[bradfa]

Presumably the bitcoin miners were the cheapest way the grid operator could buy this stability. If the grid operator chose a different solution to achieve grid stability then power may cost more for all consumers. It’s a trade off.

[bradfa]

Wait till everyone being negative about bitcoin miners getting paid to not mine learn that sometimes the grid operator is going to pay the bitcoin miners TO mine. Effectively the bitcoin miners will sometimes not only get free electricity but be paid to consume it.

Again, grid stability at the lowest cost is the name of the game.

[safety1st]

Yeah I don't really have a problem with this. They are just going to a large electricity user and saying "we'll give you some free electricity later if you stop using it now." When the alternatives are brownouts or giving the grid operator the power to force businesses to suspend their operations, this is better.

As usual lots of hot takes from people who just read the headline

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Why doesn't the market decide, if the bitcoin miners got 20,000% rate increases they would stop on their own for free. If the rate goes to zero, they will surely jump in an use as much as their hardware can burn. Why are payments outside of rate changes necessary at all?

[bradfa]

Because the grid needs a very large consumer to stop RIGHT NOW and be under contract to do so when told. To get this contract, the grid promises money. There is no guarantee that adjusting the power cost for a customer will make them stop consuming power when it is needed. The contracts are in place to ensure the grid operator KNOWS that they can achieve stability when they need it.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Why can't the grid operator just put "we reserve the right to shut off your power if demand exceeds our capacity" in their TOS?