Our first interview with the CEO of a Power/Engineering company
Jack Hand, CEO/President of POWER Engineers, a company that specializes in electricity generation and distribution.
I am the current President and CEO of Power Engineers, a company based in the northwest that provides engineering consultation for companies with power delivery issues, among other things. Being so close to the power industry, our firm has come to embrace the advantages of sustainable and environmentally power generation. We have embraced a responsibility to the environment, designing a “smart” building for ourselves. We have an internal committee that monitors our buying/spending for recyclable or reusable disposable office items ( paper cups, paper, light fixtures that use less energy, water coolers instead of plastic water bottles , recycle cans, paper & plastics…….) . Our internal committee also supports community efforts on sustainable awareness and events like bike to work day. The internal committee is also responsible for writing articles for the company’s bimonthly magazine identifying and supporting ways all employees can be contribute to being sustainable . In addition, we emphasize external, thorough smart design. Power designs energy infrastructure, food process facilities, has an environmental planning division and participates in numerous national organizations focused on sustainable and environmentally friendly design practices. Examples are designing transmission lines with less concrete, steel and aluminum therefore significantly lowering the projects life cycle contribution to greenhouse gases without lower the products ability to deliver energy to the end user. Another example is developing food processes that have zero water discharge within a given facility and finding ways to utilize discharge from the process like using excess heat for either local district heating or if you have significant excess steam it’s possible to generate electricity for plant use and even sometimes sales back to the grid. This is increasing efficiency that actually creates a product that the utility no longer has to generate to sell and transport. Transportation is one of the leaders in creating greenhouse gasses.
Our company prefers to use the term “sustainable energy”, instead of “green energy”. Sustainable is doing more with less. Example would be producing the same
Megawatts (electricity) using less materials, less transportation and less process
(This process is changing the raw mineral ore into a product). All these things
Contribute to our greenhouse gas issues. Green is a term I’m not that fond of
Because it tends to lead people down the wrong path. Many times the final act of
doing something Green has significant negative life cycle attributes. Example:
Many activist groups say Wind energy can meet all of our energy needs. The reality
is that is some locations in the world , Wind is an excellent alternative form of
generation but in many places it’s not only a poor choice but also has negative
life cycle greenhouse gas results. Why? Because if you build wind in a less than
optimum location your facility operates as low as 20% capacity factor , roughly
meaning it’s only producing electricity 20% of the available hours. One must take
into consideration the construction activities ,manufacturing and general degradation
to the local environment as part of the overall selection for any energy facility. If
your wind farm can’t produce at greater than 33% capacity , when you consider the
new roads, the transportation to get all the equipment to site and erected , the local
environmental impact ( no project on earth can be done without some impact ) and
the cost to complete it’s generally not green project in the end. Life cycle will always
be the key. In my opinion “green energy” is just another buzzword. It can be a good tool to
make people aware but no energy is green. Sustainable is really much better , after
all the planet wasn’t ever expected to exist without both air and water pollutants
occurring naturally . Volcanoes, forest fires, floods, earthquake...to name a few all
contribute significantly to polluting our planet. I believe that the earth has a definite
balance that must be maintained for humans , plants and animals to co exist . I don’t
think anyone knows what that balance is but the term sustainable implies that we
can exist forever if we manage ourselves appropriately . This balance is the key .
The problem with our current methods for generating sustainable energy is that they are not effective enough, at least not until we create a means to store energy long term. Wind and solar are intermittent and where the technology has improved we can’t control the wind nor can we alter day/night so without storage these technologies will never provide 100% of our energy. The wave & tidal technology just isn’t efficient enough today for it to be feasible for total baseload power. The positive thing is that today all people / countries are aware of the need to conserve and produce less emissions and an amazing amount of research is ongoing in many areas of alternative energy. Today we must have a portfolio of energy sources and I believe even with current technology we’re capable of decreasing our emission while still increasing our use of energy. This is why research is so important. Research , is the key. Getting all countries to believe in and stay within some guidelines around greenhouse gases and other pollutants is also a key, everyone
must get on board. The use of production tax credits and incentives our generally
used poorly. Europe has for the last decade given credits but they were too easy to
qualify for and has allowed for a poor “ green energy “ portfolio. The US has also
lately supported credits and also poorly managed by our government. Credits makes
sense to make the private sector aware of where we need to drive the worlds energy
portfolio but higher requirements are needed to qualify for these credits and in the
US where these credits take on a different form every 5 years also hurts our ability
to create certainty within the Wind, Solar, geothermal biogas and biomass areas
and thereby create investment.
We can’t just focus on any one energy source to improve, either. The US, because of our size requires a mix of generation technologies.
