Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KeepTangoAndFoxtrot t1_j8si9f5 wrote

Good news, but ultimately moot if their government doesn't do anything about it.

170

Conscious_Figure_554 t1_j8u12oq wrote

Their governor will find a way to ban it or restrict it or make it expensive or whatever - that's what is going to happen. Keep voting for those Republican assholes and see what happens to Texans going solar

80

ThePrince14 t1_j8ugc1v wrote

….people know that Texas generates the most renewable energy out of any state in the country, right? Or does Reddit just ignore everything that doesn’t fit the same tired Reddit narratives?

5

CatalyticDragon t1_j8uicqd wrote

Doesn't mean lawmakers there aren't constantly attacking renewables and trying to stymie adoption.

61

ThePrince14 t1_j8ukiyt wrote

Did you read the articles you posted? Or just quickly google and paste headlines to match your narrative.

First article was super super weak. Just basically said that some people blamed renewables for the Texas power outage issues. Big whoop, politicians always trying to capitalize on public issues to score points by spouting BS. Happens all the time on both sides and Reddit eats it up.

Second article has a paywall, so doubt you even read it…

Third article just says that some utilities companies don’t want to compete with power being put back on the grid, so they’re trying to put tariffs in place. This one is sort of relevant to your argument, but again pretty weak.

At the end of the day, the actual numbers are what matters. Texas generates more renewable energy than any other state and Texas invests a hell of a lot of money into renewables (more renewable projects than any other state in 2021). You can’t argue with data, and you certainly can’t argue with hard data with pretty weak qualitative articles that aren’t much more than a couple of small cases that are turned into clickbait.

If you want to counter this argument with ANY data showing that Texas is reducing investment in any way or anything even close to that, I’m happy to listen, but I’m just tired of the same BS circlejerk on Reddit and no one actually wants to educate themselves, they’re just happy punching down to make themselves feel superior.

−20

CatalyticDragon t1_j8uymsh wrote

> basically said that some people blamed renewables for the Texas power outage issues

"Some people" here being elected officials, including the state's governor, which I think is quite an important distinction.

> Second article has a paywall

That's what 12ft ladder is for.

> Texas generates more renewable energy than any other state

No doubt. There's a lot of potential there and enterprising folk are trying to take advantage of it.

> and Texas invests a hell of a lot of money into renewables

Does "Texas", or do a range of private groups (including from outside Texas) invest this money?

What's the breakdown of subsidies for fossil fuel projects vs renewable projects?

You can't pat Texas officials who are staunchly anti-renewables and anti-climate science for the private groups who are investing in renewables.

Oh and while we are here:

22

ThePrince14 t1_j8v0h3d wrote

You’re completely moving the goalposts on the argument at hand. Again, the fact remains that investment in renewables in Texas is very healthy and has contributed to the state generating more power from renewables than any other state. That doesn’t happen if you believe same old Reddit’s tired tropes that Texas is the right wing devil determined to destroy everything progressive. If all these super powerful people in the state are actively anti-renewable and discouraging development of renewables in Texas, why is it so prominent and continuing to grow?

And since you brought it up, please educate us on what those fossil fuel “subsidies” actually are and how they work. I think if you were to actually educate yourself on the mechanism with which these “subsidies” work, you’d realize that again, Reddit parades out the same BS uninformed information over and over.

Spoiler alert, people like to call any sort of tax break for oil and gas companies a “subsidy” so they can perpetuate their narratives. Many of these tax breaks are the same sort of tax breaks that any business in any industry gets. I’ll give you an example, say you start a business that manufactures doorknobs. You build your own factory that manufactures those doorknobs and start selling them. Businesses generally get to write off the cost of building that factory as a capital expenditure against their profits. That’s not a subsidy in the way most people think about subsidies. But when it comes to oil and gas, people want to further their narratives, so they lump in capital investments and call it a subsidy.

−30

CoffeeFox t1_j8vffz7 wrote

> You’re completely moving the goalposts on the argument at hand.

You seem to be used to practicing arguments in a mirror, and forgot there isn't one present here.

They stayed on-point about messaging of elected officials and overall government policy and you danced around looking for an inroad to make deceptive generalizations regarding private entities that was fairly well off-topic right from the beginning.

It isn't "moving the goalposts" to repeatedly inform you that you are unsuccessfully trying different approaches of arguing with things that nobody even said, and it's ironic in the extreme to attempt to start up a game of Calvinball and then use that argument. "You're not allowed to do what I keep doing!" is... well, bless your heart.

