Slashdot Mirror


Bitcoin Backlash as 'Miners' Suck Up Electricity, Stress Power Grids in Central Washington (seattletimes.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Public hearings for rural electric utilities are rarely sellout events. But the crowd that showed up in Wenatchee two weeks ago for a hearing about Bitcoin mining in Chelan County was so large that utility staff had to open a second room with a video feed for the overflow. The turnout wasn't surprising. Chelan County, along with neighboring Douglas and Grant counties, has been at the center of the U.S. Bitcoin boom since 2012, when the region's ultracheap hydropower began attracting cryptocurrency "miners."

[...] As a result, an area famous for apples, wheat and conservative politics has been transformed into a kind of cyber-boomtown, with Bitcoin mining operations that range from large-scale, state-of-the-art warehouses to repurposed cargo containers to backyard sheds. By the end of this year, according to some estimates, the Mid-Columbia Basin could account for as much as 30 percent of the global output of new Bitcoin and large shares of other digital currencies, such as Litecoin and Ethereum. But as in any boomtown, success has come at a cost. As the cryptocurrency industry morphs into larger, more energy-intensive operations, the Basin's three public utilities districts (PUDs) are reassessing how they deal with it, and whether they can -- or should even try to -- keep up.

25 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Insanity by senileoldfart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is there any evidence of intelligent life on Earth?

  2. Code enforcement, tiered pricing by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope the Bitcoin mining hardware and its installation conforms exactly to the local electrical code. Also, home users of more than a certain number of kWh per month should expect to pay more per kWh. Bitcoin is interesting, but it's a horribly wasteful way of transacting business.

    1. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem isn't that these machines are out of electrical code, but the combination of all these machines is putting a strain on an otherwise not busy electrical grid.

    2. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The invisible hand of the market should fix this

      You are proposing abuse of monopoly pricing power. That is not "the invisible hand of the market".

      0-50kWh/day at 10c (or whatever it is now)
      50+ at $1

      No worries.

      That would put a lot of local companies out of business.

      How about this instead: Charge enough to cover costs, and don't worry about what customer is doing with it. They paid for it, so it is theirs.

    3. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Zaelath · · Score: 5, Informative

      There was a fair bit of sarcasm in there, but "Charge enough to cover costs" is a lot more complex when you need to run up more capacity AND your market is artificially saturated by users that will evaporate if you increase pricing to cover the increased capacity.

    4. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by AuMatar · · Score: 2

      They haven't paid for it. They've paid for what they've used in the past, and nobody is suggesting charging them again for it. They haven't paid for the generation of future electricity, and there's every right to increase the cost of it for that electricity, or to limit the amount they're able to buy.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    5. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Charge what it costs" also calls for higher prices at higher usage, when meeting that demand requires supplies beyond what was planned and contracted for based on normal usage and has to be purchased on the spot market, and when local grids have to be upgraded to handle the demand. Which is demand that will go elsewhere on a moment's notice if the power cost elsewhere is lower. This is not a productive industry making significant local capital investments.

    6. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      You are proposing abuse of monopoly pricing power. That is not "the invisible hand of the market".

      They're the exact same thing. Or rather, I challenge you to tell me how they are different.

      don't worry about what customer is doing with it

      That's beyond stupid. Knowing how long you have a customer who will be using X kw/hours lets you know how much to put into long term investments to serve them.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by xvan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Normally one would expect good to become cheaper when bought in bulk. Especially for something like electricity, where the infrastructure for delivery has a substantial cost

      The issue with BTC is that, even if the price of power was fixed (which it isn't), the price of BTC isn't. Miners go on/off if their expected return is above certain threshold.
      This stochastic consumption doesn't justify the investment required to accommodate the miners on the grid.

  3. Re:Just say no by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Interesting

    200A at 240V (what most US houses have) can mine a lot of coin. Remember that amps are PEAK load, and most houses use maybe 1/10 of that on average through a day. So there's still room for Bitcoin mining even with average electrical service.

  4. Electron neutrality by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A bit hypocritical to want to charge Bitcoin miners for how they use electricity while at the same time arguing that its none of ISP's business how their data pipes are used, no?

    1. Re:Electron neutrality by Zaelath · · Score: 2

      Nope, not even close to being comparable. It's like suggesting you should be putting the same safety restrictions on a doll house as an actual house.

    2. Re:Electron neutrality by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A bit hypocritical to want to charge Bitcoin miners for how they use electricity while at the same time arguing that its none of ISP's business how their data pipes are used, no?

      It's an interesting point, but it can't work in practise. With both data connections and electricity, if you're doing industrial scale work then you have to be properly connected. If you're serving a lot of data you need to be on the trunk connection, if you're arc welding then you need to be plugged directly into the grid, and the electric providers and you need to communicate and coordinate. There is a fundamental difference between residential use and business use and is why this stuff is zoned and controlled, otherwise chaos.

      If you're struggling to pay your bills and your electric is getting more expensive because someone else is using the cheap residential rates to run their money-generation machine, that can't be OK... One person is paying for electricity to live, the other is using it to run machines that make them money. These actions aren't equivalent.

    3. Re:Electron neutrality by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing wrong with throttling, as long as it is done in a non-discriminatory manner. Whether your using bandwidth to watch Netflix or Joe's cat video server should not matter, just have a line where if you go over, throttle. And be upfront about it.
      I pay for 250 GBs, it shouldn't (and doesn't here) matter what I use it for.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  5. Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember getting into an argument here about four years ago about this problem with Bitcoin- that "mining" coins is based on everyone racing to use as much electricity as possible, and the number of kilowatt-hours burned per generated coin increases with time, as part of the design. "ATMs use electricity too" was the consensus opinion.
    Now we have a "currency" that gets "mined" using more electricity than Ireland uses. The wattage devoted to this crap has increased sevenfold during the past 12 months. People only use it as an investment, making it useless as a currency. "Everyone accepts it as payment" doesn't mean anything when everyone who has it is too scared to spend it.

