We Don’t Need No Energizer Fraud Boyz

No shit, Sherlock;

This month, a group of researchers from the University of California San Diego (UCSD) published a paper in Environmental Science and Technology reporting that there are very few cases in which operating a residential home battery reduces overall emissions—assuming that households are economically rational and trying to minimize costs. […]
 
The researchers found that the only way to reliably decrease emissions using batteries is if utilities incorporate a “Social Cost of Carbon” into their pricing schemes—that is, charging people extra for using electricity during carbon-heavy periods of generation. This helps bring batteries into the emissions-reducing fold. Unfortunately, including a cost for carbon dioxide emissions has proven politically difficult.

12 Replies to “We Don’t Need No Energizer Fraud Boyz”

  1. “But the monetary incentive that customers would have to receive from utilities to start using their home systems with the goal of reducing emissions is equivalent to anywhere from $180 to $5,160 per metric ton of CO2,” a press release from UCSD noted.

    Yikes! Nobody tell PM Pantsonfire or NoTime McKenna.
    (I suspect they know.)

      1. Ontario was paying Quebec & USA to take excess generation when the wind blew more than needed (generation exceeded demand) .
        https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-paid-to-give-power-away-to-quebec-u-s-1.599345

        Then Ontario made deal with wind farm owners to pay them NOT to produce by idling the windfarms. Anyone know what the wind farms are being paid in ontario to NOT produce when there is a surplus of generation (lots of hydraulic and base load nuclear)?

  2. If you don’t correctly determine the cause of a problem, you cannot effect a solution, but will instead spin your wheels, waste a lot of money and time doing it, and the problem will continue to occur, often with devastating results. Climate change is just such an issue. The predictions made by climate change experts are hardly conclusive, and often wrong, pointing to a misunderstanding of the problem under analysis. Ergo, applying any proposed “solution” such as a carbon tax is meaningless, costly, and will not solve the problem that it is intended to solve. Climate deniers understand this: Climate proponents do not, but are sucking the grant money being thrust at them by “Me Too” governments who want to look like they are proactive. Of course, the governments are only proactive because they see huge and unlimited tax revenues as a result because the problem, if it exists at all, as a crisis excuse that can be used as justification for the taxes.

    They are all frauds and deserve to be tarred and feathered, particularly the politicians.

    1. Frauds? Traitors!

      The problem is that China needs access to extremely cheap fossil fuels to ensure that the Chinese economy continues to grow at eight percent per annum until China finally has the wherewithal to defeat the United States in war and take over the world.

      We are expected to starve ourselves to feed the dragon till he gets big enough to burn us alive in one firey breath.

  3. Govts are doing what they always do. Design and maniufacture a problem and then solve it. In this case, our PET’s good buddy, communist Maurice Stlong proposed climate change and CO2 in particular, as the problem. Why accuse carbon as the villain? Easy, because by attacking hydro carbons, our main energy source, govt’s could tax the hell out of it and there would be no escaping it. Tax shelters, tax avoidance schemes and tax planning could not avoid paying alms to the mighty state!

    Taxing everyone would slow the economy and change society into a cannibalistic one making society totally dependent on the state. And of course this was the goal. To that end
    govt enlisted the trusted indoctrination capabilities of the MSM and the educational system. The state bought “scientists” who agreed with it. Dissenters were fired from faculties and castrated to play no role in the issue.

    The zombie products of our state sponsored indoctrination centres were easy prey for the propagandizing MSM and the state’s proselytizers. Carbon was made the enemy and costly ineffective remedies followed, enriching crony capitalists who saw nothing but profits in offering false solutions.

    Now, the public is beginning to see that the king has no clothes at all. This awareness is growing as people begin to analyze the causes of climate change and come to the conclusion that climate change is real but the cause is not anthropogenic as the state maintains.

    1. “Newspapers were first taxed in 1712 and the tax steadily increased as the government became concerned about the freedom of the press.”

      http://www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/tax_on_knowledge.html

      “The [window] tax was introduced in England and Wales in 1696 under King William III and was designed to impose tax relative to the prosperity of the taxpayer, but without the controversy that then surrounded the idea of income tax.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax

  4. Forget about reducing CO2 emissions. Batteries don’t make sense economically. If you were able to switch all high demand electricity to off-peak you would reduce your electricity bill by about 1/3. On a $500/mn bill you might save $150.00 or $1,800 per year. These battery systems cost about $14,000 and last about 10 years (if you’re lucky). In a near-perfect world, just as you reach break-even the system needs replacing.

    Also, the electricity companies that offer time-of-use pricing also separate generation and delivery. Even though you can decrease your price per kWh from on-peak to off-peak you will still be charged a delivery fee and then taxes and regulatory fees.

    But the big rip-off is yet to come. Ontario Hydro is moving to fixed distribution rates. This currently represents 35% of your bill. In 3 years it won’t matter how much (or how little) electricity you use because 45% of your bill won’t be tied to consumption. It will be dependent on the cost of infrastructure.

    https://www.hydroone.com/rates-and-billing/rates-and-charges/fixed-distribution-rates

    1. “…it won’t matter how much (or how little) electricity you use because 45% of your bill won’t be tied to consumption. …”
      Because if you use less of the product, they make less profit, so they have to charge more to maintain their profit level. Nobody is interested in making their goods or services cheaper for you to buy unless such a change somehow offers to improve the benefit they get from from the deal.

  5. Its somewhat amusing the lengths we will go to punish ourselves…in order to offset a fraction of the carbon increase being pumped out by JTs favorite dicatorship, China….that evil carbon dioxide….

  6. But they overlooked the real value of a home battery , the priceless value of burning your home to the ground.
    Such virtue signalling outvotes all the “carbon pollution,” toxic gases and runoff poisons a fire produces.
    Why with such a glorious virtue level, a concerned citizen could devote the rest of their life to blatant consumerism.

Navigation