<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_08_2044227</id>
	<title>Gas Wants To Kill the Wind</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268041680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>RABarnes writes <i>"Scientific American has posted an article about the political efforts of natural gas and electric utilities to <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=politics-of-wind-power">limit the growth of wind-generated electricity</a>.  Although several of the points raised by the utilities and carbon-based generators are valid, the basic driver behind their efforts is that wind-generation has now successfully penetrated the wholesale electricity market.  Wind was okay until it became a meaningful competitor to the carbon dioxide-producing entities.  Among the valid points raised by the carbon-based generators are concerns about how the cost of electricity transmission are allocated and how power quality can be improved (wind generation &mdash; from individual sites &mdash; is hopelessly variable).  But there are fixes for all of the concerns raised by the carbon-based entities and in almost all cases they have been on the other side of the question in the past."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>RABarnes writes " Scientific American has posted an article about the political efforts of natural gas and electric utilities to limit the growth of wind-generated electricity .
Although several of the points raised by the utilities and carbon-based generators are valid , the basic driver behind their efforts is that wind-generation has now successfully penetrated the wholesale electricity market .
Wind was okay until it became a meaningful competitor to the carbon dioxide-producing entities .
Among the valid points raised by the carbon-based generators are concerns about how the cost of electricity transmission are allocated and how power quality can be improved ( wind generation    from individual sites    is hopelessly variable ) .
But there are fixes for all of the concerns raised by the carbon-based entities and in almost all cases they have been on the other side of the question in the past .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RABarnes writes "Scientific American has posted an article about the political efforts of natural gas and electric utilities to limit the growth of wind-generated electricity.
Although several of the points raised by the utilities and carbon-based generators are valid, the basic driver behind their efforts is that wind-generation has now successfully penetrated the wholesale electricity market.
Wind was okay until it became a meaningful competitor to the carbon dioxide-producing entities.
Among the valid points raised by the carbon-based generators are concerns about how the cost of electricity transmission are allocated and how power quality can be improved (wind generation — from individual sites — is hopelessly variable).
But there are fixes for all of the concerns raised by the carbon-based entities and in almost all cases they have been on the other side of the question in the past.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409696</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268067060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Multiple sources of power makes sense.</p><p>Wind is low cost though with a relatively high fixed cost per MW.  Additionally, only certain areas make sense that can provide sustained adequate wind for the turbines. On the plus side, these areas are generally rural and can be run around farms best locations are generally in the upper central west.  (wind - America's new agricultural resource).  Significant additions to the grid will be required if transporting over long distances.  Generation capacity for utilities is about 1-3 MW per Wind Turbine if located in an appropriate location.  If in a bad location (most of the country), production will be cut in half as the capacity can't be reached.  Power density is about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.25-.75 MW/acre.</p><p>Solar - Extremely high fixed cost and problems with disposal of solar panels.  The lower cost newer solar panels use large amounts of Cadmium Telluride which is highly toxic especially if damaged or improperly disposed.  Best locations are where you would expect.  Power density per acre is low at about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.15MW/acre of solar panels.  Cost is very high.</p><p>Hydro - Where usable it is very inexpensive.  Some natural side effects. Limited locations are the problem. Generally the least expensive when placed at good locations.  Environment must be carefully worked around.  40 MW or so is a typical plant size (Hoover dam is not typical)</p><p>Pumped Storage Hydro - Basically pumps water to the top of a hill during low cost power periods and released back down the hill to produce power at high cost periods.  Basically a form of power arbitrage.  Some risks if the dam is not built right (See Missouri Dam Failure)  Generally a good approach if excess capacity is available.  Really a financial trade to play margins.</p><p>Nuclear - Well studied so I will not go into details here.  Production cost is the lowest but supporting cost but huge capital costs and is a lot higher to manage the extensive safety requirements.  We need to figure 1 billion per nuclear plant in construction costs for long term storage of spent fuel rods.  This is based on the expected costs of Yucca Mountain which Obama cancelled.  Instead we are storing on site with significant risks.  See the VT tritium issue. 1000-3500 MW is a typical plant size.</p><p>Natural Gas - Can be built today,  Can be fueled entirely with North American resources if we allow it to be done.  Lower emissions than coal.  If we permit domestic gas production to continue to grow, about half the emissions of coal and capable of delivering large amounts of power relatively quickly.  500-2000 MW is a typical plant size.</p><p>Coal -Generally the lowest ongoing source of large power plants possibly excluding nuclear.  Whether nuclear is cheaper all has to do with how costs are calculated. Emissions are high but constantly improving.  Low fuel cost.  Personal opinion is that the green impact is high but not near as high as generally perceived.  All depends on how good the emissions control technology used is. 300-2000 MW is a typical plant size.</p><p>Strategy should be to build nuclear, natural gas, and coal to provide base load. Your choice but a mix is good as market conditions constantly change.  Nuclear has risks, natural gas is extremely low priced but may not stay that way.  Coal is efficient and will be a mainstay of supply in most of the country for at least another 30 years even if no new coal plants are built.</p><p>Develop clean energy sources where the business makes sense and place in the optimal locations.  Don't force fit or the costs become way too high.  Use as a an intermittent base load power source supplementing the much larger base load power plants.</p><p>Use natural gas as the peaking fuel.  Other than pumped hydro, no source of energy storage makes sense at the levels the power grid uses.  And natural gas combustion turbines are extremely quick to start up and shut down unlike combined cycle natural gas or coal.  Remember that only about 70\% of capacity is used on average as the capacity for pea</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Multiple sources of power makes sense.Wind is low cost though with a relatively high fixed cost per MW .
Additionally , only certain areas make sense that can provide sustained adequate wind for the turbines .
On the plus side , these areas are generally rural and can be run around farms best locations are generally in the upper central west .
( wind - America 's new agricultural resource ) .
Significant additions to the grid will be required if transporting over long distances .
Generation capacity for utilities is about 1-3 MW per Wind Turbine if located in an appropriate location .
If in a bad location ( most of the country ) , production will be cut in half as the capacity ca n't be reached .
Power density is about .25-.75 MW/acre.Solar - Extremely high fixed cost and problems with disposal of solar panels .
The lower cost newer solar panels use large amounts of Cadmium Telluride which is highly toxic especially if damaged or improperly disposed .
Best locations are where you would expect .
Power density per acre is low at about .15MW/acre of solar panels .
Cost is very high.Hydro - Where usable it is very inexpensive .
Some natural side effects .
Limited locations are the problem .
Generally the least expensive when placed at good locations .
Environment must be carefully worked around .
40 MW or so is a typical plant size ( Hoover dam is not typical ) Pumped Storage Hydro - Basically pumps water to the top of a hill during low cost power periods and released back down the hill to produce power at high cost periods .
Basically a form of power arbitrage .
Some risks if the dam is not built right ( See Missouri Dam Failure ) Generally a good approach if excess capacity is available .
Really a financial trade to play margins.Nuclear - Well studied so I will not go into details here .
Production cost is the lowest but supporting cost but huge capital costs and is a lot higher to manage the extensive safety requirements .
We need to figure 1 billion per nuclear plant in construction costs for long term storage of spent fuel rods .
This is based on the expected costs of Yucca Mountain which Obama cancelled .
Instead we are storing on site with significant risks .
See the VT tritium issue .
1000-3500 MW is a typical plant size.Natural Gas - Can be built today , Can be fueled entirely with North American resources if we allow it to be done .
Lower emissions than coal .
If we permit domestic gas production to continue to grow , about half the emissions of coal and capable of delivering large amounts of power relatively quickly .
500-2000 MW is a typical plant size.Coal -Generally the lowest ongoing source of large power plants possibly excluding nuclear .
Whether nuclear is cheaper all has to do with how costs are calculated .
Emissions are high but constantly improving .
Low fuel cost .
Personal opinion is that the green impact is high but not near as high as generally perceived .
All depends on how good the emissions control technology used is .
300-2000 MW is a typical plant size.Strategy should be to build nuclear , natural gas , and coal to provide base load .
Your choice but a mix is good as market conditions constantly change .
Nuclear has risks , natural gas is extremely low priced but may not stay that way .
Coal is efficient and will be a mainstay of supply in most of the country for at least another 30 years even if no new coal plants are built.Develop clean energy sources where the business makes sense and place in the optimal locations .
Do n't force fit or the costs become way too high .
Use as a an intermittent base load power source supplementing the much larger base load power plants.Use natural gas as the peaking fuel .
Other than pumped hydro , no source of energy storage makes sense at the levels the power grid uses .
And natural gas combustion turbines are extremely quick to start up and shut down unlike combined cycle natural gas or coal .
Remember that only about 70 \ % of capacity is used on average as the capacity for pea</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Multiple sources of power makes sense.Wind is low cost though with a relatively high fixed cost per MW.
Additionally, only certain areas make sense that can provide sustained adequate wind for the turbines.
On the plus side, these areas are generally rural and can be run around farms best locations are generally in the upper central west.
(wind - America's new agricultural resource).
Significant additions to the grid will be required if transporting over long distances.
Generation capacity for utilities is about 1-3 MW per Wind Turbine if located in an appropriate location.
If in a bad location (most of the country), production will be cut in half as the capacity can't be reached.
Power density is about .25-.75 MW/acre.Solar - Extremely high fixed cost and problems with disposal of solar panels.
The lower cost newer solar panels use large amounts of Cadmium Telluride which is highly toxic especially if damaged or improperly disposed.
Best locations are where you would expect.
Power density per acre is low at about .15MW/acre of solar panels.
Cost is very high.Hydro - Where usable it is very inexpensive.
Some natural side effects.
Limited locations are the problem.
Generally the least expensive when placed at good locations.
Environment must be carefully worked around.
40 MW or so is a typical plant size (Hoover dam is not typical)Pumped Storage Hydro - Basically pumps water to the top of a hill during low cost power periods and released back down the hill to produce power at high cost periods.
Basically a form of power arbitrage.
Some risks if the dam is not built right (See Missouri Dam Failure)  Generally a good approach if excess capacity is available.
Really a financial trade to play margins.Nuclear - Well studied so I will not go into details here.
Production cost is the lowest but supporting cost but huge capital costs and is a lot higher to manage the extensive safety requirements.
We need to figure 1 billion per nuclear plant in construction costs for long term storage of spent fuel rods.
This is based on the expected costs of Yucca Mountain which Obama cancelled.
Instead we are storing on site with significant risks.
See the VT tritium issue.
1000-3500 MW is a typical plant size.Natural Gas - Can be built today,  Can be fueled entirely with North American resources if we allow it to be done.
Lower emissions than coal.
If we permit domestic gas production to continue to grow, about half the emissions of coal and capable of delivering large amounts of power relatively quickly.
500-2000 MW is a typical plant size.Coal -Generally the lowest ongoing source of large power plants possibly excluding nuclear.
Whether nuclear is cheaper all has to do with how costs are calculated.
Emissions are high but constantly improving.
Low fuel cost.
Personal opinion is that the green impact is high but not near as high as generally perceived.
All depends on how good the emissions control technology used is.
300-2000 MW is a typical plant size.Strategy should be to build nuclear, natural gas, and coal to provide base load.
Your choice but a mix is good as market conditions constantly change.
Nuclear has risks, natural gas is extremely low priced but may not stay that way.
Coal is efficient and will be a mainstay of supply in most of the country for at least another 30 years even if no new coal plants are built.Develop clean energy sources where the business makes sense and place in the optimal locations.
Don't force fit or the costs become way too high.
Use as a an intermittent base load power source supplementing the much larger base load power plants.Use natural gas as the peaking fuel.
Other than pumped hydro, no source of energy storage makes sense at the levels the power grid uses.
And natural gas combustion turbines are extremely quick to start up and shut down unlike combined cycle natural gas or coal.
Remember that only about 70\% of capacity is used on average as the capacity for pea</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408236</id>
	<title>Re:Missed the Better Headline</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1268055480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Momma is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Momma is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Momma is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408144</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>nutshell42</author>
	<datestamp>1268054760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you replace subsidized corn with subsidized windmills and save a few millions in health care while pissing off the Saudis. Sounds like a great deal.<p>
Not to mention that you can still use most of that land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you replace subsidized corn with subsidized windmills and save a few millions in health care while pissing off the Saudis .
Sounds like a great deal .
Not to mention that you can still use most of that land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you replace subsidized corn with subsidized windmills and save a few millions in health care while pissing off the Saudis.
Sounds like a great deal.
Not to mention that you can still use most of that land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31414180</id>
	<title>When you think about the dynamics...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1268152380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is kind of funny.</p><p>I mean when you generate electricity with a gas turbine, you basically burn the gas, to heat the air, to make it flow, to turn the prop, to turn the dynamo, to make the electricity.</p><p>With wind power it is basically the same thing except skipping the burning of gas and heating of air.</p><p>There is just flow. Because of that it is less predictable and dependable, but then again you don't have to buy the gas either. Of course on a macro scale one might argue that continued exploration for gas is also unpredictable and not dependable.</p><p>Having said all that, until we all learn to conserve and stop wasting pretty much everything, we will need a mix of energy sources for a very long time. That includes things like gas, wind, nuke, solar, hydro, etc... You need base power, and only nuke, gas, coal, oil, does that for you really (hydro can also if managed). The rest are great, but unless you have the ability to store the energy (usually at a significant loss of energy due to mechanics), buy say using Wind Power/Solar to run water pumps, on an hydro dam, increasing the potential energy, which isn't always the case.... then they will always be "secondary" sources of energy, and a potential point of failure in the system. Don't get me wrong, I heart wind power, however it has to know its place, and people should be aware of that.</p><p>I think someday way down into our future, historians will look back in astonishment and wonder at our "centralized" power systems. The key into the future I believe is conservation and distributive systems. One is bound by culture, and the other technology, and both are a ways off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is kind of funny.I mean when you generate electricity with a gas turbine , you basically burn the gas , to heat the air , to make it flow , to turn the prop , to turn the dynamo , to make the electricity.With wind power it is basically the same thing except skipping the burning of gas and heating of air.There is just flow .
Because of that it is less predictable and dependable , but then again you do n't have to buy the gas either .
Of course on a macro scale one might argue that continued exploration for gas is also unpredictable and not dependable.Having said all that , until we all learn to conserve and stop wasting pretty much everything , we will need a mix of energy sources for a very long time .
That includes things like gas , wind , nuke , solar , hydro , etc... You need base power , and only nuke , gas , coal , oil , does that for you really ( hydro can also if managed ) .
The rest are great , but unless you have the ability to store the energy ( usually at a significant loss of energy due to mechanics ) , buy say using Wind Power/Solar to run water pumps , on an hydro dam , increasing the potential energy , which is n't always the case.... then they will always be " secondary " sources of energy , and a potential point of failure in the system .
Do n't get me wrong , I heart wind power , however it has to know its place , and people should be aware of that.I think someday way down into our future , historians will look back in astonishment and wonder at our " centralized " power systems .
The key into the future I believe is conservation and distributive systems .
One is bound by culture , and the other technology , and both are a ways off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is kind of funny.I mean when you generate electricity with a gas turbine, you basically burn the gas, to heat the air, to make it flow, to turn the prop, to turn the dynamo, to make the electricity.With wind power it is basically the same thing except skipping the burning of gas and heating of air.There is just flow.
Because of that it is less predictable and dependable, but then again you don't have to buy the gas either.
Of course on a macro scale one might argue that continued exploration for gas is also unpredictable and not dependable.Having said all that, until we all learn to conserve and stop wasting pretty much everything, we will need a mix of energy sources for a very long time.
That includes things like gas, wind, nuke, solar, hydro, etc... You need base power, and only nuke, gas, coal, oil, does that for you really (hydro can also if managed).
The rest are great, but unless you have the ability to store the energy (usually at a significant loss of energy due to mechanics), buy say using Wind Power/Solar to run water pumps, on an hydro dam, increasing the potential energy, which isn't always the case.... then they will always be "secondary" sources of energy, and a potential point of failure in the system.
Don't get me wrong, I heart wind power, however it has to know its place, and people should be aware of that.I think someday way down into our future, historians will look back in astonishment and wonder at our "centralized" power systems.
The key into the future I believe is conservation and distributive systems.
One is bound by culture, and the other technology, and both are a ways off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409532</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>snarfer</author>
	<datestamp>1268065500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If governments never save during good times, explain the Clinton surpluses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If governments never save during good times , explain the Clinton surpluses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If governments never save during good times, explain the Clinton surpluses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31413928</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1268151420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not worried. Capitalism will take care of all of that.</p><p>I mean if Ayn Rand taught me anything it was if there is a need and a market for something, then some young enterprising USA industrialist will pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and build a market driven company that will solve all the economy's problems.</p><p>I mean it really works that way right? Everything else is pinko commie BS right? DOWN WITH DEATH PANELS! Baaaaaa!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Here is your cud sheeple, now chew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not worried .
Capitalism will take care of all of that.I mean if Ayn Rand taught me anything it was if there is a need and a market for something , then some young enterprising USA industrialist will pull themselves up by the bootstraps , and build a market driven company that will solve all the economy 's problems.I mean it really works that way right ?
Everything else is pinko commie BS right ?
DOWN WITH DEATH PANELS !
Baaaaaa ! : ) Here is your cud sheeple , now chew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not worried.
Capitalism will take care of all of that.I mean if Ayn Rand taught me anything it was if there is a need and a market for something, then some young enterprising USA industrialist will pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and build a market driven company that will solve all the economy's problems.I mean it really works that way right?
Everything else is pinko commie BS right?
DOWN WITH DEATH PANELS!
Baaaaaa! :)Here is your cud sheeple, now chew.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408384</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Palshife</author>
	<datestamp>1268056320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't you heard? The stimulus is socialism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't you heard ?
The stimulus is socialism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't you heard?
The stimulus is socialism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408768</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268059020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Letting economics drive power sources is a lot more natural than having the government do it and creating tons of pork that only provide jobs in politically important regions</p></div></blockquote><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Letting economics drive power sources is a lot more natural than having the government do it and creating tons of pork that only provide jobs in politically important regionsThere , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Letting economics drive power sources is a lot more natural than having the government do it and creating tons of pork that only provide jobs in politically important regionsThere, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406814</id>
	<title>From the Wall Street Journal</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1268048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The WSJ ran an article about this within the last week or two.  The only gripe that traditional power companies had that seemed valid in my opinion is that wind producers get an exemption if they don't meet their production quotas.  In a nutshell, this is how it works in Texas (and presumably other states): At the beginning of the day the department responsible for buying power for the state purchases power from utilities.  The utilities bid based on how much power they are going to provide, and what the cost will be.  Wind power comes in cheaper than gas or goal and gets purchased first.  Gas and coal get penalized for not producing as much power as they promise to produce.  So if they say they will deliver XXX megawatts, but due to facilities problems or whatever only deliver xxx-y megawatts, they have to pay a fine.  If wind fails to deliver their promised megawatts, they are exempted from the fine.</p><p>On one hand wind is variable and not easy to predict (although wind based power companies claim that their models are become more accurate and reliable).  On the other, wind is easy to come in inexpensively in part because there are incentives in place to make it cost competitive and they also don't have to pay fines for failing to deliver.</p><p>I'm of the opinion that the system is fine.  Everyone agrees that wind can't provide baseline power.  I think the government should reach some sort of compromise between the two.  Wind can continue to be cheap and by all means we should be using it when it's available.  When it isn't, wind based utilities should have to offset the cost of falling back to gas or coal.  It takes hours to bring a plant online and doing so incurs operating costs.  If the plant sits idle because the wind stays constant then that's great.  The plant operator still needs to be compensated for spooling up the turbines, even if they aren't selling the output.  The trick is pricing things in such a way that there is still an incentive to use wind when it's available.  Maybe they can trend it, and say over the last five years, wind under-delivered by xx\%.  Therefore wind needs to adjust their rates upward by xx-y\% to offset the irregularity.  Y would be an agreed upon value to acknowledge the fact that man can't control the weather, but that when conditions are good, it is in everyone's best interests to tap the wind as a resource.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The WSJ ran an article about this within the last week or two .
The only gripe that traditional power companies had that seemed valid in my opinion is that wind producers get an exemption if they do n't meet their production quotas .
In a nutshell , this is how it works in Texas ( and presumably other states ) : At the beginning of the day the department responsible for buying power for the state purchases power from utilities .
The utilities bid based on how much power they are going to provide , and what the cost will be .
Wind power comes in cheaper than gas or goal and gets purchased first .
Gas and coal get penalized for not producing as much power as they promise to produce .
So if they say they will deliver XXX megawatts , but due to facilities problems or whatever only deliver xxx-y megawatts , they have to pay a fine .
If wind fails to deliver their promised megawatts , they are exempted from the fine.On one hand wind is variable and not easy to predict ( although wind based power companies claim that their models are become more accurate and reliable ) .
On the other , wind is easy to come in inexpensively in part because there are incentives in place to make it cost competitive and they also do n't have to pay fines for failing to deliver.I 'm of the opinion that the system is fine .
Everyone agrees that wind ca n't provide baseline power .
I think the government should reach some sort of compromise between the two .
Wind can continue to be cheap and by all means we should be using it when it 's available .
When it is n't , wind based utilities should have to offset the cost of falling back to gas or coal .
It takes hours to bring a plant online and doing so incurs operating costs .
If the plant sits idle because the wind stays constant then that 's great .
The plant operator still needs to be compensated for spooling up the turbines , even if they are n't selling the output .
The trick is pricing things in such a way that there is still an incentive to use wind when it 's available .
Maybe they can trend it , and say over the last five years , wind under-delivered by xx \ % .
Therefore wind needs to adjust their rates upward by xx-y \ % to offset the irregularity .
Y would be an agreed upon value to acknowledge the fact that man ca n't control the weather , but that when conditions are good , it is in everyone 's best interests to tap the wind as a resource .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The WSJ ran an article about this within the last week or two.
The only gripe that traditional power companies had that seemed valid in my opinion is that wind producers get an exemption if they don't meet their production quotas.
In a nutshell, this is how it works in Texas (and presumably other states): At the beginning of the day the department responsible for buying power for the state purchases power from utilities.
The utilities bid based on how much power they are going to provide, and what the cost will be.
Wind power comes in cheaper than gas or goal and gets purchased first.
Gas and coal get penalized for not producing as much power as they promise to produce.
So if they say they will deliver XXX megawatts, but due to facilities problems or whatever only deliver xxx-y megawatts, they have to pay a fine.
If wind fails to deliver their promised megawatts, they are exempted from the fine.On one hand wind is variable and not easy to predict (although wind based power companies claim that their models are become more accurate and reliable).
On the other, wind is easy to come in inexpensively in part because there are incentives in place to make it cost competitive and they also don't have to pay fines for failing to deliver.I'm of the opinion that the system is fine.
Everyone agrees that wind can't provide baseline power.
I think the government should reach some sort of compromise between the two.
Wind can continue to be cheap and by all means we should be using it when it's available.
When it isn't, wind based utilities should have to offset the cost of falling back to gas or coal.
It takes hours to bring a plant online and doing so incurs operating costs.
If the plant sits idle because the wind stays constant then that's great.
The plant operator still needs to be compensated for spooling up the turbines, even if they aren't selling the output.
The trick is pricing things in such a way that there is still an incentive to use wind when it's available.
Maybe they can trend it, and say over the last five years, wind under-delivered by xx\%.
Therefore wind needs to adjust their rates upward by xx-y\% to offset the irregularity.
Y would be an agreed upon value to acknowledge the fact that man can't control the weather, but that when conditions are good, it is in everyone's best interests to tap the wind as a resource.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406914</id>
	<title>No, they would NOT</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1268048520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The incumbent suppliers, gas/coal/oil-fueled generating utilities, have NO, repeat NO incentive to encourage a competitor.  And every incentive to prevent the entry to market of viable competitors such as wind, solar, etc.</p><p>I'm not trolling, nor am I just trying to be contrary.  This is a business fact.  Show me a business that has a good case for encouraging their competition.  I have one, too, the exception that proves the rule;  retail.  Clustering retail outlets together, such as clothing or even convenience stores, can increase business by concentrating traffic.  But even this is intended to deny their remote competitors opportunity.</p><p>Just be honest about this.  Their businesses are under incredible pressure - costs rising, alternatives becoming viable and either cheaper or not significantly more expensive, social pressure to change their processes at great expense and diminishment of profits, government regulation that is threatening to become puntitive and eventually literally drive them out of the business.  They will want to hold on as long as possible. And use every means available, that they can survive, to stop or slow down their competitors.</p><p>It is naive to state, for instance, that "they'd embrace the new tech and get in on it, rather than trying to fight it".  The reality is that they also know that their competitors would have every reason to denigrate any such attempts as failed and futile attempts for these incumbent industries to plot their survival and continued monopoly, soley for the purpose of denying entry to new competitors.  These new competitors would petition our government to tax or regulate the existing players to 'level the playing field', as well as ask for breaks and grants to 'encourage alternatives'.  The petroleum industry is locked in this no-win situation, and is being stufffed into the pre-defined role of evil lords of power and control.  And they deserve that position, largely if not entirely due to their own past acts.</p><p>I have NO sympathy for them.  They have massive capital available, and if they would bear down and exercise their immense leverage, they could do the research, snap up smart minds to solve problems, and bring to market their future products that are now being developed by the nimbler competitors.  They have their chance still, but are squandering the opportunity, or perhaps see that this is a fight they just don't have the stomach for and will milk the world for all it's worth.  The Third World may be their growth market for the next 40 years.  Then again, Africa for example might decide to choose wisely in advance.  That leaves China and India, who might just do their own thing.  A gamble, and the hand has not yet been called.</p><p>To repeat, while the current powers should indeed be making the investment, they are not idiots to not do so.  They could adopt that strategy, but they have other options, which are not, from a business viewpoint, entirely without merit.  Just risky, and perhaps not serving us the citizens of the world as well as it might, but these are profit-centered organizations.  They do not exist to protect the environment.  If you think this is 'wrong', then you need to work to change the nature and regulation of corporations worldwide.  And I'm with you.  We need to do that.  Soon.  Now.</p><p>And we do have a right, indeed a duty, to compel them to be less evil.  This is not limited to the petroleum industry, and may be even more important in other sectors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The incumbent suppliers , gas/coal/oil-fueled generating utilities , have NO , repeat NO incentive to encourage a competitor .
And every incentive to prevent the entry to market of viable competitors such as wind , solar , etc.I 'm not trolling , nor am I just trying to be contrary .
This is a business fact .
Show me a business that has a good case for encouraging their competition .
I have one , too , the exception that proves the rule ; retail .
Clustering retail outlets together , such as clothing or even convenience stores , can increase business by concentrating traffic .
But even this is intended to deny their remote competitors opportunity.Just be honest about this .
Their businesses are under incredible pressure - costs rising , alternatives becoming viable and either cheaper or not significantly more expensive , social pressure to change their processes at great expense and diminishment of profits , government regulation that is threatening to become puntitive and eventually literally drive them out of the business .
They will want to hold on as long as possible .
And use every means available , that they can survive , to stop or slow down their competitors.It is naive to state , for instance , that " they 'd embrace the new tech and get in on it , rather than trying to fight it " .
The reality is that they also know that their competitors would have every reason to denigrate any such attempts as failed and futile attempts for these incumbent industries to plot their survival and continued monopoly , soley for the purpose of denying entry to new competitors .
These new competitors would petition our government to tax or regulate the existing players to 'level the playing field ' , as well as ask for breaks and grants to 'encourage alternatives' .
The petroleum industry is locked in this no-win situation , and is being stufffed into the pre-defined role of evil lords of power and control .
And they deserve that position , largely if not entirely due to their own past acts.I have NO sympathy for them .
They have massive capital available , and if they would bear down and exercise their immense leverage , they could do the research , snap up smart minds to solve problems , and bring to market their future products that are now being developed by the nimbler competitors .
They have their chance still , but are squandering the opportunity , or perhaps see that this is a fight they just do n't have the stomach for and will milk the world for all it 's worth .
The Third World may be their growth market for the next 40 years .
Then again , Africa for example might decide to choose wisely in advance .
That leaves China and India , who might just do their own thing .
A gamble , and the hand has not yet been called.To repeat , while the current powers should indeed be making the investment , they are not idiots to not do so .
They could adopt that strategy , but they have other options , which are not , from a business viewpoint , entirely without merit .
Just risky , and perhaps not serving us the citizens of the world as well as it might , but these are profit-centered organizations .
They do not exist to protect the environment .
If you think this is 'wrong ' , then you need to work to change the nature and regulation of corporations worldwide .
And I 'm with you .
We need to do that .
Soon. Now.And we do have a right , indeed a duty , to compel them to be less evil .
This is not limited to the petroleum industry , and may be even more important in other sectors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The incumbent suppliers, gas/coal/oil-fueled generating utilities, have NO, repeat NO incentive to encourage a competitor.
And every incentive to prevent the entry to market of viable competitors such as wind, solar, etc.I'm not trolling, nor am I just trying to be contrary.
This is a business fact.
Show me a business that has a good case for encouraging their competition.
I have one, too, the exception that proves the rule;  retail.
Clustering retail outlets together, such as clothing or even convenience stores, can increase business by concentrating traffic.
But even this is intended to deny their remote competitors opportunity.Just be honest about this.
Their businesses are under incredible pressure - costs rising, alternatives becoming viable and either cheaper or not significantly more expensive, social pressure to change their processes at great expense and diminishment of profits, government regulation that is threatening to become puntitive and eventually literally drive them out of the business.
They will want to hold on as long as possible.
And use every means available, that they can survive, to stop or slow down their competitors.It is naive to state, for instance, that "they'd embrace the new tech and get in on it, rather than trying to fight it".
The reality is that they also know that their competitors would have every reason to denigrate any such attempts as failed and futile attempts for these incumbent industries to plot their survival and continued monopoly, soley for the purpose of denying entry to new competitors.
These new competitors would petition our government to tax or regulate the existing players to 'level the playing field', as well as ask for breaks and grants to 'encourage alternatives'.
The petroleum industry is locked in this no-win situation, and is being stufffed into the pre-defined role of evil lords of power and control.
And they deserve that position, largely if not entirely due to their own past acts.I have NO sympathy for them.
They have massive capital available, and if they would bear down and exercise their immense leverage, they could do the research, snap up smart minds to solve problems, and bring to market their future products that are now being developed by the nimbler competitors.
They have their chance still, but are squandering the opportunity, or perhaps see that this is a fight they just don't have the stomach for and will milk the world for all it's worth.
The Third World may be their growth market for the next 40 years.
Then again, Africa for example might decide to choose wisely in advance.
That leaves China and India, who might just do their own thing.
A gamble, and the hand has not yet been called.To repeat, while the current powers should indeed be making the investment, they are not idiots to not do so.
They could adopt that strategy, but they have other options, which are not, from a business viewpoint, entirely without merit.
Just risky, and perhaps not serving us the citizens of the world as well as it might, but these are profit-centered organizations.
They do not exist to protect the environment.
If you think this is 'wrong', then you need to work to change the nature and regulation of corporations worldwide.
And I'm with you.
We need to do that.
Soon.  Now.And we do have a right, indeed a duty, to compel them to be less evil.
This is not limited to the petroleum industry, and may be even more important in other sectors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408924</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1268060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you might ask your friend something related to this:</p><p>I saw just once saw a random guy look at world electricity consumption vs energy stored in the wind.  He figured if we got all our electricity from the wind, there would not be  any wind left.  I suspect this argument is so simple. it cannot be spun,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you might ask your friend something related to this : I saw just once saw a random guy look at world electricity consumption vs energy stored in the wind .
He figured if we got all our electricity from the wind , there would not be any wind left .
I suspect this argument is so simple .
it can not be spun,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you might ask your friend something related to this:I saw just once saw a random guy look at world electricity consumption vs energy stored in the wind.
He figured if we got all our electricity from the wind, there would not be  any wind left.
I suspect this argument is so simple.
it cannot be spun,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</id>
	<title>Successful????</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1268045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd only call it mildly successful when it can run at least 50\% without government subsidies.  and fully successful when it is &gt;99\%</p><p>I don't belive we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd only call it mildly successful when it can run at least 50 \ % without government subsidies .
and fully successful when it is &gt; 99 \ % I do n't belive we 'll ever be able to get back a US where there is n't government subsidies in everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd only call it mildly successful when it can run at least 50\% without government subsidies.
and fully successful when it is &gt;99\%I don't belive we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31427326</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268241660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right on target. The government seems to think that laws and taxes solve all problems. When often the best the to do is to just let nature take its course. Another energy example is solar energy. There is no need for government rebate programs, tax credits, etc. to drive solar prices down and to encourage the industry. Geez the waste (time and money) and the fraud that go into that are huge. If they want to move solar forward, just start being a customer &ndash; start putting solar panel on top of the buildings the government owns. The increased demand will drive competition, innovation, price drops, and so on.It really is not as complicated and the government wants it to be so that they remain relevant.</p><p>So, with wind power, no need to build out new transmission line to cover the entire country. Build the farms and announce the really low cost energy for those that live in the area that the farm supports (if it really is less expensive than other types of power). Let nature take its course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right on target .
The government seems to think that laws and taxes solve all problems .
When often the best the to do is to just let nature take its course .
Another energy example is solar energy .
There is no need for government rebate programs , tax credits , etc .
to drive solar prices down and to encourage the industry .
Geez the waste ( time and money ) and the fraud that go into that are huge .
If they want to move solar forward , just start being a customer    start putting solar panel on top of the buildings the government owns .
The increased demand will drive competition , innovation , price drops , and so on.It really is not as complicated and the government wants it to be so that they remain relevant.So , with wind power , no need to build out new transmission line to cover the entire country .
Build the farms and announce the really low cost energy for those that live in the area that the farm supports ( if it really is less expensive than other types of power ) .
Let nature take its course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right on target.
The government seems to think that laws and taxes solve all problems.
When often the best the to do is to just let nature take its course.
Another energy example is solar energy.
There is no need for government rebate programs, tax credits, etc.
to drive solar prices down and to encourage the industry.
Geez the waste (time and money) and the fraud that go into that are huge.
If they want to move solar forward, just start being a customer – start putting solar panel on top of the buildings the government owns.
The increased demand will drive competition, innovation, price drops, and so on.It really is not as complicated and the government wants it to be so that they remain relevant.So, with wind power, no need to build out new transmission line to cover the entire country.
Build the farms and announce the really low cost energy for those that live in the area that the farm supports (if it really is less expensive than other types of power).
Let nature take its course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408948</id>
	<title>Conspiracy Theory</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1268060400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're a natural gas tycoon(which I am long in, although I'm a peon compared to the big guys), your business is selling energy.  You have to pay people to extract the gas from the field.  If you could buy wind farms instead of gas fields and make money, why wouldn't you.  Wind energy is FREE(minus some overhead which you have with gas too), and you could sell it for ALL profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're a natural gas tycoon ( which I am long in , although I 'm a peon compared to the big guys ) , your business is selling energy .
You have to pay people to extract the gas from the field .
If you could buy wind farms instead of gas fields and make money , why would n't you .
Wind energy is FREE ( minus some overhead which you have with gas too ) , and you could sell it for ALL profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're a natural gas tycoon(which I am long in, although I'm a peon compared to the big guys), your business is selling energy.
You have to pay people to extract the gas from the field.
If you could buy wind farms instead of gas fields and make money, why wouldn't you.
Wind energy is FREE(minus some overhead which you have with gas too), and you could sell it for ALL profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411812</id>
	<title>And in Soviet Russia,</title>
	<author>Stephen Samuel</author>
	<datestamp>1268138340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gas companies whine to keep wind from passing them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gas companies whine to keep wind from passing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gas companies whine to keep wind from passing them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406848</id>
	<title>The problem with wind is simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268048280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you have an effective way of storing the energy generated by wind turbines, wind power does nothing to reduce your peak demand for traditional power plants. However, it does reduce the average demand, making traditional plants less economically rewarding. Pretty much the same argument applies to solar. This might be the rationale behind desire for a hydrogen economy; use any excess wind and solar power to separate H20 into hydrogen and oxygen, then use fuel cells for power when it is dark and still (turning the H and O back into good ol' H20).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you have an effective way of storing the energy generated by wind turbines , wind power does nothing to reduce your peak demand for traditional power plants .
However , it does reduce the average demand , making traditional plants less economically rewarding .
Pretty much the same argument applies to solar .
This might be the rationale behind desire for a hydrogen economy ; use any excess wind and solar power to separate H20 into hydrogen and oxygen , then use fuel cells for power when it is dark and still ( turning the H and O back into good ol ' H20 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you have an effective way of storing the energy generated by wind turbines, wind power does nothing to reduce your peak demand for traditional power plants.
However, it does reduce the average demand, making traditional plants less economically rewarding.
Pretty much the same argument applies to solar.
This might be the rationale behind desire for a hydrogen economy; use any excess wind and solar power to separate H20 into hydrogen and oxygen, then use fuel cells for power when it is dark and still (turning the H and O back into good ol' H20).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407530</id>
	<title>Nuclear &gt; Gas+wind &gt; coal</title>
	<author>RareButSeriousSideEf</author>
	<datestamp>1268051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent makes a good point. We need infrastructure upgrades either way -- wind or nuclear. The thing is, conventional nuclear is here today, and mini nuclear is just about ready to go. Either has substantially better near-term carbon-reduction potential than anything else. Beyond the initial carbon savings that come directly from power manufacturing, given some grid investment and a surge in nuclear output, <i>fully</i> electric cars would actually be practical much sooner than is the case now.</p><p>If catastrophic, carbon-fueled global warming is seriously an imminent reality, I don't get why "...Environmentalists are not happy with the President's new trend" on mini-nuclear reactors (as <a href="http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/02/18/mixed-reactions-to-new-mini-nuclear-reactors/" title="consumerenergyreport.com">this article</a> [consumerenergyreport.com] asserts, anyway). If environmentalists were clamoring for nuclear power, I would probably believe that <i>they</i> believed catastrophic, carbon-fueled man-made global warming was real. As it stands, I can only think that those who actively oppose nuclear power don't <i>really</i> think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent makes a good point .
We need infrastructure upgrades either way -- wind or nuclear .
The thing is , conventional nuclear is here today , and mini nuclear is just about ready to go .
Either has substantially better near-term carbon-reduction potential than anything else .
Beyond the initial carbon savings that come directly from power manufacturing , given some grid investment and a surge in nuclear output , fully electric cars would actually be practical much sooner than is the case now.If catastrophic , carbon-fueled global warming is seriously an imminent reality , I do n't get why " ...Environmentalists are not happy with the President 's new trend " on mini-nuclear reactors ( as this article [ consumerenergyreport.com ] asserts , anyway ) .
If environmentalists were clamoring for nuclear power , I would probably believe that they believed catastrophic , carbon-fueled man-made global warming was real .
As it stands , I can only think that those who actively oppose nuclear power do n't really think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent makes a good point.
We need infrastructure upgrades either way -- wind or nuclear.
The thing is, conventional nuclear is here today, and mini nuclear is just about ready to go.
Either has substantially better near-term carbon-reduction potential than anything else.
Beyond the initial carbon savings that come directly from power manufacturing, given some grid investment and a surge in nuclear output, fully electric cars would actually be practical much sooner than is the case now.If catastrophic, carbon-fueled global warming is seriously an imminent reality, I don't get why "...Environmentalists are not happy with the President's new trend" on mini-nuclear reactors (as this article [consumerenergyreport.com] asserts, anyway).
If environmentalists were clamoring for nuclear power, I would probably believe that they believed catastrophic, carbon-fueled man-made global warming was real.
As it stands, I can only think that those who actively oppose nuclear power don't really think so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410444</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>peas\_n\_carrots</author>
	<datestamp>1268075280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The problem is the high voltage transmission infrastructure that no one wants to build. FTFA:<br>
&gt;Reaching a goal of 20 percent wind generation in 2024 would require construction of 10 <br>
&gt;inter-regional high-voltage lines spanning a total of nearly 22,700 miles, at a cost of $93 billion.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure..."<br>
<br>
So you consider 0.093 trillion to be "trillions"?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P<br>
<br>
The national highway system has cost taxpayers far, far more than that.  It too has had to cross state lines.  There's nothing new or excruciatingly painful with running transmission lines, this is mostly a political play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The problem is the high voltage transmission infrastructure that no one wants to build .
FTFA : &gt; Reaching a goal of 20 percent wind generation in 2024 would require construction of 10 &gt; inter-regional high-voltage lines spanning a total of nearly 22,700 miles , at a cost of $ 93 billion .
.. . Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure... " So you consider 0.093 trillion to be " trillions " ?
: P The national highway system has cost taxpayers far , far more than that .
It too has had to cross state lines .
There 's nothing new or excruciatingly painful with running transmission lines , this is mostly a political play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The problem is the high voltage transmission infrastructure that no one wants to build.
FTFA:
&gt;Reaching a goal of 20 percent wind generation in 2024 would require construction of 10 
&gt;inter-regional high-voltage lines spanning a total of nearly 22,700 miles, at a cost of $93 billion.
...
Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure..."

