[woeh]

Isn't every energy consumer incentivized to use the cheapest available energy source? In case of a landfill, there probably is a city nearby which would benefit from cheap electricity.

Perhaps miners have an advantage over a city in that they can move or disable mining rigs in times when renewables are scarce. But from what I understand Asics are expensive, and running them is big business. Which probably means they will continue running while it is financially feasible, even when a nearby dam runs dry or there is not enough wind or solar to go about.

[acapybara]

Not really.

When there's a constant energy source like a flare, it must be used in realtime.

Too much energy is even a problem for the grid (see negative electricity prices that have occurred in, e.g. China).

The only alternative is batteries, which are expensive and have their own problems.

May as well use that energy for securing a neutral public utility financial network/money system.

By the way, check out how much energy the traditional financial systems use:

- Data centers - Trucks/logistics - Security - Military (to secure national currencies such as USD) - etc.

[woeh]

I doubt Bitcoin mining is really suitable to use energy in realtime either. I don't think it makes financial sense to only run your expensive mining equipment during flares. In result the mining will run continuously, and just compete with other energy consumers.

To be honest I know too little about mining costs to dispute this. The Cambridge article about BTC mining using mostly fossils supports my point though. Having said that, I hope you guys are right in Bitcoin mining making energy greener.