Climate True-Believers vs Rational Skeptics

Subtitle: A New Series of the Ongoing Debate

This is the first of what I anticipate will be a series of articles documenting and commenting on the never-ending debate over climate change, global warming, and man's role (if any) in the entire affair.   Recently, about a week ago, I learned to my dismay that my engineering professional organization, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), had elected a new president for the Greater Houston area (STS or South Texas Section) who publicly stated that global warming is real, it is man-made, and the time for discussion is finished.   That's a paraphrase, but it captures the intent.   Needless to say, I was and am not pleased.   

Some of this blog, SLB is devoted to articles on AGW, or anthropomorphic global warming.  Those articles document my own personal journey from being a believer in what the scientists published, to digging into the data and the conclusions then realizing the entire body of evidence is tainted beyond being useful. see link  Much of the chicanery borders on fraud.  Others of the SLB articles document the many, many examples of what the false-alarmists have done under the guise of valid science, and discuss exactly what is wrong with that.  see link 

Also, from time to time, some of my colleagues have engaged alarmist chemical engineers to argue why the data is not credible and therefore neither are the alarmist conclusions.  I also have engaged a few from time to time, but this time seems different.   The attacks got personal very quickly.  I should point out that the incoming AIChE STS president was not one who made personal attacks.   

So, today I take keyboard in hand and write out a few things.   In no particular order, one thing I received was a lecture on how carbon dioxide, CO2, absorbs radiant heat energy in the infrared spectrum (IR energy or just IR), then emits that energy outward in all directions.  That was offered as if I was ignorant of that bit of physical chemistry.   Apparently, the one or ones lecturing me are unaware of a post from May, 2017 on SLB that discusses that very issue.  The post is "Chemical Engineers, CO2, and Absorptive Re-Radiation
Subtitle:  Fired Furnaces Have Strong Radiating CO2; Atmosphere Does Not."  see link  In a nutshell, chemical engineers and mechanical engineers design fired furnaces that must account for the radiant properties of not only CO2, but also water vapor.   This has been known for approximately 100 years now.   So, the question is not one of does CO2 absorb or not, but what, if any influence does such CO2 have on atmospheric temperatures.  As a noted rational scientist has stated, atmospheric warming by CO2 is trivially true but numerically insignificant. 

One can describe other aspects of physics that are also trivially true but numerically insignificant.   One is ocean acidification, where a single drop of hydrochloric acid is added to the ocean, one drop each year for 100 years.   While it is true that, in a laboratory, one can add a drop of acid to a small beaker of water, then easily measure the decrease in pH, one cannot measure the decrease in pH in the ocean.   The result is numerically insignificant. 

Less in the esoteric realm of chemistry, a more practical example.  It is true that adding weight to a vehicle will require more gasoline to move the vehicle a given distance.  The converse is also true, such that removing weight will result in less gasoline required.  But, one cannot measurably improve gas mileage by simply vacuuming up the dust particles from a small area of the floorboards.   Of course, a tiny amount of mass or weight is removed in the vacuuming process, but the result is numerically insignificant.  

Other examples come readily to hand: adding one more flake of crushed ice to a pitcher of frozen margaritas, adding a single grain of salt to a large pot of soup, etc.  In each case, the outcome is trivially true but numerically insignificant.  Thus it is with adding CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere.  

How can we know that this (numerically insignificant result) is true?  After all, the false-alarmists among the climate scientists, and now at least a few of the chemical engineers, boldly state that AGW is true and dire consequences are imminent.  

One of the many ways we know that CO2 is not warming the atmosphere is the basic tenet of physics that holds that physics is not arbitrary, not capricious, instead it works reliably and robustly every time.   This is also discussed in more than a few articles on SLB, the reader is encouraged to do a search on the word "gravity."   Many examples of physics that work reliably and robustly can be stated: combining certain colors of light will result in a known final color; mixing various colors of pigment in a paint base will yield a consistent final color; mixing certain ingredients for a cooking recipe will give a cake, not a roast duck; producing a vibration in air with a frequency of 440 cycles per second will result in a sound that we call an A note, etc.   Real physics is not arbitrary nor capricious.  

