On 13/10/16 10:22, tim... wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:18:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

Most of the population have lost sight of the primary objective, which
is to reduce and even eliminate CO2 production (assuming that that is
necessary, which most people think it is, rightly or wrongly). That
objective has been hijacked and transduced into one of using as much
renewable energy as possible, regardless of cost, convenience or
practicality.

I now await Dotty Tim's riposte, in which he will explain on precisely
what grounds there is justification to build this barrier.

I resent that post

Nothing in my PP supported the technology or suggested that I thought it
sensible.

Merely that posters here have no place complaining about it being given
the same subside as Nukes, which they support. And that once it has
that subsidy, it is entirely for the investors to decide if it is viable.


But its being given far more.

tim



--
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of
people who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell





--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.