Sustainability in Engineering

Is Climate Change Real?

Is climate change real? There are a number of sound arguments for and against the concept of climate change resulting from global warming. I, for one, have been a bit of a skeptic, but if you’ve read any of my earlier blog postings, you’ve heard me say, “Regardless, we know we can do better.”

That said, I recently reflected on the year that just passed in my home state of Vermont. In May, my hometown of Montpelier suffered some of the worst flooding that we’ve seen in years. The flooding rivaled the worst flooding we would see in the early spring when the ice melt would cause ice jams restricting flow and causing flooding. What happened in May? Early in the evening one night, a thunderstorm came through. Not unusual except for the fact that it kept going for 6-8 hours. The rain was steady and hard, accompanied by loud claps of thunder and lightning for a full 6-8 hours. While we do get steady rains, it is very unusual to have a thunderstorm last for more than 20-30 minutes.

If you’ve followed Hurricane Irene, you’re aware that much of Vermont was devastated as the tropical storm dropped 6”-12” of rain sporadically throughout the state. The flooding wreaked havoc on many communities, and several people lost their lives. This was the worst state-wide flooding since the 1927.

Now in the middle of January, we’ve finally got a cold snap and some snow. Ski resorts have had some success making snow to keep open, but temperatures have hovered above freezing through most of December, and what little snow that fell was followed with rain, washing all the snow away. Last year was the snowiest on record. We had substantial snow cover all winter long. 2011 was also the wettest on record. Now as we turn the corner to 2012, I wonder where all the snow went. Is there something to this global warming and climate change? I don’t know for sure, but I’m really beginning to wonder.

Fracking, Coal Tar Sands, and Wind

The debate concerning the environmental impacts of “fracking,” the process of injecting water under pressure to release natural gas buried underground is making all the headlines lately. There are significant questions concerning environmental impacts of this practice that should be taken into account on a case-by-case basis, as the issues and risks at one site may be quite different than another. (Read the Anthony Ingraffea, P.E., article in PE magazine.)

The proposed Keystone pipeline from Canada to Texas to transfer coal tar sands for refining has also been front page news, the cause for protests outside the White House and partisan debate in Congress.

In both cases the concerns raised by the environmental community are legitimate, but what is lacking is any effort to weigh risks against rewards. In both arguments it seems like an “either or” argument.

In Vermont, the same could be said for citing wind turbines on our ridgelines. Everyone supports renewable energy, but many argue that the environmental damage created to construct roadways and power lines to these remote locations isn’t worth the energy generated.

What’s missing in each of these deliberations is a logical and impartial risk assessment weighed against the benefits. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The engineering community, with the knowledge, training, and innate ability to weigh risks against benefits, needs to get involved in each of these debates to be the “voice of reason.”

Name an energy efficiency initiative that doesn’t have an environmental impact. As long as we allow the debate to be dumbed down, where no environmental impact is acceptable, we won’t advance real solutions to improve the quality of our lives including the environment we live in.

P.E. = Political Engineer?

The engineers in my office often joke that the designation “PE” also stands for political engineer, as most of our clients are municipalities and we frequently need to navigate the sometimes unpredictable whims of elected and appointed officials. I bet that every PE can relate to this sentiment in some fashion in his/her own work experience, regardless of who the client is. Those of us who’ve been in the business for some time have become rather adroit at navigating these sometimes rough waters. This begs the question, “Why don’t more engineers seek public office?”

Watching what appears to be the failure of Congress’ “Super Committee” to answer the charge of finding significant deficit reductions prior to a Thanksgiving Day deadline, I can’t help believing that a few engineers on the committee would have delivered a compromise solution to meet the stated goal, instead of enabling automatic cuts to programs, because Congress is unwilling (or unable) to make the tough choices.

Theodore Roosevelt said, “The best thing you can do is the right thing. The second best thing you can do is the wrong thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing.” As America is faced with a struggling economy, high unemployment, and a serious dissatisfaction with Washington politics, now is the time for us to raise our voices and demand common sense approaches to bring our country back from the brink. PEs are problem solvers by nature and training. We tend to be dispassionate and apolitical in our decision-making as well, which is probably just what is needed today to deal with the serious issues we face. I hope you join me by contacting your congressional delegation, and demanding common sense and action. This is no time for party politics. We face serious issues that require thoughtful deliberation and debate that leads to action. To do nothing is not an acceptable response.

Can Infrastructure Go Green?

