From what I’ve read, and it’s been a while), engineers plan for safety, but project managers and other company execs convince clients to take “cost-effective” corner cuts, leading to disaster. Looking at companies like Duke, Fluor, Dominion.
At the end of the day, you have to produce a product that is safe but cost effective. Nobody wants to pay 1per kWh for a safety level that is unmeasurable.
That is why utilities are regulated since they are monopolies. I feel the regulations need to be cleaned up but that’s the goal.
I think fines should be taken from executive pay. Bonuses should also be set to safety and environmental factors.
My point is that it’s not cost effective, in human, environmental damages, but the cost of “clean up” alone negates any savings fun* not doing it right from the jump.
From what I’ve read, and it’s been a while), engineers plan for safety, but project managers and other company execs convince clients to take “cost-effective” corner cuts, leading to disaster. Looking at companies like Duke, Fluor, Dominion.
At the end of the day, you have to produce a product that is safe but cost effective. Nobody wants to pay 1per kWh for a safety level that is unmeasurable.
That is why utilities are regulated since they are monopolies. I feel the regulations need to be cleaned up but that’s the goal.
I think fines should be taken from executive pay. Bonuses should also be set to safety and environmental factors.
My point is that it’s not cost effective, in human, environmental damages, but the cost of “clean up” alone negates any savings fun* not doing it right from the jump.
Autocorrect but leaving it.