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

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

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

#81

Post by kcplate »

jhgb wrote: post #80
kcplate wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure the only way to have produced zero emissions was to not mine the bitcoin at all. Old or new plant, or consumption of power from the existing grid would have produced some level of emissions, although Montana tends to have pretty high renewable energy from hydroelectric.

> the only way to have produced zero emissions was to not mine the bitcoin at all Yes, obviously. And what's the downside of that?

> Yes, obviously. And what's the downside of that?

And even more obviously—-Not mining/creating a desired product that would allow you to make a profit on your investment.

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

#82

Post by lowkey »

amptorn wrote: post #61
lowkey wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing global energy output isn't a negative, provided that energy output is clean energy. In fact, developing our ability to produce and use energy is virtually synonymous with the development of human civilization.

Yes, actually it is negative, due to the emissions and waste involved in setting up energy production in the first place. That negative has to be offset by using the energy to do something useful.

> That negative has to be offset by using the energy to do something useful.

I think this is the real point you are trying to make. You don’t have an issue with the use of clean energy, provided you personally believe it is a useful use of that energy.

Bitcoin mining does use a lot of energy, on par, it turns out with all the world’s hairdryers or YouTube. Bitcoin mining is used to create security to safely store ~750 Billion in savings from individuals around the world. By contrast, to secure the dollars in your bank account it requires the world’s largest military as well as countless other carbon sources.[0] Mining gold cannot ever be done in a clean way and instead requires strip mining and polluting large bodies of water.

I choose to protect my wealth in Bitcoin, but I would never prevent you from storing yours in a bank account, even if that bank account is used to store US dollars that cost countless innocent lives over the past century. This isn’t about energy consumption. It is about your ability to decide for others what is or isn’t an approved store of wealth.

[0] https://www.news18.com/news/lifestyle/carbon-footprint-of-us...

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

#83

Post by throwaway73838 »

ben_w wrote: post #79
throwaway73838 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrelevant. Land prices near settlements will be high. And take my space example. I could have a Bitcoin farm on the moon, using all that passive cooling and uninterrupted sunlight to generate coins, and then send them back via the internet. Bitcoin farms can be placed anywhere, not just where there are people nearby. Which was the original point I was making.

Here’s a question for you. Which makes more BTC: (1) the world today, (2) an alternate reality where the mining algorithm is the same but it’s being run on Matryoshka brains enveloping every star in the universe (all operating at the Bekenstein bound for efficiency and which can somehow communicate instantly)? The answer is “they are the same”. > Land prices near settlements will be high. Irrelevant, the cost of gett…

Internet = star link.

And this is already happening. There are geothermal remote Bitcoin mines in operation.

Full disclosure, I don’t own any crypto. I’m just interested in the technology. I see it as an inevitable transition.

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

#84

Post by throwaway392321 »

ben_w wrote: post #79
throwaway73838 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrelevant. Land prices near settlements will be high. And take my space example. I could have a Bitcoin farm on the moon, using all that passive cooling and uninterrupted sunlight to generate coins, and then send them back via the internet. Bitcoin farms can be placed anywhere, not just where there are people nearby. Which was the original point I was making.

Here’s a question for you. Which makes more BTC: (1) the world today, (2) an alternate reality where the mining algorithm is the same but it’s being run on Matryoshka brains enveloping every star in the universe (all operating at the Bekenstein bound for efficiency and which can somehow communicate instantly)? The answer is “they are the same”. > Land prices near settlements will be high. Irrelevant, the cost of gett…

> Here’s a question for you. Which makes more BTC: (1) the world today, (2) an alternate reality where the mining algorithm is the same but it’s being run on Matryoshka brains enveloping every star in the universe (all operating at the Bekenstein bound for efficiency and which can somehow communicate instantly)?

> The answer is “they are the same”.

What is the point that you are making here? The supply schedule of bitcoin is fixed. When more energy is used by rational economic actors to mine bitcoin, it would just have to be supported by an increase of demand rather than supply.

