The grammatical chaos caused by missing prepositions aside[0], are they currently getting power for free? What do you mean pay a minimum of 85%? What about paying 100%? Are they not paying for what they use?
> who will pay for an expected surge in electricity demand
What kind of clown show are they running over there? The people who are using it! The people who are using it should pay for it!
[0] - what does "pay the energy" mean? Is that supposed to be "pay FOR the energy"?
You will see this more and more. The problem is solar power, and that it creates an opportunity for companies that use a lot of electricity to avoid using the grid at all. Just have your local solar power plant. The grid "isn't designed for that". Which should be correctly understood. It's not (the main problem) that the grid can't physically deal with that, it's that it's laden up to close to 100% debt on the assumption that it would never lose customers. Government, however, depends on the grid, and so can't let it go bankrupt.
So ever more people will need to pay the grid for power EVEN if they don't use power. Australia pioneered that, but it will become reality sooner or later everywhere.
https://archive.is/PMlaJ
The grammatical chaos caused by missing prepositions aside[0], are they currently getting power for free? What do you mean pay a minimum of 85%? What about paying 100%? Are they not paying for what they use?
> who will pay for an expected surge in electricity demand
What kind of clown show are they running over there? The people who are using it! The people who are using it should pay for it!
[0] - what does "pay the energy" mean? Is that supposed to be "pay FOR the energy"?
If you order 100MW in additional capacity, you are required to pay for a minimum of 85MW, even if you later reduce usage to only 50MW.
Thank you. That makes way more sense than the garbage article.
You will see this more and more. The problem is solar power, and that it creates an opportunity for companies that use a lot of electricity to avoid using the grid at all. Just have your local solar power plant. The grid "isn't designed for that". Which should be correctly understood. It's not (the main problem) that the grid can't physically deal with that, it's that it's laden up to close to 100% debt on the assumption that it would never lose customers. Government, however, depends on the grid, and so can't let it go bankrupt.
So ever more people will need to pay the grid for power EVEN if they don't use power. Australia pioneered that, but it will become reality sooner or later everywhere.
This article is so bad I’m not sure how anyone who didn’t already know what it meant is supposed to figure it out.
I _believe_ what they’re saying is data centre X will request power and be forced to pay for 85% of that requested power even if they don’t use it.
Thank you. That makes way more sense than the garbage article.