Today we have significant new natural gas discoveries, natural gas can be brought
on line quickly , emits significantly less CO2 than coal and the fuel , long term has
less transportation costs and environmental effects. Natural gas can replace most
of the retiring coal, therefore a good option. We likely need to keep using coal for
decades to come , so continued research into IGCC, carbon capture and plant retrofit
all make sense. The US has the most geothermal power online today but also has
much more to tap into, it’s expensive to build but it requires no fuel for the next
40 years, not to have and develop geothermal would be a mistake . Nuclear will
no doubt have a place long term, nobody has more experience managing Nuclear
plants worldwide, the US has 104 operating plants, France has 54, the second most.
Nuclear has a great track record for safety, it’s the best base load fuel for emissions
( has very low emissions ) but does have some waste disposal issues but not big
enough , in my opinion to not continue to have great interest. The renewable all
have value, wind has really found it’s place and will continue to grow worldwide,
turbine research will continue to make it more efficient and affordable. Solar
photovoltaic has it’s place in distributed generation ( on buildings like Wal Marts )
but really lacks the efficiency and cost competitiveness to be built in mega fields (
greater than 100 MW ) without credits. I’m against building anything that the only
way to succeed is thru government credits . Solar thermal or concentrated solar is
an interesting technology , research here would be well spent as this technology
capable a large solar power generation. Wave, tidal need more research and we
should. Biogas and biomass are relevant but only locally, must have local source of
fuel . So I guess the answer is no one place to invest , must be always looking for new
ways to improve all technologies. Everyone will/should use the energy source that they have the best access too. Coal will be #1 for many years to come. Nuclear will grow.
Hydro in underdeveloped nations that have water will be a game changer in some
areas of the world, someday. Gas also a big player.
Not all of our moves have been infallible, but our energy system is one of the best in the world. The US has a great portfolio of energy sources a very good
mix. I guess the best is the fact that other than hydro our energy infrastructure
has been developed by the private sector which has given us the least cost energy
in the world. Maybe the smartest technology push was the Hydro build out of the
1930 – 60’s. We have abundant amount of low cost renewable energy. As I stated
earlier all generation projects will have an impact on the environment . The worst
moves , in my opinion, the ethanol focus of 10 years ago by the US government was a
poor choice, executed poorly and today is looked upon as a disaster. Never produce energy where the energy used to produce the fuel is more than the fuel releases.
The last 4 years we had several government alternative and renewable energy
credits and incentives. In my opinion , poorly managed and poorly thought out. A
lot like ethanol , the wind & solar PV businesses will succeed in areas where they
make sense and will fail in areas that the only reason they were built was due to the
credits.
We need a portfolio of sources. I also believe we must continue to develop
the life cycle concept and of course utilize both renewable and alternative
technologies in areas they make good economic sense . As technology improves the
demographics will change on what’s the best technology and where.
I am the current President and CEO of Power Engineers, a company based in the northwest that provides engineering consultation for companies with power delivery issues, among other things. Being so close to the power industry, our firm has come to embrace the advantages of sustainable and environmentally power generation. We have embraced a responsibility to the environment, designing a “smart” building for ourselves. We have an internal committee that monitors our buying/spending for recyclable or reusable disposable office items ( paper cups, paper, light fixtures that use less energy, water coolers instead of plastic water bottles , recycle cans, paper & plastics…….) . Our internal committee also supports community efforts on sustainable awareness and events like bike to work day. The internal committee is also responsible for writing articles for the company’s bimonthly magazine identifying and supporting ways all employees can be contribute to being sustainable . In addition, we emphasize external, thorough smart design. Power designs energy infrastructure, food process facilities, has an environmental planning division and participates in numerous national organizations focused on sustainable and environmentally friendly design practices. Examples are designing transmission lines with less concrete, steel and aluminum therefore significantly lowering the projects life cycle contribution to greenhouse gases without lower the products ability to deliver energy to the end user. Another example is developing food processes that have zero water discharge within a given facility and finding ways to utilize discharge from the process like using excess heat for either local district heating or if you have significant excess steam it’s possible to generate electricity for plant use and even sometimes sales back to the grid. This is increasing efficiency that actually creates a product that the utility no longer has to generate to sell and transport. Transportation is one of the leaders in creating greenhouse gasses.
Our company prefers to use the term “sustainable energy”, instead of “green energy”. Sustainable is doing more with less. Example would be producing the same
Megawatts (electricity) using less materials, less transportation and less process
(This process is changing the raw mineral ore into a product). All these things
Contribute to our greenhouse gas issues. Green is a term I’m not that fond of
Because it tends to lead people down the wrong path. Many times the final act of
doing something Green has significant negative life cycle attributes. Example:
Many activist groups say Wind energy can meet all of our energy needs. The reality
is that is some locations in the world , Wind is an excellent alternative form of
generation but in many places it’s not only a poor choice but also has negative
life cycle greenhouse gas results. Why? Because if you build wind in a less than
optimum location your facility operates as low as 20% capacity factor , roughly
meaning it’s only producing electricity 20% of the available hours. One must take
into consideration the construction activities ,manufacturing and general degradation
to the local environment as part of the overall selection for any energy facility. If
your wind farm can’t produce at greater than 33% capacity , when you consider the
new roads, the transportation to get all the equipment to site and erected , the local
environmental impact ( no project on earth can be done without some impact ) and
the cost to complete it’s generally not green project in the end. Life cycle will always
be the key. In my opinion “green energy” is just another buzzword. It can be a good tool to
make people aware but no energy is green. Sustainable is really much better , after
all the planet wasn’t ever expected to exist without both air and water pollutants
occurring naturally . Volcanoes, forest fires, floods, earthquake...to name a few all
contribute significantly to polluting our planet. I believe that the earth has a definite
balance that must be maintained for humans , plants and animals to co exist . I don’t
think anyone knows what that balance is but the term sustainable implies that we
can exist forever if we manage ourselves appropriately . This balance is the key .
