BITCOIN

Zola.

https://news.bitcoin.com/landfill-gas-mitigation-firm-vespene-energy-gas-to-bitcoin-solutions/

But but but Bitcoin is so terrible for the environment and doesn't offer anything useful?

Frequentlyhere

Zola. said:

https://news.bitcoin.com/landfill-gas-mitigation-firm-vespene-energy-gas-to-bitcoin-solutions/

But but but Bitcoin is so terrible for the environment and doesn't offer anything useful?

So, just to clarify, this firm has found a source of energy (landfill methane) that could be used for lots of useful things, but is being used instead to mine bitcoin, is that right?
 
If so, how is that a good thing? As opposed to using that same methane to alleviate the energy pressures we have ongoing?

The thing is, surely any source of energy that is potent enough to support a meaningful amount of bitcoin mining could always be put instead to an activity with actual value?

Section62

Zola. said:

But but but Bitcoin is so terrible for the environment and doesn't offer anything useful?

Smoke and mirrors.

Better for the environment would be capturing the gas and feeding it into the mains gas supply, or using it for micro generation and feeding the power into the electricity grid.

This has been happening for decades already.  'Bitcoin' hasn't invented anything new.

If the argument is that these are remote off-grid locations and bitcoin operations at the site make use of energy it would be impractical to insert into the grid, then there are other processes requiring gas/electricity which could be operated on those sites instead.

And is there much benefit to the environment of building the infrastructure (including security) and having people travel to/from a remote site just to greenwash an energy intensive activity?

If Bitcoin is so great, people shouldn't need to come up with ideas like this to demonstrate it.

Zola.

It's amusing to watch the Bitcoin hate narrative change over the years. 

Firstly bitcoin is scorching the earth and must be stopped. Then millions are spent by energy companies to provide viable ways to greatly reduce emissions (from non bitcoin emissions also), but supposedly Bitcoin doesn't have a right to convert that waste and use that energy and it should be used for other things.... brilliant.

Section62

Zola. said:

It's amusing to watch the Bitcoin hate narrative change over the years. 

Firstly bitcoin is scorching the earth and must be stopped. Then millions are spent by energy companies to provide viable ways to greatly reduce emissions (from non bitcoin emissions also), but supposedly Bitcoin doesn't have a right to convert that waste and use that energy and it should be used for other things.... brilliant.

It isn't "hate" and you demean your argument by adopting that kind of language/approach.

Landfill methane capture and reuse is not new.  Nothing groundbreaking has been invented.  Using the potential energy source for activity 'x' prevents that energy being used for other things.

If activity 'x' is wasteful, it is still wasteful if it means other things can't use that energy.

It is really strange conceptually to believe 'Bitcoin' has rights - especially when the article references the investment as being made in dollars.  Maybe the dollars should get first dibs on the gas?

Zola.

Section62 said:

Zola. said:

It's amusing to watch the Bitcoin hate narrative change over the years. 

Firstly bitcoin is scorching the earth and must be stopped. Then millions are spent by energy companies to provide viable ways to greatly reduce emissions (from non bitcoin emissions also), but supposedly Bitcoin doesn't have a right to convert that waste and use that energy and it should be used for other things.... brilliant.

It isn't "hate" and you demean your argument by adopting that kind of language/approach.

Landfill methane capture and reuse is not new.  Nothing groundbreaking has been invented.  Using the potential energy source for activity 'x' prevents that energy being used for other things.

If activity 'x' is wasteful, it is still wasteful if it means other things can't use that energy.

It is really strange conceptually to believe 'Bitcoin' has rights - especially when the article references the investment as being made in dollars.  Maybe the dollars should get first dibs on the gas?

I didn't say it was ground breaking. It is however, clearly an attractive way to mine bitcoin in a carbon negative setting, providing a partnership for mining companies and energy companies to work collaboratively, which is the complete opposite to the type of negative news often found in the mainstream media, which the parrots use as their rhetoric. 

