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

The UK is wasting a lot of wind power

archy.deberker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–396 of 396 posts

Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power

#391

Post by Quindecillion »

youngtaff wrote: post #390
Quindecillion wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't understanding anything about Bitcoin's properties and the utility that provides, I can understand why you would think its a waste of energy. But many disagree with you for good reason. Some people think clothes driers or Christmas lights are a waste of energy, but it's not for them to decide how other people spend the energy they've paid for. Some people think those things are worth the energy cost and s…

Burning the planet to generate Bitcoin has very little utility value in my view

Burning the planet? I assume you mean CO2 emissions.

Bitcoin has one of the highest % of renewables of any industry i.e. solar, wind, hydro etc.

As an absolute value the amount of energy it consumes is less than 0.1% of global energy consumption.

Those two things taken together mean that Bitcoin contributes what amounts to a rounding error in total global CO2 emissions.

And that's not even mentioning its GHG emissions reducing effects on the capture of methane, which could turn it CO2eq negative emissions.

On top of that it has an important role to play in balancing grids by consuming excess energy that the market doesn't want or need, or can't be stored.

And the utility of Bitcoin? Well, some people see value in a form of money that can't be arbitrarily debased, is open to all on a global and neutral network that can't be changed or controlled by any central or corrupt authority, and that is censorship resistant.

You might not see value in that, but many people do.

Maybe you see more value in Christmas lights which consumes more energy than Bitcoin.

https://twitter.com/gladstein/status/1512493813218123786?s=2...

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/check-your-financial-pri...

Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power

#392

Post by socks »

TheDudeMan wrote: post #225
socks wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds great, but in reality, this concept is also a curse. Moving Bitcoin miners is much easier than building transmission lines - potentially discouraging funding for the infrastructure needed to move the energy where it is more useful. I remember reading of BTC mining companies moving their infrastructure right next door to remote coal fired power plants, getting extremely cheap rates, which otherwise might h…

Carbon tax fixes this.

I don't believe it does. The same phenomenon can occur with a renewable energy source. Remote renewable energy source (solar, hydro etc), not grid connected, could attract the same sort of Bitcoin mining system and even claim to be 'green' - when in fact they are reducing the commercial attractiveness of building the infrastructure to move the energy to the grid, so it might be a net-negative environmental benefit (or at best, negligible, assuming that the mining equipment was originally connected to a dirty grid, rather than new equipment) (and would not be subject to carbon tax).

Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power

#393

Post by TheDudeMan »

socks wrote: post #392
TheDudeMan wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon tax fixes this.

I don't believe it does. The same phenomenon can occur with a renewable energy source. Remote renewable energy source (solar, hydro etc), not grid connected, could attract the same sort of Bitcoin mining system and even claim to be 'green' - when in fact they are reducing the commercial attractiveness of building the infrastructure to move the energy to the grid, so it might be a net-negative environmental benefit (o…

> they are reducing the commercial attractiveness of building the infrastructure

A company will do whatever is most profitable (build transmission or build generation). Which is fine, given the bad things (e.g. coal) were taxed out of profitability.

Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power

#394

Post by TheDudeMan »

socks wrote: post #392
TheDudeMan wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon tax fixes this.

I don't believe it does. The same phenomenon can occur with a renewable energy source. Remote renewable energy source (solar, hydro etc), not grid connected, could attract the same sort of Bitcoin mining system and even claim to be 'green' - when in fact they are reducing the commercial attractiveness of building the infrastructure to move the energy to the grid, so it might be a net-negative environmental benefit (o…

Thought experiment: If you had to ban one of these, which would you pick?

bitcoin vs coal

One of them is responsible for a significant percentage of global carbon emissions and the other is not.

I don't favor bans, but at least that thought experiment should indicate which one to go after in some way (e.g. taxes).

Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power

#395

Post by socks »

TheDudeMan wrote: post #394
socks wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it does. The same phenomenon can occur with a renewable energy source. Remote renewable energy source (solar, hydro etc), not grid connected, could attract the same sort of Bitcoin mining system and even claim to be 'green' - when in fact they are reducing the commercial attractiveness of building the infrastructure to move the energy to the grid, so it might be a net-negative environmental benefit (o…

Thought experiment: If you had to ban one of these, which would you pick? bitcoin vs coal One of them is responsible for a significant percentage of global carbon emissions and the other is not. I don't favor bans, but at least that thought experiment should indicate which one to go after in some way (e.g. taxes).

I think emissions are a different issue.

Which is more _wasteful_? I would argue Bitcoin, and dangerously so, because its upper bound of potential energy usage is infinite.

Coal, on the other hand, is not wasted (burning coal without using the heat would be stupidity).

Even when coal is phased out, Bitcoin may still be there, causing unnecessary strain on the infrastructure. Bitcoin will find the cheapest energy and set it on fire, if the price is right. And the heat produced by the equipment also wasted as byproduct due to convenience/commercial factors. I can imagine it already contributes to energy poverty, alongside other issues, in developing nations.

Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power

#396

Post by TheDudeMan »

socks wrote: post #395
TheDudeMan wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thought experiment: If you had to ban one of these, which would you pick? bitcoin vs coal One of them is responsible for a significant percentage of global carbon emissions and the other is not. I don't favor bans, but at least that thought experiment should indicate which one to go after in some way (e.g. taxes).

I think emissions are a different issue. Which is more _wasteful_? I would argue Bitcoin, and dangerously so, because its upper bound of potential energy usage is infinite. Coal, on the other hand, is not wasted (burning coal without using the heat would be stupidity). Even when coal is phased out, Bitcoin may still be there, causing unnecessary strain on the infrastructure. Bitcoin will find the cheapest energy and…

Rather than imagining, we must look at the data.
Post reply on HN