Slashdot Log In
Feds Unwrap $15M For Corporate Energy Reduction
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Sep 29, 2008 03:01 PM
from the irresponsible-spending dept.
from the irresponsible-spending dept.
As hard as it is to imagine, coondoggie writes with news that the federal government just unveiled a new energy bill that will offer $15 million in assistance to retailers who help to build and adopt energy-efficient technologies. "The US Department of Energy (DOE) announced the first phase of $15 million awards to retailers Best Buy, JCPenney, John Deere, Macy's, SuperValu, Target, Toyota, and Whole Foods Market. Commercial Real Estate Firms such as CB Richard Ellis, Forest City Enterprises as well as the financials groups also saw some of the money. Along with the money the companies will have access to the DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to design, build, tune and operate at least one new prototype building and to retrofit an existing building project."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wow! $15 million! (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine if they received $699 billion more.
Re: (Score:2)
And imagine if this were for renewables rather than just turning off lights when you weren't using them! And further imagine if this had come years ago, and by now we had workable solutions to our energy needs!
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if these technologies have ALREADY been developed [echelon.com] and are ALREADY in fairly widespread use? Holy Cow Batman! I have a great idea about using a circular object to move heavy items!!!!
Yes, let's give Walmart taxpayer money to help the poooooorrr Walmart who is suffering from high energy costs while forcing US companies out of business with their purchasing policies / behavior.
Whole Foods... (Score:5, Funny)
...should harness the smug of their customers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, Whole Foods isn't that bad...at least not in my neck of the woods (New Orleans area). Sure, you can easily spend too much $$ (hence the moniker "Whole Paycheck"), but, last time in there...I did some pricing, and on some produce and meats (for the quality stuff), the price wasn't that bad actually. Not to mention...you can often find fresh ingredients there that the normal grocery stores don't carry. If you shop there judiciously, some things are co
Imagine what they could do with 700 Billion.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well we reserve that kind of money for folks who fail upwards..
Re:Imagine what they could do with 700 Billion.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I left the country for a few weeks, and now that I'm back, it feels like I'm "IN SOVIET RUSSIA" or something.
I mean, suddenly it's the Democrats who want to throw $700 Billion to our corporate overlords, and it's the Republicans who are (probably ineffectively) trying to put a stop to it. What a country!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Well, like anything else in American politics is 90% of one party moving with 40-50% of the other..
Many democrats voted against this but the reason its being pushed by its leadership is because of things like this:
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/19/congressional-black-caucus-and-its-cozy-relationship-with-fannie-mae.php [wizbangblog.com]
And this:
http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2008/09/democrats-caught-on-tape-fanie-mae-not.html [blogspot.com]
--
Many republicans are voting for it because they also know where their bread is buttered..
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, it appears that updates to the program under the Clinton admin. (read the section here [wikipedia.org]) really started the slide downhill with not only encouraging banks to give out bad loans to those who really could not afford homes....and in cases after this..banks that didn't want to give loans wer
Re:Imagine what they could do with 700 Billion.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The House agrees with you, and the bill failed to pass by a small margin earlier today.
Democracy actually worked here! The population seemed apprehensive about the bill, and congress decided that it was best to address the problem in smaller steps.
Hopefully this is a sign of things to come, where congress no longer considers these 300-page meta-bills an ethical or acceptable way to propose legislation.
It's also interesting to note that the representatives didn't overwhelmingly side with their parties, making it one of the few recent pieces of major legislation that hasn't encountered outright polarization.
All these things add up to a very promising sign. People seem to have finally woken up, and realized what's at stake.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Imagine what they could do with 700 Billion.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Democracy actually worked here! The population seemed apprehensive about the bill, and congress decided that it was best to address the problem in smaller steps.
While Democracy was working the Federal Reserve was creating $630 billion [bloomberg.com] out of nothing and putting it into the financial system.
While watching C-Span today I think my favorite line was from Brad Sherman (D-CA): "Just because all of your constituents oppose this bill does not make it an act of courage to vote for it."
