Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
137

The appropriate response to all of this "energy wasted" FUD

110 comments
91% Upvoted
What are your thoughts? Log in or Sign uplog insign up
level 1
Original Poster20 points · 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago

But now per-capita electricity use is dropping in the developed world, and population growth is slowing, and governments are encouraging massive construction of renewables. So the bigger issue today is over-supply. Why? Because it's not always easy to take power plants offline:

Some types of generation capacity have economics that discourage going offline, like coal plants.Some are physically difficult to take offline (and then restart) like nuclear plants.Some electricity from non-utility sources is forced into the grid regardless of demand, like wind and solar power in many jurisdictions.

Storing electricity just isn't practical. First, it's physically difficult and every method we've invented takes up a ton of space.

Second, all energy storage and over-supply management requires some degree of waste. You're always doing one of these three things:

Losing energy in the conversion to and from a storage medium like pumped-storage hydroelectricity or battery banks, as well as all the energy and resources that went into building those storage systems

Losing energy by just dumping it, such as venting excess nuclear plant heat or shunting excess electricity directly to ground.

Losing financial value by selling excess power at a loss and buying shortfall power at another loss (and even then, someone else's flexible generation capacity has to handle the variability)"

Bitcoin mining eloquently solves this power surplus problem that exists in many areas globally. It naturally gravitates to locations with the cheapest energy costs - areas that have an energy surplus.

... the annual consumption of power from Bitcoin mining is 8.27 terawatt-hours per year. The global production of fiat currencies consumes 11 terawatt-hours per year.

Gold mining burns a staggering 132 terawatt-hours per year. What’s more, these numbers don’t even include the massive amount spent on vaults, banks, security systems and more to keep the physical cash and precious metal safe.

Bitcoin is NOT consuming unreasonable amounts of energy for managing a global currency.

The energy requirements of bitcoin mining does not increase linearly with transaction volume, thanks to second and third and fourth layer solutions like the lightning network. Through these solutions, we are able to achieve transaction volumes an order of magnitude larger, without dramatically increasing the energy requirements on the base layer - the mining itself. Don't listen to all of this news about bitcoin mining be an environmental plight, or an energy sinkhole. It's simply not true.

level 2
redditor for 3 months
4 points · 3 months ago

Where do you get the 8.27 figure from. Because the digiconimist number is 66 TW/h...

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

Also comparing total energy consumption of bitcoin to total consumption of all fiat is a bad idea given that the entirity of fiat currency has magnitudes more utility than bitcoin.

level 3
Original Poster7 points · 3 months ago

Bitcoin can expand by orders of magnitude without dramatically increasing its mining requirements.

level 4
redditor for 3 months
3 points · 3 months ago

True but power consumption can go as well... which it absoutely will if any of these $30000-$1000000 bitcoin price predictions come true and that would create some BIG problems.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

I would advise checking this out. Its an economist that looks at population/energy expansion from the point of view of waste heat. With bitcoin if it ever hits the kind of high prices that support even more miners coming in the earth literally starts to heat up to the point where it becomes uninhabitable for a large percentage of living things.

level 5

In the long term halvings will support higher prices without the need to increase the energy demand for mining. Also Bitcoin network energy consumption is tiny compared to the energy wasted in other industries. E.g. gas flaring (just burning because there is no use for it) in the oil industry wastes 30-times the energy compared to the energy to run the Bitcoin network. And not to talk about the carbon footprint of gas flaring. If the wasted natural gas was used with a conversion efficiency of 33%, the electricity could drive 10-times the hash rate we have now, theoretically supporting 10-times today's price.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare

level 6
redditor for 3 months
3 points · 3 months ago

Im not arguing that we have other industries that are terrible wasters of energy. We cannot afford to have more. Also by that logic we can say "well cocaine only kills 2000 people a year while opiates kill 37,000... if we just got rid of opiates we could deal sooooo much coke..."

Theres lots of bad things out there. The point is not to let bitcoin become of them as well even if its less bad.

level 7

This is a very bad comparison. Bitcoin mining is not wasting energy, it is converted into cryptographic seals to secure the ledger and the ledger creates very useful utility for trade and commerce. In contrast, gas flaring is just completely wasted energy without any benefit, it does even harm the environment because of the massive carbon emissions. If the price of Bitcoin goes up enough, miners will use the flared gas for electricity or the oil industry become miners themselves (there are already some pilot projects).

level 6

Gas flare

A gas flare, alternatively known as a flare stack, is a gas combustion device used in industrial plants such as petroleum refineries, chemical plants, natural gas processing plants as well as at oil or gas production sites having oil wells, gas wells, offshore oil and gas rigs and landfills.

In industrial plants, flare stacks are primarily used for burning off flammable gas released by pressure relief valves during unplanned over-pressuring of plant equipment. During plant or partial plant startups and shutdowns, flare stacks are also often used for the planned combustion of gases over relatively short periods.

Gas flaring at many oil and gas production sites protects against the dangers of over-pressuring industrial plant equipment.


[ ^PM | Exclude ^me | Exclude from ^subreddit | FAQ / ^Information | ^Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

level 5
redditor for 3 months
1 point · 3 months ago

Block rewards will drop over time though.

level 5

waste heat

I could agree with this if we're talking about fossil fuels, which we probably all agree result in the net heating of the earth.

However, if we're talking about renewables, it's a different story. Solar energy is going to heat up the planet either way, photovoltaic panels simply convert some of that energy into a form we can use. Same thing for hydro, or tidal, or whatever. We literally can't create more waste heat from these sources then whatever would already be present.

Now, if we somehow discover a new route to nuclear fusion, that's another story...

level 6
redditor for 3 months
1 point · 3 months ago

No, this is for all energy generation. Even if the energy is generated from solar power its when the energy is used heat is created. (Think the waste heat created by the mining rigs themselves). We buy time by moving from fossil fuels to renewables because the createion of energy from fossil fuels creates waste heat but we staill have to deal with the waste heat from energy use

There is a hard thermodynamic limit and that is what limits the growth of mining to an upper bound before the sheer number of mining rigs create enough waste heat to change the local temperature.

level 7

Even if the energy is generated from solar power its when the energy is used heat is created.

A photon was going to hit the earth, generating hv of heat energy.

Instead that photon was absorbed by a photovoltaic cell, producing an electron that went somewhere else and generated heat somewhere else.

In both situations no new energy, heat or otherwise, is generated. The energy is simply moved from one place to another.

level 8
redditor for 3 months
2 points · 3 months ago

You are forgetting albedo. Adding solar generation changes overall reflectivity and as we improve efficiency of PV panels more heat is absorbed.

but yes there is a certain point we can get to where the overall balance of incoming vs outgoing radiation stays within balance (although we may alter climate in other non-intuitive ways eg when the heat is re-radiated based on short term storage and usage.

level 5
Original Poster1 point · 3 months ago

Doesn't bitcoin mining growth occur due mostly to pockets of underutilized power production capacity? If there is energy for sale that is cheaper than other areas, miners will continue moving into the area until the power is utilized.

A higher bitcoin price does not suddenly make bitcoin mining profitable in areas with expensive energy. It increases the number of miners, but once the number of miners hits a new equilibrium with price, the miners must exist in areas with cheap energy to remain affordable.

And those areas are areas with an energy surplus.

level 6
redditor for 3 months
1 point · 3 months ago

No doubt underutilized power and subsidized power is driving bitcoin mining. Im not arguing that. What i am saying is the knock-on effect of using all that power and then trending that into the future creates a waste heat problem that is practically unsolvable.

In reality the surplus power will get used up and/or governments will put the brakes on power usage for environmental reasons and then any new miners wanting to compete will not be able to which will create a natural price equilibrium and upper limit.

level 7

It will be mined for as long as it is profitable. In a reality of finite resources, the price cannot increase forever, thus, mining will stop expanding, maybe even decrease and then stabilize on fees only. If you're feeling the earth is too hot, (which won't be without widespread adoption of nuclear energy, ceteri paribus, that means you're being worried for nothing), you wait patiently for the next halvening and you get cooler.

level 7
Original Poster1 point · 3 months ago

Excess power gets curtailed and spent which results in heat as well. Again with the thermodynamics part of it. We aren't creating new energy when converting excess power into heat, and when the grid dumps electricity it results in the same net effect

level 8
redditor for 3 months
2 points · 3 months ago

When we talk about a 50 MW plant often the case is that 50 MW is 5 10MW steam turbines. So when the town only uses 20MW because they built for the future it means those other turbines are not running at all so there is no waste heat to be dumped (on that scale)

What he talks about in the video is the transient capacity which is keeping a natural gas turbine spun up but is not always connected but has to be ready for when everyone gets home and turns pon their A/C at the same time. Bitcoin miners cannot use this additional capacity: it has to be wasted because it has to be available to use at a moments notice.

level 9
Original Poster1 point · 3 months ago

Fair enough. Do you have any info on the real-world heat affects of bitcoin mining, or generating heat on the environment? How does it function relative to the affects of co2 or methane emissions in terms of a warming affect?

level 10
redditor for 3 months
1 point · 3 months ago

So this is a new area of study that is just now getting serious attention. Take a look at this blog post:

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

This relates to economic growth in general but can easily be extrapolated to bitcoin mining specifically.

level 3

Inflationary fiat causes a positive feedback loop for economic growth, which is much more damaging to the environment. Another 200-500 years of Keynesian insanity will destroy the planet. With a "deflationary" currency the economic growth will be limited, opening the path for a sustainable civilization.

level 4
redditor for 3 months
1 point · 3 months ago

see my other posts: If the concern is "inflation is bad for the environment: then we are going to have to contend with that anyway. Inflation (aside from the inflation we already have to deal with via mining for the next 120 years) is still going to happen with bitcoin. See my LN leverage post for more details)

level 5

There will be an economic equilibrium for mining, it won't inflate another 120 years. That's the beauty of a resource limited currency. Around 2025 Bitcoin inflation will be go down to 1%. If the economy grows only 1% we can can keep the resource consumption constant (given 1% efficiency improvements, which have been observed long term in civilization). From 2025 onward resource consumption would go down.

level 3

and magnitudes more harm to society.

its fiat currency that encourages loose monetary policy, which the big banks take advantage of by doing what they do best.... making money off of suckers on both sides of every trade.

then they create derivatives products to lure in more stupid money.

then when those products lose steam, a crisis happens and then they go running back to the central banks, the lenders of last resort, and demand a tax bailout. at the expense of the taxpayer. and this also has the annoying little aspect of driving up the debt of the nation.

now lets add the energy consumption of all of that and see if its 'utility' is better than bitcoin.

level 4
redditor for 3 months
1 point · 3 months ago

what do you think is going to happen with bitcoin. Granted the "printing money" part by design cannot happen but all of the other bad things: margin, derivatives, futures,CDO's, etc can and are happening.

Tether is a great example of this in that because of various fincen regulations there was a need for a "proxy" currency to allow traders to move in and out of bitcoin. That part was a good idea (aside from you know using USD, fiat as the base currency) but then once bitcoin and USDT became the defacto trading pair for all these overseas exchanges what happened? well they cant print more bitcoin but they can print more USDT which indirectly inflates bitcoin.

Fiat definitely encourages loose monetary policy but dont think for a second the same wont happen with bitcoin or any other crypto.

level 5
Original Poster2 points · 3 months ago

You're identifying external marketplaces that are inherently flawed. Having tether exist does nothing to affect the internal integrity of the bitcoin network. So to say it will happen within bitcoin isn't true.

level 5

Bitcoin will continue to exist as both a store of value and as a medium of exchange.

With cash, we can spend it or keep it in the bank.

With Bitcoin, we have SegWit and Lightning Network which helps it act as an fast and cheap medium of exchange. And we have cold wallet storage for those who want to save/hodl for the long term.

Things like Tether exist to act as a bridge between crypto and fiat. As cryptos gain in adoption, there will be less reliance on fiat. What I personally believe is that a lot of altcoins will die out since multilayer and sidechain upgrades are possible with bitcoin. For example, with Rootstock, developers can attach their ETH tokens and DApps to work with BTC as a sidechain. Imagine what that’ll do to the value when BTC has the functionality AND security of the defunct altcoins.

level 6
redditor for 3 months
1 point · 3 months ago

Agreed but even in a world without fiat currency (as we know now) we will have something to replace it. In another post I outlined how with LN (if it goes mainstream) will give rise to leveraging just like banks have now with lending... here is how.

If you and I are businesses and we transact on LN and we do so for a period of time where we both trust each other enough to know our relationship is long term then one day I grant you "double bitcoin". It doesnt have to be double, it could be any multiple. Basically the LN (which is open source) gets cloned and a duplicate copy runs for businesses that trust eachother but with no underlying blockchain but is backed by a bunch of bitcoin held in an account on the regular blockchain. I now tell you you have another bitcoin on LN2 for every regular bitcoin you have on LN in your channel with me which you can spend with anyone you want to also on that network with the understanding that it has to be settled after some time period.

You can use your new LN2 bitcoin or not use them but you have them. And now the bitcoin total supply has been inflated above the 21 million coin limit. This will happen. (It kinda is happening but i cant say too much about it)

level 3

Digiconomist Numbers can't be taken seriously. http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in-beci/

level 2

the annual consumption of power from Bitcoin mining is 8.27 terawatt-hours per year. The global production of fiat currencies consumes 11 terawatt-hours per year.

This seems like an inappropriate comparison. You compare one A to all B and by the numbers it looks like A < B, suggesting a false conclusion.

A better comparison would be to compare Bitcoin to one specific fiat, or to compare all cryptos to all fiat.

Either way Bitcoin would look worse which probably is the reason why you chose to put it that way.

level 1

Bitcoin requires the electricity for validation. The system punishes inefficiency because anyone using more electricity than necessary will be out-competed by someone who converts electricity to bitcoin at a more optimal rate.

Fiat requires a military / other force to back up the imaginary claim that fiat has value. The system rewards inefficiency with "black budgets" and the need to spend all allocated funds to ensure spending is not cut in subsequent years.

Let's compare the two and see where energy is really being wasted.

level 2

Fiat requires a military / other force to back up the imaginary claim that fiat has value.

what a bunch of bullshit.

level 3

What a compelling rebuttal.

level 4

what is there to refute when every country has to have military and had one before fiat even was invented... its just 100% dumb.

level 5

every country has to have military

I don't grant you're right, but it doesn't matter because I didn't say any country should get rid of their military. I only said fiat needs force to make people go along with its fantasy.

If you want to argue about whether to have a military you will have to argue with someone else.

level 6

if a country can defend itself without a military then it can run fiat without one... still a dumb argument.

level 7

If a country can spend more than it generates it can buy everyone free candy, too, but I'm not sure how that relates either.

Are you going to reply to what I said? I can see you're adept at making up dumb arguments.

level 1
redditor for 3 months
2 points · 3 months ago

Hit em back where it hurts. Let's do a review of how much money is wasted on pointless political wars instead of progress of humanity and peaceful coexistance.

level 1

Wasn't there a top thread about bitcoin making up 0.5% of the world's energy consumption soon? Search doesn't bring it up... was it deleted?

level 2

If you extrapolate it long enough, yes. But there will be a economical equilibrium for energy use some day.

level 1

I stand corrected. Great video

level 1
redditor for 1 week
0 points · 3 months ago

Until energy becomes free. A truly clean energy source that is unmetered because it makes electric energy out of nothing.

level 2

it makes electric energy out of nothing

Let me guess, you know how to do this and there's a coin involved?

Spare me the details.

level 3
redditor for 1 week
1 point · 3 months ago

Well, remember this for the future ;)

level 2

Yeah all you need is a motor hooked up to a generator, I saw it on youtube ;D

level 3
redditor for 3 months
3 points · 3 months ago

No you take a thermocouple and attach it to the mining rig and then use the power it generates to power the mining rig.

Everybody wins! ;)

level 1

Block lattice is infinitely more green. Blockchain is old, dying technology. Mining is a waste of resources, and accomplishes nothing. Anyone saying that Bitcoin is not a waste of resources is either naive, lying, or dodging. The 2.0 cryptocurrencies are the Facebook to Bitcoin's MySpace. Not going to name the coins that use block lattice because the mods here will probably ban me though.

level 2

your comment is one sided and not true. PoW secures the network as it makes writing and therefore manipulation on the blockchain expensive.

level 3

You're misinformed. PoW does not secure the network, it makes the network vulnerable to centralization. The only purpose of the blockchain is to perform transactions synchronously in batches, opposed to asynchronously. The reason it was designed this way by Satoshi is because it is incredibly simpler to implement and design. Back then, this was all cutting edge, and the 'mining' concept was seen as a strong contender as the plausible solution to Sybil attack resistance, network reward (game theory), and the byzantine generals problem. Back then, things like block lattice where not even conceived of. We've come a long way since and learned a lot in the process, and now radical new evolutions of the existing limited system have started spawning that do away with a lot of the major weaknesses of the existing technology.

level 1
-8 points · 3 months ago(More than 51 children)
level 2

Wait. Is your dumb ass claiming that bank buildings and armored trucks don't exist?

level 3
-6 points · 3 months ago(0 children)
level 4

You're so obtuse you're pushing 179.99 degrees.

level 5
Comment deleted3 months ago
level 6

you just can comprehend simple coherences.

You should stop typing. Just quit. This is the most retarded sentence I've read today.

level 4

AA was speaking of current banking institutions moving Fiat, checks and bonds in armoured vehicles is my understanding.

level 5

and bitcoin CANT have a physical form that needs to be moved in armored trucks. It's just comparing things that are not comparable... same for bank towers. Do you think bank employs thousands of people to write all the transactions by hand? no... that's almost completely automated and banks make their money with services around peoples bank accounts.

you probably one who cries out loud first when people want to remove cash.

level 6

See, that's the point. How much energy is wasted using seashells around for currency purpose? Zero, because seashells are no longer used as currency. Thanks for being right...

level 7

what has your analogy to do with anything i posted?

level 2
Original Poster8 points · 3 months ago

Miners naturally gravitating towards the cheapest energy, locations with an energy surplus, is the real point of the video. Miners are using energy that would otherwise go to waste.

level 3
redditor for 3 months
4 points · 3 months ago

He and basically everyone else is missing the real point which is that there is a thermodynamic cost to all this energy usage. All energy usage, even solar, wind, etc produces waste heat and bitcoin mining is literally the worst at this. While we can afford to use more energy theres no changing the fact that that energy use is heating the planet and it cannot continue.

level 3

this also doesn't add up. If there is an energy surplus somewhere then the power plants were a waste in the first place. This doesn't even happen a lot since no one would build 50mw of solar energy plants in a place where he can only sell 15mw...

also, the cheapest source of energy are usually unregulated coal plants.

level 4

You stopped watching after that sentence?...you invest in the future, not the now. If a town used 50mw and you built a plant that produced 50mw, you would need to upgrade asap.

level 5

maybe a big plant like a nuclear power plant but not renewable energy like solar or wind which can be added gradually when demand rises.

Also, the energy can be transported across long distances and is done so in alot parts of the developed world.

level 5

If the situation is that there is practically no infrastructure to transport electricity ...

Then it would seem odd to invest heavily in overproduction, hoping that demand will rise in the future instead of investing in lacking infrastructure first.

Why not make a moderate plant with some power lines instead?

level 4

there is energy surplus in any functioning system. sometimes so much that it results in negative prices at the exchange.

level 4
Original Poster2 points · 3 months ago

Many power plants or generating stