If I may offer a little critical thinking, to a very biased, alarmist piece. This it seems very clear this is hit piece. It throws around some big numbers and a quote from some local, and comes up very short on analysis, and very big on leading readers into a particular conclusion.
Firstly, using lakes to cool power plants is not unusual or uncommon. They don't really make that clear, and it feels like they want the reader to think this is nefarious. To me the title of this should be something more like "Residents forgot the lake gets warmer when the power plant operates".
As far as the 135 million allowed to be discharged into the lake daily, it is an incredibly small amount compared to the size of the lake. According to Wikipedia, the volume of the lake is 3.81 cu/miles of water. A quick search tells me 1 cu/mi =~ 1.1 trillion gallons. Okay, some more rough math gives us a total of about 4.2 trillion gallons in the lake of which 135M gallons is something like 0.000032% of the total volume.
So my point is that when the article throws a figure like 135M gallons at you with no context it seems huge. But when you look at it in context, 3 one hundred thousands of one percent of the total, I have a hard time imagining that has any measurable impact on the lake whatsoever. I'm sure the quoted resident that lives very near to the plant had noticed the warmth, but anywhere else on the lake?
On top of this, the plant is under strict scrutiny by the regulators, and they appear to be operating withing the limits outlined by said regulators. So if there is anyone to get mad at here it's not the plant operators, it's the Department of Environmental Conservation.
> On top of this, the plant is under strict scrutiny by the regulators, and they appear to be operating withing the limits outlined by said regulators. So if there is anyone to get mad at here it's not the plant operators, it's the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Actually, the correct answer is: both.
There's a difference between what's legal and what's moral or ethical.
It is clear, at least to me, that emitting large quantities of CO2 into the air, and heated waste water into a lake, for the sole purpose of enriching oneself mining cryptocurrencies, is simply immoral. It is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons.
The regulations clearly do not adequately limit this kind of activity.
So we should be angry that the laws don't reflect our values.
And we should be angry that these folks are taking advantage of that fact to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us.
We as a society deem it a fair use of energy to have dryers, and christamas lights all year long, which use more energy that a decentralized monetary system that brings sovereign banking to the masses.
Before letting this story and all the other propaganda make you angry (intended) actually look what bitcoin IS, how it works, and what problems it solves in the world.
A comparison that always comes to mind is like someone saying that the internet is a big waste of energy.
> We as a society deem it a fair use of energy to have dryers, and christamas lights all year long, which use more energy that a decentralized monetary system that brings sovereign banking to the masses.
It... really doesn't. It brings wild speculation to a few. And ransomware to many.
But banking? To the masses? Hah! Sorry, no. That would imply Bitcoin is useful for, you know, actually engaging in day to day monetary transactions. It'd imply large numbers of commercial and government interests to be willing to use Bitcoin as a medium of exchange. It'd imply a stable, reliable, regulated, insured location where people could store their wealth confident that it wouldn't be stolen. It'd require reversible transactions to deal with fraud, fat fingering, and so forth.
Basically, it'd require Bitcoin to be something completely different than what it is.
> look what bitcoin IS, how it works, and what problems it solves in the world.
I have. I've been watching it for ten years now. And it's still just yet another speculative "asset" with no merit as either a currency or a store of value due to, among many many things, its massive volatility.
As a form of digital gambling, though? Unparalleled!
> A comparison that always comes to mind is like someone saying that the internet is a big waste of energy.
And if all the internet was was a giant digital slot machine, they'd be right.
> It is clear, at least to me, that emitting large quantities of CO2 into the air, and heated waste water into a lake, for the sole purpose of enriching oneself
i agree, but that would make bitcoin mining merely the most recent addition to a very, very long list of immoral endeavours undertaken for the sole purpose of enriching oneself.
I'm not a fan of starting up power plants for bitcoin mining, but I agree with your analysis. I did the same calculations before finding this thread, so I'll point out that it's 0.0032% not 0.000032% (you need to multiply by 100 for percent).
Thanks, I did the calculation quickly & admittedly didn’t double check, so I’ll take your word on it.
But the point stands true. This will certainly warm the lake in the local vicinity, where the quoted resident came from. But to slant this warming story as if it will effect the whole ecosystem of the lake is silly & inaccurate.
It’s a really big lake. I’m more used to seeing smaller, man made lakes for this purpose. My old hometown has one, and yes the water was warm. But that didn’t stop anyone from canoeing & fishing in it.
And I must point out, a detail that gets buried in this story is the power plant was not repurposed as natural gas and started back up with the sole intention of mining Bitcoin. It was intended to provide extra electricity during peak usage hours in the summer. The Bitcoin mining is basically a ‘side hustle’.
Your own numbers lack a great deal of context and your comment seems far more biased than this article. The article avoids making any conclusions about the effects on the lake while you seem quite happy to jump to conclusions with insufficient data and bad math.
Edit: My own stance would be that we should wait to until we have the data on how much warming is happening at the various layers of the lake and then use that data assess the regulations governing the power plant. In the meantime, we might look at bringing the regulations for disconnected power plants in-line with grid power plants.
Firstly, using lakes to cool power plants is not unusual or uncommon. They don't really make that clear, and it feels like they want the reader to think this is nefarious. To me the title of this should be something more like "Residents forgot the lake gets warmer when the power plant operates".
As far as the 135 million allowed to be discharged into the lake daily, it is an incredibly small amount compared to the size of the lake. According to Wikipedia, the volume of the lake is 3.81 cu/miles of water. A quick search tells me 1 cu/mi =~ 1.1 trillion gallons. Okay, some more rough math gives us a total of about 4.2 trillion gallons in the lake of which 135M gallons is something like 0.000032% of the total volume.
So my point is that when the article throws a figure like 135M gallons at you with no context it seems huge. But when you look at it in context, 3 one hundred thousands of one percent of the total, I have a hard time imagining that has any measurable impact on the lake whatsoever. I'm sure the quoted resident that lives very near to the plant had noticed the warmth, but anywhere else on the lake?
On top of this, the plant is under strict scrutiny by the regulators, and they appear to be operating withing the limits outlined by said regulators. So if there is anyone to get mad at here it's not the plant operators, it's the Department of Environmental Conservation.