Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

markets.businessinsider.com

41–50 of 170 posts

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#41
post #39
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. Without Bitcoin, we could be retiring coal plants with the additional solar and wind that have been coming online. Instead, every additional Watt-hour we generate is used to mine Bitcoin on top of existing demand.

That's an absurd argument. And as long as we're using solar and wind, we'll need backup from coal, gas and nuclear for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If you think increasing battery capacity will solve that, read up on the supply chain of lithium.

Coal is a baseload generator. It cannot ramp up or down very easily.

Nuclear is mostly baseload... not so much because its impossible to ramp-down nuclear, but because nuclear's initial-investment (site planning / engineering / regulations) are the bulk of its costs. Ongoing costs (ie: fuel) are miniscule.

There's "no point" ramping down Nuclear, given its miniscule fuel costs. Might as well keep pumping electricity as long as the price of electricity is non-negative.

So only gas ramps up-and-down.

------

As such, Solar / Wind + Gas Peaker combinations are very good for ramping down Coal production. Because the bulk of electricity is needed in the daytime (due to the hot sun making AC work harder), Solar/Wind + Gas Peakers will use less fossil fuels than a Coal baseload generator over the same period.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#45
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we accept this argument at face value, every Watt-hour of hydro or solar that goes to mining Bitcoin could have been used to reduce demand for power generated from fossil fuels. Power generation isn't perfectly fungible, but it's enough so that this argument falls completely on its face. I wish people would stop making it. Bitcoin is an environmental disaster.

> Watt-hour of hydro or solar that goes to mining Bitcoin could have been used to reduce demand for power generated from fossil fuels. No, that power would have gone to reducing the price of power and people would have found new uses for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I love the Jevons paradox but it has limits. Per capita energy consumption in the US peaked in 1979 and has dropped 14% in the last 20 years. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T...

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#46

I’m biased but I wonder whether these outlets write more about Bitcoin hurting the environment than oil companies and other energy producers pushing back so hard on alternative energy.

The elephant in the room is Adtech. It wastes obscene amounts of energy, mostly coal mines, and it's only going to waste more with the growth of the economy and the increasing competition between advertisers.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#49

Someone's really serious about pushing the "bitcoin is bad" narrative. Too many articles like that recently. Nevertheless, upvoting because HN should see this.

I mean is it not a good narrative to push? Someone in another comment pointed out each transaction uses so much energy it would be more effecient to just drive 600 miles in a tesla to hand deliver them money. That is awful, and basically for no reason, a digital currency could be designed without that entirely. There is no way to fix it, as proof of work demands that much energy be used no matter how effecient computers become.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#50
Bitcoin can be carbon neutral but it has a long way to go.

Energy usage itself is not a bad thing, it’s the energy source that can be environmentally problematic.

Currently 39% of mining power is driven by renewables [1]. It’s not much but a good start.

The simplest solution to speed this up would be to create a law requiring that all mining must use renewable sources (or at least tax those that don’t). It would drive innovation, jobs, and make locations with renewable sources competitive places to live.

[1] https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternati...

Post reply on HN