4 ms·

While the energy usage of Proof-of-Stake systems like Bitcoin does seem embarrassingly excessive at first glance, I think there's more nuance here than it first

While the energy usage of Proof-of-Stake systems like Bitcoin does seem embarrassingly excessive at first glance, I think there's more nuance here than it first may appear. One of the problems with renewables is that they are spike-y and there's a limit to how much you can control the spike. When renewable sources peak, they can put more energy into the grid than the grid can safely handle (too much power can cause damage). Battery storage tech is currently lacking for dealing with this (though https://www.energyvault.com/ https://www.energyvault.com/ has an interesting take on this) and power degrades quickly when sent over power-lines, so that limits distribution over long distances. In some scenarios, when energy becomes too plentiful, power companies may actually start charging negative costs - ie, they pay people to take more power out of the grid. When you combine these two factors, power producers have an economic incentive not to use renewables. Enter Bitcoin - paying for power consumption is a huge component of operating costs. Mining rigs that are positioned near renewable power sources have an advantage in that they can just stop mining when energy prices get too high and start mining when energy prices are low enough. This provides a profitable way for miners and renewable power suppliers to operate together. Deployed properly, Bitcoin mining actually improves the economics of renewables. Because doing so improves the profitability of mining, there is an economic incentive for miners to move toward renewables and build infrastructure that only mines when it is most profitable - ie, the times when not mining actually hurts renewable efforts. NOTE: in theory non-cryptocurrency applications could serve this same role to make renewables more economical, but many applications have an always-on requirement; you can't run a data center only when the sun shines, but you can mine crypto only then.

StewardMcOy 5y ago
If that were the only energy used for blockchains, then that would definitely eliminate the environmental arguments against cryptocurrencies, but I doubt you could run large blockchains on only renewable spikes. Even then, if battery tech improves enough, I think there's a compelling case to be made that the spike energy is better sent there than to mining rigs.
- joshmarlow 5y ago
  > if battery tech improves enough, I think there's a compelling case to be made that the spike energy is better sent there than to mining rigs. I don't exactly disagree - with better storage tech, we could put the energy to more immediate uses. But why postpone improving the economics of renewables until we have better battery tech (which has an unknown timeline)?
  - StewardMcOy 5y ago
    There are a few reasons I can think of. I'll be upfront about the iffiest of them. I philosophically don't like the notion of digital scarcity. I've blogged about it [1] before, but in short, capitalism is a pretty good system for dealing with scarcity in the physical world, but like any system, it doesn't work well for everyone. Cryptocurrencies can allow those who have been failed by the existing capitalist system to improve or worsen their situation, but they do so by introducing digital scarcity, which doesn't make more sense. Increasing the number of capitalistic systems on the Internet reinforces the capitalistic systems in the physical world, and I believe the flaws of capitalism can't be solved by more capitalism in the long term. Secondly, renewables have been falling in price long before cryptocurrency mining picked up. The economics of renewables don't need the help. But more realistically, as I alluded to upthread, blockchains don't only run on renewable spikes. Even if they ran on 100% renewables, that would mean solar panels, dams, and wind/wave farms would be rolled out specifically for mining. There's also the mining rigs that are constructed. That equals rare earth mineral mining, manufacturing, and transportation of resources for the sole purpose of cryptocurrency mining, and those actions all have environmental consequences. When those consequences are in furtherance of something that I think is a net negative for society, I'd rather have the resources used for something else. [1] https://meipouchou.com/blog/web3-metaverse-lain/ https://meipouchou.com/blog/web3-metaverse-lain/

StewardMcOy 5y ago

If that were the only energy used for blockchains, then that would definitely eliminate the environmental arguments against cryptocurrencies, but I doubt you could run large blockchains on only renewable spikes. Even then, if battery tech improves enough, I think there's a compelling case to be made that the spike energy is better sent there than to mining rigs.

joshmarlow 5y ago
> if battery tech improves enough, I think there's a compelling case to be made that the spike energy is better sent there than to mining rigs. I don't exactly disagree - with better storage tech, we could put the energy to more immediate uses. But why postpone improving the economics of renewables until we have better battery tech (which has an unknown timeline)?
- StewardMcOy 5y ago
  There are a few reasons I can think of. I'll be upfront about the iffiest of them. I philosophically don't like the notion of digital scarcity. I've blogged about it [1] before, but in short, capitalism is a pretty good system for dealing with scarcity in the physical world, but like any system, it doesn't work well for everyone. Cryptocurrencies can allow those who have been failed by the existing capitalist system to improve or worsen their situation, but they do so by introducing digital scarcity, which doesn't make more sense. Increasing the number of capitalistic systems on the Internet reinforces the capitalistic systems in the physical world, and I believe the flaws of capitalism can't be solved by more capitalism in the long term. Secondly, renewables have been falling in price long before cryptocurrency mining picked up. The economics of renewables don't need the help. But more realistically, as I alluded to upthread, blockchains don't only run on renewable spikes. Even if they ran on 100% renewables, that would mean solar panels, dams, and wind/wave farms would be rolled out specifically for mining. There's also the mining rigs that are constructed. That equals rare earth mineral mining, manufacturing, and transportation of resources for the sole purpose of cryptocurrency mining, and those actions all have environmental consequences. When those consequences are in furtherance of something that I think is a net negative for society, I'd rather have the resources used for something else. [1] https://meipouchou.com/blog/web3-metaverse-lain/ https://meipouchou.com/blog/web3-metaverse-lain/