Old Coal Plant Is Now Mining Bitcoin For a Utility Company (arstechnica.com) 59
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Bitcoin's massive power consumption is the cryptocurrency's dirty secret. To mine bitcoin, computers across the globe chew through enough electricity to power a medium size country, somewhere on the order of the Netherlands or Poland depending on the estimate. In fact, electricity has become such a significant factor that one private equity firm owns a power plant to mine bitcoin. The company, Greenidge Generation, said at one point that they could mine one bitcoin for less than $3,000. Even today -- at $40,000 per bitcoin, some 30 percent off its peak -- the potential for profit is real. Which is why an investor-owned utility has dropped a containerized data center outside a coal-fired power plant 10 miles north of St. Louis. Ameren, the utility, was struggling to keep the 1,099 MW power plant running profitably when wholesale electricity prices dropped. But it wasn't well suited to running only when demand was high, so-called peaker duty. Instead, they're experimenting with running it full-time and using the excess electricity to mine bitcoin.
Ameren executives reportedly blame wind and solar power for the load variability that taxes the 55-year-old power plant. The utility claims that mining bitcoin could reduce its carbon footprint by allowing it to run its plants more consistently rather than ramping them up and down, which they say can increase emissions. "We have pretty dramatic changes in load minute by minute, second by second at times," Warren Wood, the utility's vice president of regulatory and legislative affairs, told E&E News. But when it's running full-time, they only have to take power away from the mining operations. Wood said it takes about 20 seconds to divert power back to the grid.
Ameren attempted to get rate payers to foot a portion of the bill for its experiment, but Missouri's consumer advocate pushed back. "If Ameren Missouri wants to enter into speculative commodities, like virtual currencies, then it should do so as a non-regulated service where ratepayers are unexposed to the economics of them," Geoff Marke, chief economist for the Missouri Office of the Public Counsel, wrote in a filing. "This endeavor is beyond the scope of intended electric utility regulation, and, if allowed, creates a slippery slope where ratepayers could be asked to put up capital for virtually anything." The utility says that if its bitcoin experiment pans out, it could attach similar containerized data centers to wind and solar farms to soak up excess electricity profitably in times of high supply or low demand. The coal-fired power plant that's being used in the experiment is scheduled to be shut down in 2028. Ameren says that so far it's pleased with the project, which has mined 20 coins and mints a new one at a rate of one every 15 days or so. Whether the math continues to work depends largely on the cost of running the plant and the price of bitcoin, which is highly volatile. Based on today's prices, the company has made about $800,000 since it switched on the miners in April.
Ameren executives reportedly blame wind and solar power for the load variability that taxes the 55-year-old power plant. The utility claims that mining bitcoin could reduce its carbon footprint by allowing it to run its plants more consistently rather than ramping them up and down, which they say can increase emissions. "We have pretty dramatic changes in load minute by minute, second by second at times," Warren Wood, the utility's vice president of regulatory and legislative affairs, told E&E News. But when it's running full-time, they only have to take power away from the mining operations. Wood said it takes about 20 seconds to divert power back to the grid.
Ameren attempted to get rate payers to foot a portion of the bill for its experiment, but Missouri's consumer advocate pushed back. "If Ameren Missouri wants to enter into speculative commodities, like virtual currencies, then it should do so as a non-regulated service where ratepayers are unexposed to the economics of them," Geoff Marke, chief economist for the Missouri Office of the Public Counsel, wrote in a filing. "This endeavor is beyond the scope of intended electric utility regulation, and, if allowed, creates a slippery slope where ratepayers could be asked to put up capital for virtually anything." The utility says that if its bitcoin experiment pans out, it could attach similar containerized data centers to wind and solar farms to soak up excess electricity profitably in times of high supply or low demand. The coal-fired power plant that's being used in the experiment is scheduled to be shut down in 2028. Ameren says that so far it's pleased with the project, which has mined 20 coins and mints a new one at a rate of one every 15 days or so. Whether the math continues to work depends largely on the cost of running the plant and the price of bitcoin, which is highly volatile. Based on today's prices, the company has made about $800,000 since it switched on the miners in April.
Another one? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do US utilities have a carbon price attached to electricity generation?
If so, with the coin they generate they could purchase carbon credits to offset the emissions.
But I'm not sure what the ratio is of trees-per-bitcoin.
Re: (Score:1)
Do US utilities have a carbon price attached to electricity generation? If so, with the coin they generate they could purchase carbon credits to offset the emissions.
That's what most of the social media companies do to help justify their carbon footprints.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you understand how coal power production works. The emissions are largely going to happen anyway, though perhaps not to the same degree as them running at peak capacity.
Unlike nuclear where you can insert the control rods and slow down the reaction, or hydro where you can close some valves and not take in as much water, or solar where you might point some panels away from the son, etc, etc, etc... coal isn't so easy to ramp up or down quickly, let alone turn off & start up again based on d
Re:Another one? (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't justify min-maxing the coal burning. We should be shutting down coal plants. Period.
