On Thursday, 13 October 2016 10:20:50 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

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

Are ye mad?

No

I know very little at all about this technology, I have no idea what the
costing are, not my problem matey!. But the fact that there are people
prepared to invest in it suggests that some people think it viable at that
price.

illogical

Why should we stop them from trying just because some other people think
that it wont work?

because it spends our money without a sensible return

We don't live in a dictatorship.

It's their money, if they want to risk it, why stop them?

it isn't

(subject to the environmental considerations etc etc...)

A string of points have been made debunking the whole
approach, and explaining why it is technically and financially stupid,

They have been made an offer which is comparable with other solutions

it is for them to decide if it is viable at that price, not you (or anybody
else).

there is clearly no basis for that claim

and you want to proceed with it to "prove the technology".

I don't *want* to proceed with it - not the slightest bit interested in
whether it goes ahead or not.

I am saying if *they* want to proceed with it, it's entirely up to them.

**** the
technology, concentrate on the essentials.

You'll be proposing planes with flapping wings next, because that's how
birds do it.

I didn't propose anything

I am simply making the point that if someone else wants to risk an
investment in X, you and I have no place stopping them.

OK, then I'm going to take 50% of everything you own and invest it in a dimwitted scam. It's in my interest as I'll get paid (from your money) until that money runs out.

The only issue that is our concern here is where it is given a subsidy,
which it is. But as that subsidy is the same as that given to Nukes, which
most here support, the they have no case that the subsidy is too high.
Either a subsidy of X is OK or it isn't. You can't say it's OK for my
preferred solution, but not for something else.

completely illogical. Let's spend your electricity bill money on a roof turbine then, and leave you to cope with the resulting hopeless supply. I don't think you'd be too happy.


NT