Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

#41

Post by RosanaAnaDana »

So I've been lazy about this, but I've been intending to do an economic of the system I've had installed for some time. In short, a 8kh with 24kwh battery backup leaves me with plenty of overage to send back to the grid where I live. I get about .1/ kwh I send back to the grid (I don't but this require more detail on why), and I would get .2-.6 /kwh if I run an antminer s9. I would need 6 to match the total demand I have at peak generation and the additional cost would be ~3k (32k for the whole solar system, so total 35kish). Only doing bitcoin on my surplus angry pixies would basically cover the cost of the solar loan, the power bill, and maybe some extra.

Basically, through a combination of subsidies, geography, and credit score, if you've got the technical know-how, in my region one could effectively not have a power bill through a combination of solar and bitcoin mining.

Re: Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

#42

Post by flatiron »

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #41

So I've been lazy about this, but I've been intending to do an economic of the system I've had installed for some time. In short, a 8kh with 24kwh battery backup leaves me with plenty of overage to send back to the grid where I live. I get about .1/ kwh I send back to the grid (I don't but this require more detail on why), and I would get .2-.6 /kwh if I run an antminer s9. I would need 6 to match the total demand I…

I took a boat ride yesterday and on the dock I asked my friend if they pay a flat rate for electricity or per kwh. He said a flat rate. Which obviously I joked we should mine Bitcoin on his boat. But I really wonder if we would get caught doing it.

Re: Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

#43

Post by pixelgeek »

randomhodler84 wrote: post #25
pixelgeek wrote: post #6

It just seems that bitcoin miners are starting to sound like Bond villains.

Exactly what the IMF, World Bank and BIS want you to think. Agustín Carstens is the real Bond villain.

Well he has the name for it.

It just seems that the next step is going to be for bitcoin miners to start building a Dyson Sphere even though it will kill the rest of the planet off.

Re: Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

#44

Post by bluecalm »

jerry1979 wrote: post #7
Closi wrote: post #2

Because bitcoins are completely decentralised and fungible, there is no real driver to Bitcoin miners paying more for renewable energy, other than the threat of government intervention. I can’t read the full article to see if there is a rebuttal though as it’s behind a paywall.

Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts Some cryptocurrency miners are striking deals with operators of struggling nuclear plants, which are carbon-free and have excess power capacity to spare By Jennifer Hiller - WSJ Bitcoin miners, under fire for their sizable environmental footprint, are forging partnerships with owners of struggling nuclear-power plants with electricity to spare. The ma…

That sounds like a recipe for a funding disaster. The chances that cryptocurrency fad, especially PoW based is remotely as profitable or even operational in 20 years must be in low single digits if even that.

Re: Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

#45

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

trident5000 wrote: post #26
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm making no judgment at all as to whether validating transactions is a good use of energy. > And as mentioned above, the hash rate is not an infinite black hole, it levels off as the price levels off regardless of userbase. Exactly , and your statement here 100% proves my point…

> either Bitcoin becomes widely deployed for actually facilitating transactions, in which case its energy use grows proportionally, or its energy use plateaus Again thats not how it works. Energy usage does not grow in proportion with transactions. It grows in proportion to hash rate which is a function of market capitalization value. I can assure you the MC of bitcoin is not going to grow exponentially infinitely be…

Again, you keep proving my point.

Yes, you are absolutely correct, energy usage is a function of market cap. But my point is that if people actually start using Bitcoin to facilitate transactions (instead of its primary purpose of a speculative asset as it exists today) then its market cap would explode. And again, this has been what Bitcoin proponents have been arguing forever now - that the time to "get in" is now, because once it starts being used for "real commerce", demand will soar.

There is just no getting around the fact that the more "popular" Bitcoin gets ("popularity" eventually has to show up in market cap) that its energy use will grow in lock step.

Re: Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

#46

Post by ikerdanzel »

cratermoon wrote: post #22
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #20

This argument doesn't make any sense. Electricity is really easy to transmit across the power grid. There is no such thing as an isolated power plant with excess electricity. Any electricity used for Bitcoin is electricity that isn't used to take a coal-fired power plant offline somewhere else.

Given the drastically falling costs of renewable energy, how does the nuclear power hype train continue? Their main justification for it now is that it's clean, compared to fossil fuels. That doesn't account for the greenhouse gas contribution from the mining and processing of uranium, which isn't renewable . More importantly, is there any way it will ever compete on cost? Why choose a clean, non-renewable source tha…

Stability. Consistency. Which renewable able to match that without getting Tesla involved.

Re: Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

#47

Post by mk81 »

cratermoon wrote: post #22
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #20

This argument doesn't make any sense. Electricity is really easy to transmit across the power grid. There is no such thing as an isolated power plant with excess electricity. Any electricity used for Bitcoin is electricity that isn't used to take a coal-fired power plant offline somewhere else.

Given the drastically falling costs of renewable energy, how does the nuclear power hype train continue? Their main justification for it now is that it's clean, compared to fossil fuels. That doesn't account for the greenhouse gas contribution from the mining and processing of uranium, which isn't renewable . More importantly, is there any way it will ever compete on cost? Why choose a clean, non-renewable source tha…

> Given the drastically falling costs of renewable energy...

How nice to ignore inconvenient facts like Europe's skyrocketing energy costs.

Re: Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

#48

Post by Zardoz84 »

mk81 wrote: post #47
cratermoon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the drastically falling costs of renewable energy, how does the nuclear power hype train continue? Their main justification for it now is that it's clean, compared to fossil fuels. That doesn't account for the greenhouse gas contribution from the mining and processing of uranium, which isn't renewable . More importantly, is there any way it will ever compete on cost? Why choose a clean, non-renewable source tha…

> Given the drastically falling costs of renewable energy... How nice to ignore inconvenient facts like Europe's skyrocketing energy costs.

Driven mainly by gas costs.

Re: Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

#49

Post by manwe150 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #28
cratermoon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the drastically falling costs of renewable energy, how does the nuclear power hype train continue? Their main justification for it now is that it's clean, compared to fossil fuels. That doesn't account for the greenhouse gas contribution from the mining and processing of uranium, which isn't renewable . More importantly, is there any way it will ever compete on cost? Why choose a clean, non-renewable source tha…

You also have to extract copper and steel to build wind farms, and drive trucks to install solar panels. The net greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear is at most equal to, and likely less than other renewables: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... Not to mention, there's enough accessible uranium to make concerns about the being "renewable" moot: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016…

If output is the same, and HVDC is now available, should we actually start building them in the Arctic? Pros: no population centers, lots of cooling, no hurricanes. Cons?

Re: Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts

#50

Post by trident5000 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #45
trident5000 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> either Bitcoin becomes widely deployed for actually facilitating transactions, in which case its energy use grows proportionally, or its energy use plateaus Again thats not how it works. Energy usage does not grow in proportion with transactions. It grows in proportion to hash rate which is a function of market capitalization value. I can assure you the MC of bitcoin is not going to grow exponentially infinitely be…

Again, you keep proving my point. Yes, you are absolutely correct, energy usage is a function of market cap. But my point is that if people actually start using Bitcoin to facilitate transactions (instead of its primary purpose of a speculative asset as it exists today) then its market cap would explode. And again, this has been what Bitcoin proponents have been arguing forever now - that the time to "get in" is now,…

No, I dont think I am. You specifically said “in proportion” to transaction volume, not as a non linear residual effect. That is an incorrect growth assumption. And frankly you’re editing your answers above too fast for me to keep up with.
Post reply on HN