PDA

View Full Version : Hemel Hempstead Explosion



stewart38
11th-December-2005, 11:03 AM
Felt like every window was being broken at once (I live 1 mile away)

Pics from outside my house cira 7 to 8am

How far away did people hear it ?

stewart38
11th-December-2005, 11:13 AM
They dont think my christmas tree lights were to blame :sad:

Lory
11th-December-2005, 11:33 AM
What was it :confused:

TheTramp
11th-December-2005, 11:45 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4517962.stm

Mary
11th-December-2005, 11:57 AM
We live near Heathrow and the whole house shook and heard a loud rumble not dissimilar to a crack of thunder.

M

David Bailey
11th-December-2005, 01:50 PM
Apparently they're now telling people in Hemel to move out for a while, because of Evil Smoke (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4518500.stm)... :eek:

WittyBird's OK, BTW - I spoke to her earlier, she's just annoyed because her internet connection's down for some reason. :innocent:

Piglet
11th-December-2005, 01:54 PM
Scary stuff!

Thoughts are with everyone down that way :hug:

Dizzy
11th-December-2005, 02:06 PM
Apparently people living as far away as Surrey heard the explosion!! :eek:

I live closer to Hemel and I didn't hear anything, then again....I was asleep :D .

Lory
11th-December-2005, 02:24 PM
Apparently they're now telling people in Hemel to move out for a while, because of Evil Smoke (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4518500.stm)... :eek:

WittyBird's OK, BTW - I spoke to her earlier, she's just annoyed because her internet connection's down for some reason. :innocent:

I'm glad shes OK, she lives quite near, doesn't she?

I *think* I can see the smoke. At the front of my house (south/east) its bright blue sky and sunny and at the back (north/west) there's black cloud, I reckon i'm about 15ish miles away but I didn't hear a thing and I was awake at the time :confused:

WittyBird
11th-December-2005, 03:56 PM
WittyBird's OK, BTW - I spoke to her earlier, she's just annoyed because her internet connection's down for some reason. :innocent:

Yes I am ok thank you I live about 5 mins away from the explosion

I am taking refuge for a few days at Missy D's.:worthy: I was rudely awakened by a loud bang this morning so was up @ 6am.:sick:

Hemel is like a big film set at the moment :really:

David Bailey
11th-December-2005, 03:57 PM
I *think* I can see the smoke. At the front of my house (south/east) its bright blue sky and sunny and at the back (north/west) there's black cloud, I reckon i'm about 15ish miles away but I didn't hear a thing and I was awake at the time :confused:
Yep, I can see it too out my back window too, nasty black smokey cloud thing. It's not toxic, thank goodness.

Here's a picture of the cloud cover area from the BBC website :eek:

Missy D
11th-December-2005, 04:05 PM
I live in Finchley and heard the bang. The cat looked really guilty! I thought it was him and thru him in the garden. He tried to get back in but, i quickly shut the patio doors before he could and went back to bed. The sky is very hazy and has a 'war of the worlds look'. Me and Dee went out earlier but our eyes stang and we started coughing so headed back home. Witty and Dee are here with me lowering the tone.

David Bailey
11th-December-2005, 05:23 PM
Apparently the fires will be burning for several days, so you girls could be in for a seriously lengthy tone-lowering session...

Oh, and the police have immediately started to tell people not to panic-buy petrol, I wonder if that'll work any better than the last time they tried it :rolleyes:

WittyBird
11th-December-2005, 05:32 PM
Apparently the fires will be burning for several days, so you girls could be in for a seriously lengthy tone-lowering session...


Yes.... Dee is about to leave to go home! So its just Dawn and myself with a bottle or two of wine. Just wondering how long it will take to get to work tomorrow!:what: :eek:

Thanks to everyone for all your phone calls and PM's checking I am ok.:D

stewart38
11th-December-2005, 07:23 PM
I'm glad shes OK, she lives quite near, doesn't she?



I live near to :sad: Such a wierd sight

My car was ok when i took it out this morning but somone decided to hit me at 40mph from behind ,what next :tears:

Lory
11th-December-2005, 07:32 PM
I live near to :sad:

Sorry Stewart but I already knew you were OK as you posted :flower:

WittyBird
11th-December-2005, 09:20 PM
This is a view from my house now :wink:

WittyBird
11th-December-2005, 09:25 PM
OMG - more explosions again :mad:

David Bailey
11th-December-2005, 10:09 PM
Apparently people living as far away as Surrey heard the explosion!! :eek:

Apparently people in France heard it :eek: and double :eek:

WittyBird
11th-December-2005, 10:17 PM
Apparently people in France heard it :eek: and double :eek:

band wagon and jumping on springs to mind :rolleyes:

David Bailey
11th-December-2005, 10:30 PM
band wagon and jumping on springs to mind :rolleyes:
Yeah, well they surrendered immediately...

(Sorry Franck, I couldn't resist :blush: )

stewart38
11th-December-2005, 11:23 PM
OMG - more explosions again :mad:


yes heard some nearly 2 hrs ago and my eyes are stinging :what:


WB do you think 'rep eye bags' would help us ??

I can see the fire outside my bedroom window :sad:

Minnie M
11th-December-2005, 11:38 PM
yes heard some nearly 2 hrs ago and my eyes are stinging :what:


WB do you think 'rep eye bags' would help us ??

I can see the fire outside my bedroom window :sad:

Is you house OK ?

Minnie M
11th-December-2005, 11:40 PM
I've been told people have already started panic fuel buying :what:

stewart38
11th-December-2005, 11:44 PM
Is you house OK ?


Well prefer 3 bed detached but it suits my needs thanks :wink:

It amazing how half the sky was clear and half was 'cloudy'

How everyone came onto the street,well lots did

It felt like 20 people had all at once thrown chairs through all my windows but none broke :clap: . I thought i had mutiple burglers , for me it didnt feel like a earthquake

WittyBird
11th-December-2005, 11:45 PM
WB do you think 'rep eye bags' would help us ??



they would help a lot :rofl:

WittyBird
11th-December-2005, 11:46 PM
for me it didnt feel like a earthquake

I have heard that the earth doesnt move in your house :D

Will
12th-December-2005, 02:02 AM
My sympathies to Stewart38 and Wittybird being so close to this. It is quite a sobering event for me to as I work on the Industrial Estate concerned in Hemel Hempstead. (Currently on Maylands Avenue and previously on Boundary Way in a building that backs directly onto the Fuel Depot). So I consider myself more than fortunate that this has happened on a Sunday

The good news is that because the police have cordoned off that area, none of us can go to work tomorrow. ;) The bad news is that we left Kate's car in the car park over the weekend and don't currently know if it's still got windows, nor can we get anywhere near it at the moment.

ElaineB
12th-December-2005, 08:28 AM
My sympathies to Stewart38 and Wittybird being so close to this. It is quite a sobering event for me to as I work on the Industrial Estate concerned in Hemel Hempstead. (Currently on Maylands Avenue and previously on Boundary Way in a building that backs directly onto the Fuel Depot). So I consider myself more than fortunate that this has happened on a Sunday

The good news is that because the police have cordoned off that area, none of us can go to work tomorrow. ;) The bad news is that we left Kate's car in the car park over the weekend and don't currently know if it's still got windows, nor can we get anywhere near it at the moment.

