3 ms·
That's actually an interesting situation, but it doesn't support the assertion that the power would "otherwise go to waste" or that this is something a lot of b
by rainsford 3y ago
That's actually an interesting situation, but it doesn't support the assertion that the power would "otherwise go to waste" or that this is something a lot of bitcoin miners do. The argument that it's non-trivial to just transmit the power elsewhere is a persuasive one, the argument that bitcoin mining is somehow uniquely able to take advantage of that power is not as persuasive.
Even if the argument is that compute heavy data centers are the only use-case that makes sense, there's lots of compute use cases other than bitcoin. And obviously the former presence of the aluminum shelter suggests data centers are not the only good use-cases. I understand the appeal of the argument that bitcoin mining has less energy impact than people think because it can uniquely take advantage of weird edge cases, but it doesn't make sense to me.
- latchkey 3y agoYou're trying to apply persuasive logic to something that doesn't need persuasive logic. It is what it is. The fact that the smelter shut down and literally nobody picked it up and put it to use, speaks volumes. Heck, Alcoa was so desperate to unload it, they let those "dirty" bitcoin miners move in, over any other business potential. Here is another one... the Quincy/Wenatchee area of WA state. Also sparsely populated, but more hydro power than anyone knows what to do with. This is where a huge number of data centers are, including bitcoin miners.