7 ms·

Ars Technica did a great piece about this a couple months ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/private-equity-firm-revives-zombie-fossil-fuel-power-

by NickM 5y ago

Ars Technica did a great piece about this a couple months ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/private-equity-firm-revives-zombie-fossil-fuel-power-plant-to-mine-bitcoin/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/private-equity-f... The gist is that a private equity firm bought a defunct fossil plant and are running it to power mining rigs directly, without any connection to the outside power grid. Apparently this allows them to do an end run around certain regulations and taxes which only apply to grid-connected power plants. The scariest part is that this is apparently insanely profitable for them. NY is pretty progressive and it would not surprise me if they crack down on this kind of thing, but other states or countries seem unlikely to do that. All the stories we've read lately about fossil plants shutting down due to being replaced by renewables could ultimately be for nothing if companies like this one buy them all up and restart them.

CarelessExpert 5y ago
> The scariest part is that this is apparently insanely profitable for them. NY is pretty progressive and it would not surprise me if they crack down on this kind of thing, but other states or countries seem unlikely to do that. And this is why you need a carbon tax. These clowns are basically making money by turning negative externalities into bitcoin. And the best way to deal with a negative externality is to tax the heck out of those folks and thereby either a) make the activity unprofitable, or b) use the resulting revenues to plow into mitigation efforts to offset the effects of the externality.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  I don't get why the law separates between connected and disconnected power plants? Seems a lot less simple than just saying "everyone who pollutes pays x". This is also why carbon tax is gonna be a disappointment. There are way too many rules surrounding it, when really there should just be one carbon budget that every firm can try to buy some of on equal terms.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    The law likely didn't consider disconnected power plants, as why would such a thing exist? I guess the only reason before bitcoin is a self-contained power plant to run a self-contained facility, and even those (like a datacenter) are often grid tied with the power plant as a backup.
    - p1mrx 5y ago
      I think this is an example of capitalism finding exploits in the legal system. We should try to patch this one quickly.
      - gwright 5y ago
        Capitalism isn't exploiting anything. People make the laws, people operate businesses. It isn't clear to me that these concerns are absent under any other system -- in fact I would argue that capitalism paired with a liberal representative democracy and strong individual rights is the best system for addressing any concerns.
        p1mrx 5y ago
        I don't think capitalism is "wrong" for finding an exploit, but those liberal representative democracies should realize that turning retired power plants into miners is bad, and pass laws to prevent that business model from working.
        gwright 5y ago
        Why impugn "capitalism" when you could have just said that the business model has negative consequences that should be addressed via legislation? I was reacting to the non-sequitur that you were suggesting that somehow capitalism was at fault in this situation.
      - bombcar 5y ago
        I don't think people realize how much of things like the tax code are basically code patches to law to fix exploitable bugs.
- jandrese 5y ago
  Carbon taxes have come up in Congress from time to time, but the fossil fuel industries are much too politically connected. The excuse is usually that if you tax carbon all you do is move the polluters offshore, and since CO2 is a global problem it doesn't solve anything. Global problems need global solutions, but our international treaty systems are insufficient to make progress on this pressing issue. People still try, Kyoto was a heroic effort, but at the end of the day the incentives to cheat are powerful and thus the level of trust is very low.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > The excuse is usually that if you tax carbon all you do is move the polluters offshore, and since CO2 is a global problem it doesn't solve anything. Global problems need global solutions, but our international treaty systems are insufficient to make progress on this pressing issue. Which is, of course, ridiculous. They bought a coal power plant in New York, because it already existed. They're not going to disassemble it and transport it to China because that wouldn't be cost effective, so the alternative is that it would remain offline. Likewise, if people buy electric cars or high MPG hybrids in the US because there is a carbon tax, that reduces the CO2 emitted by the US independent of what anybody else does. It doesn't require any international agreement; you can just do it on your own. "What about global effects," you say. But that goes the other way. Africa doesn't buy new cars by and large, they buy used cars exported from America and Europe. If the new cars people buy in America or Europe become electric then they'll still be electric when they're the used cars sold to Africa. Oil is a global commodity. If America burns less then the price goes down. Which makes it cheaper for other countries to independently enact a carbon tax. Which they have the incentive to do because they get brownie points, and their domestic population doesn't rebel against a change that only keeps the price the same, and it generates revenue at the expense of the (foreign) oil companies. The more countries do this, the easier it is for the others to do it, at the expense of oil net exporters like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Nothing about this requires an international agreement or any kind of cooperation from anyone. Just enact a carbon tax and pay the revenue back to the population as a dividend. It will be extremely popular as soon as everybody gets the first check and realizes that they get back more than they paid because some of the money comes from oil companies and other corporations (who receive none of the dividend).