Turning an Oil Tanker
Posted by Heading Out on January 9, 2008 - 11:15am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: education, energy future, rural living [list all tags]
Change, it seems to be the word of the moment. And it seems to be one of those popular words that pop up every time there is a likelihood of a change in the Administration. But when we change we should know what to expect from that change, and that does require more than a little knowledge of the consequences. One thinks of the Bay of Pigs debacle, or the politicization that led to the disaster that has been the Federal response to the damage Katrina imposed on New Orleans.
I was thinking of the ignorance of consequences as I read Baron Wormser’s book The Road Washes Out in the Spring. As one of the “hippy culture” of the 60’s he chose to build a house in rural Maine, discovering after having put it up that they could not afford to run a power-line to the house. Thus, through the raising of a family, they did without electricity (apart from a small generator to run a hand-iron, a Skil saw for large carpentry, and a blender). Water was pumped by hand, and heating and cooking used wood stoves. But, when they first went through a winter, they had no appreciation of the amount of wood that would be required, and so, accompanied by a flash-light, he ended up sawing and splitting wood into the night, for they had no backup furnace. They also became very dependent on the condition of the road of the title, the typical rural dirt road, with culverts and infrequent maintenance.
On a small, individual level, such impacts of change can be accommodated. But on a larger scale, as changes unfold, society does not have that flexibility of the individual. What we need is proper preparation. On one of the news shows this past week I watched a correspondent trying to steer a model oil tanker. Since the turning radius and stopping distance of these behemoths is measured in miles, it required considerable pre-planning to get to where he wanted the tanker to go. It mirrors, in many ways the needs that we have for a pilot for the future of our energy program. Without recognition of the realities of societal inertia, and the length of time it is going to take to develop significant alternative approaches, we may end up, as tankers have, on the rocks.
Proper planning thus requires a certain depth of knowledge that understands what is really achievable, and which can be accomplished in a given amount of time. But, as the political hands would turn the tanker of State, its safe passage will then turn to those in the industries who must implement the changes mandated. One thing that has already become evident in the debate about the energy future is that new energy supplies cannot be created merely through passage of an act of Congress. Even with the consequently heavy Federal investment in cellulosic ethanol, the technical issues that bedevil that program will not be easily solved within the short period of time before the anticipated need for the fuel it promised arrives.
Political rhetoric and will, although important, are insufficient for the needs of the future. What is also critically important are the skills and knowledge of the workforce called upon to make the needed changes. It is easy to say that “Necessity is the Mother of Invention,” but that fails to recognize the small base of people and knowledge upon which some of that responsibility for revolution is placed.
A small personal anecdote may perhaps illustrate the point. As part of what I do with the rest of my time I have, on occasion, helped in the development of technologies that improve energy extraction from the earth. Some time ago a group of us suggested a method of improving a particular process in one such industry, but given the cost:benefits perceived at the time, the suggestion was not taken up.
Time has moved on, and now the PTB have decided that this would be a good idea, and would like to discuss it further. Unfortunately, in the meantime, three of my colleagues have moved on to greener pastures, and finding qualified faculty in our disciplines is becoming increasingly difficult, even as more of us do move on or retire. The net result is that the amount of time available for research declines, as teaching loads rise, and the ability to respond to such requests starts to vanish.
Our own local situation is not unique. Increasingly there is a concern for the future supply of scientists and engineers, even as the need for them grows. In the same way as the development of a new fuel source, creating a future supply of qualified and knowledgeable personnel requires an investment and time (on the order of ten years). And, instead of this becoming a priority, instead one hears of declining demographics, and the drop in interest in the engineering and science disciplines in schools.
Change, in other words, needs proper preparation if it is to be effectively handled. More than most others the energy field will change dramatically over the next ten years, and the impact that it will have on society will be overwhelming. We need the planning and pre-positioning of resource that will make the transition of minimal impact to society. But so far it does not look as though that is happening. Energy supplies and energy futures do not appear to have much impact in the current political debates, even though the writing is starting to appear on the wall. And thus, unprepared, we are likely to stumble into the future, which does not bode well either for us, or for the long-term health of the next Administration.
And on a small personal change, I replaced my car this week. After it being repeatedly suggested that I was being perhaps more than a tad hypocritical, I did go out and get a hybrid. I ended up with a Camry – and before anyone asks, I relied on a recent U.S. News Report that suggested it was the best of the breed. Time will tell!
P.S. Baron Wormser was Poet Laureate of Maine, from 2000 to 2005, and while the book tends to romanticize the life that the family lived for nearly twenty-five years (they then moved into a more modern (1850's) house in a nearby town - after the children left home), it is a very pleasant description of a way of life.
If there's a drop in interest in engineering and science in the U.S., I suspect it's mainly due to the lack of employment. They invented H1B's to get cheap talent, after all.
