Electricity - an ongoing technical discussion

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

No I think they - or the Icelandic Government - have now paid it all back. 

How a country of 330,000 people could have managed to clear a debt of billions of pounds is not clear - there would have been an awful lot of cod involved. The government was not required to stump up all of the money lost by other countries' institutions, but most of the debts have been cleared, and the Prime Minister even had a bit spare to invest offshore himself, some say.

The interconnector will be done, if it happens, on a similar basis to Hinkley C. A consortium of companies builds and operates the facility for an agreed number of years, supplying electricity at an agreed minimum price - the strike price. Although EDF has so far spent £2 billion on Hinkley C, the cost to the British taxpayer or consumer has been nil. We start paying £92.50 per MWh (2012 price - index linked increases will apply) only when it starts working. Incidentally, this price is high at the moment, but won't be soon. It is described by some as an "illegal subsidy". No-one has yet explained to me in satisfactory terms why this should be, where a strike price of £117 per MWh for offshore wind isn't.

If a 1200 Km HVDC interconnector can be made to transmit power at a strike price of £80 per MWh, it will look cheap. If it could be built for under £8 billion, it will be a bargain.An interconnector cable, the most expensive bit here, has no moving parts, and could last 50 years or more. It could be a goer if the finances can be made to work. The engineering isn't too big a deal. The cable, with an estimated 800 tonnes of copper per kilometre, could be laid in under 2 months, at least in theory, although the entire project will take around 7 years to complete.

And no, there won't be much Icelandic money involved. This sort of project appeals to big pension funds, needing a huge pile of cash upfront and delivering a steady predictable return. Iceland doesn't have an institution of that size.

[John R]

How a country of 330,000 people could have managed to clear a debt of billions of pounds is not clear - there would have been an awful lot of cod involved. The government was not required to stump up all of the money lost by other countries' institutions, but most of the debts have been cleared, and the Prime Minister even had a bit spare to invest offshore himself, some say.

As someone who declined the opportunity to take out those attractive Icelandic investments prior to 2008, it wasn't clear to me either.  I couldn't work out how a country of that size was able, not only to offer very attractive deposit accounts, but seemed to be buying up many UK^▸ (United Kingdom) companies as well. So I steered well clear. Unfortunately many others didn't, including local authorities, who seemed to think that an Icelandic bank was a secure investment.  Hmmm.....

[TonyK]

As someone who declined the opportunity to take out those attractive Icelandic investments prior to 2008, it wasn't clear to me either.  I couldn't work out how a country of that size was able, not only to offer very attractive deposit accounts, but seemed to be buying up many UK^▸ (United Kingdom) companies as well. So I steered well clear. Unfortunately many others didn't, including local authorities, who seemed to think that an Icelandic bank was a secure investment.  Hmmm.....

I was lucky. I didn't have any money then. As they say, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

[patch38]

That made me think of Seasick Steve - "I started out with nothing and still have most of it left..."

[Chris from Nailsea]

I have heard plans to encourage us to put the washing machine and other appliances on before going to bed when we get smart meters, which sounds dumb to me. I'll put all my lights on instead - they are quieter.

This would definitely be against the advice of the fire service.  If you have ever been woken in the middle of the night by a domestic appliance fire you would follow that advice!

On the other hand, I now live in a detached house, with a dishwasher and washing machine positioned on the solid concrete ground floor - so I still tend to put them on overnight. 

Solid ground floor did not make any difference. Still could have killed us, £50k insurance claim and 4 months without a kitchen. 
Oh and I know of at least one other person who has had the same experience. 
If you are asleep you are in more danger as you are absolutely relying on a smoke alarm to wake you.  At least if you are awake you have a better chance. Fire service were very clear in their advice never to leave washing machines, dishwashers and tumble driers on while you are asleep and not while you are out.  Some tenancy agreements also place liability on tenant if such an appliance is left on while unattended. 

