4 ms·

You don't need a law to force people to pay for resources they consume; basic economics already ensures that. If there are externalities not already accounted f

by Ajedi32 2mo ago

You don't need a law to force people to pay for resources they consume; basic economics already ensures that. If there are externalities not already accounted for by that (increased demand for water/electricity driving up costs for others, noise, "eyesores", etc.) you could pass laws to ensure those costs are paid by the responsible party but that's not a datacenter-specific issue.

zug_zug 2mo ago
Don't quote theoretical econ idealism at us when our actual electricity rates are going up 20% or more per year. Increased demand absolutely DOES increase the cost both in theory and practice.
- Ajedi32 2mo ago
  I... agree? Did you even read the comment you replied to?
skinfaxi 2mo ago
How does that work in a market where you are bidding amongst other participants and capacity is constrained? Supply is limited and demand is growing, the market response is to charge more.
- Ajedi32 2mo ago
  Well, just off the top of my head... if you wanted to treat the increased prices caused by the spike in demand as an externality (and I agree that's not exactly the right way to think of it, but people seem determined to in this case and I can't really fault them for that given the practical effects of such price increases) I think the way to do that would be to give existing consumers futures contracts for water for the next ~10 years proportional to their existing usage. People could then either use the futures contracts to keep the price they pay for water the same as it was, or voluntarily reduce their water usage and sell the contracts to the datacenter for a profit. Same deal for power. This would of course be a bit complicated for most people to manage, so maybe instead of giving consumers the contracts directly you could have some intermediary manage the contracts for them with approximately the same result.
atmavatar 2mo ago
Alas, we do, because in the case of water, basic economics are stymied by pre-existing water-rights laws that are batshit insane. As such, we need legislative action to (at minimum) clean up that mess.

by Ajedi32 2mo ago

zug_zug 2mo ago

Don't quote theoretical econ idealism at us when our actual electricity rates are going up 20% or more per year. Increased demand absolutely DOES increase the cost both in theory and practice.

Ajedi32 2mo ago
I... agree? Did you even read the comment you replied to?

skinfaxi 2mo ago

How does that work in a market where you are bidding amongst other participants and capacity is constrained? Supply is limited and demand is growing, the market response is to charge more.

Ajedi32 2mo ago
Well, just off the top of my head... if you wanted to treat the increased prices caused by the spike in demand as an externality (and I agree that's not exactly the right way to think of it, but people seem determined to in this case and I can't really fault them for that given the practical effects of such price increases) I think the way to do that would be to give existing consumers futures contracts for water for the next ~10 years proportional to their existing usage. People could then either use the futures contracts to keep the price they pay for water the same as it was, or voluntarily reduce their water usage and sell the contracts to the datacenter for a profit. Same deal for power. This would of course be a bit complicated for most people to manage, so maybe instead of giving consumers the contracts directly you could have some intermediary manage the contracts for them with approximately the same result.

atmavatar 2mo ago

Alas, we do, because in the case of water, basic economics are stymied by pre-existing water-rights laws that are batshit insane. As such, we need legislative action to (at minimum) clean up that mess.