Power supply to Heathrow?

[JohnW2]

looking at the location of that sub station on google maps, its a long way from heathrow considering the power draw that heathrow must need. why is there not one closer?

Perhaps because it was felt to be 'safer' to not have it too close to the airport?

... or maybe in order to avoid a risk of having to re-locate the substation in the event of any future 'expansion' of the airport?

... jsut a couple of thoughts, and there must be plenty of other possible explanations. It would be so 'obvious' to have the substation closer that one can but presume that there was some (perceived) good reason for not doing that?

 

[oceansoul]

We have had some issues at work recently with a 22kV/400V transformer with low oil. During the PM's HV techs remove a small amount of the oil for sampling. Trouble was, they don't refill any oil. Eventually there amount of oil was so low that the transformer tripped. I am not so close to the HV world, but I know some people are, and have contacts with SSE & UKPN so if I hear anything I shall share.

 

[blup]

Risk assessments seem to be based on the last disaster because the next one is never predictable.

 

[JohnW2]

Risk assessments seem to be based on the last disaster because the next one is never predictable.

One obviously cannot predict what, why and when of the 'next disaster', but a sensible risk assessment surely should tske into account what (even if 'very unlikely') might happen (and possibly 'tomorrow'), shouldn't it?

 

[blup]

One obviously cannot predict what, why and when of the 'next disaster', but a sensible risk assessment surely should tske into account what (even if 'very unlikely') might happen (and possibly 'tomorrow'), shouldn't it?

Was Covid predictable in extent if not nature?

 

[JohnW2]

Was Covid predictable in extent if not nature?

Very much so - not only 'predicable in extent' but actually predictED in extent'.

The "UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011" (click here) , a seemingly pretty sensible, and fairly comprehensive, 70-page document, represents the 'planning' that was available at the time Covid-19 appeared, albeit the assumption was that a future pandemic would be of some type of influenza. It included such advice as:

..... local planners should prepare to extend capacity on a precautionary but reasonably practicable basis, and aim to cope with up to 210,000 - 315,000 additional deaths across the UK over a15 week period

It seems that very little action was taken as a result of that strategy statement, such that we somewhat struggled to cope with a pandemic in that sort of ballpark of extent when Covid showed it's face.

Sensible 'strategic planning' is clearly of no value if it is not appropriately acted upon, such that there is, indeed, adequate "Preparedness".

Kind Regards, John

 

[blup]

Very much so - not only 'predicable in extent' but actually predictED in extent'.

The "UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011" (click here) , a seemingly pretty sensible, and fairly comprehensive, 70-page document, represents the 'planning' that was available at the time Covid-19 appeared, albeit the assumption was that a future pandemic would be of some type of influenza. It included such advice as:

It seems that very little action was taken as a result of that strategy statement, such that we somewhat struggled to cope with a pandemic in that sort of ballpark of extent when Covid showed it's face.

Sensible 'strategic planning' is clearly of no value if it is not appropriately acted upon, such that there is, indeed, adequate "Preparedness".

Kind Regards, John

I don’t recall our Councils plan contained any of that but I only read it just before lockdown

 

[JohnW2]

I don’t recall our Councils plan contained any of that but I only read it just before lockdown

That was obviously my point - that, although that 'strategic planning' advice had been published in 2011, few organisations had taken any appreciable steps to make their 'preparedness' adequate by 2019/20.

 

[ericmark]

I think, who pays, is more the point. Take a very minor in event, an RCD trips, and the food in freezer is lost. Does the occupier pay or insurance? Often, use of RCBO could have stopped the loss, but why would the occupier or landlord pay the extra for RCBO when he does not pay if food lost?

We are likely here looking at something similar, it could be insurance, airlines, those who run Heathrow, or the supplier of power, among many others, but would it be worthwhile for the airport authority to have paid out for prevention methods, as likely the losses incurred will not all come out of their pocket.

 

[JohnD]

Was Covid predictable in extent if not nature?

Yes.

 

[JohnD]

I don’t recall our Councils plan contained any of that but I only read it just before lockdown

My borough contains an NHS site with a hangar-type building and a large truck park behind it where you could put, for example, a dozen refrigerated trailers or trucks. It is not part of anything else.

It is set back from a secluded road in a wooded area, screened from the road by trees. There are no houses or shops nearby.

During lockdown, vaccinations were done in the (small) front office, and prescriptions dispensed.

The truck park did not need to be used.

 

[JohnW2]

I think, who pays, is more the point. Take a very minor in event, an RCD trips, and the food in freezer is lost. Does the occupier pay or insurance? Often, use of RCBO could have stopped the loss, but why would the occupier or landlord pay the extra for RCBO when he does not pay if food lost?

You seem to have a knack of being able to turn almost any discussion into one about attribution of blame or 'liability'

Given that it is 'reasonable', compliant with regs and very common to have a freezer which is NOT supplied by a dedicated RCBO=protected circuit, I don't think that the absence of that makes any different to any issues of 'liability'. In the same way, I doubt that you would expect an insurer to refuse to pay out for a car collision because you car had not been fitted with some new-fangled 'anti-collision' gadgetry that was only present ion a small proportion of cars, would you?

Unless written into a Tenancy Agreement (which would be very unusual), I don't think that a landlord has any liability in relation to any loss of tenants property - and that presumably applies to freezer contents, just as it would for contents of kitchen cupboards or any other of the tenant's possessions.. Similarly, it would be very unusual for the landlord to have any insurance which covered loss of tenants' possessions - unless that loss resulted from some incident (such as fire or flood) covered by the landlord's Buildings insurance.

Whether or not a tenant's contents insurance (if any) covered freezer contents would depend entirely on the terms of their policy - but, as above, I don't think that the success of such a claim (if possible) would be influenced by the absence of a dedicated RCBO-protected circuit.

 

[jackthom]

Heard the interview of a network manager on the Today programme this morning who reckoned Heathrow has three feeds from the national grid.
Two of them come via the substation in question but a third is from a different source.
Unfortunately Heathrow don’t appear to have the ability to simply switch over between them.
I suspect they very soon will!

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Heard the interview of a network manager on the Today programme this morning who reckoned Heathrow has three feeds from the national grid.
Two of them come via the substation in question but a third is from a different source.
Unfortunately Heathrow don’t appear to have the ability to simply switch over between them.
I suspect they very soon will!

I heard something similar, that the alternative supplies were there and available, the problem was the delays involved in switching, meant loss of power, and systems dropping out due to delays, then the long delays needed to reboot everything.

 

[fixitflav]

About as much as their gender ?!

Or the social occasion? But more seriously, what does the BBC have to do with it?