Sympathies to all of you down there - it looks pretty horrid on the news!

Wonder if wind power would have the same effect if a turbine blew up?

Elaine

WittyBird
12th-December-2005, 08:53 AM
The bad news is that we left Kate's car in the car park over the weekend and don't currently know if it's still got windows, nor can we get anywhere near it at the moment.

Hope your cars ok :D but at least it happened when it did, rather than in the middle of a working day. Can you imagine the casualties then :mad:

Minnie M
12th-December-2005, 09:29 AM
Hope your cars ok .......
How's things at your place WB :what:

Really really scary - my son lives in Amersham, and they were all woken up with the big blast at 6am and they are about 15miles away - now the worry is the smoke and dust etc., with everyone breathing it in

Do hope the firefighters sort things out today - our thoughts are with all in the area and surounding areas

You will have to do extra dancing to take your mind off things !

LMC
12th-December-2005, 09:35 AM
Only just heard about this this morning - had a day off from the news yesterday. Glad to hear WB & S38 are OK. Amazing and what a relief that there were so few casualties.

senorita
12th-December-2005, 09:46 AM
Felt like every window was being broken at once (I live 1 mile away)

Pics from outside my house cira 7 to 8am

How far away did people hear it ?

I heard it from Bedford!!!
That was a lucky escape that we were there a couple of hours before hey!

TiggsTours
12th-December-2005, 10:34 AM
Felt like every window was being broken at once (I live 1 mile away)

Pics from outside my house cira 7 to 8am

How far away did people hear it ?
Holland!

I read in the paper this morning that London & the South East can expect "dirty rain" today, that was sitting on tube on my way into work, in my cream suit & nice coat!

Glad everyone from up that way is safe, it really is a miracle nobody was killed!

stewart38
12th-December-2005, 10:52 AM
Apparently people in France heard it :eek: and double :eek:

Looks like the wind now is blowing that way so if they didnt hear it their smell it . Its good to share :wink:

Looks like a massive bomb fire now




Wonder if wind power would have the same effect if a turbine blew up?

Elaine

No less I should think but not sure how you would run a car on wind.:sick:

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 11:07 AM
No less I should think but not sure how you would run a car on wind.:sick:
Blow really hard? Put a Very Big Sail on top? Easy, sorted.

This situation does underline our dependance on fossil fuels, sure enough. But the only realistic alternative is nuclear...

Jenni
12th-December-2005, 12:05 PM
... somone decided to hit me at 40mph from behind ,what next :tears:

U weren't having a very good day yesterday were u? Never mind have :hug: :hug:

Glad everyone down there is OK and hope they get it under control soon

Jenni :flower:

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 12:40 PM
This situation does underline our dependance on fossil fuels, sure enough. But the only realistic alternative is nuclear...

I can't believe that Nuclear power is being touted as a relaistic alternative. Unless of course you are french who are all for it. germany, a country who put their faith in nuclear power as their saviou have begun the process of mothballing their nuclear power plants.

El Salsero Gringo
12th-December-2005, 12:49 PM
I can't believe that Nuclear power is being touted as a relaistic alternative. Unless of course you are french who are all for it. germany, a country who put their faith in nuclear power as their saviou have begun the process of mothballing their nuclear power plants.Why is it not a realistic alternative?

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 12:53 PM
Why is it not a realistic alternative?

The reasons that we are worried about oil are (apart from the fact it is a finite resource) pollution and of course the danger due to its volatility. nuclear does not solve either of these problems and in fact adds a third danger of terrorism, which sadly is not one we can ignoe ny more. true it is highly unlikely but certainly no longer impossible. nuclear waste will destroy the environment long after the world has recovered form the toxic effects of oil.

LMC
12th-December-2005, 12:55 PM
popcorn anyone?

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 12:57 PM
popcorn anyone?

I prefer those hot nuts myself

stewart38
12th-December-2005, 01:08 PM
popcorn anyone?


Are you suggesting pop corn as an alternative to nuclear ??

whats its merits ??

It does come in many different sizes and even a 3ft wide bucket doesnt weigh much so I can see its transportable

Nuclear :yeah: but not in my back yard . Scotlands large and empty :whistle:

dee
12th-December-2005, 01:18 PM
Well prefer 3 bed detached but it suits my needs thanks :wink:




:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 01:18 PM
The reasons that we are worried about oil are (apart from the fact it is a finite resource)
Well, yeah - that's kind of the main problem with it...


pollution and of course the danger due to its volatility. nuclear does not solve either of these problems
Nuclear is definitely more greenhouse-friendly, although of course the waste has gotta be stored safely for, well, ever...


and in fact adds a third danger of terrorism, which sadly is not one we can ignoe ny more.
Well, yeah - but let's face it, there was a mushroom cloud over Southern England yesterday; it's only the fact that it happened at 6am on a Sunday morning that avoided major casaulties, any other time of day and I'm sure there'd have been fatalities and much more chaos.

James Lovelock, in this article (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm), stated that "I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy."

And Sir David King (the Government's chief scientist) said that "global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3584679.stm)." - and this is despite contra-pressure from Downing Street.

Everything in these areas is judgement, but I'd hate that judgement to be based on fear - and I think most people are afraid of nuclear because they basically don't understand it...

Mix of salted and sweet as usual, please, LMC.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 01:22 PM
Well, yeah - but let's face it, there was a mushroom cloud over Southern England yesterday; it's only the fact that it happened at 6am on a Sunday morning that avoided major casaulties, any other time of day and I'm sure there'd have been fatalities and much more chaos.

Nuclear meltdown on the other hand would simply have been a walk in the park... probably sorted out by about tuesday. Or maybe it would have stained the area for the next 100 years. One of the two

ElaineB
12th-December-2005, 01:26 PM
Is it me??? I have just read the latest bulletin and am amazed that the proceedure to put out the fire could not be started due to fears of polluting the nearlby water courses. I presume this plant must have been around for years, but if you look at disaster recovery, surely this point should already have been tackled, or were the Authorities putting their heads in the sand?

The plant should be moved to somewhere less populated and were in the event of a fire, the proper proceedures can be put into place very quickly.

By the way, wind power creates electricity, which in turn can be used to power cars - OK, so my 2 and 1/2 hour drive to London would now take 10 hours............. Then there is water power. I live in Bristol, very near the Severn Estuary which has three established nuclear plants. Harnessing the power from the tidal range was looked at and rejected, because it would have a detrimental effect on flat worms and therefore the birds...


Elaine

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 01:33 PM
James Lovelock, in this article (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm), stated that "I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy."

And Sir David King (the Government's chief scientist) said that "global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3584679.stm)." - and this is despite contra-pressure from Downing Street.

And I agree with everything that they have said, apart from one thing. ignoring the "future" technologies would be the biggest mistake we can make. We are a global leader in environmental concerns (along with germany who recycle pretty much everything they can get their hands on) and it is this that we must use as leverage. the countries who will do the most damage to this planet are the US, India and China. The last two will in a matter of years create more oil based, global warming pollution than the rest of the world put together due to their emergence into the more industrialised age and their rampantly growing poulation. it is therefore up to countries like the Uk to research and deliver true "friendly" energies to prove that they can be done and that they make economical sense.

I cannot see that a nuclear energy patch up will help because (as with all things) we will solve the problem at hand and think that we have done enough. Solar power has taken huge leaps recently and needs to be taken much more seriously as it can be experimaented with on a much smaller scale. And also is pretty cool - it has been powering my calculator for years!

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 01:34 PM
Everything in these areas is judgement, but I'd hate that judgement to be based on fear - and I think most people are afraid of nuclear because they basically don't understand it...



Of course the more you understand it the more you appreciate the reasons to be scared. Which kind of ruins your argument. Shame, it was so pretty.

stewart38
12th-December-2005, 02:54 PM
Nuclear meltdown on the other hand would simply have been a walk in the park... probably sorted out by about tuesday. Or maybe it would have stained the area for the next 100 years. One of the two


Well i guess your talking about the benefits ?

Flatten Hemel for 100yrs and leave it as farm land for **** croaches not a bad idea although some would say Jarman Park is already invested with **** croaches :what:


Is it me??? I have just read the latest bulletin and am amazed that the proceedure to put out the fire could not be started due to fears of polluting the nearlby water courses. I presume this plant must have been around for years, but if you look at disaster recovery, surely this point should already have been tackled, or were the Authorities putting their heads in the sand?

The plant should be moved to somewhere less populated and were in the event of a fire, the proper proceedures can be put into place very quickly.


Elaine

Well its near M1 for transport links, move it further away petrol goes up

Putting the fire out now is political , the environmental impact is probably going to a be a lot worse by using 10,000 tons of foam but hey to that.

ducasi
12th-December-2005, 03:05 PM
Scotlands large and empty :whistle: England's larger and has many more empty heads...

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 03:09 PM
England's larger and has many more empty heads...

Obviously I am no nuclear Engineer (apparently you need more than GCSE History), but I question the wisdom of fitting a nuclear power station into somebody's head. It just seems too small, plus I doubt the nostrils would adequately vent the build up of steam

El Salsero Gringo
12th-December-2005, 03:33 PM
England's larger and has many more empty heads...Can we just agree on Wales then? No one lives there.

The plant should be moved to somewhere less populated and were in the event of a fire, the proper proceedures can be put into place very quickly.Yes, let's all bring a bucket - we'll have that petroleum shifted in no time.

Not being an expert in these matters, I have a tiny suspicion that the whole point of putting a fuel depot near some airports and populated areas is because that's where the fuel's needed. In which case moving it to somewhere less populated would be ... what's that word?


By the way, wind power creates electricity, which in turn can be used to power cars - OK, so my 2 and 1/2 hour drive to London would now take 10 hours............. Then there is water power. I vote we combine the two: ditch our cars and let's get those sailing barges back on the canals.

El Salsero Gringo
12th-December-2005, 03:37 PM
The reasons that we are worried about oil are (apart from the fact it is a finite resource) pollution and of course the danger due to its volatility. nuclear does not solve either of these problems and in fact adds a third danger of terrorism, which sadly is not one we can ignoe ny more. true it is highly unlikely but certainly no longer impossible. nuclear waste will destroy the environment long after the world has recovered form the toxic effects of oil.Charcoal made from timber was a finite resource not so long ago in the UK. When we ran out of forest we had to start mining coal, the falling price of which made steam engines economical and contributed to the industrialisation of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Probably the best thing about oil is that it's a limited resource. Because it's not until we've used it all up that anyone's ever going to get serious about finding new alternatives.

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 03:40 PM
Charcoal made from timber was a finite resource not so long ago in the UK. When we ran out of forest we had to start mining coal, the falling price of which made steam engines economical and contributed to the industrialisation of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Probably the best thing about oil is that it's a limited resource. Because it's not until we've used it all up that anyone's ever going to get serious about finding new alternatives.

Well until the alternative is a better way of making money anyway.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 03:41 PM
Probably the best thing about oil is that it's a limited resource. Because it's not until we've used it all up that anyone's ever going to get serious about finding new alternatives.

Exactly right. So let us take a step forwards instead of sideways. if money that is currently being used to find more oil was diverted to alternative energies then we may actually discover something. Brilliant Minds with Brilliant funding have always helped push this race forwards, I have no doubt that they can do it again.

Alas oil will not run out any time soon. As the price increases, so does the viability of taking previously non cost effective oil out of the ground, and as it happens the US has one of the biggest stores of untapped oil.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 03:47 PM
Well until the alternative is a better way of making money anyway.

Hey here's a thought. What if we sold the oil for a profit?? I know this is radical thinking but I am just spitballing here

El Salsero Gringo
12th-December-2005, 03:56 PM
Alas oil will not run out any time soon.Um... then what exactly is the problem?

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 03:58 PM
Um... then what exactly is the problem?

The bit about the pollution, and the environment and the danger and the beginning of the argument part

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 04:01 PM
The bit about the pollution, and the environment and the danger and the beginning of the argument part
Oh yeah, that bit...

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 04:05 PM
Warning, monster post ahead :eek:


Nuclear meltdown on the other hand would simply have been a walk in the park... probably sorted out by about tuesday. Or maybe it would have stained the area for the next 100 years. One of the two
Let's go for Tuesday.


Is it me??? I have just read the latest bulletin and am amazed that the proceedure to put out the fire could not be started due to fears of polluting the nearlby water courses. I presume this plant must have been around for years, but if you look at disaster recovery, surely this point should already have been tackled, or were the Authorities putting their heads in the sand?
Well, I reckon it's reasonable to be a bit cautious covering the environmental bases - and getting all set up, equipped, environmentally-checked, and fighting that size fire within 24 hours doesn't seem too bad to me. Some of the foam was shipped down from Hull, apparently, that's a fair-sized logistics operation to put in place over a Sunday.

Our company disaster-recovery plan is predicated on getting back to operational status as quickly as possible, it doesn't say anything about fighting fires, we assume the authorities will have that covered. Admittedly, it's a pretty cr*p plan (I wrote it), and recovering the operations of a large diesel refinery should involve the authorities more than the operations of a small software house... :whistle:


The plant should be moved to somewhere less populated and were in the event of a fire, the proper proceedures can be put into place very quickly.
Trouble is, Southeast England is pretty damned crowded; there aren't many unpopulated areas near to the airports which are served by that facility. I suppose we could always use Scotland... :innocent:


By the way, wind power creates electricity, which in turn can be used to power cars
Hybrid cars are very slowly being produced - another decade or so may see them becoming almost commonplace. Ah, but you've got to generate more electricity now...


- OK, so my 2 and 1/2 hour drive to London would now take 10 hours............. Then there is water power. I live in Bristol, very near the Severn Estuary which has three established nuclear plants. Harnessing the power from the tidal range was looked at and rejected, because it would have a detrimental effect on flat worms and therefore the birds...
Yes, it's never easy is it? Again, it comes back to judgement.


And I agree with everything that they have said, apart from one thing. ignoring the "future" technologies would be the biggest mistake we can make. We are a global leader in environmental concerns (along with germany who recycle pretty much everything they can get their hands on) and it is this that we must use as leverage.

No disagreements there - but I don't think we are ignoring these technologies - look at the wind farms that have sprung up all over the place.

However, they're not exactly cheap. Last year, the Royal Academy of Engineering produced a report calculating that wind power (£0.54/kWh onshore, £0.72/kWh offshore) was more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. (£0.23/kWh) - and the nuclear price tag incorporates decommissioning and reprocessing costs.

