ability to communicate and run your refrigerator in , say , a hurricane-induced blackout makes the system more valuable than simply what it can displace from your electric bill each month .
A more efficient ( and cheaper ) technology would make a small solar power backup system closer to a gas generator as far as ease of use and energy density.And then of course there are the cases when it 's a choice between solar and paying a ton to bring the grid in , in which case quite a few people do find solar ( or other small-scale RE ) cheaper .
In such cases where having the utility poles need to be installed cheaper solar will make the RE option a lot more attractive , spurring early adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a typical residential setting in say the suburbs, this is true.
However there are times when things aren't so cut and dry.
For instance, with a small power system you can get some backup power when the grid goes down.
The ability to communicate and run your refrigerator in, say, a hurricane-induced blackout makes the system more valuable than simply what it can displace from your electric bill each month.
A more efficient (and cheaper) technology would make a small solar power backup system closer to a gas generator as far as ease of use and energy density.And then of course there are the cases when it's a choice between solar and paying a ton to bring the grid in, in which case quite a few people do find solar (or other small-scale RE) cheaper.
In such cases where having the utility poles need to be installed cheaper solar will make the RE option a lot more attractive, spurring early adoption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313364</id>
	<title>Re:Will they float?</title>
	<author>dasdrewid</author>
	<datestamp>1267438440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's...one of the best ideas I've heard lately... *sigh*</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's...one of the best ideas I 've heard lately... * sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's...one of the best ideas I've heard lately... *sigh*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318194</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267466640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 90\%-100\% is quantum efficiency. Actual energy efficiency is going to be far lower, because much of the photons are insufficiently energetic to free an electron, and most of the rest are more energetic than required. 100\% QE == 100\% conversion only when the photon energy is precisely the silicon bandgap energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 90 \ % -100 \ % is quantum efficiency .
Actual energy efficiency is going to be far lower , because much of the photons are insufficiently energetic to free an electron , and most of the rest are more energetic than required .
100 \ % QE = = 100 \ % conversion only when the photon energy is precisely the silicon bandgap energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 90\%-100\% is quantum efficiency.
Actual energy efficiency is going to be far lower, because much of the photons are insufficiently energetic to free an electron, and most of the rest are more energetic than required.
100\% QE == 100\% conversion only when the photon energy is precisely the silicon bandgap energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312588</id>
	<title>First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267386720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320232</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>repetty</author>
	<datestamp>1267474620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...but as long as there is life on Earth we'll be able to produce all the polymers we [can afford]."</p><p>Corrected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...but as long as there is life on Earth we 'll be able to produce all the polymers we [ can afford ] .
" Corrected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...but as long as there is life on Earth we'll be able to produce all the polymers we [can afford].
"Corrected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314318</id>
	<title>Junior moment...</title>
	<author>gaelfx</author>
	<datestamp>1267450020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, I really have to admit that I totally don't understand what the significance of solar panel efficiency actually means, so I wonder if someone can enlighten me as to what exactly it means when a solar panel is X\% efficient? Any kind of "for preschoolers" explanation would be greatly appreciated, such as what "100\% solar power conversion efficiency" actually would mean and how that imaginative 100\% number is actually reached would also be good. Anyone up to explaining that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I really have to admit that I totally do n't understand what the significance of solar panel efficiency actually means , so I wonder if someone can enlighten me as to what exactly it means when a solar panel is X \ % efficient ?
Any kind of " for preschoolers " explanation would be greatly appreciated , such as what " 100 \ % solar power conversion efficiency " actually would mean and how that imaginative 100 \ % number is actually reached would also be good .
Anyone up to explaining that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I really have to admit that I totally don't understand what the significance of solar panel efficiency actually means, so I wonder if someone can enlighten me as to what exactly it means when a solar panel is X\% efficient?
Any kind of "for preschoolers" explanation would be greatly appreciated, such as what "100\% solar power conversion efficiency" actually would mean and how that imaginative 100\% number is actually reached would also be good.
Anyone up to explaining that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31321040</id>
	<title>payback</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1267434540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The problem with current panels isn't the efficiency. More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost. It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment. If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid.</i></p><p>No the initial cost isn't a problem either.  The problem is people's expectation.  They want it paid off last year.  Think the coal or nuclear power plant has been paid off after 10 years?  Without subsidies they may never be paid for.  <a href="http://www.tradeinvestafrica.com/investment\_opportunities/883132.htm" title="tradeinvestafrica.com">Here's</a> [tradeinvestafrica.com] an investment opportunity in Southern Africa with a minimum expected payback period of 25 years.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with current panels is n't the efficiency .
More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost .
It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment .
If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid.No the initial cost is n't a problem either .
The problem is people 's expectation .
They want it paid off last year .
Think the coal or nuclear power plant has been paid off after 10 years ?
Without subsidies they may never be paid for .
Here 's [ tradeinvestafrica.com ] an investment opportunity in Southern Africa with a minimum expected payback period of 25 years .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with current panels isn't the efficiency.
More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost.
It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment.
If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid.No the initial cost isn't a problem either.
The problem is people's expectation.
They want it paid off last year.
Think the coal or nuclear power plant has been paid off after 10 years?
Without subsidies they may never be paid for.
Here's [tradeinvestafrica.com] an investment opportunity in Southern Africa with a minimum expected payback period of 25 years.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319028</id>
	<title>Re:Buy-out and filing away in 3... 2... 1...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267469760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because the last thing they want to do is make money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because the last thing they want to do is make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because the last thing they want to do is make money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644</id>
	<title>Will they float?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267387080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we set up solar devices so that they can float in water and function as an interconnected grid, we could drape a network of them over the Pacific Garbage Patch so no one would notice it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we set up solar devices so that they can float in water and function as an interconnected grid , we could drape a network of them over the Pacific Garbage Patch so no one would notice it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we set up solar devices so that they can float in water and function as an interconnected grid, we could drape a network of them over the Pacific Garbage Patch so no one would notice it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312702</id>
	<title>Massive typo in summary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267473960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The solar cells absorb 96\% of <b> incident</b> light, not incandescent light.
<br>

From TFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solar cells absorb 96 \ % of incident light , not incandescent light .
From TFA : The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solar cells absorb 96\% of  incident light, not incandescent light.
From TFA:The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316958</id>
	<title>Re:Will they float?</title>
	<author>Floritard</author>
	<datestamp>1267462140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't even need to float. The garbage already floats. They just need to be lightweight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't even need to float .
The garbage already floats .
They just need to be lightweight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't even need to float.
The garbage already floats.
They just need to be lightweight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313020</id>
	<title>Re:Will they float?</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1267434180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But then an oil tanker would <i>accidentally</i> stray off course and cut the power cable with its propellers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But then an oil tanker would accidentally stray off course and cut the power cable with its propellers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then an oil tanker would accidentally stray off course and cut the power cable with its propellers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313124</id>
	<title>nice try blanco nino</title>
	<author>l3iggs</author>
	<datestamp>1267435800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PhD candidate doing my research in new materials for photovoltaics here.</p><p>I'm sick and tired of all this mis-reporting. These are NOT 86\% efficient cells. If they were, (and they were inexpensive) it would be the greatest discovery in 50 years and it would have been all over every newspaper in the world 2 weeks ago when this paper was published.</p><p>They simply absorb 86\% of light that hits them. When you say a cell is X\% efficient without qualifying it, it's taken to mean power conversion efficiency [PCE] (optical power in/ electrical power out) That and dollars per watt are the numbers that really matter. Read the Nature Materials paper that drove this and you'll see that theory says this design could be up to 17\% efficient. That compares unfavorably to mid to high-end commercial cells on the market today.</p><p>I'm not saying that this research is a worthless endeavor, maybe they can hit the maximum theoretically possible PCE and keep the cost down. That might have real-world impact.</p><p>The caltech news brief quotes Atwater (the PI for this research) as saying that the photons are not only absorbed, but they're also convertedto charge carriers (which is a good step). The problem he doesn't mention here is, these charge carriers loose all their energy (voltage) before they exit the cell. Solve that problem and we've got a winner.</p><p>The fundamental issue with nano-structured designs like this is the surface area of the P-N junctions in them. Large surface area means high dark current which means low voltage output. Low voltage output means low PCE. Unfortunately, nothing in this research solves that problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PhD candidate doing my research in new materials for photovoltaics here.I 'm sick and tired of all this mis-reporting .
These are NOT 86 \ % efficient cells .
If they were , ( and they were inexpensive ) it would be the greatest discovery in 50 years and it would have been all over every newspaper in the world 2 weeks ago when this paper was published.They simply absorb 86 \ % of light that hits them .
When you say a cell is X \ % efficient without qualifying it , it 's taken to mean power conversion efficiency [ PCE ] ( optical power in/ electrical power out ) That and dollars per watt are the numbers that really matter .
Read the Nature Materials paper that drove this and you 'll see that theory says this design could be up to 17 \ % efficient .
That compares unfavorably to mid to high-end commercial cells on the market today.I 'm not saying that this research is a worthless endeavor , maybe they can hit the maximum theoretically possible PCE and keep the cost down .
That might have real-world impact.The caltech news brief quotes Atwater ( the PI for this research ) as saying that the photons are not only absorbed , but they 're also convertedto charge carriers ( which is a good step ) .
The problem he does n't mention here is , these charge carriers loose all their energy ( voltage ) before they exit the cell .
Solve that problem and we 've got a winner.The fundamental issue with nano-structured designs like this is the surface area of the P-N junctions in them .
Large surface area means high dark current which means low voltage output .
Low voltage output means low PCE .
Unfortunately , nothing in this research solves that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PhD candidate doing my research in new materials for photovoltaics here.I'm sick and tired of all this mis-reporting.
These are NOT 86\% efficient cells.
If they were, (and they were inexpensive) it would be the greatest discovery in 50 years and it would have been all over every newspaper in the world 2 weeks ago when this paper was published.They simply absorb 86\% of light that hits them.
When you say a cell is X\% efficient without qualifying it, it's taken to mean power conversion efficiency [PCE] (optical power in/ electrical power out) That and dollars per watt are the numbers that really matter.
Read the Nature Materials paper that drove this and you'll see that theory says this design could be up to 17\% efficient.
That compares unfavorably to mid to high-end commercial cells on the market today.I'm not saying that this research is a worthless endeavor, maybe they can hit the maximum theoretically possible PCE and keep the cost down.
That might have real-world impact.The caltech news brief quotes Atwater (the PI for this research) as saying that the photons are not only absorbed, but they're also convertedto charge carriers (which is a good step).
The problem he doesn't mention here is, these charge carriers loose all their energy (voltage) before they exit the cell.
Solve that problem and we've got a winner.The fundamental issue with nano-structured designs like this is the surface area of the P-N junctions in them.
Large surface area means high dark current which means low voltage output.
Low voltage output means low PCE.
Unfortunately, nothing in this research solves that problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312978</id>
	<title>Is that the right question?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1267476840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will they float?</p></div><p>Maybe, but what I really want to know: will it blend?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will they float ? Maybe , but what I really want to know : will it blend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will they float?Maybe, but what I really want to know: will it blend?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316884</id>
	<title>Re:Will they float?</title>
	<author>hypergreatthing</author>
	<datestamp>1267461840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, been thinking about that.  Anyone do any sort of calcuations to see how much the great garbage patch absorbs and heats that area of the ocean as compared to the rest of the ocean? Would it account for any climate/el nino effects that seem to occur in that part of the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , been thinking about that .
Anyone do any sort of calcuations to see how much the great garbage patch absorbs and heats that area of the ocean as compared to the rest of the ocean ?
Would it account for any climate/el nino effects that seem to occur in that part of the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, been thinking about that.
Anyone do any sort of calcuations to see how much the great garbage patch absorbs and heats that area of the ocean as compared to the rest of the ocean?
Would it account for any climate/el nino effects that seem to occur in that part of the world?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316762</id>
	<title>Always beware "Up To"</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1267461360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you'll send me $100, I'll send you up to $200!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 'll send me $ 100 , I 'll send you up to $ 200 ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you'll send me $100, I'll send you up to $200!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312954</id>
	<title>This is way over-hyped</title>
	<author>rkodama</author>
	<datestamp>1267476600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is interesting work, but it is in a very immature stage of development.  They seem to be no where near demonstrating a practical solar cell, and speculated conversion efficiency numbers like 86\% are laughable.  One of the fundamental limitations of a cell based on Si wires is that the higher a photon's energy is over the bandgap of Si, the more energy is lost as heat.  I believe the theoretical maximum conversion efficiency for a Si solar cell is around 30\%, and commercially viable cells are limited to around 20\% because of practical issues in creating solid state cells such as making electrical contacts to the device, the high cost of making higher efficency (20+\%) Si cells.  This work doesn't begin to address such issues.  I think it is unfortunate that over-hype like this can take luster off of progress in photovoltaics that seems less spectacular but is much closer to practical realization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is interesting work , but it is in a very immature stage of development .
They seem to be no where near demonstrating a practical solar cell , and speculated conversion efficiency numbers like 86 \ % are laughable .
One of the fundamental limitations of a cell based on Si wires is that the higher a photon 's energy is over the bandgap of Si , the more energy is lost as heat .
I believe the theoretical maximum conversion efficiency for a Si solar cell is around 30 \ % , and commercially viable cells are limited to around 20 \ % because of practical issues in creating solid state cells such as making electrical contacts to the device , the high cost of making higher efficency ( 20 + \ % ) Si cells .
This work does n't begin to address such issues .
I think it is unfortunate that over-hype like this can take luster off of progress in photovoltaics that seems less spectacular but is much closer to practical realization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is interesting work, but it is in a very immature stage of development.
They seem to be no where near demonstrating a practical solar cell, and speculated conversion efficiency numbers like 86\% are laughable.
One of the fundamental limitations of a cell based on Si wires is that the higher a photon's energy is over the bandgap of Si, the more energy is lost as heat.
I believe the theoretical maximum conversion efficiency for a Si solar cell is around 30\%, and commercially viable cells are limited to around 20\% because of practical issues in creating solid state cells such as making electrical contacts to the device, the high cost of making higher efficency (20+\%) Si cells.
This work doesn't begin to address such issues.
I think it is unfortunate that over-hype like this can take luster off of progress in photovoltaics that seems less spectacular but is much closer to practical realization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312592</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267386780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320568</id>
	<title>question</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1267475880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the theoretical limit for solar to electrical conversion was about 40\%?</p><p>This 86\% inside that 40\% limit? I thought they were talking about radiation absorption in which case the power would be much less and the panels would heat up and likely pose another issue (unless you can run water behind them and use it as a heater which is the best use for solar anyhow.)</p><p>What about that new thing I saw on the BBC last year which was working on radio-like antennas for the IR wavelength?? Seemed to me to be a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the theoretical limit for solar to electrical conversion was about 40 \ % ? This 86 \ % inside that 40 \ % limit ?
I thought they were talking about radiation absorption in which case the power would be much less and the panels would heat up and likely pose another issue ( unless you can run water behind them and use it as a heater which is the best use for solar anyhow .
) What about that new thing I saw on the BBC last year which was working on radio-like antennas for the IR wavelength ? ?
Seemed to me to be a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the theoretical limit for solar to electrical conversion was about 40\%?This 86\% inside that 40\% limit?
I thought they were talking about radiation absorption in which case the power would be much less and the panels would heat up and likely pose another issue (unless you can run water behind them and use it as a heater which is the best use for solar anyhow.
)What about that new thing I saw on the BBC last year which was working on radio-like antennas for the IR wavelength??
Seemed to me to be a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312682</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>oddaddresstrap</author>
	<datestamp>1267473780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFA: "The silicon wire arrays<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons--in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " The silicon wire arrays ... are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons--in technical terms , the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: "The silicon wire arrays ... are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons--in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313150</id>
	<title>conversion effiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267436100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>reading these slashdot comments reveals a whole lot of confusion about solar cell efficiency.</p><p>photons with energy less than the bandgap of the conversion material will not be converted to electrons. photons with energy greater than the bandgap will only convert at the bandgap energy. the high effieincy multijunction cells attempt to address this. multi-exciton generation can happen if the photon is several times the bandgap energy, and there is some hope that quantom dot cells will be able to achieve high efficiency this way though the most effienct qd cells currently get like 5\% effiency.</p><p>electron-hole recombination happening within the material instead of through the cathode and anode will cause a photon to be released. the higher absorption of the cells in TFA will help keep this photon trapped in the cell, but if it loses energy, it will be less than the bandgap and not be converted again. multijunctions can address this effect somewhat by absorbing the new lower energy photon. high temparature operation also helps increase the likelihood of the electron-hole pair making it to the cathode-anode. the highest effiency cells so far have been achieved by concentrating the lightbeams and then splitting the beams into different colors to be absorbed by different sections.</p><p>if you put panels on your roof and you live in a place with cloud cover then it won't be worth using a heliostat system to track the sun so you will suffer loss of the cosine of the angle between your panel and the sun. without tracking the sun you aren't going to be using rainbox concentrators either so you are necessarily using lower efficiency cells too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reading these slashdot comments reveals a whole lot of confusion about solar cell efficiency.photons with energy less than the bandgap of the conversion material will not be converted to electrons .
photons with energy greater than the bandgap will only convert at the bandgap energy .
the high effieincy multijunction cells attempt to address this .
multi-exciton generation can happen if the photon is several times the bandgap energy , and there is some hope that quantom dot cells will be able to achieve high efficiency this way though the most effienct qd cells currently get like 5 \ % effiency.electron-hole recombination happening within the material instead of through the cathode and anode will cause a photon to be released .
the higher absorption of the cells in TFA will help keep this photon trapped in the cell , but if it loses energy , it will be less than the bandgap and not be converted again .
multijunctions can address this effect somewhat by absorbing the new lower energy photon .
high temparature operation also helps increase the likelihood of the electron-hole pair making it to the cathode-anode .
the highest effiency cells so far have been achieved by concentrating the lightbeams and then splitting the beams into different colors to be absorbed by different sections.if you put panels on your roof and you live in a place with cloud cover then it wo n't be worth using a heliostat system to track the sun so you will suffer loss of the cosine of the angle between your panel and the sun .
without tracking the sun you are n't going to be using rainbox concentrators either so you are necessarily using lower efficiency cells too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reading these slashdot comments reveals a whole lot of confusion about solar cell efficiency.photons with energy less than the bandgap of the conversion material will not be converted to electrons.
photons with energy greater than the bandgap will only convert at the bandgap energy.
the high effieincy multijunction cells attempt to address this.
multi-exciton generation can happen if the photon is several times the bandgap energy, and there is some hope that quantom dot cells will be able to achieve high efficiency this way though the most effienct qd cells currently get like 5\% effiency.electron-hole recombination happening within the material instead of through the cathode and anode will cause a photon to be released.
the higher absorption of the cells in TFA will help keep this photon trapped in the cell, but if it loses energy, it will be less than the bandgap and not be converted again.
multijunctions can address this effect somewhat by absorbing the new lower energy photon.
high temparature operation also helps increase the likelihood of the electron-hole pair making it to the cathode-anode.
the highest effiency cells so far have been achieved by concentrating the lightbeams and then splitting the beams into different colors to be absorbed by different sections.if you put panels on your roof and you live in a place with cloud cover then it won't be worth using a heliostat system to track the sun so you will suffer loss of the cosine of the angle between your panel and the sun.
without tracking the sun you aren't going to be using rainbox concentrators either so you are necessarily using lower efficiency cells too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313204</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267436580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s explained trough simple quantum physics and energy preservation. It must go somewhere. It can&rsquo;t just &ldquo;vanish&rdquo;. And since absorption means it gets an electron out of the atom and moving, it is equal to electricity.</p><p>I can only recommend to learn a bit about quantum physics. Not necessarily the math, but the rules/laws of it. Useful and fun.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s explained trough simple quantum physics and energy preservation .
It must go somewhere .
It can    t just    vanish    .
And since absorption means it gets an electron out of the atom and moving , it is equal to electricity.I can only recommend to learn a bit about quantum physics .
Not necessarily the math , but the rules/laws of it .
Useful and fun .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s explained trough simple quantum physics and energy preservation.
It must go somewhere.
It can’t just “vanish”.
And since absorption means it gets an electron out of the atom and moving, it is equal to electricity.I can only recommend to learn a bit about quantum physics.
Not necessarily the math, but the rules/laws of it.
Useful and fun.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317186</id>
	<title>Re:Will they float?</title>
	<author>Beezlebub33</author>
	<datestamp>1267462920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Putting things in sea water is a bitch.  They tend to either sink or get salt encrusted or eroded.  Unless you have high power density and you are close to the shoreline, maintenance costs will absolutely kill you.  They have been working for decades to make maintainable wind turbines and wave energy generators.  Putting a diffuse power source like solar on the ocean is a recipe for disaster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting things in sea water is a bitch .
They tend to either sink or get salt encrusted or eroded .
Unless you have high power density and you are close to the shoreline , maintenance costs will absolutely kill you .
They have been working for decades to make maintainable wind turbines and wave energy generators .
Putting a diffuse power source like solar on the ocean is a recipe for disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting things in sea water is a bitch.
They tend to either sink or get salt encrusted or eroded.
Unless you have high power density and you are close to the shoreline, maintenance costs will absolutely kill you.
They have been working for decades to make maintainable wind turbines and wave energy generators.
Putting a diffuse power source like solar on the ocean is a recipe for disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316850</id>
	<title>Re:nice try blanco nino</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267461780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't somebody invent junctionless transistors last week?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't somebody invent junctionless transistors last week ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't somebody invent junctionless transistors last week?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>Random Data</author>
	<datestamp>1267473720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a bit further down that said conversion to electricity was 90-100\% of absorption. That means a worst case efficiency of 77\% of incident sunlight, which is still a staggering improvement over standard cells.

