Batteries aren’t just about using the generated energy in a useful way, they are about making renewables more profitable by giving them a buyer for all the energy they can produce. Miners are money batteries in this way - they can be fired up on demand to soak up energy the grid doesn’t need, and instead of finding a buyer they can just directly convert excess energy into income.
Miners suck money away from real batteries who would otherwise be smoothing out the peaks. It's not good for efficiency or climate change.
People point to miners using up excessive hydro or geothermal capacity (Quebec and Iceland), but these areas were prior doing low-carbon factory work such as aluminum manufacturing.
That's an interesting angle that I hadn't considered before.
Not that I don't have serious doubts regarding the viability of Bitcoin overall, but it seems like it could play a role in balancing out the imbalance created by intermittent energy sources.
> Jevons observed that England's consumption of coal soared after James Watt introduced the Watt steam engine, which greatly improved the efficiency of the coal-fired steam engine from Thomas Newcomen's earlier design.
This is good, I believe efficient use of resources is key to a better standard of living.
But all externalities should be priced-in: the cost of pollution should be paid to the people suffering from it.