So you consider 0.093 trillion to be "trillions"?
:P

The national highway system has cost taxpayers far, far more than that.
It too has had to cross state lines.
There's nothing new or excruciatingly painful with running transmission lines, this is mostly a political play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406556</id>
	<title>Complicated!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268047320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Among the valid points raised by the carbon-based generators are concerns about how the cost of electricity transmission are allocated and how power quality can be improved</p></div><p>I work in the industry on these two specific problems, and I can say that they are NOT easy to overcome.  Wind power integration is not nearly as simple as one would think it is, and it is much more problematic than traditional power production.  There is a lot of active research going on right now, but it is really coming out that mitigating the power quality and transmission issues are adding substantially to the cost of wind farms; often to the point where they are not viable, even with subsidies.  There is certainly some protectionism from traditional energy companies, however this is not the major roadblock to wind adoption.  The technical issues are still very much an impediment to large wind farms, not some massive anti-wind-power conspiracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Among the valid points raised by the carbon-based generators are concerns about how the cost of electricity transmission are allocated and how power quality can be improvedI work in the industry on these two specific problems , and I can say that they are NOT easy to overcome .
Wind power integration is not nearly as simple as one would think it is , and it is much more problematic than traditional power production .
There is a lot of active research going on right now , but it is really coming out that mitigating the power quality and transmission issues are adding substantially to the cost of wind farms ; often to the point where they are not viable , even with subsidies .
There is certainly some protectionism from traditional energy companies , however this is not the major roadblock to wind adoption .
The technical issues are still very much an impediment to large wind farms , not some massive anti-wind-power conspiracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Among the valid points raised by the carbon-based generators are concerns about how the cost of electricity transmission are allocated and how power quality can be improvedI work in the industry on these two specific problems, and I can say that they are NOT easy to overcome.
Wind power integration is not nearly as simple as one would think it is, and it is much more problematic than traditional power production.
There is a lot of active research going on right now, but it is really coming out that mitigating the power quality and transmission issues are adding substantially to the cost of wind farms; often to the point where they are not viable, even with subsidies.
There is certainly some protectionism from traditional energy companies, however this is not the major roadblock to wind adoption.
The technical issues are still very much an impediment to large wind farms, not some massive anti-wind-power conspiracy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406168</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>skids</author>
	<datestamp>1268046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't belive we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...You mean, like, including fossil fuels, right, because they pull in tons of subsidies?  You do know that, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't belive we 'll ever be able to get back a US where there is n't government subsidies in everything .
" ...You mean , like , including fossil fuels , right , because they pull in tons of subsidies ?
You do know that , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't belive we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.
" ...You mean, like, including fossil fuels, right, because they pull in tons of subsidies?
You do know that, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409918</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Shivani1141</author>
	<datestamp>1268070120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carbon is not the entire problem. everyone is worried about carbon, because carbon supposedly adds heat to the earth. Carbon keeps heat here. that's all it does. the problem is the waste heat generated by the first world nations. stop and think about the amount of waste heat our society produces on a day to day basis. on average a set of brakes on a single car will heat up and then dissipate off up to 200C of heat several times a day. a Coal plant will discard 20\% of it's output AT LEAST in waste heat all day. and in this nation we have several 300MW and larger coal plants. I live and work in a city with two of them. when the heat exchange tower for the newer, more modern, ahem, clean coal plant activates (it's a steam bed, basically, four basins 20m in diameter that discharge waste heat as steam into the atmosphere.  Saskpower Shand Generation station, if you're interested) the greenhouse, more than a km away, routinely has the temperature outside raise by up to 5C on a -40C day.</p><p>
 Accumulation of waste heat in the biosphere is the root cause of global warming. carbon dioxide only makes it worse by lessening the extent to which the earth is capable of radiating her heat load off into space. Wind helps with this, because Capturing the wind robs the biosphere of energy, which in this case is generated by heat. convection drives the wind, heat drives convection. Wind is not the solution, but it's a far better one than nuclear which again just adds more energy and therefore waste heat to the environment. the end result of every joule of electricity generated on earth today is waste heat. every last joule. we need to start taking some of that energy back out of the environment, whether by capturing it with solar cells (well, not capturing our heat, but removing some measure of the new heat the sun adds), harvesting it's result with wind generators, and perhaps invest more in some thermovaltic solutions to harvest heat from the ocean as electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carbon is not the entire problem .
everyone is worried about carbon , because carbon supposedly adds heat to the earth .
Carbon keeps heat here .
that 's all it does .
the problem is the waste heat generated by the first world nations .
stop and think about the amount of waste heat our society produces on a day to day basis .
on average a set of brakes on a single car will heat up and then dissipate off up to 200C of heat several times a day .
a Coal plant will discard 20 \ % of it 's output AT LEAST in waste heat all day .
and in this nation we have several 300MW and larger coal plants .
I live and work in a city with two of them .
when the heat exchange tower for the newer , more modern , ahem , clean coal plant activates ( it 's a steam bed , basically , four basins 20m in diameter that discharge waste heat as steam into the atmosphere .
Saskpower Shand Generation station , if you 're interested ) the greenhouse , more than a km away , routinely has the temperature outside raise by up to 5C on a -40C day .
Accumulation of waste heat in the biosphere is the root cause of global warming .
carbon dioxide only makes it worse by lessening the extent to which the earth is capable of radiating her heat load off into space .
Wind helps with this , because Capturing the wind robs the biosphere of energy , which in this case is generated by heat .
convection drives the wind , heat drives convection .
Wind is not the solution , but it 's a far better one than nuclear which again just adds more energy and therefore waste heat to the environment .
the end result of every joule of electricity generated on earth today is waste heat .
every last joule .
we need to start taking some of that energy back out of the environment , whether by capturing it with solar cells ( well , not capturing our heat , but removing some measure of the new heat the sun adds ) , harvesting it 's result with wind generators , and perhaps invest more in some thermovaltic solutions to harvest heat from the ocean as electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carbon is not the entire problem.
everyone is worried about carbon, because carbon supposedly adds heat to the earth.
Carbon keeps heat here.
that's all it does.
the problem is the waste heat generated by the first world nations.
stop and think about the amount of waste heat our society produces on a day to day basis.
on average a set of brakes on a single car will heat up and then dissipate off up to 200C of heat several times a day.
a Coal plant will discard 20\% of it's output AT LEAST in waste heat all day.
and in this nation we have several 300MW and larger coal plants.
I live and work in a city with two of them.
when the heat exchange tower for the newer, more modern, ahem, clean coal plant activates (it's a steam bed, basically, four basins 20m in diameter that discharge waste heat as steam into the atmosphere.
Saskpower Shand Generation station, if you're interested) the greenhouse, more than a km away, routinely has the temperature outside raise by up to 5C on a -40C day.
Accumulation of waste heat in the biosphere is the root cause of global warming.
carbon dioxide only makes it worse by lessening the extent to which the earth is capable of radiating her heat load off into space.
Wind helps with this, because Capturing the wind robs the biosphere of energy, which in this case is generated by heat.
convection drives the wind, heat drives convection.
Wind is not the solution, but it's a far better one than nuclear which again just adds more energy and therefore waste heat to the environment.
the end result of every joule of electricity generated on earth today is waste heat.
every last joule.
we need to start taking some of that energy back out of the environment, whether by capturing it with solar cells (well, not capturing our heat, but removing some measure of the new heat the sun adds), harvesting it's result with wind generators, and perhaps invest more in some thermovaltic solutions to harvest heat from the ocean as electricity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406008</id>
	<title>Missed the Better Headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gas Seeking to Break Wind</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gas Seeking to Break Wind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gas Seeking to Break Wind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31448424</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>definate</author>
	<datestamp>1268325780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm an economist, and you're totally misrepresenting us here. Someone who is not trying to push their view point would tell you that regulation is more of an ideological view point, where economists will answer based on how practical they think it is, and which system they think will be more efficient. Any argument concerning this is fraught with all sorts of problems, which makes an totally rational and objective view point, impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an economist , and you 're totally misrepresenting us here .
Someone who is not trying to push their view point would tell you that regulation is more of an ideological view point , where economists will answer based on how practical they think it is , and which system they think will be more efficient .
Any argument concerning this is fraught with all sorts of problems , which makes an totally rational and objective view point , impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an economist, and you're totally misrepresenting us here.
Someone who is not trying to push their view point would tell you that regulation is more of an ideological view point, where economists will answer based on how practical they think it is, and which system they think will be more efficient.
Any argument concerning this is fraught with all sorts of problems, which makes an totally rational and objective view point, impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31418526</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268126700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>I don't know what the answer is. One possible answer in this case to go full-federal and dissolve the states as independent bodies, so at least you'd only have to deal with a single monolithic federal morass instead of that plus forty-eight smaller but in aggregate hugely complex systems, but that comes with its own attendant issues.<br></em></p><p>May I suggest an alternative solution: faster processing of information with <b>COMPUTERS</b>. Develop an expert system that informs people what data they need to obtain (including different types of data to inhibit cheating), and then spit out the Yes/No answer in less than a day. Prove the system out over a variety of projects, and the problem gets a lot better.</p><p>Gather all the past applications and decisions to use as training data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what the answer is .
One possible answer in this case to go full-federal and dissolve the states as independent bodies , so at least you 'd only have to deal with a single monolithic federal morass instead of that plus forty-eight smaller but in aggregate hugely complex systems , but that comes with its own attendant issues.May I suggest an alternative solution : faster processing of information with COMPUTERS .
Develop an expert system that informs people what data they need to obtain ( including different types of data to inhibit cheating ) , and then spit out the Yes/No answer in less than a day .
Prove the system out over a variety of projects , and the problem gets a lot better.Gather all the past applications and decisions to use as training data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what the answer is.
One possible answer in this case to go full-federal and dissolve the states as independent bodies, so at least you'd only have to deal with a single monolithic federal morass instead of that plus forty-eight smaller but in aggregate hugely complex systems, but that comes with its own attendant issues.May I suggest an alternative solution: faster processing of information with COMPUTERS.
Develop an expert system that informs people what data they need to obtain (including different types of data to inhibit cheating), and then spit out the Yes/No answer in less than a day.
Prove the system out over a variety of projects, and the problem gets a lot better.Gather all the past applications and decisions to use as training data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406050</id>
	<title>Gas Wants To Kill . . .</title>
	<author>babboo65</author>
	<datestamp>1268045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>according to my wife I have the same problem sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>according to my wife I have the same problem sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>according to my wife I have the same problem sometimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405930</id>
	<title>Nigger Joke First Post!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What was the only thing missing from the Million Man March?  Three miles of chain and an auctioneer!
<br> <br>
What's the difference between a black welfara mama and an elephant?  About four pounds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What was the only thing missing from the Million Man March ?
Three miles of chain and an auctioneer !
What 's the difference between a black welfara mama and an elephant ?
About four pounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was the only thing missing from the Million Man March?
Three miles of chain and an auctioneer!
What's the difference between a black welfara mama and an elephant?
About four pounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406328</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>ciggieposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1268046660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and fully successful when it is &gt;99\%</i></p><p>In America at least there are zero successful industries by your definition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and fully successful when it is &gt; 99 \ % In America at least there are zero successful industries by your definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and fully successful when it is &gt;99\%In America at least there are zero successful industries by your definition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406232</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>NoseBag</author>
	<datestamp>1268046360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. I don't think there's a single wind-power installation anywhere in the world that is anywhere close to truly self-supporting. They are a great idea but just don't cut it commercially.</p><p>Even the Danes - major investors in (and sellers of) the technology haven't been able to make it pay - except by exporting the technology to other countries. That's why they've tried hushing the economic reports about their w-farms; they don't want to scare away customers with the facts.</p><p>That's a pity: I always liked the idea of windfarms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I do n't think there 's a single wind-power installation anywhere in the world that is anywhere close to truly self-supporting .
They are a great idea but just do n't cut it commercially.Even the Danes - major investors in ( and sellers of ) the technology have n't been able to make it pay - except by exporting the technology to other countries .
That 's why they 've tried hushing the economic reports about their w-farms ; they do n't want to scare away customers with the facts.That 's a pity : I always liked the idea of windfarms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I don't think there's a single wind-power installation anywhere in the world that is anywhere close to truly self-supporting.
They are a great idea but just don't cut it commercially.Even the Danes - major investors in (and sellers of) the technology haven't been able to make it pay - except by exporting the technology to other countries.
That's why they've tried hushing the economic reports about their w-farms; they don't want to scare away customers with the facts.That's a pity: I always liked the idea of windfarms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409482</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>snarfer</author>
	<datestamp>1268065140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the legacy of the Reagan, and later the Bush tax cuts.  We deferred maintenance of our infrastructure, never mind modernization.  Now it is caught up to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the legacy of the Reagan , and later the Bush tax cuts .
We deferred maintenance of our infrastructure , never mind modernization .
Now it is caught up to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the legacy of the Reagan, and later the Bush tax cuts.
We deferred maintenance of our infrastructure, never mind modernization.
Now it is caught up to us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412154</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1268142240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?</p>  </div><p>You say that like they aren't now, you don't think that ConnEd can keep the lights on in NYC without DET in Michigan do you? We've got power plants here that were specifically built to wholesale power to the grid. Think about  it a tree shorts out a line or two in Ohio and a quarter of the country goes dark.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast ?
You say that like they are n't now , you do n't think that ConnEd can keep the lights on in NYC without DET in Michigan do you ?
We 've got power plants here that were specifically built to wholesale power to the grid .
Think about it a tree shorts out a line or two in Ohio and a quarter of the country goes dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?
You say that like they aren't now, you don't think that ConnEd can keep the lights on in NYC without DET in Michigan do you?
We've got power plants here that were specifically built to wholesale power to the grid.
Think about  it a tree shorts out a line or two in Ohio and a quarter of the country goes dark.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406720</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>Aranykai</author>
	<datestamp>1268047800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>electricity from coal - 0.44 dollars/MWh (the vast majority of US power is produced with this method)<br>refined coal - 29.81 dollars/MWh<br>solar - 24.34 dollars/MWh<br>wind - 23.37 dollars/MWh</p><p>Some of these things are not like the other. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy\_subsidies" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy\_subsidies</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>electricity from coal - 0.44 dollars/MWh ( the vast majority of US power is produced with this method ) refined coal - 29.81 dollars/MWhsolar - 24.34 dollars/MWhwind - 23.37 dollars/MWhSome of these things are not like the other .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy \ _subsidies [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>electricity from coal - 0.44 dollars/MWh (the vast majority of US power is produced with this method)refined coal - 29.81 dollars/MWhsolar - 24.34 dollars/MWhwind - 23.37 dollars/MWhSome of these things are not like the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy\_subsidies [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409500</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268065260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why repair whats outdated?  just put in new, better, cleaner systems and say goodbye to the old ways of doing things.  Oh right... the people who control the money don't wanna do that.  Hurray for Capitalism..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.such a great force for progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why repair whats outdated ?
just put in new , better , cleaner systems and say goodbye to the old ways of doing things .
Oh right... the people who control the money do n't wan na do that .
Hurray for Capitalism.. .such a great force for progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why repair whats outdated?
just put in new, better, cleaner systems and say goodbye to the old ways of doing things.
Oh right... the people who control the money don't wanna do that.
Hurray for Capitalism.. .such a great force for progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412576</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268145360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Socialist!!!  Burn the SOCIALIST!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Socialist ! ! !
Burn the SOCIALIST ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Socialist!!!
Burn the SOCIALIST!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406428</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1268047020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism.</i></p><p>No, some economists would say that government attempts to moderate the boom-bust cycle of capitalism (such as the Fed's action to purposely burst the stock bubble of the late 1920's through deflation) have often proven to be worse than letting the economy alone.  Keynesian stimulus spending rarely works well, because even if it works in one's theory, in practice governments never save during good times, and when spending happens it is inefficient, slow, and corrupt.</p><p>This <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk" title="youtube.com">rap video</a> [youtube.com] provides one viewpoint along these lines.</p><p>Now keeping the banking system intact is a separate issue - although I think it will be many years before we know if saving "too big to fail" banks was better or worse than letting them fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism.No , some economists would say that government attempts to moderate the boom-bust cycle of capitalism ( such as the Fed 's action to purposely burst the stock bubble of the late 1920 's through deflation ) have often proven to be worse than letting the economy alone .
Keynesian stimulus spending rarely works well , because even if it works in one 's theory , in practice governments never save during good times , and when spending happens it is inefficient , slow , and corrupt.This rap video [ youtube.com ] provides one viewpoint along these lines.Now keeping the banking system intact is a separate issue - although I think it will be many years before we know if saving " too big to fail " banks was better or worse than letting them fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism.No, some economists would say that government attempts to moderate the boom-bust cycle of capitalism (such as the Fed's action to purposely burst the stock bubble of the late 1920's through deflation) have often proven to be worse than letting the economy alone.
Keynesian stimulus spending rarely works well, because even if it works in one's theory, in practice governments never save during good times, and when spending happens it is inefficient, slow, and corrupt.This rap video [youtube.com] provides one viewpoint along these lines.Now keeping the banking system intact is a separate issue - although I think it will be many years before we know if saving "too big to fail" banks was better or worse than letting them fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407496</id>
	<title>Casinos</title>
	<author>Xaedalus</author>
	<datestamp>1268051100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "Show me a business that has a good case for encouraging their competition." </p><p> Las Vegas is built upon casinos encouraging their competitors to build next to them. Until the recession hit, it was a foolproof way for over fifteen years to get more crowds to come to Vegas. The latest spectacle of a casino would draw in larger crowds from around the world to come see it, and stay in the available rooms, and eat, and gamble. Case in point: Steve Wynn and the story of how he sold the Mirage to MGM/Kirk Kerkorian, and then went on to build the Bellagio, and the Wynn, etc. </p><p> there are other examples of how businesses in certain instances actually do want competitors coming in to help broaden and strengthen an industry. Energy companies would be one of those markets. A prior poster explained it best: mature companies "fight" innovators - forcing innovators to improve their product. Once those innovators have a healthy durable product/service, then the mature companies can come in, purchase them, and incorporate the product/service into their own portfolio. It's how capitalism has worked for hundreds of years </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Show me a business that has a good case for encouraging their competition .
" Las Vegas is built upon casinos encouraging their competitors to build next to them .
Until the recession hit , it was a foolproof way for over fifteen years to get more crowds to come to Vegas .
The latest spectacle of a casino would draw in larger crowds from around the world to come see it , and stay in the available rooms , and eat , and gamble .
Case in point : Steve Wynn and the story of how he sold the Mirage to MGM/Kirk Kerkorian , and then went on to build the Bellagio , and the Wynn , etc .
there are other examples of how businesses in certain instances actually do want competitors coming in to help broaden and strengthen an industry .
Energy companies would be one of those markets .
A prior poster explained it best : mature companies " fight " innovators - forcing innovators to improve their product .
Once those innovators have a healthy durable product/service , then the mature companies can come in , purchase them , and incorporate the product/service into their own portfolio .
It 's how capitalism has worked for hundreds of years</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Show me a business that has a good case for encouraging their competition.
"  Las Vegas is built upon casinos encouraging their competitors to build next to them.
Until the recession hit, it was a foolproof way for over fifteen years to get more crowds to come to Vegas.
The latest spectacle of a casino would draw in larger crowds from around the world to come see it, and stay in the available rooms, and eat, and gamble.
Case in point: Steve Wynn and the story of how he sold the Mirage to MGM/Kirk Kerkorian, and then went on to build the Bellagio, and the Wynn, etc.
there are other examples of how businesses in certain instances actually do want competitors coming in to help broaden and strengthen an industry.
Energy companies would be one of those markets.
A prior poster explained it best: mature companies "fight" innovators - forcing innovators to improve their product.
Once those innovators have a healthy durable product/service, then the mature companies can come in, purchase them, and incorporate the product/service into their own portfolio.
It's how capitalism has worked for hundreds of years </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31423310</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>johnlcallaway</author>
	<datestamp>1268159340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The federal highway system is an example of what the US government SHOULDN'T get involved in.  Sure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. it made a great highway system so that goods could easily move from one area to the other.  It also wiped out HUNDREDS of small towns and made it simpler to mass people in large cities instead of small towns. It virtually eliminated the need for a railroad system since no one really had to travel much anymore. Then it allowed the federal government to jack up all of our income taxes to support it, and turn around and blackmail states into speed limit, seat belt, and drinking age laws in order to help keep those federal highway dollars coming in. THAT is the success of the federal highway system, more pollution, more congestion, and more control over our lives by federal politicians instead of our local and state governments.
<br> <br>
The United STATES of America is one big experiment.  States that do poorly look at states that do well and try to model them.  Instead of one big education system, we have 50 small ones all run a little differently simultaneously that can be looked at, examined, and modeled by the other states. Health care is another example of being able to look at what hasn't worked to model new methods.
<br> <br>
It is better to have several, independent power systems that compete with one another than one large one with only one way of doing things and a central control that could fail and take down everything. I think it's great that Texas and California and other states have this abundance of electricity. Let the companies that wish to tap it find ways to market it. Because once the feds control it, they can use that control to exert even more influence over our lives.
<br> <br>
The United States has a constitution. But so does each state. The Bill of Rights came to be because our Federal politicians saw what each state had put into their constitution, and picked what they considered to be the best for the Bill of Rights. In other words, they were threatened by the power the states were exerting. While running 50 experiments may be inefficient, it is also the best way to find the best solutions in the end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The federal highway system is an example of what the US government SHOULD N'T get involved in .
Sure .. it made a great highway system so that goods could easily move from one area to the other .
It also wiped out HUNDREDS of small towns and made it simpler to mass people in large cities instead of small towns .
It virtually eliminated the need for a railroad system since no one really had to travel much anymore .
Then it allowed the federal government to jack up all of our income taxes to support it , and turn around and blackmail states into speed limit , seat belt , and drinking age laws in order to help keep those federal highway dollars coming in .
THAT is the success of the federal highway system , more pollution , more congestion , and more control over our lives by federal politicians instead of our local and state governments .
The United STATES of America is one big experiment .
States that do poorly look at states that do well and try to model them .
Instead of one big education system , we have 50 small ones all run a little differently simultaneously that can be looked at , examined , and modeled by the other states .
Health care is another example of being able to look at what has n't worked to model new methods .
It is better to have several , independent power systems that compete with one another than one large one with only one way of doing things and a central control that could fail and take down everything .
I think it 's great that Texas and California and other states have this abundance of electricity .
Let the companies that wish to tap it find ways to market it .
Because once the feds control it , they can use that control to exert even more influence over our lives .
The United States has a constitution .
But so does each state .
The Bill of Rights came to be because our Federal politicians saw what each state had put into their constitution , and picked what they considered to be the best for the Bill of Rights .
In other words , they were threatened by the power the states were exerting .
While running 50 experiments may be inefficient , it is also the best way to find the best solutions in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The federal highway system is an example of what the US government SHOULDN'T get involved in.
Sure .. it made a great highway system so that goods could easily move from one area to the other.
It also wiped out HUNDREDS of small towns and made it simpler to mass people in large cities instead of small towns.
It virtually eliminated the need for a railroad system since no one really had to travel much anymore.
Then it allowed the federal government to jack up all of our income taxes to support it, and turn around and blackmail states into speed limit, seat belt, and drinking age laws in order to help keep those federal highway dollars coming in.
THAT is the success of the federal highway system, more pollution, more congestion, and more control over our lives by federal politicians instead of our local and state governments.
The United STATES of America is one big experiment.
States that do poorly look at states that do well and try to model them.
Instead of one big education system, we have 50 small ones all run a little differently simultaneously that can be looked at, examined, and modeled by the other states.
Health care is another example of being able to look at what hasn't worked to model new methods.
It is better to have several, independent power systems that compete with one another than one large one with only one way of doing things and a central control that could fail and take down everything.
I think it's great that Texas and California and other states have this abundance of electricity.
Let the companies that wish to tap it find ways to market it.
Because once the feds control it, they can use that control to exert even more influence over our lives.
The United States has a constitution.
But so does each state.
The Bill of Rights came to be because our Federal politicians saw what each state had put into their constitution, and picked what they considered to be the best for the Bill of Rights.
In other words, they were threatened by the power the states were exerting.
While running 50 experiments may be inefficient, it is also the best way to find the best solutions in the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407970</id>
	<title>Independence from the conversation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real deal is to stop buying power from these companies, coal, NG, nuclear, or wind and make it yourself.  That is the only way special interests will ever die out, once they no longer have a revenue stream in which to bribe politicians.</p><p>The whole debate is a bunch of bullshit.  I'm putting up a solar water heater this summer, that will cut my electric bill by 30\%.  After that I'm putting up a single solar panel with mini-inverter which will cut it another 5\%.  I will be adding to that each year until my electric bill becomes a trivial thing that won't command my attention.</p><p>After that I could care less if the major generators make their electricity from sunshine, the wind, or burn pupies to do it because I won't be buying from them anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real deal is to stop buying power from these companies , coal , NG , nuclear , or wind and make it yourself .
That is the only way special interests will ever die out , once they no longer have a revenue stream in which to bribe politicians.The whole debate is a bunch of bullshit .
I 'm putting up a solar water heater this summer , that will cut my electric bill by 30 \ % .
After that I 'm putting up a single solar panel with mini-inverter which will cut it another 5 \ % .
I will be adding to that each year until my electric bill becomes a trivial thing that wo n't command my attention.After that I could care less if the major generators make their electricity from sunshine , the wind , or burn pupies to do it because I wo n't be buying from them anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real deal is to stop buying power from these companies, coal, NG, nuclear, or wind and make it yourself.
That is the only way special interests will ever die out, once they no longer have a revenue stream in which to bribe politicians.The whole debate is a bunch of bullshit.
I'm putting up a solar water heater this summer, that will cut my electric bill by 30\%.
After that I'm putting up a single solar panel with mini-inverter which will cut it another 5\%.
I will be adding to that each year until my electric bill becomes a trivial thing that won't command my attention.After that I could care less if the major generators make their electricity from sunshine, the wind, or burn pupies to do it because I won't be buying from them anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407142</id>
	<title>Seems kind of one sided</title>
	<author>ATestR</author>
	<datestamp>1268049420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd take this article with a grain of salt.  At least one big name in Natural Gas (T Boone Pickens) is very much interested in promoting Wind Power. (See the <a href="http://www.pickensplan.com/" title="pickensplan.com">Picken's Plan</a> [pickensplan.com].)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd take this article with a grain of salt .
At least one big name in Natural Gas ( T Boone Pickens ) is very much interested in promoting Wind Power .
( See the Picken 's Plan [ pickensplan.com ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd take this article with a grain of salt.
At least one big name in Natural Gas (T Boone Pickens) is very much interested in promoting Wind Power.
(See the Picken's Plan [pickensplan.com].
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409154</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.</i>
<p>
I thought I read that pebble bed reactors could ramp their power levels up and down in a matter of minutes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Reason you use gas is it 's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear .
I thought I read that pebble bed reactors could ramp their power levels up and down in a matter of minutes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.
I thought I read that pebble bed reactors could ramp their power levels up and down in a matter of minutes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407984</id>
	<title>Re:Join forces!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or pipe the gas to Gas stations to refill all those fuel cell vehicles...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or pipe the gas to Gas stations to refill all those fuel cell vehicles.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or pipe the gas to Gas stations to refill all those fuel cell vehicles...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406094</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268045880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BRB painting myself black and registering as a 'native american'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BRB painting myself black and registering as a 'native american'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BRB painting myself black and registering as a 'native american'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407258</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed... let's move forward with the current p</title>
	<author>sedmonds</author>
	<datestamp>1268050020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once upon a time, big successful companies had no trouble justifying R&amp;D to shareholders.  Then MBAs started being given out like candy, with teaching that the only thing that matters is the next quarter stock price.  Cutting R&amp;D frees up a bunch of money in the next few quarters.  That makes short term investors and managers happy.  But it comes at the cost of mountains of FUTURE revenue from the fruits of R&amp;D.  So you have companies like DEC and HP that went from research and development powers, to a company that makes commodities - cookie-cutter cheapest-parts-they-can-find PCs and shitty printers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time , big successful companies had no trouble justifying R&amp;D to shareholders .
Then MBAs started being given out like candy , with teaching that the only thing that matters is the next quarter stock price .
Cutting R&amp;D frees up a bunch of money in the next few quarters .
That makes short term investors and managers happy .
But it comes at the cost of mountains of FUTURE revenue from the fruits of R&amp;D .
So you have companies like DEC and HP that went from research and development powers , to a company that makes commodities - cookie-cutter cheapest-parts-they-can-find PCs and shitty printers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once upon a time, big successful companies had no trouble justifying R&amp;D to shareholders.
Then MBAs started being given out like candy, with teaching that the only thing that matters is the next quarter stock price.
Cutting R&amp;D frees up a bunch of money in the next few quarters.
That makes short term investors and managers happy.
But it comes at the cost of mountains of FUTURE revenue from the fruits of R&amp;D.
So you have companies like DEC and HP that went from research and development powers, to a company that makes commodities - cookie-cutter cheapest-parts-they-can-find PCs and shitty printers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407076</id>
	<title>Re:Join forces!</title>
	<author>jollespm</author>
	<datestamp>1268049180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A <a href="http://www.gepower.com/prod\_serv/products/aero\_turbines/en/lm6000.htm" title="gepower.com" rel="nofollow">LM6000</a> [gepower.com] aero derivative gas turbine will start up in 10-15 minutes. There really isn't much need for stop gap systems like compressed air unless your meteorologists are really bad.<br> <br>There are plenty of garbage incineration plants around, the biggest complaint are all the heavy metals and toxins that get released that are not found in natural gas. They can be scrubbed, but it is relatively difficult and expensive to do it really well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A LM6000 [ gepower.com ] aero derivative gas turbine will start up in 10-15 minutes .
There really is n't much need for stop gap systems like compressed air unless your meteorologists are really bad .
There are plenty of garbage incineration plants around , the biggest complaint are all the heavy metals and toxins that get released that are not found in natural gas .
They can be scrubbed , but it is relatively difficult and expensive to do it really well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A LM6000 [gepower.com] aero derivative gas turbine will start up in 10-15 minutes.
There really isn't much need for stop gap systems like compressed air unless your meteorologists are really bad.
There are plenty of garbage incineration plants around, the biggest complaint are all the heavy metals and toxins that get released that are not found in natural gas.
They can be scrubbed, but it is relatively difficult and expensive to do it really well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406274</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1268046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't wind do better if the turbines were closer together? I remember reading that the way wind turbines are placed (axis parallel to the ground) they had to be placed something like 10 rotor lengths apart to get full efficiency, while vertical orientations can be packed much more densely, getting more electricity out of the same land area.
</p><p>I like wind power, because I think it's kind of neat, but unless we get a good temporary storage mechanism (new battery type, compressed something-or-other, flywheels, etc) I don't think will every be terribly useful for the general public, maybe only some manufacturing with large power demands who might be able to step things up on windy days to take advantage of the cheap electricity's temporary availability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't wind do better if the turbines were closer together ?
I remember reading that the way wind turbines are placed ( axis parallel to the ground ) they had to be placed something like 10 rotor lengths apart to get full efficiency , while vertical orientations can be packed much more densely , getting more electricity out of the same land area .
I like wind power , because I think it 's kind of neat , but unless we get a good temporary storage mechanism ( new battery type , compressed something-or-other , flywheels , etc ) I do n't think will every be terribly useful for the general public , maybe only some manufacturing with large power demands who might be able to step things up on windy days to take advantage of the cheap electricity 's temporary availability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't wind do better if the turbines were closer together?
I remember reading that the way wind turbines are placed (axis parallel to the ground) they had to be placed something like 10 rotor lengths apart to get full efficiency, while vertical orientations can be packed much more densely, getting more electricity out of the same land area.
I like wind power, because I think it's kind of neat, but unless we get a good temporary storage mechanism (new battery type, compressed something-or-other, flywheels, etc) I don't think will every be terribly useful for the general public, maybe only some manufacturing with large power demands who might be able to step things up on windy days to take advantage of the cheap electricity's temporary availability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410002</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>currently\_awake</author>
	<datestamp>1268070840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they tried this in California, i believe they got 30 cent per kwh electricity and rolling blackouts.  History has clearly shown that economics is a very poor guide for large scale essential services.  Things like highways, the police, and utilities just work better when controlled by the people (government).</htmltext>
<tokenext>they tried this in California , i believe they got 30 cent per kwh electricity and rolling blackouts .
History has clearly shown that economics is a very poor guide for large scale essential services .
Things like highways , the police , and utilities just work better when controlled by the people ( government ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they tried this in California, i believe they got 30 cent per kwh electricity and rolling blackouts.
History has clearly shown that economics is a very poor guide for large scale essential services.
Things like highways, the police, and utilities just work better when controlled by the people (government).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407522</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>Z34107</author>
	<datestamp>1268051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism.</i> </p><p>Actually, a lot - maybe even most - won't.  Keynes was the only economist that really, really pushed the idea that it's even <i>possible</i> to "flatten" such a cycle, and that government is the perfect tool with which to do it.</p><p>Friedman would chuckle, and Ron Paul (OK, not an economist) wrote a book on why the boom/bust cycle is <i>really</i> a symptom of central banks.  Mankiw explicitly condemns such things.</p><p>Now, if you want to talk about what caused the Great Depression, ask Bernanke.  But, lack of economic fiber was just a piece of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism .
Actually , a lot - maybe even most - wo n't .
Keynes was the only economist that really , really pushed the idea that it 's even possible to " flatten " such a cycle , and that government is the perfect tool with which to do it.Friedman would chuckle , and Ron Paul ( OK , not an economist ) wrote a book on why the boom/bust cycle is really a symptom of central banks .
Mankiw explicitly condemns such things.Now , if you want to talk about what caused the Great Depression , ask Bernanke .
But , lack of economic fiber was just a piece of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism.
Actually, a lot - maybe even most - won't.
Keynes was the only economist that really, really pushed the idea that it's even possible to "flatten" such a cycle, and that government is the perfect tool with which to do it.Friedman would chuckle, and Ron Paul (OK, not an economist) wrote a book on why the boom/bust cycle is really a symptom of central banks.
Mankiw explicitly condemns such things.Now, if you want to talk about what caused the Great Depression, ask Bernanke.
But, lack of economic fiber was just a piece of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408232</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268055420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind can supply base load by sourcing energy from diverse geographic sites. The research has already been done, but it pre-supposes the existence of power transmission infrastructure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind can supply base load by sourcing energy from diverse geographic sites .
The research has already been done , but it pre-supposes the existence of power transmission infrastructure .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind can supply base load by sourcing energy from diverse geographic sites.
The research has already been done, but it pre-supposes the existence of power transmission infrastructure ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408810</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268059320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.</p></div></blockquote><p>Gas is only marginally easier than coal - it's the preheat time for the water in the loop that's the real killer AIUI.  Nuclear could be fast reacting as well, naval nuclear reactors certainly are, and I don't know why civilian ones aren't.</p><p>Disclaimer:  I have served onboard a nuclear powered submarine, though as a strategic weapons tech not as a nuke.  I have a working familiarity with nuclear power plants however.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Reason you use gas is it 's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.Gas is only marginally easier than coal - it 's the preheat time for the water in the loop that 's the real killer AIUI .
Nuclear could be fast reacting as well , naval nuclear reactors certainly are , and I do n't know why civilian ones are n't.Disclaimer : I have served onboard a nuclear powered submarine , though as a strategic weapons tech not as a nuke .
I have a working familiarity with nuclear power plants however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.Gas is only marginally easier than coal - it's the preheat time for the water in the loop that's the real killer AIUI.
Nuclear could be fast reacting as well, naval nuclear reactors certainly are, and I don't know why civilian ones aren't.Disclaimer:  I have served onboard a nuclear powered submarine, though as a strategic weapons tech not as a nuke.
I have a working familiarity with nuclear power plants however.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31461512</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>NoseBag</author>
	<datestamp>1268415840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read this:</p><p><a href="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0hoYhsrBS" title="nationalpost.com">http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0hoYhsrBS</a> [nationalpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read this : http : //network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx # ixzz0hoYhsrBS [ nationalpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read this:http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0hoYhsrBS [nationalpost.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31414922</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268155140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off [than] Coal/Nuclear.</p></div><p>There were a couple of posts talking about this w.r.t. nuclear.  I'd like to give a better understanding of this:</p><p>While it may be true that the design considerations of our existing nuclear generating facilities cause it to be difficult to ramp up/down easily, it is possible to have nuclear power plants that could do so.  What most people are missing is <b>more important than capability of doing so is the cost considerations of continuing running</b>.</p><p>Take a look at <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/\_lfibbBnlKt8/S21aulo3xcI/AAAAAAAAAoY/Qtbgoy9-BDI/s400/Monthly\_fuel\_cost\_US\_Electric\_Utilities.png" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">this chart</a> [blogspot.com].</p><p>Once you have a nuclear power plant running safely, the cost of fissioning the fuel (or burning coal) is minuscule compared to the cost of burning natural gas.  Nuclear power's high costs come from heavy construction cost for high quality components, maintaining the plant in safe condition, and paying the staff - not fuel.</p><p>For the time being, the fuel cost of coal power plants are also quite low.  This may change once we start taxing waste gasses from fossil fuels.  I'm of the opinion that greenhouse ones aren't even the worst.</p><p>On the other hand, natural gas prices are highly volatile, and they make up a substantial portion of their operating costs.  This is why they are used as make-up, and coal+nuke are our baseload.</p><p>Before someone says "Yea, what about the cost of storing that used radioactive fuel," - It's already covered.  Nuclear power plants put money into a pool for disposing of the stuff.  Aside from the financial aspect, you have to keep in mind that the huge difference in fuel/energy ratio of fission to fossil fuels means that while we burn thousands of pounds of coal per day per plant, <b>all</b> of our existing spent nuclear fuel could be stored in a facility that is as big as a football field.  That's without reprocessing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Reason you use gas is it 's easier to turn on and off [ than ] Coal/Nuclear.There were a couple of posts talking about this w.r.t .
nuclear. I 'd like to give a better understanding of this : While it may be true that the design considerations of our existing nuclear generating facilities cause it to be difficult to ramp up/down easily , it is possible to have nuclear power plants that could do so .
What most people are missing is more important than capability of doing so is the cost considerations of continuing running.Take a look at this chart [ blogspot.com ] .Once you have a nuclear power plant running safely , the cost of fissioning the fuel ( or burning coal ) is minuscule compared to the cost of burning natural gas .
Nuclear power 's high costs come from heavy construction cost for high quality components , maintaining the plant in safe condition , and paying the staff - not fuel.For the time being , the fuel cost of coal power plants are also quite low .
This may change once we start taxing waste gasses from fossil fuels .
I 'm of the opinion that greenhouse ones are n't even the worst.On the other hand , natural gas prices are highly volatile , and they make up a substantial portion of their operating costs .
This is why they are used as make-up , and coal + nuke are our baseload.Before someone says " Yea , what about the cost of storing that used radioactive fuel , " - It 's already covered .
Nuclear power plants put money into a pool for disposing of the stuff .
Aside from the financial aspect , you have to keep in mind that the huge difference in fuel/energy ratio of fission to fossil fuels means that while we burn thousands of pounds of coal per day per plant , all of our existing spent nuclear fuel could be stored in a facility that is as big as a football field .
That 's without reprocessing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off [than] Coal/Nuclear.There were a couple of posts talking about this w.r.t.
nuclear.  I'd like to give a better understanding of this:While it may be true that the design considerations of our existing nuclear generating facilities cause it to be difficult to ramp up/down easily, it is possible to have nuclear power plants that could do so.
What most people are missing is more important than capability of doing so is the cost considerations of continuing running.Take a look at this chart [blogspot.com].Once you have a nuclear power plant running safely, the cost of fissioning the fuel (or burning coal) is minuscule compared to the cost of burning natural gas.
Nuclear power's high costs come from heavy construction cost for high quality components, maintaining the plant in safe condition, and paying the staff - not fuel.For the time being, the fuel cost of coal power plants are also quite low.
This may change once we start taxing waste gasses from fossil fuels.
I'm of the opinion that greenhouse ones aren't even the worst.On the other hand, natural gas prices are highly volatile, and they make up a substantial portion of their operating costs.
This is why they are used as make-up, and coal+nuke are our baseload.Before someone says "Yea, what about the cost of storing that used radioactive fuel," - It's already covered.
Nuclear power plants put money into a pool for disposing of the stuff.
Aside from the financial aspect, you have to keep in mind that the huge difference in fuel/energy ratio of fission to fossil fuels means that while we burn thousands of pounds of coal per day per plant, all of our existing spent nuclear fuel could be stored in a facility that is as big as a football field.
That's without reprocessing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408572</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that the OP you responded to necessarily meant the public when he/she said "America's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...problem".  It might very well be American businesses problem, and the free(ish) market might very well drive the change.</p><p>But they are going to need incentive to change, and some guidance during the process.  The cheapest solution to power generation right now is the status quo.  And it most likely will stay that way for 50 years with oil, and hundreds of years with coal.  There has to be an economic motive to change, and that can most easily be created by taxing what we don't like (coal/oil) and giving subs to what we do like (nuclear, wind, sun, etc..).</p><p>And as the OP pointed out, this is going to take multiple states, multi power companies, and significant investment in new infrastructure, that is much larger than any one company can handle.  It will almost certainly require a 'smarter' grid, and a heck of a lot more power sharing between companies.</p><p>How do you think that the Federal Highway system would have turned out without central planning on a National level?  We don't need a ton of new regulators or new federal jobs created.  We need the existing regulatory agencies to step up and start mandating change, helping to plan it and negotiate the overall system between companies and states, and financial incentives to get the ball rolling.</p><p>Cap and Trade, by slowly ratcheting down the allowed carbon in the country, will squeeze companies into action, but I have a feeling that is only going to be passed directly on to customers for as long as humanely possible, until customers are screaming and electric companies are literally forced to start changing.</p><p>I'd rather not let pure profit motives drive the change.  Lets get some laws in place with timelines and start getting the infrastructure built.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that the OP you responded to necessarily meant the public when he/she said " America 's ...problem " .
It might very well be American businesses problem , and the free ( ish ) market might very well drive the change.But they are going to need incentive to change , and some guidance during the process .
The cheapest solution to power generation right now is the status quo .
And it most likely will stay that way for 50 years with oil , and hundreds of years with coal .
There has to be an economic motive to change , and that can most easily be created by taxing what we do n't like ( coal/oil ) and giving subs to what we do like ( nuclear , wind , sun , etc.. ) .And as the OP pointed out , this is going to take multiple states , multi power companies , and significant investment in new infrastructure , that is much larger than any one company can handle .
It will almost certainly require a 'smarter ' grid , and a heck of a lot more power sharing between companies.How do you think that the Federal Highway system would have turned out without central planning on a National level ?
We do n't need a ton of new regulators or new federal jobs created .
We need the existing regulatory agencies to step up and start mandating change , helping to plan it and negotiate the overall system between companies and states , and financial incentives to get the ball rolling.Cap and Trade , by slowly ratcheting down the allowed carbon in the country , will squeeze companies into action , but I have a feeling that is only going to be passed directly on to customers for as long as humanely possible , until customers are screaming and electric companies are literally forced to start changing.I 'd rather not let pure profit motives drive the change .
Lets get some laws in place with timelines and start getting the infrastructure built .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that the OP you responded to necessarily meant the public when he/she said "America's ...problem".
It might very well be American businesses problem, and the free(ish) market might very well drive the change.But they are going to need incentive to change, and some guidance during the process.
The cheapest solution to power generation right now is the status quo.
