4 ms·

Multiply every large project in the USA's budget by 3 and you won't get surprised anymore

by mkoubaa 5y ago

ncmncm 5y ago
$1 for construction, $2 for corruption. Enriching the corrupt pays long-term dividends -- in increased corruption. Rich, corrupt people buy politicians to seed more corrupt projects. Solar and wind seem, thus far, relatively immune to corruption. Most storage methods should be, too. It seems to be because easy estimation of incremental cost leaves little scope for corruption.
- dmix 5y ago
  > Solar and wind seem, thus far, relatively immune to corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra?oldformat=true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra?oldformat=true > Solyndra executives misled federal officials to obtain $535 million in government-backed loans, with the help of former President Barack Obama's White House. I haven't heard of much large scale wind projects. Most smaller scale corruption happens at the local level and rarely makes the news.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    "Relatively". But the Wikipedia page does not in fact include any "misled federal officials" language, quoted above as if it were from there. It says, instead, "Ultimately, none of the investigations of Solyndra found any evidence of wrongdoing or undue political influence." Sometimes a business failure is just a business failure. I have not heard of any multi-billion dollar solar failures or cost overruns as are the norm for nukes. Most wind projects are large scale, yet buy their turbines on the open market. Again, I have not heard of any big cost overruns or non-delivery. Solar concentrator projects have not paid back investment because they have turned out to be uncompetitive, same as Solyndra, undercut by the staggering fall in cost of conventional photovoltaics. Their natural value would be for process heat, which I have not heard of being tried.

4 ms·

Multiply every large project in the USA's budget by 3 and you won't get surprised anymore

by mkoubaa 5y ago

Multiply every large project in the USA's budget by 3 and you won't get surprised anymore

ncmncm 5y ago
$1 for construction, $2 for corruption. Enriching the corrupt pays long-term dividends -- in increased corruption. Rich, corrupt people buy politicians to seed more corrupt projects. Solar and wind seem, thus far, relatively immune to corruption. Most storage methods should be, too. It seems to be because easy estimation of incremental cost leaves little scope for corruption.
- dmix 5y ago
  > Solar and wind seem, thus far, relatively immune to corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra?oldformat=true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra?oldformat=true > Solyndra executives misled federal officials to obtain $535 million in government-backed loans, with the help of former President Barack Obama's White House. I haven't heard of much large scale wind projects. Most smaller scale corruption happens at the local level and rarely makes the news.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    "Relatively". But the Wikipedia page does not in fact include any "misled federal officials" language, quoted above as if it were from there. It says, instead, "Ultimately, none of the investigations of Solyndra found any evidence of wrongdoing or undue political influence." Sometimes a business failure is just a business failure. I have not heard of any multi-billion dollar solar failures or cost overruns as are the norm for nukes. Most wind projects are large scale, yet buy their turbines on the open market. Again, I have not heard of any big cost overruns or non-delivery. Solar concentrator projects have not paid back investment because they have turned out to be uncompetitive, same as Solyndra, undercut by the staggering fall in cost of conventional photovoltaics. Their natural value would be for process heat, which I have not heard of being tried.