[ezzaf]

This is actually completely reasonable and a positive for the energy grid. Large industrial energy users who can switch off when needed make the grid stronger, not weaker.

To illustrate, imagine a grid with 1000MW max demand and 2000MW of production. Let's say the generation is composed of equal parts solar, wind, gas, and nuclear.

You've got 500MW of always on (nuclear), 500MW dispatchable (gas), and 1000MW intermittent.

When the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, where do you put all your extra energy?

Well if you add on another 500MW of bitcoin mining, you can send it there. And if you hit peak demand when you've got no renewables (or the gas/nuclear is offline) you can switch off your extra demand.

The dispatchable industrial user is helping to pay to keep the extra capacity around you only need a few days a year.

[Salgat]

Natural gas and coal make up over half of Texas power generation. We're better off ramping them down during low demand rather than keeping them running at max capacity for bitcoin mining of all things. What an environmental nightmare. Your example only works if most of the power comes from green energy sources.

[bhawks]

But ERCOT is not running at max fossil fuel generation capacity at all times. [1]

Keeping industrial scale operations running is usually cheaper, safer and more efficient than turning them completely off. This is not like switching off a lightbulb. ERCOT is using these agreements so that they can smoothly ramp down and dial up generation capacity.

1: https://youtu.be/ElbdWMvI1ZE

[Salgat]

No, they are using these agreements because they simply don't have enough capacity regardless and are desperate to find ways to cut power usage. You don't live here do you? Otherwise you'd see the constant emergency alerts from ERCOT begging residents to lower power usage or risk outages.