Hacker News Reader

Comment by ath92 | Hacker News Reader

Energy is not an infinite resource. The energy used to mine bitcoin could have been used for something else instead.

That’s not true at all. There is a huge amount of stranded power. Electricity is not fungible across large distances. Otherwise people in Texas wouldn’t be paying $9,000 per mwh during the storm— power certainly didn’t cost that much in other states then.

That’s a function of the rather peculiar decision of Texas not to connect to the rest of the grid.

Every neighboring state is connected to the eastern power grid, which can transfer power from the Mexican border to Vermont.

WRT Texas, that was a deliberate political choice rather than physics: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_power_transmi...

Texas is a pretty disingenuous and cherry picked example considering they deliberately siloed themselves off from the other two major power grids of the country. Energy within a power grid is fairly fungible.

That was a political decision. Having your own grid means that you also have your own power frequency regulation, and importing power from a different network is not as simple as connecting wires - you need to connect them using DC instead of AC. These transfer points (interchanges) are sized just for temporary power import or export, you cannot use them to power the whole Texas grid. You can see more details about the interconnects here: https://www.eia.gov/realtime_grid/#/status

lol yes it is, texas is huge btw, but also has no interconnects with the rest of the grid, hence the price rise at a time of zero supply and high demand

My initial reaction was skepticism. So the numbers I found were 121 TWhs consumed by Bitcoin annually. Hydro power produces 4200 TWhs annually of a total electricity production of 25,000 TWhs. Assuming all Bitcoin mining is powered by hydro, a 97% untilization for hydro doesn't seem far-fetched.

So what do you propose we do? Do we create the energy police and tell people what you can and cannot do with energy? Do we stop people from mindlessly browsing the internet?

This argument really annoys me because, bitcoin has a purpose, I can buy things with bitcoin, just take a walk in Huaqiangbei and see how many shops accept bitcoin, talk to the people who's governments failed their national currency and they will agree the energy we spend on bitcoin helps them.

Until btc is replaced with a POS crypto currency like cardano[1] the energy we spend on btc is worth it for the people using it.

[1]https://ucarecdn.com/8673f817-d83b-441a-8281-45e8ae68bbec/-/...

Sounds like a naïve view.

There's a limit of how far you can transport electricity, the majority of methane gas burnt and wasted.

Mining gold could be used on other things, energy going into dropping bombs could be used for other things... sadly it's just idealism.

Not fully necessarily given how local energy is. There's only so many things you can do in cheap-energy places, especially without much bigger and less potentially temporary investments.

All of humanity uses the energy equivalent of ~50 lbs of matter each day.

There's way more energy available to us than biological humans will ever use.

Energy is not an infinite resource. If you use up that energy to <insert activity>, it could have been used for something else instead.

Ugh this is such a tired argument. Energy used to watch TV could be used for something else instead. What is this mystical “something else” which couldn’t be powered because Bitcoin was using up all the electricity, and what good fortune would it have brought us?

Well this something else is usually just nothing. Demand drives electricity production.

Yes this discussion has happened hundreds of times on HN at this point.

> "Bitcoin uses too much energy[1]"

> "It's only using surplus energy which would go to waste anyway[2][3]"

> "But it still has an environmental impact [4]"

I guess I'm just tired of seeing the same things repeated on every single thread about Bitcoin. When I saw a lazy comment like OPs, I overreacted, sorry.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952#:~:text=Cambrid.... [2] https://www.coindesk.com/the-last-word-on-bitcoins-energy-co... [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-in-the-wilderness-11553... [4] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/bitcoin-btc-surge-renews-wor....

Your articles don't support your stance. I work with people who handle surplus electricity with mobile mining operations -- they're few and far between.

The use of bitcoin, a speculative good, as a sink for electricity creates less pressure for grids to manage electricity production (especially as the acceptable spot price trends towards the commercial price of electricity). It also ignores the innovative ideas that are geographically bound like storing potential energy by pumping water into dams.

The idea that bitcoin only uses surplus energy is disprovable just by looking at the regularity of block completion. If it were dependent on an irregular source like surplus electricity, you wouldn't see that.

If you are arguing that bitcoin is using a significant amount of overflow hydro power, I'd like to check your sources.

First Law of Thermodynamics anyone?

Yes there is a lot of power being used to mine crypto, I mine but it is done on a system that I would normally have running 24/7 regardless of mining. Yes large mining specific "server" or "ASIC" farms use alot of energy but so does every other serverfarm. Maybe we should be talking about the energy cost of watching Pr0n, or TikTok videos both of whic IMHO provide far less benifit to society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com