5 ms·

The author is absolutely wrong on power grids. The power grid is over-provisioned in the sense that it has a lot of power on stand by. The physical electrical g

The author is absolutely wrong on power grids. The power grid is over-provisioned in the sense that it has a lot of power on stand by. The physical electrical grid is really balanced more or less instantaneously. Inertia in generators together with droop control take care of this balancing process. But you really do burn less fuel when there is less demand. The energy is not wasted, it is ordered, not demanded and thus never produced. If it were produced it would actually be extremely difficult to get rid of this much energy. You can't just easily dump energy. As the author is waving their credentials around, I am an active researcher on renewable power grids. It's a bit scary to think that someone with such a basic misunderstanding of the power grid was asked to referee a paper on this, but then a lot of marginal research is published everyday and referees have to come from somewhere...

okl 6y ago
I want to add two things: - The visualization used by the author shows US energy consumption while ~65% of mining takes place in China[0] where burning coal remains the dominant energy source.[1] - Miners run 24/7/365, they add to the baseload! -- [0] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-b... [1] - https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/CHN https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/CHN
- agumonkey 6y ago
  Can't china dump solar panel on its own market so miners run off grid and clean ?
- astkaasa 6y ago
  I guess you have made a wrong conclusion: coal dominance in total does not conclude to coal dominance for mining. Because mining factories are very sensitive about the energy price, they are mostly built near locations where energy is cheap enough and will be wasted if not consumed locally by the mining or transmitted to other places in time.
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    People keep saying this yet https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/22/iran-crypto-miners-cry-foul-over-electricity-backlash https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/22/iran-crypto-mine... 98 % of the electricity in Iran is generated from burning either gas or oil. https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/IRN https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/IRN
knifefight 6y ago
How would you characterize rejected energy, if not wasted? What is your take on Seetee?
- dcow 6y ago
  What is Seetee and why is it relevant to this discussion (genuine question, I don't know)?
  - knifefight 6y ago
    A new Bitcoin mining company founded by a Norwegian energy company, focused on Bitcoin and renewables.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      That doesn’t explain how it’s relevant.
- okl 6y ago
  > The energy is not wasted, it is ordered, not demanded and thus never produced.
- amelius 6y ago
  There is no rejected energy. If there is an overproduction of energy, the price goes down (it may even go negative), and industries will consume the energy.
  - knifefight 6y ago
    According to Lawrence Livermore Labs 2/3rds of all energy produced is rejected. There is a graphic in the article.
    - okl 6y ago
      "Rejected" does not mean that the energy gets sent back to the producer like a parcel. "For a coal fired power station, for instance, about 2/3 of the energy released when the coal is burnt is discarded as heat in the environment. This reject energy sometimes appears as clouds of vapour coming off a power-station’s cooling towers, such as the well-known ones at Didcot in England." -- https://energycultures.org/2014/07/rejected-energy-much-energy-unloved/ https://energycultures.org/2014/07/rejected-energy-much-ener...
sitharus 6y ago
Additionally assuming this power is rejected through shunts (effectively resistor banks) this power is from peaking plants shutting down or over provisioned baseload thermal plants. The only way Bitcoin would use this energy is if they had a contract with the power company to be an on-demand load, switching on and off to help smooth the peaks. If they aren’t they’re just driving up power use and forcing more operation of less efficient reserve generation on peak. I understand that a lot of the servers are close to large hydro plants. Under-utilised hydro plants can simply spill water - they spin up and down rapidly compared to thermal plants.
- knifefight 6y ago
  > The only way Bitcoin would use this energy is if they had a contract with the power company to be an on-demand load, switching on and off to help smooth the peaks. But that is exactly how power plants are using Bitcoin. That's the idea behind Seetee.
  - lalaland1125 6y ago
    Isn't that a waste of the capital used for the Bitcoin mining hardware itself? Why would a miner shut down their profitable operation simply because a coal plant turned on?
    - knifefight 6y ago
      The miner and the power plant operator are often the same entity. They turn the mining equipment on when they want to dump energy, and off when they have more productive places to sell it. Seetee is a good example.
      - lalaland1125 6y ago
        If you own the mining hardware, why would you do that? You are better off running that hardware 100% of the time (using batteries or similar when necessary). Mining hardware is expensive.
simias 6y ago
Do you know if the graph in the article is accurate, and what is meant by "rejected" exactly? What surprised me is that "Transportation" in that graph is supposed to "reject" over 22% of its energy, which seems odd to me. For electricity I get it, it's hard to store so if you have excess production there's not much you can do. If your wind turbine can't dump its energy anywhere it's just lost, usually. But for petroleum can't you just... not use it? As such I wonder if "rejected" means all losses? In which case it's unclear how bitcoin would fit into that. In general I think the author doesn't make a good enough case. He'd have to show not only that there's enough loss to power the bitcoin network, but also that bitcoin actually slots into these losses instead of adding to the demand.
- Animats 6y ago
  They mean rejected heat. That's basic thermodynamics. See "Carnot efficiency". Maximum possible efficiency of a heat engine is (Tin - Tout) / Tin. Temperatures are from absolute zero. This applies to all forms of heat engines. Large power plants run steam around 840°K. Typical outside temperatures are around 280°K. So maximum possible efficiency for steam plants at achievable temperatures is around 66%. Actual numbers for coal, oil, and nuclear plants run lower, maybe 40%. The most efficient natural gas plants come close, around 60%, by running at higher temperatures and avoiding conversion to steam.[1] [1] https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-compare-the-efficiency-of-different-power-plants/ https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-comp...
  - simias 6y ago
    Ok, but if that's the article's argument it really makes no sense, no? How would the author propose harvesting these various losses to mine cryptocoins? It's a really weird take if that's what the author is saying.
    - Animats 6y ago
      That's what the diagram copied from Lawrence Livermore National Labs says about rejected heat. What the article author is trying to say is something else entirely.

okl 6y ago

I want to add two things: - The visualization used by the author shows US energy consumption while ~65% of mining takes place in China[0] where burning coal remains the dominant energy source.[1] - Miners run 24/7/365, they add to the baseload! -- [0] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-b... [1] - https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/CHN https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/CHN

agumonkey 6y ago
Can't china dump solar panel on its own market so miners run off grid and clean ?
astkaasa 6y ago
I guess you have made a wrong conclusion: coal dominance in total does not conclude to coal dominance for mining. Because mining factories are very sensitive about the energy price, they are mostly built near locations where energy is cheap enough and will be wasted if not consumed locally by the mining or transmitted to other places in time.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  People keep saying this yet https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/22/iran-crypto-miners-cry-foul-over-electricity-backlash https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/22/iran-crypto-mine... 98 % of the electricity in Iran is generated from burning either gas or oil. https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/IRN https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/IRN

knifefight 6y ago

How would you characterize rejected energy, if not wasted? What is your take on Seetee?

dcow 6y ago
What is Seetee and why is it relevant to this discussion (genuine question, I don't know)?
- knifefight 6y ago
  A new Bitcoin mining company founded by a Norwegian energy company, focused on Bitcoin and renewables.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    That doesn’t explain how it’s relevant.
okl 6y ago
> The energy is not wasted, it is ordered, not demanded and thus never produced.
amelius 6y ago
There is no rejected energy. If there is an overproduction of energy, the price goes down (it may even go negative), and industries will consume the energy.
- knifefight 6y ago
  According to Lawrence Livermore Labs 2/3rds of all energy produced is rejected. There is a graphic in the article.
  - okl 6y ago
    "Rejected" does not mean that the energy gets sent back to the producer like a parcel. "For a coal fired power station, for instance, about 2/3 of the energy released when the coal is burnt is discarded as heat in the environment. This reject energy sometimes appears as clouds of vapour coming off a power-station’s cooling towers, such as the well-known ones at Didcot in England." -- https://energycultures.org/2014/07/rejected-energy-much-energy-unloved/ https://energycultures.org/2014/07/rejected-energy-much-ener...

sitharus 6y ago

Additionally assuming this power is rejected through shunts (effectively resistor banks) this power is from peaking plants shutting down or over provisioned baseload thermal plants. The only way Bitcoin would use this energy is if they had a contract with the power company to be an on-demand load, switching on and off to help smooth the peaks. If they aren’t they’re just driving up power use and forcing more operation of less efficient reserve generation on peak. I understand that a lot of the servers are close to large hydro plants. Under-utilised hydro plants can simply spill water - they spin up and down rapidly compared to thermal plants.

knifefight 6y ago
> The only way Bitcoin would use this energy is if they had a contract with the power company to be an on-demand load, switching on and off to help smooth the peaks. But that is exactly how power plants are using Bitcoin. That's the idea behind Seetee.
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  Isn't that a waste of the capital used for the Bitcoin mining hardware itself? Why would a miner shut down their profitable operation simply because a coal plant turned on?
  - knifefight 6y ago
    The miner and the power plant operator are often the same entity. They turn the mining equipment on when they want to dump energy, and off when they have more productive places to sell it. Seetee is a good example.
    - lalaland1125 6y ago
      If you own the mining hardware, why would you do that? You are better off running that hardware 100% of the time (using batteries or similar when necessary). Mining hardware is expensive.

simias 6y ago

Do you know if the graph in the article is accurate, and what is meant by "rejected" exactly? What surprised me is that "Transportation" in that graph is supposed to "reject" over 22% of its energy, which seems odd to me. For electricity I get it, it's hard to store so if you have excess production there's not much you can do. If your wind turbine can't dump its energy anywhere it's just lost, usually. But for petroleum can't you just... not use it? As such I wonder if "rejected" means all losses? In which case it's unclear how bitcoin would fit into that. In general I think the author doesn't make a good enough case. He'd have to show not only that there's enough loss to power the bitcoin network, but also that bitcoin actually slots into these losses instead of adding to the demand.

Animats 6y ago
They mean rejected heat. That's basic thermodynamics. See "Carnot efficiency". Maximum possible efficiency of a heat engine is (Tin - Tout) / Tin. Temperatures are from absolute zero. This applies to all forms of heat engines. Large power plants run steam around 840°K. Typical outside temperatures are around 280°K. So maximum possible efficiency for steam plants at achievable temperatures is around 66%. Actual numbers for coal, oil, and nuclear plants run lower, maybe 40%. The most efficient natural gas plants come close, around 60%, by running at higher temperatures and avoiding conversion to steam.[1] [1] https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-compare-the-efficiency-of-different-power-plants/ https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-comp...
- simias 6y ago
  Ok, but if that's the article's argument it really makes no sense, no? How would the author propose harvesting these various losses to mine cryptocoins? It's a really weird take if that's what the author is saying.
  - Animats 6y ago
    That's what the diagram copied from Lawrence Livermore National Labs says about rejected heat. What the article author is trying to say is something else entirely.