@JaysRealityBlog@BravoTV Fucking bullshit.. she never wanted to go out with Kyle bc she wasn’t the center of attention. She’s a narcissist, and narcissists are victims when they don’t get their way.
@alex_fasulo@davelucas You continue mislead and misinform. And now you’ve been called out by The Town of Fort Edward itself! Any response?
https://t.co/OwyxvGYsyX
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo Both dates are statutory: 2040 zero-emission electricity, 2050 economy-wide 85%. Neither bans gas. Slow buildout is permitting, queues, and misinformation like this thread, not solar losing on cost. Your opening claim stays false. ‘Voters dying off’ isn’t an argument.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo I literally listed every single point you conceded on. And every time you did, you changed to a new argument. Do you usually suspend reality when you’re wrong? If so, that’s a major character flaw.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo lol in other words you concede every single one of your points was wrong, you’ve moved the goal posts every time, and you’re too hard headed to admit you’re wrong.
They won’t, and we will continue to install across NY.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo And be honest about this thread. You went from ‘solar can’t compete on cost,’ to admitting it bids lowest, to ‘too expensive at scale,’ to ‘unconstitutional,’ to ‘not yet, but with lawsuits.’ Every lost point became a new goalpost. That isn’t debate, it’s retreating.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo Correction, since you raised it: the CLCPA’s zero-emission electricity target is 2040, not 2050, and it’s an emissions standard, not a gas ban. NYISO is already planning dispatchable emission-free resources to firm the grid. That’s the answer I gave. Leaving it here for real.
@alex_fasulo Your viral photo of ‘broken green energy’ is a stack of intact panels next to two portable toilets. That sets the tone. c-Si panels (95% of installs) contain no cadmium, panels aren’t a PFAS source, and NY law bonds decommissioning. The post is wrong on every technical claim.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo I’ll leave it here. We agree on more than the thread suggests: renewables clear cheapest, dispatchable resources firm the rest, and a diverse grid beats any single source, which is Idel’s own conclusion. That’s not ideology, it’s how competitive markets run.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo Nobody’s ‘banning’ gas. It’s being outbid by cheaper resources in the same market you’re defending, the way gas retired coal. That’s creative destruction, not a ban. Your question assumes solar and wind outcompete gas, which was the original point you called ludicrous.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo A nonprofit ISO funded by tariff fees on market participants, not tax dollars, that owns zero generation, isn’t a state model. Who pays the referee doesn’t matter. Generation is owned and bid by hundreds of private firms competing on price. That’s the opposite of state ownership.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo §1’s teeth come from its text, not lawsuits. Plaintiffs won because there was an operative ban to enforce. §4 has no such command, only a policy the legislature balances. Courts can’t grow a prohibition that isn’t in the words. You’ve conceded these aren’t unconstitutional today.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo You’re really not experienced enough on this and nor is @alex_fasulo ..it’s just extremist political rants disguised as environmentalism. No different than the left.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo And the ‘final portion’ you say I omitted hands implementation to the legislature, which shall provide for protection of ag lands. It did, via the Ag Districts Law and §94-c siting. That’s a delegation to legislate, not a self-executing ban on touching a single farm.
@esgeisel@AlbertCamels@alex_fasulo Those highway amendments were to §1, the forever-wild Forest Preserve clause, on state-owned Adirondack land. §1 needs them because it’s a true prohibition: land ‘shall not be leased, sold or exchanged.’ §4 has no such language. When framers wanted a hard ban, they wrote §1.