Share.

    10 commenti

    1. ForwardReflection980 on

      If it saves just one salmon, it’ll all be worth it.

    2. CronusCronusCronus on

      Can someone explain how this isn’t as stupid as the HS2 bat tunnel?

    3. UnfortunateWah on

      £700m to maybe save a worst case maximum of 44 tonnes of fish per year when we catch 716,000~ tonnes per year.

      Absolutely mental, and a classic example of a lack of common sense. £700m for such a poor return/impact is an insane use of public finances.

    4. ByteSizedGenius on

      You could do a shitload of good to our waterways with £700m or even half that. That’s 6-7 years worth of all government funding the canal & river trust receives for non-flood measures. Utter stupidity.

    5. DavidSwifty on

      Taking the piss. I am in the wrong career I should be a consultant. I wonder how much of this is kick backs to consultants?

    6. Georgist-Minarchist on

      nuclear is the key to a green society , unlike what the greens will tell you

    7. Lazy_Crab_3584 on

      This is coming from EDF, so I’m sure it should be taken with a pinch of salt. It’s possible that they’re playing down the environmental impact so they can save costs by not having a fish disco

    8. So nimbys rejected the alternatives like a salt marsh, as per the article. I’d love to see an actual breakdown of costs, and exactly how the 700 million figure was reached because the article doesn’t list it.

    9. FlummoxedFlumage on

      Save the fish or buy 700 struggling millennials family homes in Zone 3.

    10. BoomSatsuma on

      Impressive.

      Makes the HS2 bat tunnel look positively cheap.

    Leave A Reply