Yet, there are many examples of locations on the land where zero warming has occurred over a century or more.   As pointed out on SLB many times, how does the CO2 know which cities or towns below it are to be ignored?   Here is a list of cities in the US that had zero warming or were cooling since 1900, as shown by data from a climate research think-tank.  The cities are: Sacramento CA, Shreveport LA, Asheville NC, Charleston SC, Chattanooga TN, Nashville TN, and Abilene TX.   Meanwhile, adjacent cities show a pronounced warming, such as San Francisco CA that is only 50 miles west of Sacramento.  see link

Add caption

The arbitrary warming is not limited to cities, as we know that entire counties do not warm if the population is small, some states have not warmed, and entire regions of the US show little to zero warming.    Here is a graph from a publication by James Goodridge, former State Climatologist for California, showing the absence of warming for low-population counties but significant warming in high-population counties. 

Another argument made by the false-alarmists is the outright hubris I must have to hold my views, when 97 percent of climate scientists agree that AGW is real and man-made, and imminent disasters are certain.   That, too, was addressed in a SLB article, see "Why Claim of 97 Percent Scientists is Wrong; Subtitle:  Consensus Does Not Make Wrong Science Right,"  see link 

There are so many other issues to address, but time is precious so here ends the article for today.  It is indeed unfortunate that a few chemical engineers have blindly believed the false-alarmists in the science community.   And for the record, I am certainly not alone; indeed there are many chemical engineers who completely agree with my views.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2018 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Chemical Engineers, CO2, and Absorptive Re-Radiation

Subtitle:  Fired Furnaces Have Strong Radiating CO2; Atmosphere Does Not

A discussion on WUWT over the past few days led to the following question to me, and my answer just below.   The topic is, once again, whether the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) is real, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can and does warm the Earth's surface below.  

One commenter asked me to comment on this statement in italics below.  My reply is below that.  

"[There is ] not even a semblance of a testable hypothesis regarding the GHE, GHGs, and all the rest of the claptrap spouted by those who should (but obviously don’t) know better."

I must disagree on this one.  My knowledge squares with the statement by Professor Richard Lindzen (MIT), that GHG warming is trivially true but numerically insignificant.  

As proof of GHE, or better expressed, radiant heat absorbed and re-radiated by CO2 and water vapor, my chemical engineering colleagues and I refer to the well-known properties of luminous gases in fired heaters.  It turns out that furnace design (for industrial fired heaters that burn coal, oil, natural gas, or other such carbonaceous fuels) requires an adjustment for the combustion products' composition.  Otherwise, the furnace does not work as expected.  

The basic textbooks on chemical engineering, and heat transfer, all have a comprehensive section on this.  The key parameters are gas composition, gas pressure (and hence the CO2 and water vapor partial pressures), flame temperature, and mean beam length.  Here, beam length is the radiating distance.   That distance is not far in a furnace, typically measured in inches.   see e.g. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 8th Edition (2008) pg 5-15 et. seq.   The same material is in the same Handbook, 5th Edition (1973)  (that I used in undergrad) starting on pg 10-48 et. seq. 

The upper atmosphere where the CO2 and water vapor radiate energy back to Earth, aka TOA or top of atmosphere, has far different properties compared to a fiery furnace's interior.   It turns out that heat radiated is far less for colder temperatures, lower partial pressures, and longer beam length.  TOA is at approximately minus 50 deg C, CO2 partial pressure is very, very low at 400 ppm and (probably) one-tenth bar total pressure, and the beam length is measured in miles, not inches.   In contrast, a furnace's radiant heat section is at approximately 2600 degrees F, partial pressures are much, much higher at one atmosphere and several percent (10 to 15 percent, not ppm), and the beam length is a few inches. 

And that is why (I am certain) that Dr. Lindzen says the GHE is trivially true (we know for a fact that CO2 and water vapor can absorb and re-radiate), but numerically insignificant.  The values are so small as to be meaningless. 

The absorption and re-radiation of IR by CO2 and water vapor absolutely is true.   It's all a matter of degree. 

The chemical engineers have known this for decades.   It is why our fired furnaces work, in the countless millions, around the globe, 24/7.  And, it is also why global warming due to man's production of greenhouse gases, GHG, (primarily CO2 is blamed) is absolutely a false alarm.  

To believe that a tiny few ppm of CO2 at very cold temperatures and miles up in the atmosphere can measurably increase the Earth's average temperature requires chemical engineers to dis-believe what we know to be true about fired furnaces.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here

Climate Change................here  and here

Fresh Water......................here

Engineering......................here  and here

Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Renewable Energy Innovations in the Private Sector

Subtitle:  An Open Letter to Secretary John Kerry re Renewable Energy Innovations 

"Government can provide the structure, the incentives, the framework.  But I know – and so do you – that it’s the private sector that will ultimately take us to the finish line.  And it will be the private sector – innovation, entrepreneurial activity, maybe something we haven’t discovered yet – the breakthrough on battery storage, a breakthrough on a clean fuel burn – I don’t know what it is, but I trust in the ingenuity and the capacity of the American people and of our allocation of capital and our capacity to make this work." -- Secretary of State John Kerry, Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit, Grand Hyatt Hotel, New York City, April 5, 2016.   

Dear Secretary Kerry, 

There are already several important innovations in the private sector that meet or surpass the criteria you described at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit on April 5..  Among them are the following seven innovations:

1) the patented process to convert human waste to clean-burning synthetic methane, invented by University of California at Riverside professor Dr. Chan Park; see link

2) the patented process to convert landfill-clogging municipal solid waste to useful energy, invented by Peter A. Nick and his team of Southern California chemical engineers; see link

3) an improved method to create ethanol from cellulose through genetically modified lignin in fast-growing poplar trees, so that much more of the cellulose converts to ethanol compared to unmodified trees, discovered and published by Dr. Rebecca Van Acker, see link  

4) offshore wind energy that stores the power, until it is needed, in underwater hydroelectric hollow spheres as invented by engineers at MIT; see link

5) much larger, 50 MW wind-turbines with blades that flex and fold to prevent damage, similar to the fronds on palm trees, as published by Sandia National Laboratory, see link,  

6) the patent-pending, vastly enhanced battery that uses modified polyacetylene invented by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Alan Heeger, from University of California at Santa Barbara. see link   and 

7) renewable energy via river-mouth osmosis, in which fresh water produces hydroelectric power before passing through osmosis membranes, then mixing with ocean water, see link. 

Each of these innovations would benefit from additional investment.  

I would be pleased to provide more details on any of these, or introductions to Dr. Park, and Mr. Pete Nick. 

Sincerely, 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq., BS Chemical Engineering
Marina del Rey, California
email rsowell@resowell-law.com


UPDATE 1 - 4/11/2016:  There may be a quibble about including an innovation from Sandia National Laboratory as a private sector item, but then, two of the items of this list are from public universities, which are state-supported.   MIT is private, Pete Nick is not affiliated with government, and the river-mouth osmosis technology is decades old and patented.  

Also, almost all of these innovations are related to chemical engineering, with the large wind turbine and the underwater storage spheres not.   

All but one are sustainable, renewable, and have essentially zero adverse environmental impact.  Dr Park's process uses organic solid material in a slurry form from waste treatment plants.  With 7 billion people on the planet, plus billions more animals, there will be no shortage of feedstock for Dr. Park's process. 

Pete Nick's process uses any organic waste material, from bio-medical hazardous wastes to organic wastes that would otherwise go into a landfill.  With the millions of tons of waste thrown away each year around the planet, there will be no shortage of feedstock for Mr. Nick's process, either. 

Dr. Van Acker's modified lignin process uses fast-growing poplar trees that can and do grow on hillsides and other marginal lands, so no valuable crop-producing lands are used.   Trees are, of course, the very definition of sustainable and renewable.  

Dr. Heeger's modified polyacetylene is a petrochemical, no doubt, but actylene is a byproduct of many chemical processes, one of which is ethylene production from steam cracking of ethane.  There will be no shortage of feedstock for Dr. Heeger's battery. 

The river-mouth osmosis process has some limitations with rivers near 300-foot deep ocean areas, but those are plentiful around the world.   A river is also entirely sustainable and renewable, as long as the rain falls somewhere in the river drainage area.  

The two that use wind-power are of course, forever renewable and sustainable.  

-- end update 1

Thoughts on Graduation and Starting Engineering Career

Subtitle: Go With What You Know

This article is for the new engineering graduates, but also applies to those with a year or two of industrial experience.   Some of this may seem quite obvious, but perhaps some will be useful. 

I recently was invited to speak for an hour to the AIChE student group at University of California at Irvine, or UCI.  The topic was Engineering Ethics.  During the question and answer period afterward, I was asked what was the most unexpected thing I encountered after graduation.  My reply was, I did not expect to be so unprepared for the variety and depth of topics in the industrial world.   I gave a few examples to illustrate.

My engineering degree is from The University of Texas at Austin, one of the top engineering schools in the country, if not the world.  I learned what they taught, but the fact is that the engineering curriculum cannot possibly teach everything one needs to know in only 4 years of study.    The amount of knowledge that an engineer should know increases yearly as more and more fields are created (e.g. environmental engineering, bio-engineering, nano-materials) and existing fields are expanded. 

What the new engineer should know can be viewed as 1) the fundamentals are key, 2) a vast body of topics exists and should be studied, and 3) time is your ally if used properly. 

A brief side-bar on my career start: my first job was as a process engineer in a chlor-alkali plant in a medium-sized chemical company that no longer exists.  The plant is still operating, though, after being sold to other companies.   For details, the plant was designed and built by Diamond Shamrock Corporation of Cleveland, Ohio, and was known as the Battleground Plant after the nearby San Jacinto Battleground and monument in LaPorte, Texas - just east of Houston.   This was a merchant plant, in that the products were sold on the open market and not used internally by the company.   

My first problem was understanding what a chlor-alkali plant did, and how it did it.  An engineer would do well to understand what his (or her) plant does.  Chlorine, caustic, and hydrogen are produced via electrolysis of sodium chloride dissolved in water.  I did not recall that electrolytic cells were mentioned in the undergraduate courses I took, not in chemistry, nor in reactor design.   It was all foreign to me.   At that time (1977), two technologies existed for chlor-alkali plants, diaphragm and mercury cells.  The company had both types in its fleet of plants, but the Battleground Plant had the diaphragm cells. 

The solution to curing my ignorance of chlor-alkali technology was in two steps: 1) attending the mandatory safety orientation class, and 2) reading in the Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook.   The safety orientation class gave a good overview of the chemical plant, but was mostly concerned with the dangers and toxicity of the various processes and chemicals.  The chlor-alkali plant had plenty of dangers and toxicity: deadly DC current at 800 volts and 90,000 amps in the cell room; chlorine gas is toxic and can be deadly; caustic soda even in dilute strength (cell liquor) is hot, corrosive, and can blind the eyes; hydrogen is invisible, auto-ignites, and the flame is a pale blue that is essentially invisible in daytime.  The plant also used asbestos in creating the diaphragms.  There was also sulfuric acid in one process area, with the acid strength ranging from 70 to 98 percent.   There were also the usual dangers in a process plant, steam at various pressures, fuel gas, AC current at various voltages, and rotating machinery, to name just a few.  

After gaining an appropriate respect for the hazards I would face on a daily basis, the next task was to read the Perry's, where Electrochemistry was discussed in a few pages.  However, the Perry's treatment was mostly theoretical and I was not much wiser for having read the material.  I then turned to another favorite, Chemical and Process Technology Encyclopedia by D. M. Considine (McGraw-Hill 1974).   This excellent resource had what I needed: about half a dozen pages on chlorine production, including a process flow diagram.  (readers should note the time frame, 1978.  At the time, there was no internet with vast resources.)  Finally, the plant library had design books specific to the Battleground Plant, with process flow diagrams and material balances. 

