6 ms·

Nasty. Electrical power is definitely a basic utility and refusing to provide service should at the least be heavily investigated by the governing regulatory bo

Nasty. Electrical power is definitely a basic utility and refusing to provide service should at the least be heavily investigated by the governing regulatory body of the region. It doesn't matter what one's opinion of the use is. This could very easily spiral out into a larger societal problem.

shitpostbot 3y ago
[dead]
mjhay 3y ago
Wanting 2.5 million megawatt hours per year (an average of almost 300 megawatts) goes a bit beyond providing a basic utility. Doing that while not impacting other customers would almost certainly require big infrastructure investments. The fact that crypto mining is a useless dead-weight loss compared to supplying power to homes and productive businesses just makes the decision all that easier.
ceejayoz 3y ago
Sounds like they're preventing a larger societal problem. > It said the pause ordered by the government was in response to "the very real prospect that devoting such a large proportion of the available electrical power supply to one industry would leave less energy for other uses which might result in increased costs to all other residential and industry customers in B.C."
- superkuh 3y ago
  Indeed. Such a general response can literally be applied to every industry and so shows the judicial response in this case is working on feelings rather than facts.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    I assume it would be applied to any other industry. If you started a steel plant without telling anyone and created a potential electricity shortage in the process, it would probably be shut down too. Industry-scale resource usage requires planning and coordination.
  - bigbillheck 3y ago
    > Such a general response can literally be applied to every industry One difference from other industries: > Energy Minister Josie Osborne said when the policy was introduced that cryptocurrency mining consumes ... adds “very few jobs” to the local economy.
    - superkuh 3y ago
      So it's okay for the local electrical utility to not provide service if they feel you aren't contributing enough jobs to the local economy? That seem very absurd on the face of it. And easily slippery sloped to abuse and corruption.
      - bigbillheck 3y ago
        It's a finite resource that needs to be managed for the common good, and that seems as good a metric as any.
- throw101010 3y ago
  What happened to scaling the offer based on (future) demand? That is what a government who wants growth should focus on... instead of telling their citizens which use cases are acceptable or not. See in Texas how the Bitcoin mining industry negotiated agreements for curtailing and greatly help scaling the grid better... this seems like a way more efficient approach to these offer/demand and scaling issues than "we can't let you buy our product because other people want to buy it".
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > See in Texas how the Bitcoin mining industry negotiated agreements for curtailing and greatly help scaling the grid better... They get paid not to use power to prevent the grid from collapsing. That's not what I want my tax dollars spent on, and such silliness is why I tend not to look at Texas for good governance.
    - throw101010 3y ago
      They provide constant demand in low consumption periods which makes it possible to have a stronger grid when indeed there is a spike in demand due to external conditions like a heat or cold waves... something which will keep happening more and more (and more extremely) if you listen to climate scientists. The keywords are scaling and stability, if you prefer to piss this money away on building plants that will work at 50% capacity for years you essentially pay for the rest of the capacity with no other utility, that's bad governance.
MattDaEskimo 3y ago
It should be investigated but it seems reasonable considering 1) They estimated an equivalent of half a million apartments worth of electricity. That's a massive allocation for 2) Something that provides no additional benefits to the countries labor force 3) Creates a currency that also doesn't benefit the country 4) Is inherently risky and could collapse at anytime What they're asking is to greatly increase the demand, potentially leading to higher costs for a service that doesn't benefit the country at all.
- saintfire 3y ago
  I'm not commenting on whether it should be permitted or not. However, they presumably pay tax on revenue and employ engineers, electricians etc. So I'm not sure of your latter 2 points are totally valid. I'd contend that they're fairly similar to a data center in that they have massive power draw, do not produce physical goods and employ few people compared to the space and resource usage. Obviously data centers are much more pragmatic and are much less contentious, though.
  - MattDaEskimo 3y ago
    Regarding the labor force this was taken directly from the article and quoted by the energy minister. I imagine they have more insights than we do regarding the proposal. I understand your comment, and I'm agreeing that it should be investigated but I disagree about it being "nasty". B.C. is not incredibly populated and also they are appealing for cheap electricity. Asking for the power they want is a substantial undertaking that would cause higher utility prices for everyone living there. If the cause somehow out-weighed the potential of higher costs it would be fair, but it's not. Allowing this without investigation and diligence would be "nasty"
bawolff 3y ago
I think its entirely reasonable that large users of basic utilities be regulated. Part of being a basic utility is its supposed to be shared fairly. Large industrial usages require advanced planning.
dasmoop 3y ago
So the utility has a certain set of existing infrastructure capable of producing electricity at lets say 10c/kw. Accepting all the crypto miners might force them to introduce new capacity at 16c/kw or buy from another grid at a high rate during peak, raising prices for home consumers. That decision seems very reasonable.
khazhoux 3y ago
> This could very easily spiral out into a larger societal problem. The Slippery Slope is a common logical fallacy. There is no evidence of any spiraling happening. > should at the least be heavily investigated by the governing regulatory body of the region. This went fully through the legal system: "Conifex Timber had gone to the B.C. Supreme Court to have the policy declared invalid. But Justice Michael Tammen ruled Friday that the government’s move in December 2022 to pause new connections for cryptocurrency mining for 18 months was 'reasonable' and not 'unduly discriminatory.'"
pricechild 3y ago
Do you also oppose lending limits at libraries? Fees for public transport? Just because something is a public utility, that doesn't mean it can or should be free, limitless and unlimited.
jmull 3y ago
I think the situation here is something that's good for a specific user but bad for the wider community. It seems like the perfect case for an authority to step in. Think about what the rationale for having a common utility even is: a group pools its resources so everyone can have a better power system (more reliable, cheaper) than each could have running their own. Obviously, for that to work though, there has to be a way to prevent individuals from abusing the system. I agree it shouldn't matter what anyone's opinion of the use is, but that doesn't appear to be what's happening here.
bdcravens 3y ago
It's not the use that's important, it's the quantity. In this case they found the quantity to be unreasonable.

shitpostbot 3y ago

[dead]

mjhay 3y ago

Wanting 2.5 million megawatt hours per year (an average of almost 300 megawatts) goes a bit beyond providing a basic utility. Doing that while not impacting other customers would almost certainly require big infrastructure investments. The fact that crypto mining is a useless dead-weight loss compared to supplying power to homes and productive businesses just makes the decision all that easier.

ceejayoz 3y ago

Sounds like they're preventing a larger societal problem. > It said the pause ordered by the government was in response to "the very real prospect that devoting such a large proportion of the available electrical power supply to one industry would leave less energy for other uses which might result in increased costs to all other residential and industry customers in B.C."

superkuh 3y ago
Indeed. Such a general response can literally be applied to every industry and so shows the judicial response in this case is working on feelings rather than facts.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I assume it would be applied to any other industry. If you started a steel plant without telling anyone and created a potential electricity shortage in the process, it would probably be shut down too. Industry-scale resource usage requires planning and coordination.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  > Such a general response can literally be applied to every industry One difference from other industries: > Energy Minister Josie Osborne said when the policy was introduced that cryptocurrency mining consumes ... adds “very few jobs” to the local economy.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    So it's okay for the local electrical utility to not provide service if they feel you aren't contributing enough jobs to the local economy? That seem very absurd on the face of it. And easily slippery sloped to abuse and corruption.
    - bigbillheck 3y ago
      It's a finite resource that needs to be managed for the common good, and that seems as good a metric as any.
throw101010 3y ago
What happened to scaling the offer based on (future) demand? That is what a government who wants growth should focus on... instead of telling their citizens which use cases are acceptable or not. See in Texas how the Bitcoin mining industry negotiated agreements for curtailing and greatly help scaling the grid better... this seems like a way more efficient approach to these offer/demand and scaling issues than "we can't let you buy our product because other people want to buy it".
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > See in Texas how the Bitcoin mining industry negotiated agreements for curtailing and greatly help scaling the grid better... They get paid not to use power to prevent the grid from collapsing. That's not what I want my tax dollars spent on, and such silliness is why I tend not to look at Texas for good governance.
  - throw101010 3y ago
    They provide constant demand in low consumption periods which makes it possible to have a stronger grid when indeed there is a spike in demand due to external conditions like a heat or cold waves... something which will keep happening more and more (and more extremely) if you listen to climate scientists. The keywords are scaling and stability, if you prefer to piss this money away on building plants that will work at 50% capacity for years you essentially pay for the rest of the capacity with no other utility, that's bad governance.

MattDaEskimo 3y ago

It should be investigated but it seems reasonable considering 1) They estimated an equivalent of half a million apartments worth of electricity. That's a massive allocation for 2) Something that provides no additional benefits to the countries labor force 3) Creates a currency that also doesn't benefit the country 4) Is inherently risky and could collapse at anytime What they're asking is to greatly increase the demand, potentially leading to higher costs for a service that doesn't benefit the country at all.

saintfire 3y ago
I'm not commenting on whether it should be permitted or not. However, they presumably pay tax on revenue and employ engineers, electricians etc. So I'm not sure of your latter 2 points are totally valid. I'd contend that they're fairly similar to a data center in that they have massive power draw, do not produce physical goods and employ few people compared to the space and resource usage. Obviously data centers are much more pragmatic and are much less contentious, though.
- MattDaEskimo 3y ago
  Regarding the labor force this was taken directly from the article and quoted by the energy minister. I imagine they have more insights than we do regarding the proposal. I understand your comment, and I'm agreeing that it should be investigated but I disagree about it being "nasty". B.C. is not incredibly populated and also they are appealing for cheap electricity. Asking for the power they want is a substantial undertaking that would cause higher utility prices for everyone living there. If the cause somehow out-weighed the potential of higher costs it would be fair, but it's not. Allowing this without investigation and diligence would be "nasty"

bawolff 3y ago

I think its entirely reasonable that large users of basic utilities be regulated. Part of being a basic utility is its supposed to be shared fairly. Large industrial usages require advanced planning.

dasmoop 3y ago

So the utility has a certain set of existing infrastructure capable of producing electricity at lets say 10c/kw. Accepting all the crypto miners might force them to introduce new capacity at 16c/kw or buy from another grid at a high rate during peak, raising prices for home consumers. That decision seems very reasonable.

khazhoux 3y ago

> This could very easily spiral out into a larger societal problem. The Slippery Slope is a common logical fallacy. There is no evidence of any spiraling happening. > should at the least be heavily investigated by the governing regulatory body of the region. This went fully through the legal system: "Conifex Timber had gone to the B.C. Supreme Court to have the policy declared invalid. But Justice Michael Tammen ruled Friday that the government’s move in December 2022 to pause new connections for cryptocurrency mining for 18 months was 'reasonable' and not 'unduly discriminatory.'"

pricechild 3y ago

Do you also oppose lending limits at libraries? Fees for public transport? Just because something is a public utility, that doesn't mean it can or should be free, limitless and unlimited.

jmull 3y ago

I think the situation here is something that's good for a specific user but bad for the wider community. It seems like the perfect case for an authority to step in. Think about what the rationale for having a common utility even is: a group pools its resources so everyone can have a better power system (more reliable, cheaper) than each could have running their own. Obviously, for that to work though, there has to be a way to prevent individuals from abusing the system. I agree it shouldn't matter what anyone's opinion of the use is, but that doesn't appear to be what's happening here.

bdcravens 3y ago

It's not the use that's important, it's the quantity. In this case they found the quantity to be unreasonable.