I for one welcome our new silicon-wire overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a bit further down that said conversion to electricity was 90-100 \ % of absorption .
That means a worst case efficiency of 77 \ % of incident sunlight , which is still a staggering improvement over standard cells .
I for one welcome our new silicon-wire overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a bit further down that said conversion to electricity was 90-100\% of absorption.
That means a worst case efficiency of 77\% of incident sunlight, which is still a staggering improvement over standard cells.
I for one welcome our new silicon-wire overlords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312884</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>saodl</author>
	<datestamp>1267475880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a lot better than that; in fact it sounds like somewhere between 77.4\% and 85\% to me.  They say "up to", so maybe it's less.  Lets just call it upwards of 60\% or 70\%.  For a lower cost. That's huge enough that I don't want to trust it, but I sure hope it pans out.

<p>
The article says:
</p><p>
<i>The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight.</i>
</p><p>
and
</p><p>
<i>The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons&mdash;in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency. "High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater. "It's an important advance."</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a lot better than that ; in fact it sounds like somewhere between 77.4 \ % and 85 \ % to me .
They say " up to " , so maybe it 's less .
Lets just call it upwards of 60 \ % or 70 \ % .
For a lower cost .
That 's huge enough that I do n't want to trust it , but I sure hope it pans out .
The article says : The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight .
and The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons    in technical terms , the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency .
" High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell , " says Atwater .
" It 's an important advance .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a lot better than that; in fact it sounds like somewhere between 77.4\% and 85\% to me.
They say "up to", so maybe it's less.
Lets just call it upwards of 60\% or 70\%.
For a lower cost.
That's huge enough that I don't want to trust it, but I sure hope it pans out.
The article says:

The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight.
and

The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons—in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency.
"High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater.
"It's an important advance.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31328034</id>
	<title>This is not a "solar panel"!</title>
	<author>rkodama</author>
	<datestamp>1267530360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the risk of beating a dead horse, I take issue with the Update on the post.  The researchers have not made a solar panel or a solar cell.  They have made a sheet of "photoactive" material and have measured how it absorbs light.  The MIT Tech Review article says "Computational models suggest that the material could be used to make solar cells that would convert 15 to 20 percent of the energy in sunlight into electricity".  Such models are highly dubious when actual solar cells have not been demonstrated, and major identifiable hurdles need to be crossed before that happens.  Although I agree with other posters that it is significant that very little Si is required in this material, it is hard to say much about manufacturing cost either before a working device or device architecture exists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the risk of beating a dead horse , I take issue with the Update on the post .
The researchers have not made a solar panel or a solar cell .
They have made a sheet of " photoactive " material and have measured how it absorbs light .
The MIT Tech Review article says " Computational models suggest that the material could be used to make solar cells that would convert 15 to 20 percent of the energy in sunlight into electricity " .
Such models are highly dubious when actual solar cells have not been demonstrated , and major identifiable hurdles need to be crossed before that happens .
Although I agree with other posters that it is significant that very little Si is required in this material , it is hard to say much about manufacturing cost either before a working device or device architecture exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the risk of beating a dead horse, I take issue with the Update on the post.
The researchers have not made a solar panel or a solar cell.
They have made a sheet of "photoactive" material and have measured how it absorbs light.
The MIT Tech Review article says "Computational models suggest that the material could be used to make solar cells that would convert 15 to 20 percent of the energy in sunlight into electricity".
Such models are highly dubious when actual solar cells have not been demonstrated, and major identifiable hurdles need to be crossed before that happens.
Although I agree with other posters that it is significant that very little Si is required in this material, it is hard to say much about manufacturing cost either before a working device or device architecture exists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312710</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267474080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares? If we get cheap solar technology we'll have enough energy to make as much oil as we want from carbon dioxide and water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
If we get cheap solar technology we 'll have enough energy to make as much oil as we want from carbon dioxide and water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
If we get cheap solar technology we'll have enough energy to make as much oil as we want from carbon dioxide and water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319072</id>
	<title>Re:Cold fusion, Amazing solar energy, gasoline</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267470000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Until then, this is one more expensive quest for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. In the meantime, we could be practicing more energy efficiency."</p><p>Like we can'tr do both?</p><p>A little short sight there, aren't you?</p><p>Since most of our oil does NOT come from the mid east, and in fact it supplies China with more oil I find it hard to swallow the 'we are there for the oil' conspiracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Until then , this is one more expensive quest for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow .
In the meantime , we could be practicing more energy efficiency .
" Like we can'tr do both ? A little short sight there , are n't you ? Since most of our oil does NOT come from the mid east , and in fact it supplies China with more oil I find it hard to swallow the 'we are there for the oil ' conspiracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Until then, this is one more expensive quest for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
In the meantime, we could be practicing more energy efficiency.
"Like we can'tr do both?A little short sight there, aren't you?Since most of our oil does NOT come from the mid east, and in fact it supplies China with more oil I find it hard to swallow the 'we are there for the oil' conspiracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313812</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>jareth-0205</author>
	<datestamp>1267444560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Further, we currently need oil because we burn the vase majority of it. Only 6\% of oil is used in manufacturing stuff, the rest is burned for energy. The need for oil is not driven by making plastics, it's for generating energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Further , we currently need oil because we burn the vase majority of it .
Only 6 \ % of oil is used in manufacturing stuff , the rest is burned for energy .
The need for oil is not driven by making plastics , it 's for generating energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Further, we currently need oil because we burn the vase majority of it.
Only 6\% of oil is used in manufacturing stuff, the rest is burned for energy.
The need for oil is not driven by making plastics, it's for generating energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612</id>
	<title>I think its entirely reasonable to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267386960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy balls.

If this article is spot on, they've doubled the efficiency of the current technology (which converts at about 40\%) AND done it in such a way that the stuff is cheaper to manufacture AND made it flexible.

