@MSR_Future I don't understand what one has to do with the other. FIT is just a subsidy designed to get RE producers on grid. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 Yes but that is only good up to a point. We need supply to match demand, RE needs storage.
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future Then you are advocating twice the subsidy for less power. Frankly, that is ridiculous. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
Actually RE + storage is THE most expensive electricity option. It is strictly a boutique or prestige item, like a Tesla or a Rolex. There are better, much less expensive options. It would take massive subsidies to move them into the residential market in any scale.
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 No I advocate zero subsidy & a tax on carbon to be paid to the poorest in society.
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future FIT is a subsidy. Storage won't be adopted w/o subsidy, and generates nothing. This makes power MORE expensive... @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 Power should be more expensive, then low CO2 power sources can compete with fossil, driven by the market.
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
This is the basis of the whole argument... that somehow more expensive power is better. Yet we KNOW that one of the primary reasons for the developed world's rapid advances is cheap energy, and one of the primary reasons the developing world hasn't caught up is the lack of cheap energy.
@MSR_Future A tax on carbon quite increases the price of EVERYTHING. And necessitates a bureacracy for $$ redistribution. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 True but then so does FIT so we should pay carbon tax to the poor. pic.twitter.com/K6RvlnT6Tn
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future You are talking pure nonsense. Cheap, abundant, reliable power is the very underpinning of wealth and progress. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 FIT is bureaucracty at it's worst, the system has fails to reduce CO2, entrenches fossil & increases cost
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
Well, we certainly agree on this one point. FIT has been a nightmare Ontario can't wake from...
@MSR_Future You are implying it must be one of the other. There are other choices. Making things more expensive and difficult >> @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
One OR the other, not of... stupid fingers... We get to the logical fallacy part of the ideological argument, false dichotomy in this case. Why does it have to be FIT or carbon tax? It could be something else, or neither. The logical response to a challenge is to examine whether or not a solution is needed, and if so which is the best. If action IS warranted, a cost/benefit analysis helps determine the best course of action.
@MSR_Future >> to administer isn't a sensible solution. This isn't difficult. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 True but if it is not dispatchable it is worthless, detrimental even..
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future What are you talking about? "Dispatchable"? Detrimental? @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 Look up these words if you do not understand them
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future I know what they mean. Cheap energy isn't detrimental. Ever. And "dispatchable" makes no sense in this context. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 Ask anyone of grid if they have storage, ask them how much value they put on consistent power
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
Non sequitur
@MSR_Future Are you implying what is good for unreachable cabins in the woods is good for everyone? @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 You seem blind to the problems, are you merely a solar cheer leader?
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
No, I am wary of solutions that are worse than problems. That's why analysts exist. That's why we have insurance. That's why risk assessment and abatement is a growing field.
@MSR_Future What could POSSIBLY lead you to this conclusion? I have EXPLICITLY stated I oppose subsidies and FIT. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future That automatically makes me opposed to industrial PV. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 Not implying stating, Wind & solar power are similar wherever we are, it's called weather!
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
A simply bizarre statement that again highlights the partisan blinders in use... Wind and solar are the least effective and most expensive solutions in almost all circumstances. And require backup generation at idle. Just try heating your house with wind and solar on those loooong, still -40F northern nights. And forget about using them to power your car to drive somewhere warm.
@MSR_Future Yeah, that's the statement that says you are a waste of time. Bye. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 All I know is you knock ideas & have none of your own.
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future We don't need ideas based on discredited ideologies. We need to first understand what problems exist, THEN fit @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future AFFORDABLE solutions to the problems. Energy does more than ANYTHING to lift standards of living. Cheap energy 1st. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 Are you a climate change denier?
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
Don't answer to my point. Go for the redirection ad hom...
@MSR_Future Simply inventing "solutions" in search of a problem and forcing them into production when not efficient is nuts. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 Are you a climate change denier?
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future No. Are you an ideologist? @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 Ok so wate do you mean "inventing "solutions" in search of a problem"
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future You didn't answer, but one sided conversations are the norm when ideologies are concerned. So I'll answer yours: @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future You stated "RE needs storage". This is a solution to a problem we don't have. We need more cheap power... @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future ...not expensive storage for expensive power that most of the world can't afford. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future You then say you advocate zero subsidy. Who is buying this expensive power and storage when there r cheaper options?@doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future Then "power should be more expensive" so low CO2 can compete "in the market". So you aren't trying to help the poor. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future You are trying to create MORE poverty, and artificially price conventional power out of the market. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future This is an ideological position that puts the needs of humans, indeed their very lives, subservient to your dogma. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 We must eliminate CO2. You seem to have a different agenda.
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
Well this confirms what I just said about "ideological position". You aren't giving reasons. You aren't weighing costs vs benefits. You aren't considering resource allocation. You are just stating something must be, and damn any other considerations. This is the very definition of dogma. And I JUST stated in the previous tweet that this isn't taking into consideration human needs. I guess people can fuck right off when dogma demands.
@MSR_Future Ideological BS. I don't have an agenda that revolves around keeping people poor, or creating more poverty. @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 Is this the new line for climate change deniers?
You confuse ideology with science.
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
When you are too lazy or incompetent to back an ideological brain fart with evidence and sound argument, ALWAYS go for the insult.
@MSR_Future Have you EVER met someone that denies climate changes? This is a serious question (that I again doubt you'll answer) @doyleclan1
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@SlagOffTwits @doyleclan1 Good bye denier I am done. You cannot even admit what you are.
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
Corollary to Godwin's Law...
@MSR_Future Coward. I answered. You didn't. I refer you to the question you didn't answer: @doyleclan1
https://t.co/lid26YL2ol
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
Is there anything worse than a #Climatechange denier? Sure a denier that tries to obfuscate their denial https://t.co/WYx9eNQcWL
— Thor (@MSR_Future) May 16, 2015
Notice the clever use of hashtag to invite dogpile.
@MSR_Future How about someone that makes accusations w/o evidence? Actually I'd guess you approve of that. You haven't presented any yet.
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
@MSR_Future ...although it IS funny that you linked to a tweet that, again, you didn't answer.
— Fallor Ergo Sum (@SlagOffTwits) May 16, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment