Abstract
AbstractIn this paper, a multigeneration cycle of electricity, cooling, and Bitcoin whose energy source is geothermal, has been subjected to energy, exergy, and economic analyses. The cycle under consideration includes the steam cycle (upstream cycle), the carbon dioxide cycle (downstream cycle), and the liquid–gas line to absorb the heat dissipated by the carbon dioxide cycle. In this cycle, the steam cycle condenser acts as the carbon dioxide cycle evaporator. Part of the electricity generated by this cycle is used to generate Bitcoins. Energy and exergy efficiencies at baseline (excluding Bitcoin production) are 45.8% and 38.1%, respectively. In this cycle, if more power is spent on producing Bitcoin as a product, the energy and exergy efficiencies of the cycle are reduced. Because Bitcoin itself is not valuable in terms of energy and exergy. Considering the average price of Bitcoin during the years 2015–2022 and if 100% of the electricity generated by the system is spent on Bitcoin production, the payback period in 2018, 2021, and 2022 when the price of Bitcoin is equal to $13,412.4, $21,398.8, and $47,743.0, respectively, are less than the baseline. Therefore, the production of Bitcoin with a variety of renewable energies can be considered as a solution. Of course, it should be noted that large changes in the price of Bitcoin can affect the issue of economic benefit.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