30

ThePrince14 t1_j8wdz7q wrote

Nice, I struck Reddit’s nerve where they don’t have a rebuttal to actual data, so people just downvote and come up with generalizations. Why are you so against actual data, and just use clickbait articles to further your confirmation bias? Don’t you realize that’s exactly what the “other side”, who you hate so dearly also does?

−10

HimEatLotsOfFishEggs t1_j8wffzg wrote

Those’re a lot of important phrases and ideas you’re regurgitating there, bud. Remember to drink lots of water to keep your throat well-lubricated, and take thirty-minute breaks should you get tired!

9

ThePrince14 t1_j8wg16h wrote

Oh man, do I love when I strike this nerve. You can tell that people have no actual knowledge, so they just resort to comments like this instead of being able to have an informed discussion about this stuff.

−2

[deleted] t1_j8wn6h6 wrote

[deleted]

5

ThePrince14 t1_j8wurxu wrote

That’s because the original premise comes from the same old Reddit BS that the state of Texas is just a bunch of right wing nut jobs and is against anything progressive. The burden of proof is on OP to actually provide that evidence instead of parroting everything that gets said in every reddit thread. My rebuttal was actual data saying that there is actually a ton of renewable investment in Texas, and if Texas was as bad as Reddit wants to perpetuate, there wouldn’t be the massive amount of investment there is. If the most powerful people in the state are working so hard to discourage and ban renewables, then why does there continue to be a massive amount of investment in renewables in the state?

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/texas-clean-energy-bechtel-solar-hydrogen-construction/638739/

Reddit is so committed to the narrative that Texas is this terrible right wing devil that it refuses to look at actual data.

When it comes to fossil fuel “subsidies” that Reddit loves to bitch about, read up on what they actually are:

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

Focusing on oil and gas, there’s two main direct subsidies received - intangible drilling credits and percentage depletion. These are “subsidies” or more accurately tax write offs similar to write offs any business in any industry would get. Intangible drilling credits just let the company write off part of their capital investment in drilling wells, which is the same as if an airline used capital to buy airplanes, that’s a write off against their profits.

The percentage depletion is also an accounting method that is used in many industries, like if a company built a factory producing goods, they depreciate that over a certain period of time, which is again a write off on taxes.

Then you have the indirect subsidies, which are again just the same accounting practices any company in the US would use.

So please use actual data to show my how my argument is actually shite instead of pulling a couple of clickbait articles and ignoring what Texas is actually doing in practice.

0

skolioban t1_j8x4cwz wrote

What data?? You haven't shown any data. And if your point was "Texas has a lot of renewables" then no one is arguing against that. The argument was "Texas officials are against renewables" and the other guy showed that data. You haven't shown anything, except hints that you're arguing against a strawman.

3

StabbyPants t1_j8uupe4 wrote

I can argue that the state may make it impractical via regulation. They did try to pin the February disaster on green energy, and it’s the same people today

15

Felanee t1_j8uu8md wrote

You know why? Because they are the largest state so they have more resources. But when it comes to percentage of total power production they are 14th highest. Source

22

ThePrince14 t1_j8uxru3 wrote

That’s a dumb response. The fact that they have the most power generation means they’ve had a massive amount of investment. It doesn’t matter whether they’re a large state or not.

Also, why do they have more resources? A huge part of that is because of the oil and gas industry, so are you saying that states that encourage oil and gas development also have the ability to fund more renewable energy projects? That doesn’t seem to fit Reddit’s narrative.

Finally, 14th highest out of 50 seems pretty damn good for a state that Reddit paints as the right wing devil that hates anything progressive.

−11

Felanee t1_j8v4zoh wrote

They are 14th in terms of % of PRODUCTION but not consumption. I'm sure you know that that vast majority of the north east states purchases renewable energy (hydro) from Quebec. So while those states have low renewable energy production, their renewable energy consumption percentage is relatively high. When it comes to consumption, Texas is 31st of all states. Source Does that still sound good to you?

It is an undeniable fact that in order to create renewable energy (aside from hydro) you need land which Texas has the most of. Which is why it is not reasonable to compare the absolute value as oppose to percentage.

12

wh4tth3huh t1_j8vkt65 wrote

Especially considering how much of west texas is a barren wasteland, they could easily build solar farms as far as the eye could see and never have to worry about energy production pollution again.

5

CommonConfusables t1_j8wot46 wrote

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/science-and-health/23577512/texas-clean-energy-wind-solar-natural-gas-ercot-blackout

Here is an article discussing how Texas is a leader in wind and solar, and how lawmakers invested in coal, gas, and oil are trying to make renewables more difficult to get, make, or add to the system for their own financial benefit.

You can’t deny that there are shitty lawmakers trying to hold back forward motion for their own financial benefit and that many of the ones in Texas for this situation are Republican.

7

Conscious_Figure_554 t1_j8uokfo wrote

Thanks for the information - I did not know that so thanks. IF that is the case then do you think the adoption rate will not be blocked by the Government? What I mean is that as I assume you are a Texan - do you see your local government officials welcome this adoption with open arms and is gearing the populace towards said adoption?

2

tilhow2reddit t1_j8wocdu wrote

Actual Texan here. Cities like Houston are trying to go 100% renewable with their energy consumption (investing in solar farms, and or purchasing only renewable energy for city buildings, parks, projects, etc.)

At the state level you’re unlikely to see a similar approach adopted because there’s entirely too much O&G money with too much influence in that arena.

But you also won’t see much interference because that would be telling Texas landowners what they can and can’t build on their massive ranches in West Texas. Out in the Permian Basin, where there’s nothing but miles and miles of miles and miles. The area is hot, dry, flat, and sees the sun more often than most other places on earth. It’s ripe for wind and solar. And as the oil out there dries up, that barren land will be used for something.

3

Conscious_Figure_554 t1_j8xnd7l wrote

Thanks. I like being proven wrong with facts. Yep Ly comment was reactionary but I think setting me straight with actual facts to change my mind is great.

2

ThePrince14 t1_j8upa86 wrote

It depends how you look at the adoption rate. Texas has been and will continue to be (at least in the short to medium term) very oil and gas friendly because it contributes a massive amount to their economy.

So is Texas going to go out of their way to ban oil and gas to prop up renewables, like California? Hell no. They’re going to continue encouraging investment in an industry that has allowed them to become the second biggest economy in the country. But they also aren’t going to discourage investment in renewables in the state because any investment in the state is a good thing.

Edit: Since you edited your post to add that last question - I am not from Texas, I just choose to try and actually educate myself instead of parroting the same BS everyone posts in every Reddit thread.

0

Conscious_Figure_554 t1_j8v8ehm wrote

Again thanks. Hopefully the adoption is easier. As much as I do not like what the politicians are doing to any state, they (the politicians) are never really affected. It’s the citizenry that gets fucked every time.

2

SherbetShoddy8432 t1_j8wabnj wrote

Doesn’t matter. Texas sucks. Fuck Abbott and the people who voted for him

2

Caldaga t1_j8wtin6 wrote

I'm not going to argue further but if your intent is to imply that Abbott and his cronies are pro renewables you've already lost the plot decades ago.

2

ThePrince14 t1_j8wvcbb wrote

Did I say that anywhere in my posts? Please show me where I said that.

My only point was that Reddit likes to paint Texas with the broad brush that they’re this super conservative devil state against anything progressive, when in reality, if you look at the actual numbers, Texas has had massive amounts of investment in renewables and generates the most renewable energy in the country.

Just tired of the BS black and white hive mind on Reddit that lacks any sort of nuanced thinking. You can hate Abbott and the things he’s trying to do in the state while also stepping back to understand that Texas as a state is doing a great job of developing renewable energy infrastructure and should be supported in doing so.

2

Caldaga t1_j8wxrcu wrote

I live in TX. I was here when their grid failed thanks to their lack of investment in any infrastructure. Abbot can fuck himself.

2

caguru t1_j8uy4w4 wrote

Your 2nd question describes Reddit pretty well actually.

1

vacapupu t1_j8wng44 wrote

That energy doesn't make it to the city. Lots of it gets dumped because they can't use it all out west.

1

ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_j8t5xue wrote

This was based on an online poll of 1,200 people. Don't get too excited. I mean, they wrote an entire treatise based on this tiny sampling of data - which is impressive, but how do they know if the people who voted were even in Texas?

I've been here a long time. Texas is an energy state, and the battle between ideology and reality is always ongoing.

For example, a local power plant turns emissions into diesel fuel, and then gives us rebates based on the sales. Of course, Texas is also number one in solar generation. Nothing wrong with either. On the ground, however, the cost of power in cities which invest and rely on Federally subsidized solar is 2 to 3 times that of places which rely on other sources.

More interestingly, the Department of Energy has recently admitted that the fastest and most efficient CO2 reduction could be attained by replacing coal-fired power plants with natural gas - which the US has plenty of.

What Texans want is energy that is driven by math rather than by politics. Some cities, like Round Rock, where there was a "solar revolution" went into revolt when electricity prices began driving lower income people from their homes. Water prices are already very high, and doubling electricity rates in a state that lives on AC was deadly.

Solar has a place, but solar power needs backup generators which run in parallel just in case. It needs to be carefully integrated into a complete system of cheap and reliable energy.

5

TbonerT t1_j8u1g85 wrote

A sample size of 1200 is plenty large enough to hit a high level of confidence.

0

ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_j8u2qya wrote

There are 27 million people in Texas. We don't even know if the people in the poll told the truth, were in Texas, or weren't simply bots.

1,200 is fine for opinion on your favorite pizza or sushi. It is just noise when it comes to opinions on energy in Texas.

Heck, most people in Houston aren't even from Texas, and many are not even from the US.

1

TbonerT t1_j8u54ja wrote

The statistics says 1200 is perfectly fine for a population size of 27M.

6

ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_j8u6b92 wrote

Fait enough. An online poll of that size is just too small for me. Any influencer can several times that in an hour.

−4

TbonerT t1_j8u7xqn wrote

That doesn’t make their polls more valid, though, and they are often rife with all sort of biases. They’re fine for influencers but have no value outside that.

5

ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_j8u8llq wrote

And this is a poll to decide legislation for 27 million people from plain to desert to beach to forest based on a handful of people who may or may not even be real.

Local Legislation, maybe. Staylte wide? Not a chance.

−1

TbonerT t1_j8u9s69 wrote

> The survey was fielded between January 9 and January 19, 2023, in English and Spanish, with 1,200 YouGov respondents, resulting in a confidence interval of +/-2.8%. The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education and are representative of the population of Texas adults.

It is mathematically and scientifically sound.

8

ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_j8u9yq9 wrote

But doesn't scale.

−1

TbonerT t1_j8ub5hh wrote

Mathematically, it totally does. You can plug the numbers in to a sample size calculator yourself and see that it works. Or you can argue that pollsters around the world are wrong to declare the Hobby School of Public Affairs one of the top pollsters. These people know what they are doing and recognized for doing it extremely well.

6

ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_j8vg7xb wrote

Pollsters are often wrong. Most recently, look at the 2016 election. Not only wrong, but so wrong as to be laughable.

Polls are often designed by partisan agencies to deliver the message they want all the time. Does anyone trust a FOX poll?

The way questions are phrased can help deliver the results the pollsters are paid to deliver. Do you back EVIL thing X, or are you on the side of righteous thing Y?

There are also audiences that are polled. If pundits are paid to direct people to the poll, the poll will be directed by those audiences. The HMS "Boaty McBoatface" can attest to this.

I know that the math is right, but the data isn't trustworthy.

−1

TbonerT t1_j8w45el wrote

Those are good points, but they are very broad and not applicable to this particular situation. This school’s poll determined that Trump would win Texas by 5.3% and he ultimately won the state by 5.6%. Is that laughably wrong to you?

The Hobby School’s November 2022 midterm election polling was also highly accurate, finding that the Harris County judge’s race was too close to call, mirroring the final result in which incumbent Lina Hidalgo beat challenger Alexandra Del Moral Mealer by less than 16,000 votes. It found incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott held a 13-point edge over Beto O’Rourke. Abbott ultimately beat O’Rourke by 11 points, well within the poll’s margin of error. Does that sound like pundits asking leading questions?

> There are also audiences that are polled. If pundits are paid to direct people to the poll, the poll will be directed by those audiences. The HMS “Boaty McBoatface” can attest to this.

They go through painstaking efforts to ensure the sample surveyed closely matches the traits of those whose attitudes you are trying to capture, including age, gender, race, ethnicity and partisan affiliation.

This school isn’t posting simple polls on Fox News or Instagram and just straight posting the results. They are applying math and science to their techniques to deliver accurate and credible results. Not all polls are created equal.

3

ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_j8zxiv2 wrote

Shall I make cite examples where polls were laughably wrong? Polls that used the same math?

Polls are only as good as the questions asked, and the data collected. The more local, the easier it is to get them right. A small sample size is a more accurate picture.

Any polling sample size needs to reflect the size of the group being sampled.

0

TbonerT t1_j9103ep wrote

No, you shall sit, down, shut up, and learn about what makes this a good poll versus to the bad ones you know about.

1

ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_j92b6yo wrote

There are zero people who are dumb enough to think 1200 internet users, who can anonymously self report both demographics and location, represent the population of 27 million people.