In fact, it's worse than that - if you increased windpower to 20% of the UK's energy capacity, this would only reduce coal / nuclear capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe), because you need to keep them as backup (can't guarantee wind will blow :) )


the countries who will do the most damage to this planet are the US, India and China. The last two will in a matter of years create more oil based, global warming pollution than the rest of the world put together due to their emergence into the more industrialised age and their rampantly growing poulation.
Actually, I believe (could be wrong) that China is going for quite clean nuclear power, they're doing OK in that respect. I also think that China have a golden opportunity to grab the moral high ground, and some parts of world leadership, from the US over the next few years, by appearing more environmentally-friendly than Bush - let's face it, there are some Third-World dictatorships that appear more environmentally-friendly than Bush.


it is therefore up to countries like the Uk to research and deliver true "friendly" energies to prove that they can be done and that they make economical sense.
Absolutely - and, more selfishly, developing a leadership in these technologies gives us something we can sell to the soon-to-be-rich Indians and Chinese.




Everything in these areas is judgement, but I'd hate that judgement to be based on fear - and I think most people are afraid of nuclear because they basically don't understand it...
Of course the more you understand it the more you appreciate the reasons to be scared. Which kind of ruins your argument. Shame, it was so pretty.

You've confused me with the highly technical refutation of my argument, can you explain the flaws in it using smaller words so I can understand?

But I'll assume you're referring to the potential for radioactive contamination by an accident, as happened in Chernobyl. But in Chernobyl, they used the truly insane RBMK reactor design (which had an inbuilt feedback mechanism in the case of a malfunction), they didn't bother to have any containment building, and, oh yes, it was operated by muppets (think commie versions of Homer Simpson here).

The only equivalent Western accident was Three Mile Island, which did have a containment building - and funnily enough, that building was never breached. And I'd imagine the environmental impact of Three Mile Island was much less than that over Southern England now. But I doubt people will speak of Hemel Hempstead in hushed tones in ten years time (well, no more than they do now :na: )

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 04:09 PM
Actually, I believe (could be wrong) that China is going for quite clean nuclear power, they're doing OK in that respect. I also think that China have a golden opportunity to grab the moral high ground, and some parts of world leadership, from the US over the next few years, by appearing more environmentally-friendly than Bush - let's face it, there are some Third-World dictatorships that appear more environmentally-friendly than Bush.

According to recent reports, the oil consumption of China will be greater than that of the US within 20 years (although that is of course using predicted growth rates which iare generally difficult to predict). Recently China bought large stakes in Canadian oil Shale fields and are going to jointly fund a Russian Oil pipeline to increase delivery of oil to China. It seems to me that China are planning to base a lot of their emerging economy on (relatively) cheap source of oil. I have heard that they are looking at the nuclear alternative (the US are getting a touch itchy about that), but it seems that the priority is securing long term oil deals

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 04:11 PM
No disagreements there - but I don't think we are ignoring these technologies - look at the wind farms that have sprung up all over the place.

However, they're not exactly cheap. Last year, the Royal Academy of Engineering produced a report calculating that wind power (£0.54/kWh onshore, £0.72/kWh offshore) was more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. (£0.23/kWh) - and the nuclear price tag incorporates decommissioning and reprocessing costs.

In fact, it's worse than that - if you increased windpower to 20% of the UK's energy capacity, this would only reduce coal / nuclear capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe), because you need to keep them as backup (can't guarantee wind will blow :) )


Solar dammit

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 04:13 PM
Solar dammit
Same problem, can't guarantee sun will shine.

Especially with all these nasty oil refinery fires blocking it :whistle:

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 04:15 PM
Same problem, can't guarantee sun will shine.

Especially with all these nasty oil refinery fires blocking it :whistle:

That is true to an extent but there are ways to store the electricity. In boxes perhaps, or in the back of my mate's van. Although at the moment that has got depleted uranium in it. Just for safe keeping you understand.

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 04:17 PM
That is true to an extent but there are ways to store the electricity. In boxes perhaps, or in the back of my mate's van. Although at the moment that has got depleted uranium in it. Just for safe keeping you understand.
:rofl: I've got a couple of spent AA batteries somewhere as well, if that'll help.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 04:20 PM
:rofl: I've got a couple of spent AA batteries somewhere as well, if that'll help.

It's all for the greater good

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 04:24 PM
It's all for the greater good

So its settled then. We're gonna use hydrogen.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 04:26 PM
So its settled then. We're gonna use hydrogen.

Obviously. It's what all my arguments were leading up to. I wanted to soften them up with a few body blows first though before i came in with the big swing.

TiggsTours
12th-December-2005, 04:27 PM
It's all for the greater good
I'm sure that if alot of people on here got together, they'd be able to produce enough hot air and gas to keep the world alight for years! :rofl:

LMC
12th-December-2005, 04:27 PM
Perhaps we could use hot air to get those turbines turning... :whistle:

EDIT: aaaargh @cross-posting :worthy: TT

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 04:30 PM
That's what I am talking about. Let's get some collective ideas together, perhaps some government funding. Mooncalf can head the think tank and lobby for a better class of biscuit during discussions and DJ can formulate the actual plans whilst i play with my solar calculator and write words such as hello and boobies. marvellous

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 04:30 PM
Obviously. It's what all my arguments were leading up to. I wanted to soften them up with a few body blows first though before i came in with the big swing.

I knew that zeppelin i kept in the garage would come in useful someday.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 04:31 PM
I knew that zeppelin i kept in the garage would bome in useful someday.

Someday soon, and for the rest of your life

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 04:34 PM
Someday soon, and for the rest of your life

after all, tomorrow is another day

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 04:35 PM
after all, tomorrow is another day

Here's looking at you kid

Although that would make you MoonGoat

So here's looking at you calf

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 04:52 PM
However, they're not exactly cheap. Last year, the Royal Academy of Engineering produced a report calculating that wind power (£0.54/kWh onshore, £0.72/kWh offshore) was more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. (£0.23/kWh) - and the nuclear price tag incorporates decommissioning and reprocessing costs.


That would be the report that was widely criticised at the time for vastly under esitmating the costs assoctiated with nuclear power. Just so we're clear.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 04:55 PM
That would be the report that was widely criticised at the time for vastly under esitmating the costs assoctiated with nuclear power. Just so we're clear.

Oh THAT report. I remember the one, widely criticised for UNDERestimating the cost of NUCLEAR energy. It was also criticised today, by me, even though I have never looked at it.

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 04:56 PM
Oh THAT report. I remember the one, widely criticised for UNDERestimating the cost of NUCLEAR energy. It was also criticised today, by me, even though I have never looked at it.

Ted from the barber shop said it was trerrible. Not enough pictures and graphs either.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 04:59 PM
Ted from the barber shop said it was trerrible. Not enough pictures and graphs either.

If it doesn't have a exponential curve, it isn't a report. That's ted's first law

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 05:00 PM
If it doesn't have a exponential curve, it isn't a report. That's ted's first law

Late movement on the curve is much better. Ask Simon Jones.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 05:04 PM
Late movement on the curve is much better. Ask Simon Jones.

He doesn't know anything about Nuclear power. He's a coal man

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 05:12 PM
That would be the report that was widely criticised at the time
Got a source for those criticisms? 'Cos I can't find one online, apart from a mention in this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4457210.stm).

And sure, this report was lauded with glee by the nuclear industry at the time, it very much supports their case. Doesn't mean it's wrong. And the Royal Academy of Engineering isn;t AFAIK a paid flunky of the nuclear industry, so unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume they're acting in good faith and with some degree of competence.

I did find one quote:
Scottish Renewables, conceded in a written response published in The Scotsman that the Hume Institute study accurately reflected the annual costs of supplying power through renewable sources.

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 05:19 PM
Got a source for those criticisms? 'Cos I can't find one

Did you talk to Ted?

LMC
12th-December-2005, 05:23 PM
Would he be Sid's brother? Because IIRC, Sid was dead keen about finding out about natural gas...

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 05:25 PM
Got a source for those criticisms? 'Cos I can't find one online, apart from a mention in this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4457210.stm).


I was thinking of stuff like this http://www.futureenergies.com/print.php?sid=874
though - but be assured Ted agrees.

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 05:27 PM
I was thinking of stuff like this http://www.futureenergies.com/print.php?sid=874
though - but be assured Ted agrees.
Strangely enough, I'm going to guess that the BWEA (British Wind Energy Association) may not be the most objective of organisations on the expense and effectiveness of wind power.


Did you talk to Ted?
I give up, I can't face the combined assault of Mooncalf and LOTF. But I do wonder if WB and S38 (and the 2,000 other Hemel residents evacuated) appreciate the humour.

Do you guys have any serious sides? Are you in fact the same person? Coz it occasionally seems that there's a bit of collusion between you, and it'd be nice to keep the humour in humorous topics, and some serious debate in serious topics :rolleyes:

(And yes, the icon is appropriate)

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 05:28 PM
Do you guys have any serious sides? Are you in fact the same person? Coz it occasionally seems that there's a bit of collusion between you, and it'd be nice to keep the humour in humorous topics, and some serious debate in serious topics :rolleyes:

(And yes, the icon is appropriate)

Please see previous. Oh and we'll let you have the AA batteries comment - cos we're nice.

Otherwise that is just about the weirdest post I've seen.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 05:40 PM
Strangely enough, I'm going to guess that the BWEA (British Wind Energy Association) may not be the most objective of organisations on the expense and effectiveness of wind power.

Ok kids let's settle down shall we? There will be nobody that doesn't have some form of stake in a report. They all get funding from somewhere and you can be pretty damn sure that the money men will have an agenda - that's the way it works. Now it seems to me that you asked for something and you were given it. Whether or not you agree with the article is your choice, but it was posted as a response to your question so getting pissy about it helps nobody.

As to whether I have a serious side, quite plainly I do, and to try and suggest that this post is in someway an insult to the good people of Hemel is a fairly outrageous insult to me. Luckily I am bigger than that. Not bigger than Hemel obviously - that would be stupid. (please note use of serious and comedy side in the same paragraph - and yes that was intentional (insert pointless emoticon here))

I am still a fan of solar

stewart38
12th-December-2005, 05:47 PM
I give up, I can't face the combined assault of Mooncalf and LOTF. But I do wonder if WB and S38 (and the 2,000 other Hemel residents evacuated) appreciate the humour.


(And yes, the icon is appropriate)

I saw a car at cira 7am come to abrupt halt outside my house and out came a women who hugged i assumed was her mum (who lived opposite to me)

From their chat I assume the 'naughter' lived even nearer to the explosion and I assume mother thought for a while she was dead (these flames were 100/200 ft high and you easily see them from my road)

Most people were heading back to their houses at that time to get the news. Many thought a plane had crashed. I spoke to more people in Hemel in one hour then in the previous year .

I guess as no one died people see things like this differently even if they were there :sick:

However if all my windows had been blown in maybe I wouldnt see the 'funny side'

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 05:50 PM
....

The conversation had moved on somewhat. Thanks for the interest though.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 05:54 PM
I guess as no one died people see things like this differently even if they were there :sick:

However if all my windows had been blown in maybe I wouldnt see the 'funny side'

ok let's get this sorted now. I am in no way making fun of the fact there was an explosion. However due to the organic growth of any thread, the topic has moved on towards energy and means of producing energy that is more effective, safer, environmentally friendly etc etc. I don't believe nuclear is the way forward and think that alternative energies should be looked at more closely. I can see no way in which this could possibly be interpreted as insulting or denigrating to those people that were affected by the blast in hemel. Unless of course that was what a person was trying to find

David Franklin
12th-December-2005, 05:55 PM
Do you guys have any serious sides? Are you in fact the same person? Coz it occasionally seems that there's a bit of collusion between you, and it'd be nice to keep the humour in humorous topics, and some serious debate in serious topics.

Please see previous. Oh and we'll let you have the AA batteries comment - cos we're nice.

Otherwise that is just about the weirdest post I've seen.Sorry, but I have to say I have a lot of sympathy with David James on this. Whether or not it's intentional, you do come across as if you're either the same poster, or at least sitting next to each other. And as I tend to skip all the "humourous chatter", I tend to miss anything sensible you slipped in...

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 05:57 PM
Sorry, but I have to say I have a lot of sympathy with David James on this. Whether or not it's intentional, you do come across as if you're either the same poster, or at least sitting next to each other. And as I tend to skip all the "humourous chatter", I tend to miss anything sensible you slipped in...

Fine - we are chatting, that's how conversations go.
We are about 30 miles away from each other.

stewart38
12th-December-2005, 05:58 PM
The conversation had moved on somewhat. Thanks for the interest though.


Im sorry you see it all as a great big joke :sad:

I think there can be humour in it but not all of it :sick:

Each to their own, I dont judge

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 05:59 PM
Im sorry you see it all as a great big joke :sad:

I think there can be humour in it but not all of it :sick:

Each to their own, I dont judge

Don't be sorry. You are incorrect in your assesment. Further you seemed to have missed my post explaining this.

I also refer you to your own comment on popcorn.

El Salsero Gringo
12th-December-2005, 06:01 PM
And as I tend to skip all the "humourous chatter",...You're definitely missing out.

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 06:03 PM
Sorry, but I have to say I have a lot of sympathy with David James on this. Whether or not it's intentional, you do come across as if you're either the same poster, or at least sitting next to each other. And as I tend to skip all the "humourous chatter", I tend to miss anything sensible you slipped in...

The chatter is the only reason for coming. Everything else can be found out through google searches

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 06:11 PM
Ok kids let's settle down shall we? There will be nobody that doesn't have some form of stake in a report. They all get funding from somewhere and you can be pretty damn sure that the money men will have an agenda - that's the way it works.
The Royal Academy of Engineering (http://www.raeng.org.uk/) gets its funding from the government. As such, it is of course subject to the same level of bias as all governmental organisations.

So yes, you could possibly argue that if Blair's definitely decided to go pro-nuke, then this report could have been commissioned by the government to make the pro-nuke case. But that's a bit too conspiracy-theory to me.

Whereas an organisation devoted to the cause of windpower will be obviously and transparently biased towards the aim of promoting windpower, therefore I'd treat it as a biased observer, and expect it to criticise any report that went against its purpose. In other words, it's not credible as an independent commentator to me.


