3 ms·

> Clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. All of it is CO2. Let me explain. When you burn energy for bitcoin mining, y

> Clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. All of it is CO2. Let me explain. When you burn energy for bitcoin mining, you don't just use capacity of your local energy producer, you are delaying removal of legacy power producers. Before a particular power producer (for example burning coal) can be turned off, the capacity must be created from other sources (for example renewable). If you decide to start burning huge amount of energy, before those CO2 guzzlers can be turned off we will now have to build even more capacity -- exactly the amount you are burning to mine bitcoin, but it also means that while this is happening the CO2 is still being emitted. This assumes that introduction of new renewable sources of energy is independent from bitcoin mining. As far as I know this is true. Or in other words: if introduction of renewable sources of energy is independent of bitcoin mining, the energy production from these sources is the same regardless of whether the bitcoin mining exists or not. Logically what this means that what is changing is energy production from non-renewable sources and it could be explained that they are working at either higher capacity or their removal is delayed.

kortilla 6y ago
> This assumes that introduction of new renewable sources of energy is independent from bitcoin mining. As far as I know this is true. It is not. There are marooned renewable energy sources (dams) that have had limited usage (the dams being mainly for flood control) until miners came along. Building high capacity transmission lines to them wasn’t economical.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  So where and how much of the mining network utilizes this or similar? We are looking for at least significant portion of 130TWh the mining network currently uses. I just don't see all those old dams adding anywhere close to 1% of that value (although you have a chance to post your sources). You see, bitcoin mining currently uses 10x the amount of capacity used by Google and 50% of what ALL DATACENTERS IN THE WORLD are using. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56215787 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56215787 Your argument doesn't hold any water (pun intended).
samatman 6y ago
This is the lump of labor fallacy applied to energy, let's call it the lump of energy fallacy. Increased demand for energy brings more energy supply into the market. New energy is mostly renewable energy. Old plants are shut down when they are unprofitable. That can be because they're inherently too expensive to run, because the carbon inputs are being taxed too heavily (I think this is a good one), or because the governing body controlling the physical location of the power plant has declared them illegal (since you can't profitably sell something you're forbidden from selling). I'm not making the "Bitcoin is good because it drives renewable energy investment" argument, which is too handwavey for my taste. I'm saying your argument is incoherent. Reducing carbon emissions from power plants is mainly about pricing the externality they generate. Cryptocurrencies, in fact, any application for that generated power, neither harm nor help achieve that outcome. It's irrelevant special pleading, and it's a distraction from this urgent goal.

kortilla 6y ago

> This assumes that introduction of new renewable sources of energy is independent from bitcoin mining. As far as I know this is true. It is not. There are marooned renewable energy sources (dams) that have had limited usage (the dams being mainly for flood control) until miners came along. Building high capacity transmission lines to them wasn’t economical.

lmilcin 6y ago
So where and how much of the mining network utilizes this or similar? We are looking for at least significant portion of 130TWh the mining network currently uses. I just don't see all those old dams adding anywhere close to 1% of that value (although you have a chance to post your sources). You see, bitcoin mining currently uses 10x the amount of capacity used by Google and 50% of what ALL DATACENTERS IN THE WORLD are using. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56215787 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56215787 Your argument doesn't hold any water (pun intended).

samatman 6y ago

This is the lump of labor fallacy applied to energy, let's call it the lump of energy fallacy. Increased demand for energy brings more energy supply into the market. New energy is mostly renewable energy. Old plants are shut down when they are unprofitable. That can be because they're inherently too expensive to run, because the carbon inputs are being taxed too heavily (I think this is a good one), or because the governing body controlling the physical location of the power plant has declared them illegal (since you can't profitably sell something you're forbidden from selling). I'm not making the "Bitcoin is good because it drives renewable energy investment" argument, which is too handwavey for my taste. I'm saying your argument is incoherent. Reducing carbon emissions from power plants is mainly about pricing the externality they generate. Cryptocurrencies, in fact, any application for that generated power, neither harm nor help achieve that outcome. It's irrelevant special pleading, and it's a distraction from this urgent goal.