Green energy used for crypto mining isn't green energy, it's just a waste of time. A new wind or solar farm does nothing for the environment if it isn't being used to displace any existing fossil...
Green energy used for crypto mining isn't green energy, it's just a waste of time. A new wind or solar farm does nothing for the environment if it isn't being used to displace any existing fossil fuel capacity.
Allowing for the possibility that I could have missed some important detail while skimming... this is silly. The "study" is really just a proposal, which essentially boils down to: couple bitcoin...
Allowing for the possibility that I could have missed some important detail while skimming... this is silly.
The "study" is really just a proposal, which essentially boils down to: couple bitcoin mining with renewable energy to make money which offsets the cost of deploying renewable energy (solar, wind, etc..).
It also, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, includes hydrogen as a companion storage/transportation solution. Not clear because there are a variety of energy storage solutions available and hydrogen (with current tech) is much less energy efficient than other options. I suppose the thinking must be that it's green energy so if we lose half of it to the hydrogen process no worries.
It also uses the concept of "virtual carrier" which, if I'm reading it right, means that the economic value of bitcoin makes it a magical way to move energy around.
There are of course some huge issues with all of this. What happens as mining gets progressively more expensive and there are (inevitable) crashes in the value of bitcoin? Now you have some percentage of your power production that was reliant on bitcoin mining for profit jumping into the red. It's cool though, I guess, because you've built the machines to turn all that unprofitable power into even more unprofitable hydrogen by losing 50% of it in conversion process.
Another issue is that the "study" makes no case for why using bitcoin mining to monetize the power is a better idea then the virtually endless other ways you can turn power into profit, many of which are more profitable, more reliable and more future proof.
Bitcoin remains primarily an investment, it still doesn't have significant real world applications outside of that, and so the volatility problem isn't going to go away. And it will always use a huge amount of power relative to what you get out of it. It's designed that way.
This study feels to me like just another gambit from the world of crypto speculation to prop up the value of Bitcoin in light of people increasingly talking about its carbon footprint.
Yes this could be a reinforcing feedback loop, hypothetically if Bitcoin maintains its perceived value until 2140, could create an impetus for an expansion of green energy. That being said, if the...
Yes this could be a reinforcing feedback loop, hypothetically if Bitcoin maintains its perceived value until 2140, could create an impetus for an expansion of green energy. That being said, if the mining becomes unprofitable, what happens?
I really like the idea of crypto-mining utilizing wind and solar power. And I really like the idea of incentivizing the roll-out of "green energy" (inclusive of green/blue hydrogen which are not...
I really like the idea of crypto-mining utilizing wind and solar power. And I really like the idea of incentivizing the roll-out of "green energy" (inclusive of green/blue hydrogen which are not really green) solutions. But I don't like the idea of what boils down to incentivizing energy consumption, especially if that "green energy" isn't supplying more energy than the crypto-miners are utilizing (i.e. the "green energy" needs to be a net positive to the power grid).
Otherwise we have the same problem as EVs are creating. We're moving towards a less destructive fuel source, but our power consumption is growing which means that fossil fuel power plants are remaining online to provide for our consumptive ways. However, the benefit of plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), hybrids (HEVs), and pure electric EVs (PEVs) extend beyond their replacement of ICE cars and trucks, there's a positive social effect as well as potential cost savings for the consumer.
I don't mean to be rude, but the linked study reads like an excuse to publish something with a bunch of topical catch-phrases with a feel-good end game. Fundamentally, getting the crypto-mining sector to go green doesn't change the energy-dependence of the other sectors of the economy, or change our increasing use. "Incentivizing" green energy consumption is really just a means of providing an economic stimulus or tax credit to a very specific industry.
On the topic of crypto and blockchain, I think that Kim Stanley Robinson's idea of a carbon coin paid to companies that don't take fossil fuels out of the ground, is a much better idea and more realistic -- and it's almost a total fantasy. Incentivize non-consumption instead.
