"Growth of Opportunity" - the future of the US power industry

This article in the October 2010 issue of Mechanical Engineering Magazine discusses the inevitable overhaul of the US power industry and its workforce.  Tens of thousands of new engineers are expected to be hired by 2030, but no one has been willing to predict when jobs will begin to open up or where the financial support will come from.

Electric Utilities expect about $500 billion in projects to be invested through 2030 to repair the crumbling infrastructure and accommodate the steadily increasing demand for electricity, but where the capital will come from is anyone's guess in this economy.  According to the Center for Energy Workforce Development, 45% of engineering jobs in the US power industry could become vacant by 2013 due to the aged workforce.  A vast percentage of the workforce are "Baby Boom" engineers who will be retiring soon. 

With the development of post WII technologies, the power industry exploded throughout the 50's, 60's, and 70's.  However, the deregulation of the industry in the 80's resulted in lower prices, and lower revenues.  Countless jobs were done away with as a result of the mergers, downsizing, and hiring freezes that ensued.

The result is an industry where the average worker is 48 years old, 5 years more than the average US worker.

The future need for Mechanical and Electrical Engineers is obvious, but the ones that retire will not be replaced one-to-one with new hires; staffing will be reduced.  With the evolving industry, most companies can reduce cost by outsourcing engineering and construction projects. 

However, the demand for electricity continues, and running power plants is literally a 24/7-365 job.  Everyday tasks for Mechanical Engineers "revolve around keeping power plants running for 40 to 60 years."

The article also points out ME's serve in traditional engineering roles, project managers, operations and maintenance managers, and plant managers.  In fact, the majority of managers in the utility industry are ME's.

I think this demonstrates the flexibility and breadth a Mechanical Engineering degree.  While most other fields are specialized to particular tasks, ME's study mechanics, kinematics, thermodynamics, materials sciences, structural analysis, and fluid dynamics.

I am well aware of the future opportunities in the power industry after working with Duke Energy.  The average age at Duke I believe is 50 years old!!!  They even offered a voluntary retirement package to condense workloads.  Young engineers will have unprecedented opportunities to take on leadership roles in the industry.

One major concern that folks at Duke and across the industry have expressed is the knowledge and experience that will be walking out the door in the coming years.  Because of the huge gap in age (you're either 50+ or 25 in the power industry it seems), there hasn't been enough time for the youngsters to learn what they need to know from the old guys.  Every plant has little nuances and tendencies; the same piece of equipment has different problems in different plants.  The things you can't learn in school, I have seen, are just as important if not more so for being a successful plant engineer.

I think it's crucial for the future reliability of the power industry to start hiring new engineers.  The knowledge of the older guys needs to be passed down before it's too late.

The government has simply made it too damn hard to raise capital for new coal or nuclear plants, and with the current recession, no one is being hired.  That's a whole other animal I won't get in to now, but some major policy changes on emissions and nuclear plants need to made, have to be made, for all of us to continue getting the reliable electricity we take for granted.

The Unwritten Laws of Engineering

The article cited for this blog post is titled The Unwritten Laws of Engineering from the October 2010 issue of the Mechanical Engineering Magazine of ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers).

W.J. King, author of The Unwritten Laws of Engineering, “observed that the chief obstacles to the success of engineers are of a personal and administrative rather than a technical nature.  King was an engineer with General Electric and later became a UCLA professor.  He admitted that his troubles in the engineering profession were not with the quality of his design work or his engineering expertise, but with the unwritten rules of professional conduct.

However menial and trivial your early assignments may appear, give them your best efforts.

The effort and enthusiasm put forth to accomplish even simple tasks will not go overlooked by superiors.  I know from firsthand experience how important that is.  While I was on a Co-op assignment with Duke Energy from January-August of this year, the vast majority of things assigned to me could have been handled by a 5^th grader, such as making copies, proofreading documents, etc, all of which had nothing to do with engineering competence.  However, I performed these tasks without complaint.  I actively sought out legitimate engineering projects and offered help on anything.  My superiors appreciated my enthusiasm, and slowly but surely, gave me more technically challenging tasks that I enjoyed doing.

Demonstrate the ability to get things done

Expressing initiative, resourcefulness, and persistence in all dealings will earn respect of colleagues.  Expressing the energy to start a project, keep it going, troubleshoot obstacles along the way will get you far.  Productivity is vital.

Develop a “Let’s go see!” attitude

King makes the point that an engineer can’t expect to be a successful problem solver in the real world by just sitting at a desk and stewing over drawings or reports to hypothesize a solution.  A real passion for going out in the field and visually assessing the problem is paramount.  

I can definitely relate to that.  My mentor at Duke would periodically come to my desk with projects he wanted me to be involved with.  Being totally new to the whole power plant thing, I typically was lost in the terminology and drawings.  However, once we got out in the field and took a look around, things fell into place.  It seems obvious that firsthand visual inspection is key to understanding the problem, but you would be surprised at how many engineers would sit at their desks all day.  I could never do that.

Strive for conciseness and clarity in oral or written reports; be extremely careful of the accuracy of your statements.

I can attest to the values of conciseness.  Nothing is more obnoxious or counter productive than listening to someone in a meeting ramble for 20 minutes about something that could have been said with 20 words.  The first step in a report or answer to a question is to “state the essence of the matter as succinctly as possible.”

King also expresses that if you do not know the answer to a question, do not try to guess out of a fear of looking incompetent.  A wrong answer is exponentially worse than no answer on major engineering projects.

According to Trevor Young, author of Technical Writing A-Z: A Commonsense Guide to Engineering Reports and Theses, good engineering requires good communication.  Communicating in a concise, accurate, and complete manner is a large part of being a good engineer.  Also, a good engineer should be able to express the relative importance of ideas in a report.

One of my personal rules in writing reports is never to assume someone knows what I’m thinking, and don’t leave anything open for interpretation.  An engineering project is an exact, precise undertaking.  Using formal language in an objective manner is key to conveying exactly what is intended.

One of the first things you owe your supervisor is to keep him or her informed of all significant developments.

Many young engineers hesitate to bother bosses with what they think are minor details, but it is their job to know what is going on at all times.  I got a taste of that at Duke.  Virtually every time I was in email contact with someone concerning a project, my boss asked me to copy him on the email, not matter how trivial the discussions.  Also, King notes that young engineers can’t be afraid to be the bearers of bad news.

Be as particular as you can in the selection of your supervisor

King expresses the importance of having a properly selected senior engineer as a mentor to guide a young engineer’s development.  I know how important that is.  A degree gives you basic tools to think through engineering problems, but does not prepare you for the obstacles you’ll encounter working with a company.  How to handle contractors, vendors, incompetent employees, basic project tasks, and all other things unrelated to the laws of physics is a learned set of skills.  Most will learn by imitation, thus you don’t want to get stuck with someone who is not well respected or incompetent.  I was fortunate in having a great mentor and very well respected throughout the company, but a different stroke of luck could have resigned me to someone much less competent, running the risk of acquiring some bad habits.

Genre as a way to understand history

In “Genre as Social Action,” Miller argues that “a rhetorically sound definition of genre must be centered not on the substance or the form of discourse but on the action it is used to accomplish” (152).  These rhetorical actions are inherently a function of the rhetorical situation.  Furthermore, similar situations recur through time, prompting similar action.  

Before continuing, I think it’s important to note that Miller is not merely attempting to propose what constitutes genre, but something much deeper.  The understanding of genre as typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations provides insight into the character of a culture, past or present.  

Here’s why.  

Examining recurrence is at the heart of understanding history.  However, what recurs is not the material situation.  The exact people, places, or objects in a situation are unique and isolated by time; they cannot recur.  Nor can a perception of a situation recur.  All people perceive things differently.

Situations are not independent of human interference.  According to Miller, “Before we can act, we must interpret the indeterminate material environment; we define, or “determine”, a situation” (156).  We give meaning to physical stimuli.  The meaning results in action. 

Situations are simply “social constructs” built using past experiences, or ‘types’, to define a situation.  Thus, “we create recurrence, analogies, similarities.  What recurs is not a material situation but our construal of a type” (Miller 157).  

This is in stark contrast to Bitzer’s materialist view of recurrence.  I think Bitzer thought of recurrence as something whose path cannot be altered or influenced by humans, only responded to.  Miller is saying that every situation ever encountered by humans (history) arose exactly as function of human interpretation. 

Situations, I guess, are subconscious self-fulfilling prophecies.  If we determine situation, then exigence “must be seen as social motive.”  Thus to classify a rhetorical work on the basis of its recurrent situation is to classify the work on the basis of social motive, and subsequent social action.  Understanding these attributes clearly delves into psyche of time period the work was created and aids in understanding why history formed the way it did.

Wikipedia: an incredible tool that requires incredible responsibility

The debate between Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, and Andrew Keen, also an entrepreneur, was full of rhetorical discussion.  Wales essentially believes that everyone should have access to the knowledge of the world, while Keen feels the use of 'free' knowledge "undermines the value of intellectual labor."

The core conflict in the debate resides in the fundamental premises and philosophies of each man.  According to Wikipedia (haha), Wale's life is based on the philosophy of Objectivism first proposed by writer Ayn Rand.  This states that the individual is paramount, and that individual rights should never be sacrificed for the "greatest good".  Reward should never be based on need, but rather the value one produces.

According to the Objectivist, things like welfare destroy the rights of the individual.  When the value produced by the labor of a man is handed over to someone who 'needs' it more, then the livelihood of the honest man based on independence, integrity, and pride is squandered away.  When honest labor is not rewarded with equal value, where is the incentive for man to aspire to create?

These ideals are pretty extreme, but do have value and should be noted.  I do not think, however, that the creation of Wikipedia is going to stop intelligent people from going to college, getting their phd's, and leading productive lives.  Keen seems to think so, but he only sees in black and white.

I only bring this up because despite the apparent divide between Wales and Keen throughout the debate, I think they have a lot in common.

According to Keen, Wikipedia undermines the value of intellectual labor, and he has a problem with contributors not being paid.  He says "it's not enough to be rewarded in virtue."  This clearly parallels the Objectivism philosophy.

Wales is an optimist, Keen a pessimist.  Wales believes every man has the right to use the knowledge of the world to shape their lives for the better.  Keen thinks the common man will abuse this access to a vast store of knowledge.

I agree with them both here.  Keen is an extremely intelligent man, and I agree with many of his points, but he is one stubborn ass.  I do think everyone should have access to human knowledge; we're all in this life together, but with great power comes great responsibility.

That is where I agree with Keen.  He, and I, fear that people who lack the skepticism that comes with a good education are unable to comprehend the importance of information or determine what may need further verification.  Wikipedia is a great first step in research, but we know it should never be the final step.  An uneducated or lazy person may not know that.

Both men made valid points supported by valid logic, so who is right?  I think neither is completely right or completely wrong.  I think this whole debate is part of a much larger question. 

Do you trust in the nature of people to use the unprecedented database that is Wikipedia, or the power of the Internet in general, in the right way and for the right reasons?  Can we have access to virtually unlimited knowledge and still view the intellectual labor and creativity of man with the utmost importance?

He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it feels

This is a compilation of exploits from The Most Interesting Man in the World.

I'm sure you all have seen these commercials, but I think it's a great example of rhetoric. The creators knew exactly who their audience was and created a following for their beer. What guy doesn't want to be "The Most Interesting Man in the World"?

In my opinion, Dos Equis is a good enough beer to sell itself, but they took it to a whole new level. By drinking their beer, you are making a statement about the kind of man you are: you're the guy who goes for it. You're not afraid to risk it all. You don't settle for mediocre. "Sharks have a week dedicated to you."

