6 ms·

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 w

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.
  - janekm 4y ago
    For sure. Hopefully the digital currencies will price themselves out of that market (and perhaps put pressure to put the less energy burning protocol variants into production). To really give the right incentives to businesses probably requires some form of carbon taxes, very hard to get right but not sure we have a choice as a lifeform...
just_boost_it 4y ago
Just burning off energy is the worst way I can think of providing this service.
Tarsul 4y ago
this reminds me of the hero trope in RPGs (e.g. Secret of Mana?): The hero is responsible that his village is overrun by monsters. In the end he saves the village from those monsters and is praised as a hero :) (yes, bitcoin miners are not the only ones responsible for energy shortage, but let's not kid ourselves that they are helping.)
freemint 4y ago
If they hadn't consumed the electricity with mining (and didn't have a long term contract) before the money would go to utilities instead which could use it to invest in the grid.

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.
- janekm 4y ago
  For sure. Hopefully the digital currencies will price themselves out of that market (and perhaps put pressure to put the less energy burning protocol variants into production). To really give the right incentives to businesses probably requires some form of carbon taxes, very hard to get right but not sure we have a choice as a lifeform...

just_boost_it 4y ago

Just burning off energy is the worst way I can think of providing this service.

Tarsul 4y ago

this reminds me of the hero trope in RPGs (e.g. Secret of Mana?): The hero is responsible that his village is overrun by monsters. In the end he saves the village from those monsters and is praised as a hero :) (yes, bitcoin miners are not the only ones responsible for energy shortage, but let's not kid ourselves that they are helping.)

freemint 4y ago

If they hadn't consumed the electricity with mining (and didn't have a long term contract) before the money would go to utilities instead which could use it to invest in the grid.