Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

theguardian.com

1–10 of 97 posts

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#3

Everyone wants to ban bitcoin mining, but nobody wants to tax carbon emissions and end industry subsidies.

It isn't obvious that mining goes away at any cost. Personally I'm in the "do both" camp. Have a simple carbon tax, but also find some inoffensive way to get rid of the mining. Both sound hard.

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#6

Everyone wants to ban bitcoin mining, but nobody wants to tax carbon emissions and end industry subsidies.

Let's tax stuff in proportion to the value it provides to society

Since crypto is used for crime and pyramid schemes, zero value so infinite tax = ban

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#7
post #5

Would it be possible to take the extra heat from mining and the co2 to make a really nice greenhouse that can use the co2, seems like plenty of space to make it happen in montana.

Sure, but these people care about extreme profitability at whatever external expense. Something like that, while nice is unlikely to generate more revenue than spinning up another plant and pumping the CO2 into the atmosphere

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#8

Everyone wants to ban bitcoin mining, but nobody wants to tax carbon emissions and end industry subsidies.

Let's tax stuff in proportion to the value it provides to society Since crypto is used for crime and pyramid schemes, zero value so infinite tax = ban

By that logic, we need to ban peer to peer file sharing, encryption, and the internet at large since they are also platforms that allow for crime and pyramid schemes.

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#9
I don't understand how this is profitable? I'd read that many coal plants were being kept running purely because the grid owners were allowed to charge on a cost plus basis, and closing coal would save consumers billions. So how can these plants be cheaper than solar and wind?

Is this somehow a dodge of carbon fees or regulations because it's not going to the grid?

Post reply on HN