Apacu
362 posts
Apacu
@ApacuCuenca
Asociacion provincial de autismo y otros trastornos del neurodesarrollo en Cuenca
Congratulations to the Fortune Crypto 40 winners — a list of the best companies in crypto based on data and reputation in eight categories. The list is the first of its kind and recognizes crypto firms (and DAOs) built to last . fortune.com/ranking/crypto…
NY Times misinformation analysis continued ... Demand Response is a program where grid operators avoid blackouts or grid instability by having a community of users they can call upon to curtail their electricity usage at short notice. These consumers are increasingly vital to grid stability, particularly as more variable renewable (intermittant) energy comes on to the grid. The NYTimes article attempts to create the impression that Bitcoin miners are costing citizens money by taking a cut of "demand response" revenue. By witholding context, their angle is designed to create moral outrage for something that is necessary to grid stability This is why we are encouraged in court to tell the "whole truth" The whole truth is that Demand Response programs have existed for a long time. They are one of the vital ways that Grid Operators use to help keep the grid stable. Prior to Bitcoin mining, Grid operators had to rely on blunt instruments such as asking steel plants or aluminum smelters to temporarily shut down. They couldn't precisely calibrate the impact of this on the grid, and this only bought them a 4-hour time window (metals start to harden after a while with no heat) Since Bitcoin miners came on board they have been able to offer a much better level of demand response, in 4 important ways 1. unlimited time (vital in increasingly regular freak weather events) 2. precisely calibrate level of curtailed energy 3. can shut down in seconds 4. it creates more competition for DR (Demand Response) services, thus driving down the price of demand response through an increasingly competitive market where big industrial DR service providers no longer have a monopoly. I'm glad the article was written, because it has provided a wonderful forum for people to learn more about the important role that Bitcoin mining plays in stabilizing grids and incentivizing renewable adoption as we transition our grids over to greater renewable-energy percentages. Oh, one final thing: without adequate Demand Response, your only alternative is gas peaker plants (the likes of which Hathaway Energy proposed - with a pricetag of $8-10Billion, and about another 10 MT CO2-e of emissions per year because these plants must idle all year for the few moments they are needed for peak-demand times. Due to Bitcoin mining, these peaker plants have not been necessary for the last 2 years. So the avoided emissions and avoided financing costs have been truly gargantuan It's no coincidence that days after intense lobbying resulted in a Texas senate committee hearing voting to reduce Bitcoin miners' ability to participate in Demand Response programs, suddenly the Hathaway plan rears its head again dallasnews.com/news/politics/…. NYT must have forgotten to mention that bit.