The problem with our current methods for generating sustainable energy is that they are not effective enough, at least not until we create a means to store energy long term. Wind and solar are intermittent and where the technology has improved we can’t control the wind nor can we alter day/night so without storage these technologies will never provide 100% of our energy. The wave & tidal technology just isn’t efficient enough today for it to be feasible for total baseload power. The positive thing is that today all people / countries are aware of the need to conserve and produce less emissions and an amazing amount of research is ongoing in many areas of alternative energy. Today we must have a portfolio of energy sources and I believe even with current technology we’re capable of decreasing our emission while still increasing our use of energy. This is why research is so important. Research , is the key. Getting all countries to believe in and stay within some guidelines around greenhouse gases and other pollutants is also a key, everyone
must get on board. The use of production tax credits and incentives our generally
used poorly. Europe has for the last decade given credits but they were too easy to
qualify for and has allowed for a poor “ green energy “ portfolio. The US has also
lately supported credits and also poorly managed by our government. Credits makes
sense to make the private sector aware of where we need to drive the worlds energy
portfolio but higher requirements are needed to qualify for these credits and in the
US where these credits take on a different form every 5 years also hurts our ability
to create certainty within the Wind, Solar, geothermal biogas and biomass areas
and thereby create investment.
We can’t just focus on any one energy source to improve, either. The US, because of our size requires a mix of generation technologies.
Today we have significant new natural gas discoveries, natural gas can be brought
on line quickly , emits significantly less CO2 than coal and the fuel , long term has
less transportation costs and environmental effects. Natural gas can replace most
of the retiring coal, therefore a good option. We likely need to keep using coal for
decades to come , so continued research into IGCC, carbon capture and plant retrofit
all make sense. The US has the most geothermal power online today but also has
much more to tap into, it’s expensive to build but it requires no fuel for the next
40 years, not to have and develop geothermal would be a mistake . Nuclear will
no doubt have a place long term, nobody has more experience managing Nuclear
plants worldwide, the US has 104 operating plants, France has 54, the second most.
Nuclear has a great track record for safety, it’s the best base load fuel for emissions
( has very low emissions ) but does have some waste disposal issues but not big
enough , in my opinion to not continue to have great interest. The renewable all
have value, wind has really found it’s place and will continue to grow worldwide,
turbine research will continue to make it more efficient and affordable. Solar
photovoltaic has it’s place in distributed generation ( on buildings like Wal Marts )
but really lacks the efficiency and cost competitiveness to be built in mega fields (
greater than 100 MW ) without credits. I’m against building anything that the only
way to succeed is thru government credits . Solar thermal or concentrated solar is
an interesting technology , research here would be well spent as this technology
capable a large solar power generation. Wave, tidal need more research and we
should. Biogas and biomass are relevant but only locally, must have local source of
fuel . So I guess the answer is no one place to invest , must be always looking for new
ways to improve all technologies. Everyone will/should use the energy source that they have the best access too. Coal will be #1 for many years to come. Nuclear will grow.
Hydro in underdeveloped nations that have water will be a game changer in some
areas of the world, someday. Gas also a big player.
Not all of our moves have been infallible, but our energy system is one of the best in the world. The US has a great portfolio of energy sources a very good
mix. I guess the best is the fact that other than hydro our energy infrastructure
has been developed by the private sector which has given us the least cost energy
in the world. Maybe the smartest technology push was the Hydro build out of the
1930 – 60’s. We have abundant amount of low cost renewable energy. As I stated
earlier all generation projects will have an impact on the environment . The worst
moves , in my opinion, the ethanol focus of 10 years ago by the US government was a
poor choice, executed poorly and today is looked upon as a disaster. Never produce energy where the energy used to produce the fuel is more than the fuel releases.
The last 4 years we had several government alternative and renewable energy
credits and incentives. In my opinion , poorly managed and poorly thought out. A
lot like ethanol , the wind & solar PV businesses will succeed in areas where they
make sense and will fail in areas that the only reason they were built was due to the
credits.
We need a portfolio of sources. I also believe we must continue to develop
the life cycle concept and of course utilize both renewable and alternative
technologies in areas they make good economic sense . As technology improves the
demographics will change on what’s the best technology and where.