[TheForge] OT: Government waste

Fri Mar 23 11:38:43 EDT 2012

I'm sure they have their reasons for doing things the way they did.  I 
relayed the facts that my Ranger friend told me.  It still looks like the 
cost to return is out of whack.  I don't fault the park, they had someone 
that was willing to pay for a bunch of stuff that they would like to have 
done that was too expensive to pay for themselves. If they offered to 
upgrade my home I'd let them.

There is a good chance that the full story will come out in the Missouri 
Conservationest, the newsletter sent out by the MO dep of conservation.

Robert Ehrenberger
Shelbyville, Mo.
eforge at centurytel.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <wmullett at bright.net>
To: "Bob Ehrenberger" <eforge at centurytel.net>; "Blacksmithing List Sponsored 
by ABANA" <theforge at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [TheForge] OT: Government waste

No - that is only what you think the facts are. In 2001 the parks service 
published guidelines to look at individual park lighting systems but not 
just to save energy.

http://www.nps.gov/sustainability/documents/Energy/NPS_lighting_guidebook.pdf

They also published this outdoor lighting guide:

http://www.everlastlight.com/download/pdfs/everlast/DOE_FEMP_Exterior_Lighting_Guide.pdf

Energy costs are usually just a small, part of the savings from these 
programs.  The problem is that many people that are not involved in the 
project just don't know what is going on.  In most projects, the maintenance 
savings are much greater than the energy savings.  But then again, that is 
just part of the evaluation.

There are many - many articles on-line that describe US Park retrofit / 
improvement projects.  If you would post what park you are talking about, 
maybe we could find some factual information.

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:47:58 -0500
>From: theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net (on behalf of "Bob Ehrenberger" 
><eforge at centurytel.net>)
>Subject: Re: [TheForge] OT: Government waste
>To: <wmullett at bright.net>,"Blacksmithing List Sponsored by ABANA" 
><theforge at mailman.qth.net>
>
>The basic facts are the as stated they spent $300,000 to save $8,000.
>
>Robert Ehrenberger
>Shelbyville, Mo.
>eforge at centurytel.net
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <wmullett at bright.net>
>To: "Bob Ehrenberger" <eforge at centurytel.net>; "Blacksmithing List 
>Sponsored
>by ABANA" <theforge at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:35 AM
>Subject: Re: [TheForge] OT: Government waste
>
>
>AND NOW ... The rest of the story... "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. "  << Sure wasn't what you first posted and now everybody will be
>quoting.
>
>
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:43:06 -0500
>>From: theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net (on behalf of "Bob Ehrenberger"
>><eforge at centurytel.net>)
>>Subject: Re: [TheForge] OT: Government waste
>>To: "Andrew Vida" <osan at netlabs.net>,"Blacksmithing List Sponsored by
>>ABANA" <theforge at mailman.qth.net>
>>
>>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
>>
>>______________________________________________________________
>>TheForge mailing list
>>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
>>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
>>
>>TheForge mail list group photo site is
>>http://www.photoworks.com
>>Login: blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
>>Password: anvil
>>
>>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
>-----
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4886 - Release Date: 03/22/12
>
>______________________________________________________________
>TheForge mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
>
>TheForge mail list group photo site is
>http://www.photoworks.com
>Login: blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
>Password: anvil
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4889 - Release Date: 03/23/12