by iaw on 5/6/21, 3:56 PM
> Greenidge also said that the company plans to replicate its vertically integrated model — cryptocurrency mining at the source of energy production — at other power plants, with a goal of at least 500 megawatts of combined mining capacity by 2025.
This seems abjectly horrible from an environmental perspective.
by splitrocket on 5/6/21, 4:07 PM
by ChemSpider on 5/6/21, 4:04 PM
But the core problem is that dirty electricity is not (yet!) taxed for its CO2 emission. If the same plant would be used to power a data center for Netflix streaming it would be equally bad.
by bananapub on 5/6/21, 4:03 PM
the level of damage from bitcoin is...quite astonishing.
even if every single cycle was powered by renewable energy, in a world with any remaining fossil fuel power it is displacing more worthwhile loads and so directly causing emissions.
I used to think it was just a stupid idea but it's now far far beyond that.
let's see how long before someone posts a defence by comparing it to the power use of banks (!?!).
by the_lonely_road on 5/6/21, 4:22 PM
This...this can’t be real right? You are telling me that we brought a closed coal plant back online and we did it to mine Bitcoin?
I have not felt this defeated in a long ducking time.
by mshumi on 5/6/21, 4:26 PM
We could easily solve this BTC problem by hard forking to a pure proof of stake consensus protocol for BTC. Same security and decentralization guarantees. No environmental harm, and far more scalable so you can actually buy coffee with it. Ofc that's against the best interests of miners and BTC core devs.
by xiphias2 on 5/6/21, 4:38 PM
''Greenidge Generation, a former coal power plant that converted to natural gas and began a Bitcoin mining operation, is positioning itself as part of the clean energy future.''
I know that it's against HN to say that people didn't read the article, but it's relevant, as it's clickbait: the power plant is converted to natural gas, which is still debatable/controversial, but it's not burning coal, as all other commenters wrote.
The sad part is actually that the article is interesting, and a lot of work went into it, and then the ,,main editor'' probably gave it a clickbait title. I have seen this myself when my girlfriend was interviewed for a magazine.
by pmlnr on 5/6/21, 3:58 PM
The title makes it sound like it's a good thing. It's not.
by w0mbat on 5/6/21, 4:14 PM
Coal causes more radioactive contamination of the environment than nuclear, in addition to increasing CO2 and acid rain. The fact that it encourages damaging changes like the one in the article is another reason why Bitcoin needs to be banned.
by scotty79 on 5/6/21, 4:44 PM
Maybe this will force governments to adjust taxation of energy generation to reflect its environmental impact.
by RichardHeart on 5/6/21, 4:22 PM
Proof of stake solves this. Proof of work is basically proof of stake in foreign mining hardware and electricity bills. You've heard of small POW chains getting attacked (vechain, ethereum classic) but have you heard of any POS chains having such problems? Caveat: Crypto founder.
by boringg on 5/6/21, 5:39 PM
Would be funny (not actually funny, more darkly depressing) if coal generators were in fact a lot of the buyers of bitcoin in that they not only make money on their bitcoin holdings but also on the revenue from their coal generation facilities. Making money on both sides!
by boringg on 5/6/21, 4:22 PM
Bitcoin is the worst - super fascinating in its infancy and early days. Devastating at mass consumption levels.
by nimos on 5/6/21, 4:23 PM
I wonder if there could be an "excess power coin" that could only be mined when there was an excess of green energy. I suppose the utilities would have to be in on it to validate power delivery. Even then can't think of a way you could prove a certain block was mined with a specific allotment of energy...
by ece on 5/6/21, 4:00 PM
Bitcoin: exploiting the dirtiest power sources since 2021.