3 ms·

One thing, if they didn’t exist that would be less strain on the grid period. Granted an industrial use of that same land might use as much power. Now it is a

One thing, if they didn’t exist that would be less strain on the grid period. Granted an industrial use of that same land might use as much power. Now it is a case of well: they are doing something more useful for society. In addition imagine a spreadsheet for miner profit based on world location. That spreadsheet now might add this new upside in being paid to not run the miners and make more money. This attracts more miners! If the goal is to protect society and especially local people, having miners AND shitty power supply is not good (choose one or the other)

brutusborn 3y ago
That's not how markets work. Removing demand tends to reduce investment in supply. Or the opposite: maybe they moved to Texas because there is often excess cheap energy due to renewables. They are causing the same amount of 'strain' (demand) as any other industry. Their demand will attract investment in supply the same as any other industry. The advantage is that their demand can be shed quickly, which is useful for the grid operators, and helps 'protect society.'
- etrautmann 3y ago
  Yes, and the marginal benefit to society of those kilowatts is the concern here in emergency situations. The grid is also not a normal free market operating under normal free market principles. Regulated monopolies are a different beast with different constraints. Given the challenge of supplying during peak loads, attempting to prioritize use cases strikes me as a reasonable endeavor in principle.
  - infecto 3y ago
    But is Texas unlike most other US states? There is a governing body Ercot with two different transmission maintainers but the generation is indeed a relatively free market with free market pricing.
nullc 3y ago
> One thing, if they didn’t exist that would be less strain on the grid period. No, there would be a corresponding reduction in generation capacity and the strain on the grid would be identical. > This attracts more miners! Good. The miner's usage pays to build more generation capacity (acres of solar, etc), but then when there is an imbalance (production down and/or demand up) the miners turn off so the extra capacity they paid to be built is available for others.
TheDudeMan 3y ago
The miner load is the ideal type of load -- totally flat, very predicable. This encourages investment in supply. And the cherry on top is that it is super easy to turn off (if you pay them). There is basically no other energy consumer like this. The miner load has other unique and favorable attributes, but those are the ones that are relevant in this situation. Is the energy for sale or not?
- woodruffw 3y ago
  > There is basically no other energy consumer like this. Pumped water storage, aluminum production, gravel or other crushed rock product manufacturing, municipal base load, etc. all come to mind. Paying consumers to reduce their load does not incentivize supply investment. In real terms, it essentially does the exact opposite: it takes dollars that would go into plants and infrastructure and turns them into paychecks for people who are stressing the grid. In other words: it effectively rewards those who can consistently torture the grid with the money that would be used to improve it.
  - bhawks 3y ago
    On one hand there is a customer who is always willing to buy electricity you can generate in extremely predictable volumes and they will stop when you ask them to. A grid operator should be able to figure out a way to ensure that they always have a profitable arrangement on net with this customer. TFA doesn't have a single data point that the deal is a loser for ERCOT or other rate payers - just knee jerk reactions based on the underlying assumption that something must be wrong. It is perfectly plausible that ERCOT, Riot and other rate payers are all benefiting from the agreement and perhaps there's only an argument about how to distribute that benefit fairly. Given ERCOT's public responsibilities to transparency and the clicks a reporter could generate if they could materially show that either ERCOT or the other rate payers were losing with this deal (to evil crypto of all things) I am inclined to say the whole thing is a nothingburger. On the other hand we have proposals to increase the upfront costs, consume more valuable land (real estate prices too low for anyone's taste?), and utilize it in environmentally unfriendly ways (who wants to live next to a rock crusher operation or an aluminum factory). Relying on Bitcoin miners as a flexible consumer is extremely compelling.
scotty79 3y ago
> that would be less strain on the grid period Less strain on the grid would be less economic reasons to develop the grid and expand energy production capacity. The only reason any business ever develops is unsatisfied customer needs.

brutusborn 3y ago

That's not how markets work. Removing demand tends to reduce investment in supply. Or the opposite: maybe they moved to Texas because there is often excess cheap energy due to renewables. They are causing the same amount of 'strain' (demand) as any other industry. Their demand will attract investment in supply the same as any other industry. The advantage is that their demand can be shed quickly, which is useful for the grid operators, and helps 'protect society.'

etrautmann 3y ago
Yes, and the marginal benefit to society of those kilowatts is the concern here in emergency situations. The grid is also not a normal free market operating under normal free market principles. Regulated monopolies are a different beast with different constraints. Given the challenge of supplying during peak loads, attempting to prioritize use cases strikes me as a reasonable endeavor in principle.
- infecto 3y ago
  But is Texas unlike most other US states? There is a governing body Ercot with two different transmission maintainers but the generation is indeed a relatively free market with free market pricing.

nullc 3y ago

> One thing, if they didn’t exist that would be less strain on the grid period. No, there would be a corresponding reduction in generation capacity and the strain on the grid would be identical. > This attracts more miners! Good. The miner's usage pays to build more generation capacity (acres of solar, etc), but then when there is an imbalance (production down and/or demand up) the miners turn off so the extra capacity they paid to be built is available for others.

TheDudeMan 3y ago

The miner load is the ideal type of load -- totally flat, very predicable. This encourages investment in supply. And the cherry on top is that it is super easy to turn off (if you pay them). There is basically no other energy consumer like this. The miner load has other unique and favorable attributes, but those are the ones that are relevant in this situation. Is the energy for sale or not?

woodruffw 3y ago
> There is basically no other energy consumer like this. Pumped water storage, aluminum production, gravel or other crushed rock product manufacturing, municipal base load, etc. all come to mind. Paying consumers to reduce their load does not incentivize supply investment. In real terms, it essentially does the exact opposite: it takes dollars that would go into plants and infrastructure and turns them into paychecks for people who are stressing the grid. In other words: it effectively rewards those who can consistently torture the grid with the money that would be used to improve it.
- bhawks 3y ago
  On one hand there is a customer who is always willing to buy electricity you can generate in extremely predictable volumes and they will stop when you ask them to. A grid operator should be able to figure out a way to ensure that they always have a profitable arrangement on net with this customer. TFA doesn't have a single data point that the deal is a loser for ERCOT or other rate payers - just knee jerk reactions based on the underlying assumption that something must be wrong. It is perfectly plausible that ERCOT, Riot and other rate payers are all benefiting from the agreement and perhaps there's only an argument about how to distribute that benefit fairly. Given ERCOT's public responsibilities to transparency and the clicks a reporter could generate if they could materially show that either ERCOT or the other rate payers were losing with this deal (to evil crypto of all things) I am inclined to say the whole thing is a nothingburger. On the other hand we have proposals to increase the upfront costs, consume more valuable land (real estate prices too low for anyone's taste?), and utilize it in environmentally unfriendly ways (who wants to live next to a rock crusher operation or an aluminum factory). Relying on Bitcoin miners as a flexible consumer is extremely compelling.

scotty79 3y ago

> that would be less strain on the grid period Less strain on the grid would be less economic reasons to develop the grid and expand energy production capacity. The only reason any business ever develops is unsatisfied customer needs.