4 ms·

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

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?