Comment on If you save, we will charge you more
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day agoOk, so, you’re in a neighborhood. You and 100 neighbors are each using 10kWh. 1000kWh total.
Now a heavy industrial user comes in adjacent to your neighborhood. They are going to need 990,000kWh. The distribution infrastructure is going to need to be upgraded to meet the new need. It is going to need to be upgrade a lot. Those upgrades are going to be extraordinarily expensive to meet the extraordinary needs of that new user.
Should you and your 100 neighbors each have their recurring connection fee jacked up next month and that charge made equal to the 101st “neighbor”?
Of course not. That’s just absurd.
The whole “local generation” issue you were raising is a red herring.
The “connection fee” would probably be flat by service size. Most homes have 200A connections so that would be one flat rate for everyone with a 200A ingress. If a business uses 400A, they’d get a different price but all 400A would be the same.
Get it now? That has nothing to do with amount used, but rather the size of your “pipe”
Cryptominer maxes out the same connection that you rarely draw 1/10th of. Why are you subsidizing cryptobro?
I’m not. They would be paying for their usage, I would be paying for my usage. Hence the flat fee for connection plus the cost of usage. It works the same way with sewer and gas (at least where I’m at) everyone pays a flat connection fee based on max size available to you and then you pay for your usage.
My state separates generation from distribution. I literally have a hundred options for generation. I pay a generator to put power on the grid.
I only have one option for distribution. I pay that distributor to convey power (ostensibly) from my generator to my house.
The generator is not the only one with consumption-based costs. The distributor/grid provider also has costs that vary depending on how much power they are moving. They need to upgrade transformers and substations and install additional transmission lines as demand increases. Those have associated costs.
I could understand a flat fee for administrative costs: the power company does have certain per-user costs. But grid maintenance is not one of them: grid maintenance costs depend almost entirely on the total amount of power being moved, not the number of users served. Those maintenance costs are already rolled into consumption. Making them a fixed cost just forces low-use households to subsidize high-use households.
An industrial facility to the scale you are refering to will likely have its own electrical substation. Either maintained by the facility itself or contracted out to the power supplier.
Of course. I used that exaggerated example to demonstrate the nature of the problem, not to quantify it.
Cryptominers can use the same connection that you do; they just max it out 24/7, while you rarely use more than 1/10th of your connection.
Why should you be forced to subsidize your cryptoneighbor?
Connecting infrastructure costs roughly the same to maintain regardless if 10 amps or 1000 amps is running through it. The crypto miner pays the same fee for their standard service connection then pays per Kwh just like everybody else. Other customers are not subsidizing their connection nor their power.
By your logic, you are subsidizing anyone who uses more power than you and you are being subsidized by anyone using less power than you.
Connecting infrastructure costs roughly the same to maintain regardless if 10 amps or 1000 amps is running through it.
That’s simply false. A 1000A transformer costs considerably more than a 10A transformer, both to purchase and to service.
By your logic, you are subsidizing anyone who uses more power than you and you are being subsidized by anyone using less power than you.
That is only true if the “connection fee” (distribution charges) are the same for both the 10A user and the 1000A user. When the charge is divided up on the basis of a user’s actual consumption, it is not.
Why are the industrial factory and normal residences using the same electrical hookup? Seems fair if they use the same hookup.
Oh, they’re not? So then the factory likely pays one rate for their industrial connection that needs to pull more power than standard residential usage, and normal consumers pay a lower rate for their lower connection provided.
Exaggerated to clearly demonstrate the problem.
With residential housing, consider the cryptobro continuously drawing 180+ amps of his 200A service, while the rest of the community averages 10A, and one unit is down around 1.5A.
Why is Mr. Ampandahalf paying the same connection fee as Mr. Wunetty?
Why is Mr. Ampandahalf paying the same connection fee as Mr. Wunetty?
Because the connection fee is a fee for the connection, which is the same (200A) in both cases. This isn’t difficult.
… because consumption and service connectivity aren’t the same? Consumption and connectivity are two different line items on the bill representing different costs associated with the service.
From your hypothetical, no one is noted as having a different service hookup, so they’re paying for the same service hookup. What part of that, other than the core concept, are you struggling to grok?
because consumption and service connectivity aren’t the same? Consumption and connectivity are two different line items on the bill representing different costs associated with the service.
That’s fine. There are certainly some per-user costs. Such as the cost of billing each user every month. A fixed administrative charge makes sense to cover those billing costs. That cost is the same whether they are sending a $10 bill or a $50,000 bill, so a flat rate charge is reasonable.
“Infrastructure maintenance” is not a per-user cost. Maintenance is performed on the shared resources: the lines between the poles. The customer pays their own electrician to install, connect, and maintain a service feed; that is not part of the maintenance that the power company performs.
A transformer does not care whether it is maxed out serving 20 users, or it is maxed out serving just 2. It costs the same to maintain either way. Call it $1000 per transformer, just to illustrate.
In a neighborhood with 20 low-use customers (equivalent to 1 transformer) and 10 high-use customers (equivalent to 5 transformers), it is ludicrous that every one of these 30 households should be paying the same $200 “maintenance fee”. The 20 low-use customers incur an average of $50; the 10 high-use customers average $500.
You would charge based on the kind of connection. A house isn’t going to draw the kind of power that a factory will, but you’re going to need the same equipment your house as you would as your neighbor’s house.
Residential crypto miners can easily draw more power than small factories. I reject the premise of your argument.
You specified energy in your example, not me. And I hinted that a hookup fee would likely be dependent on the rated power capacity of the user.
It is likely that a residential crypto miner would likely need to upgrade what they can draw from the grid.
They have 200A service, same as you. They don’t need to upgrade.
The difference is that they are using 200A 24/7/365, while you probably average less than 10A, and rarely exceed 50A.
They are literally using 20 times as much power as you, and you’re saying they should be paying the same fees as you.
One such cryptoboy per block and the total consumption in the region doubles. The infrastructure costs double. Your “flat fee” doubles, because it is divided evenly among the users, rather than assigned to the cryptoboys who created it.
And you’re saying this is a good thing?
I feel like I’ve entered the fucking twilight zone here.
forrgott@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Wow. Talk about moving the goal posts. You’re not even taking about the same thing anymore.
If you just wanna bitch about something, uh, then go in with your bad self. Or something. But rather than even attempt a rebuttal to any of the points raised in this thread, you’ve literally completely changed the scenario being discussed.
Like, why even bother replying? Your whole tirade doesn’t even make sense in the context of the thread…
miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I love when folks introduce hypotheticals, then pile on hypotheticals and nonsensicals, and believe they’ve championed their cleverness.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I propose a new term: feather man. For when even a straw man looks like a steel man compared to your argument.
miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
B-B-But what if you fell into a volcano before you could make that proposal?
What then, featherman?
Checkmate!
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day ago
I used exaggerated examples to clearly demonstrate the nature of the problem, not to quantify it.
The problem is still present even within the neighborhood. Residential consumers rarely draw more than 1/10th of their rated service. Crypto-bro comes into the neighborhood and his miners continuously max out his service.
The power company normally installs and maintains a single service transformer per block; but he alone uses as much power as the rest of the block combined. They have to install and maintain a second transformer just for him, but they spread those extra costs among the entire block.
Why is it reasonable for the power company to demand you subsidize his electrical connection than for him to pay for what he is using?