Also a factor is the dismal state of US K-12 education. Too many students are not graduating with the necessary skills to cut it in an engineering program. We're not talking Nobel Prize level here, but they do have to be able to do the math. There was no problem producing enough HS graduates in the 1950s that were prepared enough to make it through an engineering degree. Now, it is a problem.
Dude, where's the incentive? You can make more as a plumber nowadays than with a BS in most science or engineering disciplines. High school students may be smarter than you think. How many wealthy mathematicians do you know?
I just read that in 2007 according to the BLS, total engineering and architectural jobs created were 54,700. Doesn't really seem likely to create any shortages. Especially with a hundred thousand H1Bs available.
Starting salaries for some engineering disciplines are as follows:
Aerospace Engineering $50,642
Architectural Engineering $46,830
Business & Management $44,711
Chemical Engineering $55,418
Civil Engineering $45,173
Computer Engineering $52,850
Computer Science $51,308
Electrical Engineering $52,963
Geological Engineering $46,300
Information S & T $47,750
Mechanical Engineering $52,252
Metallurgical Engineering $51,626
Mining Engineering $52,755
Nuclear Engineering $57,800
Petroleum Engineering $75,750
Source MO S&T
Mmmmm petroleum! Where do I sign?
Where I live plumbers make $40/hr, so about $60,000/yr. When the median salary in the U.S. is about $45,000/yr, those starting salaries are fairly pathetic. If there was an actual engineering shortage, they'd be much higher.
Any field where a significant fraction of the BS graduates cannot find a job when they get out isn't experiencing any real shortage. It does however look as though your area, petro engineering, might have a shot at attracting more people.
Where I live plumbers make $40/hr, so about $60,000/yr.
Note, though, that those are starting salaries. They will approximately double for an engineer with 5-10 years of experience.
Hardly, unless you make it into management. This is more typical:
5-10 years
Those ranges were in the 80's to 100's, which is about double the starting salaries. In my own experience, everyone I work with had doubled their salaries by the 10 year mark at the latest. I did it in 4 years, but only because I accepted an international assignment which comes with several premiums.
$40 is not starting salary! In VT it takes 5 yrs to be a master plumber. And guess what, you'll likely start at $12! After 5 years, if you pass the test, you're still no where near $40, if you work for someone else.
My comment was that the engineering salaries are starting salaries. What is being compared is an established plumber's salary versus a starting engineering salary - an invalid comparison.
TJ
Where do you live? I just checked the dept of labor site. Median wage is $20.50 (national). Highest state was $29.
Granddaughter, a senior ME at UVA, has several good offers for June. One is a major oil refining Company on the East Coast offering over $60,000.
Incentive? What incentive?
Annual compensation for hourly jobs in the Big Three auto industry: $145,000 ; annual compensation for professors $93,000. On the whole, engineers in industry don't do any better than professors, as their jobs don't last long enough to vest the vast and lavish pension benefits which form a big part of compensation at the Big Three, government, and, often, academia. Oh, and they don't get overtime, and, in some industries, their travel is not so much to academic conferences at resorts in Bermuda and Hawai'i as it is to worksites in torrid deserts in summer, or frigid Arctic wastes in winter.
Oh, and I was forgetting, auto workers start earning four to ten years earlier than college grads, and they do so free of crippling college debt.
Things have not changed one iota since I knew a somewhat demoralized guy in grad school who saw his friends from his auto-industry town already ensconced in luxurious houses, owning big cars and boats, and so on, while we were still in, well, college-style housing. Nor since a relative living temporarily in northeast Wisconsin was agog at the way folks there showed no ambition beyond the local paper mill, as that paid much more than they expected to net by getting a higher education.
The comments at the link tell me there is zero likelihood of change in the foreseeable future. It's a sociopolitical issue independent of any diminishing of opportunities that might be caused by oil and energy issues. It follows that as someone here mentioned, the goods and technologies and alt-energies will continue to appear by magic, "poof", from elsewhere. How else should they appear?
That is, they will appear until they don't. Or until the dollar has tanked so far that it no longer matters to "us" whether they do or don't.
In addition to this, the professors that I know in Physics all complain about the hassles of raising funding for research. There are little dibs and dabs of money here and there, and if you write enough grant proposals, you eventually get enough to hold together a program. Of course you spend all of your time writing proposals and dealing with performance reviews...
Which brings me to a 2nd point. The supply & demand dynamic for PhDs doesn't work well. Each professor takes as many students as he can get funding for, but there is no guarantee of a job for those that graduate. Essentially the only thing that regulates the number of students is a difficulty in attracting the students in the first place (because kids eventually figure out that the field isn't as lucrative as one might have thought in the first place), and of course the availability (or lack of) research funding.
Colleges and universities are trying to reduce the number of tenured faculty positions - they want to hire people for a teaching stint of a couple of years, and then send them on their way to their next posting. They become in effect highly educated migrant workers, but people reach a stage in their lives where they want to settle down and so forth, and this sort of transient life eventually gets very old. For those that want an academic research career, you end up with multiple post-doc appointments, and then perhaps you get a proper permanent job of some sort.
For those who have an insatiable curiosity, the professor's job sounds a lot more interesting despite all of the drawbacks that you noted, but if you add too much administrative BS, people would be more inclined to just take the money.
Liebig minimum for plants might be water, sunlight, nitrogen, sulfur, potash, etc.
What's the Liebig minimum for technology? Research money, Engineering money, Inventor money...
Say, we took one billion dollars out of the hundred billion we spend on research each year and gave 1,000 inventors 1,000 to 1,000,000 dollars each, reserving half for administration, what results would we get? What inventions would get the prize money?
It's even worse. The teachers many of us had in the 50's and 60's were mostly very smart women with fewer options than today. So, we had the best and brightest teaching us from Kindergarten on up. These women are now out of the teaching corps.
I am involved with Teacher preparation now (undergrad and grad) and the students entering the teaching field, while still mostly women, are no longer as smart and curious as in the old days. In addition, with the de-professionalization of teaching (here's the curriculum, don't deviate) and the requirements of No Child Left Behind (endless testing of often meaningless trivia), many of the remaining inspired teachers are simply getting out of the field. Helicopter parents, incompetent administrators, and parents with lawyers second-guessing everything that happens in the classroom finishes off the rest of the good teachers.
What this really means is that the "generalists" in the gradeschool classrooms who need to know a little about a LOT of things, or at least how to show students HOW to learn, or simply model curiosity, - are simply not there. The students I run into in teacher prep are rarely curious about anything more than might be on the next exam. I don't think this is unique to teacher prep but since these students have potentially 30-40 years in front of THEIR students, this incurious installed learning infrastructure will potentially be with us for a very, very long time. Of course we know that half of all new teachers leave the field within 5 years. Guess which teachers stay, and which ones leave.
As the great Mogambo says, "We are all freakin' doomed!"
Rev Karl
My wife is a senior teacher in the UK. Your description sounds EXACTLY parallel to hers.
Scary
Rev Karl and pondlife, my wife has been teaching here in Lithuania since she graduated from the Pedagogical Institute (yeah, I know, that dates me, if anyone knows the local folkways). Add Lithuania to the list of countries with a teaching system under severe stress. Rev Karl's phrase "here's the curriculum, don't deviate" really sums it up. What a succinct way to describe de-professionalization. A flickering ray of hope, however: in discussions of what to do, more and more people refer to the need for professional respect, and that is not just a code phrase for higher pay. There is increasing awareness that the generations that transformed Lithuania from a rural backwater to an industrial backwater (sorry, couldn't resist...) are aging, and replacements are desperately needed. Without good teaching, those replacements won't be coming any time soon.
Economic efficiency dictates that one keep his nose to the grind stone.
Along with poor employment prospects and students unmotivated to do the hard work of math and science, we are starting to see the negative externalities caused by the obsession of American business with efficiency. Efficiency, say many capitalists, is the end-all and be-all of pleasing the stockholders. So we work the engineers harder, pay them less and dispose of them when the stock price drops. Who is motivated to enter that field? High efficiency means sacrificing reliability, thoughtfulness and planning. When we were turning out engineers, we were inspired by Kennedy and challenged to go to the moon. Many felt a purpose in becoming engineers. The lack of commitment which employers show toward their employees has consequences which we are beginning to feel.
You've got to remember that this lack of skill has been one of the prime objectives of our educational system. This lack of skill is a measure of our success. Earlier in the last century, we had not gotten our schools sufficiently well organized to guarantee failure. Now we have.
If you were young and bright and were being canvassed for work.
1. Unglamorous work and moderate pay.
2. Flamboyant high flying life style salary and bonus in the millions of dollars per year.
Hmmmm... I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to work that one out.
There are incredibly talented individuals in America that could do math that would make your head spin. This talent increasing gets siphoned off to the financial industry.
If I were good enough I would take option 2 above.
Biggest things that I have noticed about the shortage of engineering types is that the companies don't want to hire anyone with more than three years experience. After that the wages wanted by the canidates are high enough that an H1B is cheaper and there is no heavy retirement package dragging along with the H1B. There is many engineers that are working outside their fields because they don't want to be laid off every three to five years because the beancounters know it is an easy way to keep their wage budget low.
I recently received my 20yr award, but I do not expect the job I have to last much longer anyway, and I do not expect to ever get another full time engineering job. What people in general fail to understand, is that as more and more of the people and organizations that performed this function, and the collective abilities we had are disbanded, they will not easily or quickly be rebuilt. As for me, I've tired of it anyway - I need to make a living, and I expect my engineering skills to be useful to me, as they have always been, but there is zero appeal in a the prospect of a corporate job designing widgets. Nor the commute of course. It is a real, tangible part of the industrial society being torn apart that few seem to notice - except Paul Craig Roberts perhaps.
The sheeple never knew that you existed in the first place.
All they knew was that the gizmo magically appeared in the store.
It still does.
Designed in Taiwan.
Mass produced in China.
Appearing like magic at Wal-Mart.
"Poof."
Hang in there buddy. There is life after engineering.
signed --an ex-engineer
You're partially correct about the lack of understanding about where these things come from, but that is more recent. At one time there was great national pride in our science and engineering - and I think people did generally know about it. I also think some still believe it is there, when it is long gone.
As far as life after engineering, I'm quite looking forward to it (it never defined my life anyway)! Problem is I've been trapped like everyone else, so it makes extracting myself difficult. Lately I've been deflected by an attempt to save the organization and jobs I've been involved with, but it looks like that may be done with now - so it's back to the project of personal re-invention.
Just out of curiosity, roughly how old are you?
My first guess is that you're in your mid 40's (=20 years service after graduating college at age 21?).
However, given your talk about the good old days when "there was great national pride in our science and engineering", you sound like you're more my age --in the mid 50's. Yes July 1969 was a glorious time. Neil Armstrong was taking his first small step onto the moon; American technology seemed like it was unstoppable and George Jetson's world would be just a hand reach away. Oh how times have changed. (Sigh.)
My personal experience is that the older you are, the tougher it becomes to make a radical change in life. We tend to get stuck in our ways. Old dogs don't learn new tricks as quickly as do the young pups.
Best of luck in your new endeavors.
--steppy
You are correct in your first guess, however I come from a family of engineers - may Dad is an Engineering Professor. I remember as a child how exciting it all seemed - the things that were happening were just amazing, and it seemed that a universe without limits stood in front of us. Amplified no doubt by a child's perspective. I had no idea at the time how it all related to cheap and abundant energy, and how the laws of the universe, the planet, and human nature would impose their limits.
I still believe the most important preparation one can do is to embrace change. The details of what is coming are unpredictable, so one must be ready to adapt and not get stuck believing in things that are no longer real.
Depends on the environment you work in and how talented the people are. If you are a really good software developer you will make over $100k around where I work. The better people I know are making $100k to $120k. The superstars working as high paid consulting contract workers are making more.
Since I'm aware of how much talent varies in engineering I'm always wondering about the level of talent and motivation among those who complain about how bad it all is. Maybe it is that bad in local markets even for very talented people. I do not know. But I can tell you in some markets talented people are making $100k+.
As for farming work out abroad: I've seen enough managers learn the hard way that this does not always work that I'm far less threatened by this than I felt a few years ago. I've talked with developers and managers in Europe about this and they tell similar stories. I think we've tapped out India. The Indians I know tell me that salaries have skyrocketed there and the cheap ones in India are not talented.
I'm thinking about buying such an "end of a mile long dirt road" place now. I see the lack of a road as an advantage WTSHTF.
My only problem is, what sort of community (or lack thereof) is at the other end of said road.
"The lack therof"
Yep; it is hard to stand watch over the wife and kiddies all night and then go out and work the truck patch during the day. Better to be in a small town where you know the people and vice versus where you can have some one watching your back when you down hoeing the tater patch.
Our road isn't that long, maybe 1500' but DIYer you have to have one of these:
http://www.smarthome.com/7317.html
Deer trip it sometimes late at night but other than that knowing someone is headed towards the house is a comforting thing.
where are all the doomers going to get the AA batteries for THAT techno-fix?
Mine has been running on 4 for at least 18 months. So I figure 18 months give me some leeway. I always keep a good stock of batteries in the freezer anyway.
A dog (or two) works pretty good too.
I live near the end of a rough dirt road. I've got a few good neighbors; I feel safe.
That's a key element to living in the woods--good neighbors.
Agreed, though most up here like their privacy. We had a birdhunter up here from Mass, ran across a bear and he let loose on it, so we had one really pissed off bear and one scared shitless guy from Mass.. Phone tree lit up like Xmas, everyone passed the word along to get the little ones in the house if they were playing outside. Works for fires just as well. all volunteer fire and ambulance up here, no police force at all.. maybe a few county mounties who pass through every once in a while.
But it is hard to live at the end of as unpaved road in the woods and also hold a paying job as an engineer. Where will the engineering talent come from?
There won't be much engineering.
Then we all live to ripe old ages of 50 if we're lucky. No antibiotics, no vaccines, no MRIs, few drugs. Even if you're isolated with your own power and food your life expectancy is going to be fairly short.