Having a large energy consumer that is willing to decrease consumption at short notice for a relatively small amount of money is a great option for managing a grid if it means you can avoid paying for a coal powerplant to be kept ready and staffed just to turn it on for 40 hours a year.
Yes, I agree that this looks good on paper. I'm not posting a comment to debate this premise. I'm simply advising that we include a projection of this arrangement into the future. Beyond the immediate term.
Crypto-asset mining emissions are contributing 140 million metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Electricity usage surges due to increased temperatures due to global warming due to crypto-asset mining. Rinse and repeat.
I wouldn't mind this arrangement if the additional power usage brought by crypto mining sponsored carbon-free energy production like nuclear or renewables. But as you accurately describe, these contracts with ERCOT are supporting increased usage of fossil-fuel power plants.
Twitter seems to be doing fine after laying off much more of it's workforce.
If that really happened, Twitter laying off more than 50% of its staff, you'd think that would be newsworthy enough to generate a story on Slashdot. Yet, there has never been a story on Slashdot about Twitter laying people off after Musk took over. I'm thinking you read about that on a different news source.
"Been through Hell? Whaddya bring back for me?" -- A. Brilliant