100 sats \ 3 replies \ @BTCMiner 5 Feb \ parent \ on: My MSNBC Friend bitcoin
But most miners aren't set up to power off when the grid needs additional power -- except for some in Texas, and maybe a few others elsewhere. It is technically possible to do, most everywhere, but there is investment and operational costs borne by the miner to make that happen, and essentially no benefit to the miner for doing that -- unless there are agreements in place benefitting the miner for not taking that power.
What is missing is the desire by the producers to take advantage of this opportunity to make use of this "rolling reserve" power source. That may come eventually but the generation plants quite like it being able to charge whatever they want and not have to partner with (i.e., rely on) anybody else to help with the supply.
Interesting info. Texas has a large number of the mining ops in the US. Have heard some mining operators talk about what you describe here. Trying to convince power producers of their value. Texas is unique as well in the design of its grid. I'm no expert but it has problems but also has some strengths. Demand response seems to be working well there and smart energy producers elsewhere would be wise to study it.
One of the problems in most states is how highly regulated the power producers are themselves. We do not have a free market for power generation. Even Texas which has many different competing producers has a grid operate ERCOT with a monopoly on its position. States like California have companies so regulated by the state that they are private companies in pretty much name only.
reply
I didn't follow the last sentence, but you're saying power producers don't like demand response clauses in their power purchase agreements? I was under the impression they were chomping at the bit to even out load what with the duck curve and all.
reply