As mentioned in other parts of the internet. The only way you get away with "wasting electricity" on mining PoW cryptocoins is by operating a green plant (solar/wind/geothermal/tidal) and then instead of ramping up/down the energy, with heating/air conditioning cycles used by the population, is you just redirect the energy not being used to the PoW mining, and reduce wear on mechanical systems involved in stopping and starting things.
But here's the thing, dirty energy, like coal, oil and gas, are cheap, and converting it into bitcoin is absolutely the stupidest thing we could be doing when we are trying to combat climate change. Carbon taxes have to go up to a point where operating coal, oil and gas can't be used for cryptomining, which means most electricity prices have to go up 10-20x.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't believe in lizard people or anything, but one could hardly imagine a more effective way of getting humans to destroy their planet than bitcoin.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter how green your energy source is: using it to mine bitcoin displaces some other use for that power. All other uses are higher priority than bitcoin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon taxes have to go up to a point where operating coal, oil and gas can't be used for cryptomining, which means most electricity prices have to go up 10-20x.
Or here is a while idea rather than hurt every consumer by taxing energy used to make products that actually raise the standard of living we would tax pointless bullshit wastage like crypto currency mining! I would like to propose a $50,000 onetime tax on every unit of exchange mined or discovered as part of a proof of work system by a US entity anywhere in the world or the first time a unit or any sub unit of the given unit discovered or mined by a foreign party is conveyed to a US person or entity.
That sh
Re: (Score:2)
Or here is a while idea rather than hurt every consumer by taxing energy used to make products that actually raise the standard of living we would tax pointless bullshit wastage like crypto currency mining! I would like to propose a $50,000 onetime tax on every unit of exchange mined or discovered as part of a proof of work system by a US entity anywhere in the world or the first time a unit or any sub unit of the given unit discovered or mined by a foreign party is conveyed to a US person or entity.
That should shut this crypto coin nonsense down once and for all. It will help ensure follicle energy at least gets used for the betterment of man kind.
we need 2 tink deep deep deeper here u c cryptO is abOut a new way 2 transact - dOllas r ded u cannOt even express yOurself in terms Of dOllas
but Of cOrse cryptO is cway cwayz Or maybe it is just cwayz when ca$h mOnkey is still in usage - in the end cryptO demands u have 2 be all in and bitcccOin is the mOst vOcal - bitcccOin is self cOntradictOry in that it says u shOuld b mOre free and thereby embrace bitcccOin and yet u shOuld reject all chOice except 4 bitcccOin
but watt if bitcccOin is the final chOice
Re: Another one? (Score:2)
In theory a coal or gas fired plant could be built which fully captured emissions, making it "clean," but it would be significantly more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it has been sed: "Carbon taxes have to go up to a point where operating coal, oil and gas can't be used for cryptomining, which means most electricity prices have to go up 10-20x."
well sed
carbOn taxes r actually a measure Of wasted human pOtential when u think abOut it hOw dO i tink this way? we have created heat dOmes as we run arOund madly in the effOrt 2 live - the prOblem is a pOsitive feedbak lOOP - the bigger the prOblem Of climat change the faster we have 2 run arOund 2 secure Our lives because the f
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike nuclear where you can insert the control rods and slow down the reaction, or hydro where you can close some valves and not take in as much water, or solar where you might point some panels away from the son, etc, etc, etc... coal isn't so easy to ramp up or down quickly, let alone turn off & start up again based on demand.
With coal you simply stop putting as much coal in. If you look at the specifications you will find coal and nuclear are remarkably similar - e.g. for the latest plants a ramp rate of 5-6% per minute and a minimum operational power of 50% (Nuclear) or 40% (Coal). The big difference being that Nuclear plants are often limited to one or two changes per day. That's pretty typical for any thermal (steam driven turbine) plant. Overall coal is probably more flexible than nuclear simply because the consequences
Re: Another one? (Score:2)
There is no carbon tax in the US. They aren't being charged at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the design of the nuke plant. Yes, it's possible to design one with highly variable output and quick load-following. Nuclear subs and surface ships use them.
Hell, a civilian plant can do load-following - just vent steam when as needed - wasteful of U-235, but it's not like there's a shortage of the stuff, since we make it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So shut down the coal power station, use excess renewables energy to mine bitcoin if you must. A lot less people would be pissed about this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When you say "inflation going up by 15-20% a year" you suggest a trend -- i.e something that is happening over some period of time. To be intellectually honest you should say that inflation went up by 15-20% last year (and even that is debate-able). And then you should note that, since the inflation rate was far less than 15-20% the previous year, such a leap is almost certainly due to Covid supply chain issues, and not underlying factors.
But I am guessing that intellectual honesty like this doesn't fit
Re: (Score:2)
You also assume the inflation will not be 15-20 % the next year.
Please point out where I made any claim about what inflation will be next year?
pump and dump and dump (Score:3)
Stupid or genius? (Score:1)
So basically.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So basically.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Destroying to environment to make money.... When will people learn.... sigh..
