and these guys run nuclear power stations....
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: Andy Bonwick on 8 Dec 2009 10:53 On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:24:19 GMT, ensmjc(a)bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote: snip> > >likewise, this power station upgrade: > >http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/power-station-upgrade-on-time-on-budget-and-up-to-speed/309764.article > I don't think replacing worn out governor control systems is that big a thing to brag about. I can think of a power station that carried out a major upgrade of the HP & IP turbines on one of its units and mothballed all the equipment for doing the second one after the first build went massively over budget and started up 4 months late. The biggest problem was that they were trying to polish a turd rather than squeeze out a fresh one.
From: S'mee on 8 Dec 2009 11:01 On Dec 7, 2:07 am, Ace <b.rog...(a)ifrance.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:05:04 -0000, "'Hog" > > <sm911S...(a)hotmailCHIPS.co.uk> wrote: > >Wicked Uncle Nigel <w...(a)wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk> wrote: > >> I do love it when Americans call California "Stalinist". > > >> It makes me laugh. > > Me too. Especially as it betrays such a woeful ignorance of the > difference between Stalinism and Communism/Socialism, which they think > are all the same thing. heh, thinking again are you? Now mind you this is JUST an opinion and NOT established fact as determined by the ivory torwer crowd. But Stalnism was nothing more than totalitarism with a veneer of communist trappings and rhetoric. But as I said it's JUST an opinion. 8^) Heven forbid I actually studied the subject and came to an opinion contrary to accepted dogma. 8^) > >I've not heard it before! > >I'm not at all sure what it meant. > > California has one or two laws which are slightly less right-wing and > veering towards what the yanks would call 'liberal' attitudes. It's > one of the reasons that it's the only part of the US I can actually > stand to be in. Oh, nothing wrong with liberalism. BUT when you start dictating changes contrary to what people want whilst assuming you know what they need... > Sadly, our Palo Alto office has closed down and all functions moved to > South San Francisco. Shame, as PA's a really nice little student town, > and hardly American at all. Bummer. The roads there (two lane in the mountains) are okay for a day ride. <shrug> Never did like that state except for the mojave desert, too many people in too small a area. On the plus side it leaves much of the state wide open like it should be. Visiting the Goldstone observatory at night is interesting. -- Keith and?
From: Andy Bonwick on 8 Dec 2009 11:28 On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:59:55 +0000, boots <boots(a)despammed.com> wrote: snip> >Isn't this because they actually do have a pretty good idea but no one >wants to mention it when trying to get government money so costs and >timescales are graphite equalised[1]. Hence pretty well everything >ends up costing more and taking longer than the original estimate. >Once it's being built though it's then too expensive not to finish. > It's often the case that on multiple build projects (like nukes) a conract will be signed where the first one can go over the initial budget but the follow ups have to have a percentage reduction on every build. The obvious flaw is some costs from #2 go onto #1 and from #3 onto #2 etc. This works really well until the last one but that normally gets cancelled... >[1] A lovely expression from the days of broadcast speech circuits, if >the figures don't look right then put in some that do. I can see me trying to remember that one so I can use it when the knife starts to turn.
From: Malc on 8 Dec 2009 11:33 On 8 Dec, 14:32, ens...(a)bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote: > > So why do they get the costs wrong? The Channel Tunnel Rail Link was > built on-time and on-budget. Bwahahaha! For certain values of on time and on budget of course. -- Malc
From: Simon Wilson on 8 Dec 2009 11:52
Andy Bonwick wrote: > People know how to make nuclear reactors work, the problem is making > them work safely at a low cost. *ahem* You mean like using connectors that are up to the job, which was my original point. Hellbeans, I didn't expect this thread to run. Thanks for the x-post, I think... -- /Simon |