BITCOIN

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. 

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.