while I agree that bitcoin is extremely energy inefficient and all the comparison with traditional systems make no sense, at least for bitcoin there is a path forward. If you consider a 100% green power grid (which is Tesla Energy stated goal) than bitcoin pollutant side effect disappear. It will take years, but in the context of a green grid bitcoin may make more sense…? In any case anything that drives electrical consumption up, will benefit long term for Tesla Energy (which will be bigger than Tesla Automotive). Mwh & Gwh battery packs for grid are going to be popping up like mushroom, and will be supply-constrained for a loooong time.
4 Likes
You mention an interesting idea. If Tesla indeed wants to spread solar roofs and battery storage and we’re heading towards the overproduction of solar energy in the long term, then Bitcoin mining is certainly one way to consume that energy. Since Bitcoin price is connected to electricity cost on a fundamental level, then it could become the currency in which energy is quoted/traded. Also, if a central bank has the power to issue its own currency, then an entity with access to cheap energy can “issue” Bitcoin at low cost (or charge commission for validating transactions). I’m sorry if I talk nonsense, maybe I had too much coffee 
1 Like
…or prevent us from space travel or launch anything out of orbit safely. (Kessler syndrome)
USA has a strong army, but it also has NSA & CIA, which might already have backdoors into Starlink infrastructure.
There’s no signs of overproduction of solar energy. Maybe a few local instances. None whatsoever on a global scale. When you look at the world’s population, its access to electricity and the potential benefits they’d derive from access to electricity, there’s a severe underprovision of electricity in the world.
…I’d rather they end bullshitting people about how they believe “the faster the world stops relying on fossil fuels and moves towards a zero-emission future, the better.”
The fact is, we’re very far from zero-emission. And Bitcoin is (figuratively but also literally) fuelling emissions today - for no discernible societal gains.
2 Likes
I’m talking about the future. We’re at a tipping point. Let’s talk again in 2030.
It’s debatable if bitcoin can provide a real value in the long term. But shouldn’t people be free to use their purchased electricity as they please? OK, if you say that the true environmental cost of energy production is not factored into the price, then let’s fix that! But let’s fix it for ALL electricity consumption, not just Bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn’t care about power costs. It will work just fine if electricity costs 10x more.
To be clear, when I speak of lack of access to electricity, I don’t mean the means to charge your mobile phone/smartphone. This basic access has improved quite a lot globally, in recent times.
But there’s other issues in the world - for which electricity isn’t necessarily the only way to “deliver” energy - but could be one to address real issue.
Almost three billion people in the world lack access to clean cooking facilities.
They’re still projected to more than 2 billion in 2030.
Coal and gas still represent almost 60% of the world’s energy mix, while renewables account for less than 30%.
In short: More electric (or renewable) energy is needed or could be used to improve billions of people’s basic living conditions. Demand for energy is only going to increase with rapid population growth in many emerging markets. The world isn’t quite running on renewable energy today - and it therefore likely won’t by 2030.
Maybe.
You could argue that electricity for Bitcoin mining is a market-driven allocation of resources.
You (one) could just as well maintain that it’s also and still an undesirable allocation of resources - from a moral or human developmental point of view.
In any case, and for whatever reason, it is also Tesla-driven.
1 Like
Is Tesla moving their headquarters to Texas? I wonder if they change their mind after what is happening there right now…
It happened now so they will make sure it doesn’t anymore. Why would this one off trouble change some long term plans? I heard that Austin, Texas could become a real hot spot in the future.
Like in 2013? I’m sure their plants will work. I’m not sure if everyone will want to move there though.
There are simpler fixes for Texas (like stop the GOP deregulation stuff that allowed their grid to not be connected to the rest of the country, and not force providers to “winterize” their installations – after 2011 they had plenty of time to regulate and prepare for it).
2 Likes
Is regulation really the answer? Transparency should be enough. If some people want to risk being cut off, let them have it. For others who want to pay extra, give this option. But probably nobody wants to be left out without power, ever, so if the contract does not allow for this kind of accidents, then I would expect many lawsuits from the people who pay for having the power line active, yet the service is interrupted.
Just how?
This doesn’t seem feasable for infrastructure.
1 Like
It’s a utility, there are no incentives for the providers to plan for rare events. They’d rather not provide electricity than prep for it.
1 Like
I’m totally not informed here, but logically thinking, it should be easy to implement a guarantee/insurance within the contract that specifies that the provider should pay a compensation if it cannot provide the service for over a certain period of time. Want to have that guarantee then upgrade your contract. I know that this is how it works with internet providers. If you have a private internet connection, nobody will pay you anything if it doesn’t work for one day. But if you sign it as a company and it is crucial for your operations, you put a service-level agreement (SLA) in it. I don’t see why it shouldn’t work for electricity? OK, maybe it’s not possible to automatically cut off one particular subscriber, probably the whole block gets cut off.
Anyway, I see this as a great opportunity for decentralized grids. People put solar on the roof, battery in the garage, and they can be self-sufficient. The less reliable the grid is, the more attractive this solution becomes.
That doesn’t work when the optimal market structure is a monopoly.
Markets only work when there is sufficient competition.
OK I agree that monopolies should be regulated, or we should try to eliminate monopolies. I guess when it comes to utilities, it would require separating the operator of the grid from the providers of the electricity. I think something like that has been done a long time ago in Poland, where the national telecom has been forced to allow 3rd party phone/internet providers to use its infrastructure.
Which is why I’m excited for solar roof + battery deployment, as this will solve the energy monopoly problem. Democratize energy the way information got democratized thanks to Internet.
Goes well so far huh? Feb 12th close was 816 USD and yesterday we closed at 798 USD. How much did you make? 
1 Like
Actually in most countries the grid and the manufacturers are already separated (at least in Europe).
Even in France the grid is operated by a subcompany of EDF as far as I remember.
Otherwise I agree with you, I think it should be a heavily regulated monopoly, at least in the grid sector. Otherwise we will have the same bullshit as with the mobile network, where rural areas will not be covered properly.