And it most likely will stay that way for 50 years with oil, and hundreds of years with coal.
There has to be an economic motive to change, and that can most easily be created by taxing what we don't like (coal/oil) and giving subs to what we do like (nuclear, wind, sun, etc..).And as the OP pointed out, this is going to take multiple states, multi power companies, and significant investment in new infrastructure, that is much larger than any one company can handle.
It will almost certainly require a 'smarter' grid, and a heck of a lot more power sharing between companies.How do you think that the Federal Highway system would have turned out without central planning on a National level?
We don't need a ton of new regulators or new federal jobs created.
We need the existing regulatory agencies to step up and start mandating change, helping to plan it and negotiate the overall system between companies and states, and financial incentives to get the ball rolling.Cap and Trade, by slowly ratcheting down the allowed carbon in the country, will squeeze companies into action, but I have a feeling that is only going to be passed directly on to customers for as long as humanely possible, until customers are screaming and electric companies are literally forced to start changing.I'd rather not let pure profit motives drive the change.
Lets get some laws in place with timelines and start getting the infrastructure built.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407114</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1268049300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound student-y.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound student-y .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound student-y.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411144</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1268127840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you say is lovely... and for the most part, I totally agree. Sadly, in this "The best Government Money Can Buy" American reality, do you actually believe there is any way to actually pass anything resembling intelligent, progressive, meaningful legislation, when any bill that hurts someone with deep enough pockets can simply be killed by investing in the right representatives?</p><p>Our nation has just gone through a fiscal melt-down, a financial disaster of epic magnitude. If you look, and have to look, because not a single news source is talking about it, but if you look, you will find that Wall street, the Nations Banks, and all those greedy buggers who almost sunk the country, are now back at it, business as usual, in fact, they're pushing bad paper and derivatives harder and faster than ever before. Making insane bonuses. Taking the hundreds of billions of dollars we gave them to prop up the banks, and spending it on an army of folks in DC, fixing the laws, and ensuring that they won't have to stop playing the games they've become addicted to. Nothing has changed, other than nobody is talking about the new escalation, of the rate at which bankers are now digging the hole we will all eventually have to lay down in.</p><p>If our government can't stop the simplest and most obvious case of fiscal rape from happening, knowing full well, that when the dust settles, and the looting and pillaging is done, there will be nothing left of this country. What makes you think for even a moment, that the men and women who populate our centers of government, have either the will or the moral fortitude required to make a sane energy policy?</p><p>It is time for us to separate Church and State once and for all, and that must include the Church of the All Mighty Dollar. We need to remove the bankers from our system of government. We will support business. We will empower an environment in which business can flourish, but to do so, we must take the power for business to determine the future of being human away once and for all. Just as a child must be managed or it will eat candy until it is sick, business' only purpose is to make profit, and if it has to do that over the bleached bones of the society in which it exists, it will ultimately do just that (and in far too many cases has), it is up to us, to guide and control business, make it perform our bidding and not the other way. We need to eliminate the entity called Corporation. It was an interesting experiment, but if nothing else, it has proven that human beings have neither the requisite intelligence nor dignity as a species to manage such an entities without doing serious harm to the world and the life in it (including ourselves.)</p><p>I'm all for wind power, above and beyond gas and coal. I'm for technology which converts wind into forms of energy that can be stored and used later (perhaps hydrogen.) We need to come up with new ways to power the future without at the same time destroying it. At the same time, we need to overhaul this government, and we need to start by taking back our communication, and keeping the corporations out of our government, or it will not go well for any of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you say is lovely... and for the most part , I totally agree .
Sadly , in this " The best Government Money Can Buy " American reality , do you actually believe there is any way to actually pass anything resembling intelligent , progressive , meaningful legislation , when any bill that hurts someone with deep enough pockets can simply be killed by investing in the right representatives ? Our nation has just gone through a fiscal melt-down , a financial disaster of epic magnitude .
If you look , and have to look , because not a single news source is talking about it , but if you look , you will find that Wall street , the Nations Banks , and all those greedy buggers who almost sunk the country , are now back at it , business as usual , in fact , they 're pushing bad paper and derivatives harder and faster than ever before .
Making insane bonuses .
Taking the hundreds of billions of dollars we gave them to prop up the banks , and spending it on an army of folks in DC , fixing the laws , and ensuring that they wo n't have to stop playing the games they 've become addicted to .
Nothing has changed , other than nobody is talking about the new escalation , of the rate at which bankers are now digging the hole we will all eventually have to lay down in.If our government ca n't stop the simplest and most obvious case of fiscal rape from happening , knowing full well , that when the dust settles , and the looting and pillaging is done , there will be nothing left of this country .
What makes you think for even a moment , that the men and women who populate our centers of government , have either the will or the moral fortitude required to make a sane energy policy ? It is time for us to separate Church and State once and for all , and that must include the Church of the All Mighty Dollar .
We need to remove the bankers from our system of government .
We will support business .
We will empower an environment in which business can flourish , but to do so , we must take the power for business to determine the future of being human away once and for all .
Just as a child must be managed or it will eat candy until it is sick , business ' only purpose is to make profit , and if it has to do that over the bleached bones of the society in which it exists , it will ultimately do just that ( and in far too many cases has ) , it is up to us , to guide and control business , make it perform our bidding and not the other way .
We need to eliminate the entity called Corporation .
It was an interesting experiment , but if nothing else , it has proven that human beings have neither the requisite intelligence nor dignity as a species to manage such an entities without doing serious harm to the world and the life in it ( including ourselves .
) I 'm all for wind power , above and beyond gas and coal .
I 'm for technology which converts wind into forms of energy that can be stored and used later ( perhaps hydrogen .
) We need to come up with new ways to power the future without at the same time destroying it .
At the same time , we need to overhaul this government , and we need to start by taking back our communication , and keeping the corporations out of our government , or it will not go well for any of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you say is lovely... and for the most part, I totally agree.
Sadly, in this "The best Government Money Can Buy" American reality, do you actually believe there is any way to actually pass anything resembling intelligent, progressive, meaningful legislation, when any bill that hurts someone with deep enough pockets can simply be killed by investing in the right representatives?Our nation has just gone through a fiscal melt-down, a financial disaster of epic magnitude.
If you look, and have to look, because not a single news source is talking about it, but if you look, you will find that Wall street, the Nations Banks, and all those greedy buggers who almost sunk the country, are now back at it, business as usual, in fact, they're pushing bad paper and derivatives harder and faster than ever before.
Making insane bonuses.
Taking the hundreds of billions of dollars we gave them to prop up the banks, and spending it on an army of folks in DC, fixing the laws, and ensuring that they won't have to stop playing the games they've become addicted to.
Nothing has changed, other than nobody is talking about the new escalation, of the rate at which bankers are now digging the hole we will all eventually have to lay down in.If our government can't stop the simplest and most obvious case of fiscal rape from happening, knowing full well, that when the dust settles, and the looting and pillaging is done, there will be nothing left of this country.
What makes you think for even a moment, that the men and women who populate our centers of government, have either the will or the moral fortitude required to make a sane energy policy?It is time for us to separate Church and State once and for all, and that must include the Church of the All Mighty Dollar.
We need to remove the bankers from our system of government.
We will support business.
We will empower an environment in which business can flourish, but to do so, we must take the power for business to determine the future of being human away once and for all.
Just as a child must be managed or it will eat candy until it is sick, business' only purpose is to make profit, and if it has to do that over the bleached bones of the society in which it exists, it will ultimately do just that (and in far too many cases has), it is up to us, to guide and control business, make it perform our bidding and not the other way.
We need to eliminate the entity called Corporation.
It was an interesting experiment, but if nothing else, it has proven that human beings have neither the requisite intelligence nor dignity as a species to manage such an entities without doing serious harm to the world and the life in it (including ourselves.
)I'm all for wind power, above and beyond gas and coal.
I'm for technology which converts wind into forms of energy that can be stored and used later (perhaps hydrogen.
) We need to come up with new ways to power the future without at the same time destroying it.
At the same time, we need to overhaul this government, and we need to start by taking back our communication, and keeping the corporations out of our government, or it will not go well for any of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411130</id>
	<title>Re:From the Wall Street Journal</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1268127720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone agrees that wind can't provide baseline power.</p></div><p>No, they don't. Look up the European supergrid concept.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone agrees that wind ca n't provide baseline power.No , they do n't .
Look up the European supergrid concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone agrees that wind can't provide baseline power.No, they don't.
Look up the European supergrid concept.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31413532</id>
	<title>Baseline vs. Peaking; Power grid stability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268149560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More people need to understand the concepts of baseline power generation versus peaking.  Wind does not readily fit into either category without some large-scale energy storage to regulate its output into the grid, which is both expensive and less efficient than connecting things more or less directly, which is how most wind farms are connected now.  As it is, the electrical grid becomes more and more unstable as you add more wind to it, meaning the general consensus amongst utilities that the maximum amount of wind allowable on the grid at any given moment is between 10 and 20 percent, probably closer to the lower end of that range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More people need to understand the concepts of baseline power generation versus peaking .
Wind does not readily fit into either category without some large-scale energy storage to regulate its output into the grid , which is both expensive and less efficient than connecting things more or less directly , which is how most wind farms are connected now .
As it is , the electrical grid becomes more and more unstable as you add more wind to it , meaning the general consensus amongst utilities that the maximum amount of wind allowable on the grid at any given moment is between 10 and 20 percent , probably closer to the lower end of that range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More people need to understand the concepts of baseline power generation versus peaking.
Wind does not readily fit into either category without some large-scale energy storage to regulate its output into the grid, which is both expensive and less efficient than connecting things more or less directly, which is how most wind farms are connected now.
As it is, the electrical grid becomes more and more unstable as you add more wind to it, meaning the general consensus amongst utilities that the maximum amount of wind allowable on the grid at any given moment is between 10 and 20 percent, probably closer to the lower end of that range.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408920</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sorry to burst your bubble of gas, but German scientists have already proved that you can supply a power grid with \_only\_ renewable energy - wind, solar and biogas.</p></div></blockquote><p>They've 'proven' it on a 1:10000 scale model - which is roughly akin to 'proving' that a Pentium can work by performing basic math operations on a hand calculator.<br>
&nbsp; <br>But they're going to run into significant challenges scaling it up - they're going to need biogas plants in hot standby to provide peaking loads as wind power availability waxes and wanes over the course of the day and year due to changing weather.  They'll need biogas plants for the same reasons plus changing insolation with the changing seasons for solar, and more still to take the baseload as solar production does to zero overnight.  (Either that, or the wind and solar legs will have to be grossly over provisioned.)<br>
&nbsp; <br>Not to mention the significant problem of assuring a stable year round supply of large quantities of biogas and the maintenance of sufficient reserves to cover 'droughts' in the other sources and periods of abnormally high demand.<br>
&nbsp; <br>So, while this type of grid will almost certainly work well at a limited scale, I find it hard to believe that it will work on a national scale for other than the smallest of countries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to burst your bubble of gas , but German scientists have already proved that you can supply a power grid with \ _only \ _ renewable energy - wind , solar and biogas.They 've 'proven ' it on a 1 : 10000 scale model - which is roughly akin to 'proving ' that a Pentium can work by performing basic math operations on a hand calculator .
  But they 're going to run into significant challenges scaling it up - they 're going to need biogas plants in hot standby to provide peaking loads as wind power availability waxes and wanes over the course of the day and year due to changing weather .
They 'll need biogas plants for the same reasons plus changing insolation with the changing seasons for solar , and more still to take the baseload as solar production does to zero overnight .
( Either that , or the wind and solar legs will have to be grossly over provisioned .
)   Not to mention the significant problem of assuring a stable year round supply of large quantities of biogas and the maintenance of sufficient reserves to cover 'droughts ' in the other sources and periods of abnormally high demand .
  So , while this type of grid will almost certainly work well at a limited scale , I find it hard to believe that it will work on a national scale for other than the smallest of countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to burst your bubble of gas, but German scientists have already proved that you can supply a power grid with \_only\_ renewable energy - wind, solar and biogas.They've 'proven' it on a 1:10000 scale model - which is roughly akin to 'proving' that a Pentium can work by performing basic math operations on a hand calculator.
  But they're going to run into significant challenges scaling it up - they're going to need biogas plants in hot standby to provide peaking loads as wind power availability waxes and wanes over the course of the day and year due to changing weather.
They'll need biogas plants for the same reasons plus changing insolation with the changing seasons for solar, and more still to take the baseload as solar production does to zero overnight.
(Either that, or the wind and solar legs will have to be grossly over provisioned.
)
  Not to mention the significant problem of assuring a stable year round supply of large quantities of biogas and the maintenance of sufficient reserves to cover 'droughts' in the other sources and periods of abnormally high demand.
  So, while this type of grid will almost certainly work well at a limited scale, I find it hard to believe that it will work on a national scale for other than the smallest of countries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406712</id>
	<title>Atoms</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1268047800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say we bombard atoms with radiation, causing them to fissure and release tons of energy.</p><p>We can use the energy to heat up a bunch of water to boiling.  The resulting steam can then power a generator.</p><p>When our radiation source is depleted, it'll be completely inert and safe.</p><p>When our radiation source is depleted past the point of being useful in a large facility, but not at the point where it's inert, we can simply use it in a smaller, lower-yield facility.</p><p>Once the radiation source is depleted past the point of any usefulness, it's pretty much safe.  If we want to please the plebes, we can simply wrap it in iron and bury it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we bombard atoms with radiation , causing them to fissure and release tons of energy.We can use the energy to heat up a bunch of water to boiling .
The resulting steam can then power a generator.When our radiation source is depleted , it 'll be completely inert and safe.When our radiation source is depleted past the point of being useful in a large facility , but not at the point where it 's inert , we can simply use it in a smaller , lower-yield facility.Once the radiation source is depleted past the point of any usefulness , it 's pretty much safe .
If we want to please the plebes , we can simply wrap it in iron and bury it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we bombard atoms with radiation, causing them to fissure and release tons of energy.We can use the energy to heat up a bunch of water to boiling.
The resulting steam can then power a generator.When our radiation source is depleted, it'll be completely inert and safe.When our radiation source is depleted past the point of being useful in a large facility, but not at the point where it's inert, we can simply use it in a smaller, lower-yield facility.Once the radiation source is depleted past the point of any usefulness, it's pretty much safe.
If we want to please the plebes, we can simply wrap it in iron and bury it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409986</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268070600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$93 billion is chicken feed compare to the savings that these transmission lines would make happen. Just the ability to move power from one side of the country to the other so we can better utilized our base power plants would save billions in two ways. The base plants are more efficient and we wouldn't have to build as many power plant since we would get better use out of the existing plants. As far as wind power, we not only have access to our own wind resource but I would bet that Canada wouldn't mind selling us some wind power also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 93 billion is chicken feed compare to the savings that these transmission lines would make happen .
Just the ability to move power from one side of the country to the other so we can better utilized our base power plants would save billions in two ways .
The base plants are more efficient and we would n't have to build as many power plant since we would get better use out of the existing plants .
As far as wind power , we not only have access to our own wind resource but I would bet that Canada would n't mind selling us some wind power also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$93 billion is chicken feed compare to the savings that these transmission lines would make happen.
Just the ability to move power from one side of the country to the other so we can better utilized our base power plants would save billions in two ways.
The base plants are more efficient and we wouldn't have to build as many power plant since we would get better use out of the existing plants.
As far as wind power, we not only have access to our own wind resource but I would bet that Canada wouldn't mind selling us some wind power also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409272</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268063220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gee, if only there were a bunch of people who needed jobs who could do this for us.</p></div><p>Unfortunately the gov't can't afford to pay them, and big biz doesn't care about who needs jobs</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , if only there were a bunch of people who needed jobs who could do this for us.Unfortunately the gov't ca n't afford to pay them , and big biz does n't care about who needs jobs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, if only there were a bunch of people who needed jobs who could do this for us.Unfortunately the gov't can't afford to pay them, and big biz doesn't care about who needs jobs
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410892</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Olivier Galibert</author>
	<datestamp>1268167260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.</p></div></blockquote><p>Gas is only marginally easier than coal - it's the preheat time for the water in the loop that's the real killer AIUI.</p></div><p>Gas turbines (no water) are fast to start and stop, and they're very good when you need power *now*.  They're used in France a lot for peaks.  Civilian nuclear takes 2-3 days to change power levels significantly.  I suspect that, compared to submarines, size matters.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; OG.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Reason you use gas is it 's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.Gas is only marginally easier than coal - it 's the preheat time for the water in the loop that 's the real killer AIUI.Gas turbines ( no water ) are fast to start and stop , and they 're very good when you need power * now * .
They 're used in France a lot for peaks .
Civilian nuclear takes 2-3 days to change power levels significantly .
I suspect that , compared to submarines , size matters .
    OG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.Gas is only marginally easier than coal - it's the preheat time for the water in the loop that's the real killer AIUI.Gas turbines (no water) are fast to start and stop, and they're very good when you need power *now*.
They're used in France a lot for peaks.
Civilian nuclear takes 2-3 days to change power levels significantly.
I suspect that, compared to submarines, size matters.
    OG.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408526</id>
	<title>Competition without subsidy</title>
	<author>tacocat</author>
	<datestamp>1268057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do hope that people have enough sense to understand that if Wind can compete without Subsidy it should be permitted to do with encouragement.  But if it requires handouts and subsidy then all you are doing is promoting an industry that should be for the simple reason that it can't support itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do hope that people have enough sense to understand that if Wind can compete without Subsidy it should be permitted to do with encouragement .
But if it requires handouts and subsidy then all you are doing is promoting an industry that should be for the simple reason that it ca n't support itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do hope that people have enough sense to understand that if Wind can compete without Subsidy it should be permitted to do with encouragement.
But if it requires handouts and subsidy then all you are doing is promoting an industry that should be for the simple reason that it can't support itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee, if only there were a bunch of people who needed jobs who could do this for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , if only there were a bunch of people who needed jobs who could do this for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, if only there were a bunch of people who needed jobs who could do this for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408798</id>
	<title>Re:Missed the Better Headline</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1268059200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gas Seeking to Break Wind</p></div><p>Claims bird strike problem is insurmountable, labeling wind turbines as "Silent but Deadly".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gas Seeking to Break WindClaims bird strike problem is insurmountable , labeling wind turbines as " Silent but Deadly " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gas Seeking to Break WindClaims bird strike problem is insurmountable, labeling wind turbines as "Silent but Deadly".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406620</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1268047500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It used to be that fossil fuel production was subsidized because encouraging development would improve the local economy.</p><p>Now we won't remove the subsidies because the producers will leave and favor other locations, hurting the local economy.</p><p>At least, that's what the ads say on TV whenever the issue comes around.  True or not, it's a vicious cycle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It used to be that fossil fuel production was subsidized because encouraging development would improve the local economy.Now we wo n't remove the subsidies because the producers will leave and favor other locations , hurting the local economy.At least , that 's what the ads say on TV whenever the issue comes around .
True or not , it 's a vicious cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It used to be that fossil fuel production was subsidized because encouraging development would improve the local economy.Now we won't remove the subsidies because the producers will leave and favor other locations, hurting the local economy.At least, that's what the ads say on TV whenever the issue comes around.
True or not, it's a vicious cycle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408022</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1268053980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The problem is the high voltage transmission infrastructure that no one wants to build.</i></p><p>So let the price of power where the wind is (and when it's blowing) be low.  Wire 'em up within the state under state law.</p><p>If a power company wants to run lines to sell this cheap power elsewhere, it can spring the bucks to do so - and tack on the cost pf the new lines when it sells the power.  And maybe get some more bucks by running more expensive power back across the same lines to the consumers inside the state when the wind isn't blowing.</p><p>Then the east coast companies can take their choice:<br>
&nbsp; - Run the wires and sell the wind power on the east coast - with a premium to cover the wires, but still cheaper than power generated locally using fuel.<br>
&nbsp; - Don't run the wires, sell the fuel-generated power, and risk being out-competed by a company that DOES string cables (if the cost differential is enough that wiring up some big industrial consumers will pay for the infrastructure).</p><p>The market handles this JUST FINE - if you don't try to "fix" it with regulation (or let the existing large players use regulations to cheat and support their now-broken business model).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the high voltage transmission infrastructure that no one wants to build.So let the price of power where the wind is ( and when it 's blowing ) be low .
Wire 'em up within the state under state law.If a power company wants to run lines to sell this cheap power elsewhere , it can spring the bucks to do so - and tack on the cost pf the new lines when it sells the power .
And maybe get some more bucks by running more expensive power back across the same lines to the consumers inside the state when the wind is n't blowing.Then the east coast companies can take their choice :   - Run the wires and sell the wind power on the east coast - with a premium to cover the wires , but still cheaper than power generated locally using fuel .
  - Do n't run the wires , sell the fuel-generated power , and risk being out-competed by a company that DOES string cables ( if the cost differential is enough that wiring up some big industrial consumers will pay for the infrastructure ) .The market handles this JUST FINE - if you do n't try to " fix " it with regulation ( or let the existing large players use regulations to cheat and support their now-broken business model ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the high voltage transmission infrastructure that no one wants to build.So let the price of power where the wind is (and when it's blowing) be low.
Wire 'em up within the state under state law.If a power company wants to run lines to sell this cheap power elsewhere, it can spring the bucks to do so - and tack on the cost pf the new lines when it sells the power.
And maybe get some more bucks by running more expensive power back across the same lines to the consumers inside the state when the wind isn't blowing.Then the east coast companies can take their choice:
  - Run the wires and sell the wind power on the east coast - with a premium to cover the wires, but still cheaper than power generated locally using fuel.
  - Don't run the wires, sell the fuel-generated power, and risk being out-competed by a company that DOES string cables (if the cost differential is enough that wiring up some big industrial consumers will pay for the infrastructure).The market handles this JUST FINE - if you don't try to "fix" it with regulation (or let the existing large players use regulations to cheat and support their now-broken business model).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410066</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268071380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheap midwest power might make factories in Detroit a bit more viable.</p><p>The main reason to send the power to the coasts is thats where the people, factories, and ports are.</p><p>+ I agree, people will follow the jobs.<br>-  Its real expensive to move entire factories<br>-  Ports are not moving but we could invest in some transportation infrastucture</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheap midwest power might make factories in Detroit a bit more viable.The main reason to send the power to the coasts is thats where the people , factories , and ports are. + I agree , people will follow the jobs.- Its real expensive to move entire factories- Ports are not moving but we could invest in some transportation infrastucture</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheap midwest power might make factories in Detroit a bit more viable.The main reason to send the power to the coasts is thats where the people, factories, and ports are.+ I agree, people will follow the jobs.-  Its real expensive to move entire factories-  Ports are not moving but we could invest in some transportation infrastucture</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409858</id>
	<title>A bit more to add</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1268069400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gas fired installations would require a similar infrastructure to get the electicity out, so that argument above is rubbish.<br>There is no "one true energy", everyone that says otherwise is selling something or has been tricked by someone that has.<br>If you are sitting on a windy coast wind makes a lot of sense, next to a volcano and geothermal, massive tide range, have a nuclear weapons program and a lot of spare material that could be useful etc etc.  A mix of options gives a good outcome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gas fired installations would require a similar infrastructure to get the electicity out , so that argument above is rubbish.There is no " one true energy " , everyone that says otherwise is selling something or has been tricked by someone that has.If you are sitting on a windy coast wind makes a lot of sense , next to a volcano and geothermal , massive tide range , have a nuclear weapons program and a lot of spare material that could be useful etc etc .
A mix of options gives a good outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gas fired installations would require a similar infrastructure to get the electicity out, so that argument above is rubbish.There is no "one true energy", everyone that says otherwise is selling something or has been tricked by someone that has.If you are sitting on a windy coast wind makes a lot of sense, next to a volcano and geothermal, massive tide range, have a nuclear weapons program and a lot of spare material that could be useful etc etc.
A mix of options gives a good outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31415654</id>
	<title>Re:Smoke scrubbers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268157720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Drive past a coal burning plant. It's a crime they are allowed to use the air we breath as a landfill for dumping their waste and I don't just mean CO2. The sulphur[sic] and mercury and other toxins released are frightening."</p><p>I thought that a decade or two ago, the EPA implemented rules requiring most U.S. coal plants to install smoke stack scrubbers that captured all that stuff before it exited into the environment? I was under the impression that mostly what came out of the stacks now is CO2 and water? (I realize this doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the world; but since you seem to be talking mostly about the U.S., that is the context I'm discussing this in).</p><p>But, I agree with your main point about off-shore Wind. As long as we can do it in a way that doesn't too adversely affect marine life, or maritime navigation, then I'm all for it. You probably can generate a lot of very cheap power that way. Doesn't help us folks in Ohio too much, but we can probably turn some corn or pig farms into wind farms, or maybe put some out in Lake Erie (but I'm not sure there's any place in Ohio as consistently windy as those coastal areas).</p></div><p>Uh, not quite.  There are mandated sulfur dioxide scrubbers, which is why you don't hear quite so much about acid rain.  That said, there are stonkingly huge waste piles surrounding *every* fossil plant called 'fly ash retention ponds', where the ash from burning the fossil fuel gets "sequestered" until it's moved out to a landfill somewhere with poor people who don't vote.</p><p>I say "sequestered" in quotes, because it's a joke.  Large fossil plants need large sources of water for cooling, so these ponds of poisonous heavy metal-laden industrial waste are hanging out right next to what is frequently a source of drinking water for the community benefiting from the plant.  And, in a lovely bit of legal judo, these retention ponds aren't considered dams legally, so they aren't inspected and aren't required to be built up to really any standard.  It's not quite up to the standards of 'flee your homes', but pretty bad.</p><p>For an example, I personally live about eight miles from a pretty large plant on the shores of Mountain Island Lake, near Charlotte, North Carolina.  If the uninspected, unregulated fly ash pond lets go, there will be about four hour's warning before the entire Catawaba River watershed becomes polluted and three million people lose all access to drinking water.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Drive past a coal burning plant .
It 's a crime they are allowed to use the air we breath as a landfill for dumping their waste and I do n't just mean CO2 .
The sulphur [ sic ] and mercury and other toxins released are frightening .
" I thought that a decade or two ago , the EPA implemented rules requiring most U.S. coal plants to install smoke stack scrubbers that captured all that stuff before it exited into the environment ?
I was under the impression that mostly what came out of the stacks now is CO2 and water ?
( I realize this does n't necessarily apply to the rest of the world ; but since you seem to be talking mostly about the U.S. , that is the context I 'm discussing this in ) .But , I agree with your main point about off-shore Wind .
As long as we can do it in a way that does n't too adversely affect marine life , or maritime navigation , then I 'm all for it .
You probably can generate a lot of very cheap power that way .
Does n't help us folks in Ohio too much , but we can probably turn some corn or pig farms into wind farms , or maybe put some out in Lake Erie ( but I 'm not sure there 's any place in Ohio as consistently windy as those coastal areas ) .Uh , not quite .
There are mandated sulfur dioxide scrubbers , which is why you do n't hear quite so much about acid rain .
That said , there are stonkingly huge waste piles surrounding * every * fossil plant called 'fly ash retention ponds ' , where the ash from burning the fossil fuel gets " sequestered " until it 's moved out to a landfill somewhere with poor people who do n't vote.I say " sequestered " in quotes , because it 's a joke .
Large fossil plants need large sources of water for cooling , so these ponds of poisonous heavy metal-laden industrial waste are hanging out right next to what is frequently a source of drinking water for the community benefiting from the plant .
And , in a lovely bit of legal judo , these retention ponds are n't considered dams legally , so they are n't inspected and are n't required to be built up to really any standard .
It 's not quite up to the standards of 'flee your homes ' , but pretty bad.For an example , I personally live about eight miles from a pretty large plant on the shores of Mountain Island Lake , near Charlotte , North Carolina .
If the uninspected , unregulated fly ash pond lets go , there will be about four hour 's warning before the entire Catawaba River watershed becomes polluted and three million people lose all access to drinking water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Drive past a coal burning plant.
It's a crime they are allowed to use the air we breath as a landfill for dumping their waste and I don't just mean CO2.
The sulphur[sic] and mercury and other toxins released are frightening.
"I thought that a decade or two ago, the EPA implemented rules requiring most U.S. coal plants to install smoke stack scrubbers that captured all that stuff before it exited into the environment?
I was under the impression that mostly what came out of the stacks now is CO2 and water?
(I realize this doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the world; but since you seem to be talking mostly about the U.S., that is the context I'm discussing this in).But, I agree with your main point about off-shore Wind.
As long as we can do it in a way that doesn't too adversely affect marine life, or maritime navigation, then I'm all for it.
You probably can generate a lot of very cheap power that way.
Doesn't help us folks in Ohio too much, but we can probably turn some corn or pig farms into wind farms, or maybe put some out in Lake Erie (but I'm not sure there's any place in Ohio as consistently windy as those coastal areas).Uh, not quite.
There are mandated sulfur dioxide scrubbers, which is why you don't hear quite so much about acid rain.
That said, there are stonkingly huge waste piles surrounding *every* fossil plant called 'fly ash retention ponds', where the ash from burning the fossil fuel gets "sequestered" until it's moved out to a landfill somewhere with poor people who don't vote.I say "sequestered" in quotes, because it's a joke.
Large fossil plants need large sources of water for cooling, so these ponds of poisonous heavy metal-laden industrial waste are hanging out right next to what is frequently a source of drinking water for the community benefiting from the plant.
And, in a lovely bit of legal judo, these retention ponds aren't considered dams legally, so they aren't inspected and aren't required to be built up to really any standard.
It's not quite up to the standards of 'flee your homes', but pretty bad.For an example, I personally live about eight miles from a pretty large plant on the shores of Mountain Island Lake, near Charlotte, North Carolina.
If the uninspected, unregulated fly ash pond lets go, there will be about four hour's warning before the entire Catawaba River watershed becomes polluted and three million people lose all access to drinking water.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31416712</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1268162160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at about 1/2 of one percent of the amount.  Look in other replies to my original post to find sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at about 1/2 of one percent of the amount .
Look in other replies to my original post to find sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at about 1/2 of one percent of the amount.
Look in other replies to my original post to find sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406344</id>
	<title>Re:if these jerkwads had any sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268046720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder - were they the ones working behind the scenes that recently killed the massive wind power project that was supposed to be built in the Texas pan handle that was supposed to supply around 20\% of our nations power???</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder - were they the ones working behind the scenes that recently killed the massive wind power project that was supposed to be built in the Texas pan handle that was supposed to supply around 20 \ % of our nations power ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder - were they the ones working behind the scenes that recently killed the massive wind power project that was supposed to be built in the Texas pan handle that was supposed to supply around 20\% of our nations power??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412516</id>
	<title>Of course they do....</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1268145060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that wind power is actually taking off much more then anticipated, it reminds me of the oil and car companies buying up all the patents on steam , water and other type of engines and then shelfing them forever, just to ensure the oil companies profits year after year. Until a major critical event such as the president of the united states stepping in and saying we have to find alternate power sources for our cars and homes, then these new inventions or technologies will never see the light of day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... just the way capitalism works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that wind power is actually taking off much more then anticipated , it reminds me of the oil and car companies buying up all the patents on steam , water and other type of engines and then shelfing them forever , just to ensure the oil companies profits year after year .
Until a major critical event such as the president of the united states stepping in and saying we have to find alternate power sources for our cars and homes , then these new inventions or technologies will never see the light of day .... just the way capitalism works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that wind power is actually taking off much more then anticipated, it reminds me of the oil and car companies buying up all the patents on steam , water and other type of engines and then shelfing them forever, just to ensure the oil companies profits year after year.
Until a major critical event such as the president of the united states stepping in and saying we have to find alternate power sources for our cars and homes, then these new inventions or technologies will never see the light of day .... just the way capitalism works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31420342</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268134680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?</p><p>IMO, no one *sane* is proposing that. Those proposals come from people who want to directly profit from it. Like the super rich oilman who wants to own the resulting power grid (and water rights under the lines).</p><p>In reality: find a wind map, and you'll see steady winds all along the ocean coasts. Find a population density map, and you'll see high densities all around the ocean coasts and not so much in the middle. In other words, if we build the wind farms on the coasts or just offshore, we need very little additional infrastructure to get deliver the power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast ? IMO , no one * sane * is proposing that .
Those proposals come from people who want to directly profit from it .
Like the super rich oilman who wants to own the resulting power grid ( and water rights under the lines ) .In reality : find a wind map , and you 'll see steady winds all along the ocean coasts .
Find a population density map , and you 'll see high densities all around the ocean coasts and not so much in the middle .
In other words , if we build the wind farms on the coasts or just offshore , we need very little additional infrastructure to get deliver the power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?IMO, no one *sane* is proposing that.
Those proposals come from people who want to directly profit from it.
Like the super rich oilman who wants to own the resulting power grid (and water rights under the lines).In reality: find a wind map, and you'll see steady winds all along the ocean coasts.
Find a population density map, and you'll see high densities all around the ocean coasts and not so much in the middle.
In other words, if we build the wind farms on the coasts or just offshore, we need very little additional infrastructure to get deliver the power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408554</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268057520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't belive we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.</p></div><p>Sure you can, if you want to. Blow up Washington, blow up every state capitol, blow up every city hall, hand out a gun and a 300 ml water bottle to everyone and watch productivity soar.</p><p>I think perhaps what you meant is '... get back a US which still provides all the coordinated complex infrastructure I've come to love from the 20th century, but magically provides this from a bunch of violent self-seeking individuals all trying to step over each other to the top'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't belive we 'll ever be able to get back a US where there is n't government subsidies in everything.Sure you can , if you want to .
Blow up Washington , blow up every state capitol , blow up every city hall , hand out a gun and a 300 ml water bottle to everyone and watch productivity soar.I think perhaps what you meant is '... get back a US which still provides all the coordinated complex infrastructure I 've come to love from the 20th century , but magically provides this from a bunch of violent self-seeking individuals all trying to step over each other to the top' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't belive we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.Sure you can, if you want to.
Blow up Washington, blow up every state capitol, blow up every city hall, hand out a gun and a 300 ml water bottle to everyone and watch productivity soar.I think perhaps what you meant is '... get back a US which still provides all the coordinated complex infrastructure I've come to love from the 20th century, but magically provides this from a bunch of violent self-seeking individuals all trying to step over each other to the top'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406906</id>
	<title>Smoke scrubbers?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1268048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Drive past a coal burning plant. It's a crime they are allowed to use the air we breath as a landfill for dumping their waste and I don't just mean CO2. The sulphur[sic] and mercury and other toxins released are frightening."</p><p>I thought that a decade or two ago, the EPA implemented rules requiring most U.S. coal plants to install smoke stack scrubbers that captured all that stuff before it exited into the environment? I was under the impression that mostly what came out of the stacks now is CO2 and water? (I realize this doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the world; but since you seem to be talking mostly about the U.S., that is the context I'm discussing this in).</p><p>But, I agree with your main point about off-shore Wind. As long as we can do it in a way that doesn't too adversely affect marine life, or maritime navigation, then I'm all for it. You probably can generate a lot of very cheap power that way. Doesn't help us folks in Ohio too much, but we can probably turn some corn or pig farms into wind farms, or maybe put some out in Lake Erie (but I'm not sure there's any place in Ohio as consistently windy as those coastal areas).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Drive past a coal burning plant .
It 's a crime they are allowed to use the air we breath as a landfill for dumping their waste and I do n't just mean CO2 .
The sulphur [ sic ] and mercury and other toxins released are frightening .
" I thought that a decade or two ago , the EPA implemented rules requiring most U.S. coal plants to install smoke stack scrubbers that captured all that stuff before it exited into the environment ?
I was under the impression that mostly what came out of the stacks now is CO2 and water ?
( I realize this does n't necessarily apply to the rest of the world ; but since you seem to be talking mostly about the U.S. , that is the context I 'm discussing this in ) .But , I agree with your main point about off-shore Wind .
As long as we can do it in a way that does n't too adversely affect marine life , or maritime navigation , then I 'm all for it .
You probably can generate a lot of very cheap power that way .
Does n't help us folks in Ohio too much , but we can probably turn some corn or pig farms into wind farms , or maybe put some out in Lake Erie ( but I 'm not sure there 's any place in Ohio as consistently windy as those coastal areas ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Drive past a coal burning plant.
It's a crime they are allowed to use the air we breath as a landfill for dumping their waste and I don't just mean CO2.
The sulphur[sic] and mercury and other toxins released are frightening.
"I thought that a decade or two ago, the EPA implemented rules requiring most U.S. coal plants to install smoke stack scrubbers that captured all that stuff before it exited into the environment?
I was under the impression that mostly what came out of the stacks now is CO2 and water?
(I realize this doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the world; but since you seem to be talking mostly about the U.S., that is the context I'm discussing this in).But, I agree with your main point about off-shore Wind.
As long as we can do it in a way that doesn't too adversely affect marine life, or maritime navigation, then I'm all for it.
You probably can generate a lot of very cheap power that way.
Doesn't help us folks in Ohio too much, but we can probably turn some corn or pig farms into wind farms, or maybe put some out in Lake Erie (but I'm not sure there's any place in Ohio as consistently windy as those coastal areas).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406036</id>
	<title>if these jerkwads had any sense</title>
	<author>spidercoz</author>
	<datestamp>1268045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>they'd embrace the new tech and get in on it, rather than trying to fight it</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 'd embrace the new tech and get in on it , rather than trying to fight it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they'd embrace the new tech and get in on it, rather than trying to fight it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407244</id>
	<title>If I were the power companies...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268049900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be more worried about the Bloom Box.  The guy behind it says he hopes to have smaller home versions made available for consumers for around $3000 within the next several years.  When every middle class family buys their own fuel cell, the power company won't even be able to market to rich people, only poor people who can't afford the $3000 investment.  If Google, Wal-Mart, and Coke think this thing will succeed, it's a safe bet that it will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be more worried about the Bloom Box .
The guy behind it says he hopes to have smaller home versions made available for consumers for around $ 3000 within the next several years .
When every middle class family buys their own fuel cell , the power company wo n't even be able to market to rich people , only poor people who ca n't afford the $ 3000 investment .
If Google , Wal-Mart , and Coke think this thing will succeed , it 's a safe bet that it will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be more worried about the Bloom Box.
The guy behind it says he hopes to have smaller home versions made available for consumers for around $3000 within the next several years.
When every middle class family buys their own fuel cell, the power company won't even be able to market to rich people, only poor people who can't afford the $3000 investment.
If Google, Wal-Mart, and Coke think this thing will succeed, it's a safe bet that it will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417180</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1268164260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It could be worse, they could be building coal plants instead of wind.</p><p>They are. Google: coal plant 2010</p><p>I'm sure you can refine the search a little to get better results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It could be worse , they could be building coal plants instead of wind.They are .
Google : coal plant 2010I 'm sure you can refine the search a little to get better results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It could be worse, they could be building coal plants instead of wind.They are.
Google: coal plant 2010I'm sure you can refine the search a little to get better results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407368</id>
	<title>Thoughtful Responses</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        The power industry is about to get a huge economic shock and eventual shut down. But instead of going down with grace they will resist and fight tooth and nail. Frankly that is the worst position they could take. The new Bloom Box fuel cell will shut down the power generating industry. It will also kill off the coal and oil industries over the next thirty years.And that furl cell is not the only power company killer by a long shot.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The power companies could have invested and done real research into alternative power supplies but they chose to use lies and deceptions to fool the public and the government as well. Now people outside the industry are delivering products that do a better and better job of producing cheap power. All of this new income could have been created by the power companies. But I can tell you that their so called research involved some old wood sheds with someone's idiot brother in law hired to supposedly break new ground which they used as a tax shelter at best.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I can foresee large ponds with solar cells above them and catfish, talapia or shrimp farmed underneath while a tall wind mill towers above. I can also see our huge city garbage dump as a source of methane and plasma derived energy making our trash our most valuable asset. Today's garbage mountain is the gold mine of the very near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The power industry is about to get a huge economic shock and eventual shut down .
But instead of going down with grace they will resist and fight tooth and nail .
Frankly that is the worst position they could take .
The new Bloom Box fuel cell will shut down the power generating industry .
It will also kill off the coal and oil industries over the next thirty years.And that furl cell is not the only power company killer by a long shot .
                  The power companies could have invested and done real research into alternative power supplies but they chose to use lies and deceptions to fool the public and the government as well .
Now people outside the industry are delivering products that do a better and better job of producing cheap power .
All of this new income could have been created by the power companies .
But I can tell you that their so called research involved some old wood sheds with someone 's idiot brother in law hired to supposedly break new ground which they used as a tax shelter at best .
                I can foresee large ponds with solar cells above them and catfish , talapia or shrimp farmed underneath while a tall wind mill towers above .
I can also see our huge city garbage dump as a source of methane and plasma derived energy making our trash our most valuable asset .
Today 's garbage mountain is the gold mine of the very near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        The power industry is about to get a huge economic shock and eventual shut down.
But instead of going down with grace they will resist and fight tooth and nail.
Frankly that is the worst position they could take.
The new Bloom Box fuel cell will shut down the power generating industry.
It will also kill off the coal and oil industries over the next thirty years.And that furl cell is not the only power company killer by a long shot.
                  The power companies could have invested and done real research into alternative power supplies but they chose to use lies and deceptions to fool the public and the government as well.
Now people outside the industry are delivering products that do a better and better job of producing cheap power.
All of this new income could have been created by the power companies.
But I can tell you that their so called research involved some old wood sheds with someone's idiot brother in law hired to supposedly break new ground which they used as a tax shelter at best.
                I can foresee large ponds with solar cells above them and catfish, talapia or shrimp farmed underneath while a tall wind mill towers above.
I can also see our huge city garbage dump as a source of methane and plasma derived energy making our trash our most valuable asset.
Today's garbage mountain is the gold mine of the very near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406420</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to google 47,000 acres = 73.4375 square miles, with a US population density average of 86.2 people per square mile (wikipedia)  generating 800MW of energy would displace ~7000 people in the right areas (less in some areas).   Just because you live on the more densely populated east or west coast doesn't mean there isn't plenty of land here in the midwest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to google 47,000 acres = 73.4375 square miles , with a US population density average of 86.2 people per square mile ( wikipedia ) generating 800MW of energy would displace ~ 7000 people in the right areas ( less in some areas ) .
Just because you live on the more densely populated east or west coast does n't mean there is n't plenty of land here in the midwest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to google 47,000 acres = 73.4375 square miles, with a US population density average of 86.2 people per square mile (wikipedia)  generating 800MW of energy would displace ~7000 people in the right areas (less in some areas).
Just because you live on the more densely populated east or west coast doesn't mean there isn't plenty of land here in the midwest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407230</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1268049840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure,
there are still trillions in repairs we've been putting off.</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't forget how many trillions in debt you are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure , there are still trillions in repairs we 've been putting off.Do n't forget how many trillions in debt you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure,
there are still trillions in repairs we've been putting off.Don't forget how many trillions in debt you are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417956</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1268167680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Read some of the "fixes" and then ask who is going to pay for them? Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.</p></div><p>How about we just quit subsidizing the coal and gas industries instead? If they had to pay to clean up their own drilling and mining sites, to properly dispose of their own hazardous wastes, and to remove all the hazardous chemicals and CO2 they are pumping into our air then power generation that didn't need all that would be competitive on its own.

