I sincerely hope that both sides back down from this and treat it like the third rail (heh) of politics it should be. Getting political with electricity has outsize effects because it's long-term, capital intensive, and subject to great inertia. Any disruption can have huge effects.
Progressivisn (or leftism; I refuse to use the term "liberal" anymore) is obsessed with virtue signaling. Since it doesn't matter if the policy actually works, the only thing left is the kabuki theater that you are virtuous. It's a power-play as are the policies that are promoted. And for their part, the right is completely bamboozled by and fearful of this stage show and remains mostly clueless how to go forward.
The true definition of parasitic load is: "The demand needed to maintain the operation of the generation cycle". In laymen's terms, it is the electricity used by all the supporting equipment for the generation of that plant. Don't let the grifters fool you, all plants have it. It is a necessary evil in generation.
From what I can tell, the only existential threat to the US is the current administration's energy policies. It almost seems as though they looked at Germany's disaster and said, we can do it better than that!
I agree with your entire point, but disagree that 2.3 percent of total US power consumption for creating tulip coins is a trivial amount.
Regardless, even that vice is a virtue. If it's creating incentives to increase power output by 2.3 percent all by itself and the crypto sector is paying for it, then its all good. When the mania comes apart, the rest of the economy will have the power plants (assuming they are real and not wind & solar frauds).
The range I offered was 0.6 to 2.3 percent, according to EIA, and I don’t recall using the word “trivial.” Your reference to cryptocurrency as tulip coins reinforces the point. We shouldn’t be able to cut off electricity to a customer just because some (or even most) people don’t see the value in a given activity. In fact, true entrepreneurship involves seeing value where others don’t
you said "convenient scapegoat even though its annual electricity use is only 0.6 percent to 2.3 percent of US electricity consumption."
Using the modifier "only" in the context of defending the use against scapegoating sort of implies a trivialization of the amount, no?
In any case, I totally agree we should be agnostic on what paying customers want to do with their electricity consumption. If ten percent of the total grid went to producing Cabbage Patch Dolls that the company could pay for and sell, then have at it.
Not necessarily. I meant to say it is a scapegoat (i.e. cannot be the root cause of systemic problems) at such a small amount. You focused on the high end of the range and added the word trivial. I just wanted to distinguish my actual position from your interpretation. Thanks for reading
I sincerely hope that both sides back down from this and treat it like the third rail (heh) of politics it should be. Getting political with electricity has outsize effects because it's long-term, capital intensive, and subject to great inertia. Any disruption can have huge effects.
Indeed, I could see electricity being something to blockade in our partisan culture wars. The consequences of going down that path would be dire
Funny that the people who want to declare "parasitic uses of electricity" are now threatening to kill one of the geese that lays our golden eggs.
Progressivisn (or leftism; I refuse to use the term "liberal" anymore) is obsessed with virtue signaling. Since it doesn't matter if the policy actually works, the only thing left is the kabuki theater that you are virtuous. It's a power-play as are the policies that are promoted. And for their part, the right is completely bamboozled by and fearful of this stage show and remains mostly clueless how to go forward.
Clear-eyed and well-said, Travis. “Parasitic” and “Homocide” are the latest examples of death by name-calling. Oops, I forgot “Ecocide”.
The true definition of parasitic load is: "The demand needed to maintain the operation of the generation cycle". In laymen's terms, it is the electricity used by all the supporting equipment for the generation of that plant. Don't let the grifters fool you, all plants have it. It is a necessary evil in generation.
Exactly. Extending the term "parasitic load" to include demand that doesn't fit your definition is what I'm trying to guard against
When your renewable generators don't generate, it must be the customer's fault. Que the dog whistle.
From what I can tell, the only existential threat to the US is the current administration's energy policies. It almost seems as though they looked at Germany's disaster and said, we can do it better than that!
I agree with your entire point, but disagree that 2.3 percent of total US power consumption for creating tulip coins is a trivial amount.
Regardless, even that vice is a virtue. If it's creating incentives to increase power output by 2.3 percent all by itself and the crypto sector is paying for it, then its all good. When the mania comes apart, the rest of the economy will have the power plants (assuming they are real and not wind & solar frauds).
The range I offered was 0.6 to 2.3 percent, according to EIA, and I don’t recall using the word “trivial.” Your reference to cryptocurrency as tulip coins reinforces the point. We shouldn’t be able to cut off electricity to a customer just because some (or even most) people don’t see the value in a given activity. In fact, true entrepreneurship involves seeing value where others don’t
you said "convenient scapegoat even though its annual electricity use is only 0.6 percent to 2.3 percent of US electricity consumption."
Using the modifier "only" in the context of defending the use against scapegoating sort of implies a trivialization of the amount, no?
In any case, I totally agree we should be agnostic on what paying customers want to do with their electricity consumption. If ten percent of the total grid went to producing Cabbage Patch Dolls that the company could pay for and sell, then have at it.
Not necessarily. I meant to say it is a scapegoat (i.e. cannot be the root cause of systemic problems) at such a small amount. You focused on the high end of the range and added the word trivial. I just wanted to distinguish my actual position from your interpretation. Thanks for reading