The cheapest energy is the cheapest. It has nothing directly to do with it being renewable.
x = x
As if that's insightful. But in the spirit of HN, can you say more? My understanding is that renewables are the cheapest and will likely continue to trend in that direction, causation or not. So are you suggesting maybe there's a chance of a super inexpensive non-renewable overtaking this trend?
I broke this chain of logic by pointing out that renewable is an unnecessary consideration and that mining activities will choose the cheapest option regardless of its renewability.
Furthermore I claim that renewable is not the cheapest. Various subsidies aside, renewable is often many times more expensive to deliver where and when required. The total system cost is many times higher.
To be clear, I think:
- having surplus (or cheaper) energy is good
- generating relatively more energy through renewable resources is good
- renewable energy is cheaper and so lower energy prices promote renewable energy more (but also reduce the supply in general)
- Current bitcoin mining increases demand and therefore generation and, to some extent, prices while supply catches up
- a drop in bitcoin mining would lead to a surplus of (renewable) energy which I think would be good
Can you help me find what the source of confusion is?
