4 ms·

Genuinely curious: how does burning methane to generate electricity make an organization carbon negative? Do you have a reference for this? I understand that m

• yieldcrv 4y ago
  The methane gas has already been burned for decades, adding bitcoin to the equation just made you look No other use case has been profitable for the gas by products so the sites pump it directly into the atmosphere Bitcoin mining is profitable and so the methane is not burned into the atmosphere, the molecules are stripped for electricity in simple catalytic converters and energy used on the spot (some sites are completely disconnected from the grid, these are the best use cases of this. others are connected to the grid which gets the most debate. in both cases no other solution exists in bitcoin mining’s absence and there was no political will to meet climate goals ever) So the solution solves itself simply because it is an environmental solution that is profitable
  • drtz 4y ago
    I asked my question because I doubted the assertion being made without any math to back it up. It seems unlikely that 1) this could ever be a significant enough amount of Bitcoin mining energy to make Bitcoin "carbon neutral", and 2) if it ever did become a significant source of energy for Bitcoin, it would likely also be viable for other uses, eliminating the carbon offset argument I'm not doubting that you can put a cheap and inefficient boiler generator on top of a methane flare and label it "green energy."
    • yieldcrv 4y ago
      1) North America has lots of this kind of energy. Gigawatts/hr being spewed into the atmosphere as an unprofitable waste byproduct as is. 2) Transporting this energy is a cost. Storing and then transporting the energy is a cost. And other kinds of computation on site requires much greater infrastructure, like internet and big box data centers, which these remote sites do not have. Bitcoin mining barely needs any internet bandwidth and doesn't need a low latency connection either. It creates an asset that can be easily sold to people willing to buy that asset at a price far greater than the costs to create it. Its important to understand that these are partnerships between two companies. The existing energy producer who is taking a risk on a dangerous operation, largely technophobic and takes far too long to understand how it benefits them. And a separate crypto mining company searching for cheap energy, driven purely by the market. The mining company sees the energy. The energy producer needs to reduce their waste byproducts. Its semantics and pure coincidence about whether “less hydrocarbons billowing directly into the atmosphere” meets your criteria for “carbon offset” or “green energy”, its also what happens
  • actionfromafar 4y ago
    Interesting framing. I'd frame it as Bitcoin having a local unexpected environmental positive externality. (As opposed to negative, which it has most other places without an unplugged methane leak.)
    • taolegal 4y ago
      It's not negative or unexpected. Bitcoin naturally uses the cheapest energy it can find (arbitrage), which usually ends up being stranded energy. Something like a third of all electricity generated is wasted. So the idea that Bitcoin is unique compared to any other arbitrary & subjective use of energy is just anti-Bitcoin propaganda & green dis-information. Whereas it may be difficult for one reason or another to transmit energy from where it's most abundant (a desert, or other remote areas), it's not hard to co-locate miners in those places & incentivize further development & utilization of that energy resource.
      • actionfromafar 4y ago
        Does the expression "perverse incentives" mean anything? This argument is like energy incentives in the world were mostly fine, except that some energy was stranded and could only be picked up by Bitcoin. For something that is supposed to "change the System" it for sure is often pitched like the System can never change. That missing (enforcement of) regulation makes it economically beneficial to just vent methane without even flaring, is not something to celebrate. It's nice that the incentives lined up decently, this time. We should work on fixing the incentives so the methane can stay in the ground where it belongs. Don't dig that well. Say, you have access to cheap hydro power somewhere. The powerlines are not yet completed to export the electricity to where it could be more useful. Along comes a Bitcoin factory and sets up shop. Suddenly, the incentives are not in favour of ever completing that powerline, for benefits amortized over decades, when you can sell that sweet, sweet Bitcoin today. Of course, the owners of the Bitcoin factory would never try to exert their influence and try to keep their cheap source of hydro power, or keep the methane flowing. /s I will make sure to bring popcorn for the future culture wars between ETH and BTC, now that their incentives are so divorced.
  • mamajackz11 4y ago
    Exactly and a play for corporate strategy.