Cheap is not necessarily renewable, but is often just a cheaper country which in turn tend to be more lenient.

Also, it is wrong to assume that consuming 1GW near a hydroplant is fine. That 1GW would have been sold to someone else, and unless the net has an abundance of renewable energy, a non-renewable plant is going to have to cover for that.

Energy is not fully fungible. Local cheap energy can't be transported for use elsewhere, or else it would already have been.

Which might be a good reason why not every single Bitcoin miner is using hydro. If the expected payoff of mining is big enough to outweigh the increased prices of GPUs and nonrenewable energy, then I might choose not to move my setup to be next to a dam.

The same market effects that apply to factories, research facilities, server farms, etc... also apply to cryptocurrency mining. We can't have our cake and eat it too -- if energy isn't fungible, then not every mining rig is going to be set up using the most efficient power source in the world. Not every miner is going to have the ability to just "choose" to use cheap renewable power, and if mining is still profitable where they are using the power sources available to them, then they're still going to do it.

It's better and cheaper to use locally, but unless you find a plant that is unable to sell capacity, you're taking it from something else.

True, it doesn't make sense to move the power all the way around the world, but that's also not really how things like the synchronous grid of Continental Europe works, where power is traded across 24 countries on a single grid.

If your have cheap renewable energy, when you start selling, excess non-renewable capacity and more expensive plants in general powers down in nearby areas and countries.

Any power taken from a renewable plant there when power price is positive means increased non-renewable output.

> or do you claim that miners choose to use power in more expensive locations?

Both scenarios are very plausible, because if everyone within the market was perfectly efficient in choosing to use the cheapest power sources available, and if hydro was clearly the cheapest way to generate power, then it wouldn't just be being used for Bitcoin, it would be being used for every single portable, power-intensive task in general. We wouldn't be having a conversation about the environment in nearly any manufacturing field.

Given that this isn't happening, given that some things in the world still use coal power, and given that people are still worried about the environmnetal impacts of energy use in general, even though hydro exists -- the obvious conclusion is one of the following:

A) hydro isn't universally the cheapest power source.

B) there are other factors that determine where people will set up operations (taxes, living situation and preferred environment, costs beyond power generation, market saturation to the point that its still profitable to use expensive sources of power).

C) there are still environmental impacts of using a ton of power, even if it came from hydro, and hydro power doesn't just have zero environmental impact.

But obviously something is going on here, because bitcoin isn't special. If hydro power was the savior of power generation, then every single factory in the world would already be using it. But they're not, and it's reasonable to assume that the same market constraints and environmental situations also apply to bitcoin mining.

The fact that we are having an energy debate at all about any industry implies that something about the energy market, it's pricing, and its environmental impacts is more complicated than you're making it sound.

Miners don't care/get a choice. They plug their machines into the nearest wall socket.

Not true. We have actively sought the cheapest electricity sources for our rigs. I guess it depends on the scale you're operating at, but you're not going to be too profitable plugging into your apartment wall socket here in Central London @ 20p/kWh!

People still do it in California with power rates as high as $0.40/kWh or more.

This is not true. Miners are sophisticated business enterprises that select mining farm locations carefully based on access to cheap power and natural cooling. People signing their gaming rig into the network aren't a factor.

> This is not true. Miners are sophisticated business enterprises that select mining farm locations carefully based on access to cheap power and natural cooling.

Miners were supposed to be everyday Joe’s.

Patently false. I do a lot of contracting work for miners, they specifically tune their operations to the power cost of an area and in variable rate loads will switch off miners during peak costs. $/kWh is a big concern for actual mining operations, maybe not for people with one or two rigs in their basement.

For some reason I imagine that you are not managing e.g. Chinese mining operations.

Everyone will look for cheapest power, but that on its own does not make it renewable.

Plus, regardless of your source, as long as you haven't built your own plant, the grid has to cover for the loss. If there isn't an abundance of renewable energy on the grid, then the operation wasn't neutral at all.

You're correct, I'm dealing with exclusively American operations or American operations run by foreign entities. Most have relocated to explicitly get onto hydro. YMMV, but that's been my experience.

> I do a lot of contracting work for miners

Selection bias. I don't doubt that the miners who are investing god knows how much is necessary to _require a contractor_ will have scaled enough to need to concern themselves with cost of electricity, but the _majority_ of miners are not going to be those people, surely?

Requiring a contractor isn't a big ask. All it takes is not knowing someone who has networking chops. I work regularly with around 10 mining operations, 8 of them explicitly relocated to get on hydro because of how inexpensive it is. These guys care deeply about getting the most kWh for their money, because they still have to deal with turning a profit, and anyone who doesn't understand that has not actually dealt with real Bitcoin mining operations.

Majority of miners are companies trying to make a profit. Every variable is a consideration, like location, energy source, cost and so on.

The small mining operations run by the common person has almost no impact in the scale of the network.

Maybe in the beginning but today miners make lots of choices about where to build/expand their operations based on energy costs, government policies, energy source and more.

Maybe not individuals, but large one must think economy.

Bitcoiners use the cheapest energy they can find in place where they can cheaply install hash power.

Some of that may be hydro. A lot is coal.

Even when they do use green energy, the effect of doing that is to displace other users onto dirtier forms of energy, thus creating just as much pollution anyway.

Bitcoin is not green in any way whatsoever. Bitcoin specifically wastes energy, by design. This is never green. The first principle of green energy is to use less energy, as no energy is clean.

There's no one to displace. That's why the energy is cheap. Supply and demand.

This is just not true in the vast majority of cases.

"Surplus energy" is another lie bitcoiners like to spread about this. Sure, there might be a few occasions where bitcoin mining might use surplus energy.

In the vast majority of cases, no, they are not doing that. That is just not a thing.