7 ms·

Texas Bitcoin Miner Made Millions More in Power Credits Than Selling Bitcoin

17 points by ourmandave 4y ago

ars 4y ago
I'm a little conflicted here. On the one hand ramping these Bitcoin operations up and down helps smooth out demand for power which helps the grid. On the other hand it feels like such a waste to use power for this. Bitcoin seems like a great lesson in what happens when supply is constrained. Demand is what it is, and prices go up which incentivizes more people to mine and more miners means more difficulty and more difficulty means more power usage. A lesson for people trying to control climate change by controlling supply.
- rdtwo 4y ago
  In many cases the excess power is nearly free it’s like excess bandwidth capacity when you size for peak. The rest of the time it just sits idle
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    As long as miners ramp when ERCOT would've otherwise curtailed renewables (throwing that power away), I see no problem with their consumption. Using EIA generation mix data (which sites like electricitymap.org consume), it's straightforward to determine the carbon intensity of your current and forward looking electrical consumption and modify your operations accordingly (Google does this for datacenter workloads using electricitymap.org, for example). https://btuanalytics.com/power-and-renewables/wind-and-solar-curtailments-in-ercot/ https://btuanalytics.com/power-and-renewables/wind-and-solar... https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-TEX-ERCO?wind=false&solar=false https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-TEX-ERCO?wind=false&...
globalreset 4y ago
So they've got paid for stabilizing the grid, purchasing steady baseline demand upfront in advance, and then being flexible and allowing the network to use it when it critically needed it. Oh dear, turns out that Bitcoin mining can be actually very beneficial. Who would have thought? Definitely not the most vocal Bitcoin haters on HN. :)
- bob29 4y ago
  you can do that same thing without the bitcoin mining. the fact they got better returns on the energy market , they should have skipped the bitcoin part and used the extra capital they wasted on bitcoin miners to buy even more advance baseline generation to resell on the spot markets
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    You do understand that having those miners mean they make money during the time in which your scenario the facility would be a net negative (depreciation, maintenance, labor) while it would be idle or only selling energy at a low premium.
    - bob29 4y ago
      no facility, no maintenance, no labor. just as one can invest in commodities without owning a warehouse and taking physical possession of them. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A1_Houston_Office_Oil_Traders_on_Monday.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A1_Houston_Office_...
- janekm 4y ago
  There's a lot cheaper ways to burn energy than bitcoin miners though... and arguably ones more beneficial to society. Water desalination for example. Bauxite smelting. Hydrogen production.
  - ephbit 4y ago
    I agree. Using electricity for the things you mentioned would provide more benefits to society measured in material goods. The "problem" is, that obviously society apparently has measures of benefit that are more important than material goods: money. You're not going to teach businesses (that were given profit as their top priority .. by society!) to suddenly deviate from their given priorities and instead maximize material good xyz just because it's less controversial than money.

17 points by ourmandave 4y ago

ars 4y ago

I'm a little conflicted here. On the one hand ramping these Bitcoin operations up and down helps smooth out demand for power which helps the grid. On the other hand it feels like such a waste to use power for this. Bitcoin seems like a great lesson in what happens when supply is constrained. Demand is what it is, and prices go up which incentivizes more people to mine and more miners means more difficulty and more difficulty means more power usage. A lesson for people trying to control climate change by controlling supply.

rdtwo 4y ago
In many cases the excess power is nearly free it’s like excess bandwidth capacity when you size for peak. The rest of the time it just sits idle
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  As long as miners ramp when ERCOT would've otherwise curtailed renewables (throwing that power away), I see no problem with their consumption. Using EIA generation mix data (which sites like electricitymap.org consume), it's straightforward to determine the carbon intensity of your current and forward looking electrical consumption and modify your operations accordingly (Google does this for datacenter workloads using electricitymap.org, for example). https://btuanalytics.com/power-and-renewables/wind-and-solar-curtailments-in-ercot/ https://btuanalytics.com/power-and-renewables/wind-and-solar... https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-TEX-ERCO?wind=false&solar=false https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-TEX-ERCO?wind=false&...

globalreset 4y ago

So they've got paid for stabilizing the grid, purchasing steady baseline demand upfront in advance, and then being flexible and allowing the network to use it when it critically needed it. Oh dear, turns out that Bitcoin mining can be actually very beneficial. Who would have thought? Definitely not the most vocal Bitcoin haters on HN. :)

bob29 4y ago
you can do that same thing without the bitcoin mining. the fact they got better returns on the energy market , they should have skipped the bitcoin part and used the extra capital they wasted on bitcoin miners to buy even more advance baseline generation to resell on the spot markets
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  You do understand that having those miners mean they make money during the time in which your scenario the facility would be a net negative (depreciation, maintenance, labor) while it would be idle or only selling energy at a low premium.
  - bob29 4y ago
    no facility, no maintenance, no labor. just as one can invest in commodities without owning a warehouse and taking physical possession of them. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A1_Houston_Office_Oil_Traders_on_Monday.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A1_Houston_Office_...
janekm 4y ago
There's a lot cheaper ways to burn energy than bitcoin miners though... and arguably ones more beneficial to society. Water desalination for example. Bauxite smelting. Hydrogen production.
- ephbit 4y ago
  I agree. Using electricity for the things you mentioned would provide more benefits to society measured in material goods. The "problem" is, that obviously society apparently has measures of benefit that are more important than material goods: money. You're not going to teach businesses (that were given profit as their top priority .. by society!) to suddenly deviate from their given priorities and instead maximize material good xyz just because it's less controversial than money.