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 sayi

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.