What happened to scaling the offer based on (future) demand? That is what a government who wants growth should focus on... instead of telling their citizens which use cases are acceptable or not.
See in Texas how the Bitcoin mining industry negotiated agreements for curtailing and greatly help scaling the grid better... this seems like a way more efficient approach to these offer/demand and scaling issues than "we can't let you buy our product because other people want to buy it".
> See in Texas how the Bitcoin mining industry negotiated agreements for curtailing and greatly help scaling the grid better...
They get paid not to use power to prevent the grid from collapsing. That's not what I want my tax dollars spent on, and such silliness is why I tend not to look at Texas for good governance.
They provide constant demand in low consumption periods which makes it possible to have a stronger grid when indeed there is a spike in demand due to external conditions like a heat or cold waves... something which will keep happening more and more (and more extremely) if you listen to climate scientists.
The keywords are scaling and stability, if you prefer to piss this money away on building plants that will work at 50% capacity for years you essentially pay for the rest of the capacity with no other utility, that's bad governance.
See in Texas how the Bitcoin mining industry negotiated agreements for curtailing and greatly help scaling the grid better... this seems like a way more efficient approach to these offer/demand and scaling issues than "we can't let you buy our product because other people want to buy it".