5 ms·

Are you suggesting it should be illegal for these players to buy energy on the open market?

kazen44 2y ago
No, but we should have a discussion about if it is worth it to expense so much energy for something with very little hard, real use case. Al be it bitcoin or LLM's. there is a lot of money behind AI, but i have yet to see any of them actually get us a use case which work reliably. Not to mention, AI is fun and all, but that energy could be far better spend making the economy less reliant on fossil fuel.
- voidfunc 2y ago
  > there is a lot of money behind AI, but i have yet to see any of them actually get us a use case which work reliably. Classic HN. You personally can't see the value of X therefore the entire market for X is wrong.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
For emergencies, there are already methods to shut off power to low priority businesses. And say, keep hospitals open. And, if you want to pay, you can pay a premium to have more 'secure' power. This is an option today, already. No need for any discussion about markets and 'government is holding back the free market'. There is already a market to pay for premium power. And the utilities can charge AI customers more if they want.
- kazen44 2y ago
  this is actually a major problem in the netherlands at the moment. a part of the energy grid cannot handle the load being generated by all the solar being deployed, and upgrading the grid takes years. In the meantime, bussinesses and even households simply are not getting a new power connection unless they are deemed of enough importance.
  - AndrewDucker 2y ago
    If upgrading the grid takes years then invest until it doesn't take years. There have been many years of build up to solar power. If the people running the grid haven't done their job then replace them with people who can.
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
the grid gets to choose how it prioritizes power. if they want too much power at a time the grid doesn't have enough to go around, they're likely fairly early on the cutting block
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Sorry hospitals, these AI jerks have more money! /s
- dylan604 2y ago
  AI jerks will just start putting big red crosses on their buildings, open one 10'x10' space in their facility with some barely passed the exams to get a license type of doctor and claim it to be a medical facility of some sort. Just like other hospitals, they'll have a shortage of beds. I'm only half joking as from what I've seen of those involved, I would not put this type of consideration past them.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    I'm sure they'd then be on here saying such a thing is legal and exactly what law intended. /s
mattmanser 2y ago
The suggestion is that they can buy it at certain times, but not when the grid is nearing capacity. And yes, that's a perfectly reasonable thing for a society to decide. It's shared infrastructure, mainly paid for by public funds. If a government decides the priority should be the millions over the few, that's what happens in a functioning government. Or they can pay for their own power stations and infrastructure to be built.
- brookst 2y ago
  They do contract for capacity in advance, which enables suppliers to plan for demand.
- Aerroon 2y ago
  They will just go somewhere else where this isn't a limitation. Somewhere that actually has a functioning power grid. If the power grid regularly can't handle the customers it has them it isn't a functioning power grid.
notatoad 2y ago
yes. there is not and should not be an "open market" for power. the sale of electricity from the power grid is highly regulated, and for good reason. delivery to residential customers and essential services should always be prioritized over industrial bulk purchasers. bulk purchasers already have the opportunity to use power sources that are not connected to the grid, if they want to use grid power they should be prioritized according to their benefit to society, not their cash on hand.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Charge them more until it's worth it. And sure, tell them they get disconnected first when there's a shortage. But a hard block is worse than taking their money and using it for improvements.
  - ars 2y ago
    How do you decide who "them" is, that should pay more? Usually you do the opposite: In exchange for a lower rate you will be the first disconnected in an emergency.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Whoever you were going to refuse to sell power to for capacity reasons.
- qeternity 2y ago
  > they should be prioritized according to their benefit to society The fact that they have the capability to pay for and consume this power is the strongest signal that they are indeed providing value to society. The money comes from somewhere. If that turns out not to be the case, they have the strongest incentive to stop. But this sort of rationing at the hands of some regulatory body has historically proven to be a far more deadly cure than whatever the presumptive disease was.
  - notatoad 2y ago
gtvwill 2y ago
Markets are neither open nor free, they are closed and regulated. So yes, block their purchasing, tell them to sort their own. Here's the thing, do you cut off one customer when supply is tight or do you risk political suicide by kicking the bucket to millions of small customers? Power utility companies will kick one customer, if they don't they will lose their social license to operate and get legislated out of business.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Are you suggesting it should be illegal for these players to buy energy on the open market? Part of the problem is the AI companies are unwilling to sign long-term power purchase agreements. That means the utility is on the hook for both the capital cost of the development and the risk of unloading a bunch of excess power if the tech company decides to relocate.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Part of the problem is the AI companies are unwilling to sign long-term power purchase agreements. That may also be circumstantial evidence that they don't quite believe all their own hype.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > may also be circumstantial evidence that they don't quite believe all their own hype No company, particularly one with negative cash flows, wants to saddle itself with long-term liabilities. There might an opportunity for useful financial engineering: instead of a fixed power purchase agreement, one which floats and is married to a no-shop commitment. For example: start-up agrees to purchase 10 units of power at a fixed price for 10 years. It has the option of only purchasing 9 units, but must pay a 20¢ fee on the unpurchased power. In this way, if the start-up hits a rough patch, the burden is shared in a way that is meaningful to the start-up's surival probability. In exchange, the start-up commits to not reducing its power purchase while ramping up usage with someone else, presumably at a lower rate, and, once lowered, commits to ramping up its usage with this provider before ramping it up with anyone else. Now here is the critical part: the utilty doesn't hold that risk. Instead, it pays a fee to a hedge fund or endowment or whatever by which that party agrees to make up the 80¢ (or some fraction of it) on unpurchased power. In summary, the utility winds up with a reliable cash stream in all worlds except the start-up failing. (One could mitigate that risk by requiring some pre-funding.) The start-up gets a long-term, guaranteed-price source of power. The hedge fund gets a weird financial thing to play with. (A natural provider of that guarantee would be one of the tech giants. I like the idea of it going into the market because one can see those contracts being aggregated and thus diversified.)
- 2y ago
consteval 2y ago
Energy should not be an open market. It has been given unbelievable amounts of public funds and is public infrastructure. We should work out a mutually beneficial agreement - I think it makes no sense to nationalize energy providers off the bat. But, part of that agreement should be ensuring energy for residential areas. And if that requires cutting off energy pigs in the meantime, so be it.

No, but we should have a discussion about if it is worth it to expense so much energy for something with very little hard, real use case. Al be it bitcoin or LLM's. there is a lot of money behind AI, but i have yet to see any of them actually get us a use case which work reliably. Not to mention, AI is fun and all, but that energy could be far better spend making the economy less reliant on fossil fuel.

voidfunc 2y ago
> there is a lot of money behind AI, but i have yet to see any of them actually get us a use case which work reliably. Classic HN. You personally can't see the value of X therefore the entire market for X is wrong.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

For emergencies, there are already methods to shut off power to low priority businesses. And say, keep hospitals open. And, if you want to pay, you can pay a premium to have more 'secure' power. This is an option today, already. No need for any discussion about markets and 'government is holding back the free market'. There is already a market to pay for premium power. And the utilities can charge AI customers more if they want.

kazen44 2y ago
this is actually a major problem in the netherlands at the moment. a part of the energy grid cannot handle the load being generated by all the solar being deployed, and upgrading the grid takes years. In the meantime, bussinesses and even households simply are not getting a new power connection unless they are deemed of enough importance.
- AndrewDucker 2y ago
  If upgrading the grid takes years then invest until it doesn't take years. There have been many years of build up to solar power. If the people running the grid haven't done their job then replace them with people who can.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

the grid gets to choose how it prioritizes power. if they want too much power at a time the grid doesn't have enough to go around, they're likely fairly early on the cutting block

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

Sorry hospitals, these AI jerks have more money! /s

dylan604 2y ago
AI jerks will just start putting big red crosses on their buildings, open one 10'x10' space in their facility with some barely passed the exams to get a license type of doctor and claim it to be a medical facility of some sort. Just like other hospitals, they'll have a shortage of beds. I'm only half joking as from what I've seen of those involved, I would not put this type of consideration past them.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  I'm sure they'd then be on here saying such a thing is legal and exactly what law intended. /s

mattmanser 2y ago

The suggestion is that they can buy it at certain times, but not when the grid is nearing capacity. And yes, that's a perfectly reasonable thing for a society to decide. It's shared infrastructure, mainly paid for by public funds. If a government decides the priority should be the millions over the few, that's what happens in a functioning government. Or they can pay for their own power stations and infrastructure to be built.

brookst 2y ago
They do contract for capacity in advance, which enables suppliers to plan for demand.
Aerroon 2y ago
They will just go somewhere else where this isn't a limitation. Somewhere that actually has a functioning power grid. If the power grid regularly can't handle the customers it has them it isn't a functioning power grid.

notatoad 2y ago

yes. there is not and should not be an "open market" for power. the sale of electricity from the power grid is highly regulated, and for good reason. delivery to residential customers and essential services should always be prioritized over industrial bulk purchasers. bulk purchasers already have the opportunity to use power sources that are not connected to the grid, if they want to use grid power they should be prioritized according to their benefit to society, not their cash on hand.

Dylan16807 2y ago
Charge them more until it's worth it. And sure, tell them they get disconnected first when there's a shortage. But a hard block is worse than taking their money and using it for improvements.
- ars 2y ago
  How do you decide who "them" is, that should pay more? Usually you do the opposite: In exchange for a lower rate you will be the first disconnected in an emergency.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Whoever you were going to refuse to sell power to for capacity reasons.
qeternity 2y ago
> they should be prioritized according to their benefit to society The fact that they have the capability to pay for and consume this power is the strongest signal that they are indeed providing value to society. The money comes from somewhere. If that turns out not to be the case, they have the strongest incentive to stop. But this sort of rationing at the hands of some regulatory body has historically proven to be a far more deadly cure than whatever the presumptive disease was.
- notatoad 2y ago

gtvwill 2y ago

Markets are neither open nor free, they are closed and regulated. So yes, block their purchasing, tell them to sort their own. Here's the thing, do you cut off one customer when supply is tight or do you risk political suicide by kicking the bucket to millions of small customers? Power utility companies will kick one customer, if they don't they will lose their social license to operate and get legislated out of business.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Are you suggesting it should be illegal for these players to buy energy on the open market? Part of the problem is the AI companies are unwilling to sign long-term power purchase agreements. That means the utility is on the hook for both the capital cost of the development and the risk of unloading a bunch of excess power if the tech company decides to relocate.

Terr_ 2y ago
> Part of the problem is the AI companies are unwilling to sign long-term power purchase agreements. That may also be circumstantial evidence that they don't quite believe all their own hype.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > may also be circumstantial evidence that they don't quite believe all their own hype No company, particularly one with negative cash flows, wants to saddle itself with long-term liabilities. There might an opportunity for useful financial engineering: instead of a fixed power purchase agreement, one which floats and is married to a no-shop commitment. For example: start-up agrees to purchase 10 units of power at a fixed price for 10 years. It has the option of only purchasing 9 units, but must pay a 20¢ fee on the unpurchased power. In this way, if the start-up hits a rough patch, the burden is shared in a way that is meaningful to the start-up's surival probability. In exchange, the start-up commits to not reducing its power purchase while ramping up usage with someone else, presumably at a lower rate, and, once lowered, commits to ramping up its usage with this provider before ramping it up with anyone else. Now here is the critical part: the utilty doesn't hold that risk. Instead, it pays a fee to a hedge fund or endowment or whatever by which that party agrees to make up the 80¢ (or some fraction of it) on unpurchased power. In summary, the utility winds up with a reliable cash stream in all worlds except the start-up failing. (One could mitigate that risk by requiring some pre-funding.) The start-up gets a long-term, guaranteed-price source of power. The hedge fund gets a weird financial thing to play with. (A natural provider of that guarantee would be one of the tech giants. I like the idea of it going into the market because one can see those contracts being aggregated and thus diversified.)
2y ago

consteval 2y ago

Energy should not be an open market. It has been given unbelievable amounts of public funds and is public infrastructure. We should work out a mutually beneficial agreement - I think it makes no sense to nationalize energy providers off the bat. But, part of that agreement should be ensuring energy for residential areas. And if that requires cutting off energy pigs in the meantime, so be it.