I don't want to conquer the world, but it seems obvious to me that this is "market failure" exacerbated through global trade.
Wasting energy should not be an opportunity for revenue, but of course it always is, for differing reasons.
The word "waste" here means that there is a maximization of resource consumption while simultaneously minimizing physical utility to humans (utility as in Utilitarianism).
At least as an weak version of my argument. In reality, it is not resource consumption that is maximized, it is free-loading resource usage of the commons while still maximizing profits.
This honestly seemed like one of the few stories of Bitcoin as net positive for a community's energy supply. The hydro-plant is now able to continue investing and link up to the national energy grid, where it will be more profitable to supply "human" demand. The miners will move on to the next disconnected energy source, and everyone was happy.
You say potato, I say po-tat-o. You "market failure and waste", I say "taking advantage of local efficiencies and powering a global financial system". Did you miss the part where they share revenue with the energy company?
> The bitcoin mine now accounts for around 30% of the plant's revenue allowing them to keep the prices down for the local town.
No, I honestly went off on a rant without really digesting the article.
Also because I find myself in need of limiting my exposure to politics and doomscrolling.
I think I don't disagree with you, while being wary of how exactly systems could be challenged and improved.
I found myself really angry in the past about environmental problems and am mostly shutting myself off web discussions about such topics in order to not becoming angry and isolated in futility.
My comment above was another diversion from that stated goal, but I'm thankful for your reply.
Hopefully there's an expiration date on the supply contract. It would be too bad if the mining cramped the town's ability to use electricity as it (hopefully) increases usage.
Later in the article it says they already plan to leave, as the hydro plant will be connected to the broader grid and make more money selling into the grid.
Doesn't seem like the best donation of $3M to build the plant in the first place, barely connecting anyone and most of the energy going to a for-profit bitcoin miner. $3M is a lot of solar panels + diesel generators.
The article makes it sound like there isn't a contracted price, but that low cost of power is a temporary situation that will only last until the hydro plant can connect to the national grid.
WoW after 10 years of producing tons and tons of co2, we have one pseudo positive example!
We know now that they build a water power plant, which disrupts nature and we also know that it took them YEARS to connect them to the local town.
Social benefit? Nearly 0
Greenwashing due to a pseudo positive message people can bring up despite bitcoin still being tremendesly shit. Lets ignore that they probably not recycle the process heat and care very very little about the town next door.
They basically support dirty bitcoin by producing local heat and hurting nature.
And solar energy would have solved their problem faster and cheaper.
Have you taken the time to study Bitcoin and the mining? I recommend keeping your arrogance aside and studying for a change. Even you emit CO2 so why don't you extend high horse thinking towards yourself? Learn something.
Wasting energy should not be an opportunity for revenue, but of course it always is, for differing reasons.
The word "waste" here means that there is a maximization of resource consumption while simultaneously minimizing physical utility to humans (utility as in Utilitarianism).
At least as an weak version of my argument. In reality, it is not resource consumption that is maximized, it is free-loading resource usage of the commons while still maximizing profits.