Topic: Bitcoin Mining Drives Green Energy Innovation (Read 294 times)

Good find! Merited you for that.

I didn't realize the US government was subsidizing the cost of coal power for bitcoin mining. (Bolded the parts which imply state subsidies)


They mislabel the programs as being "economic partnerships" and "job creation funds".

But in reality, I suspect those are clear cut examples of the government subsidizing coal power.

Without those state subsidies for coal, these bitcoin miners may have have opted for hydroelectric power instead.

The government could easily have chosen to subsidize wind, solar or hydroelectric energy instead of coal in these cases. Could be cases of economic protectionism driving the government to subsidize less environmentally friendly and less cost effective forms of energy.

Interesting cases here.    I thought I was 100% correct when I said there was no reason to select coal energy over hydroelectric. I never imagined governments would subsidize it.

Canada’s largest utility, Hydro-Quebec, is a perfect example. Reuters reports that “the province estimates it will have an energy surplus equivalent to 100 terawatt hours over the next 10 years. One terawatt hour powers 60,000 homes in Quebec during a year.”

Not surprisingly, Bitcoin mining operations have inundated Hydro-Quebec with applications to make use of the surplus. As such, profits have been steady, a whopping annual average of roughly $3 billion over the past four years.

Tell that to those guys in Montana:

https://www.ccn.com/u-s-senator-warns-closing-montana-coal-plant-will-hurt-bitcoin-mining-industry/


Well, if one is not enough:

Bitcoin mining’s growing demand for cheap energy revived a shuttered coal mine

You were saying....

There is also the Bonner Bitcoin data center, which until recently was one of the largest in the world, as CCN reported two months ago. Last year, according to the Missoula Economic Partnership, an initiative aimed at promoting business activities in the Western Montana city of Missoula, the Bonner facility was expected to expand from the then 12,000 mining rigs to 55,000.

Montana’s pro-cryptocurrency bona fides are also proven by the fact that its state government is the first in the U.S. to offer a grant to a bitcoin mining operation. Last year in June, the governor of Montana, Steve Bullock, announced that out of the $1,124,030 that had been allocated as economic development grants to assist main street businesses in creating jobs, training employees, and planning for growth, $416,000 would go to a bitcoin miner named Project Spokane.

“Missoula County received $416,000 of BSTF Job Creation funds to assist Project Spokane, LLC to expand, which will allow the company to create 65 new jobs in Bonner,” said a press release from Bullock’s office. “The BSTF funds will be used for purchase of equipment, machinery, furniture and software and for wage reimbursement. Project Spokane, LLC is a data center that provides blockchain security services for the bitcoin network.”

Compared to a Bitcoin mining farm I don’t think banks can even consume up to 20% of what a bitcoin mining farms can consume in a day. Lol, what is even banks that consumes too much energy, is it their photocopiers or what exactly? I don’t know if you have ever mined bitcoin before, trust me it consumes a lot.

I just wish they would find a way to solve this problem of being power hungry, altcoins are not like that, they are very easy to mine and does not consume much of anything. I have seen a lot of them that are easy to setup and all you need is just your computer and a electricity.

Currently the majority of miner are located in china.
And china's energy is to 66% generated by coal-fired power plants.  That's by far not a 'low carbon footprint'.

Still.. compared to banks and their energy usage.. that's nothing in comparison.




Using the unused energy from renewable sources which can't be injected into the grid for mining is a very nice idea.
I believe this can be established pretty cost-efficiently.

Otherwise, perhaps we should shut down Visa and Mastercard's networks then?

Bitcoin miners would surely opt for greener sources of energy if it were cheaper and easily accessible, but given that traditional coal power plants are giving their arm and leg to get such deals on these power-hungry miners, I'd say that most of the time, mining operators are still getting their energy from such traditional sources.

There's no reason to utilize coal generated electricity in bitcoin mining operations.

There isn't a scenario where a mining operation will opt for coal or oil above hydroelectric energy.

Green energy has become one of the rapidly increasing industry in the world. As world moves more to digitization there is a huge demand of energy and there is necessity of clean and green energy. And with the use of bitcoin and other currencies there seems we will have a high demand in future too. 

consuming power that would otherwise go to waste.

Currently the majority of miner are located in china.
And china's energy is to 66% generated by coal-fired power plants.  That's by far not a 'low carbon footprint'.

Bitcoin mining does consume a lot of energy but virtually all of it comes from a sector with a low carbon footprint.

This could help to make solar panels, hydroelectric plants and windmills more cost effective alternatives to fossil fuels on a kilowatt per dollar basis.

