3 ms·

> there will probably be people who have access to basically free electricity that would have been wasted, and just need to amortize the cost of the ASICS That

by jonas21 12y ago

> there will probably be people who have access to basically free electricity that would have been wasted, and just need to amortize the cost of the ASICS That's a really interesting point. I wonder if we'll see utility companies get into bitcoin mining as a way of profiting from their excess capacity during non-peak times.

beggi 12y ago
I don't quite see ConEd getting into Bitcoin mining :) However, it's possible for an entrepreneur to get discount off electricity during non-peak times.
- petercooper 12y ago
  High frequency traders have colocated their machines directly inside stock exchanges to take advantage of the low time latency. I wonder if there's any potential to be had in power stations offering colocation services for customers with very specific uses for either "low latency" excess power or much cheaper power (since it hasn't had to be transported anywhere or had any losses).
wmf 12y ago
I've heard that spot electric prices can occasionally go negative if demand dips faster than power plants can ramp down. I don't know if that's worth exploiting with Bitcoin, since it's difficult enough for ASICs to pay for themselves even when running continuously.
- gizmo686 12y ago
  For calculating if ASICs are worth it, you should probably consider that energy to be free, as you can invest a relativly trivial amount of money into electicity wasting devices.
RyJones 12y ago
Microsoft ran heaters at Quincy to avoid a contractual obligation. They could run ASICs. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/data-centers-in-rural-washington-state-gobble-power.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/data-centers-in... Then came a showdown late last year between the utility and Microsoft, whose hardball tactics shocked some local officials. In an attempt to erase a $210,000 penalty the utility said the company owed for overestimating its power use, Microsoft proceeded to simply waste millions of watts of electricity, records show.
- bsder 12y ago
  Use quotes, please. Those aren't your own words. And, the utility put Microsoft in the position of wasting $70,000 of power or paying a $210,000 fine. Exactly what did they EXPECT was going to happen? As much as I like to slag Microsoft, any rational human being is going to react that way when presented with those incentives.
- juliangregorian 12y ago
  That article is pretty damning of the power company, not Microsoft. They issued a fine for not using as much electricity as they estimated, what's the logic there? And then the "utility commissioner" (unclear if he works for the utility itself or not) has the gall to blast them for "not being green"? Plus they are trying to paint the narrative as a "megacorp vs aw-shucks local farmers" that just rings hollow in light of the company's exorbitant fine.
  - eigenvector 12y ago
    The reason why this is done is because major industrial customers (e.g. data centers) often require upgrades to utility-owned infrastructure when they set up shop. Utilities will typically require what they call a 3rd party capital contribution (i.e. upfront cash payment) for some portion of the total cost, with the remainder to be recovered via their margin on the additional electricity consumed over the lifetime of the facility. You would also have the option of paying the full cost and making no commitment as to whether you'd actually use it. If a customer moves in and says "oh yeah, I'm gonna need an average of 100 MW 24/7 for the next 20 years" and then turns out to only use half that, the utility is now short a bunch of a money that it spent upgrading its distribution infrastructure for that customer's supposed needs.

by jonas21 12y ago

beggi 12y ago

I don't quite see ConEd getting into Bitcoin mining :) However, it's possible for an entrepreneur to get discount off electricity during non-peak times.

petercooper 12y ago
High frequency traders have colocated their machines directly inside stock exchanges to take advantage of the low time latency. I wonder if there's any potential to be had in power stations offering colocation services for customers with very specific uses for either "low latency" excess power or much cheaper power (since it hasn't had to be transported anywhere or had any losses).

wmf 12y ago

I've heard that spot electric prices can occasionally go negative if demand dips faster than power plants can ramp down. I don't know if that's worth exploiting with Bitcoin, since it's difficult enough for ASICs to pay for themselves even when running continuously.

gizmo686 12y ago
For calculating if ASICs are worth it, you should probably consider that energy to be free, as you can invest a relativly trivial amount of money into electicity wasting devices.

RyJones 12y ago

Microsoft ran heaters at Quincy to avoid a contractual obligation. They could run ASICs. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/data-centers-in-rural-washington-state-gobble-power.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/data-centers-in... Then came a showdown late last year between the utility and Microsoft, whose hardball tactics shocked some local officials. In an attempt to erase a $210,000 penalty the utility said the company owed for overestimating its power use, Microsoft proceeded to simply waste millions of watts of electricity, records show.

bsder 12y ago
Use quotes, please. Those aren't your own words. And, the utility put Microsoft in the position of wasting $70,000 of power or paying a $210,000 fine. Exactly what did they EXPECT was going to happen? As much as I like to slag Microsoft, any rational human being is going to react that way when presented with those incentives.
juliangregorian 12y ago
That article is pretty damning of the power company, not Microsoft. They issued a fine for not using as much electricity as they estimated, what's the logic there? And then the "utility commissioner" (unclear if he works for the utility itself or not) has the gall to blast them for "not being green"? Plus they are trying to paint the narrative as a "megacorp vs aw-shucks local farmers" that just rings hollow in light of the company's exorbitant fine.
- eigenvector 12y ago
  The reason why this is done is because major industrial customers (e.g. data centers) often require upgrades to utility-owned infrastructure when they set up shop. Utilities will typically require what they call a 3rd party capital contribution (i.e. upfront cash payment) for some portion of the total cost, with the remainder to be recovered via their margin on the additional electricity consumed over the lifetime of the facility. You would also have the option of paying the full cost and making no commitment as to whether you'd actually use it. If a customer moves in and says "oh yeah, I'm gonna need an average of 100 MW 24/7 for the next 20 years" and then turns out to only use half that, the utility is now short a bunch of a money that it spent upgrading its distribution infrastructure for that customer's supposed needs.