BITCOIN

uk1

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.

In order to provide a false argument to support  your own strongly held opinions you are falsely representing the different evolving opposing arguments over time as though the same people drop one set of (in your view) spurious opinions and replace them with another set of (in your view) spurious arguments. That isn’t a realistic description of what is happening is it? 

This misrepresentation of the nature of those arguments shows a lack of respect to others  and healthy interest in your own (hopefully) evolving self-education and doesn’t really add any additional credibility to your own does it? 

Zola.

Malthusian said:

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

No - it just means there are more players fighting over the same block reward. Thats it. 

Adyinvestment

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. 

It won't increase the supply, nothing can increase the supply and it only gets more deflationary over time, this is one of the fundamentals for number go up.

Adyinvestment

It seems strange to me that anybody on either side of the Bitcoin fence could see this as a bad story.

Methane gas is one of the main causes of global warming and is not being dealt with properly, to say that the energy should be used for something else is a non-argument because to put it simply, it isn't.

Landfills have been around for decades but how many companies/governments are willing to invest into collecting the methane? not many. I imagine by the below statement from the Environmental Protection Agency this is because it is not cost affective.

Because there is profit in Bitcoin it enables miners to harness this harmful gas that will otherwise cause our planet damage.

If all the landfills were being used to make energy for other things then the argument would stand, but they aren't, and I don't see any major plans for this to happen. Until all the landfills/methane has been harnessed for more "everyday" uses then we should all be thankful that this at least will improve it a little bit.

"Poorly functioning energy markets and financially insolvent utilities and municipalities within many countries fail to provide the private sector with a climate that will attract their investment in projects to capture and utilize methane"

Section62

Adyinvestment said:

It seems strange to me that anybody on either side of the Bitcoin fence could see this as a bad story.

Methane gas is one of the main causes of global warming and is not being dealt with properly, to say that the energy should be used for something else is a non-argument because to put it simply, it isn't.

Landfills have been around for decades but how many companies/governments are willing to invest into collecting the methane? not many. I imagine by the below statement from the Environmental Protection Agency this is because it is not cost affective.

Because there is profit in Bitcoin it enables miners to harness this harmful gas that will otherwise cause our planet damage.

If all the landfills were being used to make energy for other things then the argument would stand, but they aren't, and I don't see any major plans for this to happen. Until all the landfills/methane has been harnessed for more "everyday" uses then we should all be thankful that this at least will improve it a little bit.

"Poorly functioning energy markets and financially insolvent utilities and municipalities within many countries fail to provide the private sector with a climate that will attract their investment in projects to capture and utilize methane"

The first BiB isn't true.

I don't know much about the regulatory system in the US, but the same EPA you quote also say -

Are landfill owner/operators required to develop and implement LFG energy projects?

Existing regulations under the Clean Air Act require landfills of a certain size to install and operate a gas collection and control system. Landfills are not required to develop LFG energy projects, however under the regulations landfill owner/operators may control LFG by combusting it in an enclosed combustion device (such as a boiler, engine or turbine) for energy generation, by using a treatment system that processes the collected LFG for sale or beneficial use, or by flaring it. Beneficial use of LFG offers communities and landfill owner/operators the opportunity to reduce the costs associated with regulatory compliance by turning this landfill byproduct into a marketable resource.

https://www.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-questions-about-landfill-gas#areownersrequired

So unless the EPA statement is wrong, the larger landfills already have to capture the high potency methane (and other gases) and have to do something with it so they (at worst) only release lower potency gases such as CO2.

Is all landfill methane captured and used?  No.

Is Bitcoin required for methane (and other LFG) capture and processing to happen?  No. (third BiB)

If your second BiB ("not many") is true, then the EPA must be doing a pretty lousy job at enforcing their existing regulations.

Across much of Europe LFG capture and processing is the norm.  In 2018 the EU countries produced over 2500 ktoe of primary energy from landfill gas -

https://www.statista.com/statistics/863329/landfill-gas-energy-production-in-the-european-union-eu/

So I'd like to understand how do you define "not many"?

The fourth BiB is the true non-argument in this discussion so far.  I anticipate someone pointing out the EPA regulations only relate to landfills "of a certain size".  And it is true that not all methane from all landfills is captured and used for productive purposes.  But there is a problem in that the production of methane from landfill varies over time, and not all landfill produces methane in usable amounts.

If your argument were that only landfills producing uneconomic amounts of methane should be used for methane-to-bitcoin then I might agree with you.  But your argument that we should be "thankful" [to Bitcoin, for saving us] until all landfill [methane] is used for "everyday uses" is the kind of argument which just makes Bitcoin look ridiculous.

Adyinvestment

Section62 said:

Is all landfill methane captured and used?  No.

Is Bitcoin required for methane (and other LFG) capture and processing to happen?  No. (third BiB)

If your second BiB ("not many") is true, then the EPA must be doing a pretty lousy job at enforcing their existing regulations.

Across much of Europe LFG capture and processing is the norm.  In 2018 the EU countries produced over 2500 ktoe of primary energy from landfill gas -

https://www.statista.com/statistics/863329/landfill-gas-energy-production-in-the-european-union-eu/

So I'd like to understand how do you define "not many"?

The fourth BiB is the true non-argument in this discussion so far.  I anticipate someone pointing out the EPA regulations only relate to landfills "of a certain size".  And it is true that not all methane from all landfills is captured and used for productive purposes.  But there is a problem in that the production of methane from landfill varies over time, and not all landfill produces methane in usable amounts.

If your argument were that only landfills producing uneconomic amounts of methane should be used for methane-to-bitcoin then I might agree with you.  But your argument that we should be "thankful" [to Bitcoin, for saving us] until all landfill [methane] is used for "everyday uses" is the kind of argument which just makes Bitcoin look ridiculous.

That is a lot of words, but I don't understand what your argument to my point is?

It is pretty clear that at this time, using methane gas from landfill is not taking any energy away from anything else, and if you take into account poorer countries probably never will. All it can possibly do at this point in time is help.

Section62

Adyinvestment said:

That is a lot of words, but I don't understand what your argument to my point is?

In summary:  That you made some assertions which aren't supported by the facts.

For details, see my previous post.

Adyinvestment said:

It is pretty clear that at this time, using methane gas from landfill is not taking any energy away from anything else, and if you take into account poorer countries probably never will. All it can possibly do at this point in time is help.

You are still assuming (wrongly) that nothing is being done about/with the methane.

Maybe there is more of an issue in poorer countries, but the article refers to a pilot scheme in California. 

California isn't a poor country.

If the pilot scheme was in Bangladesh or India and well away from a population centre (where the energy could be used for everyday purposes) then you'd have a really good point.

Adyinvestment

Well, you made me check.

California landfills have less that 20% with LFG projects and there are a further under 10% candidates, this leaves over 70% of landfills with no plans for the methane, so plenty of landfills (I have no idea how to check for suitability) for them to utilise.

Section62

Adyinvestment said:

Well, you made me check.

California landfills have less that 20% with LFG projects and there are a further under 10% candidates, this leaves over 70% of landfills with no plans for the methane, so plenty of landfills (I have no idea how to check for suitability) for them to utilise.

So plenty of landfills, but no idea about the amount of methane produced by that 70%, nor whether any of them could produce usable quantities.

A convincing argument so far.

At least we've moved beyond the claims that landfill methane isn't being dealt with, and that it isn't already being used for energy needs.

Adyinvestment

BlackRock starting to get heavily involved with Bitcoin, after the news last week regarding their partnership with Coinbase for their institutional clients, they are now about to offer a "spot" Bitcoin private trust (for their US clients)

https://www.ft.com/content/0948f1a9-ad0b-4126-9ae8-5ce4e212c07e