On 05/08/2019 10:18, NY wrote:
"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 04/08/2019 21:13, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes but its really low pressure and if you want to move a lot at a time
there is no benefit to using a siphon. Incidentally, where ARE they
putting
all that water?
Â* Brian


You can see some of the outlet pipes emptying onto the concrete
spillway, on the opposite side from the failure. Other pictures seem
to show more outlets running straight into a waterway.

I may have missed something in the earlier new reports, but why are they
having to *pump* water out of the reservoir? Is there a problem with
taking water out in the normal way?

It can't take the water away fast enough. The rivers below the dam are
already near capacity.

I think it's a canal feeder
reservoir. Can the canals not cope with a greater flow of water into
them than was originally intended? Are the water courses that the pumps
drain into separate from the canal network - is the canal not also fed
from them and the spillway?

I don't understand about blocking the streams that feed into the
reservoir? Won't water just build up behind the temporary "dams" that
the Chinooks are making, causing them to burst catastrophically at some
stage in the future?

By building dams in the feeder steams, the water can be pumped away
before it reaches the reservoir.



--
Colin Bignell

Marland pretended :
but more is removed than is being pumped in by quite a percentage using the
Venturi effect .

The venturi effect as invented by Dyson.

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 05/08/2019 10:18, NY wrote:

I may have missed something in the earlier new reports, but why are they
having to *pump* water out of the reservoir? Is there a problem with
taking water out in the normal way? I think it's a canal feeder
reservoir. Can the canals not cope with a greater flow of water into them
than was originally intended?

Canals weren't designed to carry a significant flow of water.

They're a series of long thin "lakes" connected by locks where there's a
change in level. Every time a boat passes through a lock a lock's worth of
water escapes from the higher section to the lower one. Apart from that
there's very little flow.

Presumably canals have to be capable of carrying a flow of water equivalent
to each lock being opened every so often to let narrow boats up or down. How
big is "a lock's worth", typically, in terms of the amount of water the
flows into it when the upper gate is opened and flows out when the lower
gate is opened? I imagine it's fairly small compared with the 7000 litres (7
tonnes) of water that were being pumped out every *minute*. Do canals tend
to have a maximum boat movements per day limit, not just because of traffic
congestion at the locks but because of the flow of water through the canal
which could scour its sides?

The reservoir had a spillway to allow for excess water to overflow into (I
presume) non-canal waterways. Is there no way to divert water that would
normally go into the canal, so it can go into those non-canal waterways
instead in an emergency.

Is the problem essentially that the spillway had become damaged? Could the
spillway mechanism have safely coped with the excess water if the concrete
skin on the spillway hadn't been breached, allowing the earth fill to be
scoured away?

On 05/08/2019 10:18, NY wrote:
"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 04/08/2019 21:13, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes but its really low pressure and if you want to move a lot at a time
there is no benefit to using a siphon. Incidentally, where ARE they
putting
all that water?
Â* Brian


You can see some of the outlet pipes emptying onto the concrete
spillway, on the opposite side from the failure. Other pictures seem
to show more outlets running straight into a waterway.

I may have missed something in the earlier new reports, but why are they
having to *pump* water out of the reservoir? Is there a problem with
taking water out in the normal way? I think it's a canal feeder
reservoir. Can the canals not cope with a greater flow of water into
them than was originally intended? Are the water courses that the pumps
drain into separate from the canal network - is the canal not also fed
from them and the spillway?

The Peak Forest Canal, is indeed downhill all the way to Manchester

On 05/08/2019 10:37, Mike Clarke wrote:
On 05/08/2019 10:18, NY wrote:

I may have missed something in the earlier new reports, but why are
they having to *pump* water out of the reservoir? Is there a problem
with taking water out in the normal way? I think it's a canal feeder
reservoir. Can the canals not cope with a greater flow of water into
them than was originally intended?

Canals weren't designed to carry a significant flow of water.

With the exception of the LLangollen Canal which is a source of
drinking water for Manchester.

Hopefully "lessons will be learned" and dam designs include means of drainage for maintenance or emergency. A bloody big tap at the bottom?

On 05/08/2019 11:29, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Marland pretended :
but more is removed than is being pumped in by quite a percentage
using the
Venturi effect .

The venturi effect as invented by Dyson.

Dyson Hoovers - - - poor suckers for poor suckers?

A Henry at £99 is one third of the price of a dyson

On 05/08/2019 11:32, NY wrote:
"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 05/08/2019 10:18, NY wrote:

I may have missed something in the earlier new reports, but why are
they having to *pump* water out of the reservoir? Is there a problem
with taking water out in the normal way? I think it's a canal feeder
reservoir. Can the canals not cope with a greater flow of water into
them than was originally intended?

Canals weren't designed to carry a significant flow of water.

They're a series of long thin "lakes" connected by locks where there's
a change in level. Every time a boat passes through a lock a lock's
worth of water escapes from the higher section to the lower one. Apart
from that there's very little flow.

Presumably canals have to be capable of carrying a flow of water
equivalent to each lock being opened every so often to let narrow boats
up or down. How big is "a lock's worth", typically, in terms of the
amount of water the flows into it when the upper gate is opened and
flows out when the lower gate is opened? I imagine it's fairly small
compared with the 7000 litres (7 tonnes) of water that were being pumped
out every *minute*. Do canals tend to have a maximum boat movements per
day limit, not just because of traffic congestion at the locks but
because of the flow of water through the canal which could scour its sides?


Figure usually given as 100,000 gallons per lockful

In article , NY wrote:
"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 04/08/2019 21:13, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes but its really low pressure and if you want to move a lot at a
time there is no benefit to using a siphon. Incidentally, where ARE
they putting all that water? Brian


You can see some of the outlet pipes emptying onto the concrete
spillway, on the opposite side from the failure. Other pictures seem
to show more outlets running straight into a waterway.

I may have missed something in the earlier new reports, but why are they
having to *pump* water out of the reservoir? Is there a problem with
taking water out in the normal way? I think it's a canal feeder
reservoir. Can the canals not cope with a greater flow of water into
them than was originally intended? Are the water courses that the pumps
drain into separate from the canal network - is the canal not also fed
from them and the spillway?

How do you remove surplus water from the canal without opening the locks -
which are specifically designed to stop that happening. The relevant canal
appears to run through Whalley Bridge and is presumably fed by a pipe under
gravity.

I don't understand about blocking the streams that feed into the
reservoir? Won't water just build up behind the temporary "dams" that
the Chinooks are making, causing them to burst catastrophically at some
stage in the future?

I suspect the story about blocking the inputs was wrong. The bags of
ballast are being used to re-inforce tehdam.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer" wrote
in message news:qi9466
How big is "a lock's worth", typically, in terms of the amount of water
the flows into it when the upper gate is opened and flows out when the
lower gate is opened? I imagine it's fairly small compared with the 7000
litres (7 tonnes) of water that were being pumped out every *minute*.

Figure usually given as 100,000 gallons per lockful

Which is about 450,000 litres. So one lockful would take about 450,000 /
7000 = 640 minutes to empty from the reservoir through the pumps at the rate
that was given - one lockful every 10.7 hours.

I wonder how often the locks can be emptied without scouring the banks - ie
in normal canal usage. I imagine that they are already doing this as often
as they can, and the pumping is *in addition* to emptying the reservoir the
intended way as often as allowed.

So the rate at which the locks can empty the reservoir is actually a lot
greater than the rate at which the pumps are doing it. I'd imagined that it
was the opposite way round. Of course there will be water flowing into the
canal by surface runoff that hasn't come from the reservoir, and I imagine
the normal limit on how frequently the locks can be emptied is based on
conditions where the ground isn't already saturated with water.

What is the typical number of lock-emptyings per hour that a canal can
handle? I presume there is a peak rate which is a lot higher than the
sustained 24-hours-a-day rate ;-)

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
Hopefully "lessons will be learned" and dam designs include means of
drainage for maintenance or emergency. A bloody big tap at the bottom?

Draining into a bloody big pipe to the sea or some other "sink" that can
accept all the water from the reservoir that needs to be drained.

On 05/08/2019 12:54, NY wrote:
"Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer"
wrote in message news:qi9466
How big is "a lock's worth", typically, in terms of the amount of
water the flows into it when the upper gate is opened and flows out
when the lower gate is opened? I imagine it's fairly small compared
with the 7000 litres (7 tonnes) of water that were being pumped out
every *minute*.

Figure usually given as 100,000 gallons per lockful

Which is about 450,000 litres. So one lockful would take about 450,000 /
7000 = 640 minutes to empty from the reservoir through the pumps at the
rate that was given - one lockful every 10.7 hours.

I wonder how often the locks can be emptied without scouring the banks -
ie in normal canal usage. I imagine that they are already doing this as
often as they can, and the pumping is *in addition* to emptying the
reservoir the intended way as often as allowed.

So the rate at which the locks can empty the reservoir is actually a lot
greater than the rate at which the pumps are doing it. I'd imagined that
it was the opposite way round. Of course there will be water flowing
into the canal by surface runoff that hasn't come from the reservoir,
and I imagine the normal limit on how frequently the locks can be
emptied is based on conditions where the ground isn't already saturated
with water.

What is the typical number of lock-emptyings per hour that a canal can
handle? I presume there is a peak rate which is a lot higher than the
sustained 24-hours-a-day rate ;-)

When boating, you reckon on 1/4 hour per lock (except perhaps on the
Tardebigge flight on the Worcs & Brum canal, about 7 minutes, especially
if you've got a crew member lock-wheeling at the next lock, making sure
it is ready for you to go directly in).

But, if all the locks filled and emptied together, ONLY ONE lockful
is discharged at the end of the canal because each lock emptying just
makes up the shortfall in the pound up to the next lock.

I suppose that's a bit like the progress of holes in a semiconductor,
if you see what I mean?

Harry Bloomfield, Esq. wrote:
Chris Green formulated the question :
Is there a size of pipe above which a syphon won't work because the
water empties out of the down pipe without 'sucking' the water above
down? It works well with small pipe because, I assume, surface
tension helps to prevent the water from 'dropping out'.

Correct!

Air has to be prevented from being sucked up the discharge pipe, by
having the discharge under water, or the syphon will be immediately
lost with a larger pipe.


Nonsense! Have you actually tried it? Ive syphoned water plenty of times
and never had to keep the outlet underwater.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"The height limit of a siphon"
A. Boatwright, S. Hughes. J. Barry
Scientific Reports volume 5, Article number: 16790 (2015)
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16790

I am sure that putting the Whaley dam in a vacuum chamber to
break the cavitation limit was seriously considered by the team

Well, that doesn't seem very likely to me; I just thought
some of the background info - from a reputable source -
as to *why* there was (usually) a limit might be interesting.
Still, as usual, I am sure you think you know best.

#Paul

On 05/08/2019 15:30, wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"The height limit of a siphon"
A. Boatwright, S. Hughes. J. Barry
Scientific Reports volume 5, Article number: 16790 (2015)
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16790

I am sure that putting the Whaley dam in a vacuum chamber to
break the cavitation limit was seriously considered by the team

Well, that doesn't seem very likely to me; I just thought
some of the background info - from a reputable source -
as to *why* there was (usually) a limit might be interesting.
Still, as usual, I am sure you think you know best.

#Paul


Its only basic physics, the sort of thing that you used to learn in
primary school before it was all play and no learning.

On 05/08/2019 11:29, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Marland pretended :
but more is removed than is being pumped in by quite a percentage
using the
Venturi effect .

The venturi effect as invented by Dyson.

Are you sure he didn't get the idea from Frank Whittles
original jet engine design ?.

On 05/08/2019 09:05, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Chris Green formulated the question :
Is there a size of pipe above which a syphon won't work because the
water empties out of the down pipe without 'sucking' the water above
down?* It works well with small pipe because, I assume, surface
tension helps to prevent the water from 'dropping out'.

Correct!

Air has to be prevented from being sucked up the discharge pipe, by
having the discharge under water, or the syphon will be immediately lost
with a larger pipe.

My toilet cistern doesn't seem to have this problem

On 05/08/2019 12:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:25:57 +0100, nightjar wrote:


By building dams in the feeder steams, the water can be pumped away
before it reaches the reservoir.

Yebbut where to?


Over the other side of the watershed would be a good place.

--
Colin Bignell

Andrew was thinking very hard :
On 05/08/2019 11:29, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Marland pretended :
but more is removed than is being pumped in by quite a percentage using
the
Venturi effect .

The venturi effect as invented by Dyson.

Are you sure he didn't get the idea from Frank Whittles
original jet engine design ?.

Sorry, I ommited a smiley on the end of my post.

Chris Hogg expressed precisely :
"The Venturi effect is named after Giovanni Battista Venturi
(1746?1822), an Italian physicist"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect

Correct and my car makes use of it. My suggestion of Dyson was intended
as a joke.

Tim+ expressed precisely :
Nonsense! Have you actually tried it? Ive syphoned water plenty of times
and never had to keep the outlet underwater.

As have I, it works fine on small pipes, but have you tried it on
larger pipes - I have. Air rushes up above the water from the discharge
pipe and soon breaks the syphon effect. If the discharge is kept below
water, then air cannot be sucked in.

Andrew wrote :
My toilet cistern doesn't seem to have this problem

The syphon only has to work for a few seconds and in a relatively short
and narrow bore pipe. Try it for a longer time, with a longer and
larger diameter pipe.

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 20:17:45 +0100, newshound wrote:

I don't know how far they need to deliver the water, but the flow rate
is dependent on the frictional losses. The pumped system still recovers
available potential energy. To get the same flow rate from a syphon will
require *much* larger hoses, especially if they are long.

See, for instance, the syphons on the Thirlmere - Manchester route.
Not much pumping there!

Harry Bloomfield, Esq. wrote:
Tim+ expressed precisely :
Nonsense! Have you actually tried it? Ive syphoned water plenty of times
and never had to keep the outlet underwater.

As have I, it works fine on small pipes, but have you tried it on
larger pipes - I have. Air rushes up above the water from the discharge
pipe and soon breaks the syphon effect.

Only if your inlet is obstructed and the flow is very low. Otherwise the
water velocity is too fast to allow air back up.

If the discharge is kept below
water, then air cannot be sucked in.


Well thats true, but not necessary in my experience.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Monday, 5 August 2019 10:57:19 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 04/08/2019 23:26, wrote:
On Sunday, 4 August 2019 22:42:12 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:

A lake near here was drained a few years ago for maintenance
of its dam. They used two siphon hoses each about 15cm diameter
and it took about two weeks.

Each hose had a strainer at the sucking end. I don't know how
the siphons were started, but they kept going happily until the
lake was nearly empty.

John


Presumably a non-urgent job?

Yes, the dam had been leaking for at least a year before they fixed it.
Here it is: 51.344159, -0.384329
They installed interlinked steel pilings on the upstream face once
the lake (called Middle Pond) was drained.
The outlet ends of the siphon pipes were not submerged - the flow of
water was enough to prevent air from bubbling back up. The pipe
diameter was something like 10 to 15cm.

John

In article , steve@walker-
family.me.uk says...


You can start a syphon by placing the whole pipe in the water, letting
it fill, closing a valve on the end, lifting the end over and down and
opening the valve. A job for a mobile crane.


Like a Chinook, possibly?

If the outlet were placed at the bottom of the dam, there would be a
decent head until the reservoir was virtually empty.


Sorry - only about 34 feet. Beyond that, you would just create
a vacuum in the pipe as the weight of the water exceeeds the
atmospheric pressure needed to push the water up the pipe.


--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 05/08/2019 19:01, Terry Casey wrote:
In article , steve@walker-
family.me.uk says...


You can start a syphon by placing the whole pipe in the water, letting
it fill, closing a valve on the end, lifting the end over and down and
opening the valve. A job for a mobile crane.


Like a Chinook, possibly?

If the outlet were placed at the bottom of the dam, there would be a
decent head until the reservoir was virtually empty.


Sorry - only about 34 feet. Beyond that, you would just create
a vacuum in the pipe as the weight of the water exceeeds the
atmospheric pressure needed to push the water up the pipe.

I was assuming that the depth behind the dam was less than it actually
is. Today's report was that they'd got down to 8m below the top of the
dam, with another 8m to go. I didn't expect it to be quite as deep.

SteveW

On 05/08/2019 11:00, Marland wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 4 Aug 2019 19:04:59 GMT, Tim+ wrote:

Why not syphons? I mean, pumps use power, quite a lot of it and are
relatively expensive.

The Fire and Rescue service high volume pumps are part of the
national reslience system. Seems there are 51 dotted about the
country to be called upon locally or nationally as required. Each one
is capable of delivering 7,000 litres per minute (enough to meet the
demand of up to three fire engines all running flat out) over several
km of hose. They are floating "sump pumps", the small red boxes in
the water in some of the pictures. Seen reported that 16 of these are
in use. The same pictures also reveal larger yellow pumps, presumably
commercial pumps of even higher capacity.

The coverage of these "technical" details is sadly lacking. Most
people won't have any idea of the size of pipes and speed of flow
that shifting that volume of water requires.

I see under the scheme that you mention our Brigade, Hampshire has deployed
some resources.
They have some pumps in their inventory that are intended for use on ships
in in the ports of the county
which are a type of ejector pump with no moving parts into which high
pressure water is pumped.

I have witnessed some in use on exercise with where they emptied the
ballast tanks of a ship using it,
it seems strange to see water pumped into a space you want to empty of it
but more is removed than is being pumped in by quite a percentage using the
Venturi effect .

They are mentioned in this document around page 46.

https://www.ukfrs.com/sites/default/...Supplies.pd f


The lack of moving parts is a great advantage especially in a ships hold
where floating debris could jam or damage a mechanical one, one of the
pumps uses is to pump water accumulating within a hull from shoreside hoses
deployed on a fire as by the time you bring a fire under control may have
sunk or destabilised the ship.

They are commonly used in chemical and nuclear plants where you don't
want to have to deal with leaky pump seals, moving parts, etc. and can
have the power source outside the danger area.

SteveW

On 05/08/2019 11:29, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Marland pretended :
but more is removed than is being pumped in by quite a percentage
using the
Venturi effect .

The venturi effect as invented by Dyson.

Yes

Not only didn't he come up with the idea, but industial cyclones had
been in use for decades. I am amazed that he was granted a patent -
there was no novel technology there.

SteveW

On 05/08/2019 12:53, charles wrote:
How do you remove surplus water from the canal without opening the locks -
which are specifically designed to stop that happening. The relevant canal
appears to run through Whalley Bridge and is presumably fed by a pipe under
gravity.

You open the sluice gates top and bottom of each lock. The ones that let
you fill and empty the locks with the gates shut.

That takes several minutes per lock full - but every little helps.

Andy

On 05/08/2019 21:29, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/08/2019 12:53, charles wrote:
How do you remove surplus water from the canal without opening the
locks -
which are specifically designed to stop that happening. The relevant
canal
appears to run through Whalley Bridge and is presumably fed by a pipe
under
gravity.

You open the sluice gates top and bottom of each lock. The ones that let
you fill and empty the locks with the gates shut.

Paddles not sluice gates (remembering back to a canal holiday almost 40
years ago!)

SteveW

On 05/08/2019 12:19, Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer wrote:
On 05/08/2019 10:37, Mike Clarke wrote:
On 05/08/2019 10:18, NY wrote:

I may have missed something in the earlier new reports, but why are
they having to *pump* water out of the reservoir? Is there a problem
with taking water out in the normal way? I think it's a canal feeder
reservoir. Can the canals not cope with a greater flow of water into
them than was originally intended?

Canals weren't designed to carry a significant flow of water.

With the exception of the LLangollen Canal which is a source of
drinking water for Manchester.

Then technically it is an aqueduct...

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 05/08/2019 12:30, Cynic wrote:
Hopefully "lessons will be learned" and dam designs include means of
drainage for maintenance or emergency. A bloody big tap at the
bottom?

No lessons will be learnt. Virtue signalling is more important than
actually achieving reliable infratsructure.


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/08/2019 12:30, Cynic wrote:
Hopefully "lessons will be learned" and dam designs include means of
drainage for maintenance or emergency. A bloody big tap at the
bottom?

No lessons will be learnt. Virtue signalling is more important than
actually achieving reliable infrastructure.

Hopefully the company that did the annual safety inspection and pronounced
the dam "absolutely fine" is well insured - because all the work over the
past week will have cost a lot.

On 05/08/2019 22:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/08/2019 12:19, Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer wrote:
On 05/08/2019 10:37, Mike Clarke wrote:
On 05/08/2019 10:18, NY wrote:

I may have missed something in the earlier new reports, but why are
they having to *pump* water out of the reservoir? Is there a problem
with taking water out in the normal way? I think it's a canal feeder
reservoir. Can the canals not cope with a greater flow of water into
them than was originally intended?

Canals weren't designed to carry a significant flow of water.

With the exception of the LLangollen Canal which is a source of
drinking water for Manchester.

Then technically it is an aqueduct...

It was actually built as separate sections, eventually linked via a
different route than originally proposed and was intended as a canal. It
did supply water, but only for other parts of the canal system - and you
can argue that any canal does that, at least for it's lower sections.
After it closed and before it reopened, it was retained first for this
purpose, but also due to a later agreement to supply Mid & South East
Cheshire Water Board.

SteveW

Cynic wrote

Hopefully "lessons will be learned" and dam designs include means of
drainage for maintenance or emergency. A bloody big tap at the bottom?

Makes more sense to design the thing properly in the first place so that
isnt needed.

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 09:03:34 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Hopefully "lessons will be learned" and dam designs include means of
drainage for maintenance or emergency. A bloody big tap at the bottom?

Makes more sense to design the thing properly in the first place so that
isnt needed.

Oh, shut your senile gob finally, you self-opinionated and self-important
senile asshole!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 05/08/2019 09:05, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Chris Green formulated the question :
Is there a size of pipe above which a syphon won't work because the
water empties out of the down pipe without 'sucking' the water above
down? It works well with small pipe because, I assume, surface
tension helps to prevent the water from 'dropping out'.

Correct!

Air has to be prevented from being sucked up the discharge pipe, by
having the discharge under water, or the syphon will be immediately lost
with a larger pipe.

My toilet cistern doesn't seem to have this problem

But doesn't have as large a pipe as you would use to drain that dam quickly.

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 09:25:45 +1000, Sewer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


My toilet cistern doesn't seem to have this problem

But doesn't have as large a pipe as you would use to drain that dam quickly.

So many posts by you in this thread again ...and not ONE feedback for you,
senile asshole! LOL

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 05/08/2019 22:38, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/08/2019 12:30, Cynic wrote:
Hopefully "lessons will be learned" and dam designs include means of
drainage for maintenance or emergency. A bloody big tap at the
bottom?

No lessons will be learnt. Virtue signalling is more important than
actually achieving reliable infrastructure.

Hopefully the company that did the annual safety inspection and
pronounced the dam "absolutely fine" is well insured - because all the
work over the past week will have cost a lot.

It probably WAS absolutely fine until the heavy rain

I bet you the work hasnt cost even one useless wind turbine yet



--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.