4 ms·

> If adding energy storage to homes allows the grid to require less fossil-fuel burning peaker plants, while generating income for those homeowners, why wouldn'

by no-s 4y ago

> If adding energy storage to homes allows the grid to require less fossil-fuel burning peaker plants, while generating income for those homeowners, why wouldn't this be rightfully seen as a virtue? Hmm, imagine the scenario where the truck owner inconveniently runs out of battery charge on the highway because the utility depleted it in favor of increasing generation. While all of your scenarios may seem virtuous to you, it’s not necessarily incorporating the perspective of the person who actually paid $1000s for the privilege of being left on the side of the road… To me it feels like a bummer. Not to you?

pengaru 4y ago
I don't really understand where you're coming from here. In the hypothetical situation you describe where the person is exclusively relying on this grid-tied vehicle for all their transportation needs as well, I'm inclined to say they made a poor choice. A lot of Americans have multiple vehicles, it's those I expect to most exploit this option. Driving a giant pickup truck for all your needs isn't particularly pleasant, it's kind of an ideal vehicle to leave grid-tied most the time until you need to haul something big/heavy/filthy.
- no-s 4y ago
  It’s not hypothetical that a person would buy a pickup truck and expect to use it at all, heheh. You chose to reframe it as “the person is exclusively relying on this grid-tied vehicle for all their transportation needs as well”, which is framing an argument I did not make. I think that’s some kind of rhetorical fallacy on your part. Please help me to recontextualize such an inane counter. It’s like you have no response at all and just reframe things so you’ll have something to refute. That’s dishearteningly dishonest for HN.
  - pengaru 4y ago
    > Please help me to recontextualize such an inane counter. It’s like you have no response at all and just reframe things so you’ll have something to refute. > > That’s dishearteningly dishonest for HN. I'm the one being dishonest? To attack the conversation itself when you can no longer substantiate your view is a bad faith technique as old as the hills.

by no-s 4y ago

pengaru 4y ago

I don't really understand where you're coming from here. In the hypothetical situation you describe where the person is exclusively relying on this grid-tied vehicle for all their transportation needs as well, I'm inclined to say they made a poor choice. A lot of Americans have multiple vehicles, it's those I expect to most exploit this option. Driving a giant pickup truck for all your needs isn't particularly pleasant, it's kind of an ideal vehicle to leave grid-tied most the time until you need to haul something big/heavy/filthy.

no-s 4y ago
It’s not hypothetical that a person would buy a pickup truck and expect to use it at all, heheh. You chose to reframe it as “the person is exclusively relying on this grid-tied vehicle for all their transportation needs as well”, which is framing an argument I did not make. I think that’s some kind of rhetorical fallacy on your part. Please help me to recontextualize such an inane counter. It’s like you have no response at all and just reframe things so you’ll have something to refute. That’s dishearteningly dishonest for HN.
- pengaru 4y ago
  > Please help me to recontextualize such an inane counter. It’s like you have no response at all and just reframe things so you’ll have something to refute. > > That’s dishearteningly dishonest for HN. I'm the one being dishonest? To attack the conversation itself when you can no longer substantiate your view is a bad faith technique as old as the hills.