| > Not if someone paid me to do it. That's the point. If there was money in hauling ACs around the US and running them on the cheapest electricity the local market could provide, we'd have exactly the same false economy. How is such a purely hypothetical scenario useful as an argument? It's like saying: "If nobody ever did physical harm to anybody, we could get rid of some part of law enforcement." Not useful because it's simply not the case and very likely never will be. > They also appear to be sufficiently profitable on "retiring coal plant" prices[1], which undermines any kind of unique incentivization of renewals argument. Bitcoin mining incentivizes any kind of generation that cannot be consumed by a more profitable process or use case.
If the price of electricity on a mostly fossil powered grid is low enough, then Bitcoin mining will be profitable.
Same goes for a mostly renewables powered grid. There are two ways, politics can handle this: A) Impose a high enough carbon tax on fossil generation. This will lead to higher electricity prices for the fossil grid, possibly making Bitcoin mining unprofitable. But it will also make other uses of electricity unviable. B) Regulate that Bitcoin mining is prohibited under certain conditions (location, grid generation mix, ...) B doesn't appear wise to me. Since it's highly subjective what kind of energy/electricity use one deems useful/legitimate. I personally find the use of a > 100 horsepower private car or a private jet totally illegitimate and would welcome regulation that drastically hinders these absurd uses of energy. |