As to whether I have a serious side, quite plainly I do, and to try and suggest that this post is in someway an insult to the good people of Hemel is a fairly outrageous insult to me.
"Good people of Hemel"? Who said anything about them being good?

Seriously, the trouble is, both you guy do make serious and worthwhile posts - but there's so much other interplay and banter between you two, that these get lost - most people miss them. It sometimes feels like a spectator at a game of banter-tennis...

So if you'd both just tone down the noise a bit, I'd appreciate it. :flower:

LordOfTheFiles
12th-December-2005, 06:14 PM
Seriously, the trouble is, both you guy do make serious and worthwhile posts

I am welling up - it's good to get recognition at last

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 06:27 PM
...


That's as maybe but the article I referred you examined where the Royal Academy of Engineering study you mentioned got its figures from in calculating the price of nuclear power. I thought that was particularly interesting.

Unfortunately you dismissed this out of hand.

ElaineB
12th-December-2005, 08:21 PM
Well, I reckon it's reasonable to be a bit cautious covering the environmental bases - and getting all set up, equipped, environmentally-checked, and fighting that size fire within 24 hours doesn't seem too bad to me. Some of the foam was shipped down from Hull, apparently, that's a fair-sized logistics operation to put in place over a Sunday.

Our company disaster-recovery plan is predicated on getting back to operational status as quickly as possible, it doesn't say anything about fighting fires, we assume the authorities will have that covered. Admittedly, it's a pretty cr*p plan (I wrote it), and recovering the operations of a large diesel refinery should involve the authorities more than the operations of a small software house... :whistle:




Sorry David, I should have made myself more clear - when I was talking of disaster recovery - I was really talking about the 'Authorities' here. Agreed that the fire service have done a remarkable job - it just worried me that they appeared to have to wait for an evironmental go ahead before they could start tackling the balze. My point is that a fire in this plant at this location was always a possibility and the Health and Safety Executive/Fire Brigade/Emergency Services could have had a plan of action already in place.

Elaine

ElaineB
12th-December-2005, 08:31 PM
Yes, let's all bring a bucket - we'll have that petroleum shifted in no time.

.

I think you knew exactly what I meant!



Not being an expert in these matters, I have a tiny suspicion that the whole point of putting a fuel depot near some airports and populated areas is because that's where the fuel's needed. In which case moving it to somewhere less populated would be ... what's that word?

.

I believe that the word you were looking for was not very complimentary! Tsk tsk, I expected better from you.

I agree that fuel needs to be situated near to where it is needed, but not where it would jeopardise hundreds of people's safety, as in this case.




I vote we combine the two: ditch our cars and let's get those sailing barges back on the canals.

And you are in harness on the tow path?

Elaine

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 08:43 PM
That's as maybe but the article I referred you examined where the Royal Academy of Engineering study you mentioned got its figures from in calculating the price of nuclear power. I thought that was particularly interesting.

Unfortunately you dismissed this out of hand.

OK, good point.

As penance for my out-of-handedness, I've waded through that report (here's the link again (http://www.futureenergies.com/print.php?sid=874)),

So, to quote:
"The BWEA believes that, despite the RAE’s contention that all technologies in its study were studied on a level playing field, the most favourable assumptions possible were made for nuclear while wind was treated less favourably."

As far as I can follow it, the BWEA believes that capital costs for wind generation plants will fall as techniques develop, but that the equivalent costs quoted by the RAE are based on optimistic assumptions.

In other words, it disputes the estimates and guesswork. The trouble is, who knows? The more money you put into building any new type of power plant, and the more of them you build, the cheaper it'll get - this applies to nuclear and wind alike.

The BWEA say that "fuel is free" for wind, sure - but fuel for nuclear is only a small fraction of operating costs anyway.

The BWEA also complains about the RAE requirement for back-up power sources to be installed, for when the wind don't blow - they assume that, with a big enough network, the wind will always be blowing somewhere. Hmmm, again, maybe, but I personally would like to be sure that when I boil my cuppa, it will still boil without any gales anywhere - I'd rather not rely on the weather.

In other words, it really depends on what assumptions you make, and what your requirements are, as to how expensive it'll be in the end.

So, yes, the RAE report is arguable - but I think it's valuable to demonstrate that there's no perfect answer; it depends what you want, how much you pay for it, and how the engineering and the technologies evolve.

But again, I wouldn't treat the BWEA as an objective source - they're bound to make the assumptions that suit their mission. In the same way, I wouldn't treat any estimates from BNFL as unbiased, simply because the assumptions they make will be biased in the opposite direction.


Sorry David, I should have made myself more clear - when I was talking of disaster recovery - I was really talking about the 'Authorities' here.
Yeah, fair enough. I guess that's more properly emergency planning, which it seems you can never do too much of...

However, I did hear on the news that a hospital in Cambridge (?) had stored all its electronic records at a facility in Hemel, and now that data is lost - so they're having to use a manual system instead, and it will apparently take another week or more to recover. Now that's truly abysmal disaster recovery planning - I'd be amazed if it took our business more than a couple of days to recover all our data and key functions.

mooncalf
12th-December-2005, 09:07 PM
So, yes, the RAE report is arguable - but I think it's valuable to demonstrate that there's no perfect answer; it depends what you want, how much you pay for it, and how the engineering and the technologies evolve.


Good - this is what I was trying to demonstrate all along and the journey has been interesting. We began with your claim that the only realistic alternative was nuclear, now we see that one of your claims for this technology (cost) is based on questionable data.


I haven't advocated anything myself, save for a throw away line about hydrogen but when facts used to argue a case are less than watertight then it doesn't endear me to that cause. Talk to lotf about solar.

If we don't investigate the alternatives then we can be sure there wont be any.

David Bailey
12th-December-2005, 09:24 PM
Good - this is what I was trying to demonstrate all along and the journey has been interesting. We began with your claim that the only realistic alternative was nuclear, now we see that one of your claims for this technology (cost) is based on questionable data.

"Nuclear is realistic" was my shorthand for "We've done it before, we use it now, it's tried-and-tested, and we've got a pretty good idea as to the upper bounds of the cost, and the time required".

Of course it's all estimates, of course there are always assumptions and uncertainties, and of course it'll go over-budget and over-time, these things always do. But at least we've got a solid starting point with nuclear, and at least we know that if we throw enough money at it, we'll have a secure and reliable, if not pretty, source of power.

As for wind power - no-one's done it to a large-scale before, and so we don't know how long it'll take, how much it'll cost, and how dependable and secure it'll be. So to me, that's not a realistic short-term solution, and we'd be nuts to rely on it as a large component of our national supply. Although I agree we should go for wind as well, I don't think it's an either-or position.

Of course, in the long-term, we'll get fusion, but attempting to rely on fusion is more laughable than banking on wind power to save us.

stewart38
13th-December-2005, 02:01 AM
All this chat is all well and good but going out again in Hemel tonight its not a pretty sight ,with a 250,000 litres of foam concentrate per minute being used residents are feeling the effects as these shocking pictures show.

I think Santa will be ok, he was on his way to lapland when he fell of his sleigh. :clap:

The outcome for the dog is less clear :sad:




Thought for the day

--------------------------

The news looked bleak. The reporters were in funereal tone. The BBC was calling it the worst fire in Europe since the war. Milk production could be halted in the South-East. Parents were told to keep their children inside. Asthmatics were queueing up in hospital; doctors warned that inhaling soot particles could cause swellings to the lungs and affect the brain. Police said it would take 250,000 litres of foam mixed with 25,000 litres of water per minute to quell the blaze.

