4 ms·

> The endgame is that all energy companies will primarily be Bitcoin mining companies, feeding their excess renewable energy into the grid to power homes, etc.

by mayank 6y ago

> The endgame is that all energy companies will primarily be Bitcoin mining companies, feeding their excess renewable energy into the grid to power homes, etc. Or you could just skip the Bitcoin part...

beaner 6y ago
I guess you could. But the presence of Bitcoin and proof-of-work actually speeds up the competition in the renewable energy space by making it more profitable than it otherwise would be. That's a good thing, it gets us to the world we want more quickly.
- stouset 6y ago
  Building more renewable energy capacity only to have that capacity immediately used to mine Bitcoin rather than replace some existing fossil fuel use is not progress.
  - beaner 6y ago
    I don't see why not. One consequence is investment in renewable efficiency, which applies to the energy industry generally outside of crypto mining specifically. Another consequence is needing something to do with excess energy, which leads to more competition amongst sellers in the grid, making energy cheaper. This does marginally reduce dependence on fossil fuel.
    - Applejinx 6y ago
      If conversion directly into money through bitcoin is so damn liquid that this is what we're doing, what is this 'excess' energy you're talking about? In this scenario there is NO SUCH THING as 'excess' energy. Or reducing dependence on fossil fuel, so long as that can still be used to produce energy to mine bitcoin with. You're right about competition and market dynamics, but it is utterly and completely dedicated to converting ALL the energy into money without any left over. To fail to do so is to fail to be competitive. I really do not understand this talk about 'excess' energy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tsujp 6y ago
Proof of work still has value in creating demand for excess renewable power generation in regions that can provide it, e.g. https://www.coindesk.com/chinese-city-known-for-bitcoin-mining-seeks-blockchain-firms-to-burn-excess-hydropower https://www.coindesk.com/chinese-city-known-for-bitcoin-mini... Could that energy go to better (which is subjective of course) things? Sure, but if it's not and there is demand as well as excess supply it incentivises energy companies to at least _keep up_ with what they currently provide.
- viraptor 6y ago
  The problems with that are: 1. Newly built renewable energy goes to mining rigs, while the original demand still exists so coal mines remain. 2. Usage at peak generation means fewer reasons to build energy storage systems for quiet times (they're still handled by non-renewables).

by mayank 6y ago

beaner 6y ago

I guess you could. But the presence of Bitcoin and proof-of-work actually speeds up the competition in the renewable energy space by making it more profitable than it otherwise would be. That's a good thing, it gets us to the world we want more quickly.

stouset 6y ago
Building more renewable energy capacity only to have that capacity immediately used to mine Bitcoin rather than replace some existing fossil fuel use is not progress.
- beaner 6y ago
  I don't see why not. One consequence is investment in renewable efficiency, which applies to the energy industry generally outside of crypto mining specifically. Another consequence is needing something to do with excess energy, which leads to more competition amongst sellers in the grid, making energy cheaper. This does marginally reduce dependence on fossil fuel.
  - Applejinx 6y ago
    If conversion directly into money through bitcoin is so damn liquid that this is what we're doing, what is this 'excess' energy you're talking about? In this scenario there is NO SUCH THING as 'excess' energy. Or reducing dependence on fossil fuel, so long as that can still be used to produce energy to mine bitcoin with. You're right about competition and market dynamics, but it is utterly and completely dedicated to converting ALL the energy into money without any left over. To fail to do so is to fail to be competitive. I really do not understand this talk about 'excess' energy.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tsujp 6y ago

Proof of work still has value in creating demand for excess renewable power generation in regions that can provide it, e.g. https://www.coindesk.com/chinese-city-known-for-bitcoin-mining-seeks-blockchain-firms-to-burn-excess-hydropower https://www.coindesk.com/chinese-city-known-for-bitcoin-mini... Could that energy go to better (which is subjective of course) things? Sure, but if it's not and there is demand as well as excess supply it incentivises energy companies to at least _keep up_ with what they currently provide.

viraptor 6y ago
The problems with that are: 1. Newly built renewable energy goes to mining rigs, while the original demand still exists so coal mines remain. 2. Usage at peak generation means fewer reasons to build energy storage systems for quiet times (they're still handled by non-renewables).