In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

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.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.

See, any fool can say we should be doing X, but oh dear the practical
details I leave to others. In such cases I call bull****. We have a
plethora of luvvies and others saying as how all we need is a magic new
battery technology when a survey of available battery chemistry rules
it out, or how carbon capture and storage is the way forward when no
one has the least idea how to do that.

Of course for such twerps anything to do with science is
indistinguishable from magic, and so they imagine that the "magic" of
science can come up with anything they want. For them, the insistence
of for example those on here who call for nukes + gas as the way
forward is perverse and obviously maliciously motivated.

He's right brained you see. All airey fairy ideas but no practical
understanding whatsoever.
--
bert