Wasting thousands of tax payer dollars, one Massachusetts public school has not turned off the lights for over a year and a half

[GoldDigger]

Moved to post 27-- don't ask why...lol..............................................................

 

[steve66]

MSN

1.2 million to switch 7000 lights. That $171 per light. Just crazy. Time to get competitive bids to replace the system.

 

[ActionDave]

Your link is broke so I didn't read the story but I can tell you from personal experience one of the worst customers you can work for is a school district.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Your link is broke so I didn't read the story but I can tell you from personal experience one of the worst customers you can work for is a school district.

His link worked for me

MSN

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Not sure why they couldn't turn breakers off.

 

[petersonra]

I have a hard time believing there are no circuit breakers that someone can shut off to turn the lights off.

 

[steve66]

I see failure all around - 5th light for not supporting products they have sold, maintenance for not turning off breakers (many of these systems even have manual off switches), and administration for not going to other companies to get the system replaced, and not realizing there are better options that just going back to the original supplier.

 

[Little Bill]

Unless turning power off would not let the lights come back on due to software glitch, there had to be a breaker or disconnect to kill power to the lighting panel. Even if the lights wouldn't come back on, that would be the time to do something different to operate the lights instead of leaving them on for over a year!

 

[gadfly56]

Unless turning power off would not let the lights come back on due to software glitch, there had to be a breaker or disconnect to kill power to the lighting panel. Even if the lights wouldn't come back on, that would be the time to do something different to operate the lights instead of leaving them on for over a year!

Unfortunately, this assumes that all the lighting circuits came from designated lighting panels. It's possible they pulled any old circuit to whatever module was controlling the lights, since the software wouldn't care.

 

[drcampbell]

This is symptomatic of a much-bigger problem: The trend of corporations coercing you into buying things -- especially, things with embedded software -- without actually owning them.
The "right to repair" movement is doing what it can to curb it, but not having a lot of success.

Right to repair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ever wonder why most UPS trucks and US Post Office vehicles don't have a brand-name insignia? They found it economical to specify their own vehicles and be their own system integrator, instead of buying trucks off the showroom floor which become unmaintainable for want of replacement parts long before their useful life would otherwise elapse.

Long Life Vehicle (LLV)

The Long Life Vehicle, or LLV, marked a major change in how postal officials approached buying vehicles.

postalmuseum.si.edu

 

[petersonra]

Ever wonder why most UPS trucks and US Post Office vehicles don't have a brand-name insignia? They found it economical to specify their own vehicles and be their own system integrator, instead of buying trucks off the showroom floor which become unmaintainable for want of replacement parts long before their useful life would otherwise elapse.

Long Life Vehicle (LLV)

The Long Life Vehicle, or LLV, marked a major change in how postal officials approached buying vehicles.

postalmuseum.si.edu

Sounds to me like it had nothing to do with replacement parts so much as making the vehicle suitable for the intended use. being a government project though, I suspect it cost three times as much as would to just buy off the shelf and replace them more often.

 

[ptonsparky]

I read an article about this yesterday. They have a contractor hired and a fix. The repaired system will have an OFF. Imagine that.

 

[Jraef]

I have a hard time believing there are no circuit breakers that someone can shut off to turn the lights off.

I agree. There is some sort of major nincompoopery taking place there...

Back when I did some energy efficiency work at a local large school district, the janitors in ALL of the schools were under the mistaken belief that leaving lights on cost less than turning them off and back on when needed. No matter how much I explained why that was and always has been an "old wives' tale", not one of them would change their way of doing things. I eventually turned that over to a company called WattStopper and they provided a "trial and test" system for one school, to where they recorded the energy for the lighting for one month without it, then installed it and if it didn't show a saving, they would rip it out and not charge them anything. It showed them that their energy use for lighting dropped by over 50% (probably their cooling costs too, but that wasn't recorded). That finally convinced the management, but the Janitors still believed it was some sort of scam.

 

[hillbilly1]

I agree. There is some sort of major nincompoopery taking place there...

Back when I did some energy efficiency work at a local large school district, the janitors in ALL of the schools were under the mistaken belief that leaving lights on cost less than turning them off and back on when needed. No matter how much I explained why that was and always has been an "old wives' tale", not one of them would change their way of doing things. I eventually turned that over to a company called WattStopper and they provided a "trial and test" system for one school, to where they recorded the energy for the lighting for one month without it, then installed it and if it didn't show a saving, they would rip it out and not charge them anything. It showed them that their energy use for lighting dropped by over 50% (probably their cooling costs too, but that wasn't recorded). That finally convinced the management, but the Janitors still believed it was some sort of scam.

With old florescent fixtures, that would be true to an extent, energy restarting the arc would use substantial power on startup, so turning off and on frequently in short periods of time would use more energy than leaving the fixtures on.

 

[retirede]

With old florescent fixtures, that would be true to an extent, energy restarting the arc would use substantial power on startup, so turning off and on frequently in short periods of time would use more energy than leaving the fixtures on.

We’re talking about switching off daily at the end of the school day, not every 3 minutes after using the toilet!

 

[hillbilly1]

We’re talking about switching off daily at the end of the school day, not every 3 minutes after using the toilet!

Exactly, that’s why I said it was true to an extent. LOL!

 

[drcampbell]

With old florescent fixtures, that would be true to an extent, energy restarting the arc would use substantial power on startup, so turning off and on frequently in short periods of time would use more energy than leaving the fixtures on.

Sorry, no. That was never true. The old fixtures with magnetic ballasts consumed as much energy to start up as leaving them on for about five seconds.

Turning them on & off frequently did reduce lamp life, but it did not increase energy consumption.

But once voodoo messaging takes hold in somebody's mind, it's usually lodged there for life.
- "Don't store batteries directly on concrete; it will suck the charge out of them."
(half true ... batteries go dead if stored directly on concrete for two years in an unheated garage)
- "Don't leave your car's ignition key turned on for extended periods of time without running the engine; it'll burn out the ignition points."
- "The sum of all the branch breakers'/fuses' capacities can't exceed the capacity of the main. That's called 'overfusing'."
- "Corporations have to raise their prices whenever their costs increase." (When market conditions permit them to raise their prices, successful corporations raise their prices whether their costs have gone up or not. Not doing so is called "leaving money on the table", and is a cardinal sin in business that will get you fired. (not doing so is also called "an unsuccessful corporation"))

 

[hillbilly1]

Sorry, no. That was never true. The old fixtures with magnetic ballasts consumed as much energy to start up as leaving them on for about five seconds.

Turning them on & off frequently did reduce lamp life, but it did not increase energy consumption.

But once voodoo messaging takes hold in somebody's mind, it's usually lodged there for life.
- "Don't store batteries directly on concrete; it will suck the charge out of them."
(half true ... batteries go dead if stored directly on concrete for two years in an unheated garage)
- "Don't leave your car's ignition key turned on for extended periods of time without running the engine; it'll burn out the ignition points."
- "The sum of all the branch breakers'/fuses' capacities can't exceed the capacity of the main. That's called 'overfusing'."
- "Corporations have to raise their prices whenever their costs increase." (When market conditions permit them to raise their prices, successful corporations raise their prices whether their costs have gone up or not. Not doing so is called "leaving money on the table", and is a cardinal sin in business that will get you fired. (not doing so is also called "an unsuccessful corporation"))

But you just admitted they do draw more on startup than when running. So that makes my statement true. I did not say wether it was cost effective or not, just where that idea came from. It’s just like the craze of unplugging walwart chargers when not in use, the amount of energy saved is minuscule.

 

[ggunn]

- "Don't leave your car's ignition key turned on for extended periods of time without running the engine; it'll burn out the ignition points."

What are "ignition points"?

Just kidding; I am old enough to have replaced many points, plugs, and condensers in my day. I have gapped points with a paper matchbook cover in the middle of the night on the side of the highway in a rainstorm while my buddy held the flashlight and my beer.

 

[kwired]

Sounds to me like it had nothing to do with replacement parts so much as making the vehicle suitable for the intended use. being a government project though, I suspect it cost three times as much as would to just buy off the shelf and replace them more often.

Today probably so.

Look at the military though, just my experiences back in late 80's early 90's we had same utility trucks that were being used in WWII. Yes some modifications from originals but still same base vehicles. Makes it easier to have repair parts when you don't have so many models to have to select parts for. Some them were being phased out about my time, though I don't known how this sort of thing has gone with what all replaced them. Guessing many of them still about the same thing with only minor changes to what was the originals though.

Imagine having them change the heavy armored vehicles (tanks and such) to what Ford or GM was currently offering every few years


Add: the government does still buy cars and small trucks that are same thing as consumers buy. When I was still in military there was occasional sedans used for special purposes that were just common vehicles, they were probably purchased in bulk quantities with same paint and same options but they do have certain amount of those for certain uses.