I am resurrecting these two previous posts, simply in view of a news story from the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

House in Wantage gutted by tumble dryer fire


The blaze started in a house in Field Gardens, Wantage

A fire that started in a tumble dryer has gutted a semi-detached house in Oxfordshire.

The blaze started at about 19:00 BST on Friday 29 July in a house in Field Gardens, Wantage.

A fire and rescue service spokesman said when three crews arrived they were faced with "a significant fire that engulfed the whole house".

They wore breathing apparatuses and used high powered water jets to put out the blaze.

Oxford station manager Paul Molloy said: "Thanks to the quick actions of the occupier, the family escaped from the fire safely. This was a severe fire and the prompt offensive action of the initial fire crews undoubtedly saved the adjoining property."


Firefighters put out the fire before it could spread next door

Fair comment for your words of warning, ellendune, in view of this latest example.  CfN. 

[TonyK]

The most frequently encountered problem is that of the unemptied fluff filter. Add to that the drier stopping before the last few minutes of the programme, which actually cools it down, and you have some explanation as to why fires do seem to occur in tumble driers with some regularity. Properly maintained and used, they are perfectly safe, but not everyone reads the instruction manual from cover to cover.

It happened to the late Sir Terry Wogan, as this (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)-presenter-Terry-Wogan.html" target="_blank">Telegraph article explains.

[ellendune]

Dishwashers do not have fluff filters

[TonyK]

I shall use a dishwasher to dry my clothes henceforth.

[Bmblbzzz]

I've heard that you can cook salmon (and presumably other things) in a dishwasher. So perhaps it's time to try washing up in the oven.

[Western Pathfinder]

I myself have cooked salmon in the dishwasher it works best with a little white wine some sliced lemon a grind or two of white pepper also the salmon cooks best in a vaccum sealed freezer bag !!!....

[stuving]

By the way, this BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) report from last year repeated the figures that Which? got via an FoI request, and which were behind the numbers being quoted:

Which appliances caused the most fires?

    14% washing machines (1,723)
    12% tumble dryers (1,456)
    11% dishwashers (1,324)
    9% cookers (1,080)
    7% fridges / freezers (861)
    5% central heating (606)
    4% toasters / grills (495)
    4% microwaves (427)
    3% TVs (372)
    2% washer dryers (225)
    1% irons (92)

(Proportion and number of fires caused by faulty appliances between January 2011 and March 2014 based on government fire data.)
Source: Which?

I'm not sure what got counted as a "fire" - possibly just a fire service call-out. Also, you'd really like to know the numbers of these out there as well - I'd guess at more washers than dryers and evern fewer dishwashers, which makes you wonder which are the most inflammable probabilistically. 

[Bmblbzzz]

I'd have said more dishwashers than dryers, but whichever, clearly the figures make little sense unless they can be related to total numbers of those appliances. It might also be informative to know the severity of fires caused by different appliances, if such a thing can be categorised.

[patch38]

Interesting that deep-fat fryers don't appear on the list: one would imagine them to be a frequent culprit.

[broadgage]

Interesting that deep-fat fryers don't appear on the list: one would imagine them to be a frequent culprit.

Purpose made electric deep fat fryers are relatively low risk since they are fitted with thermostats that should prevent the oil reaching a dangerous temperature. Any overflowing of the oil is unlikely to be a fire risk since it goes onto the worktop or the floor and not onto a flame or hot element.

The greater risk is deep fat frying in an ordinary pan atop a gas or electric cooker, nothing but human observation then prevents the oil from becoming dangerously hot. Also if too much oil is used, or if the food being fried is wet, then the oil is apt to overflow onto a gas flame or red hot electric ring.

[stuving]

The greater risk is deep fat frying in an ordinary pan atop a gas or electric cooker, nothing but human observation then prevents the oil from becoming dangerously hot. Also if too much oil is used, or if the food being fried is wet, then the oil is apt to overflow onto a gas flame or red hot electric ring.

True (and I once put out a fire in a neighbour's kitchen due to that). But as those figures are only for "fires caused by faulty appliances", such fires wouldn't be included.