[pmiller2]

The fact that it is primarily renewable is actually the reason why BTC's energy costs are exorbitant. That energy could be directed toward replacing fossil fuels, thus reducing carbon emissions.

Is that "educated" enough for you?

[vmception]

Can you elaborate? What do you think is happening at say, a hydroelectric damn with onsite computers, versus what could happen?

[pmiller2]

You see, we have these things called power lines, and, along with the substations, transformers, and other transmission equipment, those make up power grids. We have 3 of them in the US alone.

Now, when electricity is generated, you can transmit it over those power grids, even to places that aren't right next to the dam. You can even store a limited amount for later use.

Ever kWh that gets redirected away from frivolities like BTC can go toward something that would otherwise be powered by fossil fuels.

I thought you were "educated" here? Please do keep up.

[vmception]

The energy loss from power plant to consumer is 8-15%, on premise cryptocurrency mining is using

A) from some sources: Energy that wasn't going to be sent over those power lines

B) from other sources: a hedge against the loss

C) in some sources a combination of both A and B

If you get around to noticing, I have refrained from any snark with you and I wonder how long you will keep that up

[pmiller2]

Au contraire, I appreciate your "educated" opinion here. I just want to make sure I'm sufficiently "educated," so I can believe the exact same thing you do, with a straight face. If you didn't want it that way, you shouldn't have led with it.

Regarding A), there's no particular reason why that electricity can't be sent across power lines.

B) So what? Send it anyway, and replace 85-92% of the energy use.

[vmception]

So you think that I'm not open to conflicting realities, got it. I am not speaking in absolutes I am simply responding to you. Now you know. I led with an "educational moment" because it still remains accurate that the amount of energy is not a strong argument without referencing the source of the energy. It's not controversial for you to disagree with that, a reality still was and now is with mining included that energy producers opted to not transport some energy across long distances and miners are overwhelmingly using that because it is economical for both parties. You read something else that I didn't say or imply. You keep referring to that, which I was willing to ignore. It's clear snark is important to you, now you got your reaction so I hope you feel satisfactorily accomplished in that regard.

Now let's talk about your unique points than the original person I replied to: places have had decades to send more power over power lines and they didn't. You tell me why that is. I assume there were financial reasons and related impracticalities. But admittedly I have never asked and only react to the reality that energy producers have been receptive to the additional use of their energy for the aforementioned reasons I listed. Their output hasn't changed and to them it is a more efficient use of it. Are they lying? Are they ignorant of alternatives? Just lazy even though their laziness would therefore predate crypto mining?

Either way mining on premise is an immediately applicable economic incentive that simply got you to notice that you didn't like it.

Best case scenario then is that it gets you into action to implement a solution nobody else noticed was applicable. Society might be getting somewhere because of you, that's so exciting.

[pmiller2]

Yes, very "exciting." I thought we were done with the snark?

Nonetheless, financial difficulties are not relevant. What is relevant is reducing the world's carbon footprint, and that needs to happen ASAP. I, personally, think it's more "exciting" that human civilization might survive another century than to keep track of the solution to some useless, financialized math problem. But, that's just me, I suppose.