What's really odd is that not just every film or TV drama, but science even documentaries and news footage of big distant explosions is often re-synced to bring the bang forwards. So you learn to expect the impossible.
It's probably getting to be the same with crashing vehicles - you almost expect them to flip into slo-mo after the initial impact. And while the sync on explosions may be harmless, creating a gut feeling that car crashes are balletic isn't.
On butts duty whilst in the TAVR (not the same as I understand it was in the Navy) in the mid-1970s, one would first hear the crack of the bullet passing overhead, having slowed to around Mach 2, so giving a sonic boom. The range was 300m, so about
3/
4 second later would come the much quieter report of the actual discharge. Should one stick one's head above the parapet as the trigger is pulled, one may see the flash , and never get to hear the bang.
I am indebted to bignosemac for the pointer to the explanation of the Combined Cycle Gas Turbine, a very efficient upscale version of my condensing combi boiler at home. That row of towers does indeed simply cool the Thames water, the final coolant, to a temperature below that required to poach salmon. Apparently, the flames were fanned by the wind, and spread because of that. Had the fire broken out further down the line, the damage would have been less, but the use of such flammable materials in construction will be the topic of debate in the boardroom. It does not look as though the damage, though significant, will be difficult to fix.
Having seen the report on
BBC» 's 10.00pm news, and having seen the damage and the remaining towers, it looks even less bad. It seems that three of the cooling modules have been destroyed, but they do not look to be particularly full of hi-tech stuff - merely a mechanism for pouring the warm water thrugh a cooling draught of air, with a fan moving at a leisurely pace.
This is no place for speculation as to the causes, so here goes. There is no fuel in those towers, there is a flow of water within them, and there are minimal electrical systems. The fans will need lubrication. It is next to impossible to have an escape of gas cause this fire, so what else? A seized motor in the fan may be the answer, but isn't likely. A poor unfortunate trout stuck in the intake (sorry, thetrout) may have deprived the tower of the cooling water required, or there may have been a discarded cigarette butt, something that Four Track, Now! has had an alibi for since 12 May 1991, when tobacco and I underwent a "conscious uncoupling" (thanks, Gladys).
Using wood in the construction of something designed to handle heat suggests to my cynical mind that either:
a) It looks good on the green credentials front (don't get me wrong -
CCGT▸ is as green as we have at the moment). Having three wooden mini-cooling towers go up in smoke is note so bad as having a 50-tonne wind turbine (containing 2 tonnes of Neodmyium, a major cause of the smog in China) crash to the ground on top of the Green party councillor who fought so hard to have 500 tonnes of concrete per turbine sunk into some convenient beauty spot. Sadly, the latter instance never happens, as Green councillors, as well as all the London based grandees who think that industrialising the countryside might help, never stand within 400 metres of a wind tower, so following the advice given by the manufacturers.
Sorry, I got a bit ranty and distracted, so here is:
b) It was a cheaper option than doing it properly, suggesting that it was meant for a finite period of Thames cooling. As it is well into its second decade, of perhaps three, the cost of repair against the capital cost of the next solution, minus the subsidy, may decide the end result. As the subsidy for CCGT generated electricity is lower than that for solar, biomass, wind (both on and off-shore)and nuclear, there may be a discussion, but I reckon it will be back on line in no time at all. But without the Ikea wood surround.
