4 ms·

It would have had blackouts if it didn't build all those bitcoin mines. The bitcoin mines encouraged power infrastructure development, and they can just be take

by ftxbro 3y ago

It would have had blackouts if it didn't build all those bitcoin mines. The bitcoin mines encouraged power infrastructure development, and they can just be taken offline when high heat causes power demand spikes for air conditioning.

actionfromafar 3y ago
Still a very roundabout way for the state gov to pay for infra upgrades.
gyanreyer 3y ago
I'm not from Texas so genuinely asking, is there hard proof that anyone specifically invested in power infrastructure because of bitcoin mines in a way they wouldn't have otherwise?
- karmajunkie 3y ago
  i live in texas and no, there’s not. because it didn’t happen.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pseg134 3y ago
    My family has lived in Texas for 100 years and I monitor all utility construction that occurs in the state. I can confirm that it didn’t happen.
- kaibee 3y ago
  > I'm not from Texas so genuinely asking, is there hard proof that anyone specifically invested in power infrastructure because of bitcoin mines in a way they wouldn't have otherwise? In theory supply and demand still exists in Texas, and Bitcoin miners do demand a lot of energy. Assuming that energy companies are including Bitcoin miners in their demand projections (I don't see why they wouldn't?) then the default assumption is that just based on the market forces at play, capacity should have been built with Bitcoin miner demand included.
jcranmer 3y ago
Doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations, it seems that a power company would make more money selling wholesale power to the open market in ERCOT than it would mining bitcoin. The simple fact of the matter is Texas does not have sufficient electrical generation capacity to satiate its demands, especially given the record spate of hot days (it's been daily highs above 100F in Austin for two months). There's no need to add extra sources of demand to encourage new supply.
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
People literally freezing to death amidst billions of dollars of water damage to homes via busted pipes didn't encourage the state to upgrade its infrastructure.
rtkwe 3y ago
This is the same logic that says bitcoin encouraged green power building but in reality they just absorb the excess power from the cheapest source available so they're essentially offsetting any new power generation by simply consuming more power when it's available. They anchor the rate around what is profitable to mine at so power doesn't get lower unless/until mining becomes less profitable.

by ftxbro 3y ago

actionfromafar 3y ago

Still a very roundabout way for the state gov to pay for infra upgrades.

gyanreyer 3y ago

I'm not from Texas so genuinely asking, is there hard proof that anyone specifically invested in power infrastructure because of bitcoin mines in a way they wouldn't have otherwise?

karmajunkie 3y ago
i live in texas and no, there’s not. because it didn’t happen.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pseg134 3y ago
  My family has lived in Texas for 100 years and I monitor all utility construction that occurs in the state. I can confirm that it didn’t happen.
kaibee 3y ago
> I'm not from Texas so genuinely asking, is there hard proof that anyone specifically invested in power infrastructure because of bitcoin mines in a way they wouldn't have otherwise? In theory supply and demand still exists in Texas, and Bitcoin miners do demand a lot of energy. Assuming that energy companies are including Bitcoin miners in their demand projections (I don't see why they wouldn't?) then the default assumption is that just based on the market forces at play, capacity should have been built with Bitcoin miner demand included.

jcranmer 3y ago

Doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations, it seems that a power company would make more money selling wholesale power to the open market in ERCOT than it would mining bitcoin. The simple fact of the matter is Texas does not have sufficient electrical generation capacity to satiate its demands, especially given the record spate of hot days (it's been daily highs above 100F in Austin for two months). There's no need to add extra sources of demand to encourage new supply.

MisterBastahrd 3y ago

People literally freezing to death amidst billions of dollars of water damage to homes via busted pipes didn't encourage the state to upgrade its infrastructure.

rtkwe 3y ago

This is the same logic that says bitcoin encouraged green power building but in reality they just absorb the excess power from the cheapest source available so they're essentially offsetting any new power generation by simply consuming more power when it's available. They anchor the rate around what is profitable to mine at so power doesn't get lower unless/until mining becomes less profitable.