|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:trainwreck really requires a confluence of issues that last a long period of time. Much like a real trainwreck, they continue for far longer that you'd expect, and you can't look away. in essence, my project manager at my last place of employ rolling up his sleeves and asking someone to hold his beer. A few of his personal accomplishments in the field of project trainwrecking: scope creep ignoring the contract requirements underbudgeting time/materials underbudgeting manpower required for no reason other than to project hyper-competency baking the expectation of subsequent change orders into the initial bid/contract without informing the client schedule drift failing to capture regulatory requirements in designs claiming project milestones are met due to schedule rather than project status assume anyone who quits or demands transfer off project wasn't doing anything anyway, and therefore no changes required in manpower allotment no news is good news communication philosophy
|
# ¿ Mar 21, 2017 21:16 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:49 |
|
Orvin posted:Not particularly surprising to hear. Especially since in the Midwest, companies are playing games with their nuclear plants in an attempt to get "green" money out of state governments. So far they have been successful in Illinois, and I think the next target is somewhere on the East coast. I dunno if "playing games" is the right way to phrase it. it's more or less "closing plants", a trend that's been catching. Some plants close due to equipment issues, like San Onofre and Crystal River, but the ones that closed due to economics are the real trendsetters. Just like Saudi Arabia is using cheap oil to kill its competitors, cheap natural gas from fracking is killing its primary competitors in power generation (coal and nuclear). So the "game" being played here is "it's not economical to keep the plant open due to cheap natural gas combined cycle turbines, but the nuclear plants support a local economy in your state way more than that natural gas plant does, it's way better in terms of greenhouse gas production, and if the gas prices ever start climbing again you'll be stuck forking over more money because you'll have literally no other options if we're gone." And despite the many faults of nuclear power, it is green energy, but that's a different and well-trod debate in the power generation megathread.
|
# ¿ Aug 1, 2017 19:56 |
|
Orvin posted:I was more talking about the Exelon nuclear plants in Illinois. I get how Clinton nuclear plant can be more expensive to run with only one generator at that site. But what didn't make much sense to me is how the Quad Cities plant can be more expensive to run compared to the other 4 plants running in Northern Illinois. The only thing that ever made sense was that since Exelon only owns a portion of Quad Cities, they were willing to take the risk of the state calling their bluff and shutting down. Most of the US fleet should be getting replaced now, rather than extended or mothballed. Kinda like the US electrical grid. It's a problem out of sight out of mind for most people, and at some point it's going to be a heinously expensive problem that needs an immediate fix because of neglect and a failure of imagination.
|
# ¿ Aug 1, 2017 20:46 |
|
Zemyla posted:And as long as the electricity doesn't want to go into you more than it wants to continue down the rest of the cable, you're good, right?
|
# ¿ Aug 23, 2017 21:02 |
|
SeaBass posted:Some contractors found this fine piece of work the other day. What's going on there? Bad splicing? Weird holes in the enclosure?
|
# ¿ Aug 25, 2017 00:11 |
|
I was looking at a substation and noticed that the area under their VRLA batteries looked, uh, worse for the wear. There are 92 batteries, and they're all pretty new (oldest are about a year old, youngest are 6 months). Is this just old acid scars? It looked like a little bit of liquid there, but I couldn't find any obvious leaks. No corroding at the terminals. It looks like poo poo but I'm not sure it's actually a risk going forward (just something that stripped paint in the past). Basically I think the health of the batteries looks good and the scarred floor is just cosmetic and unrelated to the current system setup. Does that seem like a sensible opinion to take or am I missing something? I am not very experienced with battery systems, and most of my concern is that the batteries will actually produce amps if needed. Pander fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Oct 24, 2017 |
# ¿ Oct 24, 2017 19:36 |
|
Noctone posted:Uhhhh looks like there's a fuckton of it. I thought it was just lubricant or something. It didn't seem like corrosion from these newer batteries. There's no way the floor could be that hosed up from batteries under a year old that aren't bleeding acids in a super obvious manner, is there?
|
# ¿ Oct 24, 2017 19:52 |
|
Noctone posted:I mean I guess yeah that could be grease, although if it is then whoever put it on went waaaaaaaay overboard. Yeah that's my guess. I'm just gonna recommend the client actually perform PMs on the batteries unlike previous sets. And also MOVE THEM. Behind where the photos are taken, about 5' from the batteries, are the switchgear CB/relay cabinets, an entire wall of 12.47kV CB/relays. An arc flash from one of those cabinets could likely engulf the batteries which strikes me as suboptimal. I'm used to seeing batteries in their own room with dedicated ventilation, so I'm pretty sure that's a NEC/IEEE violation of some sort.
|
# ¿ Oct 24, 2017 20:07 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:49 |
|
Noctone posted:Oh poo poo really? lmao, I don't know if it's a code violation but the only places I've not seen batteries in a separate room are oil & gas PDCs. I'm not sure. The specific code I deal with (UFC 3-520-05) points to NFPA-1, and in NFPA the closest I can find is basically "make sure it's got a 1 hour barrier from the rest of the bldg" (52.3.3.3) which is perhaps N/A since it's just a metalclad trailer and "battery systems shall be housed in a noncombustible, locked cabinet or other enclosure to prevent access by unauthorized personnel" (52.3.3.2) which seems more worried about personnel access than separation from potential sources of ignition. It SEEMS bad to me but maybe there's no specific code violations? The UFC definitely has an applicable paragraph: code:
|
# ¿ Oct 24, 2017 20:56 |