5 ms·

The crypto industry financed a 2.3% expansion of the US's power generating capacity. I don't care what we're spending energy on. Being stingy about it just mak

by 015a 3y ago

The crypto industry financed a 2.3% expansion of the US's power generating capacity. I don't care what we're spending energy on. Being stingy about it just makes all of us poorer. There's a quadrillion-cubic-kilometer flaming ball of plasma in the sky. We have the ability to generate literally infinite electricity; and quite literally the only way we get to that is by increasing the amount of electricity we're using, and thus need to generate. Everything gets cheaper when electricity gets cheaper.

AustinDev 3y ago
Agreed 100% Build more nuclear, build more natural gas (cleanest 'fossil fuel') to replace coal and pipelines to pipe it. Doing anything other than vastly expanding energy production will result in the US economy being left behind as automation rises and demands more and more energy.
Retric 3y ago
This 2.3% mostly came from fossil fuels not new green generation capacity. You need to consider where these miners are located based on electricity costs and what infrastructure is built there not simply a hypothetical grid where arbitrary power can be moved anywhere at zero losses.
- hamburga 3y ago
  Source?
  - Mathieu95 3y ago
    Look up US energy mix.
- keyringlight 3y ago
  Yes, it's hard to get much distance out of that logic. If that was the case there'd be little reasoning for efficiency as incandescent lightbulbs would also be incentive to expand power generation. It delays turning off dirtier generation even if more modern and efficient plants get built.
- 015a 3y ago
  Wrong. And not just a little wrong; a LOT wrong. 86% of new energy capacity added in the United States in 2023 was from non-fossil fuel sources. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1304-august-21-2023-2023-non-fossil-fuel-sources-will-account-86-new#:~:text=For%202023%2C%20added%20capacity%20will,for%2014%25%20of%20the%20total https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1304-augu....
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > 86% of new energy capacity added in the United States in 2023 was from non-fossil fuel sources They're using 2.3% of power, not 2.3% of green power. Also, every watt of green power crypto takes is another displaced to fossil. I am sympathetic to the argument that what one does with market-rate power is one's own business. But the environmental argument for crypto is bunk.
  - twojacobtwo 3y ago
    Wouldn't the current supply ratio be more accurate, if we can't determine exact sources?
  - Retric 3y ago
    Capacity isn’t the same as utilization. Crypto is on 24/7 but the rest of the demand curve isn’t flat, so most of the day there’s excess capacity. During peak demand batteries charged by solar where used to meet demand, but nobody is building battery banks to store solar energy for 2AM. Non battery backed Solar instead offsets power used in the day but that’s simply a cost saving measure making it independent of increases in demand. This is why China added 210 GW of solar in 2023 year even though demand didn’t rise by nearly that much. Wind faces the same issue due to dependability. As such the added demand from crypto has ~zero impact on how much non battery backed solar or wind gets added. Instead it simply increased how often fossil fuel power plants get turned off.
triceratops 3y ago
Does it work like that? Why do utilities encourage customers to become more efficient when they could sell more power and make more money instead? And even if it's true, an expansion of generation capacity is only useful if it's eventually freed up for non-crypto uses, right? Otherwise it's just a wash.
- jstanley 3y ago
  > Why do utilities encourage customers to become more efficient when they could sell more power and make more money instead? Because that kind of marketing works on a lot of people.
  - triceratops 3y ago
    To accomplish what end? Why are they marketing efficiency?
    - jstanley 3y ago
      People like to buy energy from a company that they think shares their view on energy efficiency.
      - triceratops 3y ago
        Is it common to have more than 2 options for a power company? I personally pick my power company, if I have a choice at all, based on their rates and proportion of renewable energy generated. Most people probably only care about the rate. Power companies aren't brands. People don't make choices based on which one is more "woke" or whatever.
        jstanley 3y ago
        In that case I can't see why they would bother advertising anything at all. In the UK you have the choice of loads of energy companies, and certainly some of the marketing is around their green credentials.
FabHK 3y ago
Well, I don't want to make us all poorer, so I better start running the air conditioner and the heater with the windows open.
domoritz 3y ago
Still, generating energy even with solar has impact on natural resources and the environment.
- 015a 3y ago
  Humans have an impact on the environment. That's just what humans do. You typing this comment had an impact on our natural resources and the environment. Me typing this response also did. You can play in the mud of trying to deign whether your comment is more valuable or meaningful to the world than Bitcoin, but you'll just end up muddy and you won't have found a path toward a better and more prosperous world.
cr__ 3y ago
Your argument does not make sense. Increasing usage does not magically increase capacity by the same amount. Even if it did, the increased capacity resulting from the increased demand would not make electricity cheaper, since the corresponding demand would already exist. In general, increasing demand for a resource increases the price for that resource.
- 015a 3y ago
  Increasing usage trivially and obviously increases capacity by ~the same amount. A toddler could understand this, because obviously the lights are still on. We use more and more energy every year (except 2020, for obvious reasons). There aren't rolling blackouts. Thus, capacity responds to usage. I don't know why you're reaching for the word "magically". There's nothing magical about the mechanism of how this happens. Its just market dynamics. If explaining it by calling it "magic" helps you understand it better, though, then that's fine.
  - cr__ 3y ago
    > Increasing usage trivially and obviously increases capacity by ~the same amount. A toddler could understand this, because obviously the lights are still on. It may increase capacity over time, if someone thinks they can profit from bringing new supply online. This is known as supply elasticity, and it’s pretty well-studied. It’s not trivial, and it’s not instant. In the meantime, demand from crypto may also reduce demand from other consumers, who now have to pay more for electricity. Electric usage is more nuanced than “are the lights on or off”—families can and do decide to keep the house colder in the winter if prices are up because some people decided to waste a bunch of electricity on crypto in a data center somewhere. You’re missing the point, though: the thing that absolutely does not happen when you increase demand for a resource is that resource becoming cheaper, unless that demand goes away later, after the supply has increased. This is a called supply glut—also pretty well-studied. Now, given that the entire cryptocurrency sector is a con and will eventually vanish like a turd down a toilet, there may very well be a period later on where the result of all this nonsense is that we have lower electricity prices for a while. Until that happens, though, you aren’t making electricity cheaper by using more of it.
lgleason 3y ago
Can you substantiate the claim that crypto financed a 2.3% expansion of the US power generating capacity? Most power companies are encouraging people to use less electricity, especially during peak periods, instead of encouraging more use to be able to sell more electricity because of grid limitations etc..
- 015a 3y ago
  Utility companies very reasonably and correctly do both. People, and organizations, can do two things. Maybe even more than two. On the short term, using less energy is important because it helps smooth over demand curves. If everyone suddenly plugged in an EV tonight, the grid would crash, because demand grew too fast for the utility providers to keep up. That is bad. On the long term: every metric that measures quality of life correlates with energy usage. On the long term: this is the path of kardashev type 1 for our great-great grand children. Blanket the earth in solar panels, turbines, and nuclear (and sure, some fossil fuels are good to). Solar panels aren't free to build. The market needs a reason to build them. I don't really care what the reason is. "Crypto" feels better to me than "turning on your heater and opening the window during the winter" as someone else in this thread suggested. Trying to quantify "how much better" feels like a waste of time that could be spent building more power plants. My statement "crypto financed a 2.3% expansion of US power generating capacity" is obviously dramatic; the mechanism isn't precisely A causes B. Its dramatic toward the aim of communicating the message that Demand creates Capacity, and if you believe Capacity is Good (which is not something up for belief or debate, unless you're Ted Kaczynski) then it logically follows that Demand is Generally Good. That does not mean nor force the conclusion that All Demand Is Equally Good. I never said that. But, generally, it is good.
glitchc 3y ago
There is a grain of truth in this statement. If we don't push our limits, how will we aspire to new ones? A man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or, what's a heaven for? - Robert Browning
pjc50 3y ago
Great, that means that when we expropriate the money launderers we get 2.3% more free power. If a single one of these guys has processed a block with a single transaction for Hamas, they should go to jail for violating the sanctions. Bitcoin nodes should be required to do full KYC on everyone for whom they are processing transactions.

by 015a 3y ago

AustinDev 3y ago

Agreed 100% Build more nuclear, build more natural gas (cleanest 'fossil fuel') to replace coal and pipelines to pipe it. Doing anything other than vastly expanding energy production will result in the US economy being left behind as automation rises and demands more and more energy.

Retric 3y ago

This 2.3% mostly came from fossil fuels not new green generation capacity. You need to consider where these miners are located based on electricity costs and what infrastructure is built there not simply a hypothetical grid where arbitrary power can be moved anywhere at zero losses.

hamburga 3y ago
Source?
- Mathieu95 3y ago
  Look up US energy mix.
keyringlight 3y ago
Yes, it's hard to get much distance out of that logic. If that was the case there'd be little reasoning for efficiency as incandescent lightbulbs would also be incentive to expand power generation. It delays turning off dirtier generation even if more modern and efficient plants get built.
015a 3y ago
Wrong. And not just a little wrong; a LOT wrong. 86% of new energy capacity added in the United States in 2023 was from non-fossil fuel sources. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1304-august-21-2023-2023-non-fossil-fuel-sources-will-account-86-new#:~:text=For%202023%2C%20added%20capacity%20will,for%2014%25%20of%20the%20total https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1304-augu....
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > 86% of new energy capacity added in the United States in 2023 was from non-fossil fuel sources They're using 2.3% of power, not 2.3% of green power. Also, every watt of green power crypto takes is another displaced to fossil. I am sympathetic to the argument that what one does with market-rate power is one's own business. But the environmental argument for crypto is bunk.
- twojacobtwo 3y ago
  Wouldn't the current supply ratio be more accurate, if we can't determine exact sources?
- Retric 3y ago
  Capacity isn’t the same as utilization. Crypto is on 24/7 but the rest of the demand curve isn’t flat, so most of the day there’s excess capacity. During peak demand batteries charged by solar where used to meet demand, but nobody is building battery banks to store solar energy for 2AM. Non battery backed Solar instead offsets power used in the day but that’s simply a cost saving measure making it independent of increases in demand. This is why China added 210 GW of solar in 2023 year even though demand didn’t rise by nearly that much. Wind faces the same issue due to dependability. As such the added demand from crypto has ~zero impact on how much non battery backed solar or wind gets added. Instead it simply increased how often fossil fuel power plants get turned off.

triceratops 3y ago

Does it work like that? Why do utilities encourage customers to become more efficient when they could sell more power and make more money instead? And even if it's true, an expansion of generation capacity is only useful if it's eventually freed up for non-crypto uses, right? Otherwise it's just a wash.

jstanley 3y ago
> Why do utilities encourage customers to become more efficient when they could sell more power and make more money instead? Because that kind of marketing works on a lot of people.
- triceratops 3y ago
  To accomplish what end? Why are they marketing efficiency?
  - jstanley 3y ago
    People like to buy energy from a company that they think shares their view on energy efficiency.
    - triceratops 3y ago
      Is it common to have more than 2 options for a power company? I personally pick my power company, if I have a choice at all, based on their rates and proportion of renewable energy generated. Most people probably only care about the rate. Power companies aren't brands. People don't make choices based on which one is more "woke" or whatever.
      - jstanley 3y ago
        In that case I can't see why they would bother advertising anything at all. In the UK you have the choice of loads of energy companies, and certainly some of the marketing is around their green credentials.

FabHK 3y ago

Well, I don't want to make us all poorer, so I better start running the air conditioner and the heater with the windows open.

domoritz 3y ago

Still, generating energy even with solar has impact on natural resources and the environment.

015a 3y ago
Humans have an impact on the environment. That's just what humans do. You typing this comment had an impact on our natural resources and the environment. Me typing this response also did. You can play in the mud of trying to deign whether your comment is more valuable or meaningful to the world than Bitcoin, but you'll just end up muddy and you won't have found a path toward a better and more prosperous world.

cr__ 3y ago

Your argument does not make sense. Increasing usage does not magically increase capacity by the same amount. Even if it did, the increased capacity resulting from the increased demand would not make electricity cheaper, since the corresponding demand would already exist. In general, increasing demand for a resource increases the price for that resource.

015a 3y ago
Increasing usage trivially and obviously increases capacity by ~the same amount. A toddler could understand this, because obviously the lights are still on. We use more and more energy every year (except 2020, for obvious reasons). There aren't rolling blackouts. Thus, capacity responds to usage. I don't know why you're reaching for the word "magically". There's nothing magical about the mechanism of how this happens. Its just market dynamics. If explaining it by calling it "magic" helps you understand it better, though, then that's fine.
- cr__ 3y ago
  > Increasing usage trivially and obviously increases capacity by ~the same amount. A toddler could understand this, because obviously the lights are still on. It may increase capacity over time, if someone thinks they can profit from bringing new supply online. This is known as supply elasticity, and it’s pretty well-studied. It’s not trivial, and it’s not instant. In the meantime, demand from crypto may also reduce demand from other consumers, who now have to pay more for electricity. Electric usage is more nuanced than “are the lights on or off”—families can and do decide to keep the house colder in the winter if prices are up because some people decided to waste a bunch of electricity on crypto in a data center somewhere. You’re missing the point, though: the thing that absolutely does not happen when you increase demand for a resource is that resource becoming cheaper, unless that demand goes away later, after the supply has increased. This is a called supply glut—also pretty well-studied. Now, given that the entire cryptocurrency sector is a con and will eventually vanish like a turd down a toilet, there may very well be a period later on where the result of all this nonsense is that we have lower electricity prices for a while. Until that happens, though, you aren’t making electricity cheaper by using more of it.

lgleason 3y ago

Can you substantiate the claim that crypto financed a 2.3% expansion of the US power generating capacity? Most power companies are encouraging people to use less electricity, especially during peak periods, instead of encouraging more use to be able to sell more electricity because of grid limitations etc..

015a 3y ago
Utility companies very reasonably and correctly do both. People, and organizations, can do two things. Maybe even more than two. On the short term, using less energy is important because it helps smooth over demand curves. If everyone suddenly plugged in an EV tonight, the grid would crash, because demand grew too fast for the utility providers to keep up. That is bad. On the long term: every metric that measures quality of life correlates with energy usage. On the long term: this is the path of kardashev type 1 for our great-great grand children. Blanket the earth in solar panels, turbines, and nuclear (and sure, some fossil fuels are good to). Solar panels aren't free to build. The market needs a reason to build them. I don't really care what the reason is. "Crypto" feels better to me than "turning on your heater and opening the window during the winter" as someone else in this thread suggested. Trying to quantify "how much better" feels like a waste of time that could be spent building more power plants. My statement "crypto financed a 2.3% expansion of US power generating capacity" is obviously dramatic; the mechanism isn't precisely A causes B. Its dramatic toward the aim of communicating the message that Demand creates Capacity, and if you believe Capacity is Good (which is not something up for belief or debate, unless you're Ted Kaczynski) then it logically follows that Demand is Generally Good. That does not mean nor force the conclusion that All Demand Is Equally Good. I never said that. But, generally, it is good.

glitchc 3y ago

There is a grain of truth in this statement. If we don't push our limits, how will we aspire to new ones? A man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or, what's a heaven for? - Robert Browning

pjc50 3y ago

Great, that means that when we expropriate the money launderers we get 2.3% more free power. If a single one of these guys has processed a block with a single transaction for Hamas, they should go to jail for violating the sanctions. Bitcoin nodes should be required to do full KYC on everyone for whom they are processing transactions.