    1. Re:Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      17th century tulip bubble - 1 month

      21st century bitcoin bubble - 9 years and counting

    2. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ooookay this has GOT to be some class 10 grade A level of delusion so lay it on us....how EXACTLY is a system that is designed to require ever increasing mathematical difficulty (thus requiring more power) to get output is "designed to decrease overtime" because I'm betting those are some flaming logic hoops that Evel Knievel would be impressed by.

      Because unless your answer is "it will eventually require more power than the sun can output to generate a coin" I call bullshit, hell even if you can somehow make BC take more power than the sun to generate a coin all that would do is cause the miners to move to LC or ETH so it means diddly damned shit anyway, but I want to hear how BC has magical power reducing powers because this should be some industrial strength crazy talk!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The value of a bitcoin that one has invested in is highly dependent upon influencing others to believe that bitcoin is viable and not in a bubble. Once the public loses faith in it, the value drops. Once organized crime loses faith in it, the value plummets and the game is over. So you'll never see anyone with investments in bitcoin express any form of doubt at any time.

    4. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by xQx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, I completely agree with your questioning of GP. I've no idea how anybody comes to the conclusion that "Bitcoin energy consumption is designed to decrease over time". Bitcoin is designed to lower the reward (measured in terms of BTC) over time; but that's got nothing to do with the energy consumption required to mine a block.

      But, it's important to know that Bitcoin doesn't need anywhere near the current electricity demands of the global mining network to it to function.

      The Proof of Work (PoW) function in Bitcoin is like a lottery - the algorithm increases or decreases complexity based on the amount of CPU cycles entered in the lottery at any given time. So, whenever someone next door to you plugs in an Antminer and starts mining Bitcoin, at this stage they are doing absolutely nothing to help Bitcoin be Bitcoin, they're just using power to enter into the Bitcoin lottery - and claim their share of the prize whenever anyone in their 'mining pool' wins the lottery.

      Here's the critical point that most people either don't know, or don't want to know: If 99 out of 100 people who currently mine bitcoin turned off their miners tomorrow, Bitcoin would work PERFECTLY without them. It would use 1/100th of the current global power requirement and do EXACTLY THE SAME JOB.

      If cities have a problem with people using electricity to mine Bitcoin, that's a problem with the pricing of electricity, not a problem caused by Bitcoin.

    5. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Oh I never said BC as a currency neded the miners, I'm saying the entire concept of "BC mining will take less energy over time" is some Jurassic Park sized piles of shit.

      Hell even if he could come up with some batshit Ponzi scheme from hell that would explain how BC mining will magically suck less juice over time as we have seen by the damned near 5 year GPU drought the miners just move to LC or WTH or (insert new cryptocurrency here) so even if BC mining becomes unprofitable it ain't gonna do dick.

      As someone who is having to go team green after staying away from nvidia products since Bumpgate I've been keping up with the mining hoping it would turn into a big fail and we'd get cheap GPUs again but with $200 AMD GPUs now going for $650+? Yeah miners are still buying GPUs by the truckload and they wouldn't be doing that if mining wasn't still VERY profitable despite the power suckage

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  6. Re: Just say no by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    If you use the peak load 24/7, as you said, then you should get 1/10 of that at the rate everybody else pays for the same service. The other 9/10, you should pay significantly more.

  7. Re:Just say no by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

    They can also add terms like “residential load profile” which means they only provision 10% of capacity. But, that is really peanuts— limiting a 10,000 square foot warehouse to 150kVA rather than the 3MVA they would like is much more effective.

  8. Missing the Point by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A bit hypocritical to want to charge Bitcoin miners for how they use electricity...

    You are missing the point. Nobody really cares what they use it for, what they care about is that there is suddenly a huge and unsustainable demand for electricity in a region which lacks the infrastructure to deliver it without massive price increases for everyone. The network equivalent would be someone in your neighbourhood running a small server farm which completely sucks up all the local bandwidth so that your network connection gets slowed down and the cost to the ISP to upgrade it would mean that you would have to pay much more for your connection.

    ISPs solve this problem by having tiered data plans: you pay more if you want to use more and if you want more than the maximum amount then you will need to negotiate with the ISP for the price. This way those using insane amounts of data will pay for it. The same should happen here for electricity. The only reason bitcoin is the issue is because it can sponge off the network more easily than say an aluminium smelter which would need special connections to be provided.

    1. Re:Missing the Point by Pentium100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do not know how this works in the USA, but this is how it works where I live.

      Wired internet - the ISP sets a limit on the amount of bits you can transfer per second. You can saturate the connection all day, and most ISPs will not do anything about it - only the cheaper ones will, but then again, if you are running servers etc you probably want the more expensive ISP because it is way more reliable than the cheap one.

      Electricity - you get limited power, say, 5kW for a residential house. You can ask for more and, if the wires to your house are big enough you will most likely get it. You may get denied if the grid does not have enough capacity in your area.

      So, IMO, if the area in TFA does not have enough capacity, then they probably should not have approved 10MW or whatever for the mining farm. Ask for 10MW, do not get it because the grid does not have enough capacity. Not whine that they are using the electricity for mining. If the company was a smelter instead of bitcoin miner, would it make a difference for the power?

  9. Re: Do something useful with that extra. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

    The electrical costs of most manufacturing is less than the labor cost,

    That depends on what you are manufacturing. If you are making iPhones, the labor will cost more. If you are making aluminum ingots, the electricity will cost more. So Apple manufactures in Shenzhen, China, while Alcoa manufactures in Wenatchee, Washington.