</p><p>They will never clean up their act while the taxpayer is footing the cleanup bill for their dirty practices for them (or just letting them do it for free without any cleanuup).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read some of the " fixes " and then ask who is going to pay for them ?
Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.How about we just quit subsidizing the coal and gas industries instead ?
If they had to pay to clean up their own drilling and mining sites , to properly dispose of their own hazardous wastes , and to remove all the hazardous chemicals and CO2 they are pumping into our air then power generation that did n't need all that would be competitive on its own .
They will never clean up their act while the taxpayer is footing the cleanup bill for their dirty practices for them ( or just letting them do it for free without any cleanuup ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read some of the "fixes" and then ask who is going to pay for them?
Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.How about we just quit subsidizing the coal and gas industries instead?
If they had to pay to clean up their own drilling and mining sites, to properly dispose of their own hazardous wastes, and to remove all the hazardous chemicals and CO2 they are pumping into our air then power generation that didn't need all that would be competitive on its own.
They will never clean up their act while the taxpayer is footing the cleanup bill for their dirty practices for them (or just letting them do it for free without any cleanuup).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409362</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Natural gas is dirt cheap right now."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
What's all this about cheap natural gas? I read the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch\_report" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Hirsch report</a> [wikipedia.org]. Gas <i>was</i> cheap in the 90s, then a bunch of gas-fired power plants were built, then -- surprise -- the supply turned out to be not so abundant after all, and gas is now 2-3 times more expensive than it was in the 90s. Did it get cheap again without me noticing? (I use LPG for heat.)
</p><p>
Unless we're talking about importing LNG -- in which case someone is going to get their ass kicked. Importing 2/3rd of the oil we use is bad for the US in so many ways, and we do NOT need to do the same with natural gas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Natural gas is dirt cheap right now .
" What 's all this about cheap natural gas ?
I read the Hirsch report [ wikipedia.org ] .
Gas was cheap in the 90s , then a bunch of gas-fired power plants were built , then -- surprise -- the supply turned out to be not so abundant after all , and gas is now 2-3 times more expensive than it was in the 90s .
Did it get cheap again without me noticing ?
( I use LPG for heat .
) Unless we 're talking about importing LNG -- in which case someone is going to get their ass kicked .
Importing 2/3rd of the oil we use is bad for the US in so many ways , and we do NOT need to do the same with natural gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Natural gas is dirt cheap right now.
"

What's all this about cheap natural gas?
I read the Hirsch report [wikipedia.org].
Gas was cheap in the 90s, then a bunch of gas-fired power plants were built, then -- surprise -- the supply turned out to be not so abundant after all, and gas is now 2-3 times more expensive than it was in the 90s.
Did it get cheap again without me noticing?
(I use LPG for heat.
)

Unless we're talking about importing LNG -- in which case someone is going to get their ass kicked.
Importing 2/3rd of the oil we use is bad for the US in so many ways, and we do NOT need to do the same with natural gas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407278</id>
	<title>Re:Join forces!</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1268050080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read the title of your post I thought it was going to be a really bad joke about using gas to power wind turbines.</p><p>Having actually read your post, I'd say that you suggested the optimal solution, but there's not enough money to be made so it won't happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read the title of your post I thought it was going to be a really bad joke about using gas to power wind turbines.Having actually read your post , I 'd say that you suggested the optimal solution , but there 's not enough money to be made so it wo n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read the title of your post I thought it was going to be a really bad joke about using gas to power wind turbines.Having actually read your post, I'd say that you suggested the optimal solution, but there's not enough money to be made so it won't happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410726</id>
	<title>Re:Join forces!</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268165040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't help pointing out that your post sounds like a VERY bad night at the Taco Bell (which should NOT have a dog as a mascot!).</p><p>Plasma incinerators make sense in any event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help pointing out that your post sounds like a VERY bad night at the Taco Bell ( which should NOT have a dog as a mascot !
) .Plasma incinerators make sense in any event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help pointing out that your post sounds like a VERY bad night at the Taco Bell (which should NOT have a dog as a mascot!
).Plasma incinerators make sense in any event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>johnlcallaway</author>
	<datestamp>1268051820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Infrastructure is one of America's top 5 problems for the 21st Century.</p></div><p>Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?  Let the East coast electricity get more expensive, and the Midwest electricity get cheaper.  People and business will naturally migrate from expensive areas to less expensive areas, not requiring any expenditure at all. Remove the subsidies and tax credits on building anything but pilot projects and research. Provide loans for valid business plans that show a reasonable chance of success to help give a leg up to an industry.
<br> <br>
Letting economics drive power sources is a lot more natural than having the government do it and creating tons of regulatory systems that only provide jobs in the legal and political arenas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Infrastructure is one of America 's top 5 problems for the 21st Century.Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast ?
Let the East coast electricity get more expensive , and the Midwest electricity get cheaper .
People and business will naturally migrate from expensive areas to less expensive areas , not requiring any expenditure at all .
Remove the subsidies and tax credits on building anything but pilot projects and research .
Provide loans for valid business plans that show a reasonable chance of success to help give a leg up to an industry .
Letting economics drive power sources is a lot more natural than having the government do it and creating tons of regulatory systems that only provide jobs in the legal and political arenas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Infrastructure is one of America's top 5 problems for the 21st Century.Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?
Let the East coast electricity get more expensive, and the Midwest electricity get cheaper.
People and business will naturally migrate from expensive areas to less expensive areas, not requiring any expenditure at all.
Remove the subsidies and tax credits on building anything but pilot projects and research.
Provide loans for valid business plans that show a reasonable chance of success to help give a leg up to an industry.
Letting economics drive power sources is a lot more natural than having the government do it and creating tons of regulatory systems that only provide jobs in the legal and political arenas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407556</id>
	<title>Re:Nigger Joke First Post!</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1268051460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's a redneck's idea of foreplay? "Hey, sis.  You awake?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's a redneck 's idea of foreplay ?
" Hey , sis .
You awake ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's a redneck's idea of foreplay?
"Hey, sis.
You awake?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410792</id>
	<title>Solution to variable renewable energy generation</title>
	<author>Fishbulb</author>
	<datestamp>1268166000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>(wind generation &mdash; from individual sites &mdash; is hopelessly variable)</i> </p><p>
And easily solved with the use of <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2008/oct/29-the-element-that-could-change-the-world" title="discovermagazine.com">Vanadium batteries</a> [discovermagazine.com].  I'll continue to signal boost this as long as there are people who think there is no solution to variable renewable energy generation.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( wind generation    from individual sites    is hopelessly variable ) And easily solved with the use of Vanadium batteries [ discovermagazine.com ] .
I 'll continue to signal boost this as long as there are people who think there is no solution to variable renewable energy generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (wind generation — from individual sites — is hopelessly variable) 
And easily solved with the use of Vanadium batteries [discovermagazine.com].
I'll continue to signal boost this as long as there are people who think there is no solution to variable renewable energy generation.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>ottothecow</author>
	<datestamp>1268046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you would think it would be a good opportunity for them to leverage their existing contracts, resources, and brand name to push into wind power.<p>

Buying out a small startup player and giving them your established name and relationships with other power companies seems like a big win</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you would think it would be a good opportunity for them to leverage their existing contracts , resources , and brand name to push into wind power .
Buying out a small startup player and giving them your established name and relationships with other power companies seems like a big win</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you would think it would be a good opportunity for them to leverage their existing contracts, resources, and brand name to push into wind power.
Buying out a small startup player and giving them your established name and relationships with other power companies seems like a big win</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31415760</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1268158080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There has to be an economic motive to change, and that can most easily be created by taxing what we don't like (coal/oil) and giving subs to what we do like (nuclear, wind, sun, etc..).</p></div><p>A dumb tax wouldn't even be nessecary. Just make <em>every</em> power-generator pay for the true cost of what they are doing, <strong>including cleaning up after themselves</strong>. That means cleaning all the crap out of the air and water that they put into it (inculding CO2). That means properly dispsosing of their heavy metal and radioative by-products, that means restoring their extraction and refining sites to a livable condition when they are done with them. Right now the old power and resource extraction industries just leave it to us taxpayers to clean up their messes (if we can clean them up at all), while they keep the profits for themselves. Privitize the profits, Socialize the costs.
</p><p>If every method of power generation had to play on a truly level playing-field, we wouldn't need any further artificial incentives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There has to be an economic motive to change , and that can most easily be created by taxing what we do n't like ( coal/oil ) and giving subs to what we do like ( nuclear , wind , sun , etc.. ) .A dumb tax would n't even be nessecary .
Just make every power-generator pay for the true cost of what they are doing , including cleaning up after themselves .
That means cleaning all the crap out of the air and water that they put into it ( inculding CO2 ) .
That means properly dispsosing of their heavy metal and radioative by-products , that means restoring their extraction and refining sites to a livable condition when they are done with them .
Right now the old power and resource extraction industries just leave it to us taxpayers to clean up their messes ( if we can clean them up at all ) , while they keep the profits for themselves .
Privitize the profits , Socialize the costs .
If every method of power generation had to play on a truly level playing-field , we would n't need any further artificial incentives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has to be an economic motive to change, and that can most easily be created by taxing what we don't like (coal/oil) and giving subs to what we do like (nuclear, wind, sun, etc..).A dumb tax wouldn't even be nessecary.
Just make every power-generator pay for the true cost of what they are doing, including cleaning up after themselves.
That means cleaning all the crap out of the air and water that they put into it (inculding CO2).
That means properly dispsosing of their heavy metal and radioative by-products, that means restoring their extraction and refining sites to a livable condition when they are done with them.
Right now the old power and resource extraction industries just leave it to us taxpayers to clean up their messes (if we can clean them up at all), while they keep the profits for themselves.
Privitize the profits, Socialize the costs.
If every method of power generation had to play on a truly level playing-field, we wouldn't need any further artificial incentives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407260</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>tfrab</author>
	<datestamp>1268050020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing is Wind is Flaky, Personally I like to have power all the time, even when there is no wind.</p><p>There are two solutions to this problems:</p><p>1. Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills
2. Gas Supplement.</p></div><p>3. Interconnecting Wind Farms

<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07\_jamc.pdf" title="stanford.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07\_jamc.pdf</a> [stanford.edu]

but I agree: in the years to come we still need "conventional", reliable, energy, the cleaner being the nuclear one</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is Wind is Flaky , Personally I like to have power all the time , even when there is no wind.There are two solutions to this problems : 1 .
Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills 2 .
Gas Supplement.3 .
Interconnecting Wind Farms http : //www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07 \ _jamc.pdf [ stanford.edu ] but I agree : in the years to come we still need " conventional " , reliable , energy , the cleaner being the nuclear one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is Wind is Flaky, Personally I like to have power all the time, even when there is no wind.There are two solutions to this problems:1.
Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills
2.
Gas Supplement.3.
Interconnecting Wind Farms

