To keep roughly the same current total hashrate/security (or more) on only intermittent and excess energy? No, it's not so obvious to me why that would be the case. But sure if we make big optimistic assumptions I could see why you would think so (ALL energy producers in the world, no alternative more profitable uses of that energy, high transaction activity on-chain, etc)

Replies (2)

I must have failed to lay it out properly then. The fact that profitability is no longer as important as being present at the source of energy isn't up for debate. Every scale of bitcoin mining that isn't in your own home is currently either at a power generation site, or it is moving to one. Furthermore, every power producer, including all the biggies like texaco, BP, shell, even government-owned sites, they're all working on putting an appropriate amount of bitcoin mining equipment in their mix because before bitcoin existed, it was never possible to have a buyer of last resort for their product. That one fact has changed the world economy in an undeniable way, much like gunpowder did. Gunpowder was an invention that if you didn't embrace, you die. Bitcoin mining is an invention that if power companies don't embrace, they become unable to compete & they die too. They'd just be losing too much money on the table during their grid's off-peak hours.
Now it makes even less sense to me. This whole time I thought you were talking about off-grid individuals and smaller off-the-books operations. How is government owned bitcoin mining and large scale corporate mining ops on the white market a good thing? You're forgetting who the adversary is and what secures bitcoin.