and who do you think they buy these plants or contracts from??

power companies wont even sell a gas/coal power plant privately unless they knew they dont need it anymore. they dont need it any more if they have enough excess and capacity via other means to reach their end of years sales requirements to make their financial reports look pretty..

excess capacity is a factor you keep forgetting

and that there is where the EG comes in. because power companies doing these contracts/ plant sells need to think of the implications of locking out X amount of excess for years.

if they dont have much excess while owning the fossil plants. they need to keep the share holders happy of seeing end-of-year sales reports of X cashflow.
meaning low excess means they have to keep their capacity and keep it running and rack up the prices. to meet targets.

however if they have huge new capacity that is not being used but able to reach their end of year sales targets. then they will happily sell off the redundant old plants or offer excess cheaper

Unlike in your fantasy world, a lot of those powerplants were not owned by electricity producers or supplies but worked as a part of a full production chain, for example, the Massana smelter was owned by Alcoa, and Alcoa stopped one of them and shut down production in one facility in 2013.
The Hardin powerplant was put for sale in 2017, and Greenidge was shut down in 2011 because of exactly environmental regulations as it was burning coal and not gas then.

You're trying again to weasel your way out of things when the whole thing started with miners buying energy from one region that has excess energy when it's clear that's nothing about excess, they are producing their own, they don't rely on the grid, they don't care about grid prices or state average or anything and none of those is an issue!
The issue is that they are burning gas and coal to feed their miners because coal is cheaper than anything, that's all of it, and if this would have not been thought they wouldn't be doing it in the first place, RIGHT?


There is no IF!
Some companies mentioned above are publicly traded, they are forced to release their statements, some do this even if they are not required by the law, you can check thee everything, from power capacity to mining gear bought, to cost and taxes.
So stop talking about what you think is going on when there is clear data about what is going on.

Bla bla bla...One of them is only 3%? So, what does this change?
Because 3% of the fruits in the bag are apples automatically 97% are oranges?

Add them all Franky, I'm sure you're smart enough for that, let's see the results for them, I'm sure since you're so knowledgeable about them you will have no problem identifying every single one of those facilities from all miners, Riot, Hut8, Bitdigital, Core, Mara, Hive and so on and on, or do you want some help with them?
Till you prove the fact that the rest of the 97% are all of them tied to the grid it's just one of your useless verbal diarrhea.


Also, stop relying on google for things, I thought you were smarter than this, or at least you've learned your lesson when you quoted 5 years old news a while ago and made a fool of yourself.
Approximately 1.6 EH/s of mining capacity from approximately 19,600 miners as of April 30, 2022


Let me help you with the next one:
https://ir.marathondh.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1285/marathon-digital-holdings-reports-first-quarter-2022-results
and the third:
https://www.riotblockchain.com/news-media/press-releases/detail/131/riot-blockchain-announces-may-2022-production-and

From here on there are only about 8 major players left.

One thing is clear here...there is no point of doing business with a certain location that is very unfriendly to your type of business and this is very much true with New York as they have become restrictive with any type of industry deemed to be contributing to the climate change and even you have facts to prove your different point of view it would just be a big waste of time convincing them because they have already decided this kind of thing years ago and it is something not even the devil can change. So the question is: Can they not find any other states that will be so welcoming with the same opportunity? The answer is a big YES and that is they should start packing and leave NY anytime soon...or if anyone planning to do business with NY they should just forget it.

oh mr stompix. .. im going to get to your derailment but i will colour the text grey so those that dont care for it can glaze over and not read it.


to other readers.. my initial posts were not about the numbers. i was using a simple demonstration of common sense context, about where the majority of miners are on the grid thus affected by regulations(which this topic is about)..
heck even in posts using numbers i specifically said the numbers were random numbers plucked out of my head rather than well researched numbers, because the context of the message were not about number specificity and instead about understanding a scenario concept.
.. sorry for stompixes derailment, but he has a major issue with being argumentative and then gets hurt when he gets corrected and doubles down on his knitpicks.. so sorry again about his silly weird cries about his believed approximate numbers are more factual compared to common sense conversations about concepts/sentiments, business plan options.

so stompix:
you do realise the points of me mentioning numbers without going into a wall of text of detailed scientific notated white paper right..
.. because the point of the comment is not about the numbers, but about the methodology and the sentiment of scenarios businesses choose to do in regards to power utility.

but hey if you want to derail to cause arguments with silly knitpicks about numbers.. lets do this

funny stuff that..

oh and look another website that you quote, where they love the word "approximately"
much like your other topics where you link sites which clearly use guesstimates, assumptions and approximations.
please try harder to understand words and plausibility that these number actually atleast sound right in context of common sense and if the subject matter/topic actually requires specific numbers (this topic does not), but if YOU are the one that wants to center your comment around numbers. then please dont go quoting sites that use the words "guesstimate, approximately, assumed).. as it will hit you hard more then the person you are trying to counter. (in your off topic cries)

funny part is when you started crying about number specificity.. you clearly missed my post where i clearly indicated
 (random numbers i plucked out of my head for easy demo)
to avoid the talentless knitpickers like yourself that like to derail topics because i didnt use researched numbers.. i clearly state that these numbers were random.. because the exact numbers are not important to the context of the message.

emphasis
.. its obvious that the point of the post is not about the numbers themselves but the context of the scenarios. .. but you still wanted to go down that rabbit hole just to cause an argument.. (facepalm)

now lets do some basic maths. using some more common sense..
based on the links provided by stompix who wants to be numeric specific... and see how well his favoured numbers play out..
lets start with the mining hashrate and number of miners stompix wanted to counter with..
1.6exa 140terra = 11428 (meaning nope they are not using the 140thash asics)
1.6exa 110terra = 14545(meaning nope they are not using the 110thash asics)
1.6exa 95terra = 16842(meaning nope they are not using the 140thash asics)
so what asics are they using, lets use math again
1.6exa/19600asics = 81.6thash average per asic... yuck.. they are not even using efficient asics.

hmm..
i find it more plausible, common sense and business savvi that if they were any good at business they would be using atleast the 95thash asics and running 17k of them to get a 1.6exa.. rather than what they want to publish of running 19k asics of older crappier generation asics.

..
now lets take one more step down the stompix rabbit hole of number specificity in a topic thats not about number specificity
561btc with revenue of $37.7m... for Q1 of 2022
well maths says.. in Q1 they got 561coin at $67k each.......... hmmm
.....hmmm.... oh look the price was never $67k in Q1
(Q1 2022 btc amount using november 2021 prices of a single day..
 maybe they also have a time machine, mined in 2022 and went back in time and sold it all exactly on november 9th 2021(sarcasm obviously).. or.. they are fudging their numbers to look good)

lets do the math of other industries
(pre-emptive note: stompix the context is not the numerics detail accuracy to decimal levels(facepalm). its the context of the concept of comparable burdens to the grid, (the numbers are just used as a visualisation of the burden))

there are 289m cars registered and 330m population in america
meaning 0.87 cars per person in america

in a decade those cars will need to be electric
going to work or doing the grocery/school run. lets imagine a daily car use of 20miles.

in a e-car that does ~4mile per KW is 5kwh per day per car
thats 289m x 5KW a day = 1,445,000,000kwh a day for the future e-car utility needed (14454gwhday)

now bitcoin is ~210exa average. with US attributed to being 38% of network(80exa)
now lets use the current gen asics of 140terrahash for 3kw/hour (72kwh a day)
american mining is:
80,000,000terrahash/140=571429 asics = 41,142,857kw/day (41gwh/d)

(whole US, not just NY)
so if 41GW bitcoin is a burden now, the car industries 1445gw(35x) is a huge burden in 10 years.. something they really need to be planning for more so then bitcoin regulations. by a factor of 35x

if they are silent about the car problem. then they need to be 35x more silent about the bitcoin issue