←back to thread

156 points xbmcuser | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
taeric ◴[] No.45127622[source]
This feels misleading to me.

I accept that data centers generate more load for a system. Which will make the overall system need more maintenance, which is something that others paying into the system will also have to support. But, I'm not clear on why this is a hidden cost.

Consider, if people get the new housing developments that they want, that would also add load to the system. This larger energy system will be more expensive to run, which will lead to higher costs. Adding houses would probably be even more expensive in the transmission maintenance costs associated.

Any model you do that tries to prevent this is essentially rent stabilization for early members. And that has a pretty good track record of not being a good idea.

replies(10): >>45127808 #>>45127833 #>>45127981 #>>45128046 #>>45128049 #>>45128072 #>>45128295 #>>45128361 #>>45129790 #>>45130643 #
minraws ◴[] No.45128072[source]
Now let's consider a different form of govt/shared charges.

Taxes, why are individual and corporate taxes and structures different?

Both are doing work and generating income?

Why do corporations get to deductions and do so much tax magic that individuals don't?

why don't we charge them both with the same laws, and structures?

Cause corporates generate jobs? Isn't that unfair to the people born individuals...

I don't think anyone is saying there should be stabilization of electricity prices. But costs for grid improvements for industrial, data center or AI usage should be on the said companies.

They are using that resource to generate a profit.

While people in residential homes are just living their lives, you are comparing cost of essential commodities to production inputs...

We make taxes on poorer people less as well for the same reason.

But yes if someone is saying electricity prices should be stabilized for early consumers that's definitely unfair. But I didn't see or read that here.

replies(2): >>45128366 #>>45138978 #
1. taeric ◴[] No.45138978[source]
Apologies, I misread some of this yesterday.

The easy way to justify why corporations get to deduct their spending, is it encourages corporations to spend. Something that a for profit company would not necessarily do otherwise. With the obvious note that spend sent to people is taxed as income for that person.

Now, I agree that this gets super odd when people also make an odd "corporations are people" argument.

As for my assertion that this is effectively arguing for price stabilization. The entire thing hinges on the complaint that costs have been going up. Which, of course the price of a good that has increasing demand is going up. I'm not sure how to read that other than an appeal to price stabilization for early consumers.