Category Archives: Technology

Why Smart Meters Are Good for Utility Companies, Bad for Consumers by Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

The usual suspects are pushing smart meters, which means heavy skepticism is in order. From Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., at childrenshealthdefense.org:

Proponents of smart meters say the devices promote energy conservation by providing detailed feedback to consumers about their habits, but critics say the technology can be harmful to health and it poses real privacy concerns.

Smart meters — or “advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) installations” — are wireless devices that use radiofrequency (RF) radiation to transmit information about how much water, gas and electricity consumers use to utility companies.

The U.S. rolled out its first smart meters in 2009 when Congress introduced the Smart Grid Investment Grant (SGIG) program as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

According to the SGIG website, the program “aimed to accelerate the modernization of the nation’s electric transmission and distribution systems.”

In 2015, smart meters got a big push from the Obama administration, which funded the rollout of about 18 million smart meters.

In 2021, U.S. electric utility companies installed more than 111 million smart meters — roughly 88% of the meters were installed in personal residences.

Promoters of the technology argue the meters promote energy conservation because they measure and record electricity usage frequently and provide the data to the utility company and consumer at least once a day, allowing the consumer to get detailed feedback on their energy habits.

However, critics say the technology can be harmful to health, especially for those who experience electromagnetic sensitivity — and especially for children.

They also cite privacy and personal liberty concerns about how utility companies use the data collected by smart meters — and who they share that data with.

‘People unwittingly sleep … on the other side of the wall and get very, very ill’

“Smart meters are a bad idea because they use two-way radiofrequency microwave radiation to send your usage data for electric, gas, water, solar and propane energy,” said Cecelia Doucette, a technology safety educator and the director of Massachusetts for Safe Technology.

Continue reading→

Are You Ready for “Brain Transparency” and AI Reading your Mind? By Igor Chudov

Believe or not, the technology exists. From Igor Chudov at igorchudov.substack.com:

The WEF and “The Battle For Your Brain”

The WEF’s annual meeting in Davos held a very important and exciting seminar discussing “Brain Transparency.” It featured new but working technology that allows scanning of the human brain via wearable devices (no electrodes needed). Such scans allow AI-enabled computers to read and interpret the wearer’s state of mind by instantly understanding recorded brain waves.

The devices they are discussing already exist.

Artificial intelligence systems paired with such devices allow unprecedented insight into the mental and emotional state of the wearer.

The picture above shows a female worker having amorous thoughts about a new male coworker (02:02 in the video). A wearable brain-scanning earpiece instantly notifies the company office about such forbidden desires, which could impair her productivity. The message “INTRA-OFFICE ROMANCES ARE STRICTLY FORBIDDEN” immediately pops up on her screen, returning her to a productive mindset and reminding her who the boss is.

A cartoonish illustration of such machinery is here:

Continue reading→

Paying People to Not Buy What Sells, by Eric Peters

Nowadays, car company executives figure out what’s selling and what’s not and then make fewer of the former and more of the latter. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

There is so much buyer interest in the Ford Bronco – which isn’t electric – that Ford can’t build enough to meet demand and is actually offering people who ordered one $2,500 store credit to cancel their order in favor of something else.

Some have been waiting more than a year for a Bronco – which Ford revived for the 2021 model year (my review can be found here). It has been a hugely successful vehicle for Ford. It is – clearly – the kind of vehicle lots of people want to buy.

No subsidies – or mandates – needed.

In the old normal, Ford would build more Broncos to meet the market demand for them. The whole point of being in the car business once-upon-a-time being to sell as many vehicles as people wanted to buy. But we live in the New Abnormal. It is characterized by – among other things – the building of vehicles for which there isn’t market demand, because government requires them to be built.

Irrespective of whether they can be sold at a profit.

We all know which vehicles these are.

Two figures will make the point.

The first one is 39,458. This is the number of Mach-e “Mustangs” (my review of this one can be found here) that Ford sold last year (2022). The second number is 94,031. That is the number of Broncos Ford sold during the same time period. In other words, Ford sold more than twice as many Broncos as Mach-e “Mustangs” – and could have sold many more had there been more Broncos to sell.

Continue reading→

Fuel Costs Of Electric Vehicles Overtake Gas-Powered Cars: Study, by Allen Zhong

This is funny, and it’s happening when uptake of electric vehicles is still fairly low. From Allen Zhong at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:

The cost to fuel electric vehicles in the United States is higher than gas-powered cars for the first time in 18 months, a consulting company said.

“In Q4 2022, typical mid-priced ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) car drivers paid about $11.29 to fuel their vehicles for 100 miles of driving. That cost was around $0.31 cheaper than the amount paid by mid-priced EV drivers charging mostly at home, and over $3 less than the cost borne by comparable EV drivers charging commercially,” Anderson Economic Group (AEG) said in an analysis.