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07\_jamc.pdf [stanford.edu]

but I agree: in the years to come we still need "conventional", reliable, energy, the cleaner being the nuclear one
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408128</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268054700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Because transmission losses over that distance are negligible and the $Trillion needed to build the transmission lines pales in comparison to the cost of moving all the East Coast plants/activity/employees to the Midwest. Most of the East Coasters probably are quite happy being there (where for starters they don't have to worry about fighting with rednecks over homophobia, prayer in school, teaching evolution and/or  sex education in schools). Otherwise people would have moved everything to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela decades ago. You're going to pay for it sooner or later, either in taxes for the infrastructure or in the increased cost of goods to pay for the move costs, but one of those has substantially less impact on everyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast ?
Because transmission losses over that distance are negligible and the $ Trillion needed to build the transmission lines pales in comparison to the cost of moving all the East Coast plants/activity/employees to the Midwest .
Most of the East Coasters probably are quite happy being there ( where for starters they do n't have to worry about fighting with rednecks over homophobia , prayer in school , teaching evolution and/or sex education in schools ) .
Otherwise people would have moved everything to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela decades ago .
You 're going to pay for it sooner or later , either in taxes for the infrastructure or in the increased cost of goods to pay for the move costs , but one of those has substantially less impact on everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?
Because transmission losses over that distance are negligible and the $Trillion needed to build the transmission lines pales in comparison to the cost of moving all the East Coast plants/activity/employees to the Midwest.
Most of the East Coasters probably are quite happy being there (where for starters they don't have to worry about fighting with rednecks over homophobia, prayer in school, teaching evolution and/or  sex education in schools).
Otherwise people would have moved everything to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela decades ago.
You're going to pay for it sooner or later, either in taxes for the infrastructure or in the increased cost of goods to pay for the move costs, but one of those has substantially less impact on everyone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407170</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>TheNarrator</author>
	<datestamp>1268049540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nor would we want to. That caused the Great Depression. Regulation of the free markets is a necessary activity. Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism. Of course, nobody agrees on how to do this... Subsidies are one answer. If you want to suggest another one, present your argument, but don't just wish for it to go away without a valid replacement.</p></div></blockquote><p>Fractional reserve banking causes the boom and bust cycle.  Getting rid of fractional reserve banking may be politically impossible, but don't fool yourself into thinking that inflation and deflation are acts of god.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nor would we want to .
That caused the Great Depression .
Regulation of the free markets is a necessary activity .
Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism .
Of course , nobody agrees on how to do this... Subsidies are one answer .
If you want to suggest another one , present your argument , but do n't just wish for it to go away without a valid replacement.Fractional reserve banking causes the boom and bust cycle .
Getting rid of fractional reserve banking may be politically impossible , but do n't fool yourself into thinking that inflation and deflation are acts of god .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nor would we want to.
That caused the Great Depression.
Regulation of the free markets is a necessary activity.
Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism.
Of course, nobody agrees on how to do this... Subsidies are one answer.
If you want to suggest another one, present your argument, but don't just wish for it to go away without a valid replacement.Fractional reserve banking causes the boom and bust cycle.
Getting rid of fractional reserve banking may be politically impossible, but don't fool yourself into thinking that inflation and deflation are acts of god.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406920</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1268048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep. The play of buying up smaller companies which take the risk is done by oil and gas companies all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
The play of buying up smaller companies which take the risk is done by oil and gas companies all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
The play of buying up smaller companies which take the risk is done by oil and gas companies all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406474</id>
	<title>Re:if these jerkwads had any sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't new...   Even in 'socially responsible' (or is that reprehensible?) Canada, we have issues that stink of lobbying as well:</p><p>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/10/ontario-wind-turbines.html</p><p>On the flipside, the gov't does seem proud of what little they have done...</p><p>http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/windpower.asp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't new... Even in 'socially responsible ' ( or is that reprehensible ?
) Canada , we have issues that stink of lobbying as well : http : //www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/10/ontario-wind-turbines.htmlOn the flipside , the gov't does seem proud of what little they have done...http : //www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/windpower.asp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't new...   Even in 'socially responsible' (or is that reprehensible?
) Canada, we have issues that stink of lobbying as well:http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/10/ontario-wind-turbines.htmlOn the flipside, the gov't does seem proud of what little they have done...http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/windpower.asp</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407488</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1268051040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really... <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf" title="doe.gov">http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf</a> [doe.gov] page 16/20 the last column is the one to look at. Wind and solar are getting a shit ton of subsidies. Wind which is what the article is about gets 93.5x as much those complainers gas.... wait, maybe they have a point...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really... http : //www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf [ doe.gov ] page 16/20 the last column is the one to look at .
Wind and solar are getting a shit ton of subsidies .
Wind which is what the article is about gets 93.5x as much those complainers gas.... wait , maybe they have a point.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really... http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf [doe.gov] page 16/20 the last column is the one to look at.
Wind and solar are getting a shit ton of subsidies.
Wind which is what the article is about gets 93.5x as much those complainers gas.... wait, maybe they have a point...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406406</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1268046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't quite 'take up' all that land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't quite 'take up ' all that land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't quite 'take up' all that land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407134</id>
	<title>Robert Heinlein said it best...</title>
	<author>Nexzus</author>
	<datestamp>1268049420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.</p><p>
&nbsp; - Robert A. Heinlein, Life-Line (1939)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future , even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest .
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law .
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped , or turned back .
  - Robert A. Heinlein , Life-Line ( 1939 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest.
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law.
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
  - Robert A. Heinlein, Life-Line (1939)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412088</id>
	<title>je me marre !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268141940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you say "there are fixes for all of the concerns raised"<br>Is there really a fix to wind varying???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you say " there are fixes for all of the concerns raised " Is there really a fix to wind varying ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you say "there are fixes for all of the concerns raised"Is there really a fix to wind varying??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406498</id>
	<title>The Real Problem...</title>
	<author>MrTripps</author>
	<datestamp>1268047200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...seems to be storing and transporting energy. Its too bad all the good places for wind power happen to be out in the middle of nowhere. By the time you get the lines built and the extra power needed to send it hundreds of miles your project is even less profitable. Too bad Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower didn't catch on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...seems to be storing and transporting energy .
Its too bad all the good places for wind power happen to be out in the middle of nowhere .
By the time you get the lines built and the extra power needed to send it hundreds of miles your project is even less profitable .
Too bad Tesla 's Wardenclyffe tower did n't catch on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...seems to be storing and transporting energy.
Its too bad all the good places for wind power happen to be out in the middle of nowhere.
By the time you get the lines built and the extra power needed to send it hundreds of miles your project is even less profitable.
Too bad Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower didn't catch on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406746</id>
	<title>Wait'll coast power kicks in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268047860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they can strike a compromise with coastal wind power, far enough out so they can't bee seen and they get constant wind, you'll really see the fossil fuel crowd scream. Drop rows of windmills 30 miles or so off Los Angeles and New York so they are close to the users and you get the best of both worlds. I know the rich with ocean front land will squeal if you put them halfway to Europe but I'd give them a choice of a coal plant in the backyard or windmills just out of sight. Alternative sources were fine while they were a novelty but as they get more competitive the CO2 crowd are going to try to kill them. What they are facing are higher fossil fuel costs while alternative sources tend to get cheaper over time. I noticed a few screaming about subsidies. Well here's one for you nuclear, coal and oil are all heavily subsidized. It's been one of the reasons alternatives have had trouble competing unless they are also subsidized. In a sense the middle east provides the biggest subsidies through dirt cheap oil, it costs them a few dollars a barrel to pump it. If we have to get all our oil from offshore and arctic sources it'd be 2X or 3X what is now.Offshore oil actually sets the price for oil but if we had to depend on it the prices would go through the roof. Take away all subsidies and see what happens? Also make all sources have to run clean and clean up their waste and you'd see a lot more windmills going up. Don't believe me? Drive past a coal burning plant. It's a crime they are allowed to use the air we breath as a landfill for dumping their waste and I don't just mean CO2. The sulphur and mercury and other toxins released are frightening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can strike a compromise with coastal wind power , far enough out so they ca n't bee seen and they get constant wind , you 'll really see the fossil fuel crowd scream .
Drop rows of windmills 30 miles or so off Los Angeles and New York so they are close to the users and you get the best of both worlds .
I know the rich with ocean front land will squeal if you put them halfway to Europe but I 'd give them a choice of a coal plant in the backyard or windmills just out of sight .
Alternative sources were fine while they were a novelty but as they get more competitive the CO2 crowd are going to try to kill them .
What they are facing are higher fossil fuel costs while alternative sources tend to get cheaper over time .
I noticed a few screaming about subsidies .
Well here 's one for you nuclear , coal and oil are all heavily subsidized .
It 's been one of the reasons alternatives have had trouble competing unless they are also subsidized .
In a sense the middle east provides the biggest subsidies through dirt cheap oil , it costs them a few dollars a barrel to pump it .
If we have to get all our oil from offshore and arctic sources it 'd be 2X or 3X what is now.Offshore oil actually sets the price for oil but if we had to depend on it the prices would go through the roof .
Take away all subsidies and see what happens ?
Also make all sources have to run clean and clean up their waste and you 'd see a lot more windmills going up .
Do n't believe me ?
Drive past a coal burning plant .
It 's a crime they are allowed to use the air we breath as a landfill for dumping their waste and I do n't just mean CO2 .
The sulphur and mercury and other toxins released are frightening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can strike a compromise with coastal wind power, far enough out so they can't bee seen and they get constant wind, you'll really see the fossil fuel crowd scream.
Drop rows of windmills 30 miles or so off Los Angeles and New York so they are close to the users and you get the best of both worlds.
I know the rich with ocean front land will squeal if you put them halfway to Europe but I'd give them a choice of a coal plant in the backyard or windmills just out of sight.
Alternative sources were fine while they were a novelty but as they get more competitive the CO2 crowd are going to try to kill them.
What they are facing are higher fossil fuel costs while alternative sources tend to get cheaper over time.
I noticed a few screaming about subsidies.
Well here's one for you nuclear, coal and oil are all heavily subsidized.
It's been one of the reasons alternatives have had trouble competing unless they are also subsidized.
In a sense the middle east provides the biggest subsidies through dirt cheap oil, it costs them a few dollars a barrel to pump it.
If we have to get all our oil from offshore and arctic sources it'd be 2X or 3X what is now.Offshore oil actually sets the price for oil but if we had to depend on it the prices would go through the roof.
Take away all subsidies and see what happens?
Also make all sources have to run clean and clean up their waste and you'd see a lot more windmills going up.
Don't believe me?
Drive past a coal burning plant.
It's a crime they are allowed to use the air we breath as a landfill for dumping their waste and I don't just mean CO2.
The sulphur and mercury and other toxins released are frightening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268045820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only real problem with wind power is a land use vs generated power issue. The largest wind farm in the us produces less than 800 MW of energy (and remember this is potential generation, wind generation is still inefficient compared to other sources), and takes up 47000 acres of land. You can't just drop one of those everywhere the wind is good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only real problem with wind power is a land use vs generated power issue .
The largest wind farm in the us produces less than 800 MW of energy ( and remember this is potential generation , wind generation is still inefficient compared to other sources ) , and takes up 47000 acres of land .
You ca n't just drop one of those everywhere the wind is good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only real problem with wind power is a land use vs generated power issue.
The largest wind farm in the us produces less than 800 MW of energy (and remember this is potential generation, wind generation is still inefficient compared to other sources), and takes up 47000 acres of land.
You can't just drop one of those everywhere the wind is good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408794</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Phil06</author>
	<datestamp>1268059200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wind is economical only with heavy tax subsidies. Anything is economical if you get some other poor sorry bastard to pay for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind is economical only with heavy tax subsidies .
Anything is economical if you get some other poor sorry bastard to pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind is economical only with heavy tax subsidies.
Anything is economical if you get some other poor sorry bastard to pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410832</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268166600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; 1. Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills</p><p>If you have a few million hybrid and electric cars on the road, there are your batteries.</p><p>Only about 25\% would be driven at any point in time. The rest can sit there storing energy when the wind is blowing, and returning energy to the grid at peak times, earning money for their owners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; 1 .
Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hillsIf you have a few million hybrid and electric cars on the road , there are your batteries.Only about 25 \ % would be driven at any point in time .
The rest can sit there storing energy when the wind is blowing , and returning energy to the grid at peak times , earning money for their owners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; 1.
Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hillsIf you have a few million hybrid and electric cars on the road, there are your batteries.Only about 25\% would be driven at any point in time.
The rest can sit there storing energy when the wind is blowing, and returning energy to the grid at peak times, earning money for their owners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406808</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1268048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't believe we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.</p></div><p>In electricity, there's isn't a historical free market Utopia to return to, unless you're talking about Edison wiring a few neighborhoods in New York City with DC.  Right from the get-go, we started to do the most un-free market thing possible by granting monopolies on electricity generation and distribution.</p><p>Why?</p><p>In order to attract more rapid investment.  Oh, we'd have got to almost universal electrification, but it wouldn't have happened over fifteen or twenty years. It might have taken twice as long.  In the meantime we'd have an industrial infrastructure still dependent on steam engines and water power years after other nations were electrified.</p><p>That's what we're talking about here. Not operational subsidies, but getting lots of wind generation built over the course of a few years, rather than over the course of generations.  The hope is that attract additional private investment to create companies in the US to design, build, service and innovate in wind power generation.</p><p>There's some really, really specific kinds of things you need to build a wind generator, and it would be nice to have the technological capability to do that here instead of sending to Germany for the massive bearings, or China for the blades and generators.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe we 'll ever be able to get back a US where there is n't government subsidies in everything.In electricity , there 's is n't a historical free market Utopia to return to , unless you 're talking about Edison wiring a few neighborhoods in New York City with DC .
Right from the get-go , we started to do the most un-free market thing possible by granting monopolies on electricity generation and distribution.Why ? In order to attract more rapid investment .
Oh , we 'd have got to almost universal electrification , but it would n't have happened over fifteen or twenty years .
It might have taken twice as long .
In the meantime we 'd have an industrial infrastructure still dependent on steam engines and water power years after other nations were electrified.That 's what we 're talking about here .
Not operational subsidies , but getting lots of wind generation built over the course of a few years , rather than over the course of generations .
The hope is that attract additional private investment to create companies in the US to design , build , service and innovate in wind power generation.There 's some really , really specific kinds of things you need to build a wind generator , and it would be nice to have the technological capability to do that here instead of sending to Germany for the massive bearings , or China for the blades and generators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.In electricity, there's isn't a historical free market Utopia to return to, unless you're talking about Edison wiring a few neighborhoods in New York City with DC.
Right from the get-go, we started to do the most un-free market thing possible by granting monopolies on electricity generation and distribution.Why?In order to attract more rapid investment.
Oh, we'd have got to almost universal electrification, but it wouldn't have happened over fifteen or twenty years.
It might have taken twice as long.
In the meantime we'd have an industrial infrastructure still dependent on steam engines and water power years after other nations were electrified.That's what we're talking about here.
Not operational subsidies, but getting lots of wind generation built over the course of a few years, rather than over the course of generations.
The hope is that attract additional private investment to create companies in the US to design, build, service and innovate in wind power generation.There's some really, really specific kinds of things you need to build a wind generator, and it would be nice to have the technological capability to do that here instead of sending to Germany for the massive bearings, or China for the blades and generators.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408532</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe for the same reason East coast tax dollars go toward funding Midwest interstate highways, military bases, and airports?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast ? Maybe for the same reason East coast tax dollars go toward funding Midwest interstate highways , military bases , and airports ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?Maybe for the same reason East coast tax dollars go toward funding Midwest interstate highways, military bases, and airports?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408590</id>
	<title>Best, most reliable "green" power source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268057760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuclear.<br><br>End of debate.<br><br>Now start building the damned power plants before we run out of time!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear.End of debate.Now start building the damned power plants before we run out of time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear.End of debate.Now start building the damned power plants before we run out of time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408986</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268060700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean "if only there were a bunch of UNION people who needed jobs who could do this for us."</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean " if only there were a bunch of UNION people who needed jobs who could do this for us .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean "if only there were a bunch of UNION people who needed jobs who could do this for us.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408702</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1268058480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the status quo (oil,gas,coal) is the most cost effective solution, what incentive would the market ever have of moving to cleaner energy sources, without some tax/incentive system?</p><p>Exxon/some big energy company is just going to, out of the kindness of its heart, use its 30 billion in profits to lay down new lines and setup wind farms across America?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the status quo ( oil,gas,coal ) is the most cost effective solution , what incentive would the market ever have of moving to cleaner energy sources , without some tax/incentive system ? Exxon/some big energy company is just going to , out of the kindness of its heart , use its 30 billion in profits to lay down new lines and setup wind farms across America ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the status quo (oil,gas,coal) is the most cost effective solution, what incentive would the market ever have of moving to cleaner energy sources, without some tax/incentive system?Exxon/some big energy company is just going to, out of the kindness of its heart, use its 30 billion in profits to lay down new lines and setup wind farms across America?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408648</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1268058120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; the concerns raised by the carbon-based entities</p><p>I am a carbon-based entity and I resent the implied slur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the concerns raised by the carbon-based entitiesI am a carbon-based entity and I resent the implied slur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; the concerns raised by the carbon-based entitiesI am a carbon-based entity and I resent the implied slur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678</id>
	<title>Join forces!</title>
	<author>KDN</author>
	<datestamp>1268047740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is easy: the gas and wind groups should join forces.
When they have enough wind, switch the gas systems to standby.
When there is not enough wind, then crank up the gas systems.
In addition, they should look into energy storage such as flywheel and/or compressed air.
These will help fill in the gap between when the wind dies down and the gas turbines spin up.
</p><p>
Heck, wanna really have fun?  Have surplus wind energy electrolize water into hydrogen and and oxygen, and store the hydrogen to feed the gas turbines.  Or, use plasma incinerators to convert garbage into syngas and burn that instead of natural gas. If you did that you would not even need the natural gas people.
Heck you could sell the excess back to the natural gas people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is easy : the gas and wind groups should join forces .
When they have enough wind , switch the gas systems to standby .
When there is not enough wind , then crank up the gas systems .
In addition , they should look into energy storage such as flywheel and/or compressed air .
These will help fill in the gap between when the wind dies down and the gas turbines spin up .
Heck , wan na really have fun ?
Have surplus wind energy electrolize water into hydrogen and and oxygen , and store the hydrogen to feed the gas turbines .
Or , use plasma incinerators to convert garbage into syngas and burn that instead of natural gas .
If you did that you would not even need the natural gas people .
Heck you could sell the excess back to the natural gas people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is easy: the gas and wind groups should join forces.
When they have enough wind, switch the gas systems to standby.
When there is not enough wind, then crank up the gas systems.
In addition, they should look into energy storage such as flywheel and/or compressed air.
These will help fill in the gap between when the wind dies down and the gas turbines spin up.
Heck, wanna really have fun?
Have surplus wind energy electrolize water into hydrogen and and oxygen, and store the hydrogen to feed the gas turbines.
Or, use plasma incinerators to convert garbage into syngas and burn that instead of natural gas.
If you did that you would not even need the natural gas people.
Heck you could sell the excess back to the natural gas people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407078</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268049240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are you willing to pay more in taxes and pay more for goods produced in the US by US companies?</p></div></blockquote><p>You bet your ass I am.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you willing to pay more in taxes and pay more for goods produced in the US by US companies ? You bet your ass I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you willing to pay more in taxes and pay more for goods produced in the US by US companies?You bet your ass I am.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407608</id>
	<title>In all fairness...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268051700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...oil, gas and coal don't do anybody any good just sitting there in the ground. Use it up! Its like not using a 50 cent coin only because you only have one. You might as well throw it away if that's the attitude.</p><p>Yes, let's develop wind, nuclear and solar. The sun is a HUMONGOUS battery who's energy we are letting burn out unused. But it is also stupid to not use oil/gas/coal just *because*. Energy is energy, no matter what the form.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...oil , gas and coal do n't do anybody any good just sitting there in the ground .
Use it up !
Its like not using a 50 cent coin only because you only have one .
You might as well throw it away if that 's the attitude.Yes , let 's develop wind , nuclear and solar .
The sun is a HUMONGOUS battery who 's energy we are letting burn out unused .
But it is also stupid to not use oil/gas/coal just * because * .
Energy is energy , no matter what the form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...oil, gas and coal don't do anybody any good just sitting there in the ground.
Use it up!
Its like not using a 50 cent coin only because you only have one.
You might as well throw it away if that's the attitude.Yes, let's develop wind, nuclear and solar.
The sun is a HUMONGOUS battery who's energy we are letting burn out unused.
But it is also stupid to not use oil/gas/coal just *because*.
Energy is energy, no matter what the form.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408742</id>
	<title>re:  Gas Wants To Kill the Wind</title>
	<author>brianc</author>
	<datestamp>1268058840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With a title like that, I expected some kind of<br>gastro / fart joke...</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With a title like that , I expected some kind ofgastro / fart joke.. .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a title like that, I expected some kind ofgastro / fart joke...
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407060</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>kckman</author>
	<datestamp>1268049120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there anything that an economist won't say or believe?  I believe that economists can power the world with the wind they produce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anything that an economist wo n't say or believe ?
I believe that economists can power the world with the wind they produce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anything that an economist won't say or believe?
I believe that economists can power the world with the wind they produce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408258</id>
	<title>Re:Join forces!</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268055600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't that theory known as peak shaving?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that theory known as peak shaving ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that theory known as peak shaving?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1268048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is the high voltage transmission infrastructure that no one wants to build. FTFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Reaching a goal of 20 percent wind generation in 2024 would require construction of <b>10 inter-regional high-voltage lines spanning a total of nearly 22,700 miles, at a cost of $93 billion</b>. Such an ambitious goal won't be achieved under a business-as-usual approach, the study concluded.</p></div><p>Not only will it cost an enormous amount of money, but it will have to cross State lines, meaning it will take multiple<br>regulators, multiple special interests, and multiples of everything else you can think of in order to become reality.</p><p>Infrastructure is one of America's top 5 problems for the 21st Century.<br>Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure,<br>there are still trillions in repairs we've been putting off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the high voltage transmission infrastructure that no one wants to build .
FTFA : Reaching a goal of 20 percent wind generation in 2024 would require construction of 10 inter-regional high-voltage lines spanning a total of nearly 22,700 miles , at a cost of $ 93 billion .
Such an ambitious goal wo n't be achieved under a business-as-usual approach , the study concluded.Not only will it cost an enormous amount of money , but it will have to cross State lines , meaning it will take multipleregulators , multiple special interests , and multiples of everything else you can think of in order to become reality.Infrastructure is one of America 's top 5 problems for the 21st Century.Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure,there are still trillions in repairs we 've been putting off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the high voltage transmission infrastructure that no one wants to build.
FTFA:Reaching a goal of 20 percent wind generation in 2024 would require construction of 10 inter-regional high-voltage lines spanning a total of nearly 22,700 miles, at a cost of $93 billion.
Such an ambitious goal won't be achieved under a business-as-usual approach, the study concluded.Not only will it cost an enormous amount of money, but it will have to cross State lines, meaning it will take multipleregulators, multiple special interests, and multiples of everything else you can think of in order to become reality.Infrastructure is one of America's top 5 problems for the 21st Century.Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure,there are still trillions in repairs we've been putting off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408848</id>
	<title>Wind + Coal</title>
	<author>TomRC</author>
	<datestamp>1268059680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind power is unsuited for peak load (can't reliably turn it on when you need it).  It is unsuited for base load (varies too much).   It is really only ideal for something that can be ramped up and down with availability of power.</p><p>To me the answer is obvious - wind power must be used to power some high volume, continuously variable production process, where one doesn't care about the moment-to-moment production rate, just the long term average.   The process must be highly automated, to avoid the need for having human labor idled when the wind dies down.</p><p>If hydrogen production via electrolysis were efficient enough, and if hydrogen were easy enough to transport without huge losses, that would be a reasonable example.  The latter could probably be solved by converting hydrogen to propane or another convenient fuel, but the former so far appears to be unsolved.</p><p>Another continuous production process suitable for wind power consumption might be compression and cooling for gas liquefaction.  While the equipment is complex and expensive, I believe this might be efficient enough to be practical.  But then the question becomes, for what purpose would one use such large volumes of liquid nitrogen, liquid oxygen, etc?</p><p>One possibility would be "Clean Coal".  "Clean coal" would best operate by burning coal with pure oxygen, so that the majority of it's exhaust gas consists of hot CO2, making it substantially easier to sequester the CO2.  But producing pure oxygen from air is difficult - too much nitrogen.  Liquefaction of air to extract liquid oxygen (LOX) is one approach - but if that means one needs to burn more coal to power the process, requiring more LOX and producing more CO2 to be sequestered, it may not be a good deal.   But if one had a clean, carbon-free method to produce LOX, no additional coal would be required, minimizing the total amount of LOX consumed and CO2 produced.  Further, the LOX needs to be warmed before being injected - which can be done by chilling the hot CO2 exhaust, reducing the power required to compress CO2 to a liquid for shipment and sequestration.</p><p>In this way, Wind and Coal could be natural allies - in both a technical and political sense.   Note that I am not saying coal has no other disadvantages.  But perhaps in combination with Wind and CO2 sequestration, the scale of advantage versus disadvantage tips in favor of coal.  And while closer than most "alternative" energy sources, Wind unfortunately does not appear to quite make it into "economically viable" on its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind power is unsuited for peak load ( ca n't reliably turn it on when you need it ) .
It is unsuited for base load ( varies too much ) .
It is really only ideal for something that can be ramped up and down with availability of power.To me the answer is obvious - wind power must be used to power some high volume , continuously variable production process , where one does n't care about the moment-to-moment production rate , just the long term average .
The process must be highly automated , to avoid the need for having human labor idled when the wind dies down.If hydrogen production via electrolysis were efficient enough , and if hydrogen were easy enough to transport without huge losses , that would be a reasonable example .
The latter could probably be solved by converting hydrogen to propane or another convenient fuel , but the former so far appears to be unsolved.Another continuous production process suitable for wind power consumption might be compression and cooling for gas liquefaction .
While the equipment is complex and expensive , I believe this might be efficient enough to be practical .
But then the question becomes , for what purpose would one use such large volumes of liquid nitrogen , liquid oxygen , etc ? One possibility would be " Clean Coal " .
" Clean coal " would best operate by burning coal with pure oxygen , so that the majority of it 's exhaust gas consists of hot CO2 , making it substantially easier to sequester the CO2 .
But producing pure oxygen from air is difficult - too much nitrogen .
Liquefaction of air to extract liquid oxygen ( LOX ) is one approach - but if that means one needs to burn more coal to power the process , requiring more LOX and producing more CO2 to be sequestered , it may not be a good deal .
But if one had a clean , carbon-free method to produce LOX , no additional coal would be required , minimizing the total amount of LOX consumed and CO2 produced .
Further , the LOX needs to be warmed before being injected - which can be done by chilling the hot CO2 exhaust , reducing the power required to compress CO2 to a liquid for shipment and sequestration.In this way , Wind and Coal could be natural allies - in both a technical and political sense .
Note that I am not saying coal has no other disadvantages .
But perhaps in combination with Wind and CO2 sequestration , the scale of advantage versus disadvantage tips in favor of coal .
And while closer than most " alternative " energy sources , Wind unfortunately does not appear to quite make it into " economically viable " on its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind power is unsuited for peak load (can't reliably turn it on when you need it).
It is unsuited for base load (varies too much).
It is really only ideal for something that can be ramped up and down with availability of power.To me the answer is obvious - wind power must be used to power some high volume, continuously variable production process, where one doesn't care about the moment-to-moment production rate, just the long term average.
The process must be highly automated, to avoid the need for having human labor idled when the wind dies down.If hydrogen production via electrolysis were efficient enough, and if hydrogen were easy enough to transport without huge losses, that would be a reasonable example.
The latter could probably be solved by converting hydrogen to propane or another convenient fuel, but the former so far appears to be unsolved.Another continuous production process suitable for wind power consumption might be compression and cooling for gas liquefaction.
While the equipment is complex and expensive, I believe this might be efficient enough to be practical.
But then the question becomes, for what purpose would one use such large volumes of liquid nitrogen, liquid oxygen, etc?One possibility would be "Clean Coal".
"Clean coal" would best operate by burning coal with pure oxygen, so that the majority of it's exhaust gas consists of hot CO2, making it substantially easier to sequester the CO2.
But producing pure oxygen from air is difficult - too much nitrogen.
Liquefaction of air to extract liquid oxygen (LOX) is one approach - but if that means one needs to burn more coal to power the process, requiring more LOX and producing more CO2 to be sequestered, it may not be a good deal.
But if one had a clean, carbon-free method to produce LOX, no additional coal would be required, minimizing the total amount of LOX consumed and CO2 produced.
Further, the LOX needs to be warmed before being injected - which can be done by chilling the hot CO2 exhaust, reducing the power required to compress CO2 to a liquid for shipment and sequestration.In this way, Wind and Coal could be natural allies - in both a technical and political sense.
Note that I am not saying coal has no other disadvantages.
But perhaps in combination with Wind and CO2 sequestration, the scale of advantage versus disadvantage tips in favor of coal.
And while closer than most "alternative" energy sources, Wind unfortunately does not appear to quite make it into "economically viable" on its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408244</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1268055540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.</b></p><p><b><b>While I agree with gas as a "bridge" fuel, that makes me laugh. Why don't we stop subsidizing nukes, oil, gas and coal? We can start by forcing them to pay market prices for the mineral leases on Gov't. lands.</b></b></p><p><b><b>Let's just end all subsidies, let market forces come into play, and then see what the real winner would be.</b></b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.While I agree with gas as a " bridge " fuel , that makes me laugh .
Why do n't we stop subsidizing nukes , oil , gas and coal ?
We can start by forcing them to pay market prices for the mineral leases on Gov't .
lands.Let 's just end all subsidies , let market forces come into play , and then see what the real winner would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.While I agree with gas as a "bridge" fuel, that makes me laugh.
Why don't we stop subsidizing nukes, oil, gas and coal?
We can start by forcing them to pay market prices for the mineral leases on Gov't.
lands.Let's just end all subsidies, let market forces come into play, and then see what the real winner would be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1268046000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't belive we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.</p></div><p>Nor would we want to. That caused the Great Depression. Regulation of the free markets is a necessary activity. Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism. Of course, nobody agrees on <i>how</i> to do this... Subsidies are one answer. If you want to suggest another one, present your argument, but don't just wish for it to go away without a valid replacement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't belive we 'll ever be able to get back a US where there is n't government subsidies in everything.Nor would we want to .
That caused the Great Depression .
Regulation of the free markets is a necessary activity .
Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism .
Of course , nobody agrees on how to do this... Subsidies are one answer .
If you want to suggest another one , present your argument , but do n't just wish for it to go away without a valid replacement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't belive we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.Nor would we want to.
That caused the Great Depression.
Regulation of the free markets is a necessary activity.
Any economist will tell you there needs to be ways of moderating the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalism.
Of course, nobody agrees on how to do this... Subsidies are one answer.
If you want to suggest another one, present your argument, but don't just wish for it to go away without a valid replacement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406350</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1268046720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Accept that as long as human beings are regulating the market there will be boom and bust cycles.  Regardless of whether those regulators are part of the government or traders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Accept that as long as human beings are regulating the market there will be boom and bust cycles .
Regardless of whether those regulators are part of the government or traders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Accept that as long as human beings are regulating the market there will be boom and bust cycles.
Regardless of whether those regulators are part of the government or traders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411792</id>
	<title>Think of the environment!</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1268138100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By putting up all those wind turbines we are affecting the natural wind flow of the planet, stop hurting mother Earth!<br>
Won't you think of the children?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>By putting up all those wind turbines we are affecting the natural wind flow of the planet , stop hurting mother Earth !
Wo n't you think of the children ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By putting up all those wind turbines we are affecting the natural wind flow of the planet, stop hurting mother Earth!
Won't you think of the children?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406926</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's far from the only real problem with wind power. Another big problem is that it's wildly unpredictable. What do you do with those 800MW when nobody needs the power? You shut off the gas turbines. What happens when the demand goes back up but the wind dies down? You have to crank up those gas turbines again. That makes the gas turbines much less efficient to run.</p><p>And don't forget that the land use has to be near (within a few hundred miles of) where the power is used. Building massive power transmission infrastructure for an unpredictable intermittent power source just isn't feasible. The price of wind power would probably double if you had to build transmission lines from Nebraska (where there's plenty of wind and land) to Chicago (where there's plenty of load).</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's far from the only real problem with wind power .
Another big problem is that it 's wildly unpredictable .
What do you do with those 800MW when nobody needs the power ?
You shut off the gas turbines .
What happens when the demand goes back up but the wind dies down ?
You have to crank up those gas turbines again .
That makes the gas turbines much less efficient to run.And do n't forget that the land use has to be near ( within a few hundred miles of ) where the power is used .
Building massive power transmission infrastructure for an unpredictable intermittent power source just is n't feasible .
The price of wind power would probably double if you had to build transmission lines from Nebraska ( where there 's plenty of wind and land ) to Chicago ( where there 's plenty of load ) .dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's far from the only real problem with wind power.
Another big problem is that it's wildly unpredictable.
What do you do with those 800MW when nobody needs the power?
You shut off the gas turbines.
What happens when the demand goes back up but the wind dies down?
You have to crank up those gas turbines again.
That makes the gas turbines much less efficient to run.And don't forget that the land use has to be near (within a few hundred miles of) where the power is used.
Building massive power transmission infrastructure for an unpredictable intermittent power source just isn't feasible.
The price of wind power would probably double if you had to build transmission lines from Nebraska (where there's plenty of wind and land) to Chicago (where there's plenty of load).dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411146</id>
	<title>speaking of boondoggles, where's my car?</title>
	<author>misanthrope101</author>
	<datestamp>1268127900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd only call it mildly successful when it can run at least 50\% without government subsidies. and fully successful when it is &gt;99\%</p></div></blockquote><p>

