21–30 of 97 posts
Everyone wants to ban bitcoin mining, but nobody wants to tax carbon emissions and end industry subsidies.
I rarely downvote, but downvoted this because it’s blatantly false.
Literally hours ago:
https://wsau.com/2022/02/18/singapores-carbon-tax-to-rise-fi...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-18/singapore...
I heard an interesting argument for Bitcoin recently. It represents a way to move energy around the world wirelessly. For instance, you can use geothermal power in a very isolated, cold climate that previously would be unusable for any purpose. As Bitcoin’s power needs are decentralized, all it needs is an internet connection. You could have a Bitcoin mine in outer space, if you wanted. Not sure why I’m being downvot…
Everyone wants to ban bitcoin mining, but nobody wants to tax carbon emissions and end industry subsidies.
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?
They recycled old power plant. That is a huge CO2 offset, building new plant would had huge emmisions.
Clearly the couldn't sell energy before if they were about to shutdown, so there must be something different about the miners compared with their usual market, can't just be cheaper.
In the article they seem to be suggesting they couldn't buy renewable power in 2020 which seems odd, but no follow up detail on it, apparently they're phasing coal out in a year so it may just have been a short term thing.
I heard an interesting argument for Bitcoin recently. It represents a way to move energy around the world wirelessly. For instance, you can use geothermal power in a very isolated, cold climate that previously would be unusable for any purpose. As Bitcoin’s power needs are decentralized, all it needs is an internet connection. You could have a Bitcoin mine in outer space, if you wanted. Not sure why I’m being downvot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ve switched the conditions for taxation here: the GP suggested value to society, not adherence to preexisting laws. One of the standard refrains when justifying internet piracy is that intellectual property is actually a net harm to society, so I don’t think the connection you’ve made follows.
Okay, what metric are we using to determine "value to society"?
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?
They recycled old power plant. That is a huge CO2 offset, building new plant would had huge emmisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that why you think they are called greenhouse gasses? OMG
Most Greenhouses supplement CO2 to increase growth in plants since there's no natural O2 -> CO2 back-cycle in the greenhouse. So yes, Greenhouses use CO2. Reference in Commercial Greenhouse Industry - https://www.greenhousemegastore.com/equip/co2-generators/
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.