4 ms·

In America electric rates are increasing due to 20 years of stagnation and failure to invest in transmission, and new data centers are on average associated wit

by jeffbee 5mo ago

In America electric rates are increasing due to 20 years of stagnation and failure to invest in transmission, and new data centers are on average associated with lower, not higher retail electric rates. This is because large consumers drive down marginal prices. In your country things may be proceeding differently, but that's the story here.

mindslight 5mo ago
This doesn't really hold when we're talking about discrete pieces of infrastructure that may need to be built. If the current transmission infrastructure is fine for the current users, and then a new large user comes along that necessitates new infrastructure, that is a huge new cost that simply that simply didn't exist without that large user. I believe in many areas this is the kind of infrastructure investment that regulated utilities can easily pass onto existing rate payers, which is where the problem/narrative comes from in the first place. So your theory doesn't match the actual results people are complaining about. Same thing when datacenters take power generation into their own hands and build new gas turbines rather than solar/batteries or paying to expedite grid construction. And I'm willing to believe these problems happen in a minority of cases, but the problem is that they seemingly do happen and existing residents are left without recourse.
- jeffbee 5mo ago
  Your model of the infrastructure as a perpetually sustaining asset is not correct. These assets must be continually refreshed and improved or their value disappears. The emergence of the data center as a point load has merely coincided with the existing grid infrastructure falling to pieces. The places with the highest marginal energy prices such as California are the places with the fewest data centers. Large consumers invest in transmission assets that benefit everybody.
  - mindslight 5mo ago
    You would seem to be saying that grid infrastructure needs continual refreshing and improvement to continue carrying the same amount of power? That strikes me as a tall claim, given what I already know about electricity (electronic design and house wiring). I am open to entertaining it, but you've got to provide a reference or at least just describe the mechanism. This is talking about the capital assets themselves, which are of course separate from regular maintenance like tree trimming. About the only thing I can think of is something like a bulk of the grid infrastructure was built out 30/40/50/whatever years ago, and is now all reaching its expected lifetime all at once, and perhaps some types of equipment are strictly retired at the end of their lifespan lest they fail catastrophically.
    - jeffbee 5mo ago
      Yes, exactly. It's a bunch of metal that stands out in the weather all the time.
      - mindslight 5mo ago
        To be convinced, I'd need to see actual data showing that the costs for replacing existing assets are what's actually spiking.

by jeffbee 5mo ago

mindslight 5mo ago

This doesn't really hold when we're talking about discrete pieces of infrastructure that may need to be built. If the current transmission infrastructure is fine for the current users, and then a new large user comes along that necessitates new infrastructure, that is a huge new cost that simply that simply didn't exist without that large user. I believe in many areas this is the kind of infrastructure investment that regulated utilities can easily pass onto existing rate payers, which is where the problem/narrative comes from in the first place. So your theory doesn't match the actual results people are complaining about. Same thing when datacenters take power generation into their own hands and build new gas turbines rather than solar/batteries or paying to expedite grid construction. And I'm willing to believe these problems happen in a minority of cases, but the problem is that they seemingly do happen and existing residents are left without recourse.

jeffbee 5mo ago
Your model of the infrastructure as a perpetually sustaining asset is not correct. These assets must be continually refreshed and improved or their value disappears. The emergence of the data center as a point load has merely coincided with the existing grid infrastructure falling to pieces. The places with the highest marginal energy prices such as California are the places with the fewest data centers. Large consumers invest in transmission assets that benefit everybody.
- mindslight 5mo ago
  You would seem to be saying that grid infrastructure needs continual refreshing and improvement to continue carrying the same amount of power? That strikes me as a tall claim, given what I already know about electricity (electronic design and house wiring). I am open to entertaining it, but you've got to provide a reference or at least just describe the mechanism. This is talking about the capital assets themselves, which are of course separate from regular maintenance like tree trimming. About the only thing I can think of is something like a bulk of the grid infrastructure was built out 30/40/50/whatever years ago, and is now all reaching its expected lifetime all at once, and perhaps some types of equipment are strictly retired at the end of their lifespan lest they fail catastrophically.
  - jeffbee 5mo ago
    Yes, exactly. It's a bunch of metal that stands out in the weather all the time.
    - mindslight 5mo ago
      To be convinced, I'd need to see actual data showing that the costs for replacing existing assets are what's actually spiking.