 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  |  |
I welcome comments or discussion on any of the topics I
raise. Please click on the “GuestBook” button on the left and leave your
comments there. July 31, 2009: The safe installation of gas and electricity in your home Once upon a time young men left school, went to technical
college (where they were given thorough training – practical and theory) and
emerged to become employees of companies that took them on, based on their
qualifications, and sent them out to work alongside old hands until they were
experienced enough to work unsupervised. In those simple times if you needed a plumber, electrician
or gas man you called up those companies and you knew that the person who
turned up would do a good job. (Very, very occasionally things went wrong, and
you got a dud turning up, but it was only rarely.) The chap who did the work
was paid reasonably well, his boss added a bit and you ended up paying a
nor-unreasonable bill. So what went wrong with this excellent scheme? As you
might expect, I have my own theories! First, as technical colleges disappeared, people were
encouraged to go to university. This was considered beyond the capability of
ordinary folk, so the mediocre went out to work in whatever job they could get
that needed no qualifications. Those who went to university read really useful
things like media studies, the history and development of underwear or, at
best, computer science – and in general I wouldn’t give them the job of wiring
up a three-pin plug. Then there was “Elf an’ Safety”… After some nasty
incidents, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) stepped in and put the
frighteners on everybody, and a raft of new rules and regulations appeared,
culminating in a Statuary Instrument, the Building Regulations 2000 (amended
every year for the next three years), which made things so complicated that
even people with established engineering qualifications weren’t allowed to do
so much as to add a new socket to their house wiring. Of course, society still needed plumbers and electricians.
Employers were confronted by a shortage of home-grown people with the right
qualifications, and by an intake of people with what might well have been the
right qualifications, but which had been obtained overseas so, even if they
could speak passable English, they were perhaps not quite experienced in our
methods and regulations. So they set up schemes to vet qualifications and award
certificates. Before long, all sorts of organizations climbed on board the
gravy-train and we found ourselves with schemes like CORGI and NICEIC which
charged handsome sums, renewable annually of course, to check the ability of
people wanting to work on, respectively, gas or electrical installations. (I
watched one of those “qualified” electricians at work once and was horrified.
He had all the right – expensive – kit but, a few bangs and flashes later I saw
that he had very little real knowledge of what he was doing.) Sometimes the service that was provided was very
questionable indeed. A relative of mine was visited by a gas engineer (from a very
large and reputable company) who said their gas cooker and heater were
dangerous and promptly cut both appliances off, leaving them, an elderly
couple, with no means of cooking or heating. This in the depth of winter! The
appliances had both been supplied by a gas showroom, and had both been quite
legal – by the prevailing standards – when bought. But the rules had changed,
and they no longer met current regulations. To my mind they were perfectly
safe, and clearly had been judged safe at the time of purchase. But now the rules for gas installations have changed again.
From April 1st the approval for such installations has been vested in the Gas
Safe scheme. From that date, only a Gas Safe registered engineer is legally
allowed to install or work on gas appliances, boilers, hobs, ovens or fires in
your home or workplace. Gas Safe Register is run by Capita Gas Registration and
Ancillary Services Limited, a division of Capita Group Plc. So we have a single
private company controlling the employment and activities of all gas
technicians working legally in the But I still find this set-up to be fascinating. Were the existing
Engineering Institutions not interested in doing this work? Also, under the
present arrangement isn’t Gas Safe a monopoly, and aren’t monopolies meant to
be BAD THINGS? I wonder. July 30, 2009: Weather forecasting I once found myself travelling in a ‘plane alongside an
American and another Brit. The Brit was lambasting the Met Office over its
appalling track-record. He praised the accuracy of weather forecasts in Europe
and the It was much easier therefore to look into future
conditions in Continental areas than it was to predict them for offshore
islands. As usual in my life, I had learned a couple things by
chance. One was that some Americans were actually thoughtful, well-informed,
understanding and not inclined to steam-roller their supremacy over everybody.
(In fact, most of the Americans I’ve had the pleasure of knowing and working
with are like that. Unfortunately their voices are too often swamped by the
loud-mouthed and opinionated minority.) The second was that I should really be
more forgiving and understanding when yet another weather forecast turns out to
be inaccurate. All the same, I do wonder about the Met Office. Yesterday
they admitted that their earlier forecast for this summer had been wrong; it
was not going to be a “Barbecue Summer” after all. It didn’t surprise me: I’ve
often said that if you don’t like the weather forecast for your day, you should
switch to another channel or read another newspaper – and keep on doing so
until you reached a forecast you like. The hurricanes of 1987 were an example.
On the evening following Michael Fish’s reassurance that nothing was going to
happen, we were hit by the worst winds I’ve encountered in Another thing I learned once was that the Met Office was
actually a department of the Ministry of Defence, and therefore under the
control and direction of the Government, and not an independent organization as
I had previously supposed. I’ve frequently wondered whether the Government
might be tempted to use this to their advantage. “Sunny weekend ahead? Elections
next week? Huge traffic jams and pent-up anger being vented and people voting
us out in frustration? Let’s get the Met Office to tell everybody the weather
will be bad. Then they’ll stay at home, we’ll avoid traffic jams and those
people will be less inclined to vent their frustration on us. The ones who do
get to the beach will have a wonderful time and the feel-good factor will work
in our favour.” Or am I just being cynical? Engineering is a great career. I’d have no hesitation in
recommending it to a young person contemplating his or her future. Engineering
is mentally – and sometimes physically – challenging. In my own case I got
opportunities to travel the world, mostly well away from tourist areas, so that
I could get to understand the realities of far-distant places and the people
who lived there. Given the chance of re-living my life, I’d have no
hesitation in choosing engineering as my career again. So why then isn’t the
profession better respected? It depends where you are when you ask the question. The
answer has some constant factors across the world, and some that are unique to
a particular country. In the And I’d point to the use of the term “man” in the previous
paragraph. That’s another serious and damaging misconception. Nowadays, an
engineer is as likely to be a woman. Female engineers hold many key positions
on important projects. It should be a simple thing to change this image in The RAE is consulted by Government on significant issues and
so it should be dominant, vocal and proactive. But, ask a hundred engineers and
I doubt that twenty will know anything about it. Nothing will improve until and unless the profession gets
to grips with this situation. July 28, 2009: Good man! There was an interview on the “Today” programme this
morning that caught my interest. The interviewee was a young man who had been
made redundant after working at the Nissan plant there. He was now working as a
fitness coach and it was his attitude that impressed me: he was positive,
up-beat and enthusiastic. ‘If you’re made redundant’ he said, ‘don’t blow the
money on a new car or a holiday, use it wisely while you look for a job – and
there are plenty of jobs out there – you just have to look for them.’ If I was still an employer I’d give him a job in a flash.
He really did have “the right stuff” and I know he would be a good worker and
an inspiration to those around him. But his words on the training he’d been given by the
State-organised schemes were telling. He said they were useless, and the only
good training he’d received was with his new employers – on-the-job training. When I stormed out of my company in the 80s I was all set
to start up my own business but, looking for maximum financial input, I found
the Government’s Enterprise Allowance Scheme. This offered to pay me a weekly
sum if I set up on my own, but I’d have to do two things. First I had to “sign
on” – that is, go on the dole (which involved standing in a queue with a motley
bunch, some genuine but a lot phoney, at the local benefits office each week,
tell them that I was unemployed and collect the payment slip to cash in at the
local post office). Highly dispiriting and completely unnecessary – I didn’t
want that money, I wanted support while I got my business running. The second
thing was that I’d have to attend training classes in running my own business. Like the What a waste of my time and the Government’s money! No
doubt some firm of fast-talking consultants or management advisers was paid
vast sums by the Government, and the “training” I received was typical of what
they produced. It was typical of the way that out-of-touch administrators dealt
with problems – and persuaded themselves that they were doing a good job. Judging by this morning’s interview it’s still going on. July 27, 2009: What would I do about the power industry? At a party this weekend I found myself talking to somebody
about the power industry. (I hope I am not like the ancient mariner, catching
hold of every passing person and belabouring them about my concerns. It was a
great party, lots more happened and the topics of conversation were many and
varied. But this one deserves a mention here.) He shared my concern that we
were sliding helplessly down the slope to power shortages, and asked me what I
would do about the power industry if I was in the decision-making spot. Good question! I’ve banged on often enough about the
present system, so what alternatives would I offer? First, I must state that,
in putting my ideas forward I fully realize that I will alienate some friends
in the power industry, but I do really believe in what I say and will defend my
right to say it. OK start with this. I do strongly believe that power is so
critical to our economy and our lives that it is too important a matter to
leave to politicians or business leaders. Urgent decisions need to be taken,
and they should be based on engineering realities, not on the need to make more
money for shareholders or to win votes for politicians. Does that mean
re-nationalization? Perhaps it does. The person to whom I was talking said that
that seemed impossible. (“Because the Government is broke” he said!) If
Government puts a mind to it, I think they could do it. But that needs analysis
by people with better knowledge of finance and economics than I have. Then, we need to put forward a coherent plan for the
industry. We need to do it quickly too, and that’s one area where the present
system is failing us – politicians will dither and delay, waiting for the best
moment for their own purposes. Bugger that! We need to act, and we must be firm
and act now. Unfortunately, my next move would be to remove all
non-engineering people from the industry and replace them with qualified and
experienced engineers. And these people would be financially well rewarded for
the critical work they must do. So, in a nutshell, that's my plan. The Greens wouldn’t like it, politicians wouldn’t like it and the present profit-takers wouldn’t like it either. But that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done. uly 24, 2009: Why do the British keep messing around? Believe it or not, Like all trailblazers we were soon copied, and it wasn’t
long before we were overtaken. There are many reasons for this decline, but
high among them is the British propensity to keep fiddling with things. The
Americans have a policy: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but this simple
truth seems to elude us. It eludes us in every area. Look at coinage and banknotes,
where the US Dollar and cent have scarcely changed for decades – we tend to
flip to a new design at every opportunity. Look at postage stamps, measuring
standards, paper sizes …. And look at educational standards and examinations,
where scarcely a year passes without people saying that they’re going to bring
in a better examination system or improved performance monitoring. What other
country keeps on messing around with things like we do? In nuclear power we kept on trying to improve things,
bringing out new designs before the previous ones had been given a chance.
Consequently we never built up a track-record for any one design. The Americans
chose a good design (the Pressurized Water Reactor) and stayed with it even
when better designs became available, so they were able to say to customers,
“Just look how many we’ve built, and how many hours they’ve clocked up”. The British are prize butterfly-chasers! July 23, 2009: The wheels of Government turn slowly indeed At the end of March I reported here on my small contribution
to the work of a committee which eventually proposed that science and
engineering should have a more effective voice in Parliament, with a chief
scientist being appointed who would report directly to the Prime Minister. To
remind you, the committee’s report said that ‘Engineering advice is “absent, or
barely featured, in the formulation of key government policies” including
ecotowns, renewable energy and large information technology projects’. This
morning comes news that something may actually happen soon. At the time of my involvement, I became aware that things
were shifting. The emphasis, I feared, was showing signs of moving away from
engineering to science. Obviously, science and engineering are closely linked,
but there are crucial differences: you have to have scientific knowledge in
order to be an engineer, but you don’t have to understand engineering to be a
scientist. If you like, an engineer is somebody who makes practical use of
scientific knowledge. The difference is between Einstein, who dreamt up the
concept of the atomic bomb, and people like Oppenheimer, who actually
constructed it. Unfortunately this, coupled with the shortage of engineers and
the demands on them, means that most engineers are very busy people. The fact is that it is the scientists (who will no doubt
claim that they are busy too) who have the time to sit on committees and will
pontificate on things that are often quite abstruse and divorced from the
realities of everyday engineering. My fear is that it will be the scientists who have the
time to devote to this matter. All well and good if we get a good one at the
top, but pretty useless if we get some airy-fairy theoretician – worse still if
he or she is more interested in posturing and cow-towing to the Government than
in putting forward the views of the people who have to turn science into
reality. Yesterday’s news that somebody has managed to restore a
very early television made me remember days when one could build simple things
and learn about them. When I was a boy I made a crystal set. It comprised just a
coil of wire, a tuning condenser (as it was then called), a crystal and a set
of old ex-RAF earphones – oh plus a good earth and an enormous aerial. I
remember fiddling about with the crystal – you had to put a pointed wire onto
it at the one spot where it worked – and then …sheer magic! I listened in awe
to an opera singer, who turned out to be Maria Callas. I fell in love with her
and electronics at about the same time. I don’t know if any of today’s youngsters do things like
that – it is still entirely possible, but you can buy complete radios so
cheaply that they probably don’t think it’s worth going to the trouble of
making one. But it is! You need to build a set before you discover that thrill,
and I’d advise any parent with a young teenager to encourage them to build one.
There are plenty of designs out there on the Web (the OU’s www.open2.net/sciencetechnologynature/worldaroundus/buildcrystalradio.html ) and the components can be bought at places like Maplin. It’s even possible to buy an entire kit, but I’d advise against
going down that route – you learn a lot more and get more of a thrill if you do
it all by yourself. Don’t misunderstand me; I like clean sweet-smelling air,
clear rivers and unpolluted seas as much as anybody. In previous blogs I have
praised the achievements of the Clean Air Act which eliminated smoky chimneys
and enabled us to keep our cities sparkling clean. My attacks are on those who
want us to embark on costly money-wasting and futile programmes aimed at
cutting global warming. I have also shown that these are always undercover
means of raising taxes and prices. Some of the measures that are being taken in the name of
the environment seem to me to be counter-productive. Take my local Council, for example. Some time ago, in the
name of a cleaner environment, they stationed an air-quality monitoring vehicle
on a main road that leads to a large town. This thing sniffs and analyses the
air around the town, which I suppose I could understand. The thing that amazes
me is that this vehicle is powered from a petrol-driven generator, which runs
day and night, day in and day out, for every day of the year! Whereas the traffic that it monitors ebbs and flows, falling
away at night, this thing runs all the time and, however well-designed its
exhaust system may be, it still sits there, chugging away audibly, pumping
exhaust fumes into the air. We all know that this particularly road is heavily
travelled, so what does the council hope to achieve with this expensive measure?
Will they link it to a huge illuminated display, similar to the ones that light
up when you exceed the speed limit, but this time telling you to cut your
engine emissions? I’d ask for information about it, but I’d only encounter a
smoke-screen and get buried under reams of paper. So I won’t ask – unlike some
bureaucrats, I really do work for a cleaner environment. July 20, 2009: The global pandemic strikes Before you jump to conclusions, this isn’t about Swine
‘Flu, it’s about flying pigs! The Global Warming panic continues unabated, to the extent
that my Saturday-morning lie-in was spoiled by what I heard being said on the
BBC’s normally sensible and interesting ‘Farming Today’ programme. The need to
cut farmers’ Carbon Footprints featured in every item. One poor farmer, asked
how big his Carbon Footprint was, made the reporter burst out laughing when he
held out his hands. “Oh, about that big!” You might as well say that too. It’s
a meaningless number, and it annoys engineers and scientists, who rely on
accurate measurements or real, meaningful physical parameters in order to do
their jobs. But, as I frequently say (and the real science supports),
even if we were to develop accurate methods of measuring Carbon Footprints, and
could see how big ours was and how we were changing it, it would still have no
significant effect on Global Warming. July 17, 2009: Wind and water Against all logic, the Government’s obsession with wind
power continues unabated. Under the Carbon Transition Plan, small wind turbines
between 1.5kW and 15kW will be paid 23p for each unit (a kilowatt-hour) that
they generate. This more than doubles the 10p/unit which is currently paid.
Amazingly, it seems that the new tariff applies to all energy generated
by the system, irrespective of if you use it yourself or sell it back to the Grid.
But before you rush out to rip out your gas boiler, install electric heating
throughout your house, and leave all the lights on, day and night, remember
that you will only get electricity from the turbine while the wind blows. And
not just blows – it must be a very strong wind. In most well-populated areas the
turbine won’t work at all. A small aside here. A large supermarket development near
where I live has two small wind turbines prominently flanking the entrance.
After making some enquiries, I finally managed to track down somebody who could
provide information. He told me that the turbines were cosmetic: when they
worked – which he admitted wasn’t very often – they generated just enough to
drive some of the lights in the car park. But to save people from thinking they
weren’t working, on windless days they were kept turning by electric motors! Anyway, to return to my sheep, the obsession with wind seems
to have blinded the Government to another source of power which is everywhere,
very predictable and for which the technology is well established ― water. Just
go down to the nearest stream or river and watch the flow. It’s particularly
obvious at weirs where, day after day, torrents of water come cascading down
endlessly. It is entirely practical. Take Chatsworth house, which has
an impressive array of water features in its gardens, including the Emperor
Fountain – the highest fountain in Small hydro schemes like this are practical, reliable and
efficient. They are also entirely ignored by
Miliband’s Carbon Transition Plan. July 16, 2009: Skewing the prices for electricity won’t help Yesterday, Climate and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband
announced the Carbon Transition Plan. This includes plans to reward people who
want to sell to the Grid small amounts of electricity that they generate.
Milliband admitted that the Plan means that consumers will pay more for energy,
but believes that, overall, the economy can benefit. Oh yeah? The plan plays havoc with the sensible and
logical pricing system that has existed until now – and, as you’ll probably
guess – it will end up costing us all more. Let’s have a lesson in energy
economics. When there’s a rise in demand for electricity the Grid
supplies it first from the cheapest available source; then, when that’s up to
capacity they pick the next cheapest, and so on. The cost of generating a unit depends
on factors such as the repayment of the capital cost of building the plant and
the cost of running it, which includes staff costs, maintenance and the amount
of fuel it uses. In general, the bigger the power source, the cheaper the unit
cost – because of economies of scale. One big power station will generate
electricity at a much lower cost per unit than lots of little ones can manage.
(It will also produce less pollution and waste, but that’s another matter.) If I put enough solar panels on my roof to power my house
and have some left over to sell back to the Grid it will be wonderful to get
the highest possible price for what I sell. Up to now the price per kilowatt
hour I could get was too low to make any significant contribution to the cost
of my installation. That’s because whatever I sell to the Grid, they have to
sell to someone else. Under the Government’s scheme the Grid will be forced to
buy my expensive electricity and, because electricity can’t be stored, it must
sell it on. Guess what that will do to prices! Here are some other comments on the
proposals: “A huge expansion of wind
power.” Wind turbines are almost always a waste of money – they are capricious
and expensive to run on a cost-per-unit basis. No wind turbine would be viable
without the heavy subsidies it receives. “Support for research
on nuclear energy.” What? It’s not that we don’t know how to build nuclear
power stations; we know that we will have to buy established designs from
overseas because we’ve let our lead slip away and lost our nuclear engineering
expertise. It’s too late for research that will have any meaningful payback in
the near future. It would be better to spend that money on training a new
generation of engineers. Incidentally, there’s an interesting item on www.ecoworldly.com : “Around
1987, a couple of years before the “Whenever we’re told a scare story about the environment
today, we should pause a moment and consider whether that story has any merit —
then laugh out loud at the ridiculousness of it all.” ‘Nuff said! July 15, 2009: Let’s create REAL jobs for a change Listening to the “Today” programme this morning, I heard a
reporter talk about the employment situation in Brighter, more attractive towns may very well be nice, but
where will the shoppers get their money to spend in these malls? How long
before they are laying off staff? How long before urban decay, vandalism and crime take hold? What we need is sustainable jobs. If you look
at the economies that seem to be weathering the current storms best of all,
they are places like Japan where people believe in saving money and where there are plenty
of jobs in manufacturing industry. Our national wealth came with the Industrial Revolution,
and even now it’s manufacturing industry that will create jobs that will endure.
And to those who point to the lower labour costs in the They are the sustainable future. July 14, 2009: Attacks on our wallets
and our jobs On
Saturday, the press carried news that the Government’s low-carbon strategy will
add over £200 to household energy bills next year. The news prompted me to send
a letter to the “Times” but they didn’t print it. “Bewildered of Hampton Wick”
must therefore launch his attack here. In
case there’s any doubt, let me remind you that the £200 is merely the trailer
for the main feature. Industries, utilities, farming, schools and others will
also be hit by higher prices for the electricity and gas that they use, and they
will have no option but to pass these on to us, the consumers. According
to the “Times”, Greenpeace director John Sauven looks forward to “massive
investment in renewable energy, with 250,000 new jobs and the opportunity to
turn Har,
har! There are three inescapable facts in this affair. The first is that average
global temperatures are indeed rising (although whether that is going to continue
is not so certain). The second is that mankind’s total contribution to the
annual global emissions of CO2 is between 6 and 7%. In other
words, if we somehow managed to totally eliminate humanity and all its
activities and industries, atmospheric CO2 might (just might)
eventually drop. (However, the indications are that it would then continue to
rise, but this time without any people being left around to measure it. Nobody
to say: “Oo-er! We wuz wrong!”) The third fact is that the whipping up of
concerns over the environment provides Governments and Local Authorities with all
the justification they could want for increasing taxation and local charges. “It’s
in a good cause;” I can hear them say, “we’re saving the planet”.
Manufacturers, too, jump on the bandwagon and try to sell us ghastly things
like low-energy light bulbs and hybrid cars, both of dubious benefit. A while ago I quoted Professor Ian Plimer, who said that “global
warming is unavoidable, but that human activity is not responsible for it”. I also
quoted Dr Patrick Moore (one of the original founders of Greenpeace), who says
on his Website: “Science is invoked to justify positions that have nothing to
do with science. Unfounded opinion is accepted over demonstrated fact”. Realistic,
practical, scientifically-trained engineers hold their heads in horror. They
see this as little better than proclaiming that July 13, 2009: Promoting my profession I had several motives for writing “Far Point” (and now
“Sub: Achilles”). The primary one was to raise the profile of the engineering
profession; I wanted to show that it was a satisfying, worthwhile and
interesting career, so that we would eventually see a new generation of young
people taking it up. When I won the Engineering Media Awards prize, I met other
authors who had felt similarly. But there still aren’t many novels available
that revolve around engineering, at least not modern engineering (there are
plenty of historical books on famous engineers and their work). It’s novels that will attract readers – my agent persuaded me to “spice up” my original
manuscript to make it more saleable (which did cause a few problems for me when
my children read it). But a handful of novels can do very little. We need the
media in general to realize the need and to address it. I’m not saying that
“The Archers” encourages townies to take to the fields, but I am very sure that
the programme does make a wide range of people understand the issues around
farming – and that is an important asset to the industry. Engineering has nothing like this –“Bob the Builder” is
hardly the same thing – and I think that an important step to take in raising a
new generation of engineers is to have programmes on the radio and TV which
explore engineering issues. I wonder how many people remember a TV programme
called “The Plane Makers”? This was very popular, and the fact that I found it
riveting (sorry, no pun intended) was not entirely due to my own engineering
background. One felt involved with the difficulties faced by the characters,
and it became compelling viewing across the nation. There’s plenty of scope for engineer-based plays, serials
and the likes on radio and TV. July 12, 2009: My heart goes out The tragic deaths of eight servicemen in My own father fought at the North West Frontier at the
beginning of the last century and he, his troops and his comrades were hailed
as heroes. The problem now is that we have a bunch of effete cowards
manipulating the media as never before. Every action taken is questioned,
dissected and analysed – and the one constant factor is the hostility to our
own cause. The people on the BBC’s “Today” team would have had Saddam Hussein
allowed to continue his murderous activities until he was ruling an immense
part of the world; until he had become much more difficult – if not impossible
– to bring down. Every action taken over I have no doubt that there are Afghans who see our troops
as invaders, and believe that the setting of a roadside bombs is a patriotic
act against a powerful enemy. During World War II the actions of partisans were
praised and supported by the BBC. Now, as the BBC’s attacks are broadcast to the world they
must bring comfort to our enemies. Instead of supporting our troops, these actions
must make our servicemen wonder if their comrades have given their lives in
vain, and if the risks they are taking themselves are justified. During World
War II this would have been called “spreading alarm and despondency” and there
can be no doubt that if such opinions had been allowed to be voiced then,
Hitler would have won the war. July 10, 2009: Government weasel-words Some time ago I made a submission to a Government Committee
discussing the future of engineering in the Having read this, I was amazed
(though I suppose I shouldn’t have been) at how politicians can create reams of
paper which say very little indeed. For example, look at the response to claim
that, in the field of nuclear engineering, and specifically the Generic Design
Assessment (GDA) for new nuclear power stations. A specific proposal was put to
the Government: “The Government should make available sufficient resources to
the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency so that they can
recruit enough staff to complete the GDA process in a timely fashion and to the
high standards required” and that “a clear timetable should be published by the
end of 2009”. The response? “The GDA process
is a high priority for Government and is on the critical path in facilitating
nuclear new build. Government is confident that GDA can be completed by June
2011 at the latest”. That’s equivalent to somebody
saying “Yes, I’m looking into that” while driving a car with no brakes towards
a precipice. The Committee had expressed
doubts over the Government’s optimism that delivering new nuclear power
stations within ten years will be possible, saying that the Committee were not
convinced that the skills shortage in nuclear engineering can be bridged quite
as easily as some have suggested. It also said that the GDA (which kick-starts
the whole process of building new nuclear power stations), is already running
slower than expected, and the remaining workforce is ageing, and added that “the
Government must continue its investment in engineering and nuclear engineering skills
and produce a clear skills plan by the end of 2009, to ensure its nuclear new
build ambitions can be met”. The reply? “The Government
recognises the challenge of ensuring that the “This work will provide a clear
picture of what skills are needed, how many and when from the initial stages of
new nuclear build right through to the generating and commissioning stage. This plan should allow us to
foresee any potential skills gaps and direct resources to close these gaps
before they appear. This piece of work will be complete by Autumn 2009.” Cobblers! There’s no “need to have a greater understanding
of the skills”. We KNOW what these are. In many ways it’s too late already; we
should have been recruiting, training and encouraging engineers decades ago. Is it too much to expect that the report we are promised
will have clear, positive proposals to deal with the problem, rather that
starting yet more prolonged discussions? How about saying: “We will be making
£X Million available to select young, promising engineers already working in
the process industries and to place them
in fast-track apprenticeship schemes based on sandwich-course principles, with
50% of the time spent in new engineering courses in Universities (of which we
and the industry shall share the funding) and 50% alongside experienced
engineers working in process plant and existing nuclear power stations.” Now that would be a positive move. July 9, 2009: More madness Two items of news caught my attention this morning. One
was the announcement that G8 leaders meeting in The second item was an announcement that the Energy
Savings Trust has a simple calculator on its Website which enables you to see
if a wind turbine would be cost-effective for you, based on your post-code.
(Needless to say that, at the time of writing this, the EST Website is “Being
Maintained” – which I think means that it has crashed!) Not surprisingly, the
good people on the Today programme have found that, for nearly all of them a
wind turbine would not be cost-effective. I suspect that the only areas which
would come up positive would be remote coastal or highland areas – which are
not very densely populated. Why aren’t they densely populated, I wonder? Could
it be that they are too windy for most people’s liking? This reminds me of something my friend Doug Lightfoot
said: that mankind gave up the use of sailing ships when a better alternative
came available – the steamship, which did not depend on the capricious wind for
its operation. I spotted an advertisement the other day offering “ With the economic downturn and poor exchange rates
compelling people to look to our own resorts for their holidays, this should be
an excellent time for British resorts and hotels to put on their best and to
show how good they can be. Unfortunately, there are many that refuse to change. No so long ago, we stayed in a seaside hotel where the
owner’s terrifying wife stood at the dining room door, arms akimbo, and chided
you if you didn’t arrive at exactly 8 pm for dinner. She then told you where to
sit and made it clear that you had no choice in the matter. The menu offered
two choices of starter, two of main courses and two desserts; you told the
hapless waitress (who obviously saw how awful the place was and tried to be
sympathetic) what you wanted and it duly arrived. But because all the meals
were being cooked at the same time, the wait could be prolonged. Before all that started however, you had to check in, and
this was a daunting process of its own. On arrival, you were told that the
porter would carry your bags to the room when he was ready, and when you
offered to take your own bags you were told, in no uncertain terms, that it was
not allowed – ‘you won’t get it in the lift’. When we pointed out that we were
on the ground floor we were met with an icy glare and told that it made no
difference. We were obviously marked down as trouble-makers from that moment. Don’t these people ever stay in hotels overseas? Where you
come and go as you please, eat your meals when you want to, and pick from
extensive menus? As I said earlier, this is a priceless opportunity for the
British tourist industry to put its house in order. They should put on a great
show now, so that they can build a brighter future for themselves, for us and
(go on, I might as well join in) for the environment. July 7, 2009: Re-nationalization of the power industry News that the government is to re-nationalize the East Coast main line shows that taking control of industries is possible when the government has a mind to do it. Now, I am the last one to suggest that this government (or any government) is capable of running anything directly. Look at the mess they make of everything they tackle. But look back to the days of the Central Electricity Generating Board. This built and operated our power stations and, in spite of claims that the plant was expensive, the industry worked very efficiently indeed. The CEGB was staffed by trained, experienced engineers who were respected by their employees, and power stations ran efficiently and safely. (Of course, accidents did happen, but power stations are inherently dangerous and in spite of the best possible care being taken, sometimes things do go wrong. But when they did, the effects were minimal and reliability was genrally high.). No excessive profiteering, no exorbitant salaries, and a thoroughly planned, professionally staffed, smooth-running organization that delivered the goods. You didn't have to keep switching from one supplier to another to make sure you got the best deal, because the profiteers were kept out and you knew that the electricity you bought was at the best possible price. All records were open and you could check. In conclusion, I should say that the East Coast saga is not to be followed slavishly - the news that the line will be put out to tender again next year is amazing. What will all this cost? Dithering around solves no problems and just wastes money. I am not suggesting that this is the way to go with the power industry - I say that a clear-cut decision should be taken to put the industries under the control of a single body, directly answerable to the government. And once that decision is taken we should say, enough is enough; we've tried privatization and it didn't work, so we'll stay with a CEGB-like structure.. July 6, 2009: A misguided bunch I have no doubt that the good people in the World
Development Movement (WDM) are a well-intentioned lot, but a friend has sent me
one of their pronouncements that made my toes curl. Here’s the gist of what they
say: Creating a new coal plant in The claim is that this entire cataclysm will be
brought about by the building of a single coal-fired power station at
Kingsnorth. I am serious! But I’m also
bemused, as was my correspondent, by the possibility that anybody in their
right minds could believe this gobbledygook, this hogwash. Unfortunately, statements like
