LED retrofit lolz of 32 year payback period. Only the Government can afford them

Status
Not open for further replies.

Electric-Light

Senior Member
There's something in common between LED retrofits and Soviet Union space exploration. You can not afford it unless you're the Government. Nice looking kW reduction, but a 32 year payback period. Which is...
NEVER IN FOREVER, FORGET IT.

County of Sacramento, CA commissioned an(expensive as usual) Government experiment project that ripped out 187 existing F32T8 systems with the following LED products and along with many complex dimming controls to go with them.

97 Philips EvoKits troffers
45 Gotham 41/06-4ARWD
18 ledgreenlight T8 retrofit external driver rewire type.

No labor charge, in-house labor used.
Project cost: $37,960. $23,000 of the above bill footed by socialism through other units of Government through ARRA and other Gubbermint programs. The remainder was probably the county's responsibility, which would've still come from tax payers.

They claim that the project reduced demand from 5.5kW to 2kW and estimate that the county will see $1,613 annual reduction on the power bill. On surface, it looks like its saving the public $1,613/yr, but in the larger picture, it's costing us a lot more to fund stuff like this.

If it's not financially sustainable, there's no savings. This would never work if it wasn't a large number people subsidizing a small quantity of projects or else the pyramid would collapse upon itself.

If you were to borrow $38K in the real world and you want to make $134.41 payments, this is what happens:

Principle: $37,960
APR.. if you could get it financed at 2%.
Monthly payment: $134.41. (the monthly power savings)
At this rate, you'll be paid off in 31.84 years. :lol::lol::lol:

$13,390 in interest.
$37,960 in principle.
$51,350 total.

https://www.smud.org/en/business/sa...s/documents/County-DGS-LED-Lighting-Study.pdf
 
Last edited:

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
There's something in common between LED retrofits and Soviet Union space exploration. You can not afford it unless you're the Government. Nice looking kW reduction, but a 32 year payback period. Which is...
NEVER IN FOREVER, FORGET IT.

County of Sacramento, CA commissioned an(expensive as usual) Government experiment project that ripped out 187 existing F32T8 systems with the following LED products and along with many complex dimming controls to go with them.

97 Philips EvoKits troffers
45 Gotham 41/06-4ARWD
18 ledgreenlight T8 retrofit external driver rewire type.

No labor charge, in-house labor used.
Project cost: $37,960. $23,000 of the above bill footed by socialism through other units of Government through ARRA and other Gubbermint programs. The remainder was probably the county's responsibility, which would've still come from tax payers.

They claim that the project reduced demand from 5.5kW to 2kW and estimate that the county will see $1,613 annual reduction on the power bill. On surface, it looks like its saving the public $1,613/yr, but in the larger picture, it's costing us a lot more to fund stuff like this.

If it's not financially sustainable, there's no savings. This would never work if it wasn't a large number people subsidizing a small quantity of projects or else the pyramid would collapse upon itself.

If you were to borrow $38K in the real world and you want to make $134.41 payments, this is what happens:

Principle: $37,960
APR.. if you could get it financed at 2%.
Monthly payment: $134.41. (the monthly power savings)
At this rate, you'll be paid off in 31.84 years. :lol::lol::lol:

$13,390 in interest.
$37,960 in principle.
$51,350 total.

https://www.smud.org/en/business/sa...s/documents/County-DGS-LED-Lighting-Study.pdf
Don't forget they have a greener carbon footprint too, which that alone is enough justification to some:happyyes:

In/before 31.84 years they will either have replaced them with something "more efficient" or just plain replaced them with something more modern and will have never seen the entire payback.
 

Electric-Light

Senior Member
Did the goverment employees work for free?
Or did the tax payers pay for the labor?
Just asking
Tax payers did pay for them, but they're in-house and those expenses would've incurred anyways. Allocating the cost of having them would only increase the cost of already unaffordable :lol: ED lighting project.

Don't forget they have a greener carbon footprint too, which that alone is enough justification to some:happyyes:

Depending on if these calculations are done by accounts or not and how far you go up on indirect emissions. It gets all blurred in allocations. Many so called "clean energy" are significantly polluting.

Allocations, credits and deductions for something that needed to be produced and transported anyhow but done to have less carbon foot print are different from things whose production can only be justified for "carbon foot print reduction"

In/before 31.84 years they will either have replaced them with something "more efficient" or just plain replaced them with something more modern and will have never seen the entire payback.
So, we can't really afford this, along with all the silly stuff only the Government can afford. :happysad:
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Did the goverment employees work for free?
Or did the tax payers pay for the labor?
Just asking

Tax payers did pay for them, but they're in-house and those expenses would've incurred anyways. Allocating the cost of having them would only increase the cost of already unaffordable :lol: ED lighting project.
But it did increase the cost, just because they were already going to be paid doesn't mean they were free. What about the work they normally do when they were working on this project? It either didn't get done, they had to work extra hours, or someone else had to pick up some slack somewhere.

If they don't know what they are doing though they could end up costing more then someone that does in the long haul. Were these electrical professionals or just general maintenance guys?
 

readydave8

re member
Location
Clarkesville, Georgia
Occupation
electrician
But it did increase the cost, just because they were already going to be paid doesn't mean they were free. What about the work they normally do when they were working on this project? It either didn't get done, they had to work extra hours, or someone else had to pick up some slack somewhere.
One possible answer:

Remember a few years ago when many non-essential government workers were laid off or furloughed? Perhaps they have been rehired, and needed something to do.:)
 

norcal

Senior Member
One possible answer:

Remember a few years ago when many non-essential government workers were laid off or furloughed? Perhaps they have been rehired, and needed something to do.:)


All Government employees with the exception of fire & police, & the military are non-essential. :thumbsdown:
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
One possible answer:

Remember a few years ago when many non-essential government workers were laid off or furloughed? Perhaps they have been rehired, and needed something to do.:)
When anybody has their maintenance crew do a job outside their ordinary tasks you have to ask if they are truly saving any money. Sometimes maybe they are, but you have to remember their regular tasks are what they were hired for, and if they are spending too much time on some special task their regular tasks are going to be effected and it may have a cost associated with it sooner or later.

We recently had a instance where county was building a new jail/law enforcement center. County decided to have their road maintenance crew do some of the ground work at start of the project and claimed they save X amount of dollars by doing so. They mostly just have motor graders and front end loaders - no compaction type machines other then those used for road surfacing work. We have horrible county roads here so it raises many questions - first if they can't maintain a simple unpaved road very well, did they do a good enough job? If not what will it cost later because maybe there were settling issues because of improper compaction? This is not something they are accustomed to doing to. Second how much loss occurred to road maintenance that was poor to begin with since they took time away from doing that task.
 

growler

Senior Member
Location
Atlanta,GA
So, we can't really afford this, along with all the silly stuff only the Government can afford. :happysad:


The government can't afford all this silly stuff either but the way they figure it is that once you are in debt a few trillion dollars what the heck is a little more.

This is where the space program comes in, they hope that some day, in the middle of the night, to just pick up and move to another planet and not leave a change of address. Then start a new goverment and start spending money like crazy all over again.
 

Electric-Light

Senior Member
My point is that the payback period is 32 years on something with useful life of less than 32 years not even factoring in labor cost. If you add the labor cost, the loss just gets bigger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top