A look at the impact of 34 US bitcoin mines and their extreme demand for energy, as the cost of electricity for locals increases in Texas and other areas
Bitcoin mines cash in on electricity — by devouring it, selling it, even turning it off — and they cause immense pollution.
The significance is that mining’s electricity use is not merely an operator cost when local grids and rate structures absorb the strain. The reported effects make the allocation of grid costs—and pollution—central to the economics of crypto mining.
First-order effects
Residents and other local electricity customers in communities hosting the 34 mines can face higher power costs as the facilities’ extreme demand is accommodated.
Mining operators can profit from electricity both as an input and by selling or curtailing it, while the associated generation and grid use impose pollution and reliability pressures locally.
Second-order effects
Utilities, grid operators and regulators face greater pressure to scrutinize large-load connections, curtailment arrangements and how network-upgrade costs are assigned.
Communities competing for energy-intensive investment must weigh mining revenue against the risk that ratepayers absorb costs that operators do not.
Third-order effects
If this pattern persists, access to firm, affordable power will become a binding constraint on where large-scale computing can locate, rather than a routine operating expense.
The overlap between crypto mining and other data-center demand increases the case for explicit rules on who funds grid expansion; [[a:850156|later coverage of crypto and AI demand] highlights the broader grid bottleneck.
The trend: Energy-intensive computing is shifting from a niche electricity customer to a contested source of grid costs, capacity planning and environmental accountability.
Here's 2 quick reasons why we should have zero-trust in the NYTimes article on Bitcoin. First have a look at the table they compiled on the top 6 miners (the full table is much longer) I have the actual data from these miners (and the others in their table) compiled over an 8... …
The new NYT piece on mining is packed w/ misinfo, but the most staggering thing is that it doesn't attempt to describe to the reader what Bitcoin actually does worldwide This is intentional If you don't understand Bitcoin's value, then of course you think it's a waste of energy
NYT with a insightful investigative look into not just the alarming environmental impact of bitcoin mining, but how it also penalizes its neighbors by driving up their electricity costs. The dataviz in this story really tells the tale https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.c…
Nothing would make me happier than bitcoin tumbling to nothing so that the owners of every single one of these parasitic mining operations goes broke. I simply cannot imagine a stupider human endeavor. https://www.nytimes.com/...
In return, [Texas] began paying the Bitcoin company, Bitdeer, an average of $175,000 an hour to keep the computers offline. Over the next four days, Bitdeer would make more than $18 million for not operating, from fees ultimately paid by Texans ..." https://www.nytimes.com/...
The @nytimes finds that Bitcoin miners in the US get 85% of their energy from fossil fuels and emit as much CO2 as 3.5 million cars. They also raise the price of electricity for homes in the area (5% in Texas), by increasing demand. https://www.nytimes.com/...
The NYT hit piece dropped and it's everything we expected. Sad to see the NYT attack #Bitcoin mining despite the incredible outreach by our community to engage and share the other side of the story. Sometimes the clicks are more important than the truth. https://www.nytimes.com/.…
New York Times publishes an appallingly cynical article about Bitcoin mining. They imply that the ability of Bitcoin miners to switch off when demand is high, like in Texas during a snowstorm, is market manipulation. Last gasps of a dying publication. https://www.nytimes.com/... …
“Over the next four days, Bitdeer would make more than $18 million for not operating, from fees ultimately paid by Texans who had endured the storm.” Eye-popping @nytimes dive into energy use of “miners”. https://www.nytimes.com/...
Read this NYT investigation not only for its conclusions but also for sentences like this one “A third company told investors that another natural disaster like Uri could be a significant business opportunity” https://www.nytimes.com/...
“Bitcoin operations promote themselves as environmentally friendly. But they've become a boon for the fossil fuel industry: coal and natural gas plants kick in to meet 85 percent of the demand these Bitcoin operations add to their grids.” Crypto is BS. https://www.nytimes.com/...