A Tesla Inc. electric vehicle charges at a supercharger station in Redondo Beach, Calif., on Jan. 4, 2021. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

However, luxury EVs still enjoy a cost advantage against their gas-powered counterparts.

It costs luxury EV owners $12.4 to drive every 100 miles on average if they charge their cars mostly at home or $15.95 if they charge their cars mostly at commercial charger stations in the 4th quarter of 2022.

Meanwhile, the fuel costs for luxury gas-powered cars are $19.96 per 100 miles on average.

AEG is a consulting firm based in Michigan that offers research and consulting in economics, valuation, market analysis, and public policy, according to the company’s website.

The fuel costs in the analysis are based on real-world U.S. driving conditions including the cost of underlying energy, state taxes charged for road maintenance, the cost of operating a pump or charger, and the cost to drive to a fueling station, AEG said.

Continue reading→

EV Competition Finally Produces Results: Ford Cuts Prices on Mustang Mach-E, after Tesla, Kia, Hyundai, Chevrolet, Nissan Cut Prices on their EVs, by Wolf Richter

Now the question is: will anyone make money on their EVs. From Wolf Richter at wolfstreet.com:

EVs now start at $27,000, about $20,000 below the average new-vehicle transaction price. That’s a good thing all around. Except for stock prices.

Ford announced today that it cut the MSRP of its 2023-model-year Mustang Mach-E, depending on model, by a range from $600 to $5,900, and its extended-battery option by $1,600. This brings the low end of the Mach-E to $45,995, which is just below the average transaction price for all new vehicles of $46,400.

Ford is not cutting prices, and thereby its profit margins, out of the goodness of its heart, but because it’s forced to by competition – and it’s lagging behind. Ford admitted as much: It said the price cuts are designed to keep the Mach-E “competitive in the marketplace.” It said, “We are not going to cede ground to anyone.” The Mach-E was the third-best-selling EV in the US in 2022, after Tesla’s Model Y, and Tesla’s Model 3.

Tesla has gone on a big round of price cuts in January in the US, including for its Model Y, a crossover SUV that competes directly with the Mach-E. Chevrolet cut the prices of its mass-produced EVs, the BOLT and the BOLT EUV. Kia and Hyundai also cut prices on their electric crossover models. Nissan cut the price of its EV.

Continue reading→

The Sound Police, by Eric Peters

Internal combustion engines are noisy, electrical car batteries are not. Suddenly everyone’s interested in noise pollution. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

One of the ways the people who want to punish driving have gone about it is by attacking the burning of gas and the “emitting” of gasses. Another – related – way is by attacking the “emitting” of  . . . noise.

Because guess what kind of car doesn’t make any?

Electric vehicles do produce artificial sounds but these can be turned off. You cannot turn off the sound produced by an engine, which will always make some “noise,” as the sounds made by engines are styled by those who hate engines.

his brings us to New York City – which is of course a city. In other words a place that is noisy by definition even in the absence of vehicles with engines because it is a city – and there are myriad other sources of noise, such as the electric subways, for instance. But never mind them and the obnoxious screeches and clattering sounds they make.

Nor the sounds of obnoxious “street performers,” either.

Continue reading→

Toyota Transitions, by Eric Peters

Looks like Toyota, regrettably, is going woke. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Toyota is the world’s largest single car company. It sells more cars than any other car company. So why would it transition into the world’s largest “mobility” company?

And what does that even mean?

Well, it means that Akio Toyoda – the CEO and grandson of the company’s founder – is turning the company’s direction over to Koji Sato, who is currently the chief branding officer of the company. He will become CEO – and Toyota will shift gears and transition into a company that sells transportation as a service, which is what that term “mobility” means.

In other words, the old model of people buying cars will be replaced by people renting . . . mobility.

In other words – or rather the words of the WEF – you will own nothing and be happy.

There it goes, again.

But, why? And – how?

Toyota is not a dying company on life-support, dependent upon rent-seeking for its ever-diminishing market share – like General Motors, for instance. Or Tesla, for that matter – which has had to resort to heavy discounts to offset declining sales of its hugely expensive electric cars, whose novelty factor appears to be wearing off.

Toyota has no problem selling cars. Especially cars like the Prius hybrid, which is (by far) the best-selling hybrid ever and one of the best-selling cars, period. People love the Prius because (unlike “masks”) it works. Functionally – and economically. People can afford it – and it makes sense to buy it. It does not limit . . . mobility.

It enhances it.

And that is probably the problem – and accounts for the why as regards the pending transition.

Mr. Toyoda thought – and worse, said, in public – that electric cars don’t work. Functionally – or economically.

