I also live in Ontario and did a calculation for that based on prices of Chinese lithium ion batteries at the time (6 months ago). Back of the napkins said it would be greater than 10 years to get a payback, but the prices are still dropping. I'd say this kind of stuff is going to happen soon. I recently installed a whole home power monitor for interest sake, and honestly for $3500 even if it paid itself back to break-even over the 10 year warranty period it would be an interesting project to take on. Still I imaging the switching equipment you need to install along with this is pretty serious cost, and I don't think this comes with a charger/inverter either.

Seeing as volcanoes emit ~0.3bn tonnes of CO2 per year, and human industry emits nearly 30bn tonnes, why should anyone listen to a word you have to say?

You have already made up your mind, and it's contrary to all the evidence. You aren't very good at this.

Translation: "I don't know how this stuff works, but as I don't like the idea of me and those like me being responsible for the rise in temperatures (which I will pretend didn't happen), I will deny the evidence, and spout the same old tired nonsense as thousands before me have, hoping that this time it'll work".

You are embarrassing yourself.

Bad data != evidence. You are questioning data which has passed scrutiny, which is the mark of a cynic or a madman.

The evidence is out there if you could be bothered to read it. The fact you haven't, and instead blurted out nonsensical, childish arguments, means you are either incapable of understanding the evidence, or simply do not want to. You are asking questions which have already been answered.

If that were true you would not have made so many mistakes in your arguments. You appear to be blinded by hubris. No wonder you believe such nonsense.

You are seriously saying you can do the sums on the back of a napkin? And that entire fields of science are incorrect (despite their evidence) because you simply think so?

The evidence you speak of for increasing crop yields is nonsense, as you are ignoring the problem of lands in climates suitable for agriculture not being where our current infrastructure is, and the soil in those places being completely unsuitable for plants. Also that our main staple crops lose nutritional content with more CO2, meaning those improved yields are a wash, would the crops be able to grow in the first place.

Just admit it - you don't know what you're talking about, but the thought that you might have to change your lifestyle scares you. That's fine. Don't pretend to be informed, as you are making it patently clear with every nonsensical, gibbering post you make that you really have very little clue.

Then you clearly have no understanding of what CO2 in the atmosphere means to humanity. Thanks for clearing that up.

Exactly what kind of support are they getting? Just telephone type "my cup holder broke"? Seems like internal IT could handle most of that. Or are they actually fixing Windows XP bugs for them?

So you found one positive aspect and hand-wave all the negative aspects away, aspects which do far more harm to humans than the benefits of a receding Sahara ever could. Brilliant. You sure are a clever one, aren't you!

The science is settled in as much as any scientific findings have to be in order to inform public policy. You saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Follow your own advice. This is getting tragic.

Not that "upend our entire economy" nonsense again. You are so misinformed about this whole discussion it's making my head spin. You are clearly intelligent, yet are parroting the same oft-debunked nonsense as many less-intelligent people have been doing for years. It's sad more than anything.

You are making lots of assumptions which tell more about your opinions than the actual situation at hand. The "global warming/global cooling/global climate change" people don't go nuts and take it way too far. You are assuming the loudest voices represent the majority, which is patently untrue. Environmentalists on the whole are not against everything, but a few loud ones might be. Again, you are skimming the surface and accepting the loudest voices as representing everyone. That is clearly not going to make you very well informed.

The science is settled as in much as there is no contradictory evidence. If some came along, then obviously the theories would be re-worked. The contradictory evidence hasn't been found yet, despite a multi-billion-dollar effort to discover it. Science is rarely overturned - you simply claiming perceived unfamiliarity does nothing to change that fact.

I used to think you were logical, now it seems you have your limits. What a shame.

You don't even realise you cited evidence that you are wrong as evidence you are right. No wonder this discussion is so difficult, when people like you assume you know what you're talking about, without even bothering to understand what you're saying.