3 ms·
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://w
by 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 agoWouldn't the current supply ratio be more accurate, if we can't determine exact sources?
- Retric 3y agoCapacity 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.