An article in the October 17 issue of ENR titled “Green Infrastructure Faces Tough Time Gaining Traction” (subscription necessary) highlights some of the problems applying sustainability to infrastructure design and construction. The article outlines some of the hurdles as:

• Lack of data to demonstrate benefits against cost and performance;
• Lack of design standards and best practices;
• Lack of financial incentives; and
• Regulations that can be overly prescriptive and inflexible.

I agree that each of these “hurdles” does pose a problem to those of us in the design community who think in terms of longevity and serviceability, but not necessarily other issues surrounding sustainability. That said, I think it’s time we all step out of our comfort zones and take a harder look at green initiatives in infrastructure.

Whether you believe in global warming or not, you must agree that we can do better. The same logic should be applied to our future infrastructure investments. We know how to do better and have a responsibility to the generations that follow to do so. I hope you join me in making infrastructure green.

Vermont, Nuclear Power and State’s Rights

Entergy Corporation and the state of Vermont faced off last week in federal court over relicensing of Vermont Yankee. At issue is whether the state of Vermont has the right to deny relicensing of the 40-year-old nuclear power facility for an additional twenty years. The NRC has already granted preliminary approval for relicensure.

What makes this case more interesting is an MOU executed between Entergy and Vermont prior to Entergy purchasing the facility several years ago that granted Vermont a “right of refusal” to grant a license extension. The Vermont Senate voted overwhelmingly last session to demand that Vermont Yankee be shut down once its current license to operate expires in 2012.

Entergy has argued that Vermont has acted in bad faith by not giving Entergy fair and reasonable consideration for relicensing. They also argue that the vote to shut down the facility was made based on safety concerns, which they argue are the sole jurisdiction of the NRC.

Vermont argues that Entergy has failed in their responsibility to safely operate and maintain the facility and that Entergy failed to provide a favorable power contract that was in Vermont’s “public good,” which they feel justifies their stance.

Judge Murtha should render his decision within 4-6 weeks. This is the first salvo in what is likely to be a protracted legal fight over several years that will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court and set legal precedent for the remaining nuclear power facilities throughout the US. Stay tuned. This will get interesting.

Can We Get Serious?

I’m sure I speak for many of you when I say that I’m very disappointed with the handling of the debt ceiling issue. I’m not speaking of specific provisions in the legislation that was adopted (does anyone really know what’s in it anyway?), but how the political wrangling brought us to the brink of default.

What does this mean for us as engineers?

Regardless of political party, we deserve better from our elected federal officials in both the legislative and executive branches. We have several serious issues, and each needs to be addressed in concert and collaboration. My list of issues (in no particular order) includes:

• Meaningful deficit reduction
• Reform to control spiraling health care costs
• Developing a comprehensive energy plan
• Adequate funding for infrastructure (water, wastewater, roads, etc.)
• Measures that create new jobs to lower our unemployment ranks
• Tax reform to close loopholes and bring more balance and equity to the tax system
• Reforms to entitlement programs to assure their sustainability for the most needy

We need forward thinking on each of these issues if we are to leave our country in better shape for the generations to come, than the one we inherited. So what can we do as individuals? As professional engineers, we are uniquely equipped to address many of these concerns. Let’s get active, talking with our legislators. Give them ideas to pursue and insist on compromise for worthwhile solutions to our problems. I think it starts with us.

State’s Rights vs. National Interest

Entergy Corporation, the owner of Vermont’s only nuclear power plant (Vermont Yankee) is suing the state of Vermont over the ability to get relicensed to operate past its current license, which is set to expire in 2012. What makes the case interesting is an agreement made in an MOU between Entergy and Vermont when Entergy purchased the aging nuclear facility from several of the state’s utilities several years ago. The agreement stated in general that Entergy would honor the wishes of the state concerning any relicensing of the facility.

Governor Shumlin was elected last fall with a campaign pledge to shut down Vermont Yankee. Over the winter, the Vermont Senate voted to reject Vermont Yankee’s relicensing. Entergy is crying foul as they feel the decision was based solely on politics and that they didn’t get fair consideration. They expected to put their case for relicensing to the state’s Public Service Board, a quasi-judicial review board that deals with electric utility issues, among other things. Entergy wants their case for relicensing judged on the technical merits, not the political winds prevailing at this time.

Now enter in federal law, which grants sole jurisdiction over the oversight and licensing of nuclear power plants to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC has granted a preliminary license renewal for Vermont Yankee.

Whatever is decided in federal district court will likely get appealed by the party that doesn’t prevail. With the stakes so high for Entergy, it is likely that they would take this all the way to the Supreme Court if needed to plead their case. With the Vermont political landscape as it is today, I would expect nothing less from the state if they don’t prevail in the lower courts. Stay tuned. This should get quite interesting.

