"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/16 10:32, tim... wrote:

"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"


Not if the investment is actually effectively made with MY MONEY which is
what government guarantees via CFD amount to.

you still haven't explained how this CFD lark works to make it better than
the strike price.

Google gives no clue it doesn't even tell me what the abbreviation expands
to

and

2) with, you build complementary set of barriers


Ignoring the cost of actually connecting the peak flows as 'someone else's
problem'. Actually the National Grid's.

Oh, guess who pays for that? Yep. The consumer via increased electricity
charges for distribution as well as generation.

which they will have to pay of we build a Nuke, or a wind fare or whatever
new fangled gismo instead

look, I don't like these inflated strike prices any more than you do. But
they are the effect of us deciding not to build any more coal/gas plants.

You can't use this argument specifically against this scheme.

tim