Recent peer reviewed study shows Bitcoin mining coupled with green hydrogen can enable wind farms to expand capacity by up to 73.2% and solar farms by 25.5%, accelerating the renewable transition.
Recent peer reviewed study shows Bitcoin mining coupled with green hydrogen can enable wind farms to expand capacity by up to 73.2% and solar farms by 25.5%, accelerating the renewable transition.
Green energy used for crypto mining isn't green energy, it's just a waste of time. A new wind or solar farm does nothing for the environment if it isn't being used to displace any existing fossil fuel capacity.
Allowing for the possibility that I could have missed some important detail while skimming... this is silly.
The "study" is really just a proposal, which essentially boils down to: couple bitcoin mining with renewable energy to make money which offsets the cost of deploying renewable energy (solar, wind, etc..).
It also, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, includes hydrogen as a companion storage/transportation solution. Not clear because there are a variety of energy storage solutions available and hydrogen (with current tech) is much less energy efficient than other options. I suppose the thinking must be that it's green energy so if we lose half of it to the hydrogen process no worries.
It also uses the concept of "virtual carrier" which, if I'm reading it right, means that the economic value of bitcoin makes it a magical way to move energy around.
There are of course some huge issues with all of this. What happens as mining gets progressively more expensive and there are (inevitable) crashes in the value of bitcoin? Now you have some percentage of your power production that was reliant on bitcoin mining for profit jumping into the red. It's cool though, I guess, because you've built the machines to turn all that unprofitable power into even more unprofitable hydrogen by losing 50% of it in conversion process.
Another issue is that the "study" makes no case for why using bitcoin mining to monetize the power is a better idea then the virtually endless other ways you can turn power into profit, many of which are more profitable, more reliable and more future proof.
Bitcoin remains primarily an investment, it still doesn't have significant real world applications outside of that, and so the volatility problem isn't going to go away. And it will always use a huge amount of power relative to what you get out of it. It's designed that way.
This study feels to me like just another gambit from the world of crypto speculation to prop up the value of Bitcoin in light of people increasingly talking about its carbon footprint.
Yes this could be a reinforcing feedback loop, hypothetically if Bitcoin maintains its perceived value until 2140, could create an impetus for an expansion of green energy. That being said, if the mining becomes unprofitable, what happens?
I really like the idea of crypto-mining utilizing wind and solar power. And I really like the idea of incentivizing the roll-out of "green energy" (inclusive of green/blue hydrogen which are not really green) solutions. But I don't like the idea of what boils down to incentivizing energy consumption, especially if that "green energy" isn't supplying more energy than the crypto-miners are utilizing (i.e. the "green energy" needs to be a net positive to the power grid).
Otherwise we have the same problem as EVs are creating. We're moving towards a less destructive fuel source, but our power consumption is growing which means that fossil fuel power plants are remaining online to provide for our consumptive ways. However, the benefit of plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), hybrids (HEVs), and pure electric EVs (PEVs) extend beyond their replacement of ICE cars and trucks, there's a positive social effect as well as potential cost savings for the consumer.
I don't mean to be rude, but the linked study reads like an excuse to publish something with a bunch of topical catch-phrases with a feel-good end game. Fundamentally, getting the crypto-mining sector to go green doesn't change the energy-dependence of the other sectors of the economy, or change our increasing use. "Incentivizing" green energy consumption is really just a means of providing an economic stimulus or tax credit to a very specific industry.
On the topic of crypto and blockchain, I think that Kim Stanley Robinson's idea of a carbon coin paid to companies that don't take fossil fuels out of the ground, is a much better idea and more realistic -- and it's almost a total fantasy. Incentivize non-consumption instead.
Recent peer reviewed study shows Bitcoin mining coupled with green hydrogen can enable wind farms to expand capacity by up to 73.2% and solar farms by 25.5%, accelerating the renewable transition.