This brings me to point 1) from above, the fundamentals.  I finally had a grasp of the fundamentals of electrochemistry and how a chlor-alkali cell operated.   In its simplest form, DC current passed through a conductive brine attracts the chlorine ions, Clˉ, to the positive electrode, and the sodium ions, Na+, to the negative electrode.   The chlorine ions combine to form a molecule of Cl2, while the sodium ions combine with OHˉ ions to form NaOH.  The left-over hydrogen ions combine to form a molecule of H2.   From there, the products Cl2, NaOH, and H2 were processed, purified, and condensed (the chlorine) into products for sale or internal use. 

The new engineer must, in my opinion, gain a good understanding of the fundamentals of his (or her) assigned process, no matter what that process is.  The above outlines the steps I took to gain an understanding.  Next, the fundamentals of engineering are key to success.  No matter what field or area one is working in, the various laws apply: material balance, heat transfer, mass transfer, equilibrium, fluid flow, etc.    

Now to point 2), a vast body of topics exists and should be studied.   The list below includes a number of topics that are common to the process industries, both batch processes and continuous processes.  Budgeting, Control and Instrumentation, Corrosion, Cost Estimation, Economics (especially incremental economics),  Environmental, Equipment, Feed Specifications, HazOps, Laboratory,  Maintenance,  Metallurgy,  Operations,  Optimization, People, Pinch Technology, PFD & PIDs, Plant's Design, Project Implementation, Product markets, Product Specifications,  RAGAGEP,  Regulations, Safety,  Technical Plan, and Trade Offs.    These are the main issues that a plant process engineer will encounter.  Those working in other areas will have different issues to learn.  Engineers also work in EPC companies, Engineering/Procurement/Construction, research, catalyst development and production, technical sales, government agencies, and others.  

Point 3) from above, time is your ally if used properly.  A new engineer could, and should in my opinion, strive to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible about the areas in which he (or she) is deficient.   Time for such learning can be found by arriving an hour early to work, at the lunch break, and staying an hour after formal work hours.   A study plan can be developed that will encompass the topics.   Another way to increase knowledge is regular attendance at AIChE monthly chapter meetings where continuing education credits are given.  Many times, these meetings include a presentation or lecture by industry experts on a particular subject.   Reading industry literature, including magazines or e-zines is especially helpful.  

UPDATE: 6/6/2015 - brief expansion on the additional topics to be studied. 

Budgeting - the engineer should know that a process plant has at least one budget, there being typically three or more.  These include a) annual operating budget, b) capital budget, c) local spending budget (under the control of the plant manager).  Learning what each budget controls, the budget size, and how the budgets are prepared are all vital to understanding the plant's operation.  

Control and Instrumentation - many times, the new engineer has had a course in the basics of process control and instrumentation; if not, he or she should study this.  The basics include (but certainly are not limited to) the four basic controlled parameters: temperature, flow, level, and pressure (and note there are several others); the measurement instruments that collect the signal; the controller that processes the measurement and sends out the correction signal; the control device (usually a control valve but not always); and the actuator that moves the control device.  In addition, the engineer should understand the basics of various control schemes, and why each controller exists at that particular point in the process.  Higher (and lower) levels of instrumentation and control exist, including safety and machinery health (bearing temperatures, shaft vibration), DCS (distributed control systems), advanced process control (computerized integration of basic controls with process models including optimization and constraints).   Other areas include inferential controls, analyzer-based controls, to name just two.  

Corrosion - the measurement and management of corrosion in a process plant is extremely important, even vital.  The engineer should read and understand the basics of corrosion - it is simply a rather slow chemical reaction that (typically) removes molecules from the corroded surface and results in thinning (usually) and weakening of the material.  The corroded material may be a process vessel, a pipe, or other equipment.  Corrosion control and management may include passivating chemicals added to slow down the corrosion rate, upstream removal of corrosive molecules (e.g. sulfur and salts), and temperature control to keep the corrosion rate manageable.  Wall thicknesses are measured during periodic shutdowns.   

