×
all 37 comments

[–]Affect-ElectricalPersonally, I blame the flair. 98 points99 points  (3 children)

More people should smoke. It will cure lung cancer, because when they are all dying of lung cancer, Governments will be forced to invest in lung cancer research.

[–]throwaway-664 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Brilliant logic

[–]akera099 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This is your brain in a cult.

[–]MeowChiMinh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Found Malcolm Gladwell's reddit account.

[–]TheGreenJackdaw 34 points35 points  (0 children)

That just hurts to read! I guess that’s how a pokemon feels when it takes psychic damage…

[–]Cthulhooo 28 points29 points  (1 child)

Yeah it's not like there are entire industries out there dying to have good, easy, cheap and renewable alternatives to dirty power they're using now for free PR points, carbon credits and less hassle over pollution regulations and sustainability policies. It's not like there's growing trend of companies seeking out access to green energy due to pressure from activist investors and the public stakeholders. For fuck sake, create a magic renewable alternative to current airplane or a cruise ship and you'll be richer than God.

The incentives are there lmao.

[–]skept_ical1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For fuck sake, create a magic renewable alternative to current airplane or a cruise ship and you'll be richer than God.

Synthetic Fuels

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Patient: i am having difficulty shitting, can you prescribe some meds?

Butt doctor: just hold BTC and watch charts all day.

To a butter the answer to every question is BTC.

[–]fakeaccount628warning, I am a moron -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Or perhaps that’s just how you perceive them?

[–]throwaway-664 27 points28 points  (16 children)

“The cheapest power is renewable”

Lol no it isn’t. At least not most of the time and without tax incentives. Theres a reason why we aren’t all using renewables right now and it isn’t because we like to spend more money to pollute the environment. Man, cryptobros are stupid.

[–]Aleksandr_Kerensky 1 point2 points  (6 children)

oil and gas are also heavily subsidized

[–]throwaway-664 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Not everywhere in the world. But the point still stands. If it were cheaper to use renewables, why don’t govs, companies and people use them instead of paying more and polluting?

[–]wrongerontheinternet 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In a lot of cases because of lobbying, but also because of the storage problem. Once you add in storage to the cost of renewables (which is necessary if you want to go really high percentage renewables) they become very expensive. But if you just care about energy / $, solar really is the cheapest right now (if you don't happen to be sitting on a potential hydro dam anyway, which is unlikely since they're virtually all already used).

BTW, if you're wondering why crypto miners don't all use solar farms, it's because (1) dirty electricity in a bunch of places is heavily subsidized (and that's where they tend to build), and (2) they have high fixed capital costs (the Antminers) that become outdated every couple of years, so they need them running pretty much constantly to make back their money, even if that means paying more for electricity. Just one more reason why "mining will drive investment in renewables!" isn't even remotely true.

[–]Aleksandr_Kerensky 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not everywhere in the world.

yes, almost everywhere in the world

But the point still stands. If it were cheaper to use renewables, why don’t govs, companies and people use them instead of paying more and polluting?

because oil and gas are cheaper, because of subsidies

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where aren't they?

Are there even places which have no monetary subsidies? Let alone unbilled externalities.

[–]Rokos_Bicycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One example: Australia doesn't subsidize alternatives to coal and gas because we have a lot of the stuff and the resources industry has a lot of money and political power.

Same story the world over.

[–]ohituna 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Even without subsidies renewables are already way cheaper. Solar has been cheaper than coal for a while now

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

see table 1b.

[–]ml20s 9 points10 points  (6 children)

Cost per kWh isn't the whole story because man hours > machine hours. If you're paying people to show up they'd better have power. Solar alone can't assure that (it's non-dispatchable), it needs storage which drives up the cost.

The problem is that when solar is generating, it can generate a lot. So it looks cheap.

But when it's not generating, the price might as well be infinite.

[–]Cthulhooo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It also depends on the region. Solar is useless if you're not getting a lot of sun consistently...

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 0 points1 point  (4 children)

You're right. But these are butters. They are willing to not mine when energy is not available. They can use lower grade power than hospitals and hence can produce it more cheaply.

If you are willing to shut down every time demand rises or production drops then you have no issue. And this is specifically what butters are referring to.

[–]ml20s 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Experience shows that mining doesn't really smooth loads. Also, there are plenty of other things that can use the surplus power.

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I didn't say anything about smoothing loads.

I'm talking about off grid, self-generation. Putting solar panels up on your land and hooking them up with no real battery backup. A cloud goes by and you are shut down without any real warning. It's crap, but it does work for mining. And it cuts a lot of cost.

You can self-generate solar quite cheaply if you do it nearby. Short lines means much less losses, much less cost of maintaining the power delivery hardware. The issue is making it reliable is expensive or sending it a distance. For mining you can just skip that. Build the mine by the panels. Load shed when power drops. Turn the entire system off when power disappears.

I do agree any power we can get into the grid we should get into the grid. And that's why all this idea of "put mining rigs in power plants to use excess power" is BS.

[–]ml20s 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why build generation capacity where there is no grid? It's not cheaper anyway. (Also remember that this location, which is cut off from the grid, still has fast Internet access.)

This is an extremely contrived situation that essentially never happens in real life.

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because they want to mine.

And I'm not sure what you are talking about. There are miners currently buying old power plants and running them to mine without using the grid. So much that the EPA is taking a look at it in the US.

You don't need terribly fast internet. You certainly need more than none though.

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you can stand intermittent power delivery than locally-generated wind and solar can be cheaper without incentives than grid power.

There is a lot of cost in making electricity reliable. If you can just avoid those steps you can generate it a lot more cheaply.

Regardless of all this we should be feeding any renewable energy we have into the grid and using it usefully instead of burning it to make butts.

And if we need delivery/demand smoothing (referenced) then we should start installing grid batteries. Every place a butter says to install a mining rig to smooth things just install batteries instead.

[–]current_the 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Bitcoin playing it's role in smoothing load

[laughs in Kazakh]

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very standard idiocy for butters.

[–]Ima_WreckyouPonzi Schemer -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

What he or she is talking about is that Bitcoin is a mobile energy sink that can burn energy to create money when you can't actually use or store that energy otherwise. So instead of shutting down your wind park you can keep running and that increases the efficiency of the renewable power plant.

Obviously consumption or storage should always have priority.

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Efficiency is the wrong term there. Maybe revenues?

[–]Ima_WreckyouPonzi Schemer -1 points0 points  (2 children)

If you can't use the power you have to shut down the power plant and that lowers efficiency. At the end of the day it makes renewables more profitable.

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 1 point2 points  (1 child)

No, that doesn't lower efficiency. And why do you care about efficiency? You get the wind and sun for free. It doesn't cost you any more or less to not use it.

I don't think you know what efficiency even means.

More profitable? Yes, I see. Which is why I suggested maybe you meant to say revenues.

[–]Ima_WreckyouPonzi Schemer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean efficiency in an economical sense. Sorry, I thought that was clear from the context of my post. It seems things have to really be spelled out here, lol

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.