No amount of "the math is sound" will translate into "the conclusion is meaningful".

0

TbonerT t1_j93dlxx wrote

They link the report from the survey, which includes the efforts they went through, which I already mentioned, to ensure it isn’t some bullshit survey like you see on IG. This is how actual scientific polling is done. I’ve already given you two examples of how accurate this school is in conducting their polls. If you want to wallow in ignorance, go ahead, but please wallow silently.

2

ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_j992pni wrote

There is a saying in computer science.

Garbage in, garbage out.

0

TbonerT t1_j9aap57 wrote

Yes, I’m familiar with that phrase. What you are seeing on insta polls is garbage in, garbage out. What you are seeing with this scientific poll is the opposite. I literally quoted previous results showing that their polls very closely match reality, because that’s what they do. What they do is data in, data out. Do you understand how that’s different?

2

ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_j9bfxhv wrote

I feel like this is a pedantic debate.

It is true that the statistics math works.

It is a non sequitur that therefore the conclusions are correct in a broader context than the sample warrants.

The data only tells us that, among the relatively small sample, there is a general consensus. However, the sample size is only large enough to draw conclusions on maybe a county level.

The sample would need to cover a broader sample of Texas citizens and be larger to be relevant. For 27 million people, you'd need a sample size of tens of thousands from a broad number of locations.

How many sock accounts do you have? I'm curious.

−1

TbonerT t1_j9bh2t2 wrote

This isn’t a pedantic debate. If the math works and the results demonstrate the math works, what more is there?

> However, the sample size is only large enough to draw conclusions on maybe a county level.

Again, this is simply incorrect, as demonstrated by the math and backed up by actual results from polls conducted in this manner. You’re wrong and burying your head in the sand. Their polls of 1200 people arrive to the same conclusions within a fraction of a percent as the actual results. Is that really so hard to believe?

2

texasauras t1_j8smdz4 wrote

Not true, in these parts we don't wait for government to do everything for us. Already generating the vast majority of power I use via solar.

−12

ivanatorhk t1_j8sn1w4 wrote

It’s “bootstraps” people like you that keep Texas’s gvt perpetuating this nonsense narrative. Sincerely, a Texan.

That said, congrats on your solar setup, I’m also looking into my own. The state still needs to do way more

51

ACCount82 t1_j8tlgw2 wrote

That's the beauty of solar though - you don't have to wait for the government to do something. You can do "something" on your own.

Can't run nuclear in your backyard - but rooftop solar is getting more and more viable in more and more areas, even without government subsidies or power buyback programs.

8

JustWhatAmI t1_j8ssr9n wrote

It's their state. They get to reap what they sow. I'm glad that both California and Texas are leaders in renewables. Goes to show you that rich people and politicians of all shades love that sweet sweet profit

−7

ivanatorhk t1_j8st3u4 wrote

Sadly we can’t afford to live in a “reap what they sow” United States, if we want any chance at a decent future. It’s very frustrating to watch

8

texasauras t1_j8snb6f wrote

You should be grateful for those us who can, and are moving this direction. It frees up power and resources for those that can't.

−38

bit1101 t1_j8soydg wrote

They should be grateful that people who can afford to invest in their own cost-saving and energy security, do?

They should be grateful that a side effect of this is that their own lack of energy security in the wealthiest country in the world is reduced?

Textbook Texan.

19

New_Ad2992 t1_j8tismu wrote

And you’re the Patron Saint of Solar Energy or something?

−1

JustWhatAmI t1_j8sskk8 wrote

Cool your jets. All are welcome in the renewables tent

−2

texasauras t1_j8squ31 wrote

Plenty of people with the means aren't adopting solar or renewables at a personal level. Furthermore, lacking energy security isn't a side effect of people adopting solar at home. Not sure what your agenda is, but it's not based on sound logic or reason.

−10

bit1101 t1_j8stjbs wrote

>Plenty of people with the means aren't adopting solar or renewables at a personal level.

I guess they should be grateful for your adoption as well.

>Furthermore, lacking energy security isn't a side effect of people adopting solar at home.

I didn't say it was or even anything that could reasonably be construed as such

>Not sure what your agenda is, but it's not based on sound logic or reason.

I've seen that quote about arguing with idiots. I was never trying to convince you of anything. I'm just mocking your self-aggrandising delusion.

9

texasauras t1_j8sv3x4 wrote

I wouldn't consider this an argument, as you've not said anything with substance. Glad I could entertain you for a few minutes, you should be grateful for that.

