8 ms·

What is that you leads you to say "...it requires that Texas, alone, has been completely constrained by decisions made 40-90 years or more ago."? Are you uncom

• mannykannot 6y ago
  > Are you uncomfortable supporting your position? Unlike you, I am not. It simply comes back to an issue that you have been avoiding for quite a while: All of today's grids started with smaller, less-connected entities. That is not an adequate justification for the current situation. The idea that Texas alone is somehow constrained, by forces beyond its control, from changing with the times, is absurd.
  • solidsnack9000 6y ago
    Where are you getting the idea, that it comes back to Texas being constrained?
    • mannykannot 6y ago
      That is a very odd question, as it could hardly be clearer that the point here is that as there have been no special constraints preventing Texas from following the rest of the world's example in improving its energy infrastructure over the decades, your reply to my original point is irrelevant.
      • solidsnack9000 6y ago
        Texas was not constrained when they made the choice to develop an energy grid that remained separate from the other grids developing in the US. ("All of today's grids started with smaller, less-connected entities.")
        • mannykannot 6y ago
          The point that is actually relevant here is that Texas has not been constrained from modifying its energy infrasrastructure, to make it more resilient than it has proved to be, at any time since then.
          • solidsnack9000 6y ago
            What policies were you referring to when you said "All of today's grids started with smaller, less-connected entities."? A lot of people have focused on Texas's separate grid policy.
            • mannykannot 6y ago
              That is not a statement about policies, it is a statement of historical fact about electrical-supply grids in general. What part of that statement do you disagree with?
              • solidsnack9000 6y ago
                What's that statement have to do with the discussion at hand? What lead you to introduce it?
                • mannykannot 6y ago
                  What lead[sic] me to introduce it was, of course, your statement that "Texas's separate grid dates back decades". The reason why I untroduced it, of course, was that that it explains why the statement of yours that I just quoted is utterly irrelevant to an analysis of what has recently happened, and, more specifically, is utterly irrelevant to the post of mine that you were replying to. And do I really need to explain to you how it shows that your comment is irrelevant? I suppose I do, given that we are here. It is just this: since the beginning of Texas' grid (as you say, decades ago - almost a century) there has been plenty of opportunity for Texas to make not just its grid, but its entire energy infrastructure, more resilient. Far from my case being one of recency bias, the reality is that your reply to it suffers from the opposite fallacy - a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name.