On 13/10/16 14:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , 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

See my sig.

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

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

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

All subsidies should be scrapped. And what subsidy is HinckleyC
getting, anyway? AIUI, EDF and the Chinese are paying the entire cost
of construction. Once built, we but the volts from them at an agreed
price. Where's the subsidy in that?

In the agreed price.



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"