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  Why does the answer to everything have to be a tax that allows government to become even more bloated. If using computing power like this is so bad just make it illegal to use excessive computing power, why allow it but let the government scoop up the cream.
  - jude- 5y ago
    > Why does the answer to everything have to be a tax that allows government to become even more bloated. Because assholes exist who will gladly burn the planet down to make a buck. > If using computing power like this is so bad just make it illegal to use excessive computing power, why allow it but let the government scoop up the cream. Because enforcing an effective regime on capping the amount of power each US resident can use for computing is considerably _more_ difficult (and results in _more_ bloat) than just taxing emissions.
    - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
      Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? If you think it would be structured in a way that would stop emissions you’re naive because tax makers would rather still make money than stop something. Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxes solve nothing and ONLY exist to keep poor people poor and middle class people middle class.
      - erentz 5y ago
        > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Most studies have found that increasing taxes on cigarettes does reduce smoking prevalence.
      - jude- 5y ago
        > Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? Easy: sanction their asses. We banned CFCs, remember? We didn't even need 100% compliance to be effective at repairing the ozone hole! > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxing alcohol and tobacco reduce their use, thereby reducing the harm they bring. [1] [2] [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204416 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [2] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043816 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publh...
- josu 5y ago
  This isn't correct, they are carbon neutral. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/greenidge-generation-bitcoin-mining-operation-to-be-carbon-neutral-in-2021-and-beyond-301291782.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/greenidge-generatio...
  - mikestew 5y ago
    You're using their press release as a source? I can't tell if it's intended to be ironic or serious.
  - henearkr 5y ago
    Why would they operate out of a gas plant if they intend to be carbon neutral? Either they offset it by creating green electricity elsewhere, in which case they should be using that instead of gas in the first place, or either they are offseting using very slow "net-neutral" schemes such as agroforestry, in which case the harm they do will not be compensated until 30 years on.
    - josu 5y ago
      The answer is in the press release: Portfolio of Fully Accredited Carbon Offset Credits Starting June 1st
      - henearkr 5y ago
        Then it means a huge carbon footprint not offset until decades from now. (as carbon offsetting is typically slow) So their business is criminal.
p1mrx 5y ago
Seems like a good opportunity for governments to tax their carbon dioxide emissions. It would be easier to get public support for a carbon tax that only targets "unproductive" sources. Edit: What if governments just imposed a carbon tax on all crypto mining? The legal framework necessary to support that could be extended to cover other carbon sources in the future.
- MithrilTuxedo 5y ago
  Wouldn't it make more sense to tax fossil fuels as they leave the ground?
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    But if you did that then drivers would have to pay their fair share instead of pretending like bitcoin actually matters.
  - p1mrx 5y ago
    Yes, but I think Earth's general voting population is too short-sighted to support something like that.
  - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
    If all uses of a fossil fuel produces the exact same carbon output, but my understanding is that this is almost never the case.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - DennisP 5y ago
      Burning the same fuel is always going to produce the same amount of CO2. Here are the amounts, for various fuels: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php You might get more or less usable energy out of it depending on your efficiency, but if you're less efficient you'll have to burn more fuel (hence paying more tax, directly or as part of the price of fuel if it's taxed at the source).
chmod775 5y ago
> NY is pretty progressive and it would not surprise me if they crack down on this kind of thing The notion that a government which regulates and 'meddles' is progressive, as opposed to being the former normal from which we have departed, is historical revisionism and propaganda disseminated by those who oppose this kind of government.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by NickM 5y ago

CarelessExpert 5y ago

> The scariest part is that this is apparently insanely profitable for them. NY is pretty progressive and it would not surprise me if they crack down on this kind of thing, but other states or countries seem unlikely to do that. And this is why you need a carbon tax. These clowns are basically making money by turning negative externalities into bitcoin. And the best way to deal with a negative externality is to tax the heck out of those folks and thereby either a) make the activity unprofitable, or b) use the resulting revenues to plow into mitigation efforts to offset the effects of the externality.

lordnacho 5y ago
I don't get why the law separates between connected and disconnected power plants? Seems a lot less simple than just saying "everyone who pollutes pays x". This is also why carbon tax is gonna be a disappointment. There are way too many rules surrounding it, when really there should just be one carbon budget that every firm can try to buy some of on equal terms.
- bombcar 5y ago
  The law likely didn't consider disconnected power plants, as why would such a thing exist? I guess the only reason before bitcoin is a self-contained power plant to run a self-contained facility, and even those (like a datacenter) are often grid tied with the power plant as a backup.
  - p1mrx 5y ago
    I think this is an example of capitalism finding exploits in the legal system. We should try to patch this one quickly.
    - gwright 5y ago
      Capitalism isn't exploiting anything. People make the laws, people operate businesses. It isn't clear to me that these concerns are absent under any other system -- in fact I would argue that capitalism paired with a liberal representative democracy and strong individual rights is the best system for addressing any concerns.
      - p1mrx 5y ago
        I don't think capitalism is "wrong" for finding an exploit, but those liberal representative democracies should realize that turning retired power plants into miners is bad, and pass laws to prevent that business model from working.
        gwright 5y ago
        Why impugn "capitalism" when you could have just said that the business model has negative consequences that should be addressed via legislation? I was reacting to the non-sequitur that you were suggesting that somehow capitalism was at fault in this situation.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      I don't think people realize how much of things like the tax code are basically code patches to law to fix exploitable bugs.
jandrese 5y ago
Carbon taxes have come up in Congress from time to time, but the fossil fuel industries are much too politically connected. The excuse is usually that if you tax carbon all you do is move the polluters offshore, and since CO2 is a global problem it doesn't solve anything. Global problems need global solutions, but our international treaty systems are insufficient to make progress on this pressing issue. People still try, Kyoto was a heroic effort, but at the end of the day the incentives to cheat are powerful and thus the level of trust is very low.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > The excuse is usually that if you tax carbon all you do is move the polluters offshore, and since CO2 is a global problem it doesn't solve anything. Global problems need global solutions, but our international treaty systems are insufficient to make progress on this pressing issue. Which is, of course, ridiculous. They bought a coal power plant in New York, because it already existed. They're not going to disassemble it and transport it to China because that wouldn't be cost effective, so the alternative is that it would remain offline. Likewise, if people buy electric cars or high MPG hybrids in the US because there is a carbon tax, that reduces the CO2 emitted by the US independent of what anybody else does. It doesn't require any international agreement; you can just do it on your own. "What about global effects," you say. But that goes the other way. Africa doesn't buy new cars by and large, they buy used cars exported from America and Europe. If the new cars people buy in America or Europe become electric then they'll still be electric when they're the used cars sold to Africa. Oil is a global commodity. If America burns less then the price goes down. Which makes it cheaper for other countries to independently enact a carbon tax. Which they have the incentive to do because they get brownie points, and their domestic population doesn't rebel against a change that only keeps the price the same, and it generates revenue at the expense of the (foreign) oil companies. The more countries do this, the easier it is for the others to do it, at the expense of oil net exporters like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Nothing about this requires an international agreement or any kind of cooperation from anyone. Just enact a carbon tax and pay the revenue back to the population as a dividend. It will be extremely popular as soon as everybody gets the first check and realizes that they get back more than they paid because some of the money comes from oil companies and other corporations (who receive none of the dividend).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Why does the answer to everything have to be a tax that allows government to become even more bloated. If using computing power like this is so bad just make it illegal to use excessive computing power, why allow it but let the government scoop up the cream.
- jude- 5y ago
  > Why does the answer to everything have to be a tax that allows government to become even more bloated. Because assholes exist who will gladly burn the planet down to make a buck. > If using computing power like this is so bad just make it illegal to use excessive computing power, why allow it but let the government scoop up the cream. Because enforcing an effective regime on capping the amount of power each US resident can use for computing is considerably _more_ difficult (and results in _more_ bloat) than just taxing emissions.
  - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
    Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? If you think it would be structured in a way that would stop emissions you’re naive because tax makers would rather still make money than stop something. Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxes solve nothing and ONLY exist to keep poor people poor and middle class people middle class.
    - erentz 5y ago
      > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Most studies have found that increasing taxes on cigarettes does reduce smoking prevalence.
    - jude- 5y ago
      > Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? Easy: sanction their asses. We banned CFCs, remember? We didn't even need 100% compliance to be effective at repairing the ozone hole! > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxing alcohol and tobacco reduce their use, thereby reducing the harm they bring. [1] [2] [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204416 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [2] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043816 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publh...
josu 5y ago
This isn't correct, they are carbon neutral. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/greenidge-generation-bitcoin-mining-operation-to-be-carbon-neutral-in-2021-and-beyond-301291782.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/greenidge-generatio...
- mikestew 5y ago
  You're using their press release as a source? I can't tell if it's intended to be ironic or serious.
- henearkr 5y ago
  Why would they operate out of a gas plant if they intend to be carbon neutral? Either they offset it by creating green electricity elsewhere, in which case they should be using that instead of gas in the first place, or either they are offseting using very slow "net-neutral" schemes such as agroforestry, in which case the harm they do will not be compensated until 30 years on.
  - josu 5y ago
    The answer is in the press release: Portfolio of Fully Accredited Carbon Offset Credits Starting June 1st
    - henearkr 5y ago
      Then it means a huge carbon footprint not offset until decades from now. (as carbon offsetting is typically slow) So their business is criminal.

p1mrx 5y ago

Seems like a good opportunity for governments to tax their carbon dioxide emissions. It would be easier to get public support for a carbon tax that only targets "unproductive" sources. Edit: What if governments just imposed a carbon tax on all crypto mining? The legal framework necessary to support that could be extended to cover other carbon sources in the future.

MithrilTuxedo 5y ago
Wouldn't it make more sense to tax fossil fuels as they leave the ground?
- jeffbee 5y ago
  But if you did that then drivers would have to pay their fair share instead of pretending like bitcoin actually matters.
- p1mrx 5y ago
  Yes, but I think Earth's general voting population is too short-sighted to support something like that.
- only_as_i_fall 5y ago
  If all uses of a fossil fuel produces the exact same carbon output, but my understanding is that this is almost never the case.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Burning the same fuel is always going to produce the same amount of CO2. Here are the amounts, for various fuels: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php You might get more or less usable energy out of it depending on your efficiency, but if you're less efficient you'll have to burn more fuel (hence paying more tax, directly or as part of the price of fuel if it's taxed at the source).

chmod775 5y ago

> NY is pretty progressive and it would not surprise me if they crack down on this kind of thing The notion that a government which regulates and 'meddles' is progressive, as opposed to being the former normal from which we have departed, is historical revisionism and propaganda disseminated by those who oppose this kind of government.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]