It's really a shame so many blindly follow group-think on this nuanced subject.
Perhaps to the National Hydropower Association knows a bit more than you: https://www.hydro.org/powerhouse/article/why-hydropower-owne...
For someone pointing an awful lot of fingers and making a lot of extremely condescending accusations throughout this thread, I'm surprised you're offering this advice.
I work in the renewable power industry, and my father was a biologist who spent his career trying to mitigate the ecological disasters caused by my state's hydroelectric dams.
The link you've provided suggests that miners and hydroelectric providers could establish mutually beneficial economic partnerships. That hardly needs to be written; it's obvious. But I think if you polled the public on whether creating additional revenue streams for hydroelectric is a higher priority than reducing our overall energy demand -- well, do I even need to suggest what the results would be?
reducing our overall energy demand
This idea is the genesis of currency in Mesopotamia. Offsetting seasonal harvests via "tokens" that allow farmers to subsist all year. Storage alone won't solve everything.
Hmm, I wonder why a PR representative for a Cryptomining company would advocate for Cryptomining…
What does GRIID do? Their homepage title: "Griid - A Bitcoin Mining Company". You've cited an opinion piece written by someone with a vested interest in promoting bitcoin.
If it's really once in a while when it's exceptionally sunny that they do it, there's no point in doing this at all because the cost (and high depreciation) of the mining rigs makes no sense if you don't run them very often.
Either way it's a bad solution to invest energy into some made-up assets, considering how bad the climate crisis already is.
I'm not against crypto per se, but proof of work really needs to die. It's a relic from a bygone worry-free era that will never come back. It will only lead to ever more energy usage. And we will not be out of the woods for a century even if we do do everything possible.
Here is a great primer: https://www.hydro.org/powerhouse/article/why-hydropower-owne...
It's comments only from someone who owns a bitcoin mine, presented as if he's a hydro power expert.
It can be used to do anything, but for some reason you want it to do crypto.
There's no fundamental law that says a technology must be abused, that's human choice.
BTW another choice is Bitcoin choosing to stay with extremely wasteful proof of work consensus mechanism, when proof of stake by all indications seems to work too. Again that's not something fundamentally flawed with crypto, that's people making greedy decisions because they're balls deep invested in it.
I find it extremely disappointing how even the HN crowd struggle to distinguish ubiquitous human greed from the problem crypto solves and its potential uses.
Maybe my hope regarding HN being one of the last places for civilised and nuanced discussion is misplaced, and it sure seems to be changing in recent years.
Often claimed and yet not true.
> Hamas thought it could flout Western surveillance and international sanctions by embracing the world’s leading digital asset. It thought wrong, and the story is illuminating for those who mistakenly believe that bitcoin provides a safe space for criminals, money launderers and the financiers of terror.
from here: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4273988-hamas-just-learn...
"Simply" implies "in an economically viable fashion" here. Which means that someone has to be willing to pay for (A) building these batteries or electrolyzers and (B) operating them.
Building such systems to an industrially relevant scale hasn't really happened yet. Because it hasn't been economically viable.
Just now they're building a 30 MW electrolyzer near Leuna and it'll be the largest in Europe. Compare that to a regular powerplant which has 1 GW and you'll get an idea that large scale hydrogen synthesis isn't all that near.
Either (A) governments subsidize such systems to a great degree or (B) electricity has to be dirt cheap for a decent fraction of the year (say 50 % or 4400 hours), because if you want to run an electrolyzer, ideally you want to run it 24/7, not every second day at noon because there's cheap PV electricity.
I think (A) is more likely to happen within the next decade than (B), but even when we eventually have these electrolyzers, Bitcoin mining might still be more lucrative.
This is why billions of dollars are going into storage and transport for renewable energy (batteries, hydrogen, and some outliers like methane and ammonia). Creating any new energy demand, be it flexible or constant, only increases the total amount of renewables we need.
> our entire grid could be renewables in excess of peak demand
Are you hypothesizing about a world where we have more renewables than we can consume at all times? Sure, I guess mine away in that world. In this world, though, it's doing measurable damage.
When electricity is cheap, run the fridge/freezer extra hard, make ice or ultra-heat the water tank. Or “pre-charge” the building extra hot or cool but within level of comfort.
When it’s expensive, maybe slow down the dryer/dish|clothes washing or defer it for some hours. Same for any charging. At the end of the day, I don’t care if my stuff is washed+dry in 50 or 500 minutes most of the time.
Your point of view here seems to neglect energy storage.
Are you hypothesizing about a world where we have more renewables than we can consume at all times?
You are deeply out of touch with reality if you believe they aren't curtailing capability during slow demand.
Did I imply that we don't need or shouldn't have currency? And are you implying that crypto and stored renewable energy should be equivalent priorities?
> You are deeply out of touch with reality if you believe they aren't curtailing capability
"At all times" was the key qualifier to my statement. I'm well aware that excess capacity from intermittent sources is a huge problem and curtailment is the workaround employed these days, which is precisely why I'm saying that storage should be a higher priority than crypto.
Coal power is the least flexible way to generate power.
> It has the benefit of being able to be turned on and off practically instantly.
No, the opposite.
> There is no economic incentive to build out sustainable generative capacity if it won't be running all the time,
Of course there is.
And anyway, the article is about using an old coal power plant to mine bitcoin. 1000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a day, without the bitcoin the plant would have been shut down.
The article mentions all the incentives US states have been using to attract Bitcoin mining (after China banned it), so maybe this was a ‘clever’ trick from the fossil fuel industry to keep itself alive. And what is the most flexible load to quickly make use of such incentives? Bitcoin mining it turns out, but it could have been something else. Start pricing the [lb][g]CO2Eq/kWh and then see what will happen.
> Quite the contrary, the existence of cryptocurrency to mine acts as a 'productive' sink for power produced in excess of grid baselines
By that logic, any use of electricity is a sink for power, which is ridiculous logic. If you spend millions of dollars in mining equipment, you're not just going to let it sit idle for the 22 hours a day when there isn't any excess electricity. You're going to mine whenever it's profitable. Bitcoin users also need miners to clear transactions and provide security against 51% attacks.
It isn't though. If you're using electricity for heat in the winter and generation is low for a few contiguous days, you can't just turn off everybody's heat. They'd freeze. But you could certainly stop mining Bitcoin for a week out of the year if the cost of electricity that week was high enough to make it unprofitable.
The problem with renewables isn't that they only generate power a small fraction of the time. It's that they generate power most of the time, but most of the time doesn't work for things that need power all of the time. So having things that can consume power most of the time, and thereby fund that amount of generating equipment, allows that consumption to be turned off so that extra generating equipment can service the things that need power all of the time when there is low generation supply.
You can't fully solve this problem with cryptocurrency, but it's because there isn't enough cryptocurrency -- cryptocurrency mining would have to be on the order of half of the power grid on a typical day, which is not going to happen. But it's a thing that can help rather than hurt to the extent that it exists.
The real problem is that we don't price carbon, so then people mine Bitcoin by burning coal. But they also run lights and computers and elevators by burning coal, which is just as bad and has the same solution.
Not even the promised 'trust'.
Therefore the only thing it does is playing local energy market against a global finance system / speculation.
The only use case is if you heat directly with energy without any other option like a heat pump.
We need to stop Bitcoin.
It's a system Virus
I remain unconvinced that cryptocurrency is long term detrimental to clean power generation infrastructure. Quite the contrary, the existence of cryptocurrency to mine acts as a 'productive' sink for power produced in excess of grid baselines. In practice, our entire grid could be renewables in excess of peak demand, and cryptocurrency mining a flexible network load. It could quite possibly get us off of non-clean energy entirely.