these are picked up and bandied about by people who are prepared to believe
anything, and before long a whole generation of schoolchildren are brainwashed
to believing it too. Great kids, but as misguided as were the equally great kids
who flocked to the banners of the Hitler Youth. Ruthless people exploit them
mercilessly. July 3, 2009: Science was fun! I’ve recounted my early experiments with rockets; now
here’s a tale of my forays into electrical engineering. NOW DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME! There was a time when Health and Safety hadn’t been
discovered. You could buy interesting chemicals in pharmacies, and buy books
with descriptions of how to make really interesting things. One of my earlier
experiments was making a Wimshurst machine: I cut petal-shaped strips of
aluminium foil and glued them in a radial pattern to an old LP record. I then
built a supporting frame and used Meccano to make an axle with pulleys and a
rubber band linked to a winding handle. The collecting brushes were made of
thin copper wire. I built two I then moved on to making shocking coils from two doorbell
transformers connected back to back (mains stepped down by one, then up in the
other). You could get a shock off the output, but not a serious one! I put this contraption to use, first to stop ants crawling
up the pear tree in our back garden, and then to keep dogs away from our metal
dustbin. The ants had been a problem every summer, attacking the fruit, but
when I fixed two bare metal wires round the trunk of the tree, spaced about
1/16th of an inch apart and wired to the transformers, the creatures
drew little blue sparks from their feet as they bridged the gap, and fell to
the ground. (Strange thing, we never had ants visiting again, many years after
the wires were removed. I think some sort of race memory told succeeding
generations that this was a magic tree, to be revered and avoided and I
imagined columns of ants crawling by, bowing low and making obeisance as they
passed by.) The dustbin was more alarming. I had read in my boys' book
of science about keeping stray dogs away from bins by electrifying them. (It
was an American book: we didn’t have stray dogs in I eventually got bored, waiting for non-existent dogs to
come bay, and wandered off, leaving the thing wired up. My mother was of genteel stock and she was standing by the
kitchen window the next morning when I was at school and the dustman arrived.
When I got home, did she read the riot act to me! My giggling sister told me
that Mum had learned a set of words she had never heard before as the man stood
at the window and raved at her. Science really was fun in those days. I’m getting a bit scared that the events that feature in
my new novel will have become a reality before the book is published! The following was reported yesterday: ‘The drain on the
electricity supply during the record high temperatures experienced in July
caused the National Grid to issue two power warnings within a week … parts
of central London were left without power for a second day after a series of
network failures … although the failures were not caused by the weather itself,
the system had experienced unusual demand for air conditioning and extra
refrigeration. The gap between summer and winter usage is large, but
narrowing’. A spokesman for National Grid said ‘last week we informed
the market that we needed them to generate more electricity or use less because
we are getting close to our safety margin, which we do not disclose’. Demand on
the hottest July day had been 44,000 megawatts. This compares to 42,000
megawatts last year, when the average temperature was 18°C. (Peak demand
in winter is 62,000 - 65,000 megawatts.) Need I point out that if we had kept our coal-fired power
stations running and properly maintained, and if we weren’t allowing our
nuclear stations to slowly die, we could have handled this without resorting to
using expensive imported oil? Need I remind everybody that I have consistently warned
that the madness of the Greens will cost us all dearly? July 1, 2009: National Grid endorses
wind power? It’s too early to comment on the report that the National
Grid seems to be saying that they can cope with the variable nature of wind
power. But I shall comment on this specific item when I’ve had a chance to read
the report. But in the meantime, let me state my engineer’s viewpoint. I have nothing against wind power. In its place, properly
financed and properly used, it has a role to play in contributing to our energy
resources. The financial reality however is that without massive subsidies none
of our wind turbines would be financially viable. The engineering reality is
that wind power has to be supported by conventional power stations. People who argue against the latter often quote the
example of The tree-huggers would love to imagine a green and
pleasant land where stately wind turbines provide all our energy needs, and all
coal-burning, gas-fired and nuclear power stations dismantled and turned into
peaceful green idylls where people and animals gambol about gaily. Would that it could be true! However, I am an engineer and
I have to face reality. |
 |
|||||||||
|
 |
 |
| Site Map |
