> Why would a country, like a business, choose to make less money?
See also: Microstrategy, El Salvador.
Plenty of countries have chosen to have environmental goals at the cost of making less money.
That kind of argument makes less and less sense the more you think about it. It's like arguing that Africa can't develop the Internet until after they get their telegraph network up and running. There's no reason that a functional power grid requires the use of fossil fuels as the primary energy source, and we're already at a point where renewable energy is as cheap to set up as fossil fuel plants. An advantage to starting industrialization later is you don't have to waste time working through worse versions of technology. If you want to be competitive, starting out on the latest and greatest is the best choice, especially because you often have a chance of undercutting existing providers who have too much sunk capital costs in less efficient technology.
That's not true in general. It depends on the specific situation.
You are right about learning from existing technology, and that people will not and should not blindly retrace the technological evolution, missteps and all, of those who came before them.
To give an example that combines both points: a poor country might be well advised to focus on bicycles instead of modern cars. But that doesn't mean they need to do a penny-farthing before they can get to safety bikes.
I can recall many, many years ago (20+), reading an article about the future of telephones. The article proposed that many developing nations would never install landlines with full penetration because mobile phones are so much cheaper. This was written in the era when mobile phones were still expensive. That blew me away.
East Africa has huge savannahs that are ideal for solar power. I've written here many times about the solar gold mine upon which both North Africa and the Middle East are sitting. I agree: There is a good chance that coal power plants don't make sense in the face of very cheap solar power. Also, many developing nations depend upon foreign capital / loans to build power plants. The lenders will very much prefer green energy over coal. What is harder: Tearing down coal power plants in developing nations. Why? The money is already spent to build a huge power plant.
This brings back bad memories, and illustrates the risk of linear thinking: South Africa's black population was denied proper services under apartheid, including telecommunications. In an effort to supposedly right that wrong, the state-owned telecommunications company, Telkom, was given a years-long monopoly on fixed-line telecommunications in return for putting in fixed line connections to black communities. There were reports that an American corporation, SBC, helped write the country's telecoms act after it acquired a minority stake in Telkom.[1][2]
That monopoly set South Africa back many years, and it's only been in the last decade that it began catching up with the rest of the world. Oh, and the copper network has been so badly looted that many/most places now have wireless landlines. And those under-served black people: they all bought cellphones for the same reasons that people in the rest of the world did.
[1] https://twentythirdfloor.co.za/2007/08/27/telkom-sbc-and-a-f... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20070827181955/http://www.busrep...
That's usually how I end up choosing things I thought I could never choose.
Quantity demanded increases as price decreases https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand
Bhutan controls the price they will sell at, and for hydropower the marginal costs can be very low, so surely they do control the quantity demanded.
Most likely there is a treaty setting a floor price on the power or a demand ceiling, and they have hit one of those. Those limits are negotiated based on all of these considerations.
I don’t agree with “They don't control the demand for their power” because Bhutan do have choice over how much they deliver, even if it is only in the long term via their contracts. Bhutan exports 70% of their power, so clearly India wants it.
As an aside, I have two very good friends who work designing electricity markets, and planning country interlinks. I am not a specialist, but I do try to keep up with the play.
Without specific knowledge of the agreements between India and Bhutan, this is also hypothetical, and I have to say that it's a big assumption that "India clearly wants it." And even for economics 101 commodities, no supplier controls their demand curve or the optimal quantity to sell.
I get your points, but ultimately Bhutan has control over building hydrodams within its borders, so it is controlling supply, so it does have a lot of control over the price. Of course you can come up with a million quibbles about the details, but you are just arguing yourself into a corner case.
OP’s point was: “Are you suggesting they cannot sell more [electricity to india]?”. You said “They probably can't”. Yet Bhutan is developing more hydro dams, and they are going to sell more electricity to India. Case closed!
Unless you can find some data showing that they are spilling water for $0 without generating electricity…
Bhutan doesn't have the best relations with Nepal either after the ethnic-cleaning of Nepali Hindus (1/5 its population) from Bhutan. Nepal, ofc, is as poor as India (though better than Bihar).
Spoiler: it hasn't.
Per a Bhutanese source, it has been mining BTC since it was 5000$. Also, the electricity is free so it hasn't lost any serious money given the low expenditure. Last time BTC was 5000 was in Mar 2020 so given that they are still doing it, I don't see why this is unprofitable for them. If it was, they would have stopped by now.
Lots of things could prevent the sale of some energy, though. Someone else mentioned the idea that their market is saturated.
Sure, so investing in smart load management is an optimal solution. With EVs and chargers coming online that's a huge load you can send a signal to in order to adjust demand. A country like Bhutan is very well suited to this kind of approach.
Or change the energy mix so you have a balance of baseload and variable load generation.
Or do something with it that isn't guessing random numbers on machines 99.7% of which will never successfully guess a single block and go from factory to space heater to landfill.
Can't remember which miner, but one of the majors, made more money in credits for pausing their waste than they did from the bitcoins that came out the other end last year. It's just extorting the public.
> Not sure about Bhutan's grid, or who they can interchange to, but there are frequently wind farms in TX that have to take a loss to generate power simply because they are forced to generate power, and there is no demand for power in the region, and the buses (power lines) are congested.
So invest in building more power lines.
The myth of stranded energy is toxic. Wasting it on bitcoin mining is an incentive not to connect it to the grid the way it should be connected. Either don't build it, or build it and connect it. The worst case outcome is to build and then waste it.
Transmission losses are only 2-3% per 1000km.
Bhutan has 0.15 vehicles per capita, among the lowest in the world. 47% of their popular has no education. You’re saying Bhutan should build a smart grid for EVs rather than run a Bitcoin mining operation?
I think that’s kinda ridiculous.
> You’re saying Bhutan should build a smart grid for EVs rather than run a Bitcoin mining operation? I think that’s kinda ridiculous.
Not just EVs, there's plenty of things you can make demand-responsive. Do something - anything - with it. Electrolyze water for hydrogen. Electric smelters. Power for a data center! The world is your oyster.
What's ridiculous is wasting the power on lotto tickets and e-waste and furthering the single least efficient technology humanity has ever conceived of.
By this logic we should remove airbags from cars also-- the vast majority of airbags just cost money to manufacture and don't ever expand or save a life, ending up in landfills unused.
An anti-efficient transaction processing system (that gets less efficient the more people mine) managing 2-3 transactions per second is the same as ... airbags ... because they're not used in the ideal outcome?
The majority of electricity used to mine bitcoin (about 100TWh per year) is coal, and coal kills about 25 people per TWh generated. So it's steady-state responsible for about 1000 deaths per year if we assume only 40% of the power is coal. The Verge says its about 85% coal and gas. [1]
What's the quantity of resources consumed by airbags at rest?
Bitcoin doesn't 'just cost money' to make, it consumes wild quantities of power and yields wild quantities of e-waste. 100TWh per year and 54kT of e-waste.
If we followed this model, would you be ok with each laptop you buy yielding 333 identical laptop in a dumpster somewhere ... because airbags?
Like I said, I'm having trouble following this argument. Is there a chance your argument is less about airbags and more about, er, somewhat heavier bags?
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/10/23677113/bitcoin-mine-inv...
This misses the point that mining is probabilistic. Mining pools pay out based on the number of hashes tried, not the number of blocks solved. Your misunderstanding seems to be that the utility of something can be based on a probabilistic outcome. It is akin to saying that airbags are 99% (or whatever) wasteful because most of them aren't actually involved in a crash, and therefore 100x inefficient. You pay extra for a car with an airbag because it has value in the rare event you do have a crash it has immense value. Similarly, a mining pool would pay a single bitcoin mining rig to mine for years without it solving a single block, because the mining pool would realize the entire value if it did find a block, and so it pays out just under the expected value of this reward times the probability of the event happening.
Second, your argument ignores the fact that the unit of a "mining machine" is completely arbitrary. If mining machines were on average 2x larger and more powerful (but there were half as many of them), then by your argument bitcoin mining would be 2x less wasteful. That makes zero sense.
Absolutely not, it's millions of times more wasteful than that. You don't need to allocate a single miner to a single block and then throw it out. It's just so many order of magnitude more wasteful than it needs to be that it's hard to reason about. You should be able to run the entire Bitcoin network on a single Raspberry Pi. It's literally 2tps, each a few bytes.
> Your misunderstanding seems to be that the utility of something can be based on a probabilistic outcome.
There's no misunderstanding. The kWh and kT of e-waste don't need to happen, it's just a poorly designed proof of concept that ran amok.
> If mining machines were on average 2x larger and more powerful (but there were half as many of them), then by your argument bitcoin mining would be 2x less wasteful.
No, I'm measuring waste by weight, in kilotons per year. In addition to energy consumption. So if a machine was twice as large it would contribute the same amount of waste in both columns.
a) good, because now twice as many miners actually solve a block, so instead of 99.7% waste it is 99.4% waste.
b) doesn't matter, because I just changed the unit of measurement-- each machine is just doing twice as much work.
c) doesn't matter, because bitcoin is already infinitely wasteful-- in which case pointing out that 99.7% of machines are somehow more wasteful than the other 0.3% does not make sense.
d) bad, for some other reason.
It's 99.7% of machines based on the characteristics of the current most efficient miner.
I gave all the relevant waste metrics. Power, weight. And to help visualize, the quantity of the current best-in-class miner.
This is legendary pedantry. You can multiply and divide out to get any of the three measures of the scale of waste from the others. This whole thread was about you disliking 'P' in 'P=IV' but having no issue with 'I', 'V' or the idea you can multiply them together.
Gonna go ahead and end our conversation here.
But the prices might drop below what crypto-mining pays.
Bhutan sells a massive amount of power.
Transmission is extremely efficient. A power line spanning all the way from New York to San Francisco should be about 92% efficient.
Transmission line losses are only about 2-3% per 1000km. [1]
[1] https://iea-etsap.org/E-TechDS/PDF/E12_el-t&d_KV_Apr2014_GSO...
Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion? The value of mining is generally proportional to the available power. If the capital expense of a mining rig is less than a transmission line, it might be better to mine than to transmit. For example, if it costs 1 million dollars to install a transmission line, but only 1 thousand dollars to setup a mining rig that could consume all the energy, it probably be more feasible to mine than to transmit.
So if there's a small amount of power, you get no yield from mining. If there's a lot of power, you can afford to connect it to the grid. If there's a medium amount of power, decommission some of the supply - or never build it in the first place. All three options are better that using it to probabilistically guess at nonces and prove you expended it on nothing of value - and get paid for it.
> So if there's a small amount of power, you get no yield from mining.
You are going in circles. The amount of mining you can do is exactly proportional to the available power. It does not suddenly go to zero. If the yield or profit is greater than the costs, it is economically worthwhile.
This is the exact opposite of burning money. Your assessment whether bitcoin mining is wasteful or not is beside the point, the point is merely to unlock the economic value of stranded energy.