3 ms·

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 eas

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.
- TheDudeMan 3y ago
  > Paying consumers to reduce their load does not incentivize supply investment. Of course not. The thing that incentivizes supply is the load. Preferably a nice flat load. Oh, like miners. Also, "aluminum production"? Really? You can just turn off an aluminum factory? What about the workers? What about all of the hot things that will cool down?

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.
TheDudeMan 3y ago
> Paying consumers to reduce their load does not incentivize supply investment. Of course not. The thing that incentivizes supply is the load. Preferably a nice flat load. Oh, like miners. Also, "aluminum production"? Really? You can just turn off an aluminum factory? What about the workers? What about all of the hot things that will cool down?