Well, if you didn't know - the EA team's latest Avoncliff effort has hit the interwebs - and quite predictably we're not impressed at all. Gone for quantity over quality this time...
Really - the old adage BS baffles brains ... well, the sheer quantity of it actually beggars belief too - when emanating from Horizon House, Millbank Tower and especially from our friend at Trentside. There's so much - we've had to get mechanical handling and extra staff. In situations like this it's all too easy to loose a sense of proportion - I' m not calling out 'n out lies (yet) - just let's just say pointing at "liberties" taken with interpretation and presentation.
Take this bold assertion assertion (first of a series that will feature here ) from the EA web page linked above:
In an identical water situation - a turbine that has never been in a river and tested produces 50% more electricity from each ton of water passing through it - than a unit that has been installed and tested in dozens of locations. Did that web page get checked for commercial defamation (malicious falsehood even?) by EA lawyers ?
We are also treated to the assertion that the EA have never said Archimedes turbines are "fish friendly" - which is extraordinary considering... some of the communications from EA officials over the years... guys, if you're going to lie - tsk... face meet palm. Is there some sort of Imodium equivalent for government departments ? (or NDPBs as the "independent" EA is increasingly styling itself in its assorted and prodigious blurb output)
The toe curling PR centering on the underpaid and overworked operations folk at the EA is serving as a smokescreen and a coat tail riding exercise for much that is going wrong with this organisation - it's like the water in Somerset subsiding and back to "business as usual"...
Perhaps EA officials (and their pals at AMEC) might try to make more use of blablameter.com - a score of 0.4 and above guys ... - is not good.- this post comes in at 0.19 by the way :-)
One might think from reading the documents on the EA web site that these guys might be "quite interested" in the EA's assessment of their equipment - in fact given the disclaimers on AMEC's burblings they're concerned to deflect any criticism.
ReplyDeleteIts very clear this determination is meant for jo public who know nothing about turbines, and believe that the EA don't lie? BUT to any person with even slight knowledge of turbine efficiency it clearly does not add up that a double bulb Kaplan can out perform one screw let alone two ? This really is some bullshit by putting AMECs name on it they hope no one looks to closely. Looks like a £1.5 million pound lie? BIG JON B-ON-A
ReplyDeleteThey paid £42,000+ to AMEC who have not even covered the basics. What a waste of public funds. £650,000 pounds spent on bullshit because they are not capable of determining a £150 licence. JOHN SWEENY is the fixer and he is a LIAR i have seen the evidence. The numbers on the bovine meter do not go high enough. Shut down the E A and start again.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe it is fair to name John Sweeney as a liar. He is simply an official working for a largely corrupt (top down) organisation. To complement Sweeney in such a way is too generous.
Delete