2012 California clean energy jobs act

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

2012 California clean energy jobs act

Postby flapackfan » Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:45 pm

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/20 ... e-the-jobs




Another law that sounds like a noble effort, but has govt boondogle written all over it. This is my favorite paragraph, but the rest is pretty revealing.

"Money is trickling in at a slower-than-anticipated rate, and more than half of the $297 million given to schools so far has gone to consultants and energy auditors. The board created to oversee the project and submit annual progress reports to the Legislature has never met, according to a review by The Associated Press."
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen prove that they are insured, but doesn't require every person to prove they are a citizen. Many who can't prove they are citizens will receive free insurance from those that are citizens.
User avatar
flapackfan
 
Posts: 3038
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:56 pm

Re: 2012 California clean energy jobs act

Postby Carl Gerbschmidt » Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:36 am

Sounds like most of the recycling programs.
Carl Gerbschmidt
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:42 pm

Re: 2012 California clean energy jobs act

Postby Lord Ben » Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:20 am

more than half of the $297 million given to schools so far has gone to consultants and energy auditors.


Well it is for clean energy jobs and not clean energy. They were honest about their graft right in the name... not as honest as the "Giving Your Money to our Allies in 2012 act" but they tried....
“Quite frankly, very few people know what they’re talking about." -- Ted Thompson
User avatar
Lord Ben
 
Posts: 4286
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Deep in the bowels of the Vandelay Industries server room.

Re: 2012 California clean energy jobs act

Postby Waldo » Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:49 pm

If its a long term program, which it appears to be, of course the beginnings are going to be energy audits and consults. You have to figure out what you need to do before you start doing it.

All projects of this nature follow a roughly similar lifecycle. I do similar stuff, but unrelated to anything "green".

- First a problem or need is identified at the political level, which generates large pot funding. This identification though is vague and not useful for project scoping.

- Then within the overall plan, evaluations are made within the larger scope to identify projects and assign costs and benefits.

- Program managers prioritize and fund projects, basically following the bang for your buck model. Egregious and simple low hanging fruit gets top priority, what follows is basically increasing complexity and declining ROI.

- Funded projects are implemented.

Its odd evaluating a program like this from a jobs created perspective. Especially given there appears to be poor tracking (tracking costs money too, over tracking and over evaluating progress not only slows progress, but it adds an extra layer of bureaucratic cost, for nothing more than "feel good" stats and useless administrative jobs). You can always do a swag calc: economic activity multiplier * (money in - materials - corruption - unspent money) / average labor cost = jobs created.

Obviously they are in the low hanging fruit phase and scoping phase. Energy audits, design, and cheap easy projects that save a ton of energy per dollar spent. Given that construction costs are mostly labor, cheap easy projects are low labor projects.

Energy audits and the upgrades they produce almost always run the same course, barring any major envelope problems, lighting is where the bang for the buck is. Then systems like HVAC and kitchen appliances. Then envelope upgrades like roofing, insulation, and windows. Then finally passive design retrofits (generally not done, only incorporated into new structures unless there is something egregious like full noon sun south exposure glass walls).

Light bulbs are the low hanging fruit in energy and carbon. Simple, cheap, and high impact.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ower-grids
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL


Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest