New Perspectives on the Materials Interface with the Three E\u27s -- Energy, Environment and Economics

New perspectives are presented on the material interface with the three E\u27s -- Energy, Environment, and Economics. The past, present, and future energy picture is described from 1850 through the year 2030. The major energy sources such as oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and several new emerging energy options are compared and contrasted. The lead time, capital, and materials required for bringing on-stream new energy sources is described. Previous U.S. energy forecasts are reviewed and are found to be too optimistic. The U.S. materials situation is outlined with an emphasis on per capita materials use and the critical role that foreign sources play in our materials supply. The interrelationship between energy and materials production is considered for three areas: (1) industrial processing, (2) construction and buildings, and (3) the automobile

A New Experiential Course in Engineering Management

Institutions with undergraduate programs of the engineering management type often find their introductory courses to be popular electives for students in more traditional engineering disciplines, while in other cases specific courses from business management or industrial engineering departments are elected. Where none of these options are available or suitable, engineering schools are well advised to provide one or two key courses to provide at least an introduction to the management problems their graduates will face. At Brown University, according to Prof. Barrett Hazeltine, a series of two courses in engineering management serve this function; more than half of Brown\u27s undergraduate engineers select at least one of these courses. At Harvey Mudd, this function is served by the innovative course discussed in this article

A Life Cycle Cost Economics Model for Automation Projects with Uniformly Varying Operating Costs

The described mathematical model calculates life-cycle costs for projects with operating costs increasing or decreasing linearly with time. The cost factors involved in the life-cycle cost are considered, and the errors resulting from the assumption of constant rather than uniformly varying operating costs are examined. Parameters in the study range from 2 to 30 years, for project life; 0 to 15% per year, for interest rate; and 5 to 90% of the initial operating cost, for the operating cost gradient. A numerical example is presented

An Approximation Method of Calculating the Present Worth of Nonintegrable Cash Flow Patterns

An approximation method is provided for calculating the present worth of nonintegrable continuous cash flows that have common industrial economic applications. Two limiting cases of particular use in engineering screening analyses are given for each model. Practical examples are presented to illustrate the application of the cash flow models to manpower reductions due to computerized process control and to cash flows for a pollution-abatement facility

Measuring R and D Productivity

Measuring the productivity of an R&D organization is extremely tricky. Productivity is usually defined as a ratio of an output, like number of cars produced on an assembly line, to an input, like the wages paid the workers. While R&D may have a measurable input, the output is often intangible and difficult to quantify. This is further complicated because the return from an R&D department may not be realized for one or two decades,which means the time lag is much higher than in factory measurements. Furthermore, many researchers believe that this kind of measurement may be counterproductive,since the mere act of measurement could reduce R&D productivity. Nevertheless, companies continue to evaluate R&D with the crude methods available as they desperately look for more effective, quantitative methods

Cost Scale-Up Factors for Airport Construction

Engineers must often make a quick ballpark cost estimate of a new plant, facility, or piece of equipment before the detailed design phase. One easy way to obtain such an estimate is to base the cost on a known cost for a similar plant, facility, or piece of equipment by using the ratio of the capacities or sizes of the known and proposed item raised to an exponent R. This predesign cost-estimating approach is especially useful for doing sensitivity analyses and feasibility studies for which a high degree of accuracy is not required. This cost-capacity or power-factor model was first developed by Williams in 1947 for equipment costs [7] and by Chilton in 1950 for plant costs [1]. In this article, we present scale-up factors for estimating the costs of terminal expansions to existing airports in the United States and the costs of constructing new international airports

The Cost of Doing a Cost Estimate

There are many reasons for cost overruns, but one of the key factors it the lack of resources (time, money, and staffing) spent to do proper up-front cost estimates. Another major reason is that the implements were not involved in the estimating. The purpose of this article is to address the issue of the cost to do a cost estimate [8]. We will report on how others handle this issue and make suggestions on how the Deep Space Network (DSN) should estimate the amount to spend on a cost estimate and its impact on reducing the probability of a cost overrun. We will report on our literature search and actual data from JPL procurement on what others charge JPL for a cost estimate. Our goal is to come up with guidelines with a methodology for estimating how much to spend on a cost estimate to achieve a desired accuracy. We think that many companies and government agencies typically underallocate resources for producing a cost estimate and, as a result, do not take the time to include all the necessary cost elements. This leads to cost overruns and/or de-scoping of the functional requirements of projects