Later that night we turned from the apocalyptic images coming from Hemel Hempstead to Top Gear. Jeremy Clarkson was testing the fastest, most powerful car in the world, the new Bugatti Veyron, driving through Italy and France, chased by a plane. The Bugatti's speed limit is 258 mph, it accelerates from 0-62 mph in 2.5 seconds and it's strong enough to pull a battleship. It was magnificent. The perfect Christmas present for any man - if you have £1 million. Yet it drinks petrol at the rate of about 20 gallons every 12 minutes.

That's the problem with this debate about the environment. We want the rolling countryside but we also want Top Gear. We are terrified of the environmental legacy that we are creating yet we are determined that we have a right to drive our 4x4s and people carriers.

The oil refinery explosion at Hemel Hempstead has reminded us just how much pollution there is. It's hard to notice the drip-drip effect of fuel emissions every day but a colossal toxic inferno is impossible to ignore. Suddenly we worry about water levels, poisoned fish, cancers. We scour the map to see whether there is an oil depot near our homes. Yet we still demand the freedom to drive as much as we want.

That's the problem for politicians. All three lead

WittyBird
13th-December-2005, 06:45 AM
I think Santa will be ok, he was on his way to lapland when he fell of his sleigh. :clap:

The outcome for the dog is less clear :sad:


:rofl: you are just so damn funny :worthy:

Well... I couldn't get into Hemel last night all the roads were shut.:mad: Luckily I am staying with MissyD :worthy: The annoying thing for me is I couldn't get home to get any much needed bits! I am due to be at Paddington this morning @ 7am to get the train to Bristol to go to work at one of our offices.... No coat :tears:

Now do I play on the 'refugee' act and turn up in jeans or do I put my suit on and freeze:eek:

Wish I could just stay in bed:waycool:

Missy D
13th-December-2005, 08:53 AM
Brilliant Stewart!! Love the pics:rofl: :rofl:

stewart38
13th-December-2005, 10:52 AM
:rofl: you are just so damn funny :worthy:

Well... I couldn't get into Hemel last night all the roads were shut.:mad:
Now do I play on the 'refugee' act and turn up in jeans or do I put my suit on and freeze:eek:

Wish I could just stay in bed:waycool:


Yes and someone sent me the wrong way down M25 :sad:

St Albans was like a ghost town last night

The black smoke is less now but getting lower in the sky :sad:

dee
13th-December-2005, 11:07 AM
Love the pics Stewart, lets just hope that little dog will be ok. Keep us posted.
Glad to hear santa is doing well :clap:

Lynn
13th-December-2005, 03:18 PM
Do you guys have any serious sides? Are you in fact the same person? Coz it occasionally seems that there's a bit of collusion between you, and it'd be nice to keep the humour in humorous topics, and some serious debate in serious topics :rolleyes: I've noticed this too in some threads. It was amusing at first but I tend to now just skim over the Mooncalf/LOTF asides to get back to the actual discussion that everyone else is having.

stewart38
13th-December-2005, 03:27 PM
I've noticed this too in some threads. It was amusing at first but I tend to now just skim over the Mooncalf/LOTF asides to get back to the actual discussion that everyone else is having.


Are they the same person then ??

Msfab
13th-December-2005, 03:57 PM
Are they the same person then ??

Dont we all have more than one side to us :rolleyes:

David Bailey
13th-December-2005, 04:27 PM
Going back to the topic in the title (I know, crazy talk), I just re-looked at the location. ***, it's right near a ginormous business park (I used to work there). I'd imagine several thousand people work there on an average weekday - if the explosion hadn't occurred at 6am on a Sunday morning, the bodycount could have been massive.

So yes, I've changed my mind - it's a Really Dumb Idea to store 60 million gallons of highly-flammable liquid close to where thousands of people work if you don't have to. Even in SE England, there must be better places...

I imagine the depot was there historically, and the business park has grown up nearby over the past 15-20 years, but that just looks like truly bad planning to put it that close.

LordOfTheFiles
13th-December-2005, 04:34 PM
I imagine the depot was there historically, and the business park has grown up nearby over the past 15-20 years, but that just looks like truly bad planning to put it that close.

It is probably the same logic that sees so many houses built on flood plains - they haven't flooded before so they probably won't flood in the future. The incredibly flammable materials haven't burst into flame yet, so they probably won't in the future.

Probably

Stuart
13th-December-2005, 05:27 PM
My colleague at work lives in Cookham near Maidenhead and she actually felt the explosion.

The smoke trail was clearly visible over Reading yesterday but it seems to have dsiappeared today.

stewart38
13th-December-2005, 05:53 PM
My colleague at work lives in Cookham near Maidenhead and she actually felt the explosion.



I did to :whistle:

Marsh mellow anyone ?

Missy D
13th-December-2005, 06:01 PM
It was extra smokey in North London this afternoon. I had to use ventolin so to catch my breath!:mad:

Yes please to marsh mellows Stewart:drool:

David Bailey
13th-December-2005, 08:16 PM
Just saw in the news today - 20,000 people work in that business park. Or rather, don't at the moment.

Looking at the pictures of crushed cars there (sorry Will, hope yours is OK), thank God there was almost no-one there at the time.

ElaineB
13th-December-2005, 08:23 PM
Going back to the topic in the title (I know, crazy talk), I just re-looked at the location. ***, it's right near a ginormous business park (I used to work there). I'd imagine several thousand people work there on an average weekday - if the explosion hadn't occurred at 6am on a Sunday morning, the bodycount could have been massive.

So yes, I've changed my mind - it's a Really Dumb Idea to store 60 million gallons of highly-flammable liquid close to where thousands of people work if you don't have to. Even in SE England, there must be better places...

I imagine the depot was there historically, and the business park has grown up nearby over the past 15-20 years, but that just looks like truly bad planning to put it that close.

Yes, I heard 'Today in Parliament' late last night and the local MP confirmed that when it was first built, over 40 years ago, it was not a built up area.

Elaine

WittyBird
13th-December-2005, 08:53 PM
Yes and someone sent me the wrong way down M25 :sad:


What is it you say to me? normally along the lines of '*** can't you women learn to read maps' :rolleyes:

But at least I generally remember where I leave my car :rofl:

WittyBird
13th-December-2005, 09:15 PM
It was extra smokey in North London this afternoon. I had to use ventolin so to catch my breath!:mad:

Yes please to marsh mellows Stewart:drool:

Does your location mean you want me to leave now :rofl:

Father Christmas
13th-December-2005, 10:45 PM
I'd just like to say, best wishes to all Hemelians, who are obviously suffering at the moment. May you all have a merry Christmas, and a more happy New Year :cheers: :clap:

WittyBird
14th-December-2005, 08:48 AM
Just saw in the news today - 20,000 people work in that business park. Or rather, don't at the moment.


I deal with a lot of the companies on the business park. All of them shut and thankful it happened when it did and not on a working day!

I am finally going home tonight :clap: Thank you to Missy D :worthy: for putting up with me and my stoopid Benny Hill alarm tone on my phone. She is just the hostess of the year :flower:

Missy D
14th-December-2005, 09:00 AM
I deal with a lot of the companies on the business park. All of them shut and thankful it happened when it did and not on a working day!

I am finally going home tonight :clap: Thank you to Missy D :worthy: for putting up with me and my stoopid Benny Hill alarm tone on my phone. She is just the hostess of the year :flower:


You are welcome sweetie!! :nice:

Funny how when we were in the house together we were both on the Forum in different rooms. Ceroc sure is an addiction eh!

Hopefully in a few days we will see clearer skies!

Well done to the fire brigade for putting it out:clap: :clap: :clap:

WittyBird
14th-December-2005, 09:03 AM
Funny how when we were in the house together we were both on the Forum in different rooms. Ceroc sure is an addiction eh!


I can't believe I fell asleep hugging my laptop in bed last night :sad: I was sooo tired :rofl: Thankfully no dodgy pictures were taken :eek:

Missy D
14th-December-2005, 09:18 AM
:sad: I was sooo tired :rofl: Thankfully no dodgy pictures were taken :eek:

:whistle:

WittyBird
14th-December-2005, 09:23 AM
:whistle:

Righto :rofl:

WittyBird
14th-December-2005, 09:32 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4526950.stm

Its gone up again :mad:

stewart38
14th-December-2005, 11:58 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4526950.stm

Its gone up again :mad:

Yes more smoke this morning :sad:

what the hell are the Fire Unions going on about

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

Trinity
14th-December-2005, 09:26 PM
I was in Hemel on Saturday night at a friends luckily I left early. I was supposed to stay the whole weekend :eek: I feel so bad for S38 and WittyBird :worthy:

stewart38
15th-December-2005, 01:18 AM
I was in Hemel on Saturday night at a friends luckily I left early. I was supposed to stay the whole weekend :eek: I feel so bad for S38 and WittyBird :worthy:

So you should, you nearly stayed a 'weekend in Hemel' not nice at any time.

Me and WB have to stay here for ,months or years because we live here and those nasty people charge too much for houses in Amersham :sad:

For those that asked recent press release shows dog and Santa are doing fine :clap:

WittyBird
15th-December-2005, 09:09 AM
For those that asked recent press release shows dog and Santa are doing fine :clap:

What is Santa doing to that poor dog?:rolleyes:

Missy D
15th-December-2005, 11:27 AM
Well Hemel is now clear (as far as I know) and young Witty left early this morning. How will I cope without the sound of her Benny Hill themed alarm going off at 5 am in the morning. Me and Amy are getting withdrawals already! It was lovely having you stay Witty (shame I didnt take any dodgy pictures of you when you were asleep cuddling up to your laptop on the Forum page). I know we all love the Forum but I feel Witty takes it one step further.:rofl: :rofl:

WittyBird
15th-December-2005, 12:37 PM
Well Hemel is now clear (as far as I know) and young Witty left early this morning.

Bog eyed and confused !


How will I cope without the sound of her Benny Hill themed alarm going off at 5 am in the morning. Me and Amy are getting withdrawals already!

:rofl: if you like it that much I will bluetooth it to you on Friday :worthy:


It was lovely having you stay Witty (shame I didnt take any dodgy pictures of you when you were asleep cuddling up to your laptop on the Forum page).

Thank you for putting up with me you really are fabulous :worthy: :flower:


I know we all love the Forum but I feel Witty takes it one step further.:rofl: :rofl:
:yeah: Thats me all over :blush:

Rhythm King
15th-December-2005, 01:44 PM
I serenly thought that living and working near the Tower of London meant that this wouldn't too much effect on me, other than the oil companies' obligatory opportunity to hike up fuel prices - wrong!!!
Just found out that the company which does our payroll services was on the industrial estate and their building is wrecked. Hope their Business Continuity Plan works out otherwise we won't get paid at the end of the month :eek:

dee
15th-December-2005, 02:23 PM
So you should, you nearly stayed a 'weekend in Hemel' not nice at any time.

Me and WB have to stay here for ,months or years because we live here and those nasty people charge too much for houses in Amersham :sad:

For those that asked recent press release shows dog and Santa are doing fine :clap:

Glad to see Santa is ok, but i do feel i need to inform the RSPCA as it looks to me santa likes his dog ,lets say a bit too much :eek: shocking scenes!!! and they moan about cleavage on this forum :really:

dee
15th-December-2005, 02:24 PM
Oh and Stewart if you don't like living in Hemel you could always come live with me in sunny Aylesbury next to the three wheeler :hug:

Missy D
15th-December-2005, 10:29 PM
Oh and Stewart if you don't like living in Hemel you could always come live with me in sunny Aylesbury next to the three wheeler :hug:

Oooh Stewart could brother in law be on the cards here! Trouble is if you the the 3 wheeler owner you might just fall for her. Shes a real cracker and not been touched by man before!

stewart38
16th-December-2005, 12:49 AM
Oh and Stewart if you don't like living in Hemel you could always come live with me in sunny Aylesbury next to the three wheeler :hug:

Id like to keep the engagement a bit of a secret :blush:

Jonathan
16th-December-2005, 01:54 AM
I was fortunate enough to see the fire in all its glory from the window of my plane, as we took off from Heathrow. I sure was glad that it didn't affect departing flights! ;)

WittyBird
16th-December-2005, 09:39 AM
I was fortunate enough to see the fire in all its glory from the window of my plane, as we took off from Heathrow. I sure was glad that it didn't affect departing flights! ;)

I'm alright Jack:rofl:

Lory
16th-December-2005, 09:45 AM
The bad news is that we left Kate's car in the car park over the weekend and don't currently know if it's still got windows, nor can we get anywhere near it at the moment.
Any news on Kate's car?

I saw some pics on the news of some of the cars parked nearby :eek: :sick:

I hope hers was one of the lucky ones :flower:

stewart38
16th-December-2005, 01:35 PM
Any news on Kate's car?

I saw some pics on the news of some of the cars parked nearby :eek: :sick:

I hope hers was one of the lucky ones :flower:


Well unless they have moved Heathrow to Hemel their car will be fine

God it was bad but not that bad :sad:

WittyBird
16th-December-2005, 01:36 PM
Well unless they have moved Heathrow to Hemel their car will be fine

God it was bad but not that bad :sad:

They had parked Kates car by the explosion - where does Heathrow come into it? :sick:

stewart38
16th-December-2005, 01:40 PM
They had parked Kates car by the explosion - where does Heathrow come into it? :sick:

oh i see :blush:

Will
16th-December-2005, 06:39 PM
The car was parked in a business car park on Maylands Avenue. I'm glad to say that we've now got the car back and it appears fine. The building it was parked next to received only minor damage, and nothing from the building fell onto the car either.

It just goes to show that if the car can survive Kate's driving, a "Fuel Bomb" type explosion at a nearby oil depot is a walk in the park!

Stuart
16th-December-2005, 07:49 PM
I serenly thought that living and working near the Tower of London meant that this wouldn't too much effect on me, other than the oil companies' obligatory opportunity to hike up fuel prices - wrong!!!
Just found out that the company which does our payroll services was on the industrial estate and their building is wrecked. Hope their Business Continuity Plan works out otherwise we won't get paid at the end of the month :eek:

Sounds as though it is the same company that does our salaries as well