Cost Estimation - the new engineer almost always has some experience in cost estimation in undergraduate studies, but the employer likely has its own cost estimation philosophy and software.  

Economics (especially incremental economics) - the new engineer also likely has some experience with economics in undergraduate studies.  The process plant likely has various criteria that the engineer is required to use for economic studies, including a list of values (or prices) for each utility, feedstock, intermediate streams, products, and process unit operating costs.  Sometimes feeds, intermediates, and products prices are confidential and guarded with great secrecy.   Incremental economics must be understood, as these are quite different from average values.   It is also crucial to understand that not all energy is equal, as a BTU (or kW) saved in one area may actually have zero value.   In addition, the cost to install equipment to save energy, or increase yield, or improve product separations may greatly exceed the benefits.   Some plants have a strict guideline that no potential project is to be advanced for consideration that has greater than two years simple payout.  

Environmental - the new engineer should learn what environmental issues exist in his or her plant, with the three standard classifications of air, water, and solids.  Typically, the plant has one or more permits from state or federal agencies that list the quantity of allowable emissions for each pollutant.   Potential modifications to the plant, e.g. adding a new fired heater, may require expensive and time-consuming revisions to the environmental permits.  

Equipment - the new engineer likely has a good understanding of the basic equipment types from undergraduate work.  The plant likely has equipment that was not included in the classwork, and almost certainly has variations on familiar equipment.  As an example, there are many types of pumps (centrifugal, positive displacement) with several variations of each.  The same is true for relief valves, control valves, block valves, compressors, heat exchangers, filters, separator vessels, fired heaters, boilers, piping, fittings, turbines, electric motors, reciprocating engines, and many more. 

Feed Specifications - each plant, and each unit within a plant, will have one or more feed specifications.  The engineer should understand what each specification is, what the allowable limits are, and how that item is measured.   Equally important, the engineer should know what the ramifications are when a feed specification is above or below the limit.  

HazOps - or hazard and operability study, is an important part of a process plant's safety plan.  This should be thoroughly understood by the engineer. 

Laboratory - the plant laboratory, the samples, and analytical tests should be understood by the engineer.  The plant may have a laboratory on-site, or may send samples to off-site labs for testing.  Many laboratory tests are described by an ASTM number (American Society for Testing and Materials), or other designation.   Reference books exist that describe each test; these should be on the engineer's bookshelf and be read and understood. 

Maintenance - the plant maintenance is one of the three major organizations in a typical plant (the others are Operations, and Technical Services).   Maintenance is a vast, complicated, and essential aspect of a process plant's success, safety, and profitability.  The engineer should learn the essentials of the plant's maintenance organization and program.  Typically, maintenance is organized by craft: millwrights, electrical, instrumentation, and piping.   Safe shutdown and isolation procedures must be understood by the engineer, as well as startup procedures once the maintenance is completed.  

Metallurgy - the engineer should understand the metallurgy and other non-metallic materials used in the plant.  Typically, various metallurgies could be used in a plant, and the choice is made based on several considerations: safety, cost, durability, corrosion, and others. 

Operations - plant operations is one of the big three organizational arms in a plant (Maintenance and Technical Services are the other two, typically).  The engineer should get to know the operations staff, from the Operations Manager to Unit Supervisors, to shift staff.  Typically, the shift staff has a Shift Supervisor, each unit has a Lead Operator (or other title such as Head Operator), and Unit Operators and helpers.   The engineer should understand the role of each.   Terminology for the various operating positions can vary by industry and by plant.  For example, there may be one or more Board Operators and Outside Operators where the Board Operator remains at a computer control console in a central control room, while Outside Operators (as the title suggests) work outside among the equipment. 

Optimization - the engineer should learn as much about optimization as possible, including what optimization systems and procedures are in place, and what they accomplish.  Optimization is a vast topic.  One thing a new engineer should know is that seasoned veterans in the Operations and Technical management are usually distrusting of new optimization schemes - especially the benefits that supposedly derive from the optimizer.  

