EPA Has Gone Too Far

The recent EPA ruling that limits the emissions of coal fire power plants has crossed the line.  When a regulation on an industry gets to be so cumbersome that you can no longer build the facilities, the regulations have gone too far.  I recently read in ENR that the technology is not yet available to have the emissions meet the new standards.  Not only does this hurt the power industry, it will impact lots of people in other sectors.  These include the miners, the railroads, the Engineers that design the coal fired power plants and the construction workers that chase the work all over the country. And I’m sure you can think of even more places the effects will be felt.

I know that hardship spurs innovation, but innovation also takes time.  The EPA is looking to start implementation of the regulation starting in the fall of 2014. In a year’s time it is near impossible to design, prototype, and gain approvals for this new technology. So what are we to do?

Nuclear Power

I am in favor of nuclear power.  The lifespan, power generation, and emissions are far better than coal or natural gas.  Reliability and the consistency of the power are better than solar or wind.  I do, however, get really squeamish with nuclear when I read about all the mishaps and problems at the Hanford complex.  The latest that I read about was in the September 10^th issue of ENR.

All of the mishandling of the radioactive material, during the 40 years of operation, has created a large problem that has only gotten bigger.  I think that the Hanford site is a great poster child for what not to do.  The original cost for the current project was $4 billion and now projected to be $12.2 billion with an ever moving completion date.  Now the U.S. Energy Department is trying to get Bechtel National Inc. removed because Bechtel is doing a poor job managing the engineering. This will only add more money and more time to the project.

Oh by the way… My family has a long history with Hanford – my great-grandfather & both of my grandfather’s helped build Hanford Nuclear Power in the 1950’s. My uncles and a lot of extended family worked at the plant as well as my dad, Don Short, who learned estimating while working there in the 1970’s!

Can the US handle it?

Nearly half of the population of India was without power in the end of July and first part of August.  That has many people myself included thinking, what would happen if the United States had a power outage like India did?  That would mean 150 million people would be without power, business would grind to a halt.  Essentially the entire country would shut down and those not prepared would be in trouble.

You may think that a power outage on this scale would not happen in the United States, but the fact that the energy section of our country’s infrastructure received a D+ is not a good thing.  While spending in this sector is helping our power grid there is only so much that can be done a year.  It will take more time and more money to make sure that we have reliable power.

Oh by the way… In the past three years I have seen many substation and transmission projects come across my desk at Tempest Company.  These will help and put a patch on the system, but innovation is going to be a key part of how the United States will keep a major disaster from happening to our power infrastructure.  Creating smarter grids, and a diversity in power generation is just a small step to bringing up the grade for our energy infrastructure.

Construction – Are Things Picking Up, If So Why?

I have seen a slight increase in our business. This is a slight increase and it is limited in scope.  My company provides estimating and scheduling services to contractors and owners.  It is not just in one market segment and it is through out the Untied States.  I am treating this increase as a blip in the still downward movement of the construction industry’s project count and dollar volume.

I am treating it like a blip for a couple of reasons.  Blips are a normal occurrence for downward trends, just like dips are on an upward trend.  As far as I am concerned, this has not been a double dip recession, just a slide with blips.  I am still wary that the bottom has not been hit and will not be hit until months from now.  For what it’s worth I am looking to late 2011 for signs of sustaining improvement.  I hope this is wrong and it is sooner.

The limited increase for us is with companies that have postponed projects for so long they cannot be postponed any longer.  I would categorize this as generally being in the power and industrial areas of our economy.  These projects may not be available to contractors for months.

Some of our work is obtaining new clients, not an increase in the construction business volume.  Contractor work loads have not picked up to any significant degree.  While I always appreciate new clients, there are some that no longer have the capacity for estimating or scheduling with their staff.  Staffing for the peaks in our business has not been practical for years.  Staffing for the valleys is not always appropriate but more of the norm in this day and age.

My thoughts are the uncertainty of legislation coming from Washington DC is causing our economy to wither.  Companies are making money but not spending it on capital projects.  They appear to be hoarding their cash due to this uncertainty.

What are your thoughts?

The Coming Construction Boom!

Electric cars and trucks are the signature of the green movement.  They will be the savior of the construction industry!  These dandy vehicles are the culmination in the transformation from gasoline only to hybrid gas/electric to full electric transportation.  No more noxious fumes from exhaust pipes!  These vehicles will fulfill all of our transportation needs – until they need to be recharged.  And this is the salvation of the construction industry!

It was recently reported in the Wall Street Journal that the electric cars being tested are not meeting the EPA generated mileage statements (go figure that one!).  The actual miles being driven before a recharge are about one-third less that stated by the EPA.  In the tests the electric cars were supposed to go 156 miles before needing a recharge.  They only went 100 miles in the “real world” driving conditions.  Some reports indicate that at highway speeds the range of the electric car is only 60 to 70 miles.  Even without this reduction can you imagine the need for the infrastructure to support our new found green?

Imagine just one part of our interstate highway system.  Interstate 80, from New York to San Francisco, via Omaha of course, is about 2,900 miles.  There would need to be a minimum of 290 recharging stations on this highway. There will be more than this but that is another discussion.

These recharging stations could not be like our modern rest stops with short term parking for cars and trucks and, which by the way, are being closed due to budget constraints.   These rest stops will need to become miniature cities.  Why?  It is because of the recharging needs and the recharge rates on the electric cars.

The electric power required to recharge the cars will require new power plants.  If they are to be green they should be nuclear.  The new power plants will require a distribution system.  This means there will be new transmission lines, substations and recharging stations.  These facilities will be a boon to power companies, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers.

The recharging stations must be sized to accommodate the demand from car and truck traffic.  In high traffic areas it is not uncommon to have 10,000+ vehicles per hour.  In lower traffic areas of this highway 2,000 vehicles per hour would be more reasonable.

If the vehicles use battery packs that can be swapped out, there must be a high number of work bays for cars, trucks and the other vehicles that use the interstate system just to keep the waiting time to a minimum. If a battery swap takes 15 minutes per vehicle then one bay can only accommodate 4 per hour.  On the low traffic portions of the interstate this means there must be 500 bays for the minimal turn around time.  If a recharge takes 60 minutes per vehicle there will be more than 2,000 bays or recharging stations.  Imagine how many will be required on the high traffic areas!

These counts are for each of the 290 recharging stations on the 2,900 miles from New York to San Francisco, not the entire interstate system of 46,900 miles.  This will require a large number of employees, tooling and buildings for all weather operations. It is likely this will not be a self service operation because of the electrical shock hazard.  This will benefit the unemployed and firms that will specialize in providing these services.  As a bare minimum the economy will need more vocational and technical schools to train the large number of people required just for battery changing or charging at each station.  This will require more instructors too. Just this part of the interstate system would create 435,000 battery changing/charging jobs (290 stations x 500 bays x 1 person per bay x 3 shifts = 435,000).  Think about their support staff too! It could easily be double to triple this number for the total staff at each recharging station.  This is a win, win for educational institutions and the entire construction supply chain.

There will be a need for infrastructure development and maintenance of each site.  There will be new buildings constructed employee and traveler housing and relaxation.  There must be storage and disposal facilities constructed for new and old batteries.  The smaller recharging stations could easily require 300 to 500 acres of land just to handle the traffic flows. This will keep attorneys busy for years in eminent domain proceedings!  Home builders can benefit with all of the new housing required in close proximity to each recharging station.  This will benefit several segments of the construction industry for the balance of the facilities.

So far this only takes into account the service side of being green.  What about the user side?  Take a typical family of four on the trip from New York to California.  Every 100 miles they get to stop, rest, and get refreshed.  No more long hours between gas stations with fidgeting kids needing to use the bathroom.  They can now stop once an hour with a guaranteed stop time of 15 to 60 minutes, not the 10 minutes every 3 to 4 hours with a gas or diesel engine.

