3 ms·

A positive side effect of your (1.) scenario is that it results in a surplus of renewable energy (mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is gener

A positive side effect of your (1.) scenario is that it results in a surplus of renewable energy (mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest). Having a surplus of cheap green energy is probably good for the economy, though a lot more than 1% would probably be needed to see significant benefits.

oblio 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window Or we could just have a surplus of green energy for everything else we need. And how can we even have a surplus of green energy when we're probably at a 90% of world energy production deficit?
righttoolforjob 5y ago
> mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest The cheapest energy is the cheapest. It has nothing directly to do with it being renewable.
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  Right. The point is that you get renewable energy which is desirable rather than non-renewable energy. If the latter were cheaper the situation would be less appealing.
  - righttoolforjob 5y ago
    If it was cheaper there would be no need for bitcoin as a driver (and then also to completely waste it, in the broken window fallacy sense).
    - dan-robertson 5y ago
      I feel like we’re talking past each other. I’m not saying we should want bitcoin wasting a bunch of power. I’m saying there could be positive outcomes to that power suddenly becoming available.
- d0gbread 5y ago
  I'm interpreting your comment as: x = x As if that's insightful. But in the spirit of HN, can you say more? My understanding is that renewables are the cheapest and will likely continue to trend in that direction, causation or not. So are you suggesting maybe there's a chance of a super inexpensive non-renewable overtaking this trend?
  - righttoolforjob 5y ago
    I was responding to someone's argument along the lines of mining needs energy, the cheapest energy is renewable, therefore mining would drive an increase in the supply of renewable energy, and a forthcoming decline of mining would free up a supply of renewable energy. I broke this chain of logic by pointing out that renewable is an unnecessary consideration and that mining activities will choose the cheapest option regardless of its renewability. Furthermore I claim that renewable is not the cheapest. Various subsidies aside, renewable is often many times more expensive to deliver where and when required. The total system cost is many times higher.
    - dan-robertson 5y ago
      I’m really struggling to understand what you’ve written. I certainly don’t feel like my “chain of logic” has been broken. Maybe I just don’t understand your argument. Or maybe I’m just being stupid. To be clear, I think: - having surplus (or cheaper) energy is good - generating relatively more energy through renewable resources is good - renewable energy is cheaper and so lower energy prices promote renewable energy more (but also reduce the supply in general) - Current bitcoin mining increases demand and therefore generation and, to some extent, prices while supply catches up - a drop in bitcoin mining would lead to a surplus of (renewable) energy which I think would be good Can you help me find what the source of confusion is?
paulgb 5y ago
How does adding demand for something create a surplus of it? I think you have that backwards.
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  Scenario 1 involves a crash where mining is no longer being done. So there is a drop in demand.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    Scenario 1 involves POWcoiners wasting a lot of energy for several years generating tokens which end up being worthless, keeping coal plants which could otherwise have been decommissioned open for longer to service the resulting higher energy demand, and then when the mining stops and the coal plants can finally be shut down, telling the rest of the world it's only thanks to their energy usage over the last few years that we've been investing in renewables for the last few decades It's like claiming that if I steal a percentage of your paycheck for a few years and until the government stops me, leaving you with more disposable income than when I was stealing it, I've actually helped you by encouraging you to work really hard.
DonHopkins 5y ago
A positive side effect of hitting your hand with a hammer is a surplus of morphine your doctor prescribes to make you stop feeling it, and a surplus of lithium your psychiatrist prescribes to make you stop doing it. And no, renewable energy isn't generally the cheapest, coal is. (Until you factor in the health care and funeral service costs.) Bitcoin is just China's way of exporting coal through the atmosphere.
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourc... It may be the case that coal is cheaper if you ignore the capital cost of the plant (e.g. running an old plant beyond its design life) but including capital costs amortised over the lifetime of the plant coal is not even cheaper than natural gas. My understanding is that a major source of electricity used for bitcoin mining in China was hydro power during the wet season (when there is a natural power surplus because the level in the dam must be reduced)
- Applejinx 5y ago
  Illegal coal is. Because if your plant has been shut down for being too dirty, you have no other option but to continue to operate illegally or just straight up die, and bitcoin is by FAR the best option for consuming that illegal-dirty-plant energy. The reason it's the cheapest is that you're negotiating with somebody who is desperate and has no options left. They have to sell the energy to you for bitcoin production because there's literally nowhere else they can turn. The more green energy proliferates and climate change action expands, the more of these plants will be reduced to this desperation. The worst energy production is the cheapest, so long as it's been outlawed and the plant has no other options.

oblio 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window Or we could just have a surplus of green energy for everything else we need. And how can we even have a surplus of green energy when we're probably at a 90% of world energy production deficit?

righttoolforjob 5y ago

> mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest The cheapest energy is the cheapest. It has nothing directly to do with it being renewable.

dan-robertson 5y ago
Right. The point is that you get renewable energy which is desirable rather than non-renewable energy. If the latter were cheaper the situation would be less appealing.
- righttoolforjob 5y ago
  If it was cheaper there would be no need for bitcoin as a driver (and then also to completely waste it, in the broken window fallacy sense).
  - dan-robertson 5y ago
    I feel like we’re talking past each other. I’m not saying we should want bitcoin wasting a bunch of power. I’m saying there could be positive outcomes to that power suddenly becoming available.
d0gbread 5y ago
I'm interpreting your comment as: x = x As if that's insightful. But in the spirit of HN, can you say more? My understanding is that renewables are the cheapest and will likely continue to trend in that direction, causation or not. So are you suggesting maybe there's a chance of a super inexpensive non-renewable overtaking this trend?
- righttoolforjob 5y ago
  I was responding to someone's argument along the lines of mining needs energy, the cheapest energy is renewable, therefore mining would drive an increase in the supply of renewable energy, and a forthcoming decline of mining would free up a supply of renewable energy. I broke this chain of logic by pointing out that renewable is an unnecessary consideration and that mining activities will choose the cheapest option regardless of its renewability. Furthermore I claim that renewable is not the cheapest. Various subsidies aside, renewable is often many times more expensive to deliver where and when required. The total system cost is many times higher.
  - dan-robertson 5y ago
    I’m really struggling to understand what you’ve written. I certainly don’t feel like my “chain of logic” has been broken. Maybe I just don’t understand your argument. Or maybe I’m just being stupid. To be clear, I think: - having surplus (or cheaper) energy is good - generating relatively more energy through renewable resources is good - renewable energy is cheaper and so lower energy prices promote renewable energy more (but also reduce the supply in general) - Current bitcoin mining increases demand and therefore generation and, to some extent, prices while supply catches up - a drop in bitcoin mining would lead to a surplus of (renewable) energy which I think would be good Can you help me find what the source of confusion is?

paulgb 5y ago

How does adding demand for something create a surplus of it? I think you have that backwards.

dan-robertson 5y ago
Scenario 1 involves a crash where mining is no longer being done. So there is a drop in demand.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Scenario 1 involves POWcoiners wasting a lot of energy for several years generating tokens which end up being worthless, keeping coal plants which could otherwise have been decommissioned open for longer to service the resulting higher energy demand, and then when the mining stops and the coal plants can finally be shut down, telling the rest of the world it's only thanks to their energy usage over the last few years that we've been investing in renewables for the last few decades It's like claiming that if I steal a percentage of your paycheck for a few years and until the government stops me, leaving you with more disposable income than when I was stealing it, I've actually helped you by encouraging you to work really hard.

DonHopkins 5y ago

A positive side effect of hitting your hand with a hammer is a surplus of morphine your doctor prescribes to make you stop feeling it, and a surplus of lithium your psychiatrist prescribes to make you stop doing it. And no, renewable energy isn't generally the cheapest, coal is. (Until you factor in the health care and funeral service costs.) Bitcoin is just China's way of exporting coal through the atmosphere.

dan-robertson 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourc... It may be the case that coal is cheaper if you ignore the capital cost of the plant (e.g. running an old plant beyond its design life) but including capital costs amortised over the lifetime of the plant coal is not even cheaper than natural gas. My understanding is that a major source of electricity used for bitcoin mining in China was hydro power during the wet season (when there is a natural power surplus because the level in the dam must be reduced)
Applejinx 5y ago
Illegal coal is. Because if your plant has been shut down for being too dirty, you have no other option but to continue to operate illegally or just straight up die, and bitcoin is by FAR the best option for consuming that illegal-dirty-plant energy. The reason it's the cheapest is that you're negotiating with somebody who is desperate and has no options left. They have to sell the energy to you for bitcoin production because there's literally nowhere else they can turn. The more green energy proliferates and climate change action expands, the more of these plants will be reduced to this desperation. The worst energy production is the cheapest, so long as it's been outlawed and the plant has no other options.