4 ms·

It is simply not true that if governments removed all fossil-fuel subsidies today then electricity production would become 100% carbon-free overnight. There are

by roca 5y ago

It is simply not true that if governments removed all fossil-fuel subsidies today then electricity production would become 100% carbon-free overnight. There are massive issues around supplying base load (requiring cheap energy storage tech that doesn't exist yet), construction lead time, limited materials, workforce, and so on and so on. Then the non-fossil-fuel energy sources have their own environmental costs, e.g. we aren't able to recycle grid-scale batteries or turbine blades yet and those produced today may never be recycled. For the forseeable future energy production cannot be carbon-free. All uses of energy, including Bitcoin mining, will continue to impose an environmental cost. For those of us who believe Bitcoin achieves nothing useful that can't be done better some other way, that cost translates into a pure negative.

kragen 5y ago
> It is simply not true that if governments removed all fossil-fuel subsidies today then electricity production would become 100% carbon-free overnight. Certainly not, but that isn't what I claimed. Electricity production using fossil fuels is too expensive for Bitcoin miners; like aluminum smelters, they are forced to move their operations to places with cheaper renewable electricity in order to remain profitable, and governments subsidizing fossil-fuel consumption are forced to eliminate those subsidies in order to remain solvent, which drives the Bitcoin miners elsewhere. None of the issues of base load and construction lead time and so on are relevant to this process at all. The Harvard Business Review article I linked above goes into some detail about how this happens. > we aren't able to recycle grid-scale batteries or turbine blades yet and those produced today may never be recycled. This is basically nonsense. It isn't the Carboniferous Period any more, and even the wastes of the Carboniferous are getting recycled now. In fact, that's sort of the whole problem with global warming: that in the eyeblink since salt miners in the Song Dynasty started drilling for oil, we have recycled a significant fraction of the carboniferous wastes of the Carboniferous Period. > those of us who believe Bitcoin achieves nothing useful Well, that's basically the issue, isn't it? Because you judge our lives useless, you engage in motivated reasoning to find excuses to sweep us away, like your genocidal rapist namesake*, regardless of whether your arguments make any sense objectively or not. _____ * You thought nobody here would know who Roca was, didn't you? You thought that by naming yourself after a less famous white supremacist mass murderer than Hitler, you'd get away scot-free? You thought wrong.
- roca 5y ago
  > The Harvard Business Review article I linked above goes into some detail about how this happens. It doesn't make the argument you have just elucidated, which is an interesting one. I'll think about it. > Because you judge our lives useless, you engage in motivated reasoning to find excuses to sweep us away, "Bitcoin not useful" != "your life is useless". I think you have invested rather too much of your identity into Bitcoin. Regarding "Roca", please check my HN bio. My real name is "Robert O'Callahan" and 'roca' is a handle I've used online since 1990. I have never heard of your "Roca" before.
  - kragen 5y ago
    I explained that for years I've been making a living by getting paid in Bitcoin, and that there isn't a better alternative. To argue that Bitcoin's uses are unimportant, you must argue that it is unimportant for me to make a living, much as Roca did with the Native Americans he murdered and enslaved.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      1) You could just as fucking well be paid in something that doesn't use as much electricity as Switzerland. 2) Electricity is one of the few things that are about as fungible as money. All your blithering about how "crypto uses only the most environmentally friendly energy!" is bullpucky, since that only means that some actually useful stuff must now run on other, less environmentally friendly energy. 3) You misspelled "I sincerely apologise for my unfounded and calumnious accusation". Please stop being such an egregious arsehole.
      - kragen 5y ago
        ① actually there isn't an alternative, except for working for Argentines, who are desperately competing for the available jobs. ② electricity is fungible, but not portable or storable, and is almost all generated within 200km of its point of use (and well under 10 milliseconds). Also, the supply of electrical power is not fixed; it is rapidly expanding in response to demand. So one use of electricity does not imply less electrical power available even for other things in the same location. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27449443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27449443 has a much deeper dive on the issues. ③ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27377190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27377190 was posted the day before your unworthy comment.

by roca 5y ago

kragen 5y ago

> It is simply not true that if governments removed all fossil-fuel subsidies today then electricity production would become 100% carbon-free overnight. Certainly not, but that isn't what I claimed. Electricity production using fossil fuels is too expensive for Bitcoin miners; like aluminum smelters, they are forced to move their operations to places with cheaper renewable electricity in order to remain profitable, and governments subsidizing fossil-fuel consumption are forced to eliminate those subsidies in order to remain solvent, which drives the Bitcoin miners elsewhere. None of the issues of base load and construction lead time and so on are relevant to this process at all. The Harvard Business Review article I linked above goes into some detail about how this happens. > we aren't able to recycle grid-scale batteries or turbine blades yet and those produced today may never be recycled. This is basically nonsense. It isn't the Carboniferous Period any more, and even the wastes of the Carboniferous are getting recycled now. In fact, that's sort of the whole problem with global warming: that in the eyeblink since salt miners in the Song Dynasty started drilling for oil, we have recycled a significant fraction of the carboniferous wastes of the Carboniferous Period. > those of us who believe Bitcoin achieves nothing useful Well, that's basically the issue, isn't it? Because you judge our lives useless, you engage in motivated reasoning to find excuses to sweep us away, like your genocidal rapist namesake*, regardless of whether your arguments make any sense objectively or not. _____ * You thought nobody here would know who Roca was, didn't you? You thought that by naming yourself after a less famous white supremacist mass murderer than Hitler, you'd get away scot-free? You thought wrong.

roca 5y ago
> The Harvard Business Review article I linked above goes into some detail about how this happens. It doesn't make the argument you have just elucidated, which is an interesting one. I'll think about it. > Because you judge our lives useless, you engage in motivated reasoning to find excuses to sweep us away, "Bitcoin not useful" != "your life is useless". I think you have invested rather too much of your identity into Bitcoin. Regarding "Roca", please check my HN bio. My real name is "Robert O'Callahan" and 'roca' is a handle I've used online since 1990. I have never heard of your "Roca" before.
- kragen 5y ago
  I explained that for years I've been making a living by getting paid in Bitcoin, and that there isn't a better alternative. To argue that Bitcoin's uses are unimportant, you must argue that it is unimportant for me to make a living, much as Roca did with the Native Americans he murdered and enslaved.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    1) You could just as fucking well be paid in something that doesn't use as much electricity as Switzerland. 2) Electricity is one of the few things that are about as fungible as money. All your blithering about how "crypto uses only the most environmentally friendly energy!" is bullpucky, since that only means that some actually useful stuff must now run on other, less environmentally friendly energy. 3) You misspelled "I sincerely apologise for my unfounded and calumnious accusation". Please stop being such an egregious arsehole.
    - kragen 5y ago
      ① actually there isn't an alternative, except for working for Argentines, who are desperately competing for the available jobs. ② electricity is fungible, but not portable or storable, and is almost all generated within 200km of its point of use (and well under 10 milliseconds). Also, the supply of electrical power is not fixed; it is rapidly expanding in response to demand. So one use of electricity does not imply less electrical power available even for other things in the same location. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27449443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27449443 has a much deeper dive on the issues. ③ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27377190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27377190 was posted the day before your unworthy comment.