811
As electric bills rise, evidence mounts that data centers share blame. States feel pressure to act (apnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Places like data centers don't pay the same rate that individuals do though. They get an industrial rate.

Basically they cut them a break so they can fuck you. The supply is more More than enough and the only demand that increased was from corporate interests.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That is regional. In Europe commercial/industrial prices are usually higher, especially in times of crisis, because residential power has a price cap. Damn socialists and their regulations!!1!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yes it is! And this article is written about States being in the United States and how its affecting that infrastructure.

    Trust me, I know shit is better everywhere else. My comments are about the current state of USA electricity and how its being affected by the content in this article. Which takes place in the USA.

    I'm sure in the land where they actually care about people its different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I don't think this is true, although maybe in some places.

    For example, the more gas a business uses in the Netherlands, the less they generally pay per unit. This is terrible for our carbon footprint, where we basically subsidize the worst emitters. 😟

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    It's more that they get a bulk discount, whereas Jamaica m individuals don't, and apparently they can set the bulk discount below the generation cost.

    It's incredibly dumb and why I'd like there to be more choice. Instead of one company handling supply and service for industry and residents, there should be multiple companies handling supply and an independent org handling service. Basically, the suppliers would bring the electricity to the cities, and cities would handle it from there. Then they need to compete for the lowest cost energy, customers can pick which suppliers they'd like, and prices per KWh would be static regardless of customer (the only discount for large customers would be service).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Quite a few states actually have systems like this. In which individuals can choose their power generator at will. It is nice as it increases competition and lets you tailor energy use to your wants.

    If you want 100% green, switch to a generator that does that. If your default utility gets too expensive, switch to a cheaper one, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The closest we have is buying green energy in blocks, which means you reserve that much generation capacity. In theory, they have to build more capacity if demand outstrips suooly, but if they produce more than is reserved, they just sell at the normal (lower) rate. If you use less than you reserve, you just pay more.

    It's a wonky system and I'd prefer to choose by provider instead. At least our electricity provider has to ask the state legislature for permission to raise prices, so that's nice. Energy here isn't all that expensive (around the nationwide median) and moving toward green energy, but I think I'd prefer a more competitive system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This isn't a choice issue. It should be state owned and operated in a non-profit capacity, and everyone should pay their fair share.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't know about you, but I haven't had a great experience with government run services. Government is better at owning and setting rules about things than actually operating them. If it's possible to have competition, then the government playing referee seems to provide a better result.

    If a monopoly is unavoidable, then yeah, the government should be that monopoly. But as long as it's feasible to have at least three competitors, it should be privately run.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Would you prefer the police and fire department were privately run?

    It would be the same service, with the same employees and facilities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    No, because there's not a reasonable way for them to compete. You can't really have multiple police forces, and they'll be motivated to generate profit instead of protect the people.

    You can have multiple electrical suppliers. You can have a coal plant, solar and wind, and nuclear all competing for customers so they're motivated to make their electricity more appealing. If you pair that with things like carbon taxes, people will choose the more efficient option, and you can mix and match large and small suppliers. You need a central authority to manage the infrastructure, but you can reasonably have diversity in generation.

    Just think if the average person could sell their excess solar generation (possible in some areas), their EV as battery capacity at night, etc, more people would want to generate renewable power. If you have that type of check against larger players, they'll have to keep their prices competitive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent