3 ms·

I think you misunderstood greatly. What I am saying is that powerplants are built close to human settlements because electricity can't be economically transport

I think you misunderstood greatly. What I am saying is that powerplants are built close to human settlements because electricity can't be economically transported or stored, and that there are many times when electricity is given out nearly or completely for free as there is too much of it and it can't be stopped - actually there are many times when powerplants pay you for taking electricity - and that's when Bitcoin miners step in. I'm sure they'd happily give that electricity to DeepL too, if they asked.

lucb1e 6y ago
> What I am saying is that [...] there are many times when electricity is given out nearly or completely for free as there is too much of it and it can't be stopped No, that's a different argument. Your second point says that, not your first. I just replied to your first. For the second argument, that's less crazy, but still not true. Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses. And there are still surpluses that are thrown away despite cryptocurrencies using power. Bitcoin doesn't tap into the grid and run only when there is a surplus; virtually all miners run it regardless of the current energy price on wholesale markets. If they didn't, we'd see huge fluctuations in the hash rate and they should match the renewable electricity production closely. It clearly doesn't do that, so apparently it's not being used this way and doesn't fund renewable energy that would otherwise not be built. > I'm sure they'd happily give that electricity to DeepL too, if they asked. Oh come on now, that's like arguing that "I'm sure the thief would have given the bike back if asked nicely!" Have you ever heard of a power company asking "who has the best purpose for this power that I'm uselessly producing here?" I've only ever heard "it looks like we'll need more power for <some purpose> soon, therefore we will build <some power plant> in <some place>".
- emteycz 6y ago
  In the first point I am asking the commenter to source their claim that electricity could be easily transported to places where fossil fuels are used. I am saying that it's not feasible to transport it there and Bitcoin is not the reason why we're not doing that. > Have you ever heard of a power company asking "who has the best purpose for this power that I'm uselessly producing here? Yes, that's exactly what they ask. Have you actually tried to visit a powerplant and talk to them about this? I did. This is exactly what they ask when they can't find enough demand for their electricity - they need someone to take it, that's why negative electricity rates exist. > they should match the renewable electricity production closely. It clearly doesn't do that Geothermals, nuclear, hydro, wind + global network with a huge amount of participants = it's hard to distinguish individual localized factors. > Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses. Not at all. Annualized waste electricity from EU is multiples more than what Bitcoin uses annually. Then we count in China, India, ... > I've only ever heard "it looks like we'll need more power for <some purpose> soon, therefore we will build <some power plant> in <some place>". Nobody is building powerplants for Bitcoin (except for very few geothermals) - it's absolutely not profitable. It's much better to put that electricity into the grid for consumer or industrial usage; providing it to Bitcoin miners is done when nobody wants more electricity but they have it anyways.

lucb1e 6y ago

> What I am saying is that [...] there are many times when electricity is given out nearly or completely for free as there is too much of it and it can't be stopped No, that's a different argument. Your second point says that, not your first. I just replied to your first. For the second argument, that's less crazy, but still not true. Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses. And there are still surpluses that are thrown away despite cryptocurrencies using power. Bitcoin doesn't tap into the grid and run only when there is a surplus; virtually all miners run it regardless of the current energy price on wholesale markets. If they didn't, we'd see huge fluctuations in the hash rate and they should match the renewable electricity production closely. It clearly doesn't do that, so apparently it's not being used this way and doesn't fund renewable energy that would otherwise not be built. > I'm sure they'd happily give that electricity to DeepL too, if they asked. Oh come on now, that's like arguing that "I'm sure the thief would have given the bike back if asked nicely!" Have you ever heard of a power company asking "who has the best purpose for this power that I'm uselessly producing here?" I've only ever heard "it looks like we'll need more power for <some purpose> soon, therefore we will build <some power plant> in <some place>".

emteycz 6y ago
In the first point I am asking the commenter to source their claim that electricity could be easily transported to places where fossil fuels are used. I am saying that it's not feasible to transport it there and Bitcoin is not the reason why we're not doing that. > Have you ever heard of a power company asking "who has the best purpose for this power that I'm uselessly producing here? Yes, that's exactly what they ask. Have you actually tried to visit a powerplant and talk to them about this? I did. This is exactly what they ask when they can't find enough demand for their electricity - they need someone to take it, that's why negative electricity rates exist. > they should match the renewable electricity production closely. It clearly doesn't do that Geothermals, nuclear, hydro, wind + global network with a huge amount of participants = it's hard to distinguish individual localized factors. > Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses. Not at all. Annualized waste electricity from EU is multiples more than what Bitcoin uses annually. Then we count in China, India, ... > I've only ever heard "it looks like we'll need more power for <some purpose> soon, therefore we will build <some power plant> in <some place>". Nobody is building powerplants for Bitcoin (except for very few geothermals) - it's absolutely not profitable. It's much better to put that electricity into the grid for consumer or industrial usage; providing it to Bitcoin miners is done when nobody wants more electricity but they have it anyways.