Ten thousand words: nine mistakes in the White House mining report

Original author | Nic Cater, co-founder of Coinmetrics

Compilation | Baize Research Institute

As part of President Biden's executive order, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) of the White House conducted a study on the climate impact of intensive mining, and recently released a report.

In the report, there are several highlights:

  • OSTP acknowledges that PoW and PoS may not have the same impact on climate, but it is uncertain whether PoS may be the perfect substitute for PoW

  • OSTP acknowledges the interesting development of mining with other stranded natural gas, usually released as an unsold by-product of oil exploration

  • The report meaningfully acknowledges the contribution of miners to grid flexibility through their participation in demand response plans

  • The report points out the potential of mining with stranded renewable energy

  • Importantly, the report provides only modest recommendations

However, efforts are weak.This report is actually a literature review, with little new data or analysis provided.It relies on academic circles, anti PoW consulting companies such as Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute, and quasi academic bloggers such as De Vries. Many quoted scholars' own views are contradictory. Moreover, a non peer review quoting (highly conflicting) amateurs is not a scientific paper. Remember, this report was nominally written by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Therefore, the report should follow high scientific and academic standards. The professional level of the report itself is greatly reduced by relying on non peer review and non scientific evaluation, especially by citing the evaluation made by individuals with known conflicts of interest.

Few case studies are provided in the report, although many examples of miners' sustainable operation, increasing power for the grid, adopting a zero carbon approach and helping to stabilize the grid are cited. The report takes an extremely strict position on miners using renewable energy, carries out severe criticism, and lists the extremely harsh conditions that can be accepted for their use.

The conclusion of the demand response part is that this is almost irrelevant, because in the view of the government, the miners are increasing the total power demand without any additional supply. The subtext is: because mining is a "bad" way of using electricity, it doesn't matter whether you are promoting grid stability, using renewable energy, or even using stranded resources for off grid mining - you are not welcome here, and you should shut down.

Some of the main issues reported are as follows:

  • Little new data

  • Ignore the contribution of industry subject matter experts

  • Rely on encryption opponents De Vries/Digiconomist

  • Rely on the contradictory Gallersdorfer, Klaassen and Stoll

  • Quote absurd Mora et al 2018

  • Urge caution when using data recklessly

  • Promote the "no win" approach to miners using renewable energy

  • Refusing to predict the energy consumption trajectory of Bitcoin

  • Put forward counterproductive suggestions

I will introduce these main issues in turn.

The White House provided little new data

This report is mainly a rumination on the (in some cases, fictitious) data provided by academia and bloggers. I can say that the authors of the report have very limited experience in the debate around PoW, or their methods are lazy and they cite them randomly, because they have quoted the infamous Mora et al 2018 and rely heavily on De Vries/Digiconomist, as well as Stoll, Klaassen and Gallersdorfer. It's a bit like reading a scientific government report on the history of lunar landings, and then finding references to a conspiracy website that claims the whole thing is a forgery.

Data from cryptocurrency opponents are cited, which in many cases are highly conflicting. If OSTP wants to leave a mark in the report, they should present some new data of their own.

To understand Bitcoin's energy consumption, possible future trajectory and emissions in depth, you need to do some original work. However, this report contains very little content. (We can ignore all other blockchains, because Ethereum has merged, and now only Bitcoin is the most meaningful PoW blockchain)

The White House completely ignores any contribution of industry experts

This is predictable.

OSTP did not cite any outstanding work done by CoinShares in mining; They did not cite Arcane Research, although the report covered the professional data that Arcane had displayed. They did not cite any data compiled by the Bitcoin Mining Committee, which compiled sustainability data for half of Bitcoin's networks.

You might say, "Well, OSTP can't just rely on the data and comments written by industry participants, they just adhere to higher academic standards and preciseness."

That's where you're wrong.

As I will explain further below, OSTP relies on the following in this report:

  • Personal blog of an employee of the Dutch Central Bank, who has always been an opponent of Bitcoin

  • Non peer reviewed content published in the "Comments" section of Joule, Nature Climate Change and other journals

  • Non peer reviewed journal content published by individuals with serious business conflicts of interest

  • A report released by a for-profit "carbon rating agency" listed many PoS blockchains as customers - a clear anti PoW bias

Companies or individuals with clear business interests may publish non academic and non peer reviewed content. Therefore, if the reason why OSTP does not cite the content of the encryption industry is that "it is not academic enough" or "they have a competitive business motivation", this also applies to the sources they rely on in this report. Ignoring the industry experts will make the report lack of real-time data and analysis, because the individuals and companies that directly participate in or are related to mining know the actual situation best, and their views will avoid many mistakes for the author.

In addition, the complete exclusion of industry sources reinforced the fact that the report was almost completely one-sided. Can I assume that it is deeply hostile to PoW?

Rely on De Vries/Digitomist

De Vries' work is neither academic, scientific nor impartial.He is a blogger working for the Dutch Central Bank. In his historical tweets, he maintained an extremely hostile position on his subject, PoW cryptocurrency. His Digiconomist website is like this - a personal website, a project run by a person with obvious conflicts. He does not belong to the academic circle, or even close to it.

He has been criticizing the impact of Bitcoin on the climate for a long time, whether it is energy consumption, emissions or the generation of electronic waste. The White House report cited his three themes.

Very simply, quoting his words is totally unsuitable for the so-called scientific research. He is not a climate expert; He is not an authority on mining; He is a data scientist working for the Dutch Central Bank. Most of his papers are published in the form of "comments".

Let's investigate some references to De Vries in White House documents:

  • Bitcoin energy consumption index - personal blog, without peer review (cited more than ten times)

  • Reviewing Bitcoin's carbon footprint with Gallersdorfer, Klaassen and Stoll (2022) - Joule Journal, without peer review

  • Renewable energy will not solve the sustainability problem of Bitcoin (2019) - Joule Journal, without peer review

These seem like peer-reviewed scientific papers, and encryption enthusiasts will feel unprofessional. In fact, they are uncensored blog posts.

As for Digiconomist, it is more direct. It has even been rejected by Wikipedia as an effective reference for the energy part of Bitcoin pages (thanks to Level39 for pointing out this). As a fan website/blog, it is not rigorous. It is often proven wrong when reviewed by industry experts.

De Vries was cited 16 times in the report. Digiconomist was cited 23 times. In general, this makes De Vries the "first source" of reports. The Cambridge Financial Center, which is more authoritative, less exaggerated, truly academic and neutral (does not accept industry financing), has been cited only 10 times.

Take Table A4 in the appendix as an example, which aims to summarize the greenhouse gas emissions of multiple cryptocurrencies. Of the 24 data points cited, 58% are De Vries/Digitomist, one is Mora et al 2018, and the other is Stoll, Klaassen, and Gallesdorfer. Therefore, 16/24 data points in the table are very suspicious.

RDfWlK2ejUTl1f19c3CponLbiiwZn7xqP9FE4yP3.jpeg

The White House relies on the three propositions of De Vries/Digitomist: energy consumption estimation, emission estimation and electronic waste estimation.I will briefly talk about:

1) Energy consumption

De Vries' assessment is much higher than that of his more trusted peers. Table A1 in the appendix of the White House report: The Bitcoin energy consumption of De Vries is 144 TWh/y, while that of Cambridge is 88 TWh/y. For ETH, De Vries guessed that the same period was 93.9 TWh/y, while Kyle McDonald&# 39; S is 22.9 TWh/y. His assessment has always been much higher than that of other researchers. (He assumes that the average ASIC hardware on the network is very old, so the efficiency is low, so the Bitcoin estimate is on the high side, and more power is needed per unit of hash.)

HeKwkXoEBecfvptozze84fzBn2zU4I3Fl5v4HLfn.jpeg

More generally, the energy consumption model on which De Vries relies (cited here by the White House) has been criticized by Ben Gagnon, chief mining officer of Bitarms. The De Vries model does not actually follow its own declared approach. It does not reflect the changes of the actual Bitcoin network in 2021, which indicates that De Vries is manually adjusting the model to show higher energy consumption data than the model output.

2) Electronic waste

De Vries believes that Bitcoin ASICs are very old. In this paper, it is assumed that Bitcoin ASICs will be completely scrapped every 1.3 years. This 1.3 year estimate comes from the misuse of Koomey's law, which is the computer efficiency theory. This obviously has nothing to do with ASIC and cannot be used as the basis for estimating e-waste.

We have a lot of real data about how long ASIC can be used. For example, s9 will still shine in 2021. It has been five years since it left the factory. If their output is higher than the breakeven point considering the cost of electricity, someone will always run them. This is why - contrary to De Vries' view - the ASIC secondary market is dynamic. Older equipment goes from the "retirement" of the original purchaser to the operator with low power cost and still profitable.

It will depreciate in 1.3 years - ASIC rubbish!”- De Vries' assumption is completely divorced from reality. If you talk to miners or read their public disclosure or check the secondary market, it is easy to determine. ASICs will not be discarded when they are old. They will be sold in the secondary market.

In this letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, I more comprehensively refuted De Vries' e-waste report, which was reviewed and signed by the CEOs of many large financial institutions active in Bitcoin.

gfZXF3UDhifBWzVYKhDUemetuQ2x9oOUNuO4Da0g.png

3) Discharge

De Vries has conducted many assessments of greenhouse gas emissions from intensive mining, not just energy use. This is very doubtful, and few scholars do so for a reason: because we do not have the energy mix data necessary for emissions. The Bitcoin Mining Commission publishes data on the sustainability of miners by obtaining voluntary disclosure from miners who control about half of the network - which was ignored in the White House report - but that is not enough.

To estimate emissions, you need to know what energy miners actually use. Many miners are foreign and operated by private entities. Unlike mining companies listed in the United States, these private companies do not disclose much information about their energy investments. Therefore, emission assessment is so vague that it is irresponsible to provide assessment without comprehensive data.

Cambridge Financial Center is the authority of Bitcoin energy consumption. So far, it has delayed Bitcoin mining for any type of emission assessment, because this requires information about the miners' energy mix.

Therefore, it is wrong for the White House report to cite the lax emission assessment of De Vries, and this fact alone will discredit their report.

So what should the White House do? A better approach is to rely on credible, non conflicting scientists and scholars. For example, the Cambridge assessment is academic, non partisan and widely quoted. Of course, they will not make "illusions" about Bitcoin related greenhouse gas emissions.

Dependence on Gallersdorfer, Klaassen and Stoll

The three scholars (who sometimes work with De Vries) also regularly publish blog articles in journals under the "Comments" section. They benefit from it through a consulting firm called Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute (CCRI). The basic profit model is as follows: gain credibility by publishing quasi academic "papers" that attack PoW, and use it to sell ESG focused reports to help the PoS blockchain wash their reputation. Then, these blockchains can proudly claim to be green.

The CCRI report cited in the OSTP report (footnotes 40 and 67, and repeated references in Appendix Table A1) is completely non academic.

Reference Mora et al

I was really surprised to quote Mora et al!

As we all know, it is probably the worst paper ever on the impact of Bitcoin emissions. Titled "Bitcoin emissions alone can push global warming above 2 ° C", Mora et al is a joke in the mining field.

Mora et al 2018 was written by an undergraduate. It is reported that Mora did not actually contribute to this paper, but only as a classroom exercise of "how to publish a paper". The paper itself, if you are willing to read it, is completely absurd. It assumes a model that has nothing to do with Bitcoin, and gets an obviously wrong result (Bitcoin mining will increase the earth temperature by 2 degrees).