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

#85

Post by throwaway392321 »

amptorn wrote: post #54
throwaway73838 wrote: post #19

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 can use energy in places you couldn’t get to before You're suggesting a scenario where, instead of using energy at point A to do useful work, we use energy at point B to generate Bitcoin to buy energy at point A to do the useful work. In this scenario, 1. the same amount of energy is still being generated at point A, and 2. an incredible amount of additional energy is being generated at point B for no reaso…

> 2. an incredible amount of additional energy is being generated at point B for no reason

1) Why would the amount of energy at point B be "incredible"? It would be proportional to the amount of energy that is needed at point A. Either both are incredible or neither is, all that matters is the scale of this example.

2) Why would there be "no reason" for doing this? The reason is clear and you obviously understand it-- to buy energy at point A.

3) Energy can not be generated. Humans can in some cases make use of energy for some other purpose. The total amount of energy is always the same. If the stranded energy in this example was geothermal, adding a geothermal energy plant would not increase the total amount of energy, it would just channel some of that energy into something humans can get something out of, rather than it just dissipating to heat directly.

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

#86

Post by amptorn »

throwaway392321 wrote: post #85
amptorn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin can use energy in places you couldn’t get to before You're suggesting a scenario where, instead of using energy at point A to do useful work, we use energy at point B to generate Bitcoin to buy energy at point A to do the useful work. In this scenario, 1. the same amount of energy is still being generated at point A, and 2. an incredible amount of additional energy is being generated at point B for no reaso…

> 2. an incredible amount of additional energy is being generated at point B for no reason 1) Why would the amount of energy at point B be "incredible"? It would be proportional to the amount of energy that is needed at point A. Either both are incredible or neither is, all that matters is the scale of this example. 2) Why would there be "no reason" for doing this? The reason is clear and you obviously understand it-…

No post body was provided.

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

#87

Post by throwaway392321 »

amptorn wrote: post #86
throwaway392321 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. an incredible amount of additional energy is being generated at point B for no reason 1) Why would the amount of energy at point B be "incredible"? It would be proportional to the amount of energy that is needed at point A. Either both are incredible or neither is, all that matters is the scale of this example. 2) Why would there be "no reason" for doing this? The reason is clear and you obviously understand it-…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

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

#88

Post by johnsonlambo »

throwaway73838 wrote: post #73
woodruffw wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’ll try and explain it better. Money is analogous to work. You can’t just conjure up money (that would be illegal). If I have 50 dollars, I can pay someone to mow my grass. I have just converted potential energy (money) into work. In the same way, if I have a geothermal power plant in a remote Scandinavian wilderness, I can use that power to generate Bitcoin, and use that store of value to transfer to me which I can…

This can be done with current dollars on a screen, the thousands of different cryptos out in the ether, gold, etc. Some take less energy and some take more. Then they can be converted for work, a service, goods etc. This is not new or solely a characteristic of btc.

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

#89

Post by johnsonlambo »

ben_w wrote: post #79
throwaway73838 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrelevant. Land prices near settlements will be high. And take my space example. I could have a Bitcoin farm on the moon, using all that passive cooling and uninterrupted sunlight to generate coins, and then send them back via the internet. Bitcoin farms can be placed anywhere, not just where there are people nearby. Which was the original point I was making.

Here’s a question for you. Which makes more BTC: (1) the world today, (2) an alternate reality where the mining algorithm is the same but it’s being run on Matryoshka brains enveloping every star in the universe (all operating at the Bekenstein bound for efficiency and which can somehow communicate instantly)? The answer is “they are the same”. > Land prices near settlements will be high. Irrelevant, the cost of gett…

You can't reason with an addict. This person is so embedded in their belief that all energy output is better utilized mining btc than any other endeavor. Forget about directing the energy back into the powergrid to power cars, phones, plumbing, manufacturing, etc. We could just have more btc in the hands of instagram shills and billionaires.

The most efficient use of energy is always to produce internet tokens that have the same tech as hundreds of other tokens /s.

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

#90

Post by johnsonlambo »

gordian-mind wrote: post #32
formvoltron wrote: post #14

Quoted post unavailable.

Funnily enough, as extremists like you continue to gain a foothold in policymaking, bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general will become even more necessary to provide a safeguard against such unhinged power trips.

Surely that is why btc is more heavily concentrated in the hands of its top 10% holders than real estate, stocks, and gold. Delusional though process you have here where a couple people own btc worth millions/billions/trillions and society will benefit.
Post reply on HN