−5

bit1101 t1_j8sxht5 wrote

I'm glad that you wouldn't consider this an argument after I just refused to argue and simply mocked your delusional, self-aggrandising perspective.

Why pay tax to improve state energy security when you can just improve your own and convince yourself that others should be grateful for your contribution to yourself? 👍

9

texasauras t1_j8t00th wrote

You like to repeat yourself, seems like a defense mechanisms when lacking anything meaningful to say.

It's funny you think people with solar can opt out of taxes or circumvent paying their fair share when it comes to energy infrastructure. On the contrary, you can rest assured local utilities are doing everything they can to disincentivise the use of solar, by reducing purchase rates and tacking on all kinds of extra fees. Try spending more time educating yourself on topics you want to debate, otherwise you run the risk of boring those you're trying to impress.

−5

bit1101 t1_j8t36wf wrote

You seem to like throwing out strawmen like I think people can avoid taxes, which may impress other idiots looking to win something.

I am satisfied mocking the pedestal you've conceived for yourself.

6

MountainMoments t1_j8tqky3 wrote

This was one of the funniest comment threads I've read in a while. Thanks for that haha. And seriously the rod up texasauras's butt must have a rod up its butt. Text book whiner who cannot follow the plot of a conversation when it's literally narrated to him.

3

Verrico t1_j8ts5v0 wrote

I copy and pasted all your comments in this thread into chatGPT and asked it to critique you. Lmao

“Overall, these comments are dismissive and sarcastic, and lack constructive engagement with the topic at hand. The commenter seems to be defensive and may not have fully understood the point being made.

Firstly, the initial comment "Not true, in these parts we don't wait for government to do everything for us" seems to be a strawman argument, as the original point being made was not about waiting for the government to do everything, but rather the need for a comprehensive energy infrastructure that provides reliable and sustainable energy for everyone.

The commenter then goes on to brag about their personal use of solar power, while also accusing others of not doing enough. This tone comes off as condescending and unhelpful.

Moreover, the claim that using solar energy frees up power and resources for those who can't is not necessarily true, as the energy infrastructure is not that simple. The commenter is also dismissive of the original point that lack of energy security is a serious issue, and may not be aware of the challenges that come with relying solely on solar power.

The commenter's response to the rebuttal seems to be defensive and unproductive, with more sarcastic remarks and personal attacks. They accuse the other person of lacking education, without actually engaging with the substance of the rebuttal.

Lastly, the commenter's claim that local utilities are disincentivizing the use of solar by reducing purchase rates and adding extra fees may have some truth, but it is a very simplistic view of the situation. There are many factors at play, including the need to maintain and upgrade the energy infrastructure, and provide reliable energy for everyone, not just those who can afford solar panels.

In conclusion, the comments lack substance and a constructive engagement with the topic at hand, and instead, are dismissive, sarcastic, and defensive.”

5

texasauras t1_j8txs68 wrote

Oh wow, that's awesome and the best part of this dialogue. Thanks for taking the time to put it all together and post it here!

1

Hotchillipeppa t1_j8terjt wrote

Bored today are we? Just insulting random people on the internet is fun is guess?

−6

DerekTheSkiNerd t1_j8szie8 wrote

Not if you've consistently voted for the policies (politicians) that have created the problems with the texas power grid. problems that have been known for decades and can be easily fixed, but gasp corporations might make a few less dollars. Regulations that every powerplant and grid operator in every other state in the US have to follow.

While I am happy you're getting solar, that is a positive step, if you have a battery backup as part of your solar array you are escaping the consequences of your actions if you have consistently supported the politicians that created the problems with the texas grid.

that's what they're criticizing you for.

7

texasauras t1_j8t1zki wrote

So what you're saying is those being critical of me are doing so because they assume they know how I've voted and what policies I've supported in my lifetime, based on a sentence I wrote?!? Nevermind that I've put my money and resources behind what I believe in, it's a line in a paragraph that counts. That's some solid reasoning right there... /s

−6

DerekTheSkiNerd t1_j8tivl5 wrote

> So what you're saying is those being critical of me are doing so because they assume they know how I've voted and what policies I've supported in my lifetime, based on a sentence I wrote?!?

Yes, because comments like that are extremely strongly correlated with certain voting patterns

the fact that you're trying to act like you're being persecuted instead of addressing it tells me they weren't wrong.

7

Odysseyan t1_j8u1nyq wrote

Providing stable electricity to its citizens is the least a government should do

3