It is worth noting that Mora et al's paper also appeared in< Natural climate change> Magazine. If you really read this paper, it's hard to miss the three rebuttals on the journal page. I have pointed them out so that OSTP can find them.

x8ysFmeCzlwe4MnCSklCHF6pDeuc97771gclC6Ur.png

Conflicting data processing methods

Another example is the report on Texas.

Bitcoin miners in Texas actively seek cheap energy, which is the result of large-scale renewable energy construction (promoted by federal subsidies) coupled with insufficient local demand and insufficient long-distance transmission to load centers. Bitcoin miners in Texas are mining negative or zero price energy and have chosen to join the demand response plan so that they can be offline during grid scarcity events.

In short, they bought cheap electricity that others would not pay for (thus improving the economic situation of new renewable energy), and they would not compete with households in the event of energy shortages. There is no better energy buyer.

However, the report chose to cite incorrect figures to suggest that the miners were about to take over the Texas power grid:

The peak power demand in Texas in summer is about 76 GW, and the current mining activity of encrypted assets is about 2 GW. ERCOT has about 17 GW of encryption equipment being connected to the network. It is estimated that there will be 5-6 GW of new demand in the next 12-15 months (equivalent to the power demand of Houston City). ERCOT is also likely to increase by 25 GW in the next decade. Although many of these projects may not be completed, the new power demand of up to 25 gigawatts brought by intensive mining is equivalent to one third of the existing peak power demand in Texas, which poses a potential challenge to maintaining power reliability, especially in the case of growing power demand and extreme weather in recent years.

Note: ERCOT is the Texas Power Reliability Board and is a power system operator.

These figures are enormous. The power of 17 GW is a huge amount. As they pointed out, 25 GW is equivalent to five Houston. However, the only problem with this paragraph is that the data are completely wrong.

Every Texas miner I contacted told me that the figures reported by OSTP were wrong, and the "17 GW" figure of ERCOT was seriously misleading. To confirm, I contacted Lee Bratcher of the Texas Blockchain Commission, which can be said to be the largest mining organization in Texas. Lee introduced me to the following:

Currently, Bitcoin mining activity in Texas is between 1.5 GW and 2 GW. Another 2-3 GW may be added in the next few years. 17 GW and 25 GW are interconnection applications only. We are working with utilities such as Oncor and AEP to see if they are willing to provide an anonymous summary.

Shaun Connell, executive vice president of Lancium, a data center based in Texas and focusing on renewable energy, told me that only after ERCOT approved the application for power project, the applicant must decide whether to continue to purchase, which may be mixed with multiple applications of a miner.

OSTP seems to forget that Bitcoin mining is a business, and miners need to make money, otherwise they will shut down. The market size is limited by the value of Bitcoin rewards available to miners. This is a very realistic limit on the number of miners willing to invest.

The actual situation is quite different from that predicted by OSTP. The current situation of ERCOT is that the deployment speed has slowed down significantly, because the deterioration of the miners' economic situation, the weak capital market environment and the rising energy prices have further reduced the miners' willingness to build.

It is also worth noting that the report assumes that energy is geographically consistent, as if miners active in western Texas are depriving Dallas of home electricity. This is not the case. Limited power transmission from western Texas, rich in renewable energy, to the DFW Triangle explains why electricity prices in the two regions diverge so frequently. Power transmission decays with distance. If there is no further high-voltage transmission (ERCOT CREZ, capable of carrying 15 GW and already operating at full load), you will inevitably develop completely idle local energy. Texas is a perfect case study that shows Bitcoin miners using these low-cost energy sources. This is what I call "non competitive energy", because it does not compete with other load centers at all; It only increases the economic momentum for building more infrastructure.

If OSTP had taken the trouble to contact real miners who knew Texas, they would not have made such a mistake.

Miners using renewable energy "cannot win"

Perhaps the most depressing part of the report is that miners use stranded natural gas or renewable energy for mining. Basically, the report criticizes all the efforts made by miners for their decarbonization, and lists the extremely harsh conditions that can accept renewable energy mining. It can be said that I have never encountered such strict conditions imposed by the government on any power grid buyer. OSTP wants to make them fail by "not winning".

1) Remove mitigation measures for coal and natural gas

While symbolically acknowledging its usefulness, the report denies the advantages of using natural gas for mining. First of all, the author shows ignorance of the working principle of combustible gas. On page 24, they claim that the use of methane gas for mining will not affect emissions in some way. This is wrong: miners using natural gas can burn methane with near perfect combustion efficiency, while ordinary combustion efficiency is low, especially in windy conditions. This is well documented in the literature. Bitcoin miners can fully burn methane and convert it into energy and carbon dioxide. From the perspective of emissions, this is a direct improvement; This is not just the report's insistence on emission neutrality.

The report also claims that methane should be used for other purposes, such as hydrogen production. Methane is a by-product of oil exploitation. It is not always possible to lay pipelines near the well pad, and it is not necessarily economical to build them. "If I were you," the government said, "I would simply use the pipeline to sell the methane." I believe that the miners who read the report will like this useful tip.

On hydrogen, OSTP should be happy. Some Bitcoin miners have announced their plans to build a reusable energy infrastructure that can be used for hydrogen products if the market develops further. The fact is that the hydrogen market is usually not cost competitive with Bitcoin mining, especially because it requires additional physical infrastructure (you can set up Bitcoin mining in the cloud and sell it immediately. Bringing highly flammable hydrogen to the market is more challenging). OSTP ignores the views of actual practitioners on this topic.

Third, the report negates the use case of combustion gas mitigation and asserts that "a climate policy consistent with achieving net zero emissions will achieve zero methane emissions and zero methane combustion." How convenient! According to our net zero trajectory, the world will magically not burn, so measures to reduce combustion or emissions are not commendable. (Doge)

Although the Malthusian climate policy aims to eliminate all oil exploitation, this statement is short-sighted and utopian.

First of all, no matter how much OSTP boasts about Net Zero, it is impossible to enforce a global ban. If the United States bans all domestic oil and gas exploration, rival groups like OPEC will only get huge windfalls. As long as we extract oil from the earth, we cannot avoid burning. Miners will still improve the emission of waste gas there and use it economically.

2) Claim that the use of stranded renewable energy will inhibit transmission

The report claims that, basically, miners using stranded energy (as they have done in Texas and other places rich in renewable energy, which is well documented on this point) mean that grid operators do not have enough price signals to know where to build transmission facilities.

Mining can provide additional income for renewable energy developers and encourage them to build additional renewable energy capacity. However, it can also reduce the economic incentives to transfer these renewable energy sources to existing users, or reduce the incentives to store excess renewable power for use when demand is high. In addition, crypto miners are unlikely to operate only during power rationing and need to consume grid power at all other times.

Basically, the government said that the miners' purchase of renewable energy - even if monetized - was not commendable, because it inhibited the establishment of more transmission signals.

It would be great if we had some indication that regions with large amounts of renewable energy (usually far away from load centers) need to be connected with regions with large power demand.

FVvhSuZtDF2a4BbARXYuSjVj0dwsi6HX3mBw6gmc.jpeg

This is the electricity price chart of Texas on April 5 this year. Please note that negative pricing appears in the west (this is due to the tax credit compensation for renewable energy power generation), and the south and east are paying high prices? This is because power is not easy to transmit. If it is to be moved over a long distance, it needs to be transmitted over a long distance and high voltage, and the number of such transmission infrastructure is limited. Therefore, the market cannot take a single price as the standard.