No Nukes for Germany

German’s chancellor Angela Merkel announced last week that Germany would phase out all nuclear power in their country by 2022. Eight nuclear power plants were taken off-line shortly after the Fukashima incident in Japan and reportedly will not be re-started. This leaves 11 plants to be phased out by 2022. In the short term, some of the power shift will go to fossil fuel power plants (gas and coal) while they push for much more robust solar and wind production. Can Germany reach this goal? Should they? Can we do the same?

A country the size of Germany is much better suited to manage such a task than a country as large and diverse as the U.S. Their population centers are much more compact making distribution of power much easier than the geographic constraints we face. Even for a country their size, this is still a very ambitious goal.

Should they leave nuclear power? That is another good question. Germany is a technological powerhouse and world leader. Why aren’t they instead leading on the advancement of next generation technology like they’ve done in the past in many technical areas? Is this simply a “knee-jerk reaction” to the situation in Japan or a well thought out national energy policy. Time will tell.

Can We Revisit Yucca Mountain?

In light of the Fukushima Daiichi plant catastrophe in Japan, leading nuclear experts are rethinking the safety and viability of the storage of spent nuclear fuel in cooling water pools. A recently released MIT study recommends that we rethink the entire spent-fuel management system. Conclusions drawn by these experts argue that dry cask storage is the safest and most reliable system to deal with the nuclear waste. Which begs the questions, where to put it?

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Fuel Repository has been studied exhaustively over a number of years. Leading scientists, geologists, and engineers have concluded that it is not only a viable site, but the best site yet identified for a federal storage facility. The biggest stumbling block is that it is less than 100 miles from Las Vegas, and a very effective lobbying campaign (along with Senator Harry Reid) have derailed progress. In fact President Obama has ordered the Department of Energy to shelve the project.

Living in Vermont, which has its own aging nuclear reactor, I can attest that storage of spent nuclear fuel is a very hot button issue. Nuclear reactors were “sold” to states like Vermont with the promise that there would be a national solution to the issue of storage of spent nuclear fuel. For nearly forty years, this promise has gone unfulfilled. It’s time to throw off the politics and move forward with a practical long-range plan for addressing our nuclear waste problem. It won’t go away simply because we choose to ignore it.

Japan’s Nuclear Problem

We’re all anxiously hoping that Japan can get their Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant under control and prevent continued nuclear contamination releases into the air and water. The environmental damage that has already occurred will take many years to repair (not to mention the affects of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami).

We can also learn a lot from this catastrophe about the condition of similar reactors built around the world, as well as how we can do better in the future.

While it’s still unclear what specifically caused the damage to the reactors, it appears that they survived an earthquake measured at 9.0 on the Richter scale, but didn’t survive the onslaught of the subsequent tsunami. Undoubtedly, there is structural damage due specifically to the earthquake, but could the damage have been managed without a release of nuclear contamination to the environment? We’ll never know for sure, but the answer could be yes! If this is true, it says a lot about the structural integrity of these existing plants.

Many are using the catastrophe to champion their position that no nuclear power should be allowed anywhere, but they may be missing the point. Many nuclear reactors are not sited in close proximity to the coastline, so they are not susceptible to tsunami damage. Earthquake damage is a concern that is factored into every design. Newer reactor models provide significantly more safeguards.

A new Westinghouse Model AP1000 nuclear plant being constructed in Sanmen, China, is reported to be 100 times safer than this “old” technology. Advancements in the design of pebble bed reactor technology also shows great promise for improved safety of nuclear plants.

The catastrophe in Japan should cause each of us to contemplate and consider the safety of nuclear power. However, to simply decide that no nuclear power is good would be both short-sighted and doesn’t grasp all that the disaster in Japan is trying to tell us.

Read NSPE's position statement on nuclear electric power.

Don’t Play Politics with SRF Funding

As the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives spars with President Obama over needed budget cuts, it appears that funding of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program is a pawn in the chess game. The House Republicans have proposed drastic cuts to the federal budget, including the EPA.

Continued and increased funding for the SRF program is targeted for cuts. As I’ve stated in previous blog articles (here and here), a sustained and increased investment in our water and wastewater infrastructure is critical for economic growth and public health and welfare. The SRF program is the primary federal funding mechanism to support this.

It is critical that SRF funding be sustained and increased to both continue to spur our economic recovery and ensure that one of our greatest public investments (our water and wastewater infrastructure) doesn’t crumble around us. I hope you join me in calling on Congress and President Obama to support sustained and increased funding to this vital program.