Global warming is certainly one of the humanity’s greatest challenges. For decades, public opinion has held heavily industrialized nations accountable for the damage done to our planet. In the quest to preserve Earth, it has become en vogue to critique Bitcoin mining for its high energy use and potentially harmful impact on the environment.

Towards the end of last year, the Bitcoin $BTC▼1.11% network was running on enough electricity to power more than 20 European nations. More recently, an article was run with the headline Bitcoin mining now accounts for almost one percent of the world’s energy consumption. Under a certain light, this is certainly true.

Bitcoin mining relies on Proof-of-Work to maintain its ledger. This mining network is made up of (and powered by) computers, which obviously use electricity. As adoption increases, more computers join the network, making the whole thing quite energy-intensive. Profit and efficiency is directly tied to energy input – a seemingly dangerous business model if electricity sources are not considered.

But while the data indicates that Bitcoin uses one percent of the world’s electricity, it misleadingly suggests that (if it wasn’t for Bitcoin) that electricity would not be produced – or necessary. In fact, often is the case that the electricity used to power Bitcoin mining farms comes from a surplus of energy that countries are desperate to unload.

In the case of green-energy solutions such as wind farms and solar, it is often very difficult to store or even sell that energy if the supply outweighs demand. This problem is particularly common in countries like China – where up to 70 percent of the world’s Bitcoin is being mined.

Reuters reported that “wasted [Chinese] wind power amounted to around 12 percent of total generation in 2017,” and distributing that surplus is proving incredibly difficult because other countries in the region are also energy-rich.

Simply put, countries that attract cryptocurrency miners with cheap electricity can do so because the supply greatly outstrips the demand. Cryptocurrency mining plays an important role in normalizing international energy markets by consuming power that would otherwise go to waste.

Andreas Antonopoulos, a prolific cryptocurrency researcher and influencer, has explained the situation quite succinctly:

The energy consumption in mining, I think, is misrepresented. […] What happens when you build a 50 megawatt plant in a place where they only have 15 megawatts of demand? In some cases, if it’s alternative energy, like wind, solar, or hydro, you can’t turn it off or turn it down. You’ve built it, and it will produce, and then what? You’re basically wasting energy.

Now what if, in that environment, you can find a way to turn that energy into an alternative store of value […] by using electricity that would be otherwise wasted. Now, Bitcoin is an environmental subsidy to alternative energy all around the world.

What needs to be realised is that the advent of Bitcoin is effectively driving the decentralization of energy production, which Antonopolous notes is “one of the most important trends in human history.”

Having energy “stored” in the form of cryptocurrency offsets the costs involved of developing those solutions – especially now that we know that lots of renewable energy goes to waste. The Bitcoin mining industry actually contributes to the development of alternative energy solutions through the conversion of surplus energy into a valuable commodity, simply by making use of the electricity produced.

Canada’s largest utility, Hydro-Quebec, is a perfect example. Reuters reports that “the province estimates it will have an energy surplus equivalent to 100 terawatt hours over the next 10 years. One terawatt hour powers 60,000 homes in Quebec during a year.”

Not surprisingly, Bitcoin mining operations have inundated Hydro-Quebec with applications to make use of the surplus. As such, profits have been steady, a whopping annual average of roughly $3 billion over the past four years.

[Edit: Hydro-Quebec has since clarified details of its profits, and this post has been updated to reflect its data. Particularly, it pointed out that the numbers relate specifically to its profit, not revenue, as was originally reported. Surely, an important distinction.]

So much money has been generated by lucrative deals that it was “forced” to share $45 million with its customers as profits exceeded the regulator-approved rate of return. This will surely act as inspiration for other nations to create similiar renewable energy solutions.

Attacking Bitcoin mining for its electricity usage is certainly easy – it’s an obvious target. In May, Ars Technica reported that by the end of this year, Bitcoin could consume up to 7.7 gigawatts, which sure sounds totally scary, until you run some comparisons.

The VISA corporation consumed more than 182 gigawatts of electricity over a seven year period. As it stands, it would take Bitcoin almost 24 years to consume as much electricity as VISA did in seven. Supposedly, it’s Bitcoin that is the danger to the environment, not VISA. Yeah, right.

Antonopoulos does concede there are challenges associated with managing Bitcoin’s electricity usage, but it is a complex discussion that requires consideration from many angles. The idea that by simply using electricity, Bitcoin must be bad, is nothing short of narrow-minded.

“This is a long game, […] the implications and complexity of how cost is allocated and how energy is consumed is huge,” Antonopolous declared. “I don’t think we can afford two Proof-of-Work systems on this planet, but I think we only need one.”

To which extent, the power to drive energy innovation, in the end, could be Bitcoin‘s “killer app.”

https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/08/28/bitcoin-drives-energy-innovation/