Daniel Batten's avatar
Daniel Batten
Dsbatten@nostrich.love
npub13lky...lpsy
I like turning waste into power. Landfill gas. Eroding currencies. The human potential. danielbatten.co
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 2 years ago
Here’s how I found out bitcoin mining was the greenest investment I could be making
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 2 years ago
Just put out a video about why Bitcoin is the greatest ESG asset of our time
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 2 years ago
Just in: The moral basis for the NY Bitcoin Mining ban was a fraud tl;dr: No Bitcoin mining operation has ever revived a fossil fuel plant. Here's the context, the story and the evidence below Rule #1 psy-ops: "Find a scapegoat and create moral outrage around it" Rule #2 "If you cannot find a scapegoat, invent one" Rule#2 is what the advocates of the NY Bitcoin mining ban used The scapegoat was of course Greenidge Energy. You know, that Bitcoin mining company that was responsible for bringing a disused fossil fuel plant back online to mine Bitcoin? Except that the story was sexed up. There were no WMDs. Greenidge did not bring back a gasplant for the purpose of mining Bitcoin. They brought it back for the purpose of selling that power to the grid. Recently I did a bit of investigation into Greenidge, since (no one in NY Times seemed to be), and here's what I found, with the evidence in the filings below. 1. Greenidge bought the then inactive power facility and spent tens of millions of dollars to permanently end the ability to use the plant for coal fired operations before converting the facility to natural gas operations. 2. Greenidge brought the now natural gas facility to the wholesale energy market in 2017 as a merchant power provider, under newly issued air and water permits. There was no Bitcoin just a natural gas power plant when Greenidge restarted operations. 3. Two years later, in 2019, Greenidge began a small Bitcoin mining pilot of approximately 1 megawatt (“MW”) while continuing to send power to the local energy grid as well. 4. The Bitcoin operation began to expand in 2021, eventually reaching the level it is at now, but throughout the entire time and to this day, the Greenidge power plant provides power to the local electrical grid every minute it operates, which is mandated by its agreement with the local grid operator. In fact, in 2022 Greendige sent more energy to the local grid than it did when it was just a power plant only, without Bitcoin mining operations. Conclusion: Greenidge came online to supply additional power to the grid, not to mine Bitcoin. 2 years, later it opened a small Bitcoin mining operation that grew in size over the next 2 years. What this means is that the claim of critics "Bitcoin mining revives old fossil fuel plants" is false. There have been no fossil fuel plant brought back online for the purpose of mining Bitcoin. This is yet another piece of misinformation used by Bitcoin critics, which is unsupported by data. You can see this evolution in the S-1 form with the SEC, below, which provides a detailed look on when and how the operation grew. Additionally, you can see Greenidge's initial press release announcing its exploration into bitcoin mining dated March 5, 2020 here
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 2 years ago
This is the biggest and fastest position-reversal from a journalist on Bitcoin I’ve ever seen One week after writing this flawed piece in bitcoin https://www.makeuseof.com/sustainable-cryptocurrencies-greener-bitcoin/ He wrote this informed and knowledgeable piece https://www.makeuseof.com/surprising-ways-bitcoin-mining-benefits-environment/ What happened in between? I critiqued his article; he was open to learning and reversed his position in the light of new information.
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 3 years ago
Bitcoin miners accelerator for methane capture from landfills: Open now #bitcoin creates the economic rationale for climate positive outcomes Who wants to learn how to reduce 1Mt CO2e/yr by mining #BTC with stranded electricity from landfill gas ? We'll be deep diving on: - Which landfills are suitable sites? - What do I say to the owners? - Best way to negotiate PPAs? - How do carbon credits work? Am I eligible for them? - What should I know about landfill gas powergen? - How do I get financing? - And most importantly - how do I make sure I’m profitable? 1 Aug launch (12 week virtual program) You: love infrastructure and engineering challenges, have solid operational skills, doing commercial negotiation one minute, optimizing gas flow the next. All while working next to the visible decay of the consumption-fuelled fiat economy, and helping mitigate the environmental impact of that legacy. If you’re up for the challenge, you’ll literally be turning garbage into digital gold. Every mid-sized (8MW) venting landfill you mine bitcoin on removes a million tonnes of CO2e emissions. You'll also be part of history: measurably steering Bitcoin carbon-negative. All it takes is 35 venting landfills 8 highly contested spaces in the accelerator so put in your best application. Both experienced commercial miners and those new to Bitcoin mining with solid operational acumen and energy/infrastructure experience considered LFG = Landfill Gas! Apply now in the link below
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 3 years ago
I've been waiting 3 months to make this post The Cambridge (CCAF) data on Bitcoin has these issues 1. energy consumption (20.6% overstated) 2. emission intensity (69.4% overstated) 3. sustainable energy mix (39.9% understated) 4. emissions (106% overstated) Key reasons: * miner-map 17 months out of date (puts Kazakhstan at 13% of hashrate, whereas its currently <1%. Other issues) * mining dataset is non-representative and non-extensive (excludes the 52% of the network, who use 64.7% sustainable energy sources) * offgrid mining not measured (28% of network, who our analysis shows use 78% sustainable-energy sources) Conclusion: We shouldn't be using the CCAF models of the Bitcoin Network until their model limitations are fixed. To their credit, they are aware of the limitations, and have always been transparent about them on their website. I've been working with Luxor, Blockware and over 30 miners over the last few months to build an up-to-date model based on the Network's current miner-mix, mining map and energy sources That work is now done. If you want to dive into the weeds, you can find all the data, calcs, methodologies and analysis here 1. Emissions and emissions intensity here 2. Energy Consumption and here 3. Sustainable energy mix These 3 articles together contains the source data for the pretty charts that #[0] and I got together to put together recently when he was over in NZ.
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 3 years ago
Follow @woonomic on Nostr if you’re not already Invaluable Bitcoin alpha and he releases intel here you won’t see on Twitter #[0]
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 3 years ago
Without fanfare, Bitcoin just became the 1st global industry where network growth rockets while emissions plummet This chart says: Policy makers should consider Bitcoin an example to other industries; institutional investors should feel comfortable with its ESG status image
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 3 years ago
New All Time Low For the first time ever Bitcoin emission intensity has dropped below 300g/KWh * This is less than half it’s emission intensity in just over 3 years * No other industry is reducing its emission intensity as fast image
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 3 years ago
Price of carbon on voluntary markets is down this year. That’s going to make it harder to get vented methane based projects funded (they won’t return as much to investors). Anyone know of any good philanthropic climatefunds that are happy to take lower returns if they are measurably saving the world?
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 3 years ago
My website Batcoinz.com where I published my Bitcoin research has just been DDOS attacked.
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 3 years ago
The difference between Cambridge (CCAF) and Bitcoin Mining Council (BMC) data on sustainable energy use of the Bitcoin Network is primarily due to CCAF underreporting, not BMC over-reporting of sustainable energy use, as many in the media have assumed. Evidence: Cambridge (CCAF) to their credit acknowledge openly that their sample represents less than half the total data-set and does not include flare-gas and off-grid mining that could "reasonably be expected to reduce emissions". "Sample may not be sufficiently representative: The Bitcoin mining map is based on an extrapolation of a sample of mining pool data. This sample may not be fully representative as it (i) represents less than half of Bitcoin’s total hashrate" Also "Our estimates do not account for any activities that could reasonably be expected to reduce emissions, such as using flare-gas, off-grid (behind the meter) Bitcoin mining, waste heat recovery or carbon offsetting." The conclusion when we factor in the missing data: Bitcoin runs on at least 52.6% sustainable energy. source: Are there other problems with the Cambridge data? Yes, several shortcomings. The mining map is now 16 months out of date (matters a lot because Kazakhstan mining is now a shadow of what it was) Average Joules/Terahash calculation upon which their model is based is overstated. I’ve triangulated this with Mara, Luxor and Blockware who all have a very similar (and lower) calculation based on more accurate and up-to-date data about actual miner mix (more efficient than Cambridge assumptions) There’s other issues too. But those are the main ones that lead to the host of following flow on effects - coal incorrectly identified as major energy source - bitcoin sustainability mix incorrectly labelled sub-50% - bitcoin network incorrectly identified as not trending more sustainable since the China-ban - emission intensity incorrectly overstated and labelled as increasing - emissions per annum figure (obtained by multiplying 2 overstated figures: % fossil fuel x energy consumption ) is overstated by a factor of 2x