Quote
A Message from Jim Dickenson - October 7, 2008
Yesterday I shared with you my concerns about the effects of financial market changes on JEA. Last Friday, I worked with the EMT to identify options for mitigating these effects. Today, the JEA Board of Directors met to consider options to reduce the impact of current financial market changes on JEA. We went through a detailed review of the historic cost and availability of capital, changes in tax exempt fixed and variable interest rates, and our combined outstanding debt. We also presented capital funding plan options. As a result, the following options were discussed by the Board to address our current financial crisis:
• Reduce/ freeze capital spending
• Reduce/freeze hiring, including replacements for the next twelve months
• Reduce temporary and contract workforce
• Reduce or redeploy staff where possible
• Freeze consulting contracts, evaluate and reduce/eliminate where possible
• Cut non-mission critical expenses
• Defer non-mission critical repair and maintenance expenses
Later today, I will meet with the entire management staff to discuss these changes. Then, over the next few days and weeks, you will receive additional information.
Technology and the globalization of economies have changed our world over the last ten years. Now, changes in global financial markets are once again forcing us to change the way we do business. This process will be challenging for sure and even painful at times. It will require every one of us to reevaluate the way we do our jobs. We will have to be more inventive, more efficient, and more collaborative while maintaining service levels for customers and our community. But I believe that we have some of the brightest and best minds in the utility industry here at JEA and I am confident that together we can do the work that must be done for JEA to be financially secure.
Jim
For me it's hard at times to see through the exaggerations the media puts out there, but when a utility such as JEA is considering lay offs, it starts to sink in that this isn't hype.
I wonder who they will layoff? Most of their workforce is older, they are already concerned they do not have enough younger employees. If they lay off older employees prior to retirement that will be horrible, if they lay off younger employee's what happens when the older employees retire? Good reason to have a nice equal mix, but bad time to start thinking about that!
Their workforce is extremely advanced in years, but most of them are on board with civil service and unionized so they'll probably be safe. Unfortuantely, it does look like the younger workers are vunerable. Especially those who are employeed through staffing agencies. Also, the Greenland energy center might become a temporary victim of this as well. I doubt they'd move forward with those plans if they're looking to freeze spending right now. It's still too early to tell though....
Good point. I wonder if the new power plant is considered "Mission Critical"? My guess is that the new plant is mission critical and that construction will move forward.
It will boost JEA's electric output by 17%, so it's possible. As of right now the site is just an office trailer off a dirt road but construction is supposed to start next year, finishing up around 2010, probably closer to 2011. We'll know more by the week's end.
A good portion of our Ranstad "temps" were let go today. I use the term "temps" loosely because some who were let go were here for 10 years. My group (technology services) is next on the list and then the next layer from there. What do you all think of the nickname "Trucker Dave"? I may get to try out that daydream of a job pretty soon here.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/100808/met_341409953.shtml
this is the main reason for all of this: "About 30 percent of JEA's $6.5 billion in debt has a variable interest rate, and those rates more than tripled at the end of September"
The sad thing is, there's no way they can cover the cost of the jacked up interest on 30% of 6.5 billion in debt by doing lay offs. They say they're not raising rates, but after they cut back staff and other non-essential projects they'll probably come after the customers saying "look, we cut back staff, but it's still not enough.... we need more money"
Anyway, If you guys see an almost 30 year old guy with scruffy facial hair delivering pizzas in a beat up VW hatchback in the urban core area.....please, tip well if you can ;D
Sorry to hear about it, David. Keeping my fingers crossed for you and your future endeavors.
Another thing here is that JEA (as well as other utilities in other areas) have a near-monopoly over the region. No serious competition means they don't have to fight to attract customers. Kind of sad result of the centralized power grid/generation system.
Not to get off the subject of little, but in light of the financial problems facing all of us, why did JEA decide on expensive natural gas over clean coal technology at the new facility?
Because they're not too sharp! I've never had a straight answer when I've asked some of the higher ups that question.
Quote from: Doctor_K on October 08, 2008, 01:25:55 PM
Sorry to hear about it, David. Keeping my fingers crossed for you and your future endeavors.
Another thing here is that JEA (as well as other utilities in other areas) have a near-monopoly over the region. No serious competition means they don't have to fight to attract customers. Kind of sad result of the centralized power grid/generation system.
Thanks, I apperciate that.
JEA definitely has that monopoly mentality. You can tell things haven't changed in ages, nor has the company really been challenged by anything. This may end up being a good thing overall, after we get through all this.
Quote from: David on October 08, 2008, 12:59:16 PM
this is the main reason for all of this: "About 30 percent of JEA's $6.5 billion in debt has a variable interest rate, and those rates more than tripled at the end of September"
YIKES!
and yea, i'm sure they are gonna start doing 15% rate increases every 6 months.... this last one really made an impact on my bill
Quote from: stephElf on October 08, 2008, 02:01:04 PM
and yea, i'm sure they are gonna start doing 15% rate increases every 6 months.... this last one really made an impact on my bill
Same here. You look at the bill post-rate-hike and you just exclaim "when will it end?!?"
I'm literally counting down until solar PV panels are affordable/marketable... can't wait to put a dent in that JEA bill.
Quote from: David on October 08, 2008, 01:44:10 PM
Because they're not too sharp! I've never had a straight answer when I've asked some of the higher ups that question.
Coal is very much hated by the environmentalists and the price is rising daily. Natural gas is much cleaner and easier to get through permitting, although the technology is a bit more expensive. Natural gas is also more of a local commodity, whereas most of our coal comes from South America where there is heavy competition with China and the rest of the world. Coal is dirty from beginning to end, and its mining devastates landscapes. Natural gas is much easier and cleaner from beginning to end, however, it costs will rise as more electric utilities make the switch from coal to gas.
What Jason said! I really don't know enough about that issue, i'm just the computer geek. Thanks for clarifying sir.
Quote from: David on October 08, 2008, 03:05:36 PM
What Jason said! I really don't know enough about that issue, i'm just the computer geek. Thanks for clarifying sir.
Except it is wrong. Our coal is produced domestically. We do not import coal. We are a big exporter of coal.
JEA buys a large amount of their low-sulpher coal from Argentina (I believe). My firm met with some of the head honchos from JEA for a tour and a sit down lunch and discussion about a year ago and were told directly by the plant manager that the majority of their coal (all high grade low-sulpher) comes form South America. Because of the high fuel prices to ship and the increasing competition from foreign markets, the price was steadily rising.
The success with the Northside Generating Station does make one wonder exactly why natural gas was chosen though...
QuoteClean Coal Power Now Serving
Customers in Jacksonville, FL
(http://fossil.energy.gov/images/newsimages_powersystems/cct_jea_aerial.jpg)
DOE, Local Officials Commemorate One of World's Cleanest Coal Plants; Awards Begin Coming In
Jacksonville, FL - In a noontime ceremony that brought new meaning to the term "power lunch," government and industry officials in Jacksonville, Florida, today declared the nation's newest clean coal power plant fully operational.
At a barbeque at the newly refurbished Northside Generating Station, officials from the U.S. Department of Energy and JEA, Jacksonville's municipal utility, officially unveiled the results of a $630 million, 5-year effort to install clean coal technology in the 35-year old power station.
Equipped with new, state-of-the-art "circulating fluidized bed combustors," the power station is now one of the cleanest burning coal plants in the world. Its two advanced combustors - the largest ever installed in a power plant - each generate 300 megawatts of power, enough to light over 250,000 average households.
The plant is not only cleaner than before, it now generates two-and-a-half times more power. Using coal instead of the more expensive oil and gas the plant previously burned is expected to help keep electric rates low and stable in the Jacksonville area.
"Coal supplies more than half of our nation's electricity and is one of the reasons why American consumers benefit from some of the lowest electricity rates of any free-market economy," said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement issued from Washington. "The clean coal technology in the JEA plant shows that we can continue to benefit from coal's economic advantages while we continue to clean our air. Because of successes like this, President Bush's National Energy Policy sets us on course to make further investments in clean coal technology."
The editors of POWER magazine, one of the most widely read publications in the electric utility industry, used the luncheon to present the magazine's 2002 Powerplant Award to the Northside facility. It is the 6th time an Energy Department clean coal project has received the prestigious award.
In 1996, JEA committed to the community to reduce pollutants from the Northside Station by at least 10 percent when it replaced two of the plant's obsolete and inefficient oil- and gas-fired units. With the new clean coal technology, the utility will meet its pledge and at the same time generate significantly more power from the facility.
The Energy Department contributed more than $74 million to the project as one of the original projects under its Clean Coal Technology Program. The federal funding went to install one of the two combustors. JEA converted the second boiler entirely with its own funding.
Circulating fluidized bed combustors are relatively new for the electric power industry. While conventional coal-fired plants rely on large, expensive devices to clean pollutants from flue gases after they leave the boiler, a circulating fluidized bed plant reduces most of the pollutants inside the furnace as the coal burns.
Crushed limestone added to the coal as it enters the combustor captures 90 percent of the sulfur pollutants. The fluid motion of the coal as it burns - accounting for the name "fluidized bed" - also allows a "slow burn" that prevents the formation of nitrogen oxides, another air pollutant that can cause smog.
The Northside Station's 12-story circulating fluidized bed combustors, supplied by Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., are the largest of their type in the world.
To make the plant even cleaner, JEA voluntarily installed additional pollution controls. Nitrogen oxides are reduced even more by a chemical reaction with ammonia in the upper portions of the boiler. Exhaust gases pass through a "polishing scrubber" - the first ever to be used in conjunction with a circulating fluidized bed boiler - to cut total sulfur dioxide pollutants to nearly 98%. Finally, the flue gas is sent through fabric filters to remove solid fly ash particles.
The Northside Station will also be one of the world's most fuel-flexible power plants. While many older plants were designed for a narrow range of coals, the circulating fluidized bed technology burns a much wider variety of fuels. In addition to coal, JEA plans to fuel the Northside Station with petroleum coke, a low-cost, solid that oil refineries discard as waste.
As a further environmental measure, the utility installed a totally enclosed conveyor system to transport coal and "pet coke" from barges docked on the St. Johns River to the two largest fuel storage domes in North America. The contained system prevents dust particles from escaping into the surrounding environment.
Under its funding agreement, the Energy Department will collect data from plant operations through April 2004. The plant will then continue to operate as a commercial facility.
Source: http://fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2002/tl_cct_jea.html
Hmm... I'll be damned. Looks as if you may be correct. Though I cannot find anything to tie JEA to coal imprts it seems we are importing more and more...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0710/p02s01-usec.html
Those "CFB"s are absolutely amazing and the storage domes look like they could swallow Alltel Stadium.
Perhaps Ock can shed some light on this... I know a couple of coal trains pass through Jax every day for power plants to the south of here and a couple of trains every day pass to the north empty...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2864651520071129
Now that's something I didn't realize. I thought all our coal was purchased domestically. If indeed the coal is coming from Argentina, or any other country at that distance, I can see where the shipping costs would have been rising dramatically. Is the low sulfur content of the coal the deciding factor?
QuoteCoal is very much hated by the environmentalists and the price is rising daily.
Unfortunately, the process of obtaining the increasingly needed amounts of natural gas is hated by the environmentalists also.
Total speculation, but Greenland energy center does look to be on hold for now. I've seen several termination request come in for most of the contractors assigned to that project, one of which is an employee of 10 years that has been assigned to most of our big projects such as this one.
Another thing to consider is the sheer size (land area wise) of the coal fired plants versus natural gas. There isn't quite as much land available at the proposed site, nor is it as accesible.
Quote from: jaxnative on October 08, 2008, 04:13:21 PM
Now that's something I didn't realize. I thought all our coal was purchased domestically. If indeed the coal is coming from Argentina, or any other country at that distance, I can see where the shipping costs would have been rising dramatically. Is the low sulfur content of the coal the deciding factor?
QuoteCoal is very much hated by the environmentalists and the price is rising daily.
Unfortunately, the process of obtaining the increasingly needed amounts of natural gas is hated by the environmentalists also.
Low-sulpher isn't likely a hard requirement because crushed limestone is already added to the mix to help combustion and reduce polution by absorbing the harmful sulpher. If a low grade coal is used, more limestone must be used as well. Still, the limestone only absorbs 90% of the sulpher leaving the rest to the scrubbers. The lower the quality of the coal, the more polution that is produced.