This is the sort of thing that can have a real (and probably positive) impact on the world we know.  Amazing.
The only remaining question (I didn't see anything about it in TFA) is how durable this stuff is compared to the current panels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy balls .
If this article is spot on , they 've doubled the efficiency of the current technology ( which converts at about 40 \ % ) AND done it in such a way that the stuff is cheaper to manufacture AND made it flexible .
This is the sort of thing that can have a real ( and probably positive ) impact on the world we know .
Amazing . The only remaining question ( I did n't see anything about it in TFA ) is how durable this stuff is compared to the current panels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy balls.
If this article is spot on, they've doubled the efficiency of the current technology (which converts at about 40\%) AND done it in such a way that the stuff is cheaper to manufacture AND made it flexible.
This is the sort of thing that can have a real (and probably positive) impact on the world we know.
Amazing.
The only remaining question (I didn't see anything about it in TFA) is how durable this stuff is compared to the current panels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312874</id>
	<title>Re:I think its entirely reasonable to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267475880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, once your electric company knows you installed them, they'll add an extra fee onto your bill... for not using more of their electricity...</p><p>Believe it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , once your electric company knows you installed them , they 'll add an extra fee onto your bill... for not using more of their electricity...Believe it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, once your electric company knows you installed them, they'll add an extra fee onto your bill... for not using more of their electricity...Believe it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314142</id>
	<title>Hybrid Panels</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267448400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why keep banging out heads into the PV wall when you can have cheap hybrid panels that convert 75\% of incident energy?</p><p><a href="http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/04/21/zenithsolar-solar-panels/" title="greenoptimistic.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/04/21/zenithsolar-solar-panels/</a> [greenoptimistic.com]</p><p>Settle for your 20\% PV electricity and focus on capturing waste heat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why keep banging out heads into the PV wall when you can have cheap hybrid panels that convert 75 \ % of incident energy ? http : //www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/04/21/zenithsolar-solar-panels/ [ greenoptimistic.com ] Settle for your 20 \ % PV electricity and focus on capturing waste heat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why keep banging out heads into the PV wall when you can have cheap hybrid panels that convert 75\% of incident energy?http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/04/21/zenithsolar-solar-panels/ [greenoptimistic.com]Settle for your 20\% PV electricity and focus on capturing waste heat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313074</id>
	<title>red light</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1267434900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>firstly, kdawson your a tard, they aren't 86\% efficent at converting light into electricity, merely at absorbing light. the 2nd warning bell for me is this - "The next steps, Atwater says, are to increase the operating voltage " - this sounds to me like they can't produce any meaningful voltages out of these, which is the exact same fail as every other flexible solar panel ever touted. infact they carely avoid talking about it's electrical output at all in TFA.<p>
i'd love cheap energy from the sun, but this won't be it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>firstly , kdawson your a tard , they are n't 86 \ % efficent at converting light into electricity , merely at absorbing light .
the 2nd warning bell for me is this - " The next steps , Atwater says , are to increase the operating voltage " - this sounds to me like they ca n't produce any meaningful voltages out of these , which is the exact same fail as every other flexible solar panel ever touted .
infact they carely avoid talking about it 's electrical output at all in TFA .
i 'd love cheap energy from the sun , but this wo n't be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>firstly, kdawson your a tard, they aren't 86\% efficent at converting light into electricity, merely at absorbing light.
the 2nd warning bell for me is this - "The next steps, Atwater says, are to increase the operating voltage " - this sounds to me like they can't produce any meaningful voltages out of these, which is the exact same fail as every other flexible solar panel ever touted.
infact they carely avoid talking about it's electrical output at all in TFA.
i'd love cheap energy from the sun, but this won't be it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318962</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267469460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It says "Of a single wavelength"  which is not what sunlight has.   Depending on how you look at it, sunlight could be said to have millions of wavelengths, and this is only good at converting ONE, so it's only converting one part in a million.   (I don't believe this is the case, but we need more information to be able to tell)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It says " Of a single wavelength " which is not what sunlight has .
Depending on how you look at it , sunlight could be said to have millions of wavelengths , and this is only good at converting ONE , so it 's only converting one part in a million .
( I do n't believe this is the case , but we need more information to be able to tell )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says "Of a single wavelength"  which is not what sunlight has.
Depending on how you look at it, sunlight could be said to have millions of wavelengths, and this is only good at converting ONE, so it's only converting one part in a million.
(I don't believe this is the case, but we need more information to be able to tell)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312864</id>
	<title>Re:I think its entirely reasonable to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267475760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original article is poorly written. MIT's Technology Review has an article that includes information about efficiency of generating electricity, and it says 15\%-20\%. <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24665/?a=f" title="technologyreview.com">http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24665/?a=f</a> [technologyreview.com]</p><p>So the story is really that there might be a way to make cheaper, flexible solar panels by mixing silicon and polymers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original article is poorly written .
MIT 's Technology Review has an article that includes information about efficiency of generating electricity , and it says 15 \ % -20 \ % .
http : //www.technologyreview.com/energy/24665/ ? a = f [ technologyreview.com ] So the story is really that there might be a way to make cheaper , flexible solar panels by mixing silicon and polymers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original article is poorly written.
MIT's Technology Review has an article that includes information about efficiency of generating electricity, and it says 15\%-20\%.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24665/?a=f [technologyreview.com]So the story is really that there might be a way to make cheaper, flexible solar panels by mixing silicon and polymers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313088</id>
	<title>Predicted photovoltaic efficiency only 14.5\%</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1267435080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Here's the actual scientific paper, <a href="http://daedalus.caltech.edu/publication/pubs/mk\_34PVSC\_paper.pdf" title="caltech.edu">"Predicted Efficiency of Si Wire Array Solar Cells".</a> [caltech.edu] That's by the same authors mentioned in the press release. While the thing does trap most of the light hitting it, only a fraction of the energy in that light is converted to electricity.  In fact, this thing is currently <i>less</i> efficient than the better commercial solar cells.
</p><p>From the paper:<nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>... simulated photovoltaic efficency of 14.5\%.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Conclusion:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "Si wire array solar cells have the potential to reach efficiencies competitive with traditional Si crystalline solar cells."</i>
</p><p>
So, an interesting development, but no big breakthrough.  There's a claim that it might be a cheaper way to make solar cells, but everybody who comes up with a new design makes that claim.  (Nanosolar comes to mind; their technology is supposed to be cheaper, but so far they've spent half a billion dollars and apparently have only produced sample panels.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the actual scientific paper , " Predicted Efficiency of Si Wire Array Solar Cells " .
[ caltech.edu ] That 's by the same authors mentioned in the press release .
While the thing does trap most of the light hitting it , only a fraction of the energy in that light is converted to electricity .
In fact , this thing is currently less efficient than the better commercial solar cells .
From the paper : ... simulated photovoltaic efficency of 14.5 \ % .
... Conclusion : ... " Si wire array solar cells have the potential to reach efficiencies competitive with traditional Si crystalline solar cells .
" So , an interesting development , but no big breakthrough .
There 's a claim that it might be a cheaper way to make solar cells , but everybody who comes up with a new design makes that claim .
( Nanosolar comes to mind ; their technology is supposed to be cheaper , but so far they 've spent half a billion dollars and apparently have only produced sample panels .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Here's the actual scientific paper, "Predicted Efficiency of Si Wire Array Solar Cells".
[caltech.edu] That's by the same authors mentioned in the press release.
While the thing does trap most of the light hitting it, only a fraction of the energy in that light is converted to electricity.
In fact, this thing is currently less efficient than the better commercial solar cells.
From the paper: ... simulated photovoltaic efficency of 14.5\%.
... Conclusion: ... "Si wire array solar cells have the potential to reach efficiencies competitive with traditional Si crystalline solar cells.
"

So, an interesting development, but no big breakthrough.
There's a claim that it might be a cheaper way to make solar cells, but everybody who comes up with a new design makes that claim.
(Nanosolar comes to mind; their technology is supposed to be cheaper, but so far they've spent half a billion dollars and apparently have only produced sample panels.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</id>
	<title>In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>assemblerex</author>
	<datestamp>1267387080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>so it is still tied to oil. Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so it is still tied to oil .
Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so it is still tied to oil.
Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312740</id>
	<title>Re:I think its entirely reasonable to say...</title>
	<author>MattskEE</author>
	<datestamp>1267474380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd also be very interested to know whether this can be mass produced, and for how much money.  They say they are currently working on cells one square centimeter in size.</p><p>They're currently working on scaling it up, but arranging these nanowires in a large array, making the electrical connections, and filling with the polymer and scatterers sounds like it will be hard to mass-produce, even if the materials cost is not as high.</p><p>Still, good for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd also be very interested to know whether this can be mass produced , and for how much money .
They say they are currently working on cells one square centimeter in size.They 're currently working on scaling it up , but arranging these nanowires in a large array , making the electrical connections , and filling with the polymer and scatterers sounds like it will be hard to mass-produce , even if the materials cost is not as high.Still , good for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd also be very interested to know whether this can be mass produced, and for how much money.
They say they are currently working on cells one square centimeter in size.They're currently working on scaling it up, but arranging these nanowires in a large array, making the electrical connections, and filling with the polymer and scatterers sounds like it will be hard to mass-produce, even if the materials cost is not as high.Still, good for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319960</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267473360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the inventor of the periodic table would agree with you. He said, "Burning oil is like burning banknotes."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the inventor of the periodic table would agree with you .
He said , " Burning oil is like burning banknotes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the inventor of the periodic table would agree with you.
He said, "Burning oil is like burning banknotes.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313040</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267434420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"so it is still tied to oil. Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear."</i>
<br> <br>
I for one hope this does maximum harm to the wallets of coal luddites such a Senator Inhofe and his corporate pay-masters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" so it is still tied to oil .
Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear .
" I for one hope this does maximum harm to the wallets of coal luddites such a Senator Inhofe and his corporate pay-masters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"so it is still tied to oil.
Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear.
"
 
I for one hope this does maximum harm to the wallets of coal luddites such a Senator Inhofe and his corporate pay-masters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312908</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>Coriolis</author>
	<datestamp>1267476180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, the problem with the current panels is the cost per Kilowatt Hour. If the panels can produce more for the same price, then the payback period is shorter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the problem with the current panels is the cost per Kilowatt Hour .
If the panels can produce more for the same price , then the payback period is shorter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the problem with the current panels is the cost per Kilowatt Hour.
If the panels can produce more for the same price, then the payback period is shorter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312590</id>
	<title>hmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267386780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1st post</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1st post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1st post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312920</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1267476240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you don't need oil to make polymers (its a lot easier though) hell you don't even need oil to make oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you do n't need oil to make polymers ( its a lot easier though ) hell you do n't even need oil to make oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you don't need oil to make polymers (its a lot easier though) hell you don't even need oil to make oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313384</id>
	<title>Re:Predicted photovoltaic efficiency only 14.5\%</title>
	<author>TeethWhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1267438680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Minor point, but that's the wrong paper.  <a href="http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v9/n3/full/nmat2635.html" title="nature.com">Here's</a> [nature.com] the paper you want (may require subscription to <em>Nature Methods</em>).  You're still correct, by the way.  The researchers don't directly state conversion efficiency in their paper.  They mention that above-bandgap photon absorption is roughly 85\%, which is on par with current commercial PV's.  They also mention that the quantum efficiency is 0.89 for the array.  Unfortunately, conversion of photoelectrons to actual usable electricity is the main efficiency bottleneck in solar energy.  Electron-hole pair recombination and parasitic absorption by impurities, among other things, chew away the efficiency of a solar cell in a hurry.<p>The take-home message from the paper, as far as I can tell, is that the researchers showed that one can achieve performance comparable to commercial solar cells by using 1\% of the expensive ultrapure silicon used in current PV's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Minor point , but that 's the wrong paper .
Here 's [ nature.com ] the paper you want ( may require subscription to Nature Methods ) .
You 're still correct , by the way .
The researchers do n't directly state conversion efficiency in their paper .
They mention that above-bandgap photon absorption is roughly 85 \ % , which is on par with current commercial PV 's .
They also mention that the quantum efficiency is 0.89 for the array .
Unfortunately , conversion of photoelectrons to actual usable electricity is the main efficiency bottleneck in solar energy .
Electron-hole pair recombination and parasitic absorption by impurities , among other things , chew away the efficiency of a solar cell in a hurry.The take-home message from the paper , as far as I can tell , is that the researchers showed that one can achieve performance comparable to commercial solar cells by using 1 \ % of the expensive ultrapure silicon used in current PV 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minor point, but that's the wrong paper.
Here's [nature.com] the paper you want (may require subscription to Nature Methods).
You're still correct, by the way.
The researchers don't directly state conversion efficiency in their paper.
They mention that above-bandgap photon absorption is roughly 85\%, which is on par with current commercial PV's.
They also mention that the quantum efficiency is 0.89 for the array.
Unfortunately, conversion of photoelectrons to actual usable electricity is the main efficiency bottleneck in solar energy.
Electron-hole pair recombination and parasitic absorption by impurities, among other things, chew away the efficiency of a solar cell in a hurry.The take-home message from the paper, as far as I can tell, is that the researchers showed that one can achieve performance comparable to commercial solar cells by using 1\% of the expensive ultrapure silicon used in current PV's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312942</id>
	<title>It's a lie!</title>
	<author>dvh.tosomja</author>
	<datestamp>1267476480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Efficiency of solar panel is and always was 14 to 17\%.<br>Every 3 months or so there is a slashdot article claiming breakthrough in efficiency.<br>Please stop spreading this meme.<br>Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Efficiency of solar panel is and always was 14 to 17 \ % .Every 3 months or so there is a slashdot article claiming breakthrough in efficiency.Please stop spreading this meme.Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Efficiency of solar panel is and always was 14 to 17\%.Every 3 months or so there is a slashdot article claiming breakthrough in efficiency.Please stop spreading this meme.Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313360</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>proto</author>
	<datestamp>1267438320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>   Something does not add up here.  <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/08/09/29/1814247/New-Solar-Cell-Sets-World-Efficiency-Record" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">The efficiency record was 40.8\% in 2008 (couldn't find the 2009 record).</a> [slashdot.org] In terms of science, a leap this large can be met with huge skepticism.  How does this new method/design compare?  Just the facts, thanks in advance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something does not add up here .
The efficiency record was 40.8 \ % in 2008 ( could n't find the 2009 record ) .
[ slashdot.org ] In terms of science , a leap this large can be met with huge skepticism .
How does this new method/design compare ?
Just the facts , thanks in advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Something does not add up here.
The efficiency record was 40.8\% in 2008 (couldn't find the 2009 record).
[slashdot.org] In terms of science, a leap this large can be met with huge skepticism.
How does this new method/design compare?
Just the facts, thanks in advance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313650</id>
	<title>Yoffi. Now what?</title>
	<author>Hemi Rodner</author>
	<datestamp>1267442040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep reading hear on wonderful advancements in the field of solar cells. Like the <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/21/127236" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">chick who made solar cells with a pizza oven</a> [slashdot.org] (is she single, btw?).<br>But still nothing happens and I can't see people who really deploy solar cells on their roofs - mostly because it takes them 20 years to return the investment (and I think that they die shortly after that)</p><p>When is this going to be a reality?<br>Why is this taking so long?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep reading hear on wonderful advancements in the field of solar cells .
Like the chick who made solar cells with a pizza oven [ slashdot.org ] ( is she single , btw ?
) .But still nothing happens and I ca n't see people who really deploy solar cells on their roofs - mostly because it takes them 20 years to return the investment ( and I think that they die shortly after that ) When is this going to be a reality ? Why is this taking so long ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep reading hear on wonderful advancements in the field of solar cells.
Like the chick who made solar cells with a pizza oven [slashdot.org] (is she single, btw?
).But still nothing happens and I can't see people who really deploy solar cells on their roofs - mostly because it takes them 20 years to return the investment (and I think that they die shortly after that)When is this going to be a reality?Why is this taking so long?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315188</id>
	<title>Re:I think its entirely reasonable to say...</title>
	<author>M. Baranczak</author>
	<datestamp>1267455720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is still pretty big news. Right now, the biggest problem with PV panels is the high cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is still pretty big news .
Right now , the biggest problem with PV panels is the high cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is still pretty big news.
Right now, the biggest problem with PV panels is the high cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319912</id>
	<title>How much $ per watt?</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1267473240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....That's the only question of interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....That 's the only question of interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....That's the only question of interest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314450</id>
	<title>Re:nice try blanco nino</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267451040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem he doesn't mention here is, these charge carriers <b>loose </b>all their energy (voltage) before they exit the cell</p></div><p>I do not see a problem with that, if the charge carriers <b>release</b> their energy (voltage) it is then just a matter of harvesting it... oh! you meant <b>lose</b>.</p><p>Better stop posting to slashdot and start improving your grammar and spelling for your thesis... you won't get far away if you do not do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem he does n't mention here is , these charge carriers loose all their energy ( voltage ) before they exit the cellI do not see a problem with that , if the charge carriers release their energy ( voltage ) it is then just a matter of harvesting it... oh ! you meant lose.Better stop posting to slashdot and start improving your grammar and spelling for your thesis... you wo n't get far away if you do not do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem he doesn't mention here is, these charge carriers loose all their energy (voltage) before they exit the cellI do not see a problem with that, if the charge carriers release their energy (voltage) it is then just a matter of harvesting it... oh! you meant lose.Better stop posting to slashdot and start improving your grammar and spelling for your thesis... you won't get far away if you do not do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314140</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1267448280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anything we do is doing more harm than good!
<br> <br>
Everything.
<br> <br>
Anything.
<br> <br>
incuding posting on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.
<br> <br>
So why are you causing so much harm then! Stop doing everything now!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything we do is doing more harm than good !
Everything . Anything .
incuding posting on / .
So why are you causing so much harm then !
Stop doing everything now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything we do is doing more harm than good!
Everything.
 