Parent
Re:Imagine what they could do with 700 Billion.... (Score:4, Interesting)
It was going to come from somewhere. You can make a case that it might do more than $700B worth of good, but one thing is beyond all doubt: it would have done at least $700B worth of damage.
The people who wanted to borrow money to buy T-shirts, should go talk to the people who were going to pay the $700B. Surely those rich folks have plenty of money to lend -- more than the banks, apparently.
Who are they? Oh, your grandkids. Fusion power, flying cars, and people with hundreds of billions of dollars burning holes in their pockets -- the future is awesome!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the Washington Post take on the vote:
"It's no coincidence then that of the 205 Members who voted in support of the bill today, there are only two -- Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Jon Porter (R-Nev.) -- who find themselves in difficult reelection races this fall. The list of the 228 "nays" reads like a virtual target list for the two parties."
Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/the_failure_of_the_financial.html?nav=rss_blog [washingtonpost.com]
Since we are off topic... (Score:2)
I'd like to congratulate you, americans, for putting your country away from a path that would lead to the 3rd world and demonstrating that there is still some democracy in there.
Well done!!!
Re:Dear know-nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
This is offtopic but screw it, it needs saying. I'm sick of anonymous asshate like the parent poster defending the sociopaths who caused the necessity to save the country.
That money didn't just go away. It went to extremely rich people.
You're not going to solve the problem by rewarding the people who caused the problem in the first place. We need some serious banking regulation in this country, starting with a cap on interest rates at some multiple of the prime. Outlawing golden parachutes.
The government isn't going to bail me out, but you want it to bail out the people who have the means to bail themselves out? Smartassed comments are needed a whole lot more than bailing out uber-rich sociopaths. Ever hear of Will Rogers?
"No bonus" boxes checked.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You do know that the sub-prime tag given to this is to blame the poor people for the faults of the rich, right? The rich bankers chose to lend money to people they thought couldn't afford an increase in interest rates because they assumed the ho
Incentives for what? (Score:3, Informative)
WHY do we need incentives to do the "right" thing?
Why are we beholden to evil, unless someone pays us to not be?
{sarcasm} I guess I'm just too stupid or naive to understand {/sarcasm}
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On that front, it would seem the companies are hedging their bets that public opinion is moving to the side of sustainable energy. You can only count on a corporation to do what will make it money (usually). So if corporations are changing that could be taken as a good sign that public opinion is shifting (again).
I think this it's more like a governmental high-fi
Re: (Score:2)
You need to spend a little less time on 4chan.
Re:Incentives for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are we beholden to evil, unless someone pays us to not be?
Why are you calling shareholders evil? I think a better term is "short-sighted".
These companies might implement cost-saving energy-conservation measures if they were handed over for free. But if anyone tries to sell them cost-saving measures, the immediate cost is a large deterrent despite the long-term results, because most companies can't seem to afford a view longer than the next quarterly financials. However, show a tax savings on that report because of government rebates and the company can implement changes.
Is this the way it should be? Probably not. But that's how it is.
Parent
Re:Incentives for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Incentives for what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know something for absolutely certain, American CEO's and stockholder's are the most short-sighted and unimaginative on the planet.
That's because the system is set up in such a way that it rewards such short-sightedness. You see they aren't as short-sighted as you think. They're looking out for their own long term interests. It's just that the CEO's long term wealth is completely disconnected from the company's. So a CEO can actually end up being fired with a much smaller golden parachute and a bad reputation for doing the right thing by the company because his next quarter profits are down.
You might as well blame a farm pig for being fat. The system needs changing, and no I'm not an economist so I don't have the answers. I just know when something's broken.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I think "evil" is pretty accurately characterized by subsidizing you own existence with the work of others. That's really all shareholders are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately the money has to come from somewhere, so unless you want to walk door to door with a collection box for your research you are pretty much stuck working to convince someone with a big poc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because, contrary to rumour, it costs money to make buildings more energy efficient.
It costs enough that you're generally better off NOT doing it - you're likely to stop using the building before the energy efficiency upgrade pays for itself, much less shows a return.
Note that this isn't necessarily true for ALL buildings. But, in general, the cheap easy improvements were made decades back, the last time we panicked about energy prices. What's left are t
Because it's the wrong thing (Score:2, Funny)
Reducing energy usage is a waste of time and money for almost anyone. It represents a reduction in the value and quality of human life for the benefit of "The Earth".
