snowychap Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Cox started off pretty well but it hasn't taken him long to really turn shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: It’s almost like the government could do with the advice of experts. Experts like me, I could tell them today that nuclear projects always take longer and cost more. I could tell them that in the future, renewable energy will be cheaper. To be fair, who could have predicted that! The worrying thing is, everyone knows it'll cost more and take longer than the plan says so I'd expect they bake this in... then they come along and get nowhere near it. Same for HS2, the planners must have baked in a chunk of money and time for unknown issues, then they miss that by a mile and retime/cost it (adding a bit more safety margin to avoid embarrassment)... then miss that by a mile too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Genie said: I think any kind of complex "factory" will be improvied and developed over time. Its completely normal. You'd also expect a watchdog to pick out a few things that could be done better. Yeah, but its not a factory producing car batteries or x boxes. It’s a nuclear power station. They expect it to operate for 60 years. I would not expect the watchdog for the nuclear industry to need to point out where things could be done better. That’s judging by utterly the wrong standard. Watchdogs should improve phone contracts, not nuclear safety. That is, in the context that there is quicker, safer, cheaper alternative tech already in existence. I mean, why would you think, its not perfect, it could kill us, its more expensive, but hey lets give it a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, Genie said: The worrying thing is, everyone knows it'll cost more and take longer than the plan says so I'd expect they bake this in... then they come along and get nowhere near it. Same for HS2, the planners must have baked in a chunk of money and time for unknown issues, then they miss that by a mile and retime/cost it (adding a bit more safety margin to avoid embarrassment)... then miss that by a mile too. Even cooking the books it looks bad, they’re quoting a rise in cost from £19.5 billion. But that wasn’t the cost, in 2015 it was quoted as £18 billion. So its actually gone up by 25% in under 5 years. Now before anyone points it out, the contractor is bearing the cost of construction. Bollocks. That’s not true. We are not receiving a free nuclear power station. The only people that believe that, also believe it will be on time and on budget and 100% safe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 18 minutes ago, snowychap said: Cox started off pretty well but it hasn't taken him long to really turn shit. Hmmm: Cox by name, cock by nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Yeah, but its not a factory producing car batteries or x boxes. It’s a nuclear power station. They expect it to operate for 60 years. I would not expect the watchdog for the nuclear industry to need to point out where things could be done better. That’s judging by utterly the wrong standard. Watchdogs should improve phone contracts, not nuclear safety. That is, in the context that there is quicker, safer, cheaper alternative tech already in existence. I mean, why would you think, its not perfect, it could kill us, its more expensive, but hey lets give it a go. You've gone from "there are parts of the this incredibly complex power station that could be improved" to "its deadly and will kill thousands". Suggested improvements could be around a million things that are unrelated to a meltdown, or the containment of radiation. Its in nobodies interest to make it unsafe is it? I expect there are improvements car manufacturers could make to their engines at a cost but don't. Doesn't mean they are dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 10 minutes ago, Genie said: You've gone from "there are parts of the this incredibly complex power station that could be improved" to "its deadly and will kill thousands". Suggested improvements could be around a million things that are unrelated to a meltdown, or the containment of radiation. Its in nobodies interest to make it unsafe is it? I expect there are improvements car manufacturers could make to their engines at a cost but don't. Doesn't mean they are dangerous. They found the steel of the reactor vessel was deteriorating faster than they’d expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 10 minutes ago, Genie said: I expect there are improvements car manufacturers could make to their engines at a cost but don't. Doesn't mean they are dangerous. We could make our cars and nuclear power stations a million times safer, but at a cost that does not return the investment. If you wanted to be completely safe you would drive a tank like limousine i.e. a government spec maybach. We don't because it's ridiculous and it's expensive. We choose the safest option within a reasonable price. I.e. a Volvo. We could build nuclear power plants covered by 20m thick lead/concrete wall. It's not practical, because the cost is not proportional to safety output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrusr Posted September 25, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted September 25, 2019 40 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'm sorry but what happens during the 14 day period is and has been very much argued about by all sorts (of constiutional and government experts) since the Act was passed. There is no precise process of what must happen during a period following the Government losing a vote of no confidence other than, in order to close the process within the FTPA (and thus avoid dissolution and a General Election) after a Vote of Confidence has been lost, someone has to win a vote of confidence (in the specific terms as per subsection 5 of the section entitled 'Early parliamentary general election') so as to avoid a GE occurring. What I therefore said in previous post holds, i.e.: Should a motion in the form 'That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government' (subsection 4) be passed then the only way to prevent a General Election happening is for someone to win a motion in the form 'That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government' (subsection 5). What happens in the interim is irrelevant to the point I was making, really. Once a motion in the form of subsection 4 (as above) is passed, if the period of 14 days after the day on which it is passed ends without a motion in the form of subsection 5 is passed then an early parliamentary general election is to take place. Thus, once the FTPA process is invoked then there is a risk of a GE. I think, having reflected, we are probably saying the same thing anyway! What you added in your edit may make sense and would definitely be less risky of a GE. The main sticking point remains though, that they would need to agree on someone who can hold a majority. Without that, it is utterly pointless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: They found the steel of the reactor vessel was deteriorating faster than they’d expected. I don't know enough about it but still doesn't necessarily mean its a realistic problem. Deterioration is expected so they will have countermeasures and redundancy's built into the engineering to maintain its safety. They could have engineered in allowance for 20x/50x/100x/1000x more deterioration than they estimated as a safety precaution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 25, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted September 25, 2019 24 minutes ago, Genie said: I expect there are improvements car manufacturers could make to their engines at a cost but don't. Doesn't mean they are dangerous. There's a whole branch of engineering based around safety. The principle here is ALARP - as low as reasonably practicable. Hazards (the potential for bad things to happen) need to be mitigated such that the risk of them occurring is ALARP - if the hazard is a minor one - say someone falling over and hurting themselves, the mitigation might be a warning sign "beware of the step", but you wouldn't go to redesigning the who building to remove all the steps. However if the hazard was a catastrophic one - "radiation leak leading to multiple fatalities" then the ALARP argument says that a warning sign is not adequate mitigation. Pretty much everything is dangerous, or has the potential to be so, the more dangerous the consequences, the more measures (and money) need to be implemented to prevent the danger. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 This performance by Cox is going from terrible into utterly objectionable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 25, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: tbf I don't think it was you in this instance There's a first for everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 25, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: Financed and built jointly by France and China? Yes. French design plus Chinese money, in simple terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Euphemism of the day: Personal, one-to-one 'technology lessons'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Genie said: The worrying thing is, everyone knows it'll cost more and take longer than the plan says so I'd expect they bake this in... then they come along and get nowhere near it. Same for HS2, the planners must have baked in a chunk of money and time for unknown issues, then they miss that by a mile and retime/cost it (adding a bit more safety margin to avoid embarrassment)... then miss that by a mile too. hard to explain and an incredibly long story they do feasibility studies and then cost plans, they probably even do a FEED, during this process they base costs on historical data, indexes, factors blah blah blah, its done by a cost consultancy which in unfair terms is a university educated never worked on a building site PQS with a spons book, they then design it all properly and send it to contractors, who via estimators, QSs and actual subcontractor quotes and material enquiries price the project for what it will actually cost, they then flush out all of the risk using all of their experience from working on sites building things and price that too, shit ground conditions being the biggest you're basically costing something before its designed and then wondering why that cost is wrong, the other thing is the "chunk of money for unknown issues" that's a contingency, depending on the contract type that can sit inside the contract sum via provisional sums or outside of it staying in a secret client held contingency pot, so where a project is said to be 20% over budget what they actually mean is 20% over the contract value, that doesn't necessarily mean over budget, the biggest overspend on the majority of my construction projects is the client increasing the scope of works, that is a result of the project progressing, contingencies not being expended so they spend the money on something else instead (especially on government projects) the "budget" stated in the media is indicative and low end, nothing more, it shouldn't be released due to how misleading it is the only real indicator you can take from the success of a project and how much money is wasted is how much they spent on a contractors loss and expense claim, that really is dead money as a result of ineptitude, you wont find that figure in the red tops 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Tom Watson also claiming to have called them , hope everyone is reversing the charges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 25, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Tom Watson also claiming to have called them , hope everyone is reversing the charges I'm lost where does Hacker House fit into all of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, bickster said: I'm lost where does Hacker House fit into all of this? It's the company owned by Johnson's "close, former-model, personal friend" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts