[2023-08-22] Bitcoin Mining Startup Raises $13 Million to Turn Trash Into BTC

[Kakmakr]

https://decrypt.co/153346/bitcoin-mining-startup-raises-13-million-to-turn-trash-into-btc/

"Nodal Power has secured a substantial $13 million funding round to continue converting methane gas produced by landfills into electricity, which is then dispatched to local electricity grids as renewable power."

"powers 500 miners for 40 petahashes per second (PH/s) of capacity."

"A recent KPMG report suggested that the volume of flared methane in the U.S. and Canada could potentially power the entire Bitcoin network."

Now burning methane gas to produce electricity, might not be the most environment friendly option, but it is released into the air in any way.. so why should we not use it?

[1715087902]

1715087902

[1715087902]

1715087902

[1715087902]

1715087902

[1715087902]

1715087902

[1715087902]

1715087902

[Lucius]

~snip~
Now burning methane gas to produce electricity, might not be the most environment friendly option, but it is released into the air in any way.. so why should we not use it?

Perhaps because we should not give additional arguments to those who use it to portray Bitcoin as one of the great threats to our environment, no matter how meaningless it is if we take into account the facts from all relevant research. Those who mine BTC of course do it for profit, but I believe that they should always strive to use clean and renewable energy sources, although even these energy sources are not something that does not leave an impact on the environment.

The less oil, methane, coal and similar fuels associated with Bitcoin, the better for all of us in the long run.

[Kakmakr]

~snip~
Now burning methane gas to produce electricity, might not be the most environment friendly option, but it is released into the air in any way.. so why should we not use it?

Perhaps because we should not give additional arguments to those who use it to portray Bitcoin as one of the great threats to our environment, no matter how meaningless it is if we take into account the facts from all relevant research. Those who mine BTC of course do it for profit, but I believe that they should always strive to use clean and renewable energy sources, although even these energy sources are not something that does not leave an impact on the environment.

The less oil, methane, coal and similar fuels associated with Bitcoin, the better for all of us in the long run.

Well, the methane gas that are being produced are going into the atmosphere and it is going to waste. If you can use that to generate electricity and that is more environmental friendly than burning coal or in some cases Diesel generators.... then that is a positive thing.

I think they said that they are not allowed to push that electricity back into the grid for some reason, so they are using it on-site to power their Bitcoin miners.... so they are using an alternative power source to mine.... and that is a positive thing. 

[Get Happy Code]

An impressive deal to raise that much money. Hey, cows give off a serious amount of methane gas, does this potentially give a whole new meaning to Shitcoins?
 
Turn Trash Into BTC
I am still stuck trying to figure out how to do trash into BTC using altcoins.   

[cr1776]

~snip~
Now burning methane gas to produce electricity, might not be the most environment friendly option, but it is released into the air in any way.. so why should we not use it?

Perhaps because we should not give additional arguments to those who use it to portray Bitcoin as one of the great threats to our environment, no matter how meaningless it is if we take into account the facts from all relevant research. Those who mine BTC of course do it for profit, but I believe that they should always strive to use clean and renewable energy sources, although even these energy sources are not something that does not leave an impact on the environment.

The less oil, methane, coal and similar fuels associated with Bitcoin, the better for all of us in the long run.

If the goal is environmentally friendly mining, everyone should be using nuclear. 

As far as this goes, it seems better to be using methane that would just be dumped into the atmosphere to offset some other power source than to just dump it.

[Kakmakr]

~snip~
Now burning methane gas to produce electricity, might not be the most environment friendly option, but it is released into the air in any way.. so why should we not use it?

Perhaps because we should not give additional arguments to those who use it to portray Bitcoin as one of the great threats to our environment, no matter how meaningless it is if we take into account the facts from all relevant research. Those who mine BTC of course do it for profit, but I believe that they should always strive to use clean and renewable energy sources, although even these energy sources are not something that does not leave an impact on the environment.

The less oil, methane, coal and similar fuels associated with Bitcoin, the better for all of us in the long run.

If the goal is environmentally friendly mining, everyone should be using nuclear. 

As far as this goes, it seems better to be using methane that would just be dumped into the atmosphere to offset some other power source than to just dump it.

Nuclear power might be more environmentally friendly, until something goes wrong..... just look at the Fukushima and the Chernobyl nuclear disasters... to name but a few.

You cannot actually "dump" methane gas... it is released as a natural process from these garbage dumps and it goes into the atmosphere. (like your body produce a fart)  ..... so this company found a way to use this and to generate electricity and then use that electricity to mine bitcoins. 

[Lucius]

Well, the methane gas that are being produced are going into the atmosphere and it is going to waste. If you can use that to generate electricity and that is more environmental friendly than burning coal or in some cases Diesel generators.... then that is a positive thing.

There is logic in using such gas, but those who constantly attack Bitcoin using the environmental vector will not say that this is something positive if we know that they focus on Bitcoin consuming electricity like a smaller country. They don't even care that the losses in the electric network on an annual level in the world are about 50 000 TWh, but they are worried about the absurdly small 200-300 TWh consumed by BTC during the whole year, and at least 50% of that comes from renewable sources.

[Renampun]

https://decrypt.co/153346/bitcoin-mining-startup-raises-13-million-to-turn-trash-into-btc/

"Nodal Power has secured a substantial $13 million funding round to continue converting methane gas produced by landfills into electricity, which is then dispatched to local electricity grids as renewable power."