IMO, the process of harvesting natural gas is must less devestating than mining for coal.
Aerial of open-pit coal mine in Venezuela.
(http://energy.er.usgs.gov/images/organic_petrology/mine_aerial.jpg)
Not sure where this one is
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/65/Oil_sands_open_pit_mining.jpg)
Aerial of natural gas facility....
Offshore
(http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/ap/my60102162207.hmedium.jpg)
Onshore
(http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/EP/ImprovedRec/Fig14941Strata_3.jpg)
You be the judge of the impact comparisons.....
Just for fun... the inside of a coal storage dome. JEA's are MUCH larger.
(http://www.ecofriend.org/images/coal-is-mixed-in-a-coal-mix-hall-at-the-prosper-ii-mine-in-bottrop-germany-january-30-2007_9.jpg)
QuoteIMO, the process of harvesting natural gas is must less devestating than mining for coal.
I agree.
A division of the company I work for is involved with three clean coal projects around the world. The projects are in Spain, Sweden, and here in the US. Oxygen is introduced in the coal combustion process reducing the air by a factor of 10. The greatly increased heat produced by the oxygen allows CO2 to be streamlined and captured during the combustion phase. 90% of the CO2 emissions are captured, stored, and sold for use in other applications.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 08, 2008, 04:04:30 PM
Hmm... I'll be damned. Looks as if you may be correct. Though I cannot find anything to tie JEA to coal imprts it seems we are importing more and more...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0710/p02s01-usec.html
I'll ask around Mr. Bridgetroll, if the layoffs don't hit my department this week that is. I talk to these guys on a weekly basis. They can keep our city's power grid up and running but dont know how to right click or send an attachment, go figure :D
Well scratch that, half of our department, including me was let go this morning. Sorry Bridgetroll, i've lost the insider scoop.
::delivers pizza::
David, man I'm sorry to hear that. I wish you all the best in lining up a new job.
Quote from: jaxnative on October 08, 2008, 06:43:15 PM
A division of the company I work for is involved with three clean coal projects around the world. The projects are in Spain, Sweden, and here in the US. Oxygen is introduced in the coal combustion process reducing the air by a factor of 10. The greatly increased heat produced by the oxygen allows CO2 to be streamlined and captured during the combustion phase. 90% of the CO2 emissions are captured, stored, and sold for use in other applications.
Is your company using the CFBs??
Quote from: David on October 09, 2008, 09:38:21 AM
Well scratch that, half of our department, including me was let go this morning. Sorry Bridgetroll, i've lost the insider scoop.
::delivers pizza::
David, mand I'm sorry to hear that. I wish you all the best in finding a new gig.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v451/eldeadcow/Unemployed.jpg)
Well just go at the jub hunt like a storm trooper and you're sure to find something even better.
(Word of advice, just don't look like a strom trooper...) :)
QuoteIs your company using the CFBs??
If I understand you correctly, yes, the oxygen mixes with the flue gas as it enters the CFB. The flue gas is then cooled and any dust and ash from the burning process are removed in a dust collector. Part of the flue gas is then recirculated with the oxygen and the rest is processed into high purity CO2. Trace amounts of nitrogen and argon are then separated from the CO2 and vented to the atmosphere. The clean CO2 is then compressed and travels by pipeline to an underground storage facility.
Sounds very similar to the current setup at the northside station. That place is absolutely amazing to see up close and personal.
Everything I'm reading about the natural gas fired plants is the the gas is quite a bit more expensive than the coal.
Quote from: David on October 09, 2008, 09:38:21 AM
Well scratch that, half of our department, including me was let go this morning. Sorry Bridgetroll, i've lost the insider scoop.
::delivers pizza::
Ouch... Sorry to hear that. Hang in there man... :(
QuoteSounds very similar to the current setup at the northside station. That place is absolutely amazing to see up close and personal.
I'm pretty sure its almost exactly the same set-up without the O2 injection. The new plants acually have a cryogenic air separation plant on site to supply the oxygen.
These plants truly are amazing feats of technology providing a product and service absolutely essential to our economy and our lives.