While the vehicle is being serviced the family is not likely to be staying in it, just for safety reasons alone.  In the summer it would be too hot and the winter too cold.  No more eating of fast food in the car as they drive along.  They can relax at the roadside recharging stations restaurant or have a picnic!  They can play the license plate game at every station as vehicles are being recharged.  Stress levels will go down.  Trips will no longer be a marathon to get across the country in 4 or 5 days.  It will be a leisurely 10 to 12 day jaunt.

By some accounts travel on the interstate highway system is about one-third of the travel in the USA.  Extrapolate the 2,900 miles here (6% of the system) to all of the roads and highways.  It is staggering to calculate the resources required to develop and support the electric vehicle.  Why not fuel cells?  Why not remain with hydro-carbon based power for vehicles and convert all fossil fired power plants to nuclear?

Oh, By the Way… You can make more evaluations and comparison on costs between gas and electric powered vehicles.  The information is out there.  All you have to do is look. Then you decide if you are being sold a bill of goods or not on electric powered cars and trucks.

It’s a Start But When and Will It Continue?

President Obama announced a loan guarantee of $8 billion for one new nuclear plant in the United States.  On the surface this is a great way to kick off a power renaissance in the power industry.  What this country needs is a reliable base load energy system and nuclear energy fits that bill!  However, one plant does not set a trend or make a policy that will foster these plants.

Now all we need is a reliable energy policy that is free of politics and interferences for the “renaissance” to continue.  This means the politicians and administrators involved in the process need to encourage and not hamper the development of these plants.  Once it is free of politics I believe we will see a surge of private money willing to back the building of more nuclear power plants.

Yes, ratepayers will foot the bills, but they are today for coal, oil and natural gas fired plants.  These same ratepayers, with federal and other subsidies, are paying a premium today for alternative sources such as solar and wind.  The costs to build the plants will come down as more are developed.

If the federal government is to encourage the development of nuclear power they must get off their anti-nuclear bias and develop a long term, sustainable plan that will not be revoked due to political changes.  These plans need to consider long term storage of wastes, processing of fuels and even the phasing out of the fossil fuels for power generation as the nuclear plants come on line.  Constructing more plants will benefit the construction industry and virtually all other sectors of the economy.

Oh By the Way… Think of how the cost s of home heating will go down if natural gas is phased out for power plants.  What about chemical feed stocks price declines with lower oil and natural gas consumption?  We will lose fewer raptors and desert tortoises without wind and solar farms.  It sounds like a winning program for the United States!

 

FutureGen Project – Pork Barrel Now

The Department of Energy resurrected the FutureGen project in Mattoon, Illinois.  This project is supposedly the “Flagship” of the future when it comes to generating power from coal – with reduced emissions.

The problem is this project could not survive without the government contributing substantially to the cost of the facility.  Why is this?  Could it be the project is not economically feasible without the government subsidies?  Could it be too risky to undertake with the taxpayers footing the bill? 

The fossil energy group within the Department of Energy should borrow some studies from the nuclear group.  The nuclear group can tell them they will get little to no greenhouse gases from nuclear power.  The nuclear group can tell them they will get 25% to 30% smaller power plants to output the same amount of power.  Whoops, this one sounds like snake oil being sold?  How can that be?

The smaller size is a result of the power required to capture the carbon dioxide and other gases being emitted by the coal burning process.  It is estimated that a clean coal capture plant will have to use approximately 250 to 300MW out of 1,000MW just to operate the plant emissions control and capture systems.  In a simple world, this means to get a 1,000MW real output, the plant has to generate 1,300MW, perhaps a bit more.

Now, to generate 30% more power this requires the power systems to be larger.  If the power systems are larger then the plant size needs to increase. With the plant size increased, there are more emissions to capture and process.  One third more power does mean a larger plant.

Oh, By The Way…  Gas flows underground, it does not stay in one place.  So does oil and water. This is part of why gas, oil and water wells work.  The FutureGen plant is capturing the gasses, compressing them and injecting them into the ground.  Would it bother you to drink the water with a fizz?  Would you like walking by the bubbling brooks and rivers?