"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
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.

I still haven't seen them

They were in previous posts to this thread. I'm sure you can look them
up.

All I can find is his (very long) claim that the financials don't work

and that intermittent supply from one barrier isn't sensible

Neither of these are unanswerable.

1) is answered, by "not our problem, if people are stupid enough to invest
on those figures then that is up to them"

and

2) with, you build complementary set of barriers

tim





--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner
as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR