Topic: America's first nuclear-powered bitcoin mining farm (Read 341 times)
^^ The cost of building/running a power station is coverd earlier here in this thread. The point here is that nuclear power *can* be pretty inexpensive and more to the real point - a steady stable power source - compared to anything other than hydro once the build costs are covered.
Just stumbled to this thread as this is an interesting subject for mining. I don't think nuclear power is cheap as everyone and media is thinking, it may, on the kw/h rate consumption, but for making it from raws, i don't think so. Geo and hydro powered is still i think is more efficient and greener than any kind of energy.
Quote
Transmission losses account for about 20%, and of course you need to maintain those transmission lines. If you consume it locally (at the generation), then not only you have that extra 20% capacity back, you also skip the maintenance cost of the lines.
In the US the transmission systems are owned/ran by 5 different regional authorities who buy the power from power plants and then of course markup what they charge the end users (your local power companies). Those Public Utility Councils/Commissions (PUC's) are for-profit businesses. After the PUC's comes your local electric companies - again, for-profit businesses. Yes they are all regulated to limit net profits to be no more than a few % over operating costs (which includes what they paid for the electricity) but it all adds up quickly.All of that brings us to the main advantage of 'behind the meter' power for data centers & mining farms: The fact that pretty much world-wide the typical output of utility-scale power generators - as in the actual generators used - is either 4800 or 9600 VAC. To be sent out to The Grid that voltage is stepped up to several hundred kVAC or more before leaving the power plant through massive and of course massively expensive transformers. Now it just so happens that your local utility will be feeding most of their large power users who use up to several 10's of MW per-building with
That means the power plant only has to provide needed switchgear & breakers tied to the generator buses to feed normal incoming power lines and transformers for each building. End result is of course dirt-cheap power for the adjoining data/mining campus.
What people need to understand for electricity cost is: You pay next to nothing for the actual creation of the electricity. What makes it expensive is the power loss if you let it travel through long wires and the price to maintain the wiring.
So if you can get a spot right next to a power plant where these factors are not an issue, 0.02 Cents is very possible and be a reasonable price. Lets hope they have long running contracts however. There are many people that want to harm bitcoin and this company will for sure be an easy target if you can just increase prices. They are basically 100% on the power plant that is next to them.
So if you can get a spot right next to a power plant where these factors are not an issue, 0.02 Cents is very possible and be a reasonable price. Lets hope they have long running contracts however. There are many people that want to harm bitcoin and this company will for sure be an easy target if you can just increase prices. They are basically 100% on the power plant that is next to them.
Yes and no. Transmission losses account for about 20%, and of course you need to maintain those transmission lines. If you consume it locally (at the generation), then not only you have that extra 20% capacity back, you also skip the maintenance cost of the lines.
If your business is generation, sure, it is more profitable to use it for Bitcoin mining than selling it to a city which is far away (assuming the same demand). I wouldn't say its "next to nothing", it is cheaper, but not "next to nothing". Sourcing things like Uranium is probably not cheap, but renewables have it much easier.
Just because it's cheap for usage doesn't mean it should be found in every corners of the globe. This is because of the he potential danger and threat it pose among nations in the international arena as relating to power tussle. Nuclear energy despite it's environmental friendly advantage is believed to be linked with nuclear weapons and this raises a high degree of restrictions to it's build up .
Environmental friendly?Should we ask the former occupants of Chernobyl if it's really Environmental friendly?
I think people just choose what they call Environmental friendly and what's not Environmental friendly because they are not directly affected and want to make money off it, but if we are to go by strict standards, even the so-called Green Energy stored in Lithium batteries is not
Let someone convince me how the process of attaining the raw materials for the manufacture of Lithium somewhere deep in the Democratic Republic of Congo is Environmental friendly.
If Nuclear Energy is cheap, why aren't we seeing widespread use of it as compared to fossil fuel?
Humans are unpredictable and their intentions can be different from what they showcase outwardly and that's why I don't support the use of nuclear energy in a world where we have the sun, wind and water energy at our disposal.
When I first heard it on the news days ago, I thought to myself wow this gonna be a good news for all bitcoin miners and enthusiasts seeing the promotion and growth bitcoin is steadily making amidst the different challenges from different quarters. It must have cost more than a lot to erect such project that's sure going to revolutionize bitcoin mining.
Hmm, the articles in the OP give the impression that the Susquehanna nuclear plant was fairly new. It isn't. It 1st went online in 1983. https://www.talenenergy.com/plant/susquehanna/ What IS new is the operators plans for an energy-intensive computing campus they built next door to the power plant. The campus is dedicated to cloud computing & other large scale operations (like oh, streaming porn which incidentally globally consumes far more power than mining does...) as well as servicing the crypto mining markets.
Oh, the original press release is here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230305005096/en/TeraWulf-Announces-Energizatio[%E2%80%A6]Mining-Operations-at-the-Nautilus-Facility-in-Pennsylvania
More on the plant and data center plans here
Info on the company running the nuclear powered farms here
Their cloud & other data center ops are covered here power cost: $0.039/kWh
Oh, the original press release is here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230305005096/en/TeraWulf-Announces-Energizatio[%E2%80%A6]Mining-Operations-at-the-Nautilus-Facility-in-Pennsylvania
More on the plant and data center plans here
Info on the company running the nuclear powered farms here
Their cloud & other data center ops are covered here power cost: $0.039/kWh
I don't think that nuclear energy is cheap because waste disposal is very expensive.
I mean as per the rate quoted in the article. It seems pretty cheap which means the operational costs could also be cheap but anyways i really don't know much about what it takes to set up a nuclear plant.Maybe they are just given discounted tariffs as per an agreement.
...
That link also highlights the primary safety hazard associated with nuclear power - the absolute need to get all of the engineering points right! IF done using what should be common-sense design and operations rules nuclear power IS safer, cleaner, and certainly more stable than almost any way of generating utility-scale electric power.
Ya know, things like: do not build on the shore of an ocean bay at risk from tsunami and if you do - at least locate the backup power generators above any possible flood line (Fukushima), do not run 'what if' tests on an already sketchy reactor design using an operational reactor (Chernobyl), make sure ALL build inspections are accurate, operation centers are thoughtfully laid out and operators are properly trained (TMI), be sure to build on stable ground (would have been an issue with the Midland reactors), do not build near an earthquake fault line (San Onofre closed before anything happened, also several falsified inspections found, botched repairs), etc.
That said it must be pointed out that because of its stringent design, build, and operations rules the US Naval nuclear program has had only 1 significant incident. That single one was a coolant leak that resulted in full immediate SCRAM shutdown of the reactor. ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors
From that link:
Quote
Since its inception in 1948, the U.S. Navy nuclear program has developed 27 different plant designs, installed them in 210 nuclear-powered ships, taken 500 reactor cores into operation, and accumulated over 5,400 reactor years of operation and 128,000,000 miles safely steamed.
Too bad the Russian program has never been as careful... As for discounted tariff: Ja. As others have said, the mining farm is right next to the power plant so in a sense the farm is 'behind the meter' in that there is next to no transmission costs involved. Yes obviously the power plant is metering the farm, just separately from what is being sent out to 'The Grid'.
Now one might ask, "why would a utility give such a low rate to the farm"?.
Simple: Any power plant needs a stable base-line load to run at best efficiencies. Mining farms pulling 10's of MW are as stable of a load as it gets. Couple that with the power plant being in a region that is not heavily developed with heavy industries or cities near it (yet) and a rather long distance to The Grid's high tension lines it becomes simple economics with the Utility who is running the power plant making more money by supplying power to the farm vs selling it on The Grid.
Being a brand-new fully-fueled Nuclear plant and therefore immune to the fluctuating costs of natural gas/oil/coal and for the next decade or so, uranium, the Utility is able to provide TerraWulf that sweet 5-year power contract. A rare Win-Win for all parties involved!
about 1.50 to run one s19j pro 100th which cost 1500 or less
and it makes 7.50 a day or 6 profit
so in 10 months 1800 or a bit more then breakeven. not bad at all
No matter how cheap Nuclear power gets I ain't investing a penny on it, the disadvantages of Nuclear power is what you don't want to experience, it's unforgiving and cruel, I will rather use wind power or power from the SUN, these two are safer and home-friendly, also if you are living in the U.S there is no need to pay the ridiculous percentage on Grid power since you won't be needing it.
You do realize that if Nuclear plants convert to fusion based systems the worlds energy crisis ends.
But hydropower looks more attractive.
Hydropower can be environmentally damaging. At the moment we have two major famines affecting agriculture and flora. Paradoxically one is carbon dioxide, and the other is water. Diverting water supplies can increase desertification, and make formerly arable land unmanageable. It can also lead to a reduction in rainfall, if trees and other components in the natural water cycle die.
I don't think that nuclear energy is cheap because waste disposal is very expensive.
I mean as per the rate quoted in the article. It seems pretty cheap which means the operational costs could also be cheap but anyways i really don't know much about what it takes to set up a nuclear plant.Maybe they are just given discounted tariffs as per an agreement.
...
That link also highlights the primary safety hazard associated with nuclear power - the absolute need to get all of the engineering points right! IF done using what should be common-sense design and operations rules nuclear power IS safer, cleaner, and certainly more stable than almost any way of generating utility-scale electric power.
Ya know, things like: do not build on the shore of an ocean bay at risk from tsunami and if you do - at least locate the backup power generators above any possible flood line (Fukushima), do not run 'what if' tests on an already sketchy reactor design using an operational reactor (Chernobyl), make sure ALL build inspections are accurate, operation centers are thoughtfully laid out and operators are properly trained (TMI), be sure to build on stable ground (would have been an issue with the Midland reactors), do not build near an earthquake fault line (San Onofre closed before anything happened, also several falsified inspections found, botched repairs), etc.
That said it must be pointed out that because of its stringent design, build, and operations rules the US Naval nuclear program has had only 1 significant incident. That single one was a coolant leak that resulted in full immediate SCRAM shutdown of the reactor. ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors
From that link:
Quote
Since its inception in 1948, the U.S. Navy nuclear program has developed 27 different plant designs, installed them in 210 nuclear-powered ships, taken 500 reactor cores into operation, and accumulated over 5,400 reactor years of operation and 128,000,000 miles safely steamed.
Too bad the Russian program has never been as careful... As for discounted tariff: Ja. As others have said, the mining farm is right next to the power plant so in a sense the farm is 'behind the meter' in that there is next to no transmission costs involved. Yes obviously the power plant is metering the farm, just separately from what is being sent out to 'The Grid'.
Now one might ask, "why would a utility give such a low rate to the farm"?.
Simple: Any power plant needs a stable base-line load to run at best efficiencies. Mining farms pulling 10's of MW are as stable of a load as it gets. Couple that with the power plant being in a region that is not heavily developed with heavy industries or cities near it (yet) and a rather long distance to The Grid's high tension lines it becomes simple economics with the Utility who is running the power plant making more money by supplying power to the farm vs selling it on The Grid.
EDIT:
What people need to understand for electricity cost is: You pay next to nothing for the actual creation of the electricity. What makes it expensive is the power loss if you let it travel through long wires and the price to maintain the wiring.
So if you can get a spot right next to a power plant where these factors are not an issue, 0.02 Cents is very possible and be a reasonable price. Lets hope they have long running contracts however. There are many people that want to harm bitcoin and this company will for sure be an easy target if you can just increase prices. They are basically 100% on the power plant that is next to them.
So if you can get a spot right next to a power plant where these factors are not an issue, 0.02 Cents is very possible and be a reasonable price. Lets hope they have long running contracts however. There are many people that want to harm bitcoin and this company will for sure be an easy target if you can just increase prices. They are basically 100% on the power plant that is next to them.
No matter how cheap Nuclear power gets I ain't investing a penny on it, the disadvantages of Nuclear power is what you don't want to experience, it's unforgiving and cruel, I will rather use wind power or power from the SUN, these two are safer and home-friendly, also if you are living in the U.S there is no need to pay the ridiculous percentage on Grid power since you won't be needing it.
Interesting, I had no idea that Nuclear power is much cheaper at 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of power as compared to the U.S. industrial average of 9 cents/kWh or was this just as per the agreement with the nuclear company?
If Nuclear Energy is cheap, why aren't we seeing widespread use of it as compared to fossil fuel?
If Nuclear Energy is cheap, why aren't we seeing widespread use of it as compared to fossil fuel?
Basically sourcing the fuel (the Uranium mining), transport, processing (enrichment) and later disposal is problematic. Of course there are also accidents and disasters, like Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima... They are rare, yes, but when they do occur, those areas tend to remain devastated and desolate (radiation half life, isn't a meme game).
Don't forget there is a bunch of ships floating around with such reactors, even if you don't see them much, there are plenty of them moving around the globe.
While most of the waste is kept underground, there are chances to use this as fuel for "breeder reactors" as well, so hopefully that stuff won't remain forever buried and can be consumed so it doesn't pose a danger either in the future.
Of course humanity is longing for fusion power, like that ignition event that was demonstrated with lasers not long ago, which is the same that floating thing we call "The Sun" does with gravity from being massive and all...
About distance to generation, that is true. A long high voltage line can easily lose about 20% just from the transportation. NIMBY means more waste in those lines. But this is not a problem for Bitcoin mining which can go to the generation itself.
It is good to see mining farm like this
Like FP91G said its very expensive to dispose the waste, Another reason is Nuclear Accident and
"Facing similar challenges to its European counterparts — including technological problems, cost escalations, and huge upfront investments — nuclear power has become a less attractive option than cheaper solar and wind power" - https://www.brinknews.com/nuclear-power-is-declining-in-the-west-and-growing-in-developing-countries/
but In my opinion, using nuclear still the best choice over coal.
My country - Indonesia's Nuclear Energy Control Agency (Bapeten) has announced that the Indonesian government plans to build a new nuclear power plant by 2039, in order to help the country achieve its target of reaching net zero emissions by 2060. The capacity and location of the future nuclear plant have not yet been communicated - https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/indonesia-plans-build-nuclear-power-plant-2039.html
If Nuclear Energy is cheap, why aren't we seeing widespread use of it as compared to fossil fuel?
Like FP91G said its very expensive to dispose the waste, Another reason is Nuclear Accident and
"Facing similar challenges to its European counterparts — including technological problems, cost escalations, and huge upfront investments — nuclear power has become a less attractive option than cheaper solar and wind power" - https://www.brinknews.com/nuclear-power-is-declining-in-the-west-and-growing-in-developing-countries/
but In my opinion, using nuclear still the best choice over coal.
My country - Indonesia's Nuclear Energy Control Agency (Bapeten) has announced that the Indonesian government plans to build a new nuclear power plant by 2039, in order to help the country achieve its target of reaching net zero emissions by 2060. The capacity and location of the future nuclear plant have not yet been communicated - https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/indonesia-plans-build-nuclear-power-plant-2039.html
I don't think that nuclear energy is cheap because waste disposal is very expensive.
I mean as per the rate quoted in the article. It seems pretty cheap which means the operational costs could also be cheap but anyways i really don't know much about what it takes to set up a nuclear plant.Maybe they are just given discounted tariffs as per an agreement.
But hydropower looks more attractive.
Probably not in most countries, including mine. Even the industrial tariffs are just unbearable I don't think that nuclear energy is cheap because waste disposal is very expensive.
I mean as per the rate quoted in the article. It seems pretty cheap which means the operational costs could also be cheap but anyways i really don't know much about what it takes to set up a nuclear plant.Maybe they are just given discounted tariffs as per an agreement.
But hydropower looks more attractive.
Probably not in most countries, including mine. Even the industrial tariffs are just unbearable 
$0.02/kWh is extremely cheap. And if they really can achieve 5.5EH/s by 2nd quarter, they'll have about 1.5% of total Bitcoin hashrate. But i hope they'll be careful about expanding their business quickly since in past year many similar company went bankrupt.
Probably because high initial cost and push back from some environmentalist and people who afraid Chernobyl disaster will happen again.
If Nuclear Energy is cheap, why aren't we seeing widespread use of it as compared to fossil fuel?
Probably because high initial cost and push back from some environmentalist and people who afraid Chernobyl disaster will happen again.
Interesting, I had no idea that Nuclear power is much cheaper at 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of power as compared to the U.S. industrial average of 9 cents/kWh or was this just as per the agreement with the nuclear company?
If Nuclear Energy is cheap, why aren't we seeing widespread use of it as compared to fossil fuel?
I don't think that nuclear energy is cheap because waste disposal is very expensive. If a company has the opportunity to bury waste on another continent and buy the necessary components inexpensively, then this is profitable. But hydropower looks more attractive. If Nuclear Energy is cheap, why aren't we seeing widespread use of it as compared to fossil fuel?
Jump to: