Another truck load of hs from you trying to deflect the argument.
Seeing as you've continually failed to produce costings for nuclear power, why don't you post the costings and engineering solution for the Bradford scheme ?
" Bradfield's scheme and others have been criticised because they are not practical.[2] This scheme has been criticised because of the high capital and ongoing running costs which would make the project uneconomical.Elevation measurements were taken with a barometer, leading to inaccuracies in land heights and mistakes in the proposal.[4] In most cases no flow record of the rivers were available to Bradfield. He used an empirical formula which assumed 33% of the water flow would be lost to evaporation and seepage. The estimated water available for the scheme was 114 cubic metres per second (4,000 cu ft/s).[4]The extreme evaporation rate in the interior is another negative determinant. No clear evidence has been provided that the amount of water supplied will exceed the evaporation rate. The reduction in river discharge to the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon may diminish coastal fisheries by reducing the supply of terrestrial organic matter to the coastal and estuarine environment.In 1947, W.H.R. Nimmo, conducted a critical review of the scheme.[4] He proved that Bradfield's estimates of the amount of water available from the easterly flowing rivers were about two and half times greater than it actually was. The error was attributed to the methodology used to calculate flow estimates was based on German rivers where the average temperature was much less than in northern Australia.[4]"
