Lance Tarkenton

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@JaysRealityBlog @BravoTV SHE IS NOT A VICTIM. Omfg why are we letting this happen.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@MW2023Dubh @alex_fasulo @davelucas https://t.co/OwyxvGYsyX

Oh look here - your MAGA queen getting called out by the Town of Fort Edward

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@esgeisel @AlbertCamels @alex_fasulo lol you’ve now moved into the world of conspiracy here. Good stuff.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@alex_fasulo Sure ya don’t! But you certainly have no clue what you’re talking about when it comes to solar, land use, energy markets, etc.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@esgeisel @AlbertCamels @alex_fasulo You’ve conceded on multiple occasions throughout this thread. Anyone reading it will see that.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.

[Lance Tarkenton @77flickrt]

@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.