and these guys run nuclear power stations....
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: M J Carley on 8 Dec 2009 10:24 In the referenced article, "Leszek Karlik" <leslie(a)hell.pl> writes: >On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:32:37 +0100, M J Carley <ensmjc(a)bath.ac.uk> wrote: >> Why is the civil nuclear industry unable to make as good an estimateof >> time and cost as the rest of civil engineering? >Do you claim that _all_ civil engineering projects except nuclear >engineering are always on time and within budget? No, but you knew that. The point is that the nuclear industry *always* needs a massive subsidy and usually runs over time and budget. >Some civil engineering projects are on time and within budget, but >then again, so are some nuclear power plants. Which ones? >In case of wind turbines what we don't know is what the power is going >to cost in the long run. What will be the influence of giant wind turbine >farms on weather patterns? Paving the earth with wind turbines with >an output comparable to nuke plants could have some repercussions, and >a change in weather patterns could drive the cost of power upwards by >a significant amount. That has nothing to do with the cost of any given installation. >BTW, do you have some sources that show that wind turbines are never >over budget and late? :-) Because it seems a bit suspicious, claiming >that one kind of civil engineering projects is immune to problems >with scheduling and budgeting. I didn't say they were *never* over budget or late; I said you know what they cost. Cost prediction for nuclear plants is a bit of a joke on the other hand. These guys claim their coal plants were on time and budget: http://www.power-technology.com/projects/majuba/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yallourn_Power_Station,_Victoria likewise, this power station upgrade: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/power-station-upgrade-on-time-on-budget-and-up-to-speed/309764.article >Quick googling shows one project for a wind turbine that ended up >costing 1 million USD, while the budgeted cost was 600 thousand USD. >Well, it's only 65% over budget or so, so you're quite right, it's >almost like it was built within budget. Not. :-)) > >(http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/04/2762742.htm) http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7046495 -- Si deve tornare alle basi: Marx ed i Clash. Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
From: M J Carley on 8 Dec 2009 10:25 In the referenced article, "Leszek Karlik" <leslie(a)hell.pl> writes: >On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:53:31 +0100, M J Carley <ensmjc(a)bath.ac.uk> wrote: > >[...] >>>> The problem is making them work safely at a *known* cost. >>> You're quite a funny bloke when you want to be. > >> It's a serious statement: the problem at the moment is that nobody >> really knows what it costs to build a nuclear power station. > >Well, it turns nobody really knew what it cost to build a coal power >station either. > >Unless you mean "nuke power plants are notoriously overbudget", which >is a problem of government procurement in general and applies to >lots of things, not only nuclear power plants. Japanese and French >seem to be able to build nukes within the estimated and allocated budget. You reckon? University of Greenwich professor of energy studies Stephen Thomas said industry journal Nucleonics Week had cited a number of problems and issues with welds in the steel liner of the containment building and errors in the installation of steel reinforcement (see box). French nuclear power regulator Autorit� de S�ret� Nucl�aire also halted concrete pouring work for three weeks between June and July last year citing \u201cinsufficient project organisation\u201d. \u201cThe original stated costs were \u20ac3.3bn [�2.8bn], but these costs were re-stated in December to \u20ac4bn [�3.4bn], so they could say that they are running to budget,\u201d said Thomas. \u201cBut it is not the original budget. You can\u2019t keep re-writing history.\u201d Construction at Flamanville began in July 2006 and was scheduled to last for 54 months. http://www.nce.co.uk/news/energy/edf-plays-down-concerns-over-flamanville-nuclear-plant/5203617.article -- Si deve tornare alle basi: Marx ed i Clash. Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
From: M J Carley on 8 Dec 2009 10:26 In the referenced article, "Leszek Karlik" <leslie(a)hell.pl> writes: >On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:47:31 +0100, 'Hog <sm911SPAM(a)hotmailchips.co.uk> >wrote: > >[...] >>> So why do they get the costs wrong? The Channel Tunnel Rail Link was >>> built on-time and on-budget. Why is the civil nuclear industry unable >>> to make as good an estimate of time and cost as the rest of civil >>> engineering? >> >> I thought the Tunnel and associated rail links went hugely over time and >> budget > >Only 80% over budget or so, according to the wikipedia. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (High Speed One) was on time and on budget. -- Si deve tornare alle basi: Marx ed i Clash. Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
From: Andy Bonwick on 8 Dec 2009 10:39 On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:53:03 +0100, "Leszek Karlik" <leslie(a)hell.pl> wrote: snip> >In case of wind turbines what we don't know is what the power is going >to cost in the long run. What will be the influence of giant wind turbine >farms on weather patterns? Paving the earth with wind turbines with >an output comparable to nuke plants could have some repercussions, and >a change in weather patterns could drive the cost of power upwards by >a significant amount. > We already know that they're proving to be a bit 'fragile' when used in the UK but that's not going to stop this country using them as a stop-gap measure until the new nukes come on line. Cost? I'll leave that to people who can read crystal balls and predict the future.
From: Andy Bonwick on 8 Dec 2009 10:41
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:26:37 GMT, ensmjc(a)bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote: >In the referenced article, "Leszek Karlik" <leslie(a)hell.pl> writes: >>On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:47:31 +0100, 'Hog <sm911SPAM(a)hotmailchips.co.uk> >>wrote: >> >>[...] >>>> So why do they get the costs wrong? The Channel Tunnel Rail Link was >>>> built on-time and on-budget. Why is the civil nuclear industry unable >>>> to make as good an estimate of time and cost as the rest of civil >>>> engineering? >>> >>> I thought the Tunnel and associated rail links went hugely over time and >>> budget >> >>Only 80% over budget or so, according to the wikipedia. > >The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (High Speed One) was on time and on budget. So are the preparations for the 2012 Olympics, it's just that the budget's been revised. |