Considering how much we spend on building and maintenance of roads, not to mention military intervention to protect cheap oil, can we consider automobiles viable yet?   What a boondoggle <i>that's</i> been!  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd only call it mildly successful when it can run at least 50 \ % without government subsidies .
and fully successful when it is &gt; 99 \ % Considering how much we spend on building and maintenance of roads , not to mention military intervention to protect cheap oil , can we consider automobiles viable yet ?
What a boondoggle that 's been !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd only call it mildly successful when it can run at least 50\% without government subsidies.
and fully successful when it is &gt;99\%

Considering how much we spend on building and maintenance of roads, not to mention military intervention to protect cheap oil, can we consider automobiles viable yet?
What a boondoggle that's been!  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407264</id>
	<title>Re:Wind farm and climate change</title>
	<author>Ironchew</author>
	<datestamp>1268050020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, it is sucking the kinetic energy directly out of the movement of air.</p></div><p>This kinetic energy is constantly being supplied by the sun.  The troposphere contains ~75\% of the air mass in Earth's atmosphere, but it's about 10 kilometers thick, and I doubt any wind turbines of this height currently exist.  Besides, we cut down several million acres of trees without any regard to atmospheric patterns.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , it is sucking the kinetic energy directly out of the movement of air.This kinetic energy is constantly being supplied by the sun .
The troposphere contains ~ 75 \ % of the air mass in Earth 's atmosphere , but it 's about 10 kilometers thick , and I doubt any wind turbines of this height currently exist .
Besides , we cut down several million acres of trees without any regard to atmospheric patterns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, it is sucking the kinetic energy directly out of the movement of air.This kinetic energy is constantly being supplied by the sun.
The troposphere contains ~75\% of the air mass in Earth's atmosphere, but it's about 10 kilometers thick, and I doubt any wind turbines of this height currently exist.
Besides, we cut down several million acres of trees without any regard to atmospheric patterns.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406794</id>
	<title>Re:if these jerkwads had any sense</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268048040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's easy to say, but if you had just spent millions for a new power-plant that wasn't expected to make profit until 20 years into the future, you wouldn't want to change quickly either.  <br> <br>
They make a valid point: wind power is nice, but who is the backup when the wind doesn't blow?  The summary tries to put its own slant on the issue, but it really is a hidden cost in the wind power solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to say , but if you had just spent millions for a new power-plant that was n't expected to make profit until 20 years into the future , you would n't want to change quickly either .
They make a valid point : wind power is nice , but who is the backup when the wind does n't blow ?
The summary tries to put its own slant on the issue , but it really is a hidden cost in the wind power solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to say, but if you had just spent millions for a new power-plant that wasn't expected to make profit until 20 years into the future, you wouldn't want to change quickly either.
They make a valid point: wind power is nice, but who is the backup when the wind doesn't blow?
The summary tries to put its own slant on the issue, but it really is a hidden cost in the wind power solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31415048</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>femtoguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268155500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which means that coal, oil and gas have never made it to being successful.

The US government gives free extraction rights to companies, gives tax breaks for refining and transport all to keep fossil fuels cheap enough to ensure domestic happiness.  I guess we need to give them up to, and go back to wood fires.  Oh, but the government gives free leases and then builds the roads and cleans up afterwards for the timber industry, so they don't even count.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which means that coal , oil and gas have never made it to being successful .
The US government gives free extraction rights to companies , gives tax breaks for refining and transport all to keep fossil fuels cheap enough to ensure domestic happiness .
I guess we need to give them up to , and go back to wood fires .
Oh , but the government gives free leases and then builds the roads and cleans up afterwards for the timber industry , so they do n't even count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which means that coal, oil and gas have never made it to being successful.
The US government gives free extraction rights to companies, gives tax breaks for refining and transport all to keep fossil fuels cheap enough to ensure domestic happiness.
I guess we need to give them up to, and go back to wood fires.
Oh, but the government gives free leases and then builds the roads and cleans up afterwards for the timber industry, so they don't even count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417300</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear  Gas+wind  coal</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1268164800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;As it stands, I can only think that those who actively oppose nuclear power don't really think so.</p><p>Some of us are simply opposed to leaving a big fat nuclear waste mess for our kids to deal with. The problem is already much bigger than a lot of people realize.</p><p>What happens when the power company goes bankrupt and shuts down the nuclear reactor for good? The waste sits in rotting containers on the power plant property. Before we create more of it, someone needs to find a solution to the problems that nuclear power creates.</p><p>We know that carbon production *might* be a problem and causing the global warming we are seeing.</p><p>We know that nuclear waste disposal *is* a real problem, here and now.</p><p>Building more plants right now, is stupid and short sighted.</p><p>The question I have is if we can build all these nuclear plants and feed the grid, why can't we use alternative energy and feed the grid just as easily? We need to build 93 bln worth of power distribution infrastructure for wind but not for nuclear? What the fuck kind of sense does that make?</p><p>(Hint: it doesn't make sense)</p><p>It doesn't add up. Obama is snowing us again. The "ya ya nuclear" people are either letting Obama snow job them or are paid lobbyists.</p><p>So much for "no lobbyist" promises that Obama made. He's full of shit like the rest of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; As it stands , I can only think that those who actively oppose nuclear power do n't really think so.Some of us are simply opposed to leaving a big fat nuclear waste mess for our kids to deal with .
The problem is already much bigger than a lot of people realize.What happens when the power company goes bankrupt and shuts down the nuclear reactor for good ?
The waste sits in rotting containers on the power plant property .
Before we create more of it , someone needs to find a solution to the problems that nuclear power creates.We know that carbon production * might * be a problem and causing the global warming we are seeing.We know that nuclear waste disposal * is * a real problem , here and now.Building more plants right now , is stupid and short sighted.The question I have is if we can build all these nuclear plants and feed the grid , why ca n't we use alternative energy and feed the grid just as easily ?
We need to build 93 bln worth of power distribution infrastructure for wind but not for nuclear ?
What the fuck kind of sense does that make ?
( Hint : it does n't make sense ) It does n't add up .
Obama is snowing us again .
The " ya ya nuclear " people are either letting Obama snow job them or are paid lobbyists.So much for " no lobbyist " promises that Obama made .
He 's full of shit like the rest of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;As it stands, I can only think that those who actively oppose nuclear power don't really think so.Some of us are simply opposed to leaving a big fat nuclear waste mess for our kids to deal with.
The problem is already much bigger than a lot of people realize.What happens when the power company goes bankrupt and shuts down the nuclear reactor for good?
The waste sits in rotting containers on the power plant property.
Before we create more of it, someone needs to find a solution to the problems that nuclear power creates.We know that carbon production *might* be a problem and causing the global warming we are seeing.We know that nuclear waste disposal *is* a real problem, here and now.Building more plants right now, is stupid and short sighted.The question I have is if we can build all these nuclear plants and feed the grid, why can't we use alternative energy and feed the grid just as easily?
We need to build 93 bln worth of power distribution infrastructure for wind but not for nuclear?
What the fuck kind of sense does that make?
(Hint: it doesn't make sense)It doesn't add up.
Obama is snowing us again.
The "ya ya nuclear" people are either letting Obama snow job them or are paid lobbyists.So much for "no lobbyist" promises that Obama made.
He's full of shit like the rest of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407466</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The thing is <b>W</b>ind is <b>F</b>laky, <b>P</b>ersonally I like to have power all the time, even when there is no wind.

</p><p>There are two solutions to this problems:

</p><p>1. Giant <b>B</b>atteries/ <b>F</b>lywheels/ <b>W</b>ater storage hills<br>
2. Gas <b>S</b>upplement.

</p><p>The <b>R</b>eason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off the <b>C</b>oal/<b>N</b>uclear.

</p><p>IMHO <b>N</b>uclear&gt; <b>G</b>as+wind&gt;coal

</p><p>Granted this is a simplistic approach, <b>B</b>ut <b>G</b>as is coming either way. There is going to be a ton of it on the market soon.

</p><p>Standard <b>D</b>isclaimer: the company i work for would benefit by me making these statements.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Your shift key seems a bit flaky too. I've bolded all the things it capitalized for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is Wind is Flaky , Personally I like to have power all the time , even when there is no wind .
There are two solutions to this problems : 1 .
Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills 2 .
Gas Supplement .
The Reason you use gas is it 's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear .
IMHO Nuclear &gt; Gas + wind &gt; coal Granted this is a simplistic approach , But Gas is coming either way .
There is going to be a ton of it on the market soon .
Standard Disclaimer : the company i work for would benefit by me making these statements .
Your shift key seems a bit flaky too .
I 've bolded all the things it capitalized for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is Wind is Flaky, Personally I like to have power all the time, even when there is no wind.
There are two solutions to this problems:

1.
Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills
2.
Gas Supplement.
The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.
IMHO Nuclear&gt; Gas+wind&gt;coal