Anything.
incuding posting on /.
So why are you causing so much harm then!
Stop doing everything now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313072</id>
	<title>Re:So when can I buy those?</title>
	<author>shinzawai</author>
	<datestamp>1267434900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the money you save, perhaps you can pay someone to wank you off!  Happy times indeed!  (No, I'm not putting my hand up for that job)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the money you save , perhaps you can pay someone to wank you off !
Happy times indeed !
( No , I 'm not putting my hand up for that job )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the money you save, perhaps you can pay someone to wank you off!
Happy times indeed!
(No, I'm not putting my hand up for that job)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313658</id>
	<title>Re:This is way over-hyped</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One of the fundamental limitations of a cell based on Si wires is that the higher a photon's energy is over the bandgap of Si, the more energy is lost as heat.</p></div></blockquote><p>I take it that's based on the properties of pure or amorphous Silicon, i.e. having only the surface properties of the Silicon itself. But what if the photon bounces around a bit within a matrix of plasticky bits and shiny baubles before hitting Silicon at the right (lower) energy, as seems to be the case here.. might that not work? Of course it also means losses due to photons at the correct energy being absorbed by the surrounding matrix instead so it's probably difficult to calculate the net effect or to optimize it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the fundamental limitations of a cell based on Si wires is that the higher a photon 's energy is over the bandgap of Si , the more energy is lost as heat.I take it that 's based on the properties of pure or amorphous Silicon , i.e .
having only the surface properties of the Silicon itself .
But what if the photon bounces around a bit within a matrix of plasticky bits and shiny baubles before hitting Silicon at the right ( lower ) energy , as seems to be the case here.. might that not work ?
Of course it also means losses due to photons at the correct energy being absorbed by the surrounding matrix instead so it 's probably difficult to calculate the net effect or to optimize it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the fundamental limitations of a cell based on Si wires is that the higher a photon's energy is over the bandgap of Si, the more energy is lost as heat.I take it that's based on the properties of pure or amorphous Silicon, i.e.
having only the surface properties of the Silicon itself.
But what if the photon bounces around a bit within a matrix of plasticky bits and shiny baubles before hitting Silicon at the right (lower) energy, as seems to be the case here.. might that not work?
Of course it also means losses due to photons at the correct energy being absorbed by the surrounding matrix instead so it's probably difficult to calculate the net effect or to optimize it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312678</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1267473780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with current panels isn't the efficiency.  More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost.  It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment.  If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with current panels is n't the efficiency .
More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost .
It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment .
If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with current panels isn't the efficiency.
More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost.
It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment.
If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31342888</id>
	<title>Watts / Square foot?</title>
	<author>EricTheO</author>
	<datestamp>1267615920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Efficency is only part of the equation what is the ammount of power produced per square foot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Efficency is only part of the equation what is the ammount of power produced per square foot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Efficency is only part of the equation what is the ammount of power produced per square foot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312916</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>aka1nas</author>
	<datestamp>1267476240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with current panels isn't the efficiency.  More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost.  It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment.  If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid.</p></div><p>We have relatively cheap panels as well, but their problem is low efficiency. The current higher efficiency panels usually need exotic materials and manufacturing processes.  If this new tech can replace both groups of cells, then it would be a huge boon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with current panels is n't the efficiency .
More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost .
It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment .
If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid.We have relatively cheap panels as well , but their problem is low efficiency .
The current higher efficiency panels usually need exotic materials and manufacturing processes .
If this new tech can replace both groups of cells , then it would be a huge boon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with current panels isn't the efficiency.
More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost.
It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment.
If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid.We have relatively cheap panels as well, but their problem is low efficiency.
The current higher efficiency panels usually need exotic materials and manufacturing processes.
If this new tech can replace both groups of cells, then it would be a huge boon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312762</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>maxfresh</author>
	<datestamp>1267474620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article adresses that issue up front, stating explicitly that 90-100\% of the absorbed light is converted into electricity. From the article:<blockquote><div><p>Atwater and his colleagues--including Nathan Lewis, the George L. Argyros Professor and professor of chemistry at Caltech, and graduate student Michael Kelzenberg--assessed the performance of these arrays in a paper appearing in the February 14 advance online edition of the journal Nature Materials.<br> <br>

Atwater notes that the solar cells' enhanced absorption is "useful absorption.".<br> <br>
<strong>
"Many materials can absorb light quite well but not generate electricity--like, for instance, black paint," he explains. "What's most important in a solar cell is whether that absorption leads to the creation of charge carriers.".<br> <br>

The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons--in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency. "High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater. "It's an important advance.".<br> <br> </strong>

The key to the success of these solar cells is their silicon wires, each of which, says Atwater, "is independently a high-efficiency, high-quality solar cell." When brought together in an array, however, they're even more effective, because they interact to increase the cell's ability to absorb light..</p></div>

</blockquote><p>

So, assuming their worst case figure of 90\% efficiency, and 85\% absorption, the overall light to electricity conversion efficiency would be ~76.5\%<br> <br>

If this technology scales, and can be manufactured economically, it will be a tremendous breakthrough, which could deliver significant and long lasting benefits for the entire planet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article adresses that issue up front , stating explicitly that 90-100 \ % of the absorbed light is converted into electricity .
From the article : Atwater and his colleagues--including Nathan Lewis , the George L. Argyros Professor and professor of chemistry at Caltech , and graduate student Michael Kelzenberg--assessed the performance of these arrays in a paper appearing in the February 14 advance online edition of the journal Nature Materials .
Atwater notes that the solar cells ' enhanced absorption is " useful absorption. " .
" Many materials can absorb light quite well but not generate electricity--like , for instance , black paint , " he explains .
" What 's most important in a solar cell is whether that absorption leads to the creation of charge carriers. " .
The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons--in technical terms , the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency .
" High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell , " says Atwater .
" It 's an important advance. " .
The key to the success of these solar cells is their silicon wires , each of which , says Atwater , " is independently a high-efficiency , high-quality solar cell .
" When brought together in an array , however , they 're even more effective , because they interact to increase the cell 's ability to absorb light. . So , assuming their worst case figure of 90 \ % efficiency , and 85 \ % absorption , the overall light to electricity conversion efficiency would be ~ 76.5 \ % If this technology scales , and can be manufactured economically , it will be a tremendous breakthrough , which could deliver significant and long lasting benefits for the entire planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article adresses that issue up front, stating explicitly that 90-100\% of the absorbed light is converted into electricity.
From the article:Atwater and his colleagues--including Nathan Lewis, the George L. Argyros Professor and professor of chemistry at Caltech, and graduate student Michael Kelzenberg--assessed the performance of these arrays in a paper appearing in the February 14 advance online edition of the journal Nature Materials.
Atwater notes that the solar cells' enhanced absorption is "useful absorption.".
"Many materials can absorb light quite well but not generate electricity--like, for instance, black paint," he explains.
"What's most important in a solar cell is whether that absorption leads to the creation of charge carriers.".
The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons--in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency.
"High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater.
"It's an important advance.".
The key to the success of these solar cells is their silicon wires, each of which, says Atwater, "is independently a high-efficiency, high-quality solar cell.
" When brought together in an array, however, they're even more effective, because they interact to increase the cell's ability to absorb light..



So, assuming their worst case figure of 90\% efficiency, and 85\% absorption, the overall light to electricity conversion efficiency would be ~76.5\% 

If this technology scales, and can be manufactured economically, it will be a tremendous breakthrough, which could deliver significant and long lasting benefits for the entire planet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313144</id>
	<title>I can't express how much I want this to work.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1267436100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>86\% collection efficiency?  Holy cow, that's amazing.  Now, if we can just electrolyze water cheaply enough for fuel cells to solve the time-of-use problem, we could free up megatons of metals that currently make up the power grid for other uses.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>86 \ % collection efficiency ?
Holy cow , that 's amazing .
Now , if we can just electrolyze water cheaply enough for fuel cells to solve the time-of-use problem , we could free up megatons of metals that currently make up the power grid for other uses.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>86\% collection efficiency?
Holy cow, that's amazing.
Now, if we can just electrolyze water cheaply enough for fuel cells to solve the time-of-use problem, we could free up megatons of metals that currently make up the power grid for other uses.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313452</id>
	<title>Buy-out and filing away in 3... 2... 1...</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1267439340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess big oil, energy and coal companies are already in talks about take-over on the new startup.<br>Just to prevent it from ever entering the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess big oil , energy and coal companies are already in talks about take-over on the new startup.Just to prevent it from ever entering the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess big oil, energy and coal companies are already in talks about take-over on the new startup.Just to prevent it from ever entering the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312852</id>
	<title>So....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267475580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cost efficient solar energy is only now 20 years away!!  Hooray!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cost efficient solar energy is only now 20 years away ! !
Hooray !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cost efficient solar energy is only now 20 years away!!
Hooray!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312988</id>
	<title>Re:I think its entirely reasonable to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267476960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Holy balls. If this article is spot on, they've doubled the efficiency of the current technology (which converts at about 40\%) AND done it in such a way that the stuff is cheaper to manufacture AND made it flexible. This is the sort of thing that can have a real (and probably positive) impact on the world we know. Amazing. The only remaining question (I didn't see anything about it in TFA) is how durable this stuff is compared to the current panels.</p></div></blockquote><p>Currently, without subsidies, Solar PV is roughly 20x-100x more expensive than coal or nuclear power. If it is indeed twice as efficient and costs 10\% of the current costs to fabricate, then solar might finally become cost competitive.</p><p>If I was Obama, I'd toss a billion or so at this scientist and see if he couldn't get mass production of it up and running.</p><p>I mean, as long as we're spending billionS keeping teachers temporarily employed (because their states can't afford them right now), right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy balls .
If this article is spot on , they 've doubled the efficiency of the current technology ( which converts at about 40 \ % ) AND done it in such a way that the stuff is cheaper to manufacture AND made it flexible .
This is the sort of thing that can have a real ( and probably positive ) impact on the world we know .
Amazing. The only remaining question ( I did n't see anything about it in TFA ) is how durable this stuff is compared to the current panels.Currently , without subsidies , Solar PV is roughly 20x-100x more expensive than coal or nuclear power .
If it is indeed twice as efficient and costs 10 \ % of the current costs to fabricate , then solar might finally become cost competitive.If I was Obama , I 'd toss a billion or so at this scientist and see if he could n't get mass production of it up and running.I mean , as long as we 're spending billionS keeping teachers temporarily employed ( because their states ca n't afford them right now ) , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy balls.
If this article is spot on, they've doubled the efficiency of the current technology (which converts at about 40\%) AND done it in such a way that the stuff is cheaper to manufacture AND made it flexible.
This is the sort of thing that can have a real (and probably positive) impact on the world we know.
Amazing. The only remaining question (I didn't see anything about it in TFA) is how durable this stuff is compared to the current panels.Currently, without subsidies, Solar PV is roughly 20x-100x more expensive than coal or nuclear power.
If it is indeed twice as efficient and costs 10\% of the current costs to fabricate, then solar might finally become cost competitive.If I was Obama, I'd toss a billion or so at this scientist and see if he couldn't get mass production of it up and running.I mean, as long as we're spending billionS keeping teachers temporarily employed (because their states can't afford them right now), right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319094</id>
	<title>Re:This is way over-hyped</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1267470120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Current maximum demonstrated efficiency is 42.8\% percent, this is actual laboratory verified efficiency numbers. Seeing as how you say maximum theoretical is 10\% less than demonstrated currently I guess we can just call the rest of your post utter garbage. If you can't do the most basic of fact checking and rely on pulling numbers out of your butt don't bother posting.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_cell" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_cell</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Current maximum demonstrated efficiency is 42.8 \ % percent , this is actual laboratory verified efficiency numbers .
Seeing as how you say maximum theoretical is 10 \ % less than demonstrated currently I guess we can just call the rest of your post utter garbage .
If you ca n't do the most basic of fact checking and rely on pulling numbers out of your butt do n't bother posting.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar \ _cell [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current maximum demonstrated efficiency is 42.8\% percent, this is actual laboratory verified efficiency numbers.
Seeing as how you say maximum theoretical is 10\% less than demonstrated currently I guess we can just call the rest of your post utter garbage.
If you can't do the most basic of fact checking and rely on pulling numbers out of your butt don't bother posting.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_cell [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313382</id>
	<title>Whats the catch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is way too good to be true so I'm posting my personal list of typical solar pitfalls previous "solar weasals" have neglected to mention or highlight about their breakthrough technologies.

The solar cells are fragile and will only last a short time.

They don't cover full spectrum very well for example they may absorb 100\% visible but 0\% infrared and therefore their effeciency WRT capturing all available energy from the sun while still impressive is cut in half.

Use rare exotic materials or are similiarly not suitable for mass production at scale. (IE worthless)

The numbers reported only work for concentrated light..IE light that is many hundreds of times brighter than normal sunlight and require solar concentration which implies sun trackers and poor peak conversion effeciencies throughout the cycle of a typical day.