On the rights point, what you deem as wasteful, others do not. I think Xbox, Playstation, Tumble Dryers etc waste a tremendous amount of electricity, but they provide value to many. So people need to get off their energy high horse, ultimately. 

Section62

Zola. said:

I didn't say it was ground breaking.

The article says "It gives landfill owners the ability to monetize their landfill methane..."

This implies it is something new or groundbreaking, that the ability didn't exist before. Which isn't accurate.

Zola. said:

On the rights point, what you deem as wasteful, others do not. I think Xbox, Playstation, Tumble Dryers etc waste a tremendous amount of electricity, but they provide value to many. So people need to get off their energy high horse, ultimately. 

Are people who don't have an Xbox, Playstation or tumble dryer allowed to remain on their energy high horse for the time being then?

If you note, I referred to "activity 'x'" in my comments, not 'Bitcoin', specifically to make the point that this is generic - it doesn't matter what the activity is, if it wastefully consumes energy it is still wasteful even if it allows the manufacturer/consumer to do a bit of greenwashing.

I'd say the same thing if Microsoft, Sony or Hotpoint invested in landfill methane capture to enable them to claim their products were "useful" and not "terrible for the environment".

Unfortunately some people can only hear 'Bitcoin hate' though.

Malthusian

The more fundamental problem with the whole "yay energy firms are getting into Bitcoins" schtick is that if someone has developed a way to profitably mine Bitcoins using a previously untapped energy source, that will increase the supply of Bitcoins, not the demand. 
Which means number go down.
basic economics = haterz
And on the environmental front, note that the action of mining Bitcoin using flared gas doesn't mitigate emissions. The emissions remain exactly the same, it just means the emissions are used to take money off the Bitcoin table instead of doing nothing at all. The "reducing emissions" comes from Vespene's other job, which is to help landfill owners reduce the amount of flaring they do to save maintenance costs.  (Which in turn reduces the amount of Bitcoin Vespene can mine with it, but presumably that is compensated for by lower costs. If Bitcoin starts rocketing in value it would make economic sense for Vespene and their customers to stop bothering with trying to reduce greenhouse gases, and instead burn every molecule of methane they can find and ride those flares to the moon.)
Naturally this is glossed over by bitcoin enthusiasts, and if you restricted yourself to bitcoin.com it would be easy to get the impression that the reduction of emissions and the Bitcoin mining are the same thing. Rather than two separate things (eliminate what emissions you can and harness what you can't for personal profit).

Zola.

Malthusian said:

The more fundamental problem with the whole "yay energy firms are getting into Bitcoins" schtick is that if someone has developed a way to profitably mine Bitcoins using a previously untapped energy source, that will increase the supply of Bitcoins, not the demand. 
Which means number go down.
basic economics = haterz
And on the environmental front, note that the action of mining Bitcoin using flared gas doesn't mitigate emissions. The emissions remain exactly the same, it just means the emissions are used to take money off the Bitcoin table instead of doing nothing at all. The "reducing emissions" comes from Vespene's other job, which is to help landfill owners reduce the amount of flaring they do to save maintenance costs.  (Which in turn reduces the amount of Bitcoin Vespene can mine with it, but presumably that is compensated for by lower costs. If Bitcoin starts rocketing in value it would make economic sense for Vespene and their customers to stop bothering with trying to reduce greenhouse gases, and instead burn every molecule of methane they can find and ride those flares to the moon.)
Naturally this is glossed over by bitcoin enthusiasts, and if you restricted yourself to bitcoin.com it would be easy to get the impression that the reduction of emissions and the Bitcoin mining are the same thing. Rather than two separate things (eliminate what emissions you can and harness what you can't for personal profit).

That's not how it works though. The difficulty adjusts to accommodate more hash power. Net result is that blocks get mined consistently on average every 10 minutes, and the reward/new bitcoin is issued at the same rate.

Basic Bitcoin knowledge. 

Malthusian

A reduced increase in supply is still an increase in supply.