Exactly. Every article about this seems to cut corners when it comes to this very thing. Even in this one, the small print admits that they averaged the amount of CO2 produced by power plants in a given country, skipping over the fact that cryptocurrency farms will gravitate towards cheap energy sources for obvious economic reasons, which makes them much more likely to be using hydropower than coal, for instance.
It doesn't matter for a limited supply of energy. If we have hydro power available as well as coal, Bitcoin miners being located near hydro means that they hog that supply. Energy that could supply other uses is now not available and uses which previously relied on coal still rely on coal (because the usage only creeps up).
> Sichuan, second only in the hashpower rankings to Xinjiang, is a province characterized by a massive overbuild of hydroelectric power in the last decade. Sichuan’s installed hydro capacity is double what its power grid can support, leading to lots of “curtailment” (or waste). Dams can only store so much potential energy in the form of water before they must let it out. It’s an open secret that this otherwise-wasted energy has been put to use mining Bitcoin
China already built 2 of the longest transmission lines in the world (~2000km), so location doesn't seem a huge issue. The question is - is the extra energy not being transported because there's an existing use for it (btc), or would it be generated and not used anyway. Or would the power plants just get shut down otherwise?