Solar cells are not capable of operation at volatges required to produce useful energy or suffer damage..etc when linked in parallel/series groupings needed to produce useful energy.

They make subtle factually accurate but weasely misleading claims about effeciency and usefulness most people will fall for.

I *HOPE* none of the above apply to the Caltech work.  At the very least not day dreaming about changing the world is a positive sign but not speaking directly about conversion effeciencies has certainly raised all kinds of flags in my mind.  Its not just what they say...its what they don't say thats often important.

I'm still waiting for my surface plasmon powered 500 tetrahertz cell phone CPU that runs for a month at 100\% utiliziation between charges.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is way too good to be true so I 'm posting my personal list of typical solar pitfalls previous " solar weasals " have neglected to mention or highlight about their breakthrough technologies .
The solar cells are fragile and will only last a short time .
They do n't cover full spectrum very well for example they may absorb 100 \ % visible but 0 \ % infrared and therefore their effeciency WRT capturing all available energy from the sun while still impressive is cut in half .
Use rare exotic materials or are similiarly not suitable for mass production at scale .
( IE worthless ) The numbers reported only work for concentrated light..IE light that is many hundreds of times brighter than normal sunlight and require solar concentration which implies sun trackers and poor peak conversion effeciencies throughout the cycle of a typical day .
Solar cells are not capable of operation at volatges required to produce useful energy or suffer damage..etc when linked in parallel/series groupings needed to produce useful energy .
They make subtle factually accurate but weasely misleading claims about effeciency and usefulness most people will fall for .
I * HOPE * none of the above apply to the Caltech work .
At the very least not day dreaming about changing the world is a positive sign but not speaking directly about conversion effeciencies has certainly raised all kinds of flags in my mind .
Its not just what they say...its what they do n't say thats often important .
I 'm still waiting for my surface plasmon powered 500 tetrahertz cell phone CPU that runs for a month at 100 \ % utiliziation between charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is way too good to be true so I'm posting my personal list of typical solar pitfalls previous "solar weasals" have neglected to mention or highlight about their breakthrough technologies.
The solar cells are fragile and will only last a short time.
They don't cover full spectrum very well for example they may absorb 100\% visible but 0\% infrared and therefore their effeciency WRT capturing all available energy from the sun while still impressive is cut in half.
Use rare exotic materials or are similiarly not suitable for mass production at scale.
(IE worthless)

The numbers reported only work for concentrated light..IE light that is many hundreds of times brighter than normal sunlight and require solar concentration which implies sun trackers and poor peak conversion effeciencies throughout the cycle of a typical day.
Solar cells are not capable of operation at volatges required to produce useful energy or suffer damage..etc when linked in parallel/series groupings needed to produce useful energy.
They make subtle factually accurate but weasely misleading claims about effeciency and usefulness most people will fall for.
I *HOPE* none of the above apply to the Caltech work.
At the very least not day dreaming about changing the world is a positive sign but not speaking directly about conversion effeciencies has certainly raised all kinds of flags in my mind.
Its not just what they say...its what they don't say thats often important.
I'm still waiting for my surface plasmon powered 500 tetrahertz cell phone CPU that runs for a month at 100\% utiliziation between charges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312692</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>worip</author>
	<datestamp>1267473900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds as if the cells has a high quantum efficiency as well. From the article: <p><div class="quote"><p> The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons&mdash;in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency. "High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater. "It's an important advance."</p> </div><p> Almost too good to be true, but if it is (and it scales well), invest in some desert land area, because solar has just become viable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds as if the cells has a high quantum efficiency as well .
From the article : The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons    in technical terms , the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency .
" High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell , " says Atwater .
" It 's an important advance .
" Almost too good to be true , but if it is ( and it scales well ) , invest in some desert land area , because solar has just become viable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds as if the cells has a high quantum efficiency as well.
From the article:  The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons—in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency.
"High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater.
"It's an important advance.
"  Almost too good to be true, but if it is (and it scales well), invest in some desert land area, because solar has just become viable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312730</id>
	<title>Re:I think its entirely reasonable to say...</title>
	<author>polar red</author>
	<datestamp>1267474320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that even if they only last 10 years at the same price per surface-unit, they'll still be more economically viable, because payback-time gets a lot better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that even if they only last 10 years at the same price per surface-unit , they 'll still be more economically viable , because payback-time gets a lot better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that even if they only last 10 years at the same price per surface-unit, they'll still be more economically viable, because payback-time gets a lot better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319850</id>
	<title>Re:I think its entirely reasonable to say...</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1267473000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Which is still pretty big news. Right now, the biggest problem with PV panels is the high cost.</i></p><p>Yea the upfront costs are higher but over their lifetime they save money and energy.  However you can, er could before the economic meltdown, have the cost of a solar energy system rolled into the cost of your house and therefore be part of the mortgage.  Because they, solar energy systems, reduce living costs some mortgage lenders gave borrowers larger loans to pay for the systems.</p><p>As I see it because the systems pay for their costs, as to whether a solar energy system is a good buy, "investment", rests on a couple of others considerations.  One is will the buyer feel better about it, and is that worth it?  Another is whether the opportunity cost, if instead money was invested, is higher or lower.  If you don't mind feeding the power company and environmental issues aren't of any concern then would you invest the cost of the solar system into financial instruments and what is the return on them?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is still pretty big news .
Right now , the biggest problem with PV panels is the high cost.Yea the upfront costs are higher but over their lifetime they save money and energy .
However you can , er could before the economic meltdown , have the cost of a solar energy system rolled into the cost of your house and therefore be part of the mortgage .
Because they , solar energy systems , reduce living costs some mortgage lenders gave borrowers larger loans to pay for the systems.As I see it because the systems pay for their costs , as to whether a solar energy system is a good buy , " investment " , rests on a couple of others considerations .
One is will the buyer feel better about it , and is that worth it ?
Another is whether the opportunity cost , if instead money was invested , is higher or lower .
If you do n't mind feeding the power company and environmental issues are n't of any concern then would you invest the cost of the solar system into financial instruments and what is the return on them ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is still pretty big news.
Right now, the biggest problem with PV panels is the high cost.Yea the upfront costs are higher but over their lifetime they save money and energy.
However you can, er could before the economic meltdown, have the cost of a solar energy system rolled into the cost of your house and therefore be part of the mortgage.
Because they, solar energy systems, reduce living costs some mortgage lenders gave borrowers larger loans to pay for the systems.As I see it because the systems pay for their costs, as to whether a solar energy system is a good buy, "investment", rests on a couple of others considerations.
One is will the buyer feel better about it, and is that worth it?
Another is whether the opportunity cost, if instead money was invested, is higher or lower.
If you don't mind feeding the power company and environmental issues aren't of any concern then would you invest the cost of the solar system into financial instruments and what is the return on them?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31325588</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1267457400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>so it is still tied to oil.</i></p><p>No it's not.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopolymer" title="wikipedia.org">Biopolymers</a> [wikipedia.org] are produced by living organisms.  The cellulose from trees can be used.  The first plastics made were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastics" title="wikipedia.org">bioplastics</a> [wikipedia.org] from plants.  Do you recall the old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellophane" title="wikipedia.org">Cellophane</a> [wikipedia.org] plastic wrap for sandwiches?  Made from wood cellulose.  <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/historyOfKodak/1878.jhtml?pq-path=2217/2687/2695/2699" title="kodak.com">Eastman Kodak</a> [kodak.com], the camera company, first used plant based plastic for it's cameras and film.  Even today film is sometimes called "Cellulose".</p><p>Plant, cellulose, based plastics only fail by the wayside after DuPont was awarded patents on making plastic from petroleum in the mid 1930s.</p><p><i>Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear.</i></p><p>Now this is a potential problem, forests could be cleared to plant plantations for polymers.  However the products are compostable.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so it is still tied to oil.No it 's not .
Biopolymers [ wikipedia.org ] are produced by living organisms .
The cellulose from trees can be used .
The first plastics made were bioplastics [ wikipedia.org ] from plants .
Do you recall the old Cellophane [ wikipedia.org ] plastic wrap for sandwiches ?
Made from wood cellulose .
Eastman Kodak [ kodak.com ] , the camera company , first used plant based plastic for it 's cameras and film .
Even today film is sometimes called " Cellulose " .Plant , cellulose , based plastics only fail by the wayside after DuPont was awarded patents on making plastic from petroleum in the mid 1930s.Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear.Now this is a potential problem , forests could be cleared to plant plantations for polymers .
However the products are compostable .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so it is still tied to oil.No it's not.
Biopolymers [wikipedia.org] are produced by living organisms.
The cellulose from trees can be used.
The first plastics made were bioplastics [wikipedia.org] from plants.
Do you recall the old Cellophane [wikipedia.org] plastic wrap for sandwiches?
Made from wood cellulose.
Eastman Kodak [kodak.com], the camera company, first used plant based plastic for it's cameras and film.
Even today film is sometimes called "Cellulose".Plant, cellulose, based plastics only fail by the wayside after DuPont was awarded patents on making plastic from petroleum in the mid 1930s.Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear.Now this is a potential problem, forests could be cleared to plant plantations for polymers.
However the products are compostable.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316696</id>
	<title>Today is March 1, not April 1</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1267461180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot editors are snookered again by B.S. press release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot editors are snookered again by B.S .
press release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot editors are snookered again by B.S.
press release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314576</id>
	<title>Re:I think its entirely reasonable to say...</title>
	<author>jujuchef</author>
	<datestamp>1267452000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BP is one of the main funding providers for this research.  I would not think for a second that this technology will quickly convert to cheap solar for the masses any time soon.
<p>
Maybe we'll see solar-powered oil drills!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BP is one of the main funding providers for this research .
I would not think for a second that this technology will quickly convert to cheap solar for the masses any time soon .
Maybe we 'll see solar-powered oil drills !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BP is one of the main funding providers for this research.
I would not think for a second that this technology will quickly convert to cheap solar for the masses any time soon.
Maybe we'll see solar-powered oil drills!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319672</id>
	<title>Re:Cold fusion, Amazing solar energy, gasoline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267472280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  In World War II, the U.S. national speed limit was 35 mph and gasoline was rationed with coupons.  This was done to make sure the military had plenty of fuel.  </p></div><p>Actually, gasoline was rationed during WW2 to conserve RUBBER.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In World War II , the U.S. national speed limit was 35 mph and gasoline was rationed with coupons .
This was done to make sure the military had plenty of fuel .
Actually , gasoline was rationed during WW2 to conserve RUBBER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  In World War II, the U.S. national speed limit was 35 mph and gasoline was rationed with coupons.
This was done to make sure the military had plenty of fuel.
Actually, gasoline was rationed during WW2 to conserve RUBBER.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312720</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267474200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I beg to differ. This is <i>exactly</i> what we should be using our oil reserves for: building up a supply of renewable energy. Look at it this way: we can burn our oil; or we can use it to create systems that will generate energy for us, <i>without</i> needing further input of oil.</p><p>I'd dearly love to see us in a world where we no longer need to burn oil or coal for energy, or if we do need to do so, we use oil we've produced ourselves - using only water and carbon dioxide as the essential inputs. On that day, we will have overcome one of the major problems facing our society today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I beg to differ .
This is exactly what we should be using our oil reserves for : building up a supply of renewable energy .
Look at it this way : we can burn our oil ; or we can use it to create systems that will generate energy for us , without needing further input of oil.I 'd dearly love to see us in a world where we no longer need to burn oil or coal for energy , or if we do need to do so , we use oil we 've produced ourselves - using only water and carbon dioxide as the essential inputs .
On that day , we will have overcome one of the major problems facing our society today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I beg to differ.
This is exactly what we should be using our oil reserves for: building up a supply of renewable energy.
Look at it this way: we can burn our oil; or we can use it to create systems that will generate energy for us, without needing further input of oil.I'd dearly love to see us in a world where we no longer need to burn oil or coal for energy, or if we do need to do so, we use oil we've produced ourselves - using only water and carbon dioxide as the essential inputs.
On that day, we will have overcome one of the major problems facing our society today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314924</id>
	<title>Cold fusion, Amazing solar energy, gasoline</title>
	<author>mnmlst</author>
	<datestamp>1267453980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"as soon as they can get these to market, solar could be very viable and cheap to produce."</i>  And if a frog had wings his ass wouldn't bump the ground when he hops.  </p><p>I appreciate Slashdot acting like an old Popular Mechanics here, but I wouldn't get too excited just yet.  As somebody pointed out in another forum, when you compare ethanol with gasoline in terms of efficiency, if all we had was ethanol primarily from "corn" (U.S. term, UK term is "maize") and then someone invented gasoline, we would be raving about the improvement in efficiency and economy.  IOW, I will believe cheap, efficient solar power when I see it on the neighbor's roof.  Until then, this is one more expensive quest for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.  In the meantime, we could be practicing more energy efficiency.</p><p>FWIW, I knew W was full of crap with that whole "hydrogen economy" nonsense back around 2005.  That was an absurd sop to deflect a little criticism that he was as much a tool of Big Oil as his Old Man.  Make note that I served in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm and when it was over, George H.W. Bush was sitting on a 91 percent approval rating based on a war we had to fight to maintain a steady supply of petroleum for the Western Powers and Japan.  From the desert, I wrote my Senators and lobbied them to get a bill going to get us to start weaning off Mideast Oil.  That S.O.B. Bush didn't raise a finger, nor did our Congress and eventually Western wealth transfer begat Osama Bin Laden, 9/11, Iraq War II, and Afghanistan.  Wouldn't you think a 91 percent approval rating might have been enough political capital to change things a little?  It may even have made Bush the Elder seem like the President of the U.S.A. instead of President of the New World Order since he rightfully earned a reputation for being allergic to domestic policy.  His detachment had a lot to do with getting booted in '92.  A review of the stock market back in '90 - '91 reveals that Big Oil shot up and helped a lot of folks in that business recover from the very hard times they went through in the late '80's.  Though I was a conservative and a combat veteran, I campaigned for Bill Clinton in '92 as I was so disgusted with Bush the Elder.  Still am.  God save us from another Bush.</p><p>Most of us know in our heart of hearts that our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the continued grip the Mideast has on Western economies.  In World War II, the U.S. national speed limit was 35 mph and gasoline was rationed with coupons.  This was done to make sure the military had plenty of fuel.  If some shared sacrifice was called for now, I think most Americans would grumble, but go along with it for the sake of untangling from the Iraq and Afghan Wars.  How about bringing back the 55 mph speed limit of the '70's and '80's?  What about a tax based on the weight of a vehicle?  If we cut back on petroleum use, we help our independence and the environment at the same time.  Now that's what I call "conserve-atism".</p><p>If you want to see what needs to be done about our dependence on petroleum, just look for the occasional Charles Krauthammer piece on it.  He makes the same recommendations about every 5 years, the centerpiece of which is a flexible tax on gasoline that seeks to wean us off cheap oil while keeping the price of gasoline fairly steady.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" as soon as they can get these to market , solar could be very viable and cheap to produce .
" And if a frog had wings his ass would n't bump the ground when he hops .
I appreciate Slashdot acting like an old Popular Mechanics here , but I would n't get too excited just yet .
As somebody pointed out in another forum , when you compare ethanol with gasoline in terms of efficiency , if all we had was ethanol primarily from " corn " ( U.S. term , UK term is " maize " ) and then someone invented gasoline , we would be raving about the improvement in efficiency and economy .
IOW , I will believe cheap , efficient solar power when I see it on the neighbor 's roof .
Until then , this is one more expensive quest for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow .
In the meantime , we could be practicing more energy efficiency.FWIW , I knew W was full of crap with that whole " hydrogen economy " nonsense back around 2005 .
That was an absurd sop to deflect a little criticism that he was as much a tool of Big Oil as his Old Man .
Make note that I served in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm and when it was over , George H.W .
Bush was sitting on a 91 percent approval rating based on a war we had to fight to maintain a steady supply of petroleum for the Western Powers and Japan .
From the desert , I wrote my Senators and lobbied them to get a bill going to get us to start weaning off Mideast Oil .
That S.O.B .
Bush did n't raise a finger , nor did our Congress and eventually Western wealth transfer begat Osama Bin Laden , 9/11 , Iraq War II , and Afghanistan .
Would n't you think a 91 percent approval rating might have been enough political capital to change things a little ?
It may even have made Bush the Elder seem like the President of the U.S.A. instead of President of the New World Order since he rightfully earned a reputation for being allergic to domestic policy .
His detachment had a lot to do with getting booted in '92 .
A review of the stock market back in '90 - '91 reveals that Big Oil shot up and helped a lot of folks in that business recover from the very hard times they went through in the late '80 's .
Though I was a conservative and a combat veteran , I campaigned for Bill Clinton in '92 as I was so disgusted with Bush the Elder .
Still am .
God save us from another Bush.Most of us know in our heart of hearts that our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the continued grip the Mideast has on Western economies .
In World War II , the U.S. national speed limit was 35 mph and gasoline was rationed with coupons .
This was done to make sure the military had plenty of fuel .
If some shared sacrifice was called for now , I think most Americans would grumble , but go along with it for the sake of untangling from the Iraq and Afghan Wars .
How about bringing back the 55 mph speed limit of the '70 's and '80 's ?
What about a tax based on the weight of a vehicle ?
If we cut back on petroleum use , we help our independence and the environment at the same time .
Now that 's what I call " conserve-atism " .If you want to see what needs to be done about our dependence on petroleum , just look for the occasional Charles Krauthammer piece on it .
He makes the same recommendations about every 5 years , the centerpiece of which is a flexible tax on gasoline that seeks to wean us off cheap oil while keeping the price of gasoline fairly steady .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "as soon as they can get these to market, solar could be very viable and cheap to produce.
"  And if a frog had wings his ass wouldn't bump the ground when he hops.
I appreciate Slashdot acting like an old Popular Mechanics here, but I wouldn't get too excited just yet.
As somebody pointed out in another forum, when you compare ethanol with gasoline in terms of efficiency, if all we had was ethanol primarily from "corn" (U.S. term, UK term is "maize") and then someone invented gasoline, we would be raving about the improvement in efficiency and economy.
IOW, I will believe cheap, efficient solar power when I see it on the neighbor's roof.
Until then, this is one more expensive quest for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
In the meantime, we could be practicing more energy efficiency.FWIW, I knew W was full of crap with that whole "hydrogen economy" nonsense back around 2005.
That was an absurd sop to deflect a little criticism that he was as much a tool of Big Oil as his Old Man.
Make note that I served in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm and when it was over, George H.W.
Bush was sitting on a 91 percent approval rating based on a war we had to fight to maintain a steady supply of petroleum for the Western Powers and Japan.
From the desert, I wrote my Senators and lobbied them to get a bill going to get us to start weaning off Mideast Oil.
That S.O.B.
Bush didn't raise a finger, nor did our Congress and eventually Western wealth transfer begat Osama Bin Laden, 9/11, Iraq War II, and Afghanistan.
Wouldn't you think a 91 percent approval rating might have been enough political capital to change things a little?
It may even have made Bush the Elder seem like the President of the U.S.A. instead of President of the New World Order since he rightfully earned a reputation for being allergic to domestic policy.
His detachment had a lot to do with getting booted in '92.
A review of the stock market back in '90 - '91 reveals that Big Oil shot up and helped a lot of folks in that business recover from the very hard times they went through in the late '80's.
Though I was a conservative and a combat veteran, I campaigned for Bill Clinton in '92 as I was so disgusted with Bush the Elder.
Still am.
God save us from another Bush.Most of us know in our heart of hearts that our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the continued grip the Mideast has on Western economies.
In World War II, the U.S. national speed limit was 35 mph and gasoline was rationed with coupons.
This was done to make sure the military had plenty of fuel.
If some shared sacrifice was called for now, I think most Americans would grumble, but go along with it for the sake of untangling from the Iraq and Afghan Wars.
How about bringing back the 55 mph speed limit of the '70's and '80's?
What about a tax based on the weight of a vehicle?
If we cut back on petroleum use, we help our independence and the environment at the same time.
Now that's what I call "conserve-atism".If you want to see what needs to be done about our dependence on petroleum, just look for the occasional Charles Krauthammer piece on it.
He makes the same recommendations about every 5 years, the centerpiece of which is a flexible tax on gasoline that seeks to wean us off cheap oil while keeping the price of gasoline fairly steady.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312882</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1267475880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article states a quantum efficiency of \%90-\%100. That is the rate of photons converted to electrons. So you have a high rate of absorption and a high rate of conversion. 77\%  total efficiently (see below) of course they have only made them 1cm square so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article states a quantum efficiency of \ % 90- \ % 100 .
That is the rate of photons converted to electrons .
So you have a high rate of absorption and a high rate of conversion .
77 \ % total efficiently ( see below ) of course they have only made them 1cm square so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article states a quantum efficiency of \%90-\%100.
That is the rate of photons converted to electrons.
So you have a high rate of absorption and a high rate of conversion.
77\%  total efficiently (see below) of course they have only made them 1cm square so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312778</id>
	<title>So when can I buy those?</title>
	<author>Kokuyo</author>
	<datestamp>1267474740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all I really want to know. If I can put them on my roof for a reasonable price, I'll be one happy wanker, but lab situations just don't necessarily translate so well into real life.</p><p>Not having read the article I don't know whether it was mentioned.</p><p>Assuiming that production of these is not too difficult, this seems like a very good way to produce power for you and at least one neighbour just by tiling one roof (I'm pulling the figures for that calculation out of my ass, so if you want to comment on that don't go physics nazi on my ass, please). Imagine only one third of the homeowners doing this kind of thing, we could probably have ourselves a very decentralized power grid in no time. Especially you in the US should welcome that, seeing as your grid has a lot of problems with delivery today.</p><p>Anyway, I'm really hoping this turns out to be something of real value. It makes me all giddy with anticipation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all I really want to know .
If I can put them on my roof for a reasonable price , I 'll be one happy wanker , but lab situations just do n't necessarily translate so well into real life.Not having read the article I do n't know whether it was mentioned.Assuiming that production of these is not too difficult , this seems like a very good way to produce power for you and at least one neighbour just by tiling one roof ( I 'm pulling the figures for that calculation out of my ass , so if you want to comment on that do n't go physics nazi on my ass , please ) .
Imagine only one third of the homeowners doing this kind of thing , we could probably have ourselves a very decentralized power grid in no time .
Especially you in the US should welcome that , seeing as your grid has a lot of problems with delivery today.Anyway , I 'm really hoping this turns out to be something of real value .
It makes me all giddy with anticipation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all I really want to know.
If I can put them on my roof for a reasonable price, I'll be one happy wanker, but lab situations just don't necessarily translate so well into real life.Not having read the article I don't know whether it was mentioned.Assuiming that production of these is not too difficult, this seems like a very good way to produce power for you and at least one neighbour just by tiling one roof (I'm pulling the figures for that calculation out of my ass, so if you want to comment on that don't go physics nazi on my ass, please).
Imagine only one third of the homeowners doing this kind of thing, we could probably have ourselves a very decentralized power grid in no time.
Especially you in the US should welcome that, seeing as your grid has a lot of problems with delivery today.Anyway, I'm really hoping this turns out to be something of real value.
It makes me all giddy with anticipation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31321444</id>
	<title>Slashdotted</title>
	<author>FLoWCTRL</author>
	<datestamp>1267435920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Google cache version:

<a href="http://bit.ly/ck4eUh" title="bit.ly">http://bit.ly/ck4eUh</a> [bit.ly]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google cache version : http : //bit.ly/ck4eUh [ bit.ly ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Google cache version:

http://bit.ly/ck4eUh [bit.ly]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312972</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267476720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How so?  The oil isn't being burned, so it's not ending up in the atmosphere.</p><p>Or do you think oil is evil even when it's locked out of the biosphere?</p><p>Oil isn't bad.  The byproducts of burning it are.</p><p>And for that matter, you can produce polymers from bio-oil just as well (though not so cheaply).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How so ?
The oil is n't being burned , so it 's not ending up in the atmosphere.Or do you think oil is evil even when it 's locked out of the biosphere ? Oil is n't bad .
The byproducts of burning it are.And for that matter , you can produce polymers from bio-oil just as well ( though not so cheaply ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How so?
The oil isn't being burned, so it's not ending up in the atmosphere.Or do you think oil is evil even when it's locked out of the biosphere?Oil isn't bad.
The byproducts of burning it are.And for that matter, you can produce polymers from bio-oil just as well (though not so cheaply).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318924</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267469340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about burning displacement. Once the panel is created, you stop 'burning oil' to produce it and you start offsetting oil/coal production.<br>So the question is, how long does it need to operate before it payse for it's self in the terms of CO2 saved.</p><p>Not as long as you think. If I could gt solar shingle at 10 bucks a sqr foot that are 20\% more efficient then current technology I wold not need to use any outside electricity during daylight hours. More if I store it for night time use,. natch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about burning displacement .
Once the panel is created , you stop 'burning oil ' to produce it and you start offsetting oil/coal production.So the question is , how long does it need to operate before it payse for it 's self in the terms of CO2 saved.Not as long as you think .
If I could gt solar shingle at 10 bucks a sqr foot that are 20 \ % more efficient then current technology I wold not need to use any outside electricity during daylight hours .
More if I store it for night time use, .
natch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about burning displacement.
Once the panel is created, you stop 'burning oil' to produce it and you start offsetting oil/coal production.So the question is, how long does it need to operate before it payse for it's self in the terms of CO2 saved.Not as long as you think.
If I could gt solar shingle at 10 bucks a sqr foot that are 20\% more efficient then current technology I wold not need to use any outside electricity during daylight hours.
More if I store it for night time use,.
natch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313842</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>Karma Bandit</author>
	<datestamp>1267445040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> No, the worst case is much, much lower. The problem is that there are two different definitions of efficiency going on here. The 90-100\% conversion to electricity means that 90-100\% of the absorbed photons are turned into single electrons. This does *not* say that 90-100\% of the energy in the original photons is converted to energy in the electrons. In fact, just as in all other solar cell devices, the photons initially create fast moving electrons, converting all of their energy. But most of that kinetic energy is lost to heat before the electrons can be extracted from the device and used to do work.</p><p> So, the take-home message is that efficiency can refer to number of converted photons, regardless of how much energy was lost to heat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the worst case is much , much lower .
The problem is that there are two different definitions of efficiency going on here .
The 90-100 \ % conversion to electricity means that 90-100 \ % of the absorbed photons are turned into single electrons .
This does * not * say that 90-100 \ % of the energy in the original photons is converted to energy in the electrons .
In fact , just as in all other solar cell devices , the photons initially create fast moving electrons , converting all of their energy .
But most of that kinetic energy is lost to heat before the electrons can be extracted from the device and used to do work .
So , the take-home message is that efficiency can refer to number of converted photons , regardless of how much energy was lost to heat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No, the worst case is much, much lower.
The problem is that there are two different definitions of efficiency going on here.
The 90-100\% conversion to electricity means that 90-100\% of the absorbed photons are turned into single electrons.
This does *not* say that 90-100\% of the energy in the original photons is converted to energy in the electrons.
In fact, just as in all other solar cell devices, the photons initially create fast moving electrons, converting all of their energy.
But most of that kinetic energy is lost to heat before the electrons can be extracted from the device and used to do work.
So, the take-home message is that efficiency can refer to number of converted photons, regardless of how much energy was lost to heat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314250</id>
	<title>the "amazing solar panel" story is tired</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1267449480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at this rate, i expect a story on slashdot next month (after 5 such stories of this subject matter in the interim) about solar panels that function at 375\% efficiency, make you coffee in the morning, and solve the israeli-palestinian conflict on its days off</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at this rate , i expect a story on slashdot next month ( after 5 such stories of this subject matter in the interim ) about solar panels that function at 375 \ % efficiency , make you coffee in the morning , and solve the israeli-palestinian conflict on its days off</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at this rate, i expect a story on slashdot next month (after 5 such stories of this subject matter in the interim) about solar panels that function at 375\% efficiency, make you coffee in the morning, and solve the israeli-palestinian conflict on its days off</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313178</id>
	<title>15-20\% efficiency using only 1\% of the materials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267436340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess someone should try to see what it's like when it uses 6\% of the materials then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24665/?a=f</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess someone should try to see what it 's like when it uses 6 \ % of the materials then : ) http : //www.technologyreview.com/energy/24665/ ? a = f</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess someone should try to see what it's like when it uses 6\% of the materials then :)http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24665/?a=f</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313108</id>
	<title>Don't confuse internal quantum yield with external</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267435320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The press release specifically says the 90\% or so conversion is the internal quantum yield.  That means for each for each photon absorbed, 90\% of the energy is converted to work.  However, this is still a single bandgap material (silicon) and the maximum theoretical external quantum yield for a single bandgap system is 33\%.  For the 1.12 eV bandgap of silicon, it is 28\%.  The advantage that Nate and Harry have here is the use of flexible Si based materials, that can use lower quality Si due to the short charge carrier diffusion lengths of the cylindrical system.  This represents an inprovement where the cells can be deployed, ie where felxibility is important, and the chance to reduce the cost of the system through less expensive processes for Si manufacture.  Now Nate's group is currently working on water splitting with these, using the high aspect ratios to use lower efficiency (and cost) catalysts, and Harry is making radial n-p++ junctions out of these.  Neither system is going to rival the external quantum yields of the flat panel Si systems, much less the current photovoltaic champions, the metamorphic triple junctions from Spectrolab, which currently sits at 42.7\%, but there is room for cost improvement with this system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The press release specifically says the 90 \ % or so conversion is the internal quantum yield .
That means for each for each photon absorbed , 90 \ % of the energy is converted to work .
However , this is still a single bandgap material ( silicon ) and the maximum theoretical external quantum yield for a single bandgap system is 33 \ % .
For the 1.12 eV bandgap of silicon , it is 28 \ % .
The advantage that Nate and Harry have here is the use of flexible Si based materials , that can use lower quality Si due to the short charge carrier diffusion lengths of the cylindrical system .
This represents an inprovement where the cells can be deployed , ie where felxibility is important , and the chance to reduce the cost of the system through less expensive processes for Si manufacture .
Now Nate 's group is currently working on water splitting with these , using the high aspect ratios to use lower efficiency ( and cost ) catalysts , and Harry is making radial n-p + + junctions out of these .
Neither system is going to rival the external quantum yields of the flat panel Si systems , much less the current photovoltaic champions , the metamorphic triple junctions from Spectrolab , which currently sits at 42.7 \ % , but there is room for cost improvement with this system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The press release specifically says the 90\% or so conversion is the internal quantum yield.
That means for each for each photon absorbed, 90\% of the energy is converted to work.
However, this is still a single bandgap material (silicon) and the maximum theoretical external quantum yield for a single bandgap system is 33\%.
For the 1.12 eV bandgap of silicon, it is 28\%.
The advantage that Nate and Harry have here is the use of flexible Si based materials, that can use lower quality Si due to the short charge carrier diffusion lengths of the cylindrical system.
This represents an inprovement where the cells can be deployed, ie where felxibility is important, and the chance to reduce the cost of the system through less expensive processes for Si manufacture.
Now Nate's group is currently working on water splitting with these, using the high aspect ratios to use lower efficiency (and cost) catalysts, and Harry is making radial n-p++ junctions out of these.
Neither system is going to rival the external quantum yields of the flat panel Si systems, much less the current photovoltaic champions, the metamorphic triple junctions from Spectrolab, which currently sits at 42.7\%, but there is room for cost improvement with this system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312770</id>
	<title>85\% of sunlight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267474680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is being picky but the article says 85\% of sunlight not 86\% as in the summary.</p><p>So what do I win?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is being picky but the article says 85 \ % of sunlight not 86 \ % as in the summary.So what do I win ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is being picky but the article says 85\% of sunlight not 86\% as in the summary.So what do I win?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315342</id>
	<title>these guys just got death penalty...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267456320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>well they sort of signed their own death warrant. no one 'major' will allow this. it and they will be buried like all other interesting projects.<br>
so enjoy the spotlight... err the spot from laser light<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:). Ta-Ta.</htmltext>
<tokenext>well they sort of signed their own death warrant .
no one 'major ' will allow this .
it and they will be buried like all other interesting projects .
so enjoy the spotlight... err the spot from laser light : ) .
Ta-Ta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well they sort of signed their own death warrant.
no one 'major' will allow this.
it and they will be buried like all other interesting projects.
so enjoy the spotlight... err the spot from laser light :).
Ta-Ta.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618</id>
	<title>Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267386960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as I can figure from the article what is says is 95/86 of the light is absorbed, it doesn't say that all of this light is converted into electricity as is stated here on Slashdot.

That is also impressive numbers and very interesting, but my guess is that the efficiency of the solar panel is going to be a lot lower than those numbers posted on the parent, most likely at least a factor 2 lower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I can figure from the article what is says is 95/86 of the light is absorbed , it does n't say that all of this light is converted into electricity as is stated here on Slashdot .
That is also impressive numbers and very interesting , but my guess is that the efficiency of the solar panel is going to be a lot lower than those numbers posted on the parent , most likely at least a factor 2 lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I can figure from the article what is says is 95/86 of the light is absorbed, it doesn't say that all of this light is converted into electricity as is stated here on Slashdot.
That is also impressive numbers and very interesting, but my guess is that the efficiency of the solar panel is going to be a lot lower than those numbers posted on the parent, most likely at least a factor 2 lower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313692</id>
	<title>Re:nice try blanco nino</title>
	<author>DavMz</author>
	<datestamp>1267442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the energy which is not converted into electricity is lost as heat, and this heat should be dissipated somehow, since the efficiency decreases with temperature,right? Can't this "lost" energy be used to heat water up? I think a combination of solar panel and solar water heater would be nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the energy which is not converted into electricity is lost as heat , and this heat should be dissipated somehow , since the efficiency decreases with temperature,right ?
Ca n't this " lost " energy be used to heat water up ?
I think a combination of solar panel and solar water heater would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the energy which is not converted into electricity is lost as heat, and this heat should be dissipated somehow, since the efficiency decreases with temperature,right?
Can't this "lost" energy be used to heat water up?
I think a combination of solar panel and solar water heater would be nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313492</id>
	<title>RAH</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1267439880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The roads must roll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The roads must roll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The roads must roll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313570</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>error\_frey</author>
	<datestamp>1267440840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Still, natural reserves of oil (ready to be pumped out of the ground) are not unlimited, and you're not considering the rates of production and consumption of oil, and I bet the latter is far higher than the former.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , natural reserves of oil ( ready to be pumped out of the ground ) are not unlimited , and you 're not considering the rates of production and consumption of oil , and I bet the latter is far higher than the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, natural reserves of oil (ready to be pumped out of the ground) are not unlimited, and you're not considering the rates of production and consumption of oil, and I bet the latter is far higher than the former.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317118</id>
	<title>Slashdot, pls think of the children.</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1267462740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot, please think of the children that will be disappointed by this article.</p><p>Us grownups can see through the PR-speak, but kids can't.</p><p>We can see that this loose talk of high efficiencies is just that-- only part of the story.</p><p>It's swell that these gizmos have a 97\% absorption efficiency, but that's only the front end.</p><p>The actual cell, which converts the light to electricity, is no different-- about 16\% efficient, due<br>to the many mismatches in energy levels and the unavoidable phonon products.</p><p>Plus the business about needing less silicon is not spreadsheet-worthy.   The actual bulk silicon is not a large part of the cost.<br>Even if they got the silicon usage down to 0\%, the cost would not come down very much if at all.</p><p>Also the economic predictions are unrealistic.    Nothing that's better has ever sold for less than 5\% under the price of the competition.  No company can afford to leave money on the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot , please think of the children that will be disappointed by this article.Us grownups can see through the PR-speak , but kids ca n't.We can see that this loose talk of high efficiencies is just that-- only part of the story.It 's swell that these gizmos have a 97 \ % absorption efficiency , but that 's only the front end.The actual cell , which converts the light to electricity , is no different-- about 16 \ % efficient , dueto the many mismatches in energy levels and the unavoidable phonon products.Plus the business about needing less silicon is not spreadsheet-worthy .
The actual bulk silicon is not a large part of the cost.Even if they got the silicon usage down to 0 \ % , the cost would not come down very much if at all.Also the economic predictions are unrealistic .
Nothing that 's better has ever sold for less than 5 \ % under the price of the competition .
No company can afford to leave money on the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot, please think of the children that will be disappointed by this article.Us grownups can see through the PR-speak, but kids can't.We can see that this loose talk of high efficiencies is just that-- only part of the story.It's swell that these gizmos have a 97\% absorption efficiency, but that's only the front end.The actual cell, which converts the light to electricity, is no different-- about 16\% efficient, dueto the many mismatches in energy levels and the unavoidable phonon products.Plus the business about needing less silicon is not spreadsheet-worthy.
The actual bulk silicon is not a large part of the cost.Even if they got the silicon usage down to 0\%, the cost would not come down very much if at all.Also the economic predictions are unrealistic.
Nothing that's better has ever sold for less than 5\% under the price of the competition.
No company can afford to leave money on the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312800</id>
	<title>Better Article...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267474980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/February/14021001.asp" title="rsc.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/February/14021001.asp</a> [rsc.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>'We have shown the optical absorption efficiency and charge carrier collection efficiency of a silicon wire array cell is comparable to a conventional silicon cell, but a wire array cell uses up to 100 times less silicon due to enhanced light-trapping effects,' says Atwater. Significantly, the wire arrays absorb infrared light more efficiently that conventional silicon surfaces, further improving the performance of the new device.</p></div><p>So the gist is that it's more efficient because it converts infrared, uses some type of clear polymer with alumina "reflector particles" in place of 99\% of the expensive (doped) silicon, and is flexible and therefore easier to manufacture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/February/14021001.asp [ rsc.org ] 'We have shown the optical absorption efficiency and charge carrier collection efficiency of a silicon wire array cell is comparable to a conventional silicon cell , but a wire array cell uses up to 100 times less silicon due to enhanced light-trapping effects, ' says Atwater .
Significantly , the wire arrays absorb infrared light more efficiently that conventional silicon surfaces , further improving the performance of the new device.So the gist is that it 's more efficient because it converts infrared , uses some type of clear polymer with alumina " reflector particles " in place of 99 \ % of the expensive ( doped ) silicon , and is flexible and therefore easier to manufacture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/February/14021001.asp [rsc.org] 'We have shown the optical absorption efficiency and charge carrier collection efficiency of a silicon wire array cell is comparable to a conventional silicon cell, but a wire array cell uses up to 100 times less silicon due to enhanced light-trapping effects,' says Atwater.
Significantly, the wire arrays absorb infrared light more efficiently that conventional silicon surfaces, further improving the performance of the new device.So the gist is that it's more efficient because it converts infrared, uses some type of clear polymer with alumina "reflector particles" in place of 99\% of the expensive (doped) silicon, and is flexible and therefore easier to manufacture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315468</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>EgNagRah</author>
	<datestamp>1267456800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought hemp was coming back to save the day!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought hemp was coming back to save the day !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought hemp was coming back to save the day!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314946</id>
	<title>Re:I think its entirely reasonable to say...</title>
	<author>BrentH</author>
	<datestamp>1267454160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. I was furiously searching the paper for numbers for the energie efficiency, but found only a reference to an estimated one (17\%). High QE's are nice, but doesn't tell you much about the amount of power you can suck from these babies. The value of the technique seems to be that there's a way to make low cost low efficient panels, as opposed to high cost low efficient or extreme cost average efficient panels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I was furiously searching the paper for numbers for the energie efficiency , but found only a reference to an estimated one ( 17 \ % ) .
High QE 's are nice , but does n't tell you much about the amount of power you can suck from these babies .
The value of the technique seems to be that there 's a way to make low cost low efficient panels , as opposed to high cost low efficient or extreme cost average efficient panels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I was furiously searching the paper for numbers for the energie efficiency, but found only a reference to an estimated one (17\%).
High QE's are nice, but doesn't tell you much about the amount of power you can suck from these babies.
The value of the technique seems to be that there's a way to make low cost low efficient panels, as opposed to high cost low efficient or extreme cost average efficient panels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318920</id>
	<title>Re:Cold fusion, Amazing solar energy, gasoline</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1267469340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we could be practicing more energy efficiency.</p></div><p>

It might reduce our oil use. Efficiency would reduce the amount of energy used per unit of economic activity. This would reduce the price of economic activity, so more economic activity would occur. The result would be that more would happen for the same amount of energy, which would be good.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>FWIW, I knew W was full of crap with that whole "hydrogen economy" nonsense back around 2005.</p></div><p>

Not all was lost. In the effort, we (rather inefficiently) learned several things:<br>
1. Hydrogen is a really, really bad fuel for cars.<br>
2. Hydrogen can be produced very efficiently from water and sunlight with out solar panels.<br>
3. Every approach that showed promise for hydrogen actually showed that something else was better (Borohydride).<br>
4. There are many approaches that lead to the benefits of hydrogen (instant refuel, high energy density by weight, etc) without all the hassle.<br>
5. Zinc, boron, and aluminium are all really good fuels for cars.<br> <br>

The problem with the program was that it focused on hydrogen. If it had included aluminium, we would be driving aluminium fuel cell cars right now. The good news is that we learned how to make cheap hydrogen from water. We know that hydrogen + CO2 = gasoline, so we are on the way to a real program for get rid of oil.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I campaigned for Bill Clinton in '92 as I was so disgusted with Bush the Elder. Still am. God save us from another Bush.</p></div><p>

Amen. The problem is that Obama is a left-wing George Bush. Both were Wall Street candidates, backed by the banksters to help them steal more money from the common person. Did you find it odd that both Obama and Bush got a free pass from the media? That is because the media supports the Wall Street candidate (they are owned by Wall Street).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In World War II, the U.S. national speed limit was 35 mph...price of gasoline fairly steady.</p></div><p>

Just as long as alternative fuels are exempt from it (including synthetic gasoline).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we could be practicing more energy efficiency .
It might reduce our oil use .
Efficiency would reduce the amount of energy used per unit of economic activity .
This would reduce the price of economic activity , so more economic activity would occur .
The result would be that more would happen for the same amount of energy , which would be good.FWIW , I knew W was full of crap with that whole " hydrogen economy " nonsense back around 2005 .
Not all was lost .
In the effort , we ( rather inefficiently ) learned several things : 1 .
Hydrogen is a really , really bad fuel for cars .
2. Hydrogen can be produced very efficiently from water and sunlight with out solar panels .
3. Every approach that showed promise for hydrogen actually showed that something else was better ( Borohydride ) .
4. There are many approaches that lead to the benefits of hydrogen ( instant refuel , high energy density by weight , etc ) without all the hassle .
5. Zinc , boron , and aluminium are all really good fuels for cars .
The problem with the program was that it focused on hydrogen .
If it had included aluminium , we would be driving aluminium fuel cell cars right now .
The good news is that we learned how to make cheap hydrogen from water .
We know that hydrogen + CO2 = gasoline , so we are on the way to a real program for get rid of oil.I campaigned for Bill Clinton in '92 as I was so disgusted with Bush the Elder .
Still am .
God save us from another Bush .
Amen. The problem is that Obama is a left-wing George Bush .
Both were Wall Street candidates , backed by the banksters to help them steal more money from the common person .
Did you find it odd that both Obama and Bush got a free pass from the media ?
That is because the media supports the Wall Street candidate ( they are owned by Wall Street ) .In World War II , the U.S. national speed limit was 35 mph...price of gasoline fairly steady .
Just as long as alternative fuels are exempt from it ( including synthetic gasoline ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we could be practicing more energy efficiency.
It might reduce our oil use.
Efficiency would reduce the amount of energy used per unit of economic activity.
This would reduce the price of economic activity, so more economic activity would occur.
The result would be that more would happen for the same amount of energy, which would be good.FWIW, I knew W was full of crap with that whole "hydrogen economy" nonsense back around 2005.
Not all was lost.
In the effort, we (rather inefficiently) learned several things:
1.
Hydrogen is a really, really bad fuel for cars.
2. Hydrogen can be produced very efficiently from water and sunlight with out solar panels.
3. Every approach that showed promise for hydrogen actually showed that something else was better (Borohydride).
4. There are many approaches that lead to the benefits of hydrogen (instant refuel, high energy density by weight, etc) without all the hassle.
5. Zinc, boron, and aluminium are all really good fuels for cars.
The problem with the program was that it focused on hydrogen.
If it had included aluminium, we would be driving aluminium fuel cell cars right now.
The good news is that we learned how to make cheap hydrogen from water.
We know that hydrogen + CO2 = gasoline, so we are on the way to a real program for get rid of oil.I campaigned for Bill Clinton in '92 as I was so disgusted with Bush the Elder.
Still am.
God save us from another Bush.
Amen. The problem is that Obama is a left-wing George Bush.
Both were Wall Street candidates, backed by the banksters to help them steal more money from the common person.
Did you find it odd that both Obama and Bush got a free pass from the media?
That is because the media supports the Wall Street candidate (they are owned by Wall Street).In World War II, the U.S. national speed limit was 35 mph...price of gasoline fairly steady.
Just as long as alternative fuels are exempt from it (including synthetic gasoline).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314768</id>
	<title>I told you so</title>
	<author>kill-1</author>
	<datestamp>1267453200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/submission/1182648/Caltech-makes-flexible-86-efficent-solar-arrays" title="slashdot.org">commented</a> [slashdot.org] on the submission yesterday and explained that the summary is wrong. But it seems noone bothered to read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I commented [ slashdot.org ] on the submission yesterday and explained that the summary is wrong .
But it seems noone bothered to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I commented [slashdot.org] on the submission yesterday and explained that the summary is wrong.
But it seems noone bothered to read it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313888</id>
	<title>Solar Fur...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1267445640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess it wouldn't be right to call these things "panels", when they are furry.  Dang that's a clever idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess it would n't be right to call these things " panels " , when they are furry .
Dang that 's a clever idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess it wouldn't be right to call these things "panels", when they are furry.
Dang that's a clever idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312786</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267474860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weeeelll, methinks that with the sheer volume of plastic waste produced daily, a few thousand square kilometers won't be a huge deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Weeeelll , methinks that with the sheer volume of plastic waste produced daily , a few thousand square kilometers wo n't be a huge deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weeeelll, methinks that with the sheer volume of plastic waste produced daily, a few thousand square kilometers won't be a huge deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312836</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1267475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll never run out of plastic.  Don't forget that "oil" came from biological sources.  It'll be more expensive than just pumping the stuff out of the ground, but as long as there is life on Earth we'll be able to produce all the polymers we need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll never run out of plastic .
Do n't forget that " oil " came from biological sources .
It 'll be more expensive than just pumping the stuff out of the ground , but as long as there is life on Earth we 'll be able to produce all the polymers we need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll never run out of plastic.
Don't forget that "oil" came from biological sources.
It'll be more expensive than just pumping the stuff out of the ground, but as long as there is life on Earth we'll be able to produce all the polymers we need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313186</id>
	<title>NOT 86\% efficient.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267436400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's EQE is 77-85\% (above the band-gap).<br>It's IQE is 90-100\% (above the band-gap).<br>But it's energy conversion is similar to other commercial panels; about 20\%.</p><p>High absorption and high QE is not enough to get high conversion rates.<br>You still have the band-gap (the minimum frequency which a photon needs to be able to free an electron from silicon) which excludes up to 30\% of all photons, and almost all photons above the band-gap which do free an electron have more energy than is necessary to do so, so the excess is wasted as heat.</p><p>Unfortunately the only things to get excited about here are the low cost and flexibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's EQE is 77-85 \ % ( above the band-gap ) .It 's IQE is 90-100 \ % ( above the band-gap ) .But it 's energy conversion is similar to other commercial panels ; about 20 \ % .High absorption and high QE is not enough to get high conversion rates.You still have the band-gap ( the minimum frequency which a photon needs to be able to free an electron from silicon ) which excludes up to 30 \ % of all photons , and almost all photons above the band-gap which do free an electron have more energy than is necessary to do so , so the excess is wasted as heat.Unfortunately the only things to get excited about here are the low cost and flexibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's EQE is 77-85\% (above the band-gap).It's IQE is 90-100\% (above the band-gap).But it's energy conversion is similar to other commercial panels; about 20\%.High absorption and high QE is not enough to get high conversion rates.You still have the band-gap (the minimum frequency which a photon needs to be able to free an electron from silicon) which excludes up to 30\% of all photons, and almost all photons above the band-gap which do free an electron have more energy than is necessary to do so, so the excess is wasted as heat.Unfortunately the only things to get excited about here are the low cost and flexibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320444</id>
	<title>Re:In requires polymer to make...</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1267475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We'll never run out of plastic.  Don't forget that "oil" came from biological sources.  It'll be more expensive than just pumping the stuff out of the ground, but as long as there is life on Earth we'll be able to produce all the polymers we need.</p></div><p>We can also always create gold by nuclear fusion if there's no more to mine.  That doesn't mean we'll never run out of gold in a practical sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll never run out of plastic .
Do n't forget that " oil " came from biological sources .
It 'll be more expensive than just pumping the stuff out of the ground , but as long as there is life on Earth we 'll be able to produce all the polymers we need.We can also always create gold by nuclear fusion if there 's no more to mine .
That does n't mean we 'll never run out of gold in a practical sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll never run out of plastic.
Don't forget that "oil" came from biological sources.
It'll be more expensive than just pumping the stuff out of the ground, but as long as there is life on Earth we'll be able to produce all the polymers we need.We can also always create gold by nuclear fusion if there's no more to mine.
That doesn't mean we'll never run out of gold in a practical sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314096</id>
	<title>Re:Absorbed not necessarily equal to electricity</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1267447980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its also theoretically impossible with a single band gap material. Silicon is less than the ideal single band gap material, so that makes doubly theoretically impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its also theoretically impossible with a single band gap material .
Silicon is less than the ideal single band gap material , so that makes doubly theoretically impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its also theoretically impossible with a single band gap material.
Silicon is less than the ideal single band gap material, so that makes doubly theoretically impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313742</id>
	<title>How black?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267443300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How black would these be?  They need to get the absorption up to 99.9\% so I can have my car painted that color.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How black would these be ?
They need to get the absorption up to 99.9 \ % so I can have my car painted that color .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How black would these be?
They need to get the absorption up to 99.9\% so I can have my car painted that color.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313078</id>
	<title>I want to believe it, but..</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1267435020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is true and accurate, this may be one of the biggest energy science advances since nuclear fission.  A &gt;75\% efficient solar cell that can be manufactured for, say, $100/kW?</p><p>I want to believe this is true, and commercialization is just around the corner... because if it is, this could solve our coal-power CO2 emissions overnight.</p><p>A 3x4 meter panel of this stuff would run an average North-American home year-round (heating, A/C, hot water), and it sounds like it could cost $1-2k.  Even with $5k worth of support hardware (batteries, inverter/charge controller, transfers) this system would pay for itself in under 5 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is true and accurate , this may be one of the biggest energy science advances since nuclear fission .
A &gt; 75 \ % efficient solar cell that can be manufactured for , say , $ 100/kW ? I want to believe this is true , and commercialization is just around the corner... because if it is , this could solve our coal-power CO2 emissions overnight.A 3x4 meter panel of this stuff would run an average North-American home year-round ( heating , A/C , hot water ) , and it sounds like it could cost $ 1-2k .
Even with $ 5k worth of support hardware ( batteries , inverter/charge controller , transfers ) this system would pay for itself in under 5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is true and accurate, this may be one of the biggest energy science advances since nuclear fission.
A &gt;75\% efficient solar cell that can be manufactured for, say, $100/kW?I want to believe this is true, and commercialization is just around the corner... because if it is, this could solve our coal-power CO2 emissions overnight.A 3x4 meter panel of this stuff would run an average North-American home year-round (heating, A/C, hot water), and it sounds like it could cost $1-2k.
Even with $5k worth of support hardware (batteries, inverter/charge controller, transfers) this system would pay for itself in under 5 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320460</id>
	<title>Currently, without subsidies,</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1267475460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Solar PV is roughly 20x-100x more expensive than coal or nuclear power.</i> </p><p>Really?  Did you also subtract the subsidies coal and nuclear power get?  Yes, they both get subsidized as well.</p><p><i>If I was Obama, I'd toss a billion or so at this scientist and see if he couldn't get mass production of it up and running.</i></p><p>Ah if only... If I were President of the USA I'd veto all subsidies and let a freer market pick winners and losers.  As it is now venture capitalists have been investing in different technologies for years, from Sergey Brin and Larry Page investing in <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784\_3-5749586-7.html" title="cnet.com">Nanosolar</a> [cnet.com] to Elon Musk, founder of Paypal and CEO of SpaceX, investing in <a href="http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/05/31/1665649.htm" title="tmcnet.com">Tesla Motors</a> [tmcnet.com].</p><p><i>I mean, as long as we're spending billionS keeping teachers temporarily employed (because their states can't afford them right now), right?</i></p><p>I hate it that the feds have to give the states the money but it was the feds who mandated a bunch of new regulations with No Child Left Behind and other laws.  If the feds stayed within it's Constitutional limits federal taxes could be significantly reduced if not totally eliminate the federal income tax.  States and local governments could then raise their own taxes if they so chose to.  Of course that's only part of the problem.  States like California went on a spending spree during the roaring '90s.  Then when the economy tanked they lost a lot of revenue.  Then there's CA's teachers unions.  Try to <a href="http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=11390" title="scholastic.com">fire</a> [scholastic.com] an underperforming teacher and watch the years speed by before they are fired.  About the only way to fight the unions is by allowing school choice with charter and private schools getting matching funding.  Then watch as the bad public schools are emptied out so the teachers can be fired.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar PV is roughly 20x-100x more expensive than coal or nuclear power .
Really ? Did you also subtract the subsidies coal and nuclear power get ?
Yes , they both get subsidized as well.If I was Obama , I 'd toss a billion or so at this scientist and see if he could n't get mass production of it up and running.Ah if only... If I were President of the USA I 'd veto all subsidies and let a freer market pick winners and losers .
As it is now venture capitalists have been investing in different technologies for years , from Sergey Brin and Larry Page investing in Nanosolar [ cnet.com ] to Elon Musk , founder of Paypal and CEO of SpaceX , investing in Tesla Motors [ tmcnet.com ] .I mean , as long as we 're spending billionS keeping teachers temporarily employed ( because their states ca n't afford them right now ) , right ? I hate it that the feds have to give the states the money but it was the feds who mandated a bunch of new regulations with No Child Left Behind and other laws .
If the feds stayed within it 's Constitutional limits federal taxes could be significantly reduced if not totally eliminate the federal income tax .
States and local governments could then raise their own taxes if they so chose to .
Of course that 's only part of the problem .
States like California went on a spending spree during the roaring '90s .
Then when the economy tanked they lost a lot of revenue .
Then there 's CA 's teachers unions .
Try to fire [ scholastic.com ] an underperforming teacher and watch the years speed by before they are fired .
About the only way to fight the unions is by allowing school choice with charter and private schools getting matching funding .
Then watch as the bad public schools are emptied out so the teachers can be fired .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar PV is roughly 20x-100x more expensive than coal or nuclear power.
Really?  Did you also subtract the subsidies coal and nuclear power get?
Yes, they both get subsidized as well.If I was Obama, I'd toss a billion or so at this scientist and see if he couldn't get mass production of it up and running.Ah if only... If I were President of the USA I'd veto all subsidies and let a freer market pick winners and losers.
As it is now venture capitalists have been investing in different technologies for years, from Sergey Brin and Larry Page investing in Nanosolar [cnet.com] to Elon Musk, founder of Paypal and CEO of SpaceX, investing in Tesla Motors [tmcnet.com].I mean, as long as we're spending billionS keeping teachers temporarily employed (because their states can't afford them right now), right?I hate it that the feds have to give the states the money but it was the feds who mandated a bunch of new regulations with No Child Left Behind and other laws.
If the feds stayed within it's Constitutional limits federal taxes could be significantly reduced if not totally eliminate the federal income tax.
States and local governments could then raise their own taxes if they so chose to.
Of course that's only part of the problem.
States like California went on a spending spree during the roaring '90s.
Then when the economy tanked they lost a lot of revenue.
Then there's CA's teachers unions.
Try to fire [scholastic.com] an underperforming teacher and watch the years speed by before they are fired.
About the only way to fight the unions is by allowing school choice with charter and private schools getting matching funding.
Then watch as the bad public schools are emptied out so the teachers can be fired.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318028</id>
	<title>This is crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267466160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like clockwork, there's another article on slashdot containing 'if they can get to market, solar panel prices could plummet!', which is nothing more than disingenuous wharrgarble. I see these articles every 2-3 months, and it's still Way Too Friggin' Expensive to pick up solar panels at my local store.</p><p>Call me when a 15 amp @ 14.1v isn't $1000 or higher, and we'll talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like clockwork , there 's another article on slashdot containing 'if they can get to market , solar panel prices could plummet !
' , which is nothing more than disingenuous wharrgarble .
I see these articles every 2-3 months , and it 's still Way Too Friggin ' Expensive to pick up solar panels at my local store.Call me when a 15 amp @ 14.1v is n't $ 1000 or higher , and we 'll talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like clockwork, there's another article on slashdot containing 'if they can get to market, solar panel prices could plummet!
', which is nothing more than disingenuous wharrgarble.
I see these articles every 2-3 months, and it's still Way Too Friggin' Expensive to pick up solar panels at my local store.Call me when a 15 amp @ 14.1v isn't $1000 or higher, and we'll talk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31321040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31325588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_0059211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31325588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31318194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31321040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31320568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31315188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31319850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_0059211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31317186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31313020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31316884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31312978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_0059211.31314944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