Granted this is a simplistic approach, But Gas is coming either way.
There is going to be a ton of it on the market soon.
Standard Disclaimer: the company i work for would benefit by me making these statements.
Your shift key seems a bit flaky too.
I've bolded all the things it capitalized for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407204</id>
	<title>You are incorrect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268049660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...such as the Fed's action to purposely burst the stock bubble of the late 1920's through deflation.</p></div><p>They did no such thing. As a matter of fact, they thought the market would just run its course. Unfortunately, we were on the gold standard and since there's only so much gold in the world and our economy was growing like gang busters, it had a deflationary effect.</p><p>See here <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Finance-Bankers-Broke-World/dp/0143116800/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1268088922&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">Lords of Finance</a> [amazon.com]. The best frickin book I've ever read about the lead up to the Depression, the Depression, and the aftermath.</p><p>The Fed did make some mistakes but that was because they were new at it and we were beholden to the Gold Standard. If we, and the rest of the industrialized World weren't beholden to the Gold standard, the depression would not have happened. There would have been a steep recession but not the world wide chaos that ensued.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...such as the Fed 's action to purposely burst the stock bubble of the late 1920 's through deflation.They did no such thing .
As a matter of fact , they thought the market would just run its course .
Unfortunately , we were on the gold standard and since there 's only so much gold in the world and our economy was growing like gang busters , it had a deflationary effect.See here Lords of Finance [ amazon.com ] .
The best frickin book I 've ever read about the lead up to the Depression , the Depression , and the aftermath.The Fed did make some mistakes but that was because they were new at it and we were beholden to the Gold Standard .
If we , and the rest of the industrialized World were n't beholden to the Gold standard , the depression would not have happened .
There would have been a steep recession but not the world wide chaos that ensued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...such as the Fed's action to purposely burst the stock bubble of the late 1920's through deflation.They did no such thing.
As a matter of fact, they thought the market would just run its course.
Unfortunately, we were on the gold standard and since there's only so much gold in the world and our economy was growing like gang busters, it had a deflationary effect.See here Lords of Finance [amazon.com].
The best frickin book I've ever read about the lead up to the Depression, the Depression, and the aftermath.The Fed did make some mistakes but that was because they were new at it and we were beholden to the Gold Standard.
If we, and the rest of the industrialized World weren't beholden to the Gold standard, the depression would not have happened.
There would have been a steep recession but not the world wide chaos that ensued.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406568</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>Manax</author>
	<datestamp>1268047380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Be aware, not every economist agrees that \_capitalism\_ has a natural boom-bust cycle, and I expect few believe a lack of government subsidies \_caused\_ the Great Depression....  Some economists believe that government intervention in the market (through fiat currencies, through manipulations of the interest rates, through many complex and interacting regulations (with a variety of tax consequences) of commerce that have unpredictable consequences) cause the boom-bust cycles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be aware , not every economist agrees that \ _capitalism \ _ has a natural boom-bust cycle , and I expect few believe a lack of government subsidies \ _caused \ _ the Great Depression.... Some economists believe that government intervention in the market ( through fiat currencies , through manipulations of the interest rates , through many complex and interacting regulations ( with a variety of tax consequences ) of commerce that have unpredictable consequences ) cause the boom-bust cycles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be aware, not every economist agrees that \_capitalism\_ has a natural boom-bust cycle, and I expect few believe a lack of government subsidies \_caused\_ the Great Depression....  Some economists believe that government intervention in the market (through fiat currencies, through manipulations of the interest rates, through many complex and interacting regulations (with a variety of tax consequences) of commerce that have unpredictable consequences) cause the boom-bust cycles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406166</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>ldconfig</author>
	<datestamp>1268046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So its bad for the government to help support clean energy. I notice you don't bring up all the tax breaks and corporate welfare the oil gas and coal co's get and how huge it is compared to what green energy gets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So its bad for the government to help support clean energy .
I notice you do n't bring up all the tax breaks and corporate welfare the oil gas and coal co 's get and how huge it is compared to what green energy gets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So its bad for the government to help support clean energy.
I notice you don't bring up all the tax breaks and corporate welfare the oil gas and coal co's get and how huge it is compared to what green energy gets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410042</id>
	<title>In short, the Tennessee Valley Authority...</title>
	<author>jeko</author>
	<datestamp>1268071200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?"</i></p><p>Because Utilities are a textbook market failure. Left to the market, water, power, waste and communication services thrive in the cities, but don't exist in rural areas. If you want power and telecom capabilities in the sticks, you need a government program like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee\_Valley\_Authority" title="wikipedia.org"> TVA</a> [wikipedia.org] to get it done.</p><p>Why should the government pay to get Midwest power to the Big Cities on the East Coast? Because the government paid to get East Coast power to the Midwest in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast ?
" Because Utilities are a textbook market failure .
Left to the market , water , power , waste and communication services thrive in the cities , but do n't exist in rural areas .
If you want power and telecom capabilities in the sticks , you need a government program like the TVA [ wikipedia.org ] to get it done.Why should the government pay to get Midwest power to the Big Cities on the East Coast ?
Because the government paid to get East Coast power to the Midwest in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why should the public pay for moving electricity from the Midwest to the East coast?
"Because Utilities are a textbook market failure.
Left to the market, water, power, waste and communication services thrive in the cities, but don't exist in rural areas.
If you want power and telecom capabilities in the sticks, you need a government program like the  TVA [wikipedia.org] to get it done.Why should the government pay to get Midwest power to the Big Cities on the East Coast?
Because the government paid to get East Coast power to the Midwest in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408546</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268057460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. In the case of the US, it's more of a national security issue than economics. Having less dependency on oil and gas imports makes life a lot easier for the government. I'm pretty sure dealing with angry oil and power execs is preferable to fighting drawn out wars.</p><p>It's a fact that oil will run out eventually, so it makes sense for the government to invest money now in order to be more prepared to weather the inevitable crisis. It will create jobs, infrastructure, possibly even lower consumer prices and reduce external dependencies. Just like building the highway system made doing business easier, so building a power system will do the same. Perhaps they could do it through PPP and split the risk/cost with business.</p><p>Leaving it solely up to business, will mean that nothing will happen until the economics are right (read : until prices are so high that they can make a shedload of money). By that time, it'll be too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
In the case of the US , it 's more of a national security issue than economics .
Having less dependency on oil and gas imports makes life a lot easier for the government .
I 'm pretty sure dealing with angry oil and power execs is preferable to fighting drawn out wars.It 's a fact that oil will run out eventually , so it makes sense for the government to invest money now in order to be more prepared to weather the inevitable crisis .
It will create jobs , infrastructure , possibly even lower consumer prices and reduce external dependencies .
Just like building the highway system made doing business easier , so building a power system will do the same .
Perhaps they could do it through PPP and split the risk/cost with business.Leaving it solely up to business , will mean that nothing will happen until the economics are right ( read : until prices are so high that they can make a shedload of money ) .
By that time , it 'll be too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
In the case of the US, it's more of a national security issue than economics.
Having less dependency on oil and gas imports makes life a lot easier for the government.
I'm pretty sure dealing with angry oil and power execs is preferable to fighting drawn out wars.It's a fact that oil will run out eventually, so it makes sense for the government to invest money now in order to be more prepared to weather the inevitable crisis.
It will create jobs, infrastructure, possibly even lower consumer prices and reduce external dependencies.
Just like building the highway system made doing business easier, so building a power system will do the same.
Perhaps they could do it through PPP and split the risk/cost with business.Leaving it solely up to business, will mean that nothing will happen until the economics are right (read : until prices are so high that they can make a shedload of money).
By that time, it'll be too late.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409512</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>snarfer</author>
	<datestamp>1268065380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current problem is the huge subsidy we give to coal and oil by letting them just dump the waste into the air.  WE pay the price for this, they get the profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current problem is the huge subsidy we give to coal and oil by letting them just dump the waste into the air .
WE pay the price for this , they get the profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current problem is the huge subsidy we give to coal and oil by letting them just dump the waste into the air.
WE pay the price for this, they get the profits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407130</id>
	<title>Wrong title</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1268049360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Natural gas is breaking wind"
</p><p>There. Fixed it for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Natural gas is breaking wind " There .
Fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Natural gas is breaking wind"
There.
Fixed it for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962</id>
	<title>Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268045520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the general attitude of the phone companies was "It's scary, make it go away"</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the general attitude of the phone companies was " It 's scary , make it go away "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the general attitude of the phone companies was "It's scary, make it go away"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410384</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>tcgroat</author>
	<datestamp>1268074680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I heard from a wind farm tech is the biggest problem is maintenance expense. The mechanical parts (step-up gearing) don't last as long as the utilities expect equipment to be used, and maintaining anything that large 200 feet up in air is a difficult and expensive operation. A "simple"oil change requires hauling dozens of gallons of oil to the top of the tower, and bringing that much waste oil back down to the ground. Just bringing a crane crew on-site to a rural wind farm can cost $20,000, before the first hour of actual work takes place. The maintenance tech describes wind as the financial opposite of solar: up front costs are attractive, while the ongoing maintenance is costly.
<p>The article talked of the another problem area: sites with the most consistent wind power potential aren't near the major population centers, and generally aren't in existing HV power transmission corridors. Getting the necessary transmission lines installed is expensive and politically difficult. That is the major limitation for wind power: adding more turbines may increase the power generated by a wind farm, but if there isn't enough transmission capacity some of those units will be idled on good wind days, just to avoid overloading the lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I heard from a wind farm tech is the biggest problem is maintenance expense .
The mechanical parts ( step-up gearing ) do n't last as long as the utilities expect equipment to be used , and maintaining anything that large 200 feet up in air is a difficult and expensive operation .
A " simple " oil change requires hauling dozens of gallons of oil to the top of the tower , and bringing that much waste oil back down to the ground .
Just bringing a crane crew on-site to a rural wind farm can cost $ 20,000 , before the first hour of actual work takes place .
The maintenance tech describes wind as the financial opposite of solar : up front costs are attractive , while the ongoing maintenance is costly .
The article talked of the another problem area : sites with the most consistent wind power potential are n't near the major population centers , and generally are n't in existing HV power transmission corridors .
Getting the necessary transmission lines installed is expensive and politically difficult .
That is the major limitation for wind power : adding more turbines may increase the power generated by a wind farm , but if there is n't enough transmission capacity some of those units will be idled on good wind days , just to avoid overloading the lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I heard from a wind farm tech is the biggest problem is maintenance expense.
The mechanical parts (step-up gearing) don't last as long as the utilities expect equipment to be used, and maintaining anything that large 200 feet up in air is a difficult and expensive operation.
A "simple"oil change requires hauling dozens of gallons of oil to the top of the tower, and bringing that much waste oil back down to the ground.
Just bringing a crane crew on-site to a rural wind farm can cost $20,000, before the first hour of actual work takes place.
The maintenance tech describes wind as the financial opposite of solar: up front costs are attractive, while the ongoing maintenance is costly.
The article talked of the another problem area: sites with the most consistent wind power potential aren't near the major population centers, and generally aren't in existing HV power transmission corridors.
Getting the necessary transmission lines installed is expensive and politically difficult.
That is the major limitation for wind power: adding more turbines may increase the power generated by a wind farm, but if there isn't enough transmission capacity some of those units will be idled on good wind days, just to avoid overloading the lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1268047020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I know someone that works in the Wind Power part of a major utility company.<br>He spelled out the problem with wind for me very clearly.<br>"Companies don't care about carbon offsets because they don't believe that there will be a carbon tax".<br>"Followed by "Natural gas is dirt cheap right now."<br>Natural Gas is cheaper and more reliable than wind right now.<br>Trust me this utility has spent a bundle on wind and my friend is on the road many days a month trying to set up wind power and make deals for people to buy the power. In this case I wouldn't blame the utilities.<br>What it comes down to is dollars and cents. Gas is cheaper and works better than wind.<br>Of course I love this comment.<br>" Among the valid points raised by the carbon-based generators are concerns about how the cost of electricity transmission are allocated and how power quality can be improved (wind generation &mdash; from individual sites &mdash; is hopelessly variable). But there are fixes for all of the concerns raised by the carbon-based entities and in almost all cases they have been on the other side of the question in the past.""<br>Notice how in the summary the poster says that they have some valid concerns and then says that there are fixes for them.<br>Yea sure... But at what price? Read some of the "fixes" and then ask who is going to pay for them? Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.<br>Don't bother saying that they can just take the money from the Military since we know that will not happen. Are you willing to pay more in taxes and pay more for goods produced in the US by US companies? China and India will not pass a dime of the costs on manufacturing so if you increase the cost to make goods in the US you will be pushing more manufacturing to China and India so in effect you will be shifting the carbon production from US plants burning natural gas to Chinese power plants burning Coal.<br>Oh and Window power in China? Unless forced to that is just for export. They will produce a few token sites and then sell Windmills to western countries until it becomes economical to replace coal with wind.<br>So the west will subsidize even more manufacturing jobs going overseas.<br>I fear this isn't as simple as the summary or what most people on slashdot think it is.</p><p>What it all comes down to is that Natural gas is cheap, efficient, and thankfully pretty clean.<br>While not carbon free it has the lowest carbon foot print of all the fossil fuels. It is MUCH lower in carbon output than coal so it isn't terrible that it is displacing wind. It could be worse, they could be building coal plants instead of wind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I know someone that works in the Wind Power part of a major utility company.He spelled out the problem with wind for me very clearly .
" Companies do n't care about carbon offsets because they do n't believe that there will be a carbon tax " .
" Followed by " Natural gas is dirt cheap right now .
" Natural Gas is cheaper and more reliable than wind right now.Trust me this utility has spent a bundle on wind and my friend is on the road many days a month trying to set up wind power and make deals for people to buy the power .
In this case I would n't blame the utilities.What it comes down to is dollars and cents .
Gas is cheaper and works better than wind.Of course I love this comment .
" Among the valid points raised by the carbon-based generators are concerns about how the cost of electricity transmission are allocated and how power quality can be improved ( wind generation    from individual sites    is hopelessly variable ) .
But there are fixes for all of the concerns raised by the carbon-based entities and in almost all cases they have been on the other side of the question in the past .
" " Notice how in the summary the poster says that they have some valid concerns and then says that there are fixes for them.Yea sure... But at what price ?
Read some of the " fixes " and then ask who is going to pay for them ?
Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.Do n't bother saying that they can just take the money from the Military since we know that will not happen .
Are you willing to pay more in taxes and pay more for goods produced in the US by US companies ?
China and India will not pass a dime of the costs on manufacturing so if you increase the cost to make goods in the US you will be pushing more manufacturing to China and India so in effect you will be shifting the carbon production from US plants burning natural gas to Chinese power plants burning Coal.Oh and Window power in China ?
Unless forced to that is just for export .
They will produce a few token sites and then sell Windmills to western countries until it becomes economical to replace coal with wind.So the west will subsidize even more manufacturing jobs going overseas.I fear this is n't as simple as the summary or what most people on slashdot think it is.What it all comes down to is that Natural gas is cheap , efficient , and thankfully pretty clean.While not carbon free it has the lowest carbon foot print of all the fossil fuels .
It is MUCH lower in carbon output than coal so it is n't terrible that it is displacing wind .
It could be worse , they could be building coal plants instead of wind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I know someone that works in the Wind Power part of a major utility company.He spelled out the problem with wind for me very clearly.
"Companies don't care about carbon offsets because they don't believe that there will be a carbon tax".
"Followed by "Natural gas is dirt cheap right now.
"Natural Gas is cheaper and more reliable than wind right now.Trust me this utility has spent a bundle on wind and my friend is on the road many days a month trying to set up wind power and make deals for people to buy the power.
In this case I wouldn't blame the utilities.What it comes down to is dollars and cents.
Gas is cheaper and works better than wind.Of course I love this comment.
" Among the valid points raised by the carbon-based generators are concerns about how the cost of electricity transmission are allocated and how power quality can be improved (wind generation — from individual sites — is hopelessly variable).
But there are fixes for all of the concerns raised by the carbon-based entities and in almost all cases they have been on the other side of the question in the past.
""Notice how in the summary the poster says that they have some valid concerns and then says that there are fixes for them.Yea sure... But at what price?
Read some of the "fixes" and then ask who is going to pay for them?
Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.Don't bother saying that they can just take the money from the Military since we know that will not happen.
Are you willing to pay more in taxes and pay more for goods produced in the US by US companies?
China and India will not pass a dime of the costs on manufacturing so if you increase the cost to make goods in the US you will be pushing more manufacturing to China and India so in effect you will be shifting the carbon production from US plants burning natural gas to Chinese power plants burning Coal.Oh and Window power in China?
Unless forced to that is just for export.
They will produce a few token sites and then sell Windmills to western countries until it becomes economical to replace coal with wind.So the west will subsidize even more manufacturing jobs going overseas.I fear this isn't as simple as the summary or what most people on slashdot think it is.What it all comes down to is that Natural gas is cheap, efficient, and thankfully pretty clean.While not carbon free it has the lowest carbon foot print of all the fossil fuels.
It is MUCH lower in carbon output than coal so it isn't terrible that it is displacing wind.
It could be worse, they could be building coal plants instead of wind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408374</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268056260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because infrastructure provides a public good. Everyone benefits.<br>What you are proposing is that we allow the economy in one region of our nation fail and then wait for the economy to grow in another region. Given enough time that will probably work, but the cost to society will be greater than if we had just improved the infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because infrastructure provides a public good .
Everyone benefits.What you are proposing is that we allow the economy in one region of our nation fail and then wait for the economy to grow in another region .
Given enough time that will probably work , but the cost to society will be greater than if we had just improved the infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because infrastructure provides a public good.
Everyone benefits.What you are proposing is that we allow the economy in one region of our nation fail and then wait for the economy to grow in another region.
Given enough time that will probably work, but the cost to society will be greater than if we had just improved the infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406038</id>
	<title>Better Title:</title>
	<author>AioKits</author>
	<datestamp>1268045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gas wants to break Wind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gas wants to break Wind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gas wants to break Wind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409600</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Pence128</author>
	<datestamp>1268066160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think wind would be perfect in conjunction with hydro. Hydro is the ultimate load matching source, just open or close the sluice gates. if the wind is blowing hard, you can close it, and maybe even pump some back up. when the wind dies down, let'er rip. In some cases, you might be able to build wind turbines right on the dam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think wind would be perfect in conjunction with hydro .
Hydro is the ultimate load matching source , just open or close the sluice gates .
if the wind is blowing hard , you can close it , and maybe even pump some back up .
when the wind dies down , let'er rip .
In some cases , you might be able to build wind turbines right on the dam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think wind would be perfect in conjunction with hydro.
Hydro is the ultimate load matching source, just open or close the sluice gates.
if the wind is blowing hard, you can close it, and maybe even pump some back up.
when the wind dies down, let'er rip.
In some cases, you might be able to build wind turbines right on the dam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407140</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268049420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry to burst your bubble of gas, but German scientists have already proved that you can supply a power grid with \_only\_ renewable energy - wind, solar and biogas.
<br> <br>
(O.k. - so I just swapped your bubble with a biogas bubble.)
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8gEMpzos4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8gEMpzos4</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to burst your bubble of gas , but German scientists have already proved that you can supply a power grid with \ _only \ _ renewable energy - wind , solar and biogas .
( O.k. - so I just swapped your bubble with a biogas bubble .
) http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = tR8gEMpzos4 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to burst your bubble of gas, but German scientists have already proved that you can supply a power grid with \_only\_ renewable energy - wind, solar and biogas.
(O.k. - so I just swapped your bubble with a biogas bubble.
)
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8gEMpzos4 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407064</id>
	<title>Re:Missed the Better Headline</title>
	<author>gregg</author>
	<datestamp>1268049180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gas Seeking to Break Wind</p></div><p>I think that was the original title of a spinal tap album...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gas Seeking to Break WindI think that was the original title of a spinal tap album.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gas Seeking to Break WindI think that was the original title of a spinal tap album...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412332</id>
	<title>Stop The Presses!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268143980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well whatever!  The important thing is that sooner or later one side or the other will triumph and it's essential that we have the future headlines ready.  Will it be...</p><p>Wind Passes Gas!</p><p>or</p><p>Gas Breaks Wind!</p><p>You be the judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well whatever !
The important thing is that sooner or later one side or the other will triumph and it 's essential that we have the future headlines ready .
Will it be...Wind Passes Gas ! orGas Breaks Wind ! You be the judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well whatever!
The important thing is that sooner or later one side or the other will triumph and it's essential that we have the future headlines ready.
Will it be...Wind Passes Gas!orGas Breaks Wind!You be the judge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408066</id>
	<title>just limit government subsidized growth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268054220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to limit the growth of any of the electricity generating technologies, but once they have proven themselves and gotten a small foothold the government should stop subsidizing them.  I don't care if it is wind, solar, nuclear, coal, or hamsters in a wheel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to limit the growth of any of the electricity generating technologies , but once they have proven themselves and gotten a small foothold the government should stop subsidizing them .
I do n't care if it is wind , solar , nuclear , coal , or hamsters in a wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to limit the growth of any of the electricity generating technologies, but once they have proven themselves and gotten a small foothold the government should stop subsidizing them.
I don't care if it is wind, solar, nuclear, coal, or hamsters in a wheel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408658</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1268058180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that's <em>why</em> so many people "need jobs."  There is "stuff that needs to get done" so that's not the problem, the problem is that "stuff that needs to get done" is being held up for reasons other than, "not enough benefit for the effort of the stuff that needs doing."</p><p>One of those things is financing, to be sure, but one of those things is the regulatory quagmire you have to wade through before you can even break ground on any new project of substantial size.  Hell, it'll take you a year to get through all the hurdles (disclaimer:not all of which are regulatory) to renovate an unoccupied building into a restaurant where the former use of said building was also a restaurant.</p><p>I don't know what the answer is.  <em>One</em> possible answer in this case to go full-federal and dissolve the states as independent bodies, so at least you'd only have to deal with a single monolithic federal morass instead of that plus forty-eight smaller but in aggregate hugely complex systems, but that comes with its own attendant issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's why so many people " need jobs .
" There is " stuff that needs to get done " so that 's not the problem , the problem is that " stuff that needs to get done " is being held up for reasons other than , " not enough benefit for the effort of the stuff that needs doing .
" One of those things is financing , to be sure , but one of those things is the regulatory quagmire you have to wade through before you can even break ground on any new project of substantial size .
Hell , it 'll take you a year to get through all the hurdles ( disclaimer : not all of which are regulatory ) to renovate an unoccupied building into a restaurant where the former use of said building was also a restaurant.I do n't know what the answer is .
One possible answer in this case to go full-federal and dissolve the states as independent bodies , so at least you 'd only have to deal with a single monolithic federal morass instead of that plus forty-eight smaller but in aggregate hugely complex systems , but that comes with its own attendant issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's why so many people "need jobs.
"  There is "stuff that needs to get done" so that's not the problem, the problem is that "stuff that needs to get done" is being held up for reasons other than, "not enough benefit for the effort of the stuff that needs doing.
"One of those things is financing, to be sure, but one of those things is the regulatory quagmire you have to wade through before you can even break ground on any new project of substantial size.
Hell, it'll take you a year to get through all the hurdles (disclaimer:not all of which are regulatory) to renovate an unoccupied building into a restaurant where the former use of said building was also a restaurant.I don't know what the answer is.
One possible answer in this case to go full-federal and dissolve the states as independent bodies, so at least you'd only have to deal with a single monolithic federal morass instead of that plus forty-eight smaller but in aggregate hugely complex systems, but that comes with its own attendant issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406870</id>
	<title>Re:Which socialist EU utopia gets 50\% from wind?</title>
	<author>diegocg</author>
	<datestamp>1268048340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spain has got more than 50\% of our energy on a few peak days. On november 3 we got 53\% of our energy from wind. On average, in the last 12 months we got 14.45\% of our energy from wind. And we are not communist hippies, thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spain has got more than 50 \ % of our energy on a few peak days .
On november 3 we got 53 \ % of our energy from wind .
On average , in the last 12 months we got 14.45 \ % of our energy from wind .
And we are not communist hippies , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spain has got more than 50\% of our energy on a few peak days.
On november 3 we got 53\% of our energy from wind.
On average, in the last 12 months we got 14.45\% of our energy from wind.
And we are not communist hippies, thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1268048160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is Wind is Flaky, Personally I like to have power all the time, even when there is no wind.</p><p>There are two solutions to this problems:</p><p>1. Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills<br>2. Gas Supplement.</p><p>The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.</p><p>IMHO Nuclear&gt;Gas+wind&gt;coal</p><p>Granted this is a simplistic approach, But Gas is coming either way. There is going to be a ton of it on the market soon.</p><p>Standard Disclaimer: the company i work for would benefit by me making these statements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is Wind is Flaky , Personally I like to have power all the time , even when there is no wind.There are two solutions to this problems : 1 .
Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills2 .
Gas Supplement.The Reason you use gas is it 's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.IMHO Nuclear &gt; Gas + wind &gt; coalGranted this is a simplistic approach , But Gas is coming either way .
There is going to be a ton of it on the market soon.Standard Disclaimer : the company i work for would benefit by me making these statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is Wind is Flaky, Personally I like to have power all the time, even when there is no wind.There are two solutions to this problems:1.
Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills2.
Gas Supplement.The Reason you use gas is it's easier to turn on and off the Coal/Nuclear.IMHO Nuclear&gt;Gas+wind&gt;coalGranted this is a simplistic approach, But Gas is coming either way.
There is going to be a ton of it on the market soon.Standard Disclaimer: the company i work for would benefit by me making these statements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406512</id>
	<title>Which socialist EU utopia gets 50\% from wind?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268047200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quit blaming evil US capitalism for the failure of a pie in the sky hippy idea which simply does not work, has not worked, and is unlikely to work in the near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit blaming evil US capitalism for the failure of a pie in the sky hippy idea which simply does not work , has not worked , and is unlikely to work in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit blaming evil US capitalism for the failure of a pie in the sky hippy idea which simply does not work, has not worked, and is unlikely to work in the near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408418</id>
	<title>Re:Indeed... let's move forward with the current p</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1268056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This requires more government regulation, not less.</p></div><p>If you knew how the sausage is made in government, perhaps you wouldn't be quite as enthusiastic. There are government regulators who could easily screw up a cup of coffee, never mind complex regulatory schemes. Giving them real power to regulate the marketplace very often causes more problems than it solves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This requires more government regulation , not less.If you knew how the sausage is made in government , perhaps you would n't be quite as enthusiastic .
There are government regulators who could easily screw up a cup of coffee , never mind complex regulatory schemes .
Giving them real power to regulate the marketplace very often causes more problems than it solves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This requires more government regulation, not less.If you knew how the sausage is made in government, perhaps you wouldn't be quite as enthusiastic.
There are government regulators who could easily screw up a cup of coffee, never mind complex regulatory schemes.
Giving them real power to regulate the marketplace very often causes more problems than it solves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407604</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1268051700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one I can see on my morning drive is built on a brownfield. That land will not be good for anything else for a 1000 years. Thanks failed steel companies!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one I can see on my morning drive is built on a brownfield .
That land will not be good for anything else for a 1000 years .
Thanks failed steel companies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one I can see on my morning drive is built on a brownfield.
That land will not be good for anything else for a 1000 years.
Thanks failed steel companies!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409278</id>
	<title>Re:Join forces!</title>
	<author>KDN</author>
	<datestamp>1268063280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Peak shaving, load balancing, two halves of the same coin, in my book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peak shaving , load balancing , two halves of the same coin , in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peak shaving, load balancing, two halves of the same coin, in my book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411576</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Wildclaw</author>
	<datestamp>1268134920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are two solutions to this problems:</p><p>1. Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills<br>2. Gas Supplement.</p></div><p>2. Use supplementary energy production that can more easily turned on/off. (Gas being one example)<br>3. Have some energy intensive industry that can more easily be turned on/off.<br>4. Spread production over a larger area to reduce variations in energy production.<br>5. Add in stable nuclear production to reduce the effect of the more variable energy production methods.</p><p>And the truth is probably a mix of all of the above.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two solutions to this problems : 1 .
Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills2 .
Gas Supplement.2 .
Use supplementary energy production that can more easily turned on/off .
( Gas being one example ) 3 .
Have some energy intensive industry that can more easily be turned on/off.4 .
Spread production over a larger area to reduce variations in energy production.5 .
Add in stable nuclear production to reduce the effect of the more variable energy production methods.And the truth is probably a mix of all of the above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two solutions to this problems:1.
Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills2.
Gas Supplement.2.
Use supplementary energy production that can more easily turned on/off.
(Gas being one example)3.
Have some energy intensive industry that can more easily be turned on/off.4.
Spread production over a larger area to reduce variations in energy production.5.
Add in stable nuclear production to reduce the effect of the more variable energy production methods.And the truth is probably a mix of all of the above.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407946</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only will it cost an enormous amount of money, but it will have to cross State lines, meaning it will take multiple<br>regulators, multiple special interests, and multiples of everything else you can think of in order to become reality.</p><p>Infrastructure is one of America's top 5 problems for the 21st Century.<br>Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure,<br>there are still trillions in repairs we've been putting off.</p><p>This is exactly where we need to invest money right now. We do not need to build more golf courses but repair the bridges we already. And we shouldn' t require union work when so many are in need of jobs. No earmarks instead let the non-elected officials in charge of the federal highway system make the choices based on statistics. We need a strong federal government to force local communities to take the infrastructure the rest of us need, while allowing them to profit fairly from it. We do not need a strong federal government running our health care, our local school, social programs, let local state governments figure it out, however enforcing standards across state lines in these fields is also important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only will it cost an enormous amount of money , but it will have to cross State lines , meaning it will take multipleregulators , multiple special interests , and multiples of everything else you can think of in order to become reality.Infrastructure is one of America 's top 5 problems for the 21st Century.Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure,there are still trillions in repairs we 've been putting off.This is exactly where we need to invest money right now .
We do not need to build more golf courses but repair the bridges we already .
And we shouldn ' t require union work when so many are in need of jobs .
No earmarks instead let the non-elected officials in charge of the federal highway system make the choices based on statistics .
We need a strong federal government to force local communities to take the infrastructure the rest of us need , while allowing them to profit fairly from it .
We do not need a strong federal government running our health care , our local school , social programs , let local state governments figure it out , however enforcing standards across state lines in these fields is also important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only will it cost an enormous amount of money, but it will have to cross State lines, meaning it will take multipleregulators, multiple special interests, and multiples of everything else you can think of in order to become reality.Infrastructure is one of America's top 5 problems for the 21st Century.Not only do we require trillions in new infrastructure,there are still trillions in repairs we've been putting off.This is exactly where we need to invest money right now.
We do not need to build more golf courses but repair the bridges we already.
And we shouldn' t require union work when so many are in need of jobs.
No earmarks instead let the non-elected officials in charge of the federal highway system make the choices based on statistics.
We need a strong federal government to force local communities to take the infrastructure the rest of us need, while allowing them to profit fairly from it.
We do not need a strong federal government running our health care, our local school, social programs, let local state governments figure it out, however enforcing standards across state lines in these fields is also important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408106</id>
	<title>Wind energy is a wash</title>
	<author>pseudorand</author>
	<datestamp>1268054520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The gas companies have nothing to worry about. Turns out wind energy is a wash. To efficiently produce wind energy, they have to have very accurate wind forecasts which involves running highly parallel computer models on lots of CPUs. Turns out that the energy consumed by all those computers exactly offsets the energy produced by the wind farms they're forecasting for, so wind should have no net effect on the energy markets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The gas companies have nothing to worry about .
Turns out wind energy is a wash. To efficiently produce wind energy , they have to have very accurate wind forecasts which involves running highly parallel computer models on lots of CPUs .
Turns out that the energy consumed by all those computers exactly offsets the energy produced by the wind farms they 're forecasting for , so wind should have no net effect on the energy markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gas companies have nothing to worry about.
Turns out wind energy is a wash. To efficiently produce wind energy, they have to have very accurate wind forecasts which involves running highly parallel computer models on lots of CPUs.
Turns out that the energy consumed by all those computers exactly offsets the energy produced by the wind farms they're forecasting for, so wind should have no net effect on the energy markets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408254</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268055600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.</p></div><p>Quite obviously, yes.</p><p>That wasn't the answer you were expecting?</p><p>Whatever is a national government <i>for</i> except to coordinate decisions about investment at the national level, of which infrastructure is the prime example?</p><p>It's rational and foreseeable that gas will run out, as will oil, and that value of any investment capital poured into it will plummet to zero, while wind won't. It is irrational to make any long-term plans on the long-term existence of a finite resource.</p><p>But evidently, the marketplace is NOT choosing the rational, foreseeable outcome; it is acting irrationally. That's fine, we know this happens in game theory. Sometimes lots of independent rational actors acting separately produce irrational outcomes; that's basic Prisoner's Dilemma 101.</p><p>That's exactly why we have such an entity as 'government': to solve the coordination problem.</p><p>Next question?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.Quite obviously , yes.That was n't the answer you were expecting ? Whatever is a national government for except to coordinate decisions about investment at the national level , of which infrastructure is the prime example ? It 's rational and foreseeable that gas will run out , as will oil , and that value of any investment capital poured into it will plummet to zero , while wind wo n't .
It is irrational to make any long-term plans on the long-term existence of a finite resource.But evidently , the marketplace is NOT choosing the rational , foreseeable outcome ; it is acting irrationally .
That 's fine , we know this happens in game theory .
Sometimes lots of independent rational actors acting separately produce irrational outcomes ; that 's basic Prisoner 's Dilemma 101.That 's exactly why we have such an entity as 'government ' : to solve the coordination problem.Next question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.Quite obviously, yes.That wasn't the answer you were expecting?Whatever is a national government for except to coordinate decisions about investment at the national level, of which infrastructure is the prime example?It's rational and foreseeable that gas will run out, as will oil, and that value of any investment capital poured into it will plummet to zero, while wind won't.
It is irrational to make any long-term plans on the long-term existence of a finite resource.But evidently, the marketplace is NOT choosing the rational, foreseeable outcome; it is acting irrationally.
That's fine, we know this happens in game theory.
Sometimes lots of independent rational actors acting separately produce irrational outcomes; that's basic Prisoner's Dilemma 101.That's exactly why we have such an entity as 'government': to solve the coordination problem.Next question?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410034</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268071140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cost of fuel for wind power to a utility is actually zero, nil, nothing. The cost of the plant is also zero since that is depreciated over a period of time. The only cost is tax and maintenance. Wind Power will get cheaper and cheaper. And most of all it will keep the price of gas and coal low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost of fuel for wind power to a utility is actually zero , nil , nothing .
The cost of the plant is also zero since that is depreciated over a period of time .
The only cost is tax and maintenance .
Wind Power will get cheaper and cheaper .
And most of all it will keep the price of gas and coal low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost of fuel for wind power to a utility is actually zero, nil, nothing.
The cost of the plant is also zero since that is depreciated over a period of time.
The only cost is tax and maintenance.
Wind Power will get cheaper and cheaper.
And most of all it will keep the price of gas and coal low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407808</id>
	<title>Re:Successful????</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1268052900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't believe we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I think I've spotted your problem: there has NEVER been an America where there weren't government subsidies in everything.  Accepting that reality is the first step to recognizing problems and solutions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe we 'll ever be able to get back a US where there is n't government subsidies in everything .
I think I 've spotted your problem : there has NEVER been an America where there were n't government subsidies in everything .
Accepting that reality is the first step to recognizing problems and solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe we'll ever be able to get back a US where there isn't government subsidies in everything.
I think I've spotted your problem: there has NEVER been an America where there weren't government subsidies in everything.
Accepting that reality is the first step to recognizing problems and solutions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406790</id>
	<title>Gandhi</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1268048040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First they ignore you,<br>Then they laugh at you,<br>Then they fight you,<br>Then you win.</p><p>So we're at Stage 3 now I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they ignore you,Then they laugh at you,Then they fight you,Then you win.So we 're at Stage 3 now I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they ignore you,Then they laugh at you,Then they fight you,Then you win.So we're at Stage 3 now I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408510</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268057220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because wind power is variable. You can get good reliability by amalgamating regions, but if you only have one state and it's a calm day you have a power shortage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because wind power is variable .
You can get good reliability by amalgamating regions , but if you only have one state and it 's a calm day you have a power shortage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because wind power is variable.
You can get good reliability by amalgamating regions, but if you only have one state and it's a calm day you have a power shortage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406856</id>
	<title>Wind not what it is blown up to be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268048280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you can make wind blow when you need electricity, then it will be able to compete.  Do a little work on google and you will find the problems associated with wind blowing when you don't need electricity and not blowing when you do.  Storage is in its infancy at this scale.  If you want more technical terms, search for the correlation of wind generation with utility demand.  You will find it is poor.  Any time a large wind farm is planned, a huge engineering study must be done to find out what additional dispatchable (usually gas) generation must be installed to cover for when the wind is not blowing at the right time.</p><p>I don't practice IT, you don't practice power engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you can make wind blow when you need electricity , then it will be able to compete .
Do a little work on google and you will find the problems associated with wind blowing when you do n't need electricity and not blowing when you do .
Storage is in its infancy at this scale .
If you want more technical terms , search for the correlation of wind generation with utility demand .
You will find it is poor .
Any time a large wind farm is planned , a huge engineering study must be done to find out what additional dispatchable ( usually gas ) generation must be installed to cover for when the wind is not blowing at the right time.I do n't practice IT , you do n't practice power engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you can make wind blow when you need electricity, then it will be able to compete.
Do a little work on google and you will find the problems associated with wind blowing when you don't need electricity and not blowing when you do.
Storage is in its infancy at this scale.
If you want more technical terms, search for the correlation of wind generation with utility demand.
You will find it is poor.
Any time a large wind farm is planned, a huge engineering study must be done to find out what additional dispatchable (usually gas) generation must be installed to cover for when the wind is not blowing at the right time.I don't practice IT, you don't practice power engineering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406486</id>
	<title>Wind farm and climate change</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1268047140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If enough wind farms are set up to actually contribute significant energy volume, I wonder what would be its impact on the climate.
</p><p>
I mean, it is sucking the kinetic energy directly out of the movement of air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If enough wind farms are set up to actually contribute significant energy volume , I wonder what would be its impact on the climate .
I mean , it is sucking the kinetic energy directly out of the movement of air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If enough wind farms are set up to actually contribute significant energy volume, I wonder what would be its impact on the climate.
I mean, it is sucking the kinetic energy directly out of the movement of air.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412666</id>
	<title>Re:Missed the Better Headline</title>
	<author>Temtongkek</author>
	<datestamp>1268145900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh thank goodness.  I was wondering how much farther I'd have to scroll before SOMEONE would make the appropriately placed fart joke.

Slashdot, you almost had me worried.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh thank goodness .
I was wondering how much farther I 'd have to scroll before SOMEONE would make the appropriately placed fart joke .
Slashdot , you almost had me worried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh thank goodness.
I was wondering how much farther I'd have to scroll before SOMEONE would make the appropriately placed fart joke.
Slashdot, you almost had me worried.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417078</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268163840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I generally think you're correct.</p><p>Personally, I think that we need to stop any and all federal subsidies and/or tax breaks that are given for coal, oil, and natural gas and, instead, channel that money into making Wind, Solar, Wave power sources more competitive.  If that means financing research or building power transmission infrastructure, so be it.  The legacy utilities have had decades to get established and should be forced to compete on their own.  Renewables are the direction we need to go and, since cost is what's standing in the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I generally think you 're correct.Personally , I think that we need to stop any and all federal subsidies and/or tax breaks that are given for coal , oil , and natural gas and , instead , channel that money into making Wind , Solar , Wave power sources more competitive .
If that means financing research or building power transmission infrastructure , so be it .
The legacy utilities have had decades to get established and should be forced to compete on their own .
Renewables are the direction we need to go and , since cost is what 's standing in the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I generally think you're correct.Personally, I think that we need to stop any and all federal subsidies and/or tax breaks that are given for coal, oil, and natural gas and, instead, channel that money into making Wind, Solar, Wave power sources more competitive.
If that means financing research or building power transmission infrastructure, so be it.
The legacy utilities have had decades to get established and should be forced to compete on their own.
Renewables are the direction we need to go and, since cost is what's standing in the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408294</id>
	<title>Someone help me understand please</title>
	<author>twoDigitIq</author>
	<datestamp>1268055780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do people actually think that if the evil fossil fuel companies would just step out of the way then we'd be instantly blessed with unlimited renewable energy?</p><p>I work for an evil utility company that has a lot invested in the future of natural gas and even (eeek) coal. I personally spent a good chunk of time developing systems for gracefully integrating wind farm output into the grid. My evil corporate overlords have a visible slice of their annual revenue pie chart labeled "Wind Generation." Wind power isn't a threat to traditional generation in any way. And some folks throwing around the conspiracy theories haven't fully considered one fact: Those with both knowledge of the energy industry and plenty of extra capital to throw around have invested (and continue to invest) in wind when it makes sense. It's just that wind power can't come close to serving all the load reliably.</p><p>As someone whose livelihood depends on the status quo of the US grid, I worry a lot more about Bloom Boxes and their surrounding hype. If what I understand about that tech is true then it's a much bigger threat to my paycheck than wind farms. But if it ends up providing cheap reliable power then I'll be one of the first in line to buy one for my home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do people actually think that if the evil fossil fuel companies would just step out of the way then we 'd be instantly blessed with unlimited renewable energy ? I work for an evil utility company that has a lot invested in the future of natural gas and even ( eeek ) coal .
I personally spent a good chunk of time developing systems for gracefully integrating wind farm output into the grid .
My evil corporate overlords have a visible slice of their annual revenue pie chart labeled " Wind Generation .
" Wind power is n't a threat to traditional generation in any way .
And some folks throwing around the conspiracy theories have n't fully considered one fact : Those with both knowledge of the energy industry and plenty of extra capital to throw around have invested ( and continue to invest ) in wind when it makes sense .
It 's just that wind power ca n't come close to serving all the load reliably.As someone whose livelihood depends on the status quo of the US grid , I worry a lot more about Bloom Boxes and their surrounding hype .
If what I understand about that tech is true then it 's a much bigger threat to my paycheck than wind farms .
But if it ends up providing cheap reliable power then I 'll be one of the first in line to buy one for my home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do people actually think that if the evil fossil fuel companies would just step out of the way then we'd be instantly blessed with unlimited renewable energy?I work for an evil utility company that has a lot invested in the future of natural gas and even (eeek) coal.
I personally spent a good chunk of time developing systems for gracefully integrating wind farm output into the grid.
My evil corporate overlords have a visible slice of their annual revenue pie chart labeled "Wind Generation.
" Wind power isn't a threat to traditional generation in any way.
And some folks throwing around the conspiracy theories haven't fully considered one fact: Those with both knowledge of the energy industry and plenty of extra capital to throw around have invested (and continue to invest) in wind when it makes sense.
It's just that wind power can't come close to serving all the load reliably.As someone whose livelihood depends on the status quo of the US grid, I worry a lot more about Bloom Boxes and their surrounding hype.
If what I understand about that tech is true then it's a much bigger threat to my paycheck than wind farms.
But if it ends up providing cheap reliable power then I'll be one of the first in line to buy one for my home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406596</id>
	<title>Indeed... let's move forward with the current plan</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1268047440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Cover our eyes and let companies do whatever they want.<br>2) Suffer from energy spikes, speculative bubbles, piss poor infrastructure and a ruined environment.<br>3) Shovel billions into corporate coffers so they can sock the money away in offshore accounts while simultaneously failing to develop energy alternatives<br>4) Failure!</p><p>You have to subsidize new technologies because corporations cannot justify R&amp;D to their shareholders. BP and Exxon cannot manufacture solar panels unless they can demonstrate higher profits, which one can't do until the technology is sufficiently developed, which one can't do without huge investments.</p><p>Technology has thrown the entire paradigm of free market economics for a loop. The amount of technology and science that go into an average product make information asymmetry astronomical. This requires more government regulation, not less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Cover our eyes and let companies do whatever they want.2 ) Suffer from energy spikes , speculative bubbles , piss poor infrastructure and a ruined environment.3 ) Shovel billions into corporate coffers so they can sock the money away in offshore accounts while simultaneously failing to develop energy alternatives4 ) Failure ! You have to subsidize new technologies because corporations can not justify R&amp;D to their shareholders .
BP and Exxon can not manufacture solar panels unless they can demonstrate higher profits , which one ca n't do until the technology is sufficiently developed , which one ca n't do without huge investments.Technology has thrown the entire paradigm of free market economics for a loop .
The amount of technology and science that go into an average product make information asymmetry astronomical .
This requires more government regulation , not less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Cover our eyes and let companies do whatever they want.2) Suffer from energy spikes, speculative bubbles, piss poor infrastructure and a ruined environment.3) Shovel billions into corporate coffers so they can sock the money away in offshore accounts while simultaneously failing to develop energy alternatives4) Failure!You have to subsidize new technologies because corporations cannot justify R&amp;D to their shareholders.
BP and Exxon cannot manufacture solar panels unless they can demonstrate higher profits, which one can't do until the technology is sufficiently developed, which one can't do without huge investments.Technology has thrown the entire paradigm of free market economics for a loop.
The amount of technology and science that go into an average product make information asymmetry astronomical.
This requires more government regulation, not less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407650</id>
	<title>Another reason to say no to corporate lobbying.</title>
	<author>slashhax0r</author>
	<datestamp>1268051940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet another reason that corporate lobbying (legalised bribery) should not be allowed in a supposed democratic government.

*sigh*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another reason that corporate lobbying ( legalised bribery ) should not be allowed in a supposed democratic government .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another reason that corporate lobbying (legalised bribery) should not be allowed in a supposed democratic government.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31418526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31423310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31461512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31448424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31415760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31427326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31415654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31414922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31416712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31415048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31420342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31413928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2044227_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31415654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31448424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407204
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409532
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31415048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31461512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31416712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407464
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408986
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408384
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412576
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409272
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408658
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31418526
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31413928
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407626
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410066
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31412154
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408768
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408794
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408532
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408546
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410042
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408374
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408510
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31420342
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31427326
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410002
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408128
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408572
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31415760
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31423310
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411144
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409482
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408022
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409858
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409986
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407946
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406828
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407260
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407530
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417300
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31411576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408810
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410892
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407140
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408920
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409154
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408232
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407466
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31414922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31410034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31409362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31417078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31405930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31408144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2044227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31406486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2044227.31407264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
