3 ms·

It's cheaper for them to just flare the gas. The only thing that has made economic sense, as an alternative to flaring it, is to mine Bitcoin. I understand th

It's cheaper for them to just flare the gas. The only thing that has made economic sense, as an alternative to flaring it, is to mine Bitcoin. I understand the energy criticism, but flare gas is an example where Bitcoin mining actually makes something less polluting.

vmception 5y ago
Thanks for chiming in! Nice to see a new account understanding this issue and joining the fray. It has been fascinating to me to watch the disbelief evolve. One aspect of this is that negative reporting has been basically allowed and encouraged by miners because they didn't want competition on their cheaper renewable/captured energy sources. So, for years, many investment groups would discourage their renewable or captured energy activity to be citable source of what is happening with bitcoin mining, because they didn't want others with deeper connections to make partnerships with sites faster. Its really funny, to me, watching people have to redo their understanding but trying to make that understanding conform to the negative energy impact idea that they were intentionally led on with.
formerly_proven 5y ago
Three points - It's approximately a 180° pivot to go from "unused renewable energy" to "flare gas for green bitcoins" - It doesn't reduce the emissions. Whether you flare it or burn it in a gas turbine / engine driving a generator to mine bitcoin, the CO2 released is exactly the same, as you are burning ~100 % of the hydrocarbons either way. The difference is that one generates bitcoins, the other does not. This is only valuable to bitcoin stakeholders, and as has been pointed out up and down all these threads this is either of approximately no value or of negative value to society at large. And overall, creating the equipment to mine bitcoins with flare gas, and deploying that to remote oil fields w/ no use for gas, creates a bunch of emissions that simply don't exist if you just flare the gas. - There are non-emissive alternatives, e.g. gas re-injection. Note that the great majority of unwanted gas is already dealt with this way. This means that mining bitcoins using flare gas has a very good likelihood of increasing the share of unwanted gas that is effectively flared, again, increasing emissions. Reducing the amount of flared gas (and putting it through a turbine to mine bitcoin is the same as flaring it as far as emissions go) is in fact an UN IEA goal. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no free lunch and there is NO ecological way of randomly wasting energy.
- vmception 5y ago
  > - It's approximately a 180° pivot to go from "unused renewable energy" to "flare gas for green bitcoins" I wrote earlier to avoid this specific derailing. Renewable and captured are not synonymous but usually the same. This is one of the cases where it is not the same. To my knowledge, the only other captured sources are at hydroelectric plants, while some parties are interested in geothermal as well. Noteworthy is that “captured” seems to be also called “rejected” energy in some circles. > And overall, creating the equipment to mine bitcoins with flare gas, and deploying that to remote oil fields w/ no use for gas, creates a bunch of emissions that simply don't exist if you just flare the gas. Once. I’m not sure how a one time event is remotely comparable to ongoing issues. Please elaborate? > It doesn't reduce the emissions. Whether you flare it or burn it in a gas turbine / engine driving a generator to mine bitcoin, the CO2 released is exactly the same, as you are burning ~100 % of the hydrocarbons either way. The difference is that one generates bitcoins, the other does not. Hmm. Is there anything we can do about that then? Like does that format allow for further processing towards sustainability? The generating of bitcoin making it economical to do more with the CO2 that the oil guys just threw their hands up on decades ago? If this issue has nothing to do with bitcoin mining and the alternative is just business as usual with it going directly to the atmosphere like it already was, then why point fingers at the bitcoin mining?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

vmception 5y ago

Thanks for chiming in! Nice to see a new account understanding this issue and joining the fray. It has been fascinating to me to watch the disbelief evolve. One aspect of this is that negative reporting has been basically allowed and encouraged by miners because they didn't want competition on their cheaper renewable/captured energy sources. So, for years, many investment groups would discourage their renewable or captured energy activity to be citable source of what is happening with bitcoin mining, because they didn't want others with deeper connections to make partnerships with sites faster. Its really funny, to me, watching people have to redo their understanding but trying to make that understanding conform to the negative energy impact idea that they were intentionally led on with.

formerly_proven 5y ago

Three points - It's approximately a 180° pivot to go from "unused renewable energy" to "flare gas for green bitcoins" - It doesn't reduce the emissions. Whether you flare it or burn it in a gas turbine / engine driving a generator to mine bitcoin, the CO2 released is exactly the same, as you are burning ~100 % of the hydrocarbons either way. The difference is that one generates bitcoins, the other does not. This is only valuable to bitcoin stakeholders, and as has been pointed out up and down all these threads this is either of approximately no value or of negative value to society at large. And overall, creating the equipment to mine bitcoins with flare gas, and deploying that to remote oil fields w/ no use for gas, creates a bunch of emissions that simply don't exist if you just flare the gas. - There are non-emissive alternatives, e.g. gas re-injection. Note that the great majority of unwanted gas is already dealt with this way. This means that mining bitcoins using flare gas has a very good likelihood of increasing the share of unwanted gas that is effectively flared, again, increasing emissions. Reducing the amount of flared gas (and putting it through a turbine to mine bitcoin is the same as flaring it as far as emissions go) is in fact an UN IEA goal. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no free lunch and there is NO ecological way of randomly wasting energy.

vmception 5y ago
> - It's approximately a 180° pivot to go from "unused renewable energy" to "flare gas for green bitcoins" I wrote earlier to avoid this specific derailing. Renewable and captured are not synonymous but usually the same. This is one of the cases where it is not the same. To my knowledge, the only other captured sources are at hydroelectric plants, while some parties are interested in geothermal as well. Noteworthy is that “captured” seems to be also called “rejected” energy in some circles. > And overall, creating the equipment to mine bitcoins with flare gas, and deploying that to remote oil fields w/ no use for gas, creates a bunch of emissions that simply don't exist if you just flare the gas. Once. I’m not sure how a one time event is remotely comparable to ongoing issues. Please elaborate? > It doesn't reduce the emissions. Whether you flare it or burn it in a gas turbine / engine driving a generator to mine bitcoin, the CO2 released is exactly the same, as you are burning ~100 % of the hydrocarbons either way. The difference is that one generates bitcoins, the other does not. Hmm. Is there anything we can do about that then? Like does that format allow for further processing towards sustainability? The generating of bitcoin making it economical to do more with the CO2 that the oil guys just threw their hands up on decades ago? If this issue has nothing to do with bitcoin mining and the alternative is just business as usual with it going directly to the atmosphere like it already was, then why point fingers at the bitcoin mining?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]