Java Jive wrote:

On 13 Sep 2013 21:49:47 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

IIRC, and I suspect you might have glossed over the point, that the
issue arose during what I seem to recall as being a 'CO2 from power
generation must be captured at all costs' phase. While the precise
exchange might not have linked the two directly, the context was
there in the contemporaneous threads that you were discussing.

I was and remain in favour of us investing in carbon capture rather
than nuclear technologies, because strategically it makes more sense
for us, because we have significant reserves of carbon-based fuels,
particularly coal and gas, while we have no strategic reserves of
nuclear fuels. That was also the context of that discussion, and I
stand by what I said in it.

The only reason I recall this much is that the idea was laughable, and
showed that you had done nothing apart from having the (ludicrous)
thought in the first place.

As with so many of your posts, you're remembering it the way you want
it to be, not the way it actually was and is, as shown by the quotes I
included.

Using lithium hydroxide for power-generation CO2 capture is ludicrous,
and you were the one that mentioned it in that a thread of
that context.

Last word to you.

--
Terry Fields