UPDATE: 6/14/2015 -  (see link) to my March 1998 article in Hydrocarbon Processing, "WHY A SIMULATION DOES NOT MATCH THE PLANT," in which process plant simulations and optimizations are discussed.   An excerpt from the article: 

". . . there are many reasons why a process simulation doesn't match the plant. Understanding these reasons can assist in using simulations to maximum advantage.

The reasons simulations do not match the plant may be placed in three main categories: 
1) simulation effects or inherent error,
2) sampling and analysis effects or measurement error, and 
3) misapplication effects or set-up error."   
The article then discusses these three categories.   --  end update 6/14/2015

People - people skills are essential to success, not just in engineering but in almost every endeavor.  The new engineer would do well to focus on what may be called "human engineering," or practical psychology.  This is a vast topic, but crucial to success.  Stating one's views in a meeting, learning how and when to disagree without offense, learning how to network effectively, all are important aspects.   Dealing with incredibly difficult people is to be expected.   One good source for process industry engineers is the "You And Your Job" series of articles in Chemical Engineering magazine (online and archived in libraries).  

Pinch Technology - the engineer should understand Pinch Technology, (developed years ago by Bodo Linhoff) and how it applies to process heat transfer and other areas.   PT has many articles and publications that the engineer can read for an understanding. 

PFDs & PIDs - the engineer likely has a basic understanding of Process Flow Diagrams (PFD) and Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (PIDs) from undergraduate work.  The process plant will have detailed drawings of each, which should be read and studied until the engineer is completely familiar with each figure on the drawings.   (Note that PID has a different meaning in the process control context, where it means Proportional, Integral, and Derivative).  

Plant's Design - where possible, the engineer should know the basics of the plant's design - the capacity basis, the choices among various technologies, storage and inventory quantities (i.e. number of days' storage for feedstock and for products).   Unit constraints are also important.  

Project Implementation - the engineer should learn how a project is implemented in the plant, whether a capacity expansion, or other type of project.  There may be a separate group for project work, or the engineer may be expected to develop and manage a project.  The area of project management is (or can be) complicated, with construction contracts, project schedules, disruption to the existing plant, and many other aspects to consider. 

Product Markets - the engineer should understand the market or markets for the plant's products.  This could include the historic demand, projected demands, whether his or her plant is a low-cost producer or a marginal producer, and especially: how disruptive technologies could make the plant obsolete.   This last point is rather important to chemical engineers.  

Product Specifications - similar to the above on feedstock specifications, the engineer should know and understand the specifications on each product.  At times, no variations in product specifications are tolerated.  In other plants, there may be incentives for higher purity and lower prices for selling a product with lower purity.  

RAGAGEP - the engineer should understand RAGAGEP (Recognized And Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practice) and how it applies in the plant. RAGAGEP are "engineering, operation, or maintenance activities based on established codes, standards, published technical reports or recommended practices (RP) or a similar document." They "detail generally approved ways to perform specific engineering, inspection or mechanical integrity activities such as fabricating a vessel, inspecting a storage tank, or servicing a relief valve." (source: OSHA NEP for refineries, 2007)  

Sources of RAGAGEP are many. Examples are the API Standards (American Petroleum Institute), ASME Code, CCPS (AIChE's Center for Chemical Process Safety), OSHA, NEC (National Electric Code), NFPA (National Fire Protection Association), and other engineering disciplines such as ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers).

The intent of RAGAGEP is to ensure that process plants, manufacturing plants, structures, civil works, electrical works, and other things designed and built are as safe as possible. This extends to ongoing repairs and maintenance, alterations and changes, inspection and testing.  

Regulations - the engineer should develop at least a basic understanding of the multitude of government regulations that apply to the plant.  These likely include (but are not limited to) environmental, OSHA, FTC, labor laws, and others. 

Safety  - the engineer should understand the basics of the plant's safety program.  Safety should be first, as the slogan says (Safety First).  Whether the engineer is designing a new process, a modification to an existing process, or reviewing operating procedures, safety is critical.  

