3 ms·

I think the consensus on HN is generally pro-nuclear. Building nuclear plants because of pointlessly induced demand, however, is ridiculous: we should build nu

I think the consensus on HN is generally pro-nuclear. Building nuclear plants because of pointlessly induced demand, however, is ridiculous: we should build nuclear capacity to replace existing capacities that we'd like to phase out. In addition to pointlessly raising the US's energy profile, Bitcoin has also made that aspect of the US's long-term power profile worse than it needs to be[1]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-miners-revive-fossil-fuel-plant-co2-emissions-soared https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-m...

nscalf 4y ago
We should expand energy production where there is extra demand for energy. That new energy should likely be nuclear. To pass judgement on what the energy use should be is ridiculous, and very counter to the behavior of this country that let it grow.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  Actually I think the idea of forcing crypto miners to use nuclear is brilliant. My proposal would require that they pay the full cost that nuclear charges to the grid, and also that they aren’t allowed to purchase power from any fossil sources or grid-connected renewables. I’m not sure this idea would be long-term economically sound but it would remove the major objection to crypto mining (carbon emissions) and if the crypto miners go out of business due to proof-of-stake becoming more common, they’ll hopefully have funded the construction of new nuclear plants for the rest of us.
undersuit 4y ago
Can we build the nuclear in Montana? Our prices are going up and the local utility is buying the Washington and Oregon ownerships of a MT coal plant.
Phiwise_ 4y ago
Thabk you for your contribution of a The Granuid article, the information that the United States is actually run by the Priestly Council of Bay Area /g/, and a second, not related to the thread reason to save the planet and cut everyone's energy bill by an order of magnitude that becomes a general case of the thread reason by the end. Truly we are all much better off.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I genuinely can’t parse this, sorry. What are you trying to say?

nscalf 4y ago

We should expand energy production where there is extra demand for energy. That new energy should likely be nuclear. To pass judgement on what the energy use should be is ridiculous, and very counter to the behavior of this country that let it grow.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
Actually I think the idea of forcing crypto miners to use nuclear is brilliant. My proposal would require that they pay the full cost that nuclear charges to the grid, and also that they aren’t allowed to purchase power from any fossil sources or grid-connected renewables. I’m not sure this idea would be long-term economically sound but it would remove the major objection to crypto mining (carbon emissions) and if the crypto miners go out of business due to proof-of-stake becoming more common, they’ll hopefully have funded the construction of new nuclear plants for the rest of us.

undersuit 4y ago

Can we build the nuclear in Montana? Our prices are going up and the local utility is buying the Washington and Oregon ownerships of a MT coal plant.

Phiwise_ 4y ago

Thabk you for your contribution of a The Granuid article, the information that the United States is actually run by the Priestly Council of Bay Area /g/, and a second, not related to the thread reason to save the planet and cut everyone's energy bill by an order of magnitude that becomes a general case of the thread reason by the end. Truly we are all much better off.

woodruffw 4y ago
I genuinely can’t parse this, sorry. What are you trying to say?