Nostr Web Client

Greenpeace is doing exactly what it should: advocate for the protection of the environment.

Concerns about POW are real concerns. As Bitcoiners and as fellow brothers in the quest for a better world, we need to respond appropriately.

Making fun and minimizing environmental risk is bad for our case. The argument we need to make is a reasonable one, and we need to be open to conversations with environmentalists.

1. POW incentivizes miners to find ever-cheaper sources of energy

2. The cheapest sources of energy are untapped options far from populations: off-shore winds and waves, tidal straights, solar, etc.

3. Electricity can only be transported about 200 miles, so most end-users must engage nearby power sources. This often prevents renewable energy from being an option for them.

4. Bitcoin mining is the one industry that can bring itself to the energy, rather than the other way around.

At some point, all miners will be using renewable energy because it’s the most economical to source energy that others cannot use.

5. The Bitcoin ecosystem undermines one of the most environmentally wasteful institutions in the world: the US military

6. The Bitcoin ecosystem prevents the transfer of wealth from people that have to eat, move, and work for that wealth, to people who employ exploitative institutions to extract rents. If people have to work 20% more to fulfill their needs, that comes with a 20% greater environmental burden.

We cannot expect others to appreciate our reason for POW if we do not try to understand their concerns as well.

We all should be environmentalists, and we should all be advocates for decentralized money.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Aurelius 2y ago

And I do like the Satoshi Skull…

Aurelius 2y ago

I am a large scale miner AND an environmentalist. Those two things are not inconsistent. The reasoning that comes with dogmatic commitment to a single cause often blinds people to parallel causes.

Theorygon ⚡️ 2y ago

Wouldn't they make real research and engage with bitcoiners while not accepting bribes from notorious pump & dump if that were the case? Even if they didn't realize what's Ripple, so far their attitude gives a rather disingenuous feeling and they keep doubling down.

And I agree with your latest paragraph. Though again, a bit more will from "environmentalists" (and I'm one) to understand something they don't wouldn't hurt.

Aurelius 2y ago

The fact that they don’t seem to be engaging in thoughtful conversation doesn’t make it any less important. I find that most Bitcoin brothers are also more likely to disengage and criticize than consider environmental concerns as well.

Both parties, with compatible long-term goals, are caught in an ad hominem fallacy, wherein we criticize the other’s “ignorance” before really discussing our similar and consistent motivations.

🇩𝔢𝔠𝔢𝔫𝔱 🇼𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪 2y ago

Headlines make things true for many. Yet, it's strange that many don't trust the media. Maybe that's the way to point out that what they're saying may not be true?

Ask - "Do you trust media headlines? What do you think about Bitcoin's energy use? What resources do you recommend to find out the truth about its energy use?" Truth through inquiry.

Difficult, but probably an effective way to slowly change people's views. Until energy systems are built to capture lost energy for mining and reduce environmental impact - like in landfills.

raiden 2y ago

Could a bunch of miners (or a large miner) build a nuclear power plant(s)? Would the economics of that ever work?

Aurelius 2y ago

I think there are several things to consider with this question.

1. Nuclear energy is very expensive. “A 2014 analysis by the financial advisory firm Lazard captures the economics holding back nuclear expansion. Lazard pegs the cost of building nuclear capacity in the United States at $5.4 million to $8.4 million per megawatt. Adding operating, maintenance, and fuel costs yields an average lifetime cost of $92 to $132 for every megawatt-hour generated. That is far above the unsubsidized costs of utility-scale solar power ($72 to $86 per megawatt-hour) and onshore wind ($37 to $81 per megawatt-hour).

Power from new natural-gas-fired plants is also far cheaper than nuclear at $61 to $87 per megawatt-hour” Fairley, MIT Tech Review.

2. Nuclear power (and any base load station) is universally subsidized by governments as a public service. Power production was partially socialized years ago because private companies ran with their monopolies and couldn’t resist the temptation to price gouge. Prices that we pay across the country are subsidized by public spending. Without this socialization of energy and its infrastructure for the public good, construction is prohibitively expensive.

3. Nuclear energy is also subsidized by the military for the benefit of the military industrial complex. The added cost of maintenance is justified by the desire to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

4. Most importantly, we can already not trust corporations to prioritize safety over profits. We don’t even trust other governments with the technology. The worst potential example of this would be corporations in possession of nuclear energy. The potential for nuclear meltdowns, explosions, the sale of enriched material, etc, would be inevitable.

A nuclear plant built privately for the mining of BTC would not make financial sense, and it would not make sense for the society to allow. That said, a miner’s selective draw from an existing nuclear plant makes tons of sense, and many miners find cheap electricity this way. Make no mistake though, this is energy that is subsidized by government. As much as many of us here advocate for decentralization of many systems, we are all the beneficiaries of social subsidies without which life within a community would not be possible.