I won't lie; the first time I saw these commercials I had a Dos Equis with my dinner downtown. These people have turned the simple act of drinking a beer into an art of living. In a society where individual achievement is paramount, the creators of these commercials have made it as easy as reaching for a Dos Equis. Long story short: great commercial and a great beer.

Cheers

Science and Rhetoric

I like to think that the human faculties of reason reveal the universe exactly how it is, but that is impossible.  We have a limited range of physical stimuli that we can sense, and even that information is filtered by the brain.  However, those clever scientists out there still do their best achieve the closest approximation to the true truth.

Scientists propose theories based on presupposed facts and assumptions.  If facts existed independently of human interference, there would be no need to deliberate the subject.  We know that is not the case.  Most theories take years from their inception to be agreed upon by the scientific community as "fact", and much longer for the general public who is not as affluent. Some longtime theories accepted as fact are later overturned when new 'facts' are introduced, i.e. a geocentric model of the solar system.  Some theories regarded as bogus later become accepted as fact, i.e. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. People must be convinced of the idea.

In the perfect world, reality would be fixed, and there would be nothing we could do to modify or change it.  While there is a true reality, we can only approximate it with our limited knowledge.  All we know of reality is an interpretation of the external world constructed by the mind.  Thus, whatever we know of reality, according to Miller, "is created by individual action and by communal assent."  A mutual agreement is necessary to validate a truth or fact.  If ideas accepted as fact can be other than they are, rhetoric, by definition, is an integral part of science.

I experience this on a weekly basis.  Exhibit A:  Lap Reports.  There is not much I dread more than writing a lab report.  I spend more time writing damn lab reports than anything else, but still get worse grades than even on tests.  I have to convince the grader that I performed the experiment properly, and prove that the experimental results match the theory.  The raw data means nothing until I put words to it and give it meaning, or what I think is a meaning.  The grader tends to think otherwise.  The point is, if you can't explain a scientific idea, then it means nothing.  An audience (the grader) must be convinced.

Mutually Exclusive

I'm going to riff off a passage I identified with from the Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked this time.  The passage reads:

Another weakness in research done by those who envision audence as address suggests an oversimplified view of language.  As Paul Kameen observes in "Rewording the Rhetoric of Composition," "discourse is not grounded in forms or experience or audience; it engages all of these elements simultaneously."  Ann Berthoff has persistently criticized our obsession with one or another of the elements of discourse, insisting that meaning arises out of their synthesis.... Without such a unifying, balanced understanding of language use, it is easy to overemphasize one aspect of discourse, such as audience.  It is also easy to forget, as Anthony Petrosky cautions us, that "reading, responding, and composing are aspects of understanding, and theories that attempt to account for them outside of their interaction with each other run the serious risk of building reductive models of human understanding."

Before I got to this part of article, something about it was eating at me and I didn't know why.  This passage revealed it to me.  An attempt was being made to dissect a natural, flowing process into various categories to be treated as separate entities.  Once these proposed parts of a whole are given a name and singular purpose, they lose a connection with each other.  When the connection is lost, the sum of parts is no longer the whole, but a crapshoot of ideas all screaming to be heard.  They lost the coherent unity that allowed for a much deeper understanding of the process. 

It is mutually exclusive to divide the act of writing or discourse into components of varying function and importance.  They cannot stand alone and still have meaning; they must overlap to give meaning to each other where thought can flow freely among them.  This principle can be applied to virtually any subject.

From my engineering point of view, it would be like trying to gain a deep, unified understanding of thermodynamics by memorizing how to work certain problems with certain equations.  Sure, I can blindly replicate the procedure, but give me a problem that pulls from multiple principles and I will get nowhere.  My mind sees them as separate entities unrelated to each other.  A fundamental grasp on the relationship between energy and matter is needed to unify those various principles into a coherent network that can be applied to solve any problem.