4 ms·
> The post addresses this question in detail. In brief summary, extracting "green" energy from the grid (most mining occurs on the grid) means that the energy a
by incrudible 6y ago
> The post addresses this question in detail. In brief summary, extracting "green" energy from the grid (most mining occurs on the grid) means that the energy available on the grid is more likely to be from CO2-generating sources.
This is a hypothesis, but where is the evidence, i.e. actually increased CO2 emissions? My argument is that most of this mining is using electricity that would otherwise not be used or produced. That is why it is so cheap in the first place.
- kevingadd 6y agoWe have concrete evidence from the recent storms in Texas, where CO2-producing power generation was spun up in order to respond to demand once the price caps were lifted so it could be profitable. It's up to you to decide whether Texas is an outlier. If the power was literally not being used the cost would be negative - this is a real thing that happens. If it costs you more than $0/kWH you are creating demand and potentially increasing CO2 emissions.
- incrudible 6y ago> It's up to you to decide whether Texas is an outlier. That isn't really related. Like I said, it's possible the temporary spikes in prices can make mining with fossil fuels profitable, but that is in the short term. > If the power was literally not being used the cost would be negative - this is a real thing that happens. Price only goes negative when there is too much energy produced, but downregulating production would be even more expensive. This is mostly a problem with wind energy combined with coal or nuclear plants. Otherwise you would downregulate production so you don't have to pay the penalty. Consuming this excess energy in a profitable manner would keep prices above zero.