Okay, serious then: to what extent was this largely a "cultural" (read management) problem, which should be relatively easy to fix or in fact a technical/mechanical/structural problem with the units themselves, which might well justify closure.
Given that they're coalers, I wouldn't be upset if it was the latter.
Interesting question – the Brady report makes some damning allegations of corporate and managerial mismanagement. It's not clear how much that is bleeding over into other aspects of plant management or in this instance is just simple accident.
The way the issue was handled and communicated after the fact suggests that company culture (and the relationship with the government) is an issue, but this might be entirely unrelated to the causes behind the accident.
Yes, it's often devilishly difficult to separate the machinery from the people driving it in these kinds of complex systems - and it most often turns out to be both.
One of the most common patterns I've observed over many years is that the technical/mechanical system has some real but not insurmountable problems, but dumb decisions get made to try to hide or ride out the problems, which tends to make them worse, leading to more obfuscation and avoidance in a downward spiral that rarely ends well, and it often only stopped when things literally blow up.
Interesting read mate, you got real close to me actually understanding the inner workings of a coal generator, but alas not quite all the way. On a side note what does "cultural" mean in this context?
On a tour of one of the NSW coal fired power stations, one of the operators told me they'd sometimes tackle stubborn clinker with a shotgun
This surely is the best job in the entire electricity industry.
I think the bananas in pyjamas should sue CS Energy for breach of copyright!
Sorry Alex - this was meant to be posted below - but I'm sure you can work it out...
Okay, serious then: to what extent was this largely a "cultural" (read management) problem, which should be relatively easy to fix or in fact a technical/mechanical/structural problem with the units themselves, which might well justify closure.
Given that they're coalers, I wouldn't be upset if it was the latter.
Interesting question – the Brady report makes some damning allegations of corporate and managerial mismanagement. It's not clear how much that is bleeding over into other aspects of plant management or in this instance is just simple accident.
The way the issue was handled and communicated after the fact suggests that company culture (and the relationship with the government) is an issue, but this might be entirely unrelated to the causes behind the accident.
Yes, it's often devilishly difficult to separate the machinery from the people driving it in these kinds of complex systems - and it most often turns out to be both.
One of the most common patterns I've observed over many years is that the technical/mechanical system has some real but not insurmountable problems, but dumb decisions get made to try to hide or ride out the problems, which tends to make them worse, leading to more obfuscation and avoidance in a downward spiral that rarely ends well, and it often only stopped when things literally blow up.
That may well be what we're looking at here...
Please tell me the two Callide B terminals are called B1 and B2...then I promise to be serious again...
😂 you know it!
Interesting read mate, you got real close to me actually understanding the inner workings of a coal generator, but alas not quite all the way. On a side note what does "cultural" mean in this context?
Company and management culture in this instance (as alleged by the Brady report).