and these guys run nuclear power stations....
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: M J Carley on 8 Dec 2009 11:48 In the referenced article, Malc <malwhite(a)blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >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. You do know I mean the link from Saint Pancras, and not the Tunnel proper? -- Si deve tornare alle basi: Marx ed i Clash. Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
From: Andy Bonwick on 8 Dec 2009 14:02 On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:52:36 +0000, Simon Wilson <siwilson(a)NODAMNSPAMN.hotmail.com> wrote: >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. > Yeah, and you need to remember that you always get what you pay for. >Hellbeans, I didn't expect this thread to run. Thanks for the x-post, I >think... You'll get the blame so don't thank me.
From: crn on 8 Dec 2009 14:31 In uk.rec.motorcycles Leszek Karlik <leslie(a)hell.pl> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:09:52 +0100, 'Hog <sm911SPAM(a)hotmailchips.co.uk> > wrote: > > [...] > > Bit like making the railways work. For that reason I don't think we have > > a good solution other than letting the Frogs do it. > > The Nips, too. They have working railways and can build nuclear reactors > within budget and on schedule. :-) > > > Sadly that means PWR. > > Or ABWR. :-) PEBL looks more promising. Lots of small safe plants closer to the demand. -- 03 GS500K2 76 Honda 400/4 project 68 Bantam D14/4 Sport (Classic) 06 Sukida SK50QT (Slanty eyed shopping trolley)
From: Leszek Karlik on 8 Dec 2009 16:03 On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:24:19 +0100, M J Carley <ensmjc(a)bath.ac.uk> wrote: [...] >> 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. Large scale engineering projects always have this kind of dynamics, unfortunately. I consider this to be an artifact of politics. It's easier for politicians to swallow one small pill and then be told they have to swallow another and then another than just give them one huge budget and get approval for that. It can be seen in road construction, railway construction, military spending and so on. I can't see why nuclear power should be exempt. [...] >> Some civil engineering projects are on time and within budget, but >> then again, so are some nuclear power plants. > > Which ones? The 900 MW and 1300 MW series of reactors built by EDF (Electricite de France) in cooperation with Alstom and AREVA (the 1495 MW series had some initial problems with the first reactor, the rest were constructed without hitches). All four ABWR reactors in Japan built by TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co Inc). Can't be bothered to google for more, especially as the successful nuclear industries are usually in non-English speaking countries so it's harder to rapidly find good sources, and I have a limited time budget allotted to Usenet flamefests. Which, incidentally, I'm pretty much exceeding right now, damn you. ;-)) [...] >> 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. But you don't know what the power they produce will cost. > Cost prediction for nuclear plants is a bit of a joke on the otherhand. Personally, I think this is a result of political pressures put on the nuclear industry combined with the "too large to fail" effect inherent in all large infrastructure projects. We shall see how it works out in the next decade or so, with the renewal of interest in nuclear power. Chinese plants constructed by foreign contractors so far seem to be going on schedule and within budget. :-) [...] > http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7046495 Yes, smaller projects are easier to keep within budget. That is one of the reasons I keep cheering the various proposed small nuclear plants. :-) -- Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik NTV 650
From: Rob Kleinschmidt on 8 Dec 2009 18:49
On Dec 7, 8:36 am, Andy Bonwick <nos...(a)bonwick.me.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:32:22 +0000, Andy Bonwick > > <nos...(a)bonwick.me.uk> wrote: > > snip> > > The footnote thief removed this: > > (1) I can certainly remember the days of scheduled power cuts and no > tv after 10pm. Without nuclear power we'd have had them for at least > one period since then. That doesn't really make much sense. At 10pm, it seems as if you'd be running baseload plants anyway, so it's not clear what's being saved. Baseload plants don't stop and start very well, so they normally run near full load 24/7. Why try to save power at 10pm in the first place ? Is there some kind of generation which gets throttled back or is the power diverted to some other use ? |