It's actually just a return to form. Prior to WWII, human civilisations had spent centuries expended huge amounts of economic effort on digging gold out of the ground. People died, their entire lives were shaped by it, empires built and destroyed, the environment destroyed. Almost all that gold just sits in vaults now doing nothing useful. If all that effort had been expended on building real assets - infrastructure, factories, housing etc - everyone would have been better off, but this was not apparent (or at least, was not politically feasible) until the post war period. That lasted until around the 1980s, and we are basically back to employing vast quantities of human effort towards operating a rube goldberg machine for fighting over the assets that are actually still being produced.
In the same way we can't really understand how so many people could have wasted their lives digging holes in the ground in the middle of nowhere, one day we will also see how stupid our present financial system is. Unfortunately probably not for a very long time though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Destroying to environment to make money.... When will people learn.... sigh..
It's actually just a return to form. Prior to WWII, human civilisations had spent centuries expended huge amounts of economic effort on digging gold out of the ground. People died, their entire lives were shaped by it, empires built and destroyed, the environment destroyed. Almost all that gold just sits in vaults now doing nothing useful. If all that effort had been expended on building real assets - infrastructure, factories, housing etc - everyone would have been better off, but this was not apparent (or at least, was not politically feasible) until the post war period. That lasted until around the 1980s, and we are basically back to employing vast quantities of human effort towards operating a rube goldberg machine for fighting over the assets that are actually still being produced.
In the same way we can't really understand how so many people could have wasted their lives digging holes in the ground in the middle of nowhere, one day we will also see how stupid our present financial system is. Unfortunately probably not for a very long time though.
This is a great point, and I'd like to extend it a bit further. In essence, whilst we call ourselves homo-sapiens, we're more like homo-somnians or homo-fanaticus. In other words, we are first and foremost "dreamers", as we actually invest most of our lives into imagined, dreamed stories. Consequently, we never know what something is worth; we live and act by what we imagine it is worth. And there's examples of this everywhere. One economics prof. went and took a loan from a bank, and discovered that the de
Re: (Score:2)
Tragedy of the commons.
So long as you don't get held accountable it's always going to be in your own interest to screw over the environment.
Competition sadly means that if you don't you'll get defeated by someone who will.
What we need is a way to control externalities.
Time for a global carbon tax (Score:2)
The problem with attempting to shut down old equipment purely through market forces is that this doesn't consider capital investment cost of new equipment vs restarting old abandoned equipment, especially for something like bitcoin in a private power system that is completely isolated from the actual cost of electricity.
Even if the government won't pay you enough money to keep your coal plant feeding the grid, speculators on wallstreet clearly do.
Go learn economics. (Score:2)
The Dunning-Kruger here is embarrassing.
The first rule of Economics is that scarcity exists.
The second is supply and demand.
The third is you can't ask if A is good, you have to ask if A is better than B.
A here is the U.S. petrodollar, backed by the U.S. Military, and all of its wars and emissions, and pollution, and the global banking system and all of its inputs and outputs. The cause for the invasion of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, etc.
B is Bitcoin, or crypto generally, which is the only thing that has
Re: (Score:2)
Except Bitcoin adds mining and recording of transactions on TOP of all that. We are trying to save the planet here and the first thing generally agreed upon by experts is to stop using coal powered generation. Well here we have Bitcoin driving continuation of burning coa
Reduce emissions? (Score:2)
"The utility claims that mining bitcoin could reduce its carbon footprint by allowing it to run its plants more consistently rather than ramping them up and down, which they say can increase emissions."
This seems unlikely and couched as "could", aka "unlikely but we'll toss it out there to make it sounds like we care about the environment."
I've done some work measuring coal plant emissions, and yes, emissions during a change in state are transiently higher per kWh. But unless they're already inefficient it'
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe the correct metric then is CO2 per productive or marketed kWh ... essentially don't count any kWh that is put into mining. That has the benefit of not changing the metric units for comparison purposes while correcting for waste.
Re: Reduce emissions? (Score:2)
Agreed. If they can convince me that that metric is lower when mining Bitcoin than operating at lower state, then mine away as far as I'm concerned.
China has the right idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the stock market savvy in the world isn't going to help you if you get a control freak government confiscating your holdings at gunpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
China also proves why it's risky to invest in bitcoin.
All the stock market savvy in the world isn't going to help you if you get a control freak government confiscating your holdings at gunpoint.
Do you mean like they literally do in the gold ol' US of A?
... Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.
Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources. But today, aided by deeply flawed federal and state laws, many police departments use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime-fighting. For people whose property has been seized through civil asset forfeiture, legally regaining such property is notoriously difficult and expensive, with costs sometimes exceeding the value of the property. With the total value of property seized increasing every year, calls for reform are growing louder, and CLRP is at the forefront of organizations seeking to rein in the practice.
Source: https://www.aclu.org/issues/cr... [aclu.org]
Utterly irresponsible (Score:2)
I've said it before many times and will continue to say it: 'cryptocurrency' should be outlawed, for a variety of reasons, this being just one of them.
well (Score:2)
Oh great (Score:2)