On Friday, investigators combed through the burned strength residues near London’s Heathrow Airport, seeking the cause of the spectacular flame that closed most of the day the most prominent tourist center in Europe and asked wider questions about British energy infrastructure.
Energy -based officials and experts have said that a transformer error with a 275,000 volts that pass through it probably stimulated a huge fire with an oil -cut off airport and tens of thousands of nearby homes from the electricity network. The systems designed to prevent such a fire obviously failed, and the size of the flames seemed to prevent another, nearby transformer from the restore of electricity.
But the mystery of what it caused in the first place was resolved by the end of the day on Friday, even as the flights continued in Heathrow.
Metropolitan police in London have announced that experts on the fight against terrorism have taken over the investigation, “given the place of the substation and the influence that this incident had on the critical national infrastructure.” At the same time, political leaders and experts in industry said it seems most likely that the fire was an accident.
Both options left the inhabitants of Britain and global passengers.
If a malicious opponent can thus dramatically disrupt world trips by causing a fire at the neighboring power plant, it causes new concerns about open societies like Britain to protect against such non -traditional attacks.
And if the fire was a consequence of undiscovered weakness in the basic infrastructure of the British electricity network, the scope as liberated could undermine the trust in the ability of the nation to repair the decaying systems at the time when finances are already tense.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, sought to persuade residents and passengers on Friday, and Mr. Khan told Sky News in an interview that, despite the participation of a terrorism officer in the investigation, “there was no reason for anyone to worry or alarm.”
London police later also played offenses on Friday, saying that after the initial assessment they “did not treat this incident as suspicious, although inquiries remain ongoing.”
However, neither the Prime Minister nor the mayor offered answers to any of the urgent questions asked by frustrated passengers, nervous neighbors of the airport and political officials across the country.
Why didn’t the airport have sufficient backups? Did not electrical usefulness planned the possibility of such a fire, either from a sabotage or a technical malfunction? Do the main airports usually have safety systems that can pow the entire work or rely on one major energy source?
John McDonnell, an advocate representing Hayes, an area where a fire broke out, said any investigation taken in the coming days should look at “Why security arrangements failed.”
“There are lessons that have to be learned here,” he told reporters on Friday afternoon.
By early afternoon on Friday, the British national network said the North Hyde Network Network, where a fire occurred, was re -configured to restore power to the airport and neighborhood, calling it a “temporary solution” as the repairs pass. National network officials have not responded to the E -State that requires an incident information.
This announcement twitched the path to the partial opening of the airport, where the first flights began to land until the evening.
“We will now cooperate with the airlines on the return of passengers who have been diverted to other airports in Europe,” the airport officials said in a statement. “We hope to start a complete surgery tomorrow.”
But even while Heathrow tries to return to normal surgery, there is a sense of uncertainty.
Ed Miliband, a British Energy Secretary, said in an interview early on Friday with Sky News that the fire in the electric substation, which was mutilated by the Heathrow Airport, also took out at least one of the main safety systems designed to continue.
“There was a security generator, but it was also hit by fire, which gives the feeling how unusual, unprecedented,” said Mr. Miliband.
Transformers convert electricity from one voltage to another, and are often filled with oil that acts as an insulator and refrigerant. The types of oil used can withstand high temperatures, but they can be lit if they become hot enough.
In the case of a transformer near Heathrow, experts said he would turn 275,000 volts into 66,000 volts when he obviously failed. Jonathan Smith, Deputy Commissioner for the London Fire Brigade, said the flames included “a transformer containing 25,000 liters of cooling oil that was fully set on fire” in the substation.
The failure of at least one safety system to quickly restore power after such a major break will probably be at the center of a question about the reliability of British infrastructure after closing the fire and the airport.
The British National Infrastructure Commission, which provides the Government on the main infrastructure, said the fire emphasized the need for better willingness for shocks, and operators to install resistance to their systems and conduct regular stress tests.
“It is clear to us that UK needs national resistance standards for our transport, digital, energy and water infrastructure,” Commission chairman John Armitt said in a statement. “They will give clarity to operators and users about the level of service they should expect despite short -term and long -term disorders and ensure that regulators have a clear measure against which they can provide enough investment in resistance.”
In the post on social media, Willie Walsh, CEO of the International Air Transport Association, the Global Trade Association of Air Force Companies, wrote: “What is it that critical infrastructure – from national and global importance – depends completely on one energy source without an alternative.”
“If this is the case – as it seems,” he added, “then it is a clear failure in the airport planning.”
In a statement, Heathrow Airport said the facility had “multiple energy sources”, but that there was no spare copy that would provide enough power to manage the entire airport, which he said was “using as much energy as a small town.”
The statement states that spare diesel generators and continuous power inserted what would allow planes to land and passengers to disembark. But they would not be enough to allow the airport to fully operate.
Simon Gallagher, former higher executive director of the biggest Energy supplier, said he believed the substation near Heathrow is designed so that if the first transformer has a problem, the second could quickly start. “Basically, we designed things so that something can succeed,” and the system can still continue to work, he said.
But, he said, many things had to go wrong, seemingly allowing fire to escape through preventative systems and damage both transformers.
This is very unusual, said Mr. Gallagher, who is now general director at the UK Networks Services, who advises clients about the resistance of their electricity networks.
Mr. Gallagher said that the emergency generator systems mentioned in Heathrow statement were designed to maintain the lights of the runway and control systems of the tower, even during an incident like the one that took place on Friday.
But he said it would be impossible to continue landing planes, forbidding urgent, because there would be no electricity to move the luggage, turn on the terminals, manage the door and more. According to him, all this would take at least 20 massive diesel generators, 40 feet in size to ship shipping shipping, each of which could create a megavat strength.
Heathrow does not have such a system, which would be able to retain strength to the whole airport that flows for about six hours before it is necessary to fill the fuel, he said. But he added that other main buyers of electricity, such as data centers, installed large security generators to ensure power supply in case of emergency.
“I think things will change,” Mr. Gallagher said. “I think Heathrow and other airports will install a security generation.”
