Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday March 18 2018, @09:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the power-struggle dept.

On Wednesday, the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) ruled that municipal power companies could charge higher electricity rates to cryptocurrency miners who try to benefit from the state's abundance of cheap hydroelectric power.

Over the years, Bitcoin's soaring price has drawn entrepreneurs to mining. Bitcoin mining enterprises have become massive endeavors, consuming megawatts of power on some grids. To minimize the cost of that considerable power draw, mining companies have tried to site their operations in towns with cheap electricity, both in the US and around the world. In the US, regions with the cheapest energy tend to be small towns with hydroelectric power. (Politico recently wrote extensively about the Bitcoin mining boom in Washington state's mid-Columbia valley, a hotspot for cheap hydro.)

But mining booms in small US towns are not always met with approval. A group of 36 municipal power authorities in northern and western New York petitioned the PSC for permission to raise electricity rates for cryptocurrency miners because their excessive power use has been taxing very small local grids and causing rates to rise for other customers.

[...] Ultimately, the PSC decided that municipal power authorities will be allowed to increase rates for customers whose maximum demand exceeds 300kW or whose load density "exceeds 250kWh per square foot per year."

Singling out a power-hungry industry for rate increases isn't without precedent. In Boulder County, Colorado, for example, marijuana growers are charged an extra $0.0216 per kWh because they use so much power to run grow lights, ventilation systems, and air conditioners for their plants.

Source: Ars Technica


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 20 2018, @03:35AM (8 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday March 20 2018, @03:35AM (#655257) Journal

    Yeah, but this is large volume per second. For online data and electrical consumption, the rate should determine the price, not the volume itself.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 20 2018, @05:03PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 20 2018, @05:03PM (#655489) Journal

    Yeah, but this is large volume per second. For online data and electrical consumption, the rate should determine the price, not the volume itself.

    No, the volume is more important. It's not hard that hard to wire up more transmission line than one can possibly support with the grid or one's power sources.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 20 2018, @06:10PM (6 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday March 20 2018, @06:10PM (#655529) Journal

      We do measure and bill our electricity by the kilowatt per hour. If I consume the same kilowatts per month, it will be much cheaper, and I can do it with much thinner less expensive wire. Our equipment is built to accommodate the rate of consumption. The wires are built for amperage at a given voltage.

        And I do pay for internet by the bits per second. As it should be. Bandwidth is all that matters.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 20 2018, @06:56PM (5 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 20 2018, @06:56PM (#655563) Journal

        kilowatt per hour

        kilowatt is already a measure of power - which is rate of change of energy usage. "Per hour" means you're only paying when you change your rate of usage, such as turning a light on. But you wouldn't pay, if you just left everything on since the rate of power consumption doesn't change.

        What you're really thinking of is "kilowatt-hour" which consumption of a kilowatt over the course of an hour. That is a measure of energy (3.6 MJ, for example) not of power. A 100 watt light bulb left on for 10 hours would consume one kilowatt-hour.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday March 21 2018, @12:01AM (4 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday March 21 2018, @12:01AM (#655728) Journal

          Kilowatt/hour is a kilowatt per hour. Use a 100 watt light bulb for ten hours and you still consumed a kilowatt of electricity. It is amount divided by time. The time factor is the only thing we need to worry about. You get all the kilowatts you want. If you want it all in one day as opposed to one month it should cost you more because more infrastructure is required to supply it at the requested rate.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 21 2018, @12:52AM (3 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 21 2018, @12:52AM (#655760) Journal
            Kilowatt-hour is not kilowatt/hour.
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday March 21 2018, @05:43AM (2 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday March 21 2018, @05:43AM (#655925) Journal

              For billing it is. It is kilowatts per hour averaged out over the billing period. And regardless, it doesn't change the argument. The infrastructure is designed to cover the rate of consumption. And that is what kilowatt-hours measure.

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 21 2018, @06:42AM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 21 2018, @06:42AM (#655946) Journal
                Again, this is not so. The kilowatt [wikipedia.org] is a unit of power. The kilowatt-hour [wikipedia.org] is a unit of energy. There is no exception for your utility, they are using the terms correctly.

                The infrastructure is designed to cover the rate of consumption.

                At peak load which is much higher than average load. Keep in mind that utilities can and do provide far more power than cryptocurrency miners consume. The problem is when the miners draw that considerable power at the same time that everyone else is. This whole thing could have been nipped in the bud by charging everyone including the miners higher prices at peak load and lower prices at off times when power is cheaper to provide.

                Also keep in mind that local lines are engineered to be able to provide much more power than typically is consumed. For example, a house typically consumes about 1-2 kW at a time during peak load (US houses being on the higher end and possible reliance on electricity-based heating/cooling). A single 15 amp circuit at 120 V (typical circuit load in a US house) could provide that and houses typically have a number of these circuits (as well as some capable of far higher loads, 30 and 60 amps are common).

                If everyone actually did use the highest level of power that their homes and businesses could draw, it'd wreck the grid. But it's not a problem in the short term for a small number of users to do so, particularly, when the grid is operating far below its capacity (such as at 2am in the morning).

                Second, it does matter how much energy is consumed in total which can deplete those cheap hydroelectric sources that these utilities apparently heavily rely on. But they should have fairly cheap base load either directly on their local grid or that they can buy from outside. So off peak times, they should be able to provide cheap power to those cryptocurrency miners. In fact, properly done, which is something that should have been done decades ago, the miners could actually smooth out demand on the grid by consuming power during off peak times and dropping out during peak load.

                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday March 21 2018, @11:11PM

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday March 21 2018, @11:11PM (#656380) Journal

                  Yes, peak usage is an issue for a insufficient infrastructure, and I understand the necessity of using price to spreak the load out.

                  FTW (thank you!):

                  kilowatt hours is the power in kilowatts multiplied by the time in hours...

                  Gee! I couldn't have said it better myself...

                  --
                  La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..