4 ms·

Indeed. Think of it like this. If there is a water shortage they ban hosepipes not tap water. They may ask people to limit showers. The equivalent here would b

Indeed. Think of it like this. If there is a water shortage they ban hosepipes not tap water. They may ask people to limit showers. The equivalent here would be picking what industries to forcibly shut down. In that sense with such a system crypto mining might be OK (at least for this argument). But this compensation is a subsidy to ask more people to come in and use up a scarce resource.

brutusborn 3y ago
Your last sentence is where you go wrong: compensation is not a subsidy. If the government uses my land to build a highway, I am compensated because I lose something of value. Subsidies are not an exchange but are one-way. You are mischaracterizing the payments because you hate crypto.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  It is a subsidy signal. "Build crypto mining in Texas and your expected earnings are higher than anywhere else!" I don't hate crypto, I have some nuanced opinions on it. Happy to criticize and defend it, depending on the argument. Once you get to PoS there is a lot less wrong with it environmentally. Unlimited carbon-free energy infra (and silicon production infra too, along with proper recycling!) would also make it less of a problem, but obviously we are not there yet. And I say unlimited because PoW demands that difficulty goes up and up and up to bid up PoW assets.
nullc 3y ago
The program is equivalent to selling the miners spare capacity at reduced prices. There are accounting reasons that the utility prefers to structure it as payments for load shedding. Try thinking it through in terms of reduced rates for spare capacity. Any criticism that doesn't work under both frameworks is logically unsound.
- p1mrx 3y ago
  Your argument would make sense if Texas had a near-term goal to decarbonize its power grid. As long as fossil fuels are burning, there is no spare capacity.
  - nullc 3y ago
    Embracing your response on its own terms, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09032023/inside-clean-energy-texas-renewables/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09032023/inside-clean-ene... But that aside I don't think your response is a fair one for three reasons: (1) because solar and wind are the least expensive source of energy the excess power is significantly solar/wind. (2) But because they're the least reliable maximizing their use requires solutions like a large amount of sheddable load on the grid. (3) You're imposing your own opinions on the 'right' and 'wrong' sources of power which far from universal outside of internet filter bubbles and are not supported by the law. You may not like that some parties burn fossil fuels for energy but they currently have a right to do so. I agree that good cases can be made for restricting fossil fuel use, but so long as it isn't it's unproductive to pick and choose arbitrary targets that use energy for purposes you don't care about simply because fossil fuels for energy happens to exist. It's doubly so, considering 1/2 above because responsive loads help increase the share of renewable power.
    - p1mrx 3y ago
      I agree that the BTC miners are behaving legally, and in some sense they have a moral responsibility to maximize profit within the law, but their existence highlights why the law itself is unethical. I think lawmakers have an ethical duty to fix the "burning carbon is too cheap" problem, but the odds of that happening in Texas are low. If we had something like a carbon fee and dividend, miners could become a net good for society just by following price signals.

brutusborn 3y ago

Your last sentence is where you go wrong: compensation is not a subsidy. If the government uses my land to build a highway, I am compensated because I lose something of value. Subsidies are not an exchange but are one-way. You are mischaracterizing the payments because you hate crypto.

quickthrower2 3y ago
It is a subsidy signal. "Build crypto mining in Texas and your expected earnings are higher than anywhere else!" I don't hate crypto, I have some nuanced opinions on it. Happy to criticize and defend it, depending on the argument. Once you get to PoS there is a lot less wrong with it environmentally. Unlimited carbon-free energy infra (and silicon production infra too, along with proper recycling!) would also make it less of a problem, but obviously we are not there yet. And I say unlimited because PoW demands that difficulty goes up and up and up to bid up PoW assets.

nullc 3y ago

The program is equivalent to selling the miners spare capacity at reduced prices. There are accounting reasons that the utility prefers to structure it as payments for load shedding. Try thinking it through in terms of reduced rates for spare capacity. Any criticism that doesn't work under both frameworks is logically unsound.

p1mrx 3y ago
Your argument would make sense if Texas had a near-term goal to decarbonize its power grid. As long as fossil fuels are burning, there is no spare capacity.
- nullc 3y ago
  Embracing your response on its own terms, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09032023/inside-clean-energy-texas-renewables/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09032023/inside-clean-ene... But that aside I don't think your response is a fair one for three reasons: (1) because solar and wind are the least expensive source of energy the excess power is significantly solar/wind. (2) But because they're the least reliable maximizing their use requires solutions like a large amount of sheddable load on the grid. (3) You're imposing your own opinions on the 'right' and 'wrong' sources of power which far from universal outside of internet filter bubbles and are not supported by the law. You may not like that some parties burn fossil fuels for energy but they currently have a right to do so. I agree that good cases can be made for restricting fossil fuel use, but so long as it isn't it's unproductive to pick and choose arbitrary targets that use energy for purposes you don't care about simply because fossil fuels for energy happens to exist. It's doubly so, considering 1/2 above because responsive loads help increase the share of renewable power.
  - p1mrx 3y ago
    I agree that the BTC miners are behaving legally, and in some sense they have a moral responsibility to maximize profit within the law, but their existence highlights why the law itself is unethical. I think lawmakers have an ethical duty to fix the "burning carbon is too cheap" problem, but the odds of that happening in Texas are low. If we had something like a carbon fee and dividend, miners could become a net good for society just by following price signals.