The CFD simulation attributed to Morse in 2016 and illustrated in Fig 3.10 follows a similar misconception that Halbwachs and YLec wrote about in 2012. It completely misses the key requirement of the Plan A1 implementation. That key requirement is the re-injection at a controlled density, equal to the lake water density about 5m below the centre of the main gradient, at 265 m.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe figure shows re-injection water colour-coded to have a density of 1001.8 at 280 m. It should have been colour-coded green at a density of 1001 kg/m^3. The flow is shown to be initially horizontal for a few metres before it plunges through the weaker 310 m gradient to settle at about 320 m. This set-up is exactly how KivuWatt and Symbion are set to operate, i.e. designed-to-fail to comply with the MPs. It proves nothing other than KivuWatt/Symbion have not tried nor understood how to design a water circulation and processing system to comply with the MPs.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe Chen-Millero calculator provided by EAWAG in 2009, including to KivuWatt, provided the data to calculate the depth at which to separate water. It was designed and issued to calculate how to assess how water, extracted from any given depth, would re-settle at a required depth in the same zone. The controllable variable is carbon dioxide removal, which is determined by the depth of the uppermost separator and the depth of extraction.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eWhile there are limits to what can be achieved, extracting water from 355 m and resettling at say 315 m is well within the achievable range. That is how to achieve plan A2. For Plan A1, water extracted from say 305 m can be made to resettle at 265 m. i.e. Plan A1/A2 works.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eHowever, achieving Plan B, which was conceived as a fall-back plan in case of not being able to run Plan A1, does not yield a practical, economic solution. This is because the uppermost separator would have to operate under a partial vacuum to achieve sufficient carbon dioxide removal to yield re-injection water of low enough density (equivalent to 265 m depth). That is likely way too expensive to be economic. Changing the point of re-injection to 240 m makes the situation even worse, causing critical long-term damage to the Main Gradient.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eKivuWatt, despite being offered assistance to resolve this and other issues at the 2009 Copenhagen conference, refused to engage in any discussion. I approached them to offer my assistance on resolving their technical difficulties with developing a compliant solution. The ContourGlobal lawyer present ensured that the KivuWatt technical lead was there to listen and was not permitted to comment, discuss issues or to answer questions. Simply put, KivuWatt u0022u003cemu003eshot themselves in the footu003c/emu003eu0022 with their uncooperative attitude and disregard for the MPs and the Experts.u003cbr/u003e