It make zero difference what the biowaste power is used for. Power is power and typically biowaste is used to produce methane that in turn is piped to homes for heat & cooking but of course can also be used to power generators.

Regardless of the end use it all boils down to how much methane the system produces and how efficient the generators are.

Exactly. Mining is based on pure statistical Luck making AI useless.
As for applying AI to trading - sure, it would be a good fit. HOWEVER - this area deals exclusively with mining. The Forum has dedicated areas for trading topics...

Hmm, the articles in the OP give the impression that the Susquehanna nuclear plant was fairly new. It isn't. It 1st went online in 1983. https://www.talenenergy.com/plant/susquehanna/ What IS new is the operators plans for an energy-intensive computing campus they built next door to the power plant. The campus is dedicated to cloud computing & other large scale operations (like oh, streaming porn which incidentally globally consumes far more power than mining does...) as well as servicing the crypto mining markets.

Oh, the original press release is here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230305005096/en/TeraWulf-Announces-Energizatio[%E2%80%A6]Mining-Operations-at-the-Nautilus-Facility-in-Pennsylvania

More on the plant and data center plans here

Info on the company running the nuclear powered farms here
Their cloud & other data center ops are covered here power cost: $0.039/kWh

1st of all, this thread should be moved to the Development and Technical Discussion board where it would get a much larger and on-target audience.

That said, if one wants to test out said algorithms you do NOT test them out on a CPU. You use a FPGA to simulate the logical gate structures that would eventually be made into a hard wired ASIC. Being general purpose devices, coding to run on cpu's/gpu's is vastly different (and more complex) than programming hard-wired implementations of the code.

I should also add that despite after more than 10 years of some very bright minds working on this <drum roll please> there are no faster/better ways to process sha 256 hashes. Doesn't mean there isn't some as yet undiscovered methods to do it but - it also means it is pretty bloody unlikely.

Um, already being discussed here...

Learn to recognize the 'style' of AI posts - it is not hard to do as most are a straightforward collection of facts information that are strung together with little to no 'human feel' or thought/opinions to the wording. Most read like a heavily edited textbook vs a spur of the moment collection of thoughts being typed by a person.

Then as I did, Ignore the poster so they stop getting views much less merits for their lazy-ass crap.

All of which ^^ have nothing to do with this thread you started.
That reply reads a lot like what a chatbot spews out so Ignore button activated.

No. Once the tx is confirmed that payment is irrecoverable because the BTC has been sent to an address. If you verify that it was sent to the correct address and the recipient says they did not get it - they are lying. Just check funds in that wallet address... Good point is that when they move the BTC you can trace it...

If it was sent to the wrong address -- well, it's gone.

That and the fact that aside from the occasional and short-lived drops, diff has been steadily rising and ergo 'hitting new all time highs' roughly every 2 weeks since Bitcoin's inception... Hardly newsworthy in itself.

Glad to see you later posted in the correct R909 thread Ya probably should lock this thread so it is not necroed from time to time...
That said detailed information is here https://kano.is/gekko.php

No, they were the 1st USB stick miners for BTC. They were put together by Friedcat using ASIC's made by Canaan who created the 1st BTC ASIC chips in 2013. Those 1st chips were used in much larger miners like today's are.

A simple Google search using "how much does a nuclear power plant cost to build" will answer that... In short, it is many billions of $$$ though at least in the US a huge part of that is from time lost (in some cases decades) and legal expenses due to every 'environmental' group in any given country fighting them in court. In more than a few cases construction was drawn out for so long that it became necessary to finish building the power plants to use natural gas fired steam turbines instead of carbon-neutral reactors as the heat source. One Poster Child for that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Cogeneration_Venture

That link also highlights the primary safety hazard associated with nuclear power - the absolute need to get all of the engineering points right! IF done using what should be common-sense design and operations rules nuclear power IS safer, cleaner, and certainly more stable than almost any way of generating utility-scale electric power.

Ya know, things like: do not build on the shore of an ocean bay at risk from tsunami and if you do - at least locate the backup power generators above any possible flood line (Fukushima), do not run 'what if' tests on an already sketchy reactor design using an operational reactor (Chernobyl), make sure ALL build inspections are accurate, operation centers are thoughtfully laid out and operators are properly trained (TMI), be sure to build on stable ground (would have been an issue with the Midland reactors), do not build near an earthquake fault line (San Onofre closed before anything happened, also several falsified inspections found, botched repairs), etc.

That said it must be pointed out that because of its stringent design, build, and operations rules the US Naval nuclear program has had only 1 significant incident. That single one was a coolant leak that resulted in full immediate SCRAM shutdown of the reactor. ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors
From that link:
Too bad the Russian program has never been as careful...

As for discounted tariff: Ja. As others have said, the mining farm is right next to the power plant so in a sense the farm is 'behind the meter' in that there is next to no transmission costs involved. Yes obviously the power plant is metering the farm, just separately from what is being sent out to 'The Grid'.

Now one might ask, "why would a utility give such a low rate to the farm"?.
Simple: Any power plant needs a stable base-line load to run at best efficiencies. Mining farms pulling 10's of MW are as stable of a load as it gets. Couple that with the power plant being in a region that is not heavily developed with heavy industries or cities near it (yet) and a rather long distance to The Grid's high tension lines it becomes simple economics with the Utility who is running the power plant making more money by supplying power to the farm vs selling it on The Grid.

EDIT: Being a brand-new fully-fueled Nuclear plant and therefore immune to the fluctuating costs of natural gas/oil/coal and for the next decade or so, uranium, The plant 1st went into operation in 1983. the Utility is able to provide TerraWulf that sweet 5-year power contract. A rare Win-Win for all parties involved!  

1st point to consider: ASIC-based miners are VERY power hungry so you need VERY low cost electric power. Like at most maybe $0.06/kWh.
If your power cost is more than that your only hope is to solo mine - aka 'lottery mining' using a small low power ASIC-based miner like the Gekko Compac-F or R909. They may not ever hit a block - but *IS* possible - and at least you will not be bleeding $$$ feeding them.

Canaan's Avalon 841's. Built like a tank and near indestructible, very easy to tweak the settings for everything covered by the cgminer API (that Kano wrote btw). I still have 10 of them. Most are long retired but I still run 2 as very quiet wintertime space heaters pulling 750-800w yet still delivering ~9TH each.

Good point. That amount of hash pounding them would make for one helluva spike but - as long as it does not last too long to avoid sending their diff skyrocketing a farm could 'corner the market' so to speak on mining rewards from said coins for a week or so no?

Ja. It was made by Bitmain long long ago in a Galaxy far far away so... Wrong area to ask. Belongs in Mining Support as its own new topic.
Also hope you didn't pay more than maybe $20 for it because it is not only VERY old  - like from around 2014 - but of course also very very slow...

Against them for the simple reason that because of their size, they push normal tx's farther back in line. Their 1 good point is that quite often ordinals have some hefty fees attached to them.

My take on it is that to moderate the diff rise at least 1 mega farm is kicking into high gear right after a diff change, runs there for maybe 1/2 epoch and then throttles back a bit for the other 1/2 so diff does not get too high too fast?

If someone is so inclined it'd be interesting to see a few 'what if's' based on that premise.  

Easy: Just look through the Mining Support and the Hardware areas of this Forum and come to your own conclusions. Lots of issues reported for all the different miners along with results of the people trying to get them resolved. Read about them and reach your conclusions.

Frankly, using published 'reviews' of any given miner's reliability is highly questionable due to the writers personal biases and/or lack of experience with the brands being ran in widely different environments..

^^ The real question is how much current can the hub provide per-port. At those speeds each one is pulling at least 2.8a and possibly just over 3.1a.

If the Eyeboot holds to usb charging specs each port will be limited to a maximum of 3.1a. Yes the entire Eyeboot hub can provide 10a but that has to be distributed across many ports.

The original Gekkp hub had 3-banks of 2 ports with each bank fed by a 6a regulator - if just powering 1 in each bank it will happily supply that full 6a to it. The connectors may melt but that's what you get.  The new hubs use a single 25a regulator feeding each port through 3.5a resetable PTC e-fuses. Yes that means each port is limited to under 3.5a but that is more than enough for reasonable OC with minimal danger of melting the port connectors