4 ms·
Embracing your response on its own terms, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09032023/inside-clean-energy-texas-renewables/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0
by 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 agoI 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.