Schools are run by the individual states, not the federal government. Even so, just because the numbers are calculated differently doesn't mean anything. If you look at a high enough level, you will see that privately run schools very often are lower cost to run.
There are many programs that in only makes sense for the federal government to run. They might do a good job at some. But in general, large federal programs have a history of waste and fraud involved at a much higher rate that private industry, which has much greater incentive to be efficient. In fact fraud in big government programs is almost expected, as we all expect to see it increase with O-care.
How's that old Post Office doing as compared to Fed-ex or UPS? Not too good.
There is no such thing as what "silicon valley wants"..
This is true. Also, technology is generally a party neutral topic, and technology companies want to keep it that way. They must retain the ability to lobby both sides. Plus, these days, company leaders that express political opinions are often crucified in the press, calls for boycotts and such often follow.
I think server bans started back when everyone and his brother starting hosting porn sites and killing what used to be very limited bandwidth. Not as big a problem these days, but I can see why there needs to be some limitation. Otherwise they might need to start charging for usage.
OTOH, if you do host a web page, I bet Google will have no problem indexing i, and showing Ads along side search result hits......
Well, unlike those others, the devices and manufacturers of those devices are not direct competitors with NF as cable companies are. But financially, there is little or no "action" to get a piece of beyond customer attraction/retention.
But yes, there is some incentive to include NF from a competitive, customer retention & attraction standpoint. There is also incentive to get as many cable boxes into homes as possible and collect the rent. I don't see Time Warner making that move any time soon.....we'll see.
It just goes to show: It doesn't always pay to contract everything out to the private sector...
It shows the inability of the government to properly manage private sector services. They probably hired the coding firm based on campaign contributions rather than qualifications. I bet they don't even have any guarantees in the contract. The coders are probably making more money fixing the thing than if it worked.
Any deal to put NF on cable boxes will come with some type of agreement that keeps NF from streaming live content, which is something that scares the cable guy big time. Other agreements that keep NF infringing on their territory might be included as well. This is why NF on cable boxes might not happen any time soon.
Some basics regarding solar energy project press releases.
Most energy project press releases contain limited information, and performing analysis based on that information must be done with care. Some points to consider;
Any project PR, be it green energy or just about anything else, will provide the most optimistic and positive numbers and projections. Particularly if public financing is used. There is nothing nefarious or wrong with this, it is what it is, but it must be recognized when making comparisons using historical data or proven cost and performance data of other technologies.
Megawatt Capacity: For thermal solar plants, be careful to distinguish between megawatts electric vs. megawatts thermal. Thermal generation efficiency is very important. For small thermal plants with varying output, thermal efficiency is low. MW electric may be less than 50% MW thermal. But it will vary by plant and this efficiency will likely not be available in a press release. If not specified, don't assume they are stating MWe. Many vendors will state MWt.
"Enough energy to power X number of homes": This is a common inclusion because it gives many people an idea of scale, as most folks would find it hard to quickly figure that out if it was only stated as megawatt capability. The assumed average energy usage per home is usually not stated, so it really is of limited use. This number is often calculated as the number of homes that could be powered at the moment the power plant is producing its maximum output. For solar, that usually means a cloudless day at peak mid-day hours with all systems operating at full estimated efficiency (i.e. no dust on reflectors or panels, no faulty generating equipment, etc)
Cost = $XXXX: Typically, the stated project cost is the cost of construction and materials. It likely includes startup and testing costs, but may not. It will not include ongoing "normal" operation and maintenance costs nor will it include financing costs (interest payments), both of which are large factors in the overall power delivery cost. A press release will not include other recurring costs such as taxes and regulatory fees as well. Also, when discussing end user power delivery cost, don't forget to consider profit margin for the utility.
Operating Life: You will rarely see this stated in a PR, but it may be the single biggest factor in evaluating the cost model. What is the expected life of the major high cost components? If it is stated, it is likely to be optimistic. You can probably find good data on PV panel lifetime, probably little for large solar thermal facilities. Environment (dust, humidity) plays a major role. Thermal solar equipment goes through a lot of heatup-cooldown cycles as opposed to baseload technologies. The thermal stresses of these cycles is a key life limiting factor. Couple that with efforts to keep costs low and the fact that reliability is not as important as it is for baseload generation, you may find that this equipment is not likely to be built to the highest reliability standards. In other words, the cost of equipment failure is low, so investment in preventing it is low as well.
Just some stuff to think about when working with PR numbers.
$1000 per year for 30 years, and that's just paying back construction costs. No ongoing operational cost included. No profit for the utility. None of the major components will likely last more than 15 or 20 years (that is being generous), so then add those replacement costs. This thing will never pay back, its not even close.
If anyone really cared about the environment, they would DEMAND that this $2B went to improving energy efficiency of existing electrical consumers. Both the environmental and financial benefits would be many times greater...... but then we couldn't yell "look at me, look at how wonderful and green I am".
If that $2 billion were spent on energy efficiency improvements instead, the paybacks would have been many times greater both financially and environmentally.
It just a big show, look at me, look how green I am, see my wonderful solar plant......... aren't I fantastic?
Slashdot Mirror
Cheaper is not always more cost effective.
Schools are run by the individual states, not the federal government. Even so, just because the numbers are calculated differently doesn't mean anything. If you look at a high enough level, you will see that privately run schools very often are lower cost to run.
There are many programs that in only makes sense for the federal government to run. They might do a good job at some. But in general, large federal programs have a history of waste and fraud involved at a much higher rate that private industry, which has much greater incentive to be efficient. In fact fraud in big government programs is almost expected, as we all expect to see it increase with O-care.
How's that old Post Office doing as compared to Fed-ex or UPS? Not too good.
There is no such thing as what "silicon valley wants". .
This is true. Also, technology is generally a party neutral topic, and technology companies want to keep it that way. They must retain the ability to lobby both sides. Plus, these days, company leaders that express political opinions are often crucified in the press, calls for boycotts and such often follow.
I think server bans started back when everyone and his brother starting hosting porn sites and killing what used to be very limited bandwidth. Not as big a problem these days, but I can see why there needs to be some limitation. Otherwise they might need to start charging for usage.
OTOH, if you do host a web page, I bet Google will have no problem indexing i, and showing Ads along side search result hits......
Isn't it ironic that the one thing the government does well is take our money?
forgive me....... a reasonable cost for maintenance and disposal.......is what I meant.
That about sums it up, energy density..... and at a reasonable cost I might add.
Well, unlike those others, the devices and manufacturers of those devices are not direct competitors with NF as cable companies are. But financially, there is little or no "action" to get a piece of beyond customer attraction/retention.
But yes, there is some incentive to include NF from a competitive, customer retention & attraction standpoint. There is also incentive to get as many cable boxes into homes as possible and collect the rent. I don't see Time Warner making that move any time soon.....we'll see.
It just goes to show: It doesn't always pay to contract everything out to the private sector...
It shows the inability of the government to properly manage private sector services. They probably hired the coding firm based on campaign contributions rather than qualifications. I bet they don't even have any guarantees in the contract. The coders are probably making more money fixing the thing than if it worked.
A shining example of mismanagement.
Any deal to put NF on cable boxes will come with some type of agreement that keeps NF from streaming live content, which is something that scares the cable guy big time. Other agreements that keep NF infringing on their territory might be included as well. This is why NF on cable boxes might not happen any time soon.
Some basics regarding solar energy project press releases.
Most energy project press releases contain limited information, and performing analysis based on that information must be done with care. Some points to consider;
Any project PR, be it green energy or just about anything else, will provide the most optimistic and positive numbers and projections. Particularly if public financing is used. There is nothing nefarious or wrong with this, it is what it is, but it must be recognized when making comparisons using historical data or proven cost and performance data of other technologies.
Megawatt Capacity: For thermal solar plants, be careful to distinguish between megawatts electric vs. megawatts thermal. Thermal generation efficiency is very important. For small thermal plants with varying output, thermal efficiency is low. MW electric may be less than 50% MW thermal. But it will vary by plant and this efficiency will likely not be available in a press release. If not specified, don't assume they are stating MWe. Many vendors will state MWt. "Enough energy to power X number of homes": This is a common inclusion because it gives many people an idea of scale, as most folks would find it hard to quickly figure that out if it was only stated as megawatt capability. The assumed average energy usage per home is usually not stated, so it really is of limited use. This number is often calculated as the number of homes that could be powered at the moment the power plant is producing its maximum output. For solar, that usually means a cloudless day at peak mid-day hours with all systems operating at full estimated efficiency (i.e. no dust on reflectors or panels, no faulty generating equipment, etc)
Cost = $XXXX: Typically, the stated project cost is the cost of construction and materials. It likely includes startup and testing costs, but may not. It will not include ongoing "normal" operation and maintenance costs nor will it include financing costs (interest payments), both of which are large factors in the overall power delivery cost. A press release will not include other recurring costs such as taxes and regulatory fees as well. Also, when discussing end user power delivery cost, don't forget to consider profit margin for the utility.
Operating Life: You will rarely see this stated in a PR, but it may be the single biggest factor in evaluating the cost model. What is the expected life of the major high cost components? If it is stated, it is likely to be optimistic. You can probably find good data on PV panel lifetime, probably little for large solar thermal facilities. Environment (dust, humidity) plays a major role. Thermal solar equipment goes through a lot of heatup-cooldown cycles as opposed to baseload technologies. The thermal stresses of these cycles is a key life limiting factor. Couple that with efforts to keep costs low and the fact that reliability is not as important as it is for baseload generation, you may find that this equipment is not likely to be built to the highest reliability standards. In other words, the cost of equipment failure is low, so investment in preventing it is low as well.
Just some stuff to think about when working with PR numbers.
$1000 per year for 30 years, and that's just paying back construction costs. No ongoing operational cost included. No profit for the utility. None of the major components will likely last more than 15 or 20 years (that is being generous), so then add those replacement costs. This thing will never pay back, its not even close. If anyone really cared about the environment, they would DEMAND that this $2B went to improving energy efficiency of existing electrical consumers. Both the environmental and financial benefits would be many times greater...... but then we couldn't yell "look at me, look at how wonderful and green I am".
If that $2 billion were spent on energy efficiency improvements instead, the paybacks would have been many times greater both financially and environmentally. It just a big show, look at me, look how green I am, see my wonderful solar plant......... aren't I fantastic?
And that's without any profits!