[TheForge] OT: Government waste

[Bob Ehrenberger]

They did more than just change light bulbs.  The put on solar pannels, 
ground source HVAC, light tubes, what ever they could think of to be more 
efficent.  They had a mandate from higher up to put together a plan. They 
got bids, but a lot of the stuff was just real expensive,  they paid $65 for 
LEDs. Acording to him the China sources for CFLs are holding back product to 
drive up prices, CFLs are going to get real expensive in the next couple 
years.

Robert Ehrenberger
Shelbyville, Mo.
eforge at centurytel.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Vida" <osan at netlabs.net>
To: "Bob Ehrenberger" <eforge at centurytel.net>; "Blacksmithing List Sponsored 
by ABANA" <theforge at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [TheForge] OT: Government waste


This is typical government-think.  They are not business people mostly -
are not trained in economics, mainly micro in such cases, and are not
trained in either accounting or business analysis.  They apparently have
no concept of "opportunity cost" nor of "hidden cost", nor of return on
assets, nor of general efficiency.  These rocket surgeons get it in
their tiny little brains that they are going to make some sort of ego
play in the public forum, dream up some ill-considered scheme and
proceed to shove it down taxpayer throats no matter how stupidly wasteful.

Consider the 8K saved per year.  To recoup that $300K investment
*without interest*, it would take 37+ years not including the various
maintenance costs associated with the change, which for all we know may
be even higher than with the old lighting.

300K invested at a miserable 5% return, which does not even cover
today's rate of currency inflation (never mind price inflation) would
yield an average interest of $41,852.70 year over year during that same
period, totaling  $1,869,476.33... assuming no economic collapse, which
is no longer safe to rule out, I am sad to report.

It is clear that whoever it was that decided to remove a presumably well
functioning lighting system for that sum in the interests of saving
$8K/year either knows nothing of even the most rudimentary financial
analysis, has a less-than-honest agenda in mind, is a blithering idiot,
or perhaps may be attributed with some combination of the three.  Were I
his boss, his ass would be on the unemployment line instantly.  That is
TAXPAYER money that is being frittered away so ineptly.  I would not
tolerate it for an instant.

On 3/21/2012 8:41 AM, Bob Ehrenberger wrote:
> At the BAM meeting last weekend I was talking to one of our members that 
> is
> a park ranger. He said that they just finished upgraiding the lighting at
> his park and visitor center.  He said that the upgrade will save them
> $8,000/year in electricity.  And it only cost us $300,000.  Only the
> government would think that spending $300,000 to save $8,000 was a good
> idea, that's a 37 year payback assuming there is no intrest on the 
> original
> investment.  If you figure in the cost of the money at 5%, they are 
> loosing
> $6,000/year.
>
> But that's OK they had a Fereral grant to pay for it.
>
> Oh yah, now they have a warehouse full of old florescent light tubes that
> they will have to pay to dispose.
>
> Robert Ehrenberger
> Shelbyville, Mo.
> eforge at centurytel.net