And for those reasons, they don’t make sense – for the company – if money can’t be made selling them. Nissan – which has already made the transition – might have followed his advice and not lost a fortune losing money on the Leaf, the electric car it “sold” for less than it cost to make.

Mr. Toyoda thought the best interests of the company founded by his grandfather dovetailed with the best interests of customers who bought profit-generating (and mobility enhancing) Toyotas – over and over and over again. Not just the Prius, either. Other cars like the best-selling Camry and the best-ever-selling Corolla – more of which have been sold worldwide than any other car in history, including the Model T Ford and the VW Beetle.

Continue reading→

Sunshine Might Be Free But Solar Power is Not Cheap, by Isaac Orr

One study shows that solar power’s all-in costs are much higher than for other, fossil fuel-based alternatives. From Isaac Orr at realclearpolicy.com:

Mississippi residents are consistently told that renewable energy sources, like solar panels, are now the lowest-cost ways to generate electricity, but these claims are based on creative accounting gimmicks that only examine a small portion of the expenses incurred to integrate solar onto the grid while excluding many others.

When these hidden expenses are accounted for, it becomes obvious that solar is much more expensive than Mississippi’s existing coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants and that adding more solar will increase electricity prices for the families and businesses that rely upon it. One of the most common ways of estimating the cost of generating electricity from different types of power plants is a metric called the Levelized Cost of Energy, or LCOE.

The LCOE is an estimate of the long-term average cost of producing electricity from a power plant. These values are estimated by taking the costs of the plant, such as the money needed to build and operate it, fuel costs, and the cost to borrow money, and dividing them by the amount of electricity generated by the plant (generally megawatt hours) over its useful lifetime.

In other words, LCOE estimates are essentially like calculating the cost of your car on a per-mile-driven basis after accounting for expenses like initial capital investment, loan and insurance payments, fuel costs, and maintenance.

Continue reading→

This Time It’s Different, by Douglas Macgregor

The U.S.’s proxy war against Russia is a bust. From Douglas Macgregor at theamericanconservative.com:

Neither we nor our allies are prepared to fight all-out war with Russia, regionally or globally.

Until it decided to confront Moscow with an existential military threat in Ukraine, Washington confined the use of American military power to conflicts that Americans could afford to lose, wars with weak opponents in the developing world from Saigon to Baghdad that did not present an existential threat to U.S. forces or American territory. This time—a proxy war with Russia—is different.

Contrary to early Beltway hopes and expectations, Russia neither collapsed internally nor capitulated to the collective West’s demands for regime change in Moscow. Washington underestimated Russia’s societal cohesion, its latent military potential, and its relative immunity to Western economic sanctions.

Advertisement

As a result, Washington’s proxy war against Russia is failing. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was unusually candid about the situation in Ukraine when he told the allies in Germany at Ramstein Air Base on January 20, “We have a window of opportunity here, between now and the spring,” admitting, “That’s not a long time.”

Alexei Arestovich, President Zelensky’s recently fired advisor and unofficial “Spinmeister,” was more direct. He expressed his own doubts that Ukraine can win its war with Russia and he now questions whether Ukraine will even survive the war. Ukrainian lossesat least 150,000 dead including 35,000 missing in action and presumed dead—have fatally weakened Ukrainian forces resulting in a fragile Ukrainian defensive posture that will likely shatter under the crushing weight of attacking Russian forces in the next few weeks.

Continue reading→

First, They Lied About the Range . . ., by Eric Peters

Be as careful with electric car range figures as you are with Covid vaccine safety claims. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

There is a creepy consanguinity between the marketing and selling of the “masks” and then “vaccines” – and the marketing and selling of electric vehicles. It makes you wonder whether there might be a relationship . . .

They arose as the “solution” to supposedly dire problems that – we were told – required immediate, right now amelioration. No time to wait and see – or even think before we’re obliged to act. The rush-rush tactics of the time-share selling fraudster, in other words. The “virus” is going to kill tens of millions – maybe more! – unless everyone “masks,” right now (and forever more). Stays home – and stays away from others. The “climate” is going to “change” – unless we change, overnight, to driving electric cars.

And never mind whether they actually “work,” either.

Just as it was with “masks” – and then the “vaccines” – all the accruing evidence that they don’t was suppressed and pilloried. We were told half-truths and outright lies to get us to “mask” – and then to take the drugs that didn’t confer immunity on anyone, either. But did confer myocarditis – and god-only-knows-what-else – on many who were tricked into taking them.

Just the same with electric cars.

People were not told that their touted ranges were frequently much less-than-advertised and could (and do) plummet by 50 percent or more in cold weather. Or – in the case of electric trucks – when used to do the things trucks are expected to do, such as pull a trailer. Instead they were only told – as in the case of Ford’s F-150 Lightning electric truck – that it could pull a 10,000 pound trailer. Which is true. Just not for long.

Continue reading→