With the further penetration of renewable energy into the U.S. power grid, the cost of power generation will decrease (because renewable energy does not have the marginal cost like electricity), but the demand for transmission will increase. Bitcoin miners helped monetize some of these renewable energies, but they did not address the core needs of transmission. I can assure you that grid developers can figure out where to put them. The signal is very clear. The impediments are actually a lack of political will, neighbor aversion (no one wants to lay transmission lines in their backyard), and of course, financial costs.

3) No subsidy to miners for renewable energy construction

Finally, the report refuted the bitcoin miners who bought renewable energy and adopted a strange and unrealistic attitude towards electricity:

When a crypto asset mining enterprise purchases electricity from existing renewable energy, it replaces greenhouse gas emissions in the short term, but transfers users of renewable energy to fossil fuels. This is because in the United States, each additional unit of electricity demand requires additional coal and natural gas to generate electricity. Although the use of renewable energy remains unchanged, the demand for electricity is increasing, so it is expected that fossil energy will be used additionally. Through a process called leakage, such substitution will not lead to net change or increase of global total emissions.

Given that the report insisted on the ideological school of "electrification of everything" earlier, it is really strange that they adopt such a zero sum approach here.

  • Bitcoin miners have not subsidized new renewable energy in any way. It is not true. For example, Aspen Creek is an example of miners who focus on using renewable energy for additional mining, which means that they are bringing new electricity and consuming only part of it.

  • There is no collateral benefit to having flexible loads on the grid. This is not true. Miners are a unique load response that can enhance the flexibility of the grid. More and more renewable power grids require great flexibility in supply and demand. Miners can do this better than any other load resource. Greater flexibility=more renewable resources.

In fact, a highly renewable power grid must be built to several times its capacity, because wind and solar energy are intermittent. Therefore, in the net zero future, renewable energy will inevitably be over built. The first purchasers of these renewable energies have fundamentally improved the economy of these new expansion projects. The report implies a scarce zero sum world in which available electricity is fixed. This is not the case, even inconsistent with the statements made in the same report before! In order to achieve real emission reduction, a large amount of renewable energy needs to be built, and the flexibility of the grid needs to be increased. Bitcoin miners directly and indirectly help achieve these two goals.

Even refused to guess the future energy trajectory

Although OSTP is willing to repeat De Vries' unscientific and fanatical dream about Bitcoin emissions without any problem, they do not predict their own future energy use. This is a very strange move, because it is very simple to roughly predict the future energy demand of Bitcoin, and it should be within the capabilities of OSTP scientists.

In fact, in my own Bitcoin Net Order report (co authored with Ross Stevens of NYDIG), we found that even in the "high price" scenario of gold parity (which will make the price of Bitcoin about 500000 dollars), Bitcoin only accounts for 0.5% of global energy consumption.

Ze3YN0z8mRNHnJ1XPQaZUZs7tYZglG2I0tpFomY7.png

The OSTP proposal is stupid and counterproductive

The report recommends the following:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and other federal agencies should provide technical assistance and work with states, encryption communities, encryption industry experts, and other agencies to develop and use performance standards for environmentally responsible encryption technologies. These should include very low energy intensity, low water consumption, low noise generation, standards for operators to use clean energy, and additional carbon free power generation standards strengthened over time to match or exceed the additional power load of these facilities.

If these measures prove ineffective in reducing emissions, the government should explore administrative action, and Congress may consider legislation to limit or eliminate the use of the PoW consensus mechanism in infill mining. DOE and EPA shall provide technical assistance to the State Utilities Commission, environmental protection agencies, and the encryption industry to minimize emissions, noise, water impacts, and negative economic impacts of encryption mining.

In short, they want to ask Bitcoin miners to put renewable energy online so that they can be qualified to mine ("additional carbon free power generation to match or exceed the additional power load of these facilities"). No other industry in the United States has such a requirement.

If miners cannot do this, "Congress may consider legislation to limit or eliminate the use of high-energy consensus mechanisms for crypto asset mining." Of course, no other mining industry in the United States has such rules, such as gold mining (although gold mining uses a considerable amount of energy).

In fact, OSTP requires miners to be forced to meet an impossible standard. If they cannot meet this standard, they will require Congress to regulate mining to make it no longer exist.

On the whole, this report has a profound neo Malthusian attitude. Although it serves the net zero target (implying that we will have an energy rich future) that requires a lot of power and transmission, such as "Let everything be electrified", in fact, the U.S. government is so keen to marginalize an industry that accounts for about 0.5% of power generation - most of which is unused in West Texas and other places.

Unlike almost any other industry, Bitcoin has been fully electrified, so it can benefit from the (envisaged) green grid. So why does a big energy buyer, that is, an all electric, location independent, interruptible and portable energy buyer, pose a threat to green transformation?

From a practical perspective, the US ban on PoW would be counterproductive. I have pointed out that policymakers in western countries are worried about Bitcoin emissions and should persuade miners to stay at home. The ban will have a huge adverse effect on the ability of the United States to affect Bitcoin and the emission trajectory of the network. If the United States successfully prohibits industrial bitcoin mining, miners elsewhere will immediately receive huge dividends. It is naive to assume that 30-40% of BTC mining (currently the total amount in the United States) is completely stopped, and non American miners will almost immediately produce 42-66% more bitcoin units at the same level of effort. When China banned mining, American miners experienced this situation.

If you hate the ecological impact of gold mining, you will not ban gold mining at home - it is only good for competitive producers (if you want to know, it is Russia and Australia). Gold will still be mined and enter the global market, so the ban will not affect the entire gold mining industry.

Instead, you can regulate the industry, require miners to disclose their energy structure, and be transparent about their emissions and participation in grid stability. Because of the noise pollution, you can easily ask them to stay away from densely populated areas. You will find that the miners are very willing.

In addition, the report mentions; PoS may be the perfect substitute for PoW, and this problem may be solved by itself. Because the PoS network is more controllable than PoW, it is in the interests of the government to advocate that PoS is superior to PoW (trying to politicize all finance). I have pointed out this point before: PoS is easier to capture because tokens tend to accumulate in large financial institutions, which have little impact on the country. Miners are much more resistant to capture and control. From experience, the distribution of hash rate among diversified global miners is far more than the capital held by pledgers.

If a new industry with the following attributes appears tomorrow:

  • It consumes energy, but it doesn't matter where it is generated

  • It is completely digital, so no physical infrastructure is required except for power, transformers, and data centers

  • It is completely interruptible and can be completely reduced at any time, so it can be completely offline when the grid needs it (functions increasingly needed by renewable grids)

  • Because it is completely digital, it can be as sustainable as power input. In fact, in most aspects, it seems to be more sustainable than any other single heavy industry in the United States

  • It provides a service of providing property rights for the world

  • It buys cheap or negative renewable energy, greatly improving the economy of new and existing renewable energy projects, otherwise these projects will not be monetized

  • If the industry disappears, the infrastructure built can be reused for other non location related purposes, such as hydrogen generation, which is a key part of the renewable energy transformation

  • It reduces emissions associated with unavoidable gas combustion, which is a by-product of oil exploration

  • It has rebuilt the high-energy infrastructure in the heart of the United States, laying the foundation for the much-needed industrial capacity backflow

  • If you ban it, its total emissions will increase. If you accept it, its total emissions will decrease

  • It represents the equity value of tens of billions, and provides huge taxes for states that can sell their stranded energy to producers

... Will you ban this industry? Or will you embrace it?

I know my answer.

I just hope that the White House will finally come to the same conclusion.

Original link: https://medium.com/ @nic__ carter/comments-on-the-white-house-report-on-the-climate-implications-of-crypto-mining-8d65d30ec942

Report notes: https://niccarter.info/wp-content/uploads/09-2022-Crypto-Assets-and-Climate-Report_nc_annotated_091522.pdf