Infrastructure You Can’t See

When we talk about funding infrastructure, why is it that roads, bridges, and airports get the attention? Probably because we all see them every day and a failure is catastrophic (always making today’s news). Our public investment in water and wastewater infrastructure is one of our largest national investments in terms of dollars spent. Yet, we’re letting it deteriorate below our feet. Do we ignore it because we can’t see it?

ASCE’s 2009 ranking of both our public water and wastewater systems was a D-. They estimate that we lose 7 billion gallons of water each day from leaking water pipes. ASCE estimates that we send billions of gallons of untreated wastewater into water bodies every year. If this isn’t a catastrophe, what is?

Many systems were built in the 1960s and ’70s using primarily federal funds as our federal government recognized that you don’t have growth if you can’t meet water and wastewater needs. Many of these systems are now 50+ years old and in need of repair or replacement, not to mention upgrades to meet current and near-term demand for growth. Just because we don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not a problem! I hope you join me in calling for significant funding increases for water and wastewater infrastructure, along with a strategic national plan for near-term and long-term investment in this most critical public investment.

Infrastructure Investment: An Investment In Our Future

As we dust ourselves off from the shellacking that most of us took in 2010 and look forward (with hope?) to 2011 and beyond, it is obvious to me that the U.S. is at a significant crossroads. While many economists predict modest growth of 3% this year, they also predict that unemployment will hover around 10%. What can we do to turn this around? Make a strategic and substantial commitment to investment in public infrastructure.

I’m not talking about paving roads and repairing bridges (which must still be done). I’m talking about a strategic look at our electrical transmission system and how we can develop a smart grid system. We also need to take a strategic look at both water and wastewater infrastructure. Clean drinking water will likely be the most precious natural resource around the world in the decades to come. It’s time to shore up our crumbling infrastructure and optimize both water and wastewater treatment to eliminate wasting this precious resource.

The U.S. once led the world in the quality of our infrastructure, but we’re rapidly taking a back seat to other countries that are much more progressive and proactive in their approach to their own energy and water future. A strategic commitment to improvement must become a national priority and a rallying cry for Americans, much like the race to the moon was in the 1960s.

With our country’s deficit spiraling out of control and deficit hawks calling for substantial budget cuts to stem the tide, how can we do all this? We do it by acting strategically, spending our resources wisely and leveraging private sector investment. Such an initiative creates multitudes of new good paying jobs, which in turn reduces unemployment and increases tax revenues to help reduce the deficit. And when we’re done, we’ve taken steps that our children and grandchildren will benefit from.

More Funding for Energy Research?

Are we spending enough on research on new energy technology? A growing number of energy experts say no! That said, the new Republican majority in the House pledges to reduce federal spending across the board, which suggests that “new” money for energy research isn’t likely in the near term. So what do we do?

Some have called for a strategic review of national energy policy, which is a good start. Such a review should measure where we are competitively with other industrialized countries for strategic investment in energy research and development. It should also take a hard look at current federal energy subsidies to determine which remain effective and which should be halted to put limited financial resources where they would do the most good.

It’s easy to simply throw your arms up and say “What can we do? The economy is weak? Where will the money come from?” The federal government and congress must do what we have all had to do at home: take a hard look at our expenses, cut the waste and spend what money we have on the things we really need. Simply ignoring the problem isn’t the answer for our long-term energy future. Too much is at stake.

Our Precious Water Resources

When we think of efficiency and conservation, most of us immediately think of our electric use and how many miles we can go on a gallon of gas, but how many of us think about our water consumption? I am a water resources engineer, so my hand goes up, but most people don’t. And I’m not talking just about how much water we consume on a given day, but also about the amount of water wasted every day simply trying to get it to us.

Our deteriorating infrastructure is in the news lately, but there is little talk of our water and wastewater infrastructure. Roads, bridges, airports and our electrical grid tend to take center stage. While each of these are important to our public safety and wellbeing, our water and wastewater infrastructure are at least as vitally important to our public health and sound environmental stewardship. I would also argue that our water and wastewater infrastructure is in much more dire shape than these other public investments.

In many parts of the world (and even in some corners of the U.S.), water is considered a very scarce and valuable resource. Given this fact, why don’t we invest more in upgrading deteriorated distribution systems, more efficient water and wastewater treatment systems, water reclamation and recycling systems?

On September 6, the Obama administration proposed allocating $50 billion to infrastructure projects. This is a good start, especially if the money is earmarked for water and wastewater infrastructure. It’s time for the engineering community to start speaking up about the desperate needs of our water and wastewater systems.