18 ms·

> Where Bitcoin mining is used to reduce flare gas emissions, it is reducing the environmental impact while increasing the amount of energy used. Emissions that

> Where Bitcoin mining is used to reduce flare gas emissions, it is reducing the environmental impact while increasing the amount of energy used. Emissions that were happening for decades, straight up into the atmosphere, but these people never even bothered to notice. A headline talking just about the amount of energy should therefore always be a big red flag as it is intended to manipulate you. Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. Burning gas that would have been flared to produce electricity to mine Bitcoin doesn't meaningfully reduce the environmental impact - all the carbon from the methane still ends up in the atmosphere. Furthemore, unless you think mining Bitcoin is actually useful to society, it still ends up in the atmosphere to no good purpose. The truth is that proof of work as implemented in Bitcoin is just a bad idea. It's elegant from a game theory and mathematical point of view, but practically, a complete waste and environmental mess.

vmception 5y ago
> Burning gas that would have been flared to produce electricity to mine Bitcoin doesn't meaningfully reduce the environmental impact - all the carbon from the methane still ends up in the atmosphere. They just use a catalytic converter, it's not that complicated. There is a decent consensus on that kind of device reducing carbon and methane compared to the absence of one.
- walnutclosefarm 5y ago
  In some theoretical world that doesn't actually exist, you could use carbon capture and storage technology (which is a catalytic process, but is far from as simply as bolting on a catalytic converter to something) to mitigate the carbon from burning methane. But the electricity you'd get would be far too expensive to build a mining operation on. For what you're describing to be viable, the mining group would have to pay for 1) the technology to capture the flare gas and transport it to a generating station (all doable, but the reason the gas is being flared in the first place is because it's not cost effective to do so); 2) CCS technology for the generating plant (again, a known tech that because of cost is used only where there is a market for the CO2 byproduct; 3) some kind of deep geological or other storage for the CO2, or they'd have to find a new market for the gas that did not result in its eventual release. And after all that is done, you'd have electricity that cost enough you couldn't make mining pay, and it would also be true that the electricity you so generated could, given all that you've done, be sold and used for some actually useful, environmentally sound project. The notion that flare gas somehow solves the environmental impact problem of mining is a rationalized fantasy, in other words.
  - vmception 5y ago
    > 1) the technology to capture the flare gas and transport it to a generating station (all doable, but the reason the gas is being flared in the first place is because it's not cost effective to do so) That's why they don't transport it, they do it on premise. The transportation issue is why all other use cases have failed and mining does not because of the low infrastructure demands. > 2) CCS technology for the generating plant (again, a known tech that because of cost is used only where there is a market for the CO2 byproduct; I'm not sure exactly what this means, but the miners use their own capital for the infrastructure demands necessary, or partner with the site to invest in this. But usually because the sites don't want to take any risk to their fossil fuel operation and also don't really understand the value of the digital commodity, the miners have to prove the system themselves and make this as frictionless as possible to the site they are proposing to attach to. Each company and site and state is different so I really think its up to you to prove 1) and 2) are in fact not happening, or not happening to your standard. Or maybe you feel the standard is levied on me. In any case how about we have a discussion about it, I believe its happening OR can be improved upon and I think your sentiment is valid and can be directed at pointing out HOW it can be improved, which unfortunately requires you to move to "lets improve proof of work" instead of "rationalized fantasy for this super bad problem for this ridiculously inefficient use case". So I understand the challenge of having that conversation, I just think you might find it interesting. > 3) some kind of deep geological or other storage for the CO2, or they'd have to find a new market for the gas that did not result in its eventual release. There is no storage as it is used on demand. The amount not used is still flared. The mining operation usually aspires to use as much as possible per site.
    - walnutclosefarm 5y ago
      We can have a discussion. I agree on your response to my first point - if they put their mining rigs at the wellhead, they can avoid the transport infrastructure cost. I know there is a company in Texas that does that. But they are still burning the methane, which means they are producing CO2. They are undoubtedly reducing the greenhouse burden, since they can burn a higher fraction of the gas than the flare does, and methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. But everything else I wrote is still true. You have to have a carbon capture and storage system (CCS) on the exhaust pipe of your methane powered generator (which will not be a highly efficient combined cycle gas turbine, BTW, but a big old internal combustion engine of lower efficiency). Capturing carbon requires a whole additional set of infrastructure and inputs (the CC in CCS) (which is why there are only a couple of dozen carbon capturing gas power plants in the world), and then you end up with CO2 gas, which you must permanently sequester somehow (Storage - the S in CCS). If there is anyone doing that at the back end of a mining rig, I have never seen a reference to it. And here's the thing - if you're going to go through the trouble of building a mini generator set up at the wellhead, and you can produce cost-advantageous electricity by doing so, you could in most cases be feeding that back into the electrical grid, so that at least something useful is done with it. Using it to solve throw-away mathematical problems is still a waste of energy.

vmception 5y ago

> Burning gas that would have been flared to produce electricity to mine Bitcoin doesn't meaningfully reduce the environmental impact - all the carbon from the methane still ends up in the atmosphere. They just use a catalytic converter, it's not that complicated. There is a decent consensus on that kind of device reducing carbon and methane compared to the absence of one.

walnutclosefarm 5y ago
In some theoretical world that doesn't actually exist, you could use carbon capture and storage technology (which is a catalytic process, but is far from as simply as bolting on a catalytic converter to something) to mitigate the carbon from burning methane. But the electricity you'd get would be far too expensive to build a mining operation on. For what you're describing to be viable, the mining group would have to pay for 1) the technology to capture the flare gas and transport it to a generating station (all doable, but the reason the gas is being flared in the first place is because it's not cost effective to do so); 2) CCS technology for the generating plant (again, a known tech that because of cost is used only where there is a market for the CO2 byproduct; 3) some kind of deep geological or other storage for the CO2, or they'd have to find a new market for the gas that did not result in its eventual release. And after all that is done, you'd have electricity that cost enough you couldn't make mining pay, and it would also be true that the electricity you so generated could, given all that you've done, be sold and used for some actually useful, environmentally sound project. The notion that flare gas somehow solves the environmental impact problem of mining is a rationalized fantasy, in other words.
- vmception 5y ago
  > 1) the technology to capture the flare gas and transport it to a generating station (all doable, but the reason the gas is being flared in the first place is because it's not cost effective to do so) That's why they don't transport it, they do it on premise. The transportation issue is why all other use cases have failed and mining does not because of the low infrastructure demands. > 2) CCS technology for the generating plant (again, a known tech that because of cost is used only where there is a market for the CO2 byproduct; I'm not sure exactly what this means, but the miners use their own capital for the infrastructure demands necessary, or partner with the site to invest in this. But usually because the sites don't want to take any risk to their fossil fuel operation and also don't really understand the value of the digital commodity, the miners have to prove the system themselves and make this as frictionless as possible to the site they are proposing to attach to. Each company and site and state is different so I really think its up to you to prove 1) and 2) are in fact not happening, or not happening to your standard. Or maybe you feel the standard is levied on me. In any case how about we have a discussion about it, I believe its happening OR can be improved upon and I think your sentiment is valid and can be directed at pointing out HOW it can be improved, which unfortunately requires you to move to "lets improve proof of work" instead of "rationalized fantasy for this super bad problem for this ridiculously inefficient use case". So I understand the challenge of having that conversation, I just think you might find it interesting. > 3) some kind of deep geological or other storage for the CO2, or they'd have to find a new market for the gas that did not result in its eventual release. There is no storage as it is used on demand. The amount not used is still flared. The mining operation usually aspires to use as much as possible per site.
  - walnutclosefarm 5y ago
    We can have a discussion. I agree on your response to my first point - if they put their mining rigs at the wellhead, they can avoid the transport infrastructure cost. I know there is a company in Texas that does that. But they are still burning the methane, which means they are producing CO2. They are undoubtedly reducing the greenhouse burden, since they can burn a higher fraction of the gas than the flare does, and methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. But everything else I wrote is still true. You have to have a carbon capture and storage system (CCS) on the exhaust pipe of your methane powered generator (which will not be a highly efficient combined cycle gas turbine, BTW, but a big old internal combustion engine of lower efficiency). Capturing carbon requires a whole additional set of infrastructure and inputs (the CC in CCS) (which is why there are only a couple of dozen carbon capturing gas power plants in the world), and then you end up with CO2 gas, which you must permanently sequester somehow (Storage - the S in CCS). If there is anyone doing that at the back end of a mining rig, I have never seen a reference to it. And here's the thing - if you're going to go through the trouble of building a mini generator set up at the wellhead, and you can produce cost-advantageous electricity by doing so, you could in most cases be feeding that back into the electrical grid, so that at least something useful is done with it. Using it to solve throw-away mathematical problems is still a waste of energy.