3 ms·

> It lowers the energy cost for bitcoin miners well enough, it doesn't lower the exploration price for flaring sites enough, just reduces their emissions Anoth

by giaour 5y ago

> It lowers the energy cost for bitcoin miners well enough, it doesn't lower the exploration price for flaring sites enough, just reduces their emissions Another commenter pointed this out, but whether the flare gas gets burned or not is orthogonal to what is done with the energy produced thereby. Oil wells are supposed to burn flare gas, but it's hard to capture and sell that energy, so it's mostly just released as heat. I'll grant that a well that is selling this energy is more likely to quickly notice and plug a flare gas leak, but that's the only real differentiating factor in terms of emissions.

8note 5y ago
That's a good differentiator though. As methane, the gas is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas, and leaks are a persistent problem with natural gas
- giaour 5y ago
  You're not wrong! Ideally there would be other ways to monetize flare gas capture, but it's hard to find something economically productive that requires minimal data in or out and just requires raw compute.
vmception 5y ago
> but it's hard to capture and sell that energy Correct. And thats where bitcoin miners have filled in a void. There is a massive amount of energy still remaining to be used this way.
- giaour 5y ago
  You don't have to capture the energy. Unless you believe bitcoin is the future of money, burning the gas to look at the pretty lights is just as productive. Where we're disagreeing is that I think bitcoin mining is a waste of energy, even if the energy feeding into it is "free." It's not actually free, since there's a capital cost (and associated environmental impact) plus the negative market impact of artificially lowering the cost of oil. But even if the energy were completely free, it's just a more complicated way to waste this energy that would be wasted anyway. Bitcoin mining would also crowd out any economically productive use for this energy (should any be devised in the future).
  - vmception 5y ago
    > Bitcoin mining would also crowd out any economically productive use for this energy (should any be devised in the future). There was at best 2 decades, and at worst 100 years, for other economically productive uses of the energy. So, here we are. > I think bitcoin mining is a waste of energy Yes, you are correct we disagree here, but one difference is that your standard is unfalsifiable. It only takes one person to say bitcoin is useful for them, and it requires you to ignore them, no matter how many of "thems" there are. I think the energy is neither wasted, I think the energy does not have another use case at these kind of sites, and I don't think it lowers the cost of oil, only reduces emissions. Chiseling around the edges of the emissions problem, not being the cure, and not inherently increasing emissions. Thats a net positive (if these kinds of sites become and remain dominant)
    - giaour 5y ago
      I still don't understand how this reduces emissions, though. Flare gas is always burned, hence the name. That would make the whole setup neutral, not negative. Once you include the emissions used to produce the equipment, you're back into net positive carbon production. Are you counting the emissions saved by the same mining operation not consuming an alternative power source? > It only takes one person to say bitcoin is useful for them, and it requires you to ignore them, no matter how many of "thems" there are. It's more of a tragedy of the commons. I don't doubt that some individuals have found an aspect of bitcoin to be helpful to them. People are very public about how useful cryptocurrency can be for evading capital movement restrictions or conducting illegal business activity, but that doesn't automatically mean the whole ecosystem is a net positive to society. Think of nuclear or biological weapons as an analogy: possessing them is useful to state actors or individual terrorists/supervillains, but their existence sure does make the world a worse place.

by giaour 5y ago

8note 5y ago

That's a good differentiator though. As methane, the gas is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas, and leaks are a persistent problem with natural gas

giaour 5y ago
You're not wrong! Ideally there would be other ways to monetize flare gas capture, but it's hard to find something economically productive that requires minimal data in or out and just requires raw compute.

vmception 5y ago

> but it's hard to capture and sell that energy Correct. And thats where bitcoin miners have filled in a void. There is a massive amount of energy still remaining to be used this way.

giaour 5y ago
You don't have to capture the energy. Unless you believe bitcoin is the future of money, burning the gas to look at the pretty lights is just as productive. Where we're disagreeing is that I think bitcoin mining is a waste of energy, even if the energy feeding into it is "free." It's not actually free, since there's a capital cost (and associated environmental impact) plus the negative market impact of artificially lowering the cost of oil. But even if the energy were completely free, it's just a more complicated way to waste this energy that would be wasted anyway. Bitcoin mining would also crowd out any economically productive use for this energy (should any be devised in the future).
- vmception 5y ago
  > Bitcoin mining would also crowd out any economically productive use for this energy (should any be devised in the future). There was at best 2 decades, and at worst 100 years, for other economically productive uses of the energy. So, here we are. > I think bitcoin mining is a waste of energy Yes, you are correct we disagree here, but one difference is that your standard is unfalsifiable. It only takes one person to say bitcoin is useful for them, and it requires you to ignore them, no matter how many of "thems" there are. I think the energy is neither wasted, I think the energy does not have another use case at these kind of sites, and I don't think it lowers the cost of oil, only reduces emissions. Chiseling around the edges of the emissions problem, not being the cure, and not inherently increasing emissions. Thats a net positive (if these kinds of sites become and remain dominant)
  - giaour 5y ago
    I still don't understand how this reduces emissions, though. Flare gas is always burned, hence the name. That would make the whole setup neutral, not negative. Once you include the emissions used to produce the equipment, you're back into net positive carbon production. Are you counting the emissions saved by the same mining operation not consuming an alternative power source? > It only takes one person to say bitcoin is useful for them, and it requires you to ignore them, no matter how many of "thems" there are. It's more of a tragedy of the commons. I don't doubt that some individuals have found an aspect of bitcoin to be helpful to them. People are very public about how useful cryptocurrency can be for evading capital movement restrictions or conducting illegal business activity, but that doesn't automatically mean the whole ecosystem is a net positive to society. Think of nuclear or biological weapons as an analogy: possessing them is useful to state actors or individual terrorists/supervillains, but their existence sure does make the world a worse place.