3 ms·

> about 40% of bitcoin mining is either reducing emissions from another source I'm skeptical of this. The only way I know that Bitcoin mining can reduce emiss

by danans 4y ago

> about 40% of bitcoin mining is either reducing emissions from another source I'm skeptical of this. The only way I know that Bitcoin mining can reduce emissions is if all else equal, the waste heat from a mining facility is used to displace fossil fuels that would otherwise be used for heating purposes. That amount can't be significant in the context of Bitcoin mining's overall massive energy use. If you are referring to demand smoothing by filling demand with mining when other types of demand fall, that has more to do with avoiding short cycling of fossil fuels based generation facilities and thereby maximizing their utilization/revenue and little to do with cutting emissions. At most you could argue that avoiding peak load periods by curtailing mining is avoiding the worst emissions, but that is again a drop in the bucket of the massive emissions. Care to explain or cite this claim if you have examples of reducing the emissions of other fossil energy sources?

yieldcrv 4y ago
I’ll explain and you’ll have enough information to find corroborating citations, for most of this its a symbiotic relationship at fracking sites, where some byproducts are flared into the atmosphere, this is called flare gas methane (worse than CO2) and hydrocarbons are flared directly into the atmosphere bitcoin mining companies move operations on premise and use the gas directly to power their machines before it is flared, thereby reducing emissions. Some but industrial catalyctic converters reduce the emissions substantially, leaving some H2O and some CO2 flare sites have problems growing due to state and federal regulations if their emissions are too high, so their desperation results in many ways to help make mining company presence a sweetheart deal in the energy rates the miners receive. (but they still arent expanding, yet, as they get exemptions from the regulations and are courting miners because of the threat that the exemptions will stop. Currently mining reduces emissions, and this is only a matter of accuracy, criticisms about the possible future of too much mining/fracking equalizing into no net benefit are accurate) in any case, thats before selling to the grid which brings me to the next point, there are 1) grid connected flare gas miners 2) non-grid connected flare gas miners you probably wont find much literature on the 2nd type as they are off the grid but the 2nd type is also not subject to your form of criticism
- lolc 4y ago
  I understand you're saying that electricity generation for Bitcoin mining displaces methane flaring, which gives it negative CO2 equivalents. What grounds do we have to assume that this has a substantial effect compared to the rest of the carbon footprint of Bitcoin?
- danans 4y ago
  > methane (worse than CO2) and hydrocarbons are flared directly into the atmosphere The word "flaring" in this case indicates burning the methane. Releasing it without burning it is called venting [1]. I question how significant the difference is in the C02 and methane emissions of flaring the non marketable methane directly vs running a natural gas turbine to power a mining facility. > so their desperation results in many ways to help make mining company presence a sweetheart deal in the energy rates the miners receive. It seems more like a a way to maximize the profit of or minimize regulatory penalties on the fracking operation, which is a fine business objective, but likely not a significant emissions reduction overall compared to the fracked gas itself. I'd like to see independent numbers comparing C02 and methane emissions associated with flaring vs BTC mining. 1. https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/doe-flaring-and-venting-rd-reducing-emissions-and-developing-valuable-low-carbon#:~:text=Flaring%20is%20the%20process%20of,atmosphere%2C%20typically%20in%20small%20amounts https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/doe-flaring-and-venting....

by danans 4y ago

yieldcrv 4y ago

I’ll explain and you’ll have enough information to find corroborating citations, for most of this its a symbiotic relationship at fracking sites, where some byproducts are flared into the atmosphere, this is called flare gas methane (worse than CO2) and hydrocarbons are flared directly into the atmosphere bitcoin mining companies move operations on premise and use the gas directly to power their machines before it is flared, thereby reducing emissions. Some but industrial catalyctic converters reduce the emissions substantially, leaving some H2O and some CO2 flare sites have problems growing due to state and federal regulations if their emissions are too high, so their desperation results in many ways to help make mining company presence a sweetheart deal in the energy rates the miners receive. (but they still arent expanding, yet, as they get exemptions from the regulations and are courting miners because of the threat that the exemptions will stop. Currently mining reduces emissions, and this is only a matter of accuracy, criticisms about the possible future of too much mining/fracking equalizing into no net benefit are accurate) in any case, thats before selling to the grid which brings me to the next point, there are 1) grid connected flare gas miners 2) non-grid connected flare gas miners you probably wont find much literature on the 2nd type as they are off the grid but the 2nd type is also not subject to your form of criticism

lolc 4y ago
I understand you're saying that electricity generation for Bitcoin mining displaces methane flaring, which gives it negative CO2 equivalents. What grounds do we have to assume that this has a substantial effect compared to the rest of the carbon footprint of Bitcoin?
danans 4y ago
> methane (worse than CO2) and hydrocarbons are flared directly into the atmosphere The word "flaring" in this case indicates burning the methane. Releasing it without burning it is called venting [1]. I question how significant the difference is in the C02 and methane emissions of flaring the non marketable methane directly vs running a natural gas turbine to power a mining facility. > so their desperation results in many ways to help make mining company presence a sweetheart deal in the energy rates the miners receive. It seems more like a a way to maximize the profit of or minimize regulatory penalties on the fracking operation, which is a fine business objective, but likely not a significant emissions reduction overall compared to the fracked gas itself. I'd like to see independent numbers comparing C02 and methane emissions associated with flaring vs BTC mining. 1. https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/doe-flaring-and-venting-rd-reducing-emissions-and-developing-valuable-low-carbon#:~:text=Flaring%20is%20the%20process%20of,atmosphere%2C%20typically%20in%20small%20amounts https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/doe-flaring-and-venting....