6 ms·

Isn't the solution to charge more? One could have a tiered rate system, where the first N kWhr are inexpensive and the rates rise after that (just as we do in

by ISL 8y ago

Isn't the solution to charge more? One could have a tiered rate system, where the first N kWhr are inexpensive and the rates rise after that (just as we do in Seattle) http://www.seattle.gov/light/Rates/docs/2018/Jan1/Schedule%20RSC%20Jan%201%202018.pdf http://www.seattle.gov/light/Rates/docs/2018/Jan1/Schedule%2... If supply is constrained, and demand grows, it won't stop growing until the price goes up. An imposition of a quota system is interesting, just because it might yield free residential heating for homes that welcome miners into their basements.

NickM 8y ago
That may not be nuanced enough for the desired results. Sounds like a lot of these places would like to still provide plentiful cheap power to industrial companies that actually create jobs and generate useful output that stimulates the local economy.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  If government-directed job creation is the desired goal, why not just hand the preferred companies cash? That would be a lot more transparent and targeted than subsidizing utilities Venezuela-style.
  - gruez 8y ago
    probably because subsidizing electricity sounds better to voters than handing out cash. same reason why governments prefer giving tax breaks rather than cash to entice multinationals to "create jobs".
  - 394549 8y ago
    > If government-directed job creation is the desired goal, why not just hand the preferred companies cash? That would be a lot more transparent and targeted than subsidizing utilities Venezuela-style. This isn't a subsidy, it's hydro power; which is limited, but cheap to produce. If the bitcoin miners drive the price up without providing many jobs, it may incentivize the actual employers that were attracted by the low price to leave for other areas. It's a net negative for the community. To benefit from cheaper electricity, you have to use it, and traditionally that's been through employing people to operate machines. If the companies got a cash subsidy instead, they would probably pocket the cash without doing as much as they promised to do to get it.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > To benefit from cheaper electricity, you have to use it, and traditionally that's been through employing people to operate machines. If the companies got a cash subsidy instead, they would probably pocket the cash without doing as much as they promised to do to get it. Money is fungible. Whether they're saving it by having cheaper electricity or getting cut a check is irrelevant.
      - jdietrich 8y ago
        Electricity isn't fungible. There are substantial costs and efficiency losses involved in transmission, so electricity is significantly cheaper to supply if the consumer is right next door to a giant hydroelectric plant. Energy-intensive industries that form part of the productive economy are exactly the industries that we want to use that power. We want aluminium smelters and chemical manufacturers to be sucking up that cheap, clean energy. It's an efficient use of resources. Churning out gigajoules of waste heat to process kilobytes worth of transactions is not an efficient use of resources. It's a colossal waste that has done nothing useful except enrich a bunch of speculators.
        darawk 8y ago
        Charge more for the electricity. Take the profit and cut a check to the productive companies. Problem solved.
        jdietrich 8y ago
        If you charge the Bitcoin miners more, they will just leave - they go wherever they can find the cheapest electricity. I have no objection to charging the miners more, but your proposal seems to be a needlessly complex administrative option.
        darawk 8y ago
        Indeed they will. Sounds like a problem solved to me. Charge a market rate for your electricity, then subsidize what you want to subsidize.
- wtracy 8y ago
  What if the allotment of cheap electricity for each company was calculated as a function of the number of people employed by the company whose primary residence is within county limits?
fuixhbzd 8y ago
Those are residential rates. Industrial rates tend to get cheaper because the have a sustained demand, unlike residential's spikey demand. I used to mine in Magnolia and paid way less than RSC rates. Only peak/off-peak mattered.
pandasun 8y ago
Why does this need a solution? There's nothing wrong with mining.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  I wonder what the chances are that you believe in man made climate change? IDK, I see a bit of an issue turning energy into heat so people can get play a commodity game, most of whom don’t understand at all.
  - gruez 8y ago
    >IDK, I see a bit of an issue turning energy into heat so people can get play a commodity game, most of whom don’t understand at all. Is it any better than spending money to dig up yellow rocks or carbon crystals to be used as status symbols?
    - briantakita 8y ago
      Never mind the energy used to prop up the Militaries, financial systems, & other centralized industries? The real "problem" is that Bitcoin mining is harder to centralize & control, so certain jet-setting, energy-guzzling, interested parties will play the morality card. The general population is not allowed to use untaxed energy, but those who control the energy are allowed to. It's the original scheme of civilization. > I wonder what the chances are that you believe in man made climate change? Key in on the word "believe". It's a faith. Not saying the climate is not changing, but I am suggesting we ought to have healthy skepticism & awareness of the history of the networks of people (i.e. the priesthood) who demand that we allow them to tax energy; lest the wrath of the gods (e.g. Gaia in this case) tear us asunder with their judgment. Unless you pay your tribute, using their money, of course.
      - jdietrich 8y ago
        If climate skeptics are right, we will have only hastened the inevitable transition away from fossil fuels - there's only enough coal, oil and gas in the ground to last us another century, give or take. If climate skeptics are wrong, millions of people will die due to avoidable natural disasters and hundreds of millions will become climate refugees. Those are our choices - do the thing we need to do anyway, or put it off until later and risk catastrophe. Asking whether or not climate change is "real" is entirely the wrong question. It's always the wrong question. We need to ask what the probability is, how wide the error bars are and what the effect size will be across the range of possible outcomes. Even if our predictions are wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude, reducing our carbon emissions is +EV. Doing something now is obviously the best course of action, because you avert a high-probability and high-magnitude loss at a relatively low marginal cost.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
But now you're punishing those who aren't mining crypto.

by ISL 8y ago

NickM 8y ago

That may not be nuanced enough for the desired results. Sounds like a lot of these places would like to still provide plentiful cheap power to industrial companies that actually create jobs and generate useful output that stimulates the local economy.

jessriedel 8y ago
If government-directed job creation is the desired goal, why not just hand the preferred companies cash? That would be a lot more transparent and targeted than subsidizing utilities Venezuela-style.
- gruez 8y ago
  probably because subsidizing electricity sounds better to voters than handing out cash. same reason why governments prefer giving tax breaks rather than cash to entice multinationals to "create jobs".
- 394549 8y ago
  > If government-directed job creation is the desired goal, why not just hand the preferred companies cash? That would be a lot more transparent and targeted than subsidizing utilities Venezuela-style. This isn't a subsidy, it's hydro power; which is limited, but cheap to produce. If the bitcoin miners drive the price up without providing many jobs, it may incentivize the actual employers that were attracted by the low price to leave for other areas. It's a net negative for the community. To benefit from cheaper electricity, you have to use it, and traditionally that's been through employing people to operate machines. If the companies got a cash subsidy instead, they would probably pocket the cash without doing as much as they promised to do to get it.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > To benefit from cheaper electricity, you have to use it, and traditionally that's been through employing people to operate machines. If the companies got a cash subsidy instead, they would probably pocket the cash without doing as much as they promised to do to get it. Money is fungible. Whether they're saving it by having cheaper electricity or getting cut a check is irrelevant.
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      Electricity isn't fungible. There are substantial costs and efficiency losses involved in transmission, so electricity is significantly cheaper to supply if the consumer is right next door to a giant hydroelectric plant. Energy-intensive industries that form part of the productive economy are exactly the industries that we want to use that power. We want aluminium smelters and chemical manufacturers to be sucking up that cheap, clean energy. It's an efficient use of resources. Churning out gigajoules of waste heat to process kilobytes worth of transactions is not an efficient use of resources. It's a colossal waste that has done nothing useful except enrich a bunch of speculators.
      - darawk 8y ago
        Charge more for the electricity. Take the profit and cut a check to the productive companies. Problem solved.
        jdietrich 8y ago
        If you charge the Bitcoin miners more, they will just leave - they go wherever they can find the cheapest electricity. I have no objection to charging the miners more, but your proposal seems to be a needlessly complex administrative option.
        darawk 8y ago
        Indeed they will. Sounds like a problem solved to me. Charge a market rate for your electricity, then subsidize what you want to subsidize.
wtracy 8y ago
What if the allotment of cheap electricity for each company was calculated as a function of the number of people employed by the company whose primary residence is within county limits?

fuixhbzd 8y ago

Those are residential rates. Industrial rates tend to get cheaper because the have a sustained demand, unlike residential's spikey demand. I used to mine in Magnolia and paid way less than RSC rates. Only peak/off-peak mattered.

pandasun 8y ago

Why does this need a solution? There's nothing wrong with mining.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
I wonder what the chances are that you believe in man made climate change? IDK, I see a bit of an issue turning energy into heat so people can get play a commodity game, most of whom don’t understand at all.
- gruez 8y ago
  >IDK, I see a bit of an issue turning energy into heat so people can get play a commodity game, most of whom don’t understand at all. Is it any better than spending money to dig up yellow rocks or carbon crystals to be used as status symbols?
  - briantakita 8y ago
    Never mind the energy used to prop up the Militaries, financial systems, & other centralized industries? The real "problem" is that Bitcoin mining is harder to centralize & control, so certain jet-setting, energy-guzzling, interested parties will play the morality card. The general population is not allowed to use untaxed energy, but those who control the energy are allowed to. It's the original scheme of civilization. > I wonder what the chances are that you believe in man made climate change? Key in on the word "believe". It's a faith. Not saying the climate is not changing, but I am suggesting we ought to have healthy skepticism & awareness of the history of the networks of people (i.e. the priesthood) who demand that we allow them to tax energy; lest the wrath of the gods (e.g. Gaia in this case) tear us asunder with their judgment. Unless you pay your tribute, using their money, of course.
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      If climate skeptics are right, we will have only hastened the inevitable transition away from fossil fuels - there's only enough coal, oil and gas in the ground to last us another century, give or take. If climate skeptics are wrong, millions of people will die due to avoidable natural disasters and hundreds of millions will become climate refugees. Those are our choices - do the thing we need to do anyway, or put it off until later and risk catastrophe. Asking whether or not climate change is "real" is entirely the wrong question. It's always the wrong question. We need to ask what the probability is, how wide the error bars are and what the effect size will be across the range of possible outcomes. Even if our predictions are wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude, reducing our carbon emissions is +EV. Doing something now is obviously the best course of action, because you avert a high-probability and high-magnitude loss at a relatively low marginal cost.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

But now you're punishing those who aren't mining crypto.