To be more precise: Airline: Hey, we'll give you some money if you'll use our airline Hippo: Sweet, I like free stuff Airline: But sometimes we won't let you use it Hippo: Why? Airline: Because the plane is dangerously overloaded, and you're morbidly obese, so if we let you on the plane it will crash and people will die Hippo: I see, so what's in it for me? You can't make me not get on this plane. Airline: We'll give you some more money, say 3-4 times the value of your ticket Hippo: Sweet, I like free stuff Airline: Oh, none of this is free. See all these other people who HAVE to get on this plane? We'll charge them all a little more and give it to you. Hippo: I love capitalism.
Not wrong, but you're conflating some things. Distribution charges went up 9/1, which I warned about in another thread a week ahead of time. It wasn't well reported on. They usually time the increases for the fall when people's usages are going down, but 9/1 is a little early in the season. This was a big hike and people should have gotten more warning. But that's unrelated to demand response payments to bitcoin miners. Delivery charges are paid to the regulated utilities that own the poles and wires to pay for their asset investments plus a return on investment. The bitcoin miners got paid from a wholesale energy bucket, not a distribution bucket. It matters because the relevant companies there are the generators, not the distribution utilities. And honestly, bitcoin miners are straight-up great for the robustness of the grid. Electricity still can't be stored at scale, so we have to produce it at the same time and the same amount as we use it. When bitcoin miners gobble up a bunch of electricity, they help support a fleet of generation plants that can serve higher loads. Then, when there is scarcity, the miners shut down and we can dedicate more of that load to more critical needs. I haven't seen any math on this, but bitcoin miners have surely saved Texas much more than $31 million for shutting down. Most load is hedged in advance, but when you get to the real-time market where companies have to settle on how what electricity was used and consumed in the last 15 minutes, it is the cost of the most expensive generator on the system that everyone has to pay. If you can avoid turning on that last, most-expensive generator by paying someone not to consume electricity, everybody saves money. Not just the miner.
Now you understand why I despise politics. Bitcoiners have been saying this for a long time now. In a scenario where everyone wins, you still have those trying to tear it down for political gain. This is a good policy for Texas long after abott and cruz are gone
Conflating on purpose (cause it's the same old story). Whenever the industry faces huge charges, they recoup it by passing costs down to regular Joes and Janes. When there are savings, they set up programs for themselves or other industries - in this case, bitcoin mining. This is a very business-friendly state, and the scale is usually way off balance. I understand the value of bitcoin miners and I liked it (when I read about it back in 2022). But this credit isn't necessary. Bitcoin miners are already using excess energy generation at a very low energy cost. That's already a huge benefit. If you simply allow electricity market pricing to fluctuate naturally with demand, the miners would stop mining as demand rises and start when it goes down. That was the system I thought would be in place, not this credit system. But if we are to play this credit system, I prefer to incentivize the regular Joes and Janes first. Bitcoin mining usage in TX is ~2.1-3.0kMW vs ~80kMW total, so there is a much larger demand pool to tap into with credit incentives. Give the larger pool credit for reducing energy usage during peak or even high usage periods, and it is even more effective. I think the system can be set up to be automated with opt-in so that ERCOT can predictably control load to reduce costs and prevent emergencies. And if that isn't enough, then go to the bitcoin miners as a true last resort. But by going to bitcoin miners first, you are working on a much smaller pool and you also introduce a troublesome incentive. When your business model is more profitable for actually turning off electric usage than mining, the incentive can cause unforeseen problems. There was an attempt to cap the credit earlier this year, but I believe it died in the House.
This isn't a special deal for Bitcoin miners. Businesses that can curtail can get paid. If you're running a cement factory, you can do it, but it's harder because it's disruptive.
Yes, the energy grid in Texas and the public payola to private companies has been proper ****ed way before the advent of bitcoin.
I stand corrected. My other points still stand though. The incentive is weird and can cause problems for companies that can easily take advantage of it (by loading and unloading quickly). Tapping into a larger pool to avoid high prices is more effective than tapping into a smaller pool.
Most high demand customers can't scale down 90%+ in seconds. Bitcoin miners also operate in high temp environments, so 120 degree weather is not an issue once they power down. And on the inverse, winter brings massive savings as the miners do not need to utilize as much energy for cooling. It truly is a unique solution and calling miners 'batteries' is not a far fetched idea.
EVs, like bitcoin miners, should be a net positive for the robustness of the grid. They constitute more regular load that can economically support that extra power plant at the margin, and when there is scarcity you can unplug those EVs and use that extra power plant for heating or cooling homes. Or even better, reverse the flow and sell the power stored in those car batteries back into the grid (but honestly we're not there yet). They are the ideal business for demand response. Though, what does it say about the value you deliver to mankind if you can turn off your business at any time and no one will miss you?
Bitcoin mining was booming in Kazakhstan. Then it was gone. Miners flocked to the country to take advantage of cheap energy and loose regulation. Now most of them have moved on, leaving little behind but moldering equipment and social tension.
Filling up your car is not nearly as elastic as mining because it isn't motivated by profit. People still need to go places.
Bitcoin is a distributed network. Bitcoin doesn't need Riot. Riot needs Bitcoin. However, you are correct. RIOT could disappear tomorrow and the only people who care are the investors. If we pick through the wreckage, we could find similar cases.
Sure, not as elastic. And you wouldn't do it at fast chargers where people are actively driving around. But, you can do it with level 2 chargers at homes and businesses. EVs are usually over 50% charged anyway and people are plugged in overnight when they just need 2 hours. School buses are parked most of the day. You can do some smart programming to use the battery for a bit and still have it 90%+ charged by the time the driver opens the door. In times of scarcity, it could be a benefit or, at worst, neutral. We're not going to somehow have less electricity available because of EVs. If the demand is there, the power plants will get built.
Feels like battery storage is the key..... BTC miners are essentially digging a hole then filling a hole in terms of actually adding value to the economy. It's incredibly energy intensive to end up with a product you essentially store in a digital wallet. I'm not sure if it's how ERCOT is setup, which makes BTC mining "advantageous" but it seems very backwards.
0 I don't think anyone has suggested bitcoin mining is the end all solution. Of course batteries are the preferred solution at the moment, however this is not a solution for the foreseeable future . Bitcoin miners have provided an intermediate solution and you choose to criticize it. The grid is better with them than without them at the current moment
No one is going to give up charging their EV (willingly) during any shortage. Hot weather EV is AC shelter, same with cold weather. No matter the temp, in any scarcity people will always hoard in case of blackouts. If you pay me to shut down my welding shop that has massive 3 phase draw, your money is just as good as customers. If you ask me to give up my personal/familial storage then that's a different matter.
If you don’t trust the system to prevent a blackout, maybe. But that’s the whole purpose of such a system. In a working system, scarcity should be very short-term. People will also give up all kinds of things for the right price. $500 for my battery power? Take it.
