If there's a small amount of power available then it's not worth mining. If there's a lot of power available it's worth building a transmission line. There's no rational economic system where the ideal case is build-to-waste - that's just policy failure. Bitcoin just provides economic incentive to create that policy failure instead of minimize it.
> If there's a small amount of power available then it's not worth mining.
Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion? The value of mining is generally proportional to the available power. If the capital expense of a mining rig is less than a transmission line, it might be better to mine than to transmit. For example, if it costs 1 million dollars to install a transmission line, but only 1 thousand dollars to setup a mining rig that could consume all the energy, it probably be more feasible to mine than to transmit.
Mining does zero useful productive work. That's the point. That's how it has to work. It's literally a proof of waste system. Each unit of wasted energy should be spent doing something useful. If you economically incentivize waste, there's no market signal to utilize the power to productive ends.
So if there's a small amount of power, you get no yield from mining. If there's a lot of power, you can afford to connect it to the grid. If there's a medium amount of power, decommission some of the supply - or never build it in the first place. All three options are better that using it to probabilistically guess at nonces and prove you expended it on nothing of value - and get paid for it.
We are not measuring what YOU personally believe is "useful productive" work. We are measuring if there is a way to extract economic value (payment) for stranded energy.
> So if there's a small amount of power, you get no yield from mining.
You are going in circles. The amount of mining you can do is exactly proportional to the available power. It does not suddenly go to zero. If the yield or profit is greater than the costs, it is economically worthwhile.