Technical Plan - the Technical Plan is (or could be) a part of the Technical Services division.  The engineer should become familiar with the tasks or projects that are underway or were recently completed, and those that are contemplated for future work.  Unless the plant is recently completed and started up, the engineer will find there is a legacy of studies, projects, and reports for each that can be read and studied.  

Trade Offs - the engineer should know what trade-off opportunities exist in the plant (this is a subset of the Economics and the Optimization areas above).  Trade-offs exist for making or purchasing utilities, feedstocks, and processing or selling intermediate streams.  

-- end update 6/6/2015


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell

Conversations with UCI Chemical Engineering Students

Thoughts on recent conversations with chemical engineering students at UCI - University of California at Irvine.   [UPDATE - 6/12/2014: added a link to a virtual slide rule]

I recently had the honor to attend a graduation celebration for chemical engineering students at UCI, the class of 2014.  I had met many of them earlier during one of my speeches to their AIChE student chapter.   Their exuberance, intelligence, and thoughtful questions are always a pleasure to behold.  

This post describes a bit of the conversations I had with some of the students, with no names mentioned to protect their privacy.  

I asked several what they intended to do after graduation.   I asked others who are not yet graduating what attracted them to chemical engineering as a course of study.  The answers gave an opportunity for great conversation. 

One student wants to work in the oil and gas industry.  Another already has a job with a major engineering design firm.  Yet another will pursue an advanced degree in nuclear engineering.  Other new graduates don't yet have a job offer and will work very hard to find a job.  

I mentioned that this is a golden age for new chemical engineers, since the oil and gas boom due to hydraulic fracturing has created much work for all the new plants that are being designed and constructed.   Most of the plants are along the US gulf coast and not in California, however.   

One student mentioned that he or she (privacy concern here) went into chemical engineering to be able to design nuclear power plants because those are the energy supply for the future.   This was not the student who will pursue the advanced degree in nuclear engineering.  

I paused and thought about what to say.   I do not believe the student was aware of my views and my blog posts on nuclear engineering.  Finally, I decided to speak up and mildly told the student and the others who were listening at our table that nuclear power plants are inherently uneconomic and unsafe.  Besides, there are not sufficient raw materials to build enough power plants to rely on them for the world's power.  The student was not pleased to hear this, as I expected.   I gently suggested the student visit my blog and read the articles there on nuclear power - after final exams, of course.  

Another student wanted to know what had changed in engineering since I had graduated.  I usually get a laugh on this one, as I replied that when I started my studies in 1972, we were still using slide rules.   To my surprise, a few students at our table did not know what a slide rule is.  The others described it very quickly.  I told them that the first pocket calculators were available for sale in my second year, and by our third year we all were expected to have one or borrow one for the exams.   

I suggested they not laugh, because most of the world's infrastructure was designed and built by engineers who used slide rules, not computers.  They doubted this, until I told them that every bridge built before about 1970 was designed via slide rules.   Similarly, refineries, chemical plants, power plants - even the nuclear plants  - were designed in that way.   Even skyscrapers and their elevator systems were designed in that manner.    This information was a bit sobering, I believe.   

I related my oft-told story of taking a small circular slide rule on my trips to Brazil in the late 1970s as a backup to my pocket calculator.  The heat and humidity in the jungle ruined the calculator and I used the slide rule for my calculations.  It worked, no matter what.   

I told them that having a laptop with a powerful spreadsheet such as Excel (TM) was an unbelievable advance in chemical engineering studies.  We would have almost died for access to such a marvel when facing our homework problems.    We did have a mainframe computer available to us for a few problems, but the input was via punch-card decks and output was hours if not days later.   

Here's to the UCI 2014 graduates: may you have long and very happy careers!  

UPDATE - 6/12/2014: here is a link to a virtual slide rule.   Warning:  this thing is addictive!   Instructions for use are included in the link.  see link    Note for use: click and drag the center section left or right.  Also, click and drag the cursor left and right.   --  end update


Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California