only because it's not a simple binary answer that people wish for. its a long answer with variables that have to be actively monitored. an annual dissertation really.
even your acknowledgement of bitcoin miners using green power sources runs counter to detractor's worldview, and forces people to need to understand it better than "huh thats a lot of energy must be bad"
so now we're at "wait they are green but now here is this indirect other problem when the goal post moves because I don't like how the energy is being used and I presuppose that energy is fungible"
okay, yeah sure we can move the goal post a lot further and still show that its a working economic sustainability solution which can be improved when people direct their mental energy in a more nuanced way. your position is not to improve it, its to deflect towards there being no energy use at all, and that will never get you anywhere as the people that would actually have the authority to represent your wishes would look at it and come to my conclusion
for example, not all the energy is fungible which is why it is being used by miners, and that's only in some of the variety cases, although a major case
You realize that the article is quite explicit that the power being used here would otherwise be exported? The prices of electricity in that town aren't cheap because there is some non fungible surplus of power. They are cheap because the local government sells the electricity at below market rates due to political reasons.
> The combined output of the basin’s five dams averages around 3,000 megawatts, or enough for the population of Los Angeles. Until fairly recently, perhaps 80 percent of this massive output was exported via contracts that were hugely advantageous for locals. Cryptocurrency mining has been changing all that, to a degree that is only now becoming clear.
The miners aren't consuming free or spare power: they are directly using fungible electricity that would have otherwise been exported and used to shut down coal power plants.
This isn't some minor indirect problem, the article literally points out that this is going on.
This is matches my point, although the energy that they had tapped into was being exported where possible, the local area doesnt even have substations to take advantage of it all. Correct me if I’m wrong, but other parts of the article are suggesting that 80% of what was harnessed was being exported. Which means if the town is using 200 megawatts then another 800 megawatts was being used, and another two gigawatts were not being used. Please confirm.
Also we don't know whether Seattle or Los Angeles is going to switch to coal, thats a problem you have to address in those places.
My point is that as this keeps growing they need to continually be addressed to make sure it doesnt start using unclean energy. But a reality is that this is a perfect example of miners using up to 2 gigawatts of energy, which can absolutely be more than several countries, but it all still being clean as it was not previously being utilized. The article talks about building new power stations and getting contracts for all the power immediately, which means this is still an ongoing process while the dam has been there for quite a while. All that energy all this time just not having enough demand to justify harnessing, till now.
> All that energy all this time just not having enough demand to justify harnessing, till now.
There was demand for that power. The dams were always running at full utilization. Most of that demand was simply outside the local area and the electricity was being exported. As stated by the article itself in the quote I just gave you (80% of the 3000 megawatts were exported). Those exports lead to reduced fossil fuel usage elsewhere because they allow other people to shut down fossil fuel plants. And the article directly states that now exports are going to have to be reduced now that miners are using that power. Which means in other parts of the country they are going to have to spin up new power plants (or extend the lifetime of fossil fuel plants).
The reason why you got confused over the 200 megawatts thing is because that's only one of three local utilities drawing power from the dams. Presumably all three of those added together consume ~600 megawatts, (20% of the total power available).
only because it's not a simple binary answer that people wish for. its a long answer with variables that have to be actively monitored. an annual dissertation really.
even your acknowledgement of bitcoin miners using green power sources runs counter to detractor's worldview, and forces people to need to understand it better than "huh thats a lot of energy must be bad"
so now we're at "wait they are green but now here is this indirect other problem when the goal post moves because I don't like how the energy is being used and I presuppose that energy is fungible"
okay, yeah sure we can move the goal post a lot further and still show that its a working economic sustainability solution which can be improved when people direct their mental energy in a more nuanced way. your position is not to improve it, its to deflect towards there being no energy use at all, and that will never get you anywhere as the people that would actually have the authority to represent your wishes would look at it and come to my conclusion
for example, not all the energy is fungible which is why it is being used by miners, and that's only in some of the variety cases, although a major case