3 ms·

Not doing what you'd personally prefer isn't a bias. Tackling a problem at several levels is perfectly legitimate; it's just that a paper about clean power gene

Not doing what you'd personally prefer isn't a bias. Tackling a problem at several levels is perfectly legitimate; it's just that a paper about clean power generation would be a totally different paper. It's a single paper. One piece of information that's small enough to be digested and connected with other work. And frankly, if the result had been that each $1 created 1¢ of costs, you'd be celebrating it. Your only real criticism here is that you don't like the result. If you're so concerned about the root cause of power generation, go focus on solving that problem.

throwaway20875 6y ago
>If you're so concerned about the root cause of power generation, go focus on solving that problem. So ignore the root cause altogether, lol. And when we've banned crypto mining and accrued even worse social costs as a result, we'll rinse and repeat this process with the next ".*damage" power consumer. Totally sane!
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  The irony of this whole chain is that the paper itself actually acknowledges this other variable (that y'all are pretending is the only variable) directly: > There is considerable evidence of concentration of mining operations in particular locations, typically where reliable electricity is cheaply available, though, precise data are lacking (e.g., [15], [6]). In the US, perhaps the most well-known concentration is the Mid-Columbia Basin area in central and eastern Washington State, where cheap electricity is produced by hydropower along the Columbia River [4], [6], however, mining in other US locations also occurs (see [11] and news references in [23], [24], and [25]). > emissions rates per kWh will differ substantially given underlying differences in how power is produced—i.e., China relies extensively on coal power (>60% of electricity generation) while the US is more balanced (32% natural gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear, etc.). Saying they ignore this is just a lie. Criticize the paper, by all means, but this simply isn't a hit piece. It's careful in stating exactly what it can commit to, and it reasonably tries to explain how that fits into the bigger picture.
- jf22 6y ago
  >banned crypto mining and accrued even worse social costs Could you describe what social costs we'll have by banning crypto mining?
  - throwaway20875 6y ago
    Banning anything that's already widespread implies making a part of the population into criminals. With that comes the costs of enforcement and of government's authority (which is finite). Consider too that crypto is, often, a response by many to perceived policy for fiat.
    - jf22 6y ago
      I'm sure there is a way to turn off phase out Bitcoin without making thousands of people criminals. The planet is burning, the cost of enforcement will be worth it.

throwaway20875 6y ago

>If you're so concerned about the root cause of power generation, go focus on solving that problem. So ignore the root cause altogether, lol. And when we've banned crypto mining and accrued even worse social costs as a result, we'll rinse and repeat this process with the next ".*damage" power consumer. Totally sane!

GavinMcG 6y ago
The irony of this whole chain is that the paper itself actually acknowledges this other variable (that y'all are pretending is the only variable) directly: > There is considerable evidence of concentration of mining operations in particular locations, typically where reliable electricity is cheaply available, though, precise data are lacking (e.g., [15], [6]). In the US, perhaps the most well-known concentration is the Mid-Columbia Basin area in central and eastern Washington State, where cheap electricity is produced by hydropower along the Columbia River [4], [6], however, mining in other US locations also occurs (see [11] and news references in [23], [24], and [25]). > emissions rates per kWh will differ substantially given underlying differences in how power is produced—i.e., China relies extensively on coal power (>60% of electricity generation) while the US is more balanced (32% natural gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear, etc.). Saying they ignore this is just a lie. Criticize the paper, by all means, but this simply isn't a hit piece. It's careful in stating exactly what it can commit to, and it reasonably tries to explain how that fits into the bigger picture.
jf22 6y ago
>banned crypto mining and accrued even worse social costs Could you describe what social costs we'll have by banning crypto mining?
- throwaway20875 6y ago
  Banning anything that's already widespread implies making a part of the population into criminals. With that comes the costs of enforcement and of government's authority (which is finite). Consider too that crypto is, often, a response by many to perceived policy for fiat.
  - jf22 6y ago
    I'm sure there is a way to turn off phase out Bitcoin without making thousands of people criminals. The planet is burning, the cost of enforcement will be worth it.