These companies could be producing good and services for their customers or profits for their shareholders. That's what they were created to do -- not wasting their employees' time to try to save energy. Why should they want to spend $100 in employee time to save $50 worth of energy? To go to environmentalist heaven?
Re: (Score:2)
For the benefit of "The Earth"? Seriously? You make it sound like the earth is some far off place reserved for the enjoyment of a wealthy few.
When deciding that reducing energy usage is a waste of money for almost everyone, how do you reach that conclusion? Have you factored in the countless externalizes or are you just looking at the direct savings? From the example you gave I'm assuming the latter is the case.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone could do a fair cost/benefit analysis taking every single factor into account, and if reducing energy turned out the be the lowest cost and highest benefit (rather than, say, building a nuclear power plant) then it would make sense.
If the only real benefit is going to environmentalist heaven, then reducing energy use is just a sad waste of humanity.
Do you have this analysis that shows all the externalities? I don't think you do.
Re: (Score:2)
>
Do you have this analysis that shows all the externalities? I don't think you do.
He may not, but your analysis specifically disallows externalities by only taking into account employee time.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that an M or a B? (Score:4, Funny)
Cos I thought they only talked in billions and trillions. Y'know 700 billion here, a trillion there.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hey! I'm a CEO trying to get my Golden Parachute, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To put that in perspective (Score:4, Informative)
Fifteen million dollars is trivial.
simple: let the sun in (Score:3, Informative)
The simple solution is to let the sun in. 1) Install more sky lights. 2) install sensors to dim lights as needed
Next solar HOT water systems for heating/cooling of their buildings.
This is 30 year old technology with a 6-8 year payback.
Where is my check?
Re: (Score:2)
Cause & effect. When you pop open the skylights, you end up reducing the effective insulation of the house. This becomes an issue when you're trying to keep heat in during the winter and keep heat out during the summer (and lets that much more solar energy in).
Sorry, no check, insufficiently constructive input.
Here's an idea (Score:2)
Start billing employees for leaving their computers on overnight when there is no business reason. It's one thing to leave it in sleep mode, but where I've worked, a lot of workstations are left turned on overnight, eating up a decent bit of electricity.
After the first offense, I would start docking one or two dollars per offense from the next pay check. Hit them in their pocket, and employees will stop leaving their computers on when they don't need to be on.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
computer using 100w (your net admin should have power settings set correctly and this is way over estimated)
for 15 hours
= $0.30 per night
or
PHB @ $30/H
taking 5 minutes to boot and log in ($30/5 minutes of time (12))
= $2.5
Doesn't make sense or cents to a business.
Parent
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Informative)
People start work at 8am? Set the PC's to boot at 7:50. Some people show up a little early, change the boot times.
Within the OS settings, if there isn't any use within 120 minutes, have the system hibernate. Also, our CAD workstations consume ~300 watts an hour. At those levels, overnights and weekends amount to a fairly substantial amount of waste (and waste heat) generated.
At that level of consumption, each system consumes
Parent
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Informative)
Your PC is 200-300 watts (another 150-250 if your monitor is a CRT), but your laser printer is 2,000 watts. Your printer uses more electricity than a dozen PCs.
A photocopier uses even more electricity.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here's an idea: Why not just shut down and lay off all the employees and open up shop in India or China where they still build power plants?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We do that at the tech department I work for, and it works fine. It would be much more work to track and punish users who leave their m
Re: (Score:2)
If we get really lucky we can suffer from a major infection or data exfiltration and turn that into millions of loss to counter the few bucks we wou
Energy use will fall now (Score:2, Insightful)
Good job, Congress! Thanks to your failure to save the economy, energy use will decline.
Bankrupt companies don't have to worry about turning on their lights ever again.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, Congress is going to keep trying to give $700B to the financial sector.
Don't worry, the Federal Reserve is to the rescue. While everyone was watching Congress on the bailout the FED decided to pump $630 billion into the financial system. [bloomberg.com]
Democracy works!