The TPU UK Clubhouse

[FreedomEclipse]

Maybe he's seen the numbers that Heathrow pulls and made a ball park assumption. max throughput minus 30-40% or something. I mean Pettigrew does have a master's degree in international economics and banking so im sure he'll be able to roughly estimate it.

Hes not an electrician though so there could be a lot about the large infrastructure/logistics both in and out of heathrow that he doesnt understand

 

[Tatty_Two]

Maybe he's seen the numbers that Heathrow pulls and made a ball park assumption. max throughput minus 30-40% or something. I mean Pettigrew does have a master's degree in international economics and banking so im sure he'll be able to roughly estimate it.

Hes not an electrician though so there could be a lot about the large infrastructure/logistics both in and out of heathrow that he doesnt understand

Yeah makes sense but it's a more complex issue than just getting aircraft in the sky safely on a reduced power budget, it's also about thousands of passengers and keeping them safe, moving them across multiple levels, feeding them as no doubts there would already be a backlog unless of course a simple switch can be turned on and instantly power become available. I don't know how many passengers were in the terminals at the time of failure, maybe they just thought that they needed to get them out before they all started complaining

 

[FreedomEclipse]

maybe they just thought that they needed to get them out before they all started complaining

I mean if you think about it this way. It was a smart thing to do....Its real tough being a front line customer service agent.

The shutdown probably saved a lot of frontline staff from being abused. Im sure they will still catch some heat though. Thats just life unfortunately. Some folks will always find someone to vent their anger at even if the person has nothing to do with the shutdown.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The biggest difference between private and public ownership is the part of the assessment which comes down to: is the risk mitigation worth the cost? In other words, what's reasonably practicable?

This kind thing has always made me angry. Risk mitigation is about removing risk. The cost is irrelevant and not a part of the function or purpose of the task of mitigating risk. Creating redundancy and removing risk is the desired function, it's cost does not enter into the discussion. It gets done or we have situations like this, where one of the largest and busiest travel and commerce hubs in the world is stuck disrupted until a repair can be built.

And I hear some of you thinking: "But what about the cost of maintaining the extra redundant power units?" To that I respond with the following question: How much did it cost to disrupt the world's 5th busiest airport for more than a day, it's busiest day of the week? Here's a hint at the answer: Billions. 10 decimal points damage in cost for a single day of disruption. That is the cost of nitwit planning and failing to maintain redundancies for critical support systems for such an important hub of commerce.

PROPER planning and redundancy for such a critical infrastructure is required. It is not optional, ever. Those who are responsible for this series of events are as incompetent as they are short-sighted. They need to be replaced with people who comprehend long-term planning and the scope of having fall-back plans. Those who supply the funding need to remember moments like this as a reminder of why spending money on redundancy is both wise, critical and REQUIRED.

This nonsense at Heathrow was as equally preventable as it was moronic and costly.

(Edit: 54th, this was not a personal jab at you, I'm only answering the general school of thought involved in why this happened. I understand that cost analysis is important to many things.)

 

[FreedomEclipse]

(Edit: 54th, this was not a personal jab at you, I'm only answering the general school of thought involved in why this happened. I understand that cost analysis is important to many things.)

He's a Scot. He can handle a few jabs.

 

[the54thvoid]

He's a Scot. He can handle a few jabs.

T'was no jab there.

But on the whole RA thing, my mate's a principal engineer (mostly project managing) with Atkins Realis, and he sees some real shitty cost-cutting around the world - and this is in power plants.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

and he sees some real shitty cost-cutting around the world - and this is in power plants.

Not really surprised when most of the hardware comes from Temu. Either they cheap out on hardware or they'll defer any sort of routine maintenance till things start going wrong or have gone wrong before jumping on it.

 

[mechtech]

Yeah, true - the point of risk assessment is to minimise foreseeable risk within reasonable cost. What is reasonable is based on the reputation/wealth of the company.

Was a substation failure foreseeable? No idea, but you'd have to think there's some guy at Heathrow holding a clipboard with lots of notes saying: I bloody told you so.

Makes it more difficult when things like that are outside your control and no clue on the life or condition of it. That said there own internal back up power is. Good ol Murphys Law again.

This kind thing has always made me angry. Risk mitigation is about removing risk. The cost is irrelevant and not a part of the function or purpose of the task of mitigating risk. Creating redundancy and removing risk is the desired function, it's cost does not enter into the discussion. It gets done or we have situations like this, where one of the largest and busiest travel and commerce hubs in the world is stuck disrupted until a repair can be built.

And I hear some of you thinking: "But what about the cost of maintaining the extra redundant power units?" To that I respond with the following question: How much did it cost to disrupt the world's 5th busiest airport for more than a day, it's busiest day of the week? Here's a hint at the answer: Billions. 10 decimal points damage in cost for a single day of disruption. That is the cost of nitwit planning and failing to maintain redundancies for critical support systems for such an important hub of commerce.

PROPER planning and redundancy for such a critical infrastructure is required. It is not optional, ever. Those who are responsible for this series of events are as incompetent as they are short-sighted. They need to be replaced with people who comprehend long-term planning and the scope of having fall-back plans. Those who supply the funding need to remember moments like this as a reminder of why spending money on redundancy is both wise, critical and REQUIRED.

This nonsense at Heathrow was as equally preventable as it was moronic and costly.

(Edit: 54th, this was not a personal jab at you, I'm only answering the general school of thought involved in why this happened. I understand that cost analysis is important to many things.)

Indeed. Texans paid for this dearly a few winters ago unfortunately.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Indeed. Texans paid for this dearly a few winters ago unfortunately.

Now THAT was very different. Texas just doesn't get weather like that frequently. In fact, it hadn't happened since the Texas power grid had been created. That was one of those very real unknowns that could not be foreseen or effectively planned for. Very different from the Heathrow situation.

 

[mechtech]

Now THAT was very different. Texas just doesn't get weather like that frequently. In fact, it hadn't happened since the Texas power grid had been created. That was one of those very real unknowns that could not be foreseen or effectively planned for. Very different from the Heathrow situation.

Maybe. But just as unexpected and unmitigated. Hopefully things have been shored up. Lives literally depend on electricity nowadays. Like you mentioned though public vs private sector usually is a big difference in risk.

 

[the54thvoid]

Now THAT was very different. Texas just doesn't get weather like that frequently. In fact, it hadn't happened since the Texas power grid had been created. That was one of those very real unknowns that could not be foreseen or effectively planned for. Very different from the Heathrow situation.

Very different but not so different. Texas' deregulated power network may have been to blame:

2021 Texas Power Grid Failure – a preventable disaster - DEITABASE

In 2021, Winter Storm Uri brought record-breaking low temperatures to the people of Texas, overwhelming the under-designed Texas power grid. 4.5 million homes and businesses lost power, over $16 billion in electricity costs were overcharged, and over 240 people died due to freezing temperatures...

limos.engin.umich.edu

 

[lexluthermiester]

Maybe. But just as unexpected and unmitigated.

Yes, but power supply problem are easily planned for and mitigated. Freaky weather is not.

Very different but not so different. Texas' deregulated power network may have been to blame:

2021 Texas Power Grid Failure – a preventable disaster - DEITABASE

In 2021, Winter Storm Uri brought record-breaking low temperatures to the people of Texas, overwhelming the under-designed Texas power grid. 4.5 million homes and businesses lost power, over $16 billion in electricity costs were overcharged, and over 240 people died due to freezing temperatures...

limos.engin.umich.edu

While those are fair points, I fully disagree. The Texas situation was freak weather related, not a situation of overt neglect. The Heathrow situation was completely one of neglect and incompetence. That's the difference.

 

[the54thvoid]

Yes, but power supply problem are easily planned for and mitigated. Freaky weather is not.


While those are fair points, I fully disagree. The Texas situation was freak weather related, not a situation of overt neglect. The Heathrow situation was completely one of neglect and incompetence. That's the difference.

Well, all is cool. I see fault in the Texan system (a preventable disaster as stated by the engineers at Michigan) as you see it in Heathrow (lack of planning for a severe and exceptional fire).

 

[lexluthermiester]

Well, all is cool. I see fault in the Texan system (a preventable disaster as stated by the engineers at Michigan) as you see it in Heathrow (lack of planning for a severe and exceptional fire).

I sense you might feel I'm doing an us vs them, UK vs US thing. I'm really not. For me this is a bean-counters vs common sense thing. Planning for something that WILL happen if not properly maintained is very different from planning for something that MIGHT happen once in a century.

 

[the54thvoid]

I sense you might feel I'm doing an us vs them, UK vs US thing. I'm really not. For me this is a bean-counters vs common sense thing. Planning for something that WILL happen if not properly maintained is very different from planning for something the MIGHT happen once in a century.

We'll go around in circles with this. I'm agreeing with the Heathrow thing. Ironically reading an article about it now with businesses saying oversight is needed to ensure the grid is capable of the increasing load being placed on it (which is what caused the fire, it seems). Heathrow was attached to the other substations, but it's processes for a restart seem to be shit. So, really, there were two things there - the grid, and the response. Texas had the extreme weather, but there were already warnings about the grid being isolated and other infrastrucure issues (all on the same cost versus benefit matrix). And.. extreme weather is a thing.

It's right here in black and white. Contingencies cost money.

Texas leaders failed to heed warnings that left the state's power grid vulnerable to winter extremes, experts say

Texas officials knew winter storms could leave the state’s power grid vulnerable, but they left the choice to prepare for harsh weather up to the power companies — many of which opted against the costly upgrades. That, plus a deregulated energy market largely isolated from the rest of the...

www.texastribune.org

Woodfin, of ERCOT, acknowledged that there’s no requirement to prepare power infrastructure for such extremely low temperatures. “Those are not mandatory, it’s a voluntary guideline to decide to do those things,” he said. “There are financial incentives to stay online, but there is no regulation at this point.”

 

[kurosagi01]

The UK is excellent at going around in circles on something that has stats that says otherwise sort of thing.
We would also debate about it and try and justify one thing over the other.

 

[AusWolf]

The UK is excellent at going around in circles on something that has stats that says otherwise sort of thing.
We would also debate about it and try and justify one thing over the other.

Yes. Because buying a replacement screw has to be preceded by at least 12 presentations and follow-up meetings, with plenty of deliberating time between them to make sure it's the right decision for the business.

 

[the54thvoid]

Yes. Because buying a replacement screw has to be preceded by at least 12 presentations and follow-up meetings, with plenty of deliberating time between them to make sure it's the right decision for the business.

Is that for a Phillips/Pozi, or straight screw head? If it's straight head, we need a further risk assessment for foreseaable slippage and possible self-inflicted stabbing injury.

Take form 22.03 B (Rev. 5) and take a seat.

 

[Eva01Master]

Is that for a Phillips/Pozi, or straight screw head? If it's straight head, we need a further risk assessment for foreseaable slippage and possible self-inflicted stabbing injury.

Take form 22.03 B (Rev. 5) and take a seat.

It's not even funny how accurate this is.

 

[AusWolf]

Is that for a Phillips/Pozi, or straight screw head? If it's straight head, we need a further risk assessment for foreseaable slippage and possible self-inflicted stabbing injury.

Take form 22.03 B (Rev. 5) and take a seat.

That's a question that none of our top engineers thought about (they actually did, we just ignored all their emails).
Let me forward it to my supervisor who knows nothing about screws, and get back to you when he's back from his half-year long emergency holiday on the Bahamas.

 

[Macro Device]

Sometimes they seem batshit crazy

And sometimes they actually are. In one small Russian town, don't remember the name, they were said to ban elevators in apartment blocks "because they might be a little bit dangerous."

Also I agree with your stance on that Texan incident. If you can be prepared then you have no reason not to no matter how low the risk is, unless it's absolute zero (such as getting sunburnt in a windowless basement). Insane weather conditions that happen once a couple centuries? But they do happen. That's why engineering should also account for this.

 

[the54thvoid]

That's why engineering should also account for this.

Fukishima agrees.

 

[mechtech]

Fukishima agrees.

Earthquake proof my nuclear power plant.

challenge accepted / hold my beer ?

lol

that Texas storm is a normal spring day here . Got 12” snow on the first day of spring this year…..sigh….

 

[AusWolf]

Earthquake proof my nuclear power plant.

challenge accepted / hold my beer ?

lol

that Texas storm is a normal spring day here . Got 12” snow on the first day of spring this year…..sigh….

Spring snow is becoming normal in England as well, unfortunately. And summers when you can't visit a beach at all because it's cold and rainy all year through. Where's all the global warming people now?

 

[lexluthermiester]

Where's all the global warming people now?

Climate shift. Not everything everywhere warms up. The poles warm up but the adjacent areas, including the area of the British Isles, cools down as the cold from the poles spreads out. It might seem counter-intuitive but that's how it works. The equatorial areas get hit the hardest with blazing heat.