"powers 500 miners for 40 petahashes per second (PH/s) of capacity."

"A recent KPMG report suggested that the volume of flared methane in the U.S. and Canada could potentially power the entire Bitcoin network."

Now burning methane gas to produce electricity, might not be the most environment friendly option, but it is released into the air in any way.. so why should we not use it?

I read in an article that the CO2 released by methane gas from combustion is much lighter compared to coal or oil, but when compared to solar or wind energy, the CO2 released by methane gas is quite high,


but there are some issues that say that the EU government will work hard to eradicate the use of methane gas.

I am not an radical environment activist, but I am happy when I hear that there are bitcoin miners who use energy that is more environmentally friendly than coal or oil and it is only fitting that all bitcoin miners adopt a more environmentally friendly combustion system so FUD regarding bitcoin mining is bad for the environment can be fought with data and reality in the field.

[Kakmakr]

" Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. "

" The clean burning properties of natural gas have contributed to increased natural gas use for electricity generation and as a transportation fuel for fleet vehicles in the United States. "

Source : https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php

So, it is better to use it... and not to waste it... right?

[dansus021]

I would agree this methane gas is still harmful neither burned nor not but I would agree more if the companies just not burn the methane gas only but also burn the trash so you can tackle two problems at the same time and the energy used for bitcoin mining is also a great idea.

Like Kakmakr said it is better to use it rather than waste it and you know trash problem that keep piling up burning it is only the choice

[albert0bsd]

AFAIK the equilibrium of the AIR in our atmosphere nitrogen and oxygen is very importan to preserve the weather and life in this plannet. When methane is released into the atmosphere, it can absorb and trap heat from the sun, contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. This can lead to various consequences


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlOeuRmxdSo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skusmMVBH7c

[goldkingcoiner]

Now burning methane gas to produce electricity, might not be the most environment friendly option, but it is released into the air in any way.. so why should we not use it?

Perhaps because of a little something called natures delicate balance? We should be trying to cut back on the production of methane if we want to keep living on a livable planet. I know that there are a few hard-core Waterworld fans who disagree with me on this, but trust me, it would be a better option. That being said, the acceleration of offsetting the delicate balance of nature is not really an argument.

I understand that argument basically as a kind of a lemmings way out of an anxious situation: "We're all headed towards a doomed future anyway, might as well die now".

[Kakmakr]

Now burning methane gas to produce electricity, might not be the most environment friendly option, but it is released into the air in any way.. so why should we not use it?

Perhaps because of a little something called natures delicate balance? We should be trying to cut back on the production of methane if we want to keep living on a livable planet. I know that there are a few hard-core Waterworld fans who disagree with me on this, but trust me, it would be a better option. That being said, the acceleration of offsetting the delicate balance of nature is not really an argument.

I understand that argument basically as a kind of a lemmings way out of an anxious situation: "We're all headed towards a doomed future anyway, might as well die now".

It is easier said than done... and it will cost us to make huge sacrifices to the way we are living. Take cows for instances, they release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere as a byproduct of the grass that they eat and we get Milk and Meat from them. Do we kill all the cows and remove Milk and Meat from our diet?

We should find alternative solutions like this to harness that "FREE" energy to our advantage and to improve the quality of the air that we breathe. (Agriculture already use cow dung to generate energy from the methane released)

[cr1776]

Now burning methane gas to produce electricity, might not be the most environment friendly option, but it is released into the air in any way.. so why should we not use it?

Perhaps because of a little something called natures delicate balance? We should be trying to cut back on the production of methane if we want to keep living on a livable planet. I know that there are a few hard-core Waterworld fans who disagree with me on this, but trust me, it would be a better option. That being said, the acceleration of offsetting the delicate balance of nature is not really an argument.

I understand that argument basically as a kind of a lemmings way out of an anxious situation: "We're all headed towards a doomed future anyway, might as well die now".

It is easier said than done... and it will cost us to make huge sacrifices to the way we are living. Take cows for instances, they release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere as a byproduct of the grass that they eat and we get Milk and Meat from them. Do we kill all the cows and remove Milk and Meat from our diet?

We should find alternative solutions like this to harness that "FREE" energy to our advantage and to improve the quality of the air that we breathe. (Agriculture already use cow dung to generate energy from the methane released)

"Free" energy such as fusion would go a long way to this.

One "simple" way would be to change the albedo of the planet.  Paint all rooftops white, and make roadways and parking lots white.  That alone would change the direction of the planetary temperature and would be significantly less expensive and disruptive than other options.

[wallet4bitcoin]

https://decrypt.co/153346/bitcoin-mining-startup-raises-13-million-to-turn-trash-into-btc/

"Nodal Power has secured a substantial $13 million funding round to continue converting methane gas produced by landfills into electricity, which is then dispatched to local electricity grids as renewable power."

"powers 500 miners for 40 petahashes per second (PH/s) of capacity."

"A recent KPMG report suggested that the volume of flared methane in the U.S. and Canada could potentially power the entire Bitcoin network."

Now burning methane gas to produce electricity, might not be the most environment friendly option, but it is released into the air in any way.. so why should we not use it?

I consider the effect of burning gases into the atmosphere more important than having to run on a constant power supply. In the first place, if good health is challenged, who will use the Bitcoin that is minned or who will initiate a mining demand

Cold venting of methan gas is not as disastrous are burning it, when burnt, natural gas releases even more global warming pollution into our air in the form of carbon dioxide. Methane is responsible for nearly half of global warming to date.