Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

41–50 of 97 posts

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

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They recycled old power plant. That is a huge CO2 offset, building new plant would had huge emmisions.

Renewables have been cheaper (in monetary and carbon) than running existing coal plants for a while. Even more so if you reuse the sites grid connection. So it still doesn't add up to me. 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 co…

Well, bitcoin mining is not going to be here forever. It could be time limited thing.

And knowing Montana, it is difficult to get electricity connection there.

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

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think we have to agree on a single metric to see that running a coal-fired power plant for the sole purpose of cracking hashes has marginal, if any value to society. And that’s before we even factor in the ridiculously negative externalities manifest in digging coal out of the earth and burning it.

I think a decentralized network that is permissionless to participate in, pseudonymous and censorship resistant is very valuable to society. I think an asset that can be secured, transmitted, and stored in self custody cheaply that allows people to escape hyperinflation is quite valuable to society. I think understanding central banking and monetary policy and history of money are not strong points on HN. Everyone he…

> I think a decentralized network that is permissionless to participate in, pseudonymous and censorship resistant is very valuable to society.

Any or all of these things can be true! But you're going to need to show that Bitcoin satisfies each of these conditions.

Last time I checked, it's a public, immutable ledger that anybody (not just officials with warrants) can track. The senses in which the Bitcoin network is "permissionless," "pseudonymous," etc. are all adaptive (and mostly non-formalized!) properties of behavior on the Bitcoin network, each of which has spectacularly failed in well-publicized ways.

> I think understanding central banking and monetary policy and history of money are not strong points on HN. Everyone here understands that a memory leak causes your app to crash given enough cycles. Being able to print unlimited currency is a memory leak.

I think I understand both central banking and monetary policy well enough (as a non-CS-but-educated layperson) to not require silly computer analogies. Conspicuously absent from this analogy are deflationary spirals, one of which Bitcoin currently is in. You don't need to be an economist to understand that the defining property of currency is its ability to provide liquidity to transactions (i.e., serve as a medium of exchange); deflationary assets are famously poor mediums of exchange.

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

#43

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.

"Recycling" a coal power plant by turning it on again is one of the more tortured uses of that word I've seen recently.

It's similarly not a "CO2 offset": the offset is latent in the plant remaining dormant, or possibly being scrapped. By turning the plant back on, these miners have converted a CO2 offset into an ongoing source of CO2 emissions.

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

#44
post #40

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…

The problem is that doesn’t actually move any energy. You can’t take a bitcoin that has already been minted and turn it directly into something useful like electricity.

Let’s make it simple.

Let’s say you live in a house in a place where the sun never shines and have ten dollars. One electricity costs one dollar. But you spend your ten dollars on a wireless solar mining rig that lives in the desert ten thousand miles away. Now you’re using this power, that previously only cactuses could use, to generate Bitcoin. You take the Bitcoin via the net, and buy electricity with it in your home town, which you can do as long as the sun is shining in the desert. Now, with all this money, you build a renewable geothermal power plant under your house. Boom, passive energy generation.

Now generalize this principle to millions of people, and you get the idea.

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

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I could heat my home with bitcoin like that. /s

Ironically, if you had a Bitcoin mining set up in your home, you’d be more worried about keeping it cool. But you raise a good point - heat is another potential positive externality/resource of Bitcoin mining. Imagine if instead of heaters, we all had decentralized mining rigs to warm our houses?

Well, they would be like electric space heaters. Inefficient vs heat pumps. Sure, you'd get some coins on top of it. But you (I) would be still considering this to be a waste of energy.

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

#46
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, if you had a Bitcoin mining set up in your home, you’d be more worried about keeping it cool. But you raise a good point - heat is another potential positive externality/resource of Bitcoin mining. Imagine if instead of heaters, we all had decentralized mining rigs to warm our houses?

Well, they would be like electric space heaters. Inefficient vs heat pumps. Sure, you'd get some coins on top of it. But you (I) would be still considering this to be a waste of energy.

Not really. You would be doing a portion of work that would be done anyway, but instead, it’s being done in your house, for free, and you get a warm house. That’s a positive externality. Much more efficient than using energy for the sole purpose of creating heat.

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

#47

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…

Bitcoin does not "move" energy. You could exchange a Bitcoin produced with some quantity of energy in one location for another quantity of energy in a different location, but the energy has not moved with the token. Instead, you're just burning those quantities of energy twice.

I've used the oil barrel analogy before: an empty oil barrel is a proof that someone has used the oil within it, much like a Bitcoin is proof of a certain amount of work. But I can't show up to another power plant with that empty oil barrel and expect them to manifest power from it: they have to burn another barrel of oil to produce the energy equivalent. This is of course also ridiculous, since nobody would accept payment for energy in the form of a proof of previous energy wasted. And yet, that's fundamentally what Bitcoin is, except laundered through a tokenization layer to obscure that fact.

To tie it together: Bitcoin can only ever double the token-equivalent demand (not necessarily volume) for energy, never reduce it. Using Bitcoin for energy exchange is always roughly half as efficient as fiat.

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

#48
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that doesn’t actually move any energy. You can’t take a bitcoin that has already been minted and turn it directly into something useful like electricity.

Let’s make it simple. Let’s say you live in a house in a place where the sun never shines and have ten dollars. One electricity costs one dollar. But you spend your ten dollars on a wireless solar mining rig that lives in the desert ten thousand miles away. Now you’re using this power, that previously only cactuses could use, to generate Bitcoin. You take the Bitcoin via the net, and buy electricity with it in your h…

Another instance of adding bitcoin where it is unnecessary.

Using your example, you live in a place without sunlight and you buy a solar mining rig far away. You then use that power to do literally anything that generates money, including just straight selling it to someone or feeding it back into the grid.

Then you use that money to buy electricity in your home. Boom! You've "move[d] energy around the world wirelessly" without bitcoin.

I'll leave out the part about building a "renewable geothermal power plant under your house" because I'm guessing it's a joke.

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

#49
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by "move energy" you mean "move energy demand".

Essentially. It could be entirely generated from sources of energy which could not be utilized for any other purpose. There is a world of untapped energy that is only restricted by isolation. So you could entirely run bitcoin without increasing global energy output, if that makes sense. There would be no opportunity cost of lost power to current grids, as it is using power that cannot be used for any other purpose. I…

> There is a world of untapped energy that is only restricted by isolation. So you could entirely run bitcoin without increasing global energy output, if that makes sense.

No? Using previously untapped energy for Bitcoin, or for anything, does, in fact, increase global energy output.

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

#50
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that doesn’t actually move any energy. You can’t take a bitcoin that has already been minted and turn it directly into something useful like electricity.

Let’s make it simple. Let’s say you live in a house in a place where the sun never shines and have ten dollars. One electricity costs one dollar. But you spend your ten dollars on a wireless solar mining rig that lives in the desert ten thousand miles away. Now you’re using this power, that previously only cactuses could use, to generate Bitcoin. You take the Bitcoin via the net, and buy electricity with it in your h…

Spending money is a different thing to transmitting power.

If everyone does what you do, then you get one of two effects depending on which unwritten assumption you prefer:

1) if the conversion rate from joules of sunlight to number of bitcoin remains constant, then (first 1 then 1 million) people have more bitcoin than they did before, but the immediate actual production of electricity in your local area is exactly the same as it was before any of you scenario happened, and therefore the local market price for electricity goes up because that’s how supply and demand works

2) if the supply of bitcoin continues to follow the existing rules, then going from one person to one million people has exactly zero impact on the supply of bitcoin, so instead of 1 BTC/unit of time/person, you get… 1 BTC/unit of time/million people (and likewise for your $ investment, 1 BTC/unit of time/$ becomes 1 BTC/unit of time/million $); in this case you still don’t have any more power being produced locally, but nobody notices the local price per unit of electricity changing because the BTC itself is too dilute to do anything

> Now, with all this money, you build a renewable geothermal power plant under your house. Boom, passive energy generation.

If money is the limiting factor, you can apply for a loan to install a renewable power source. As a bonus, you get the money sooner and therefore the power sooner. Economically speaking, this is in fact such a great idea that at least one solar company announced free-at-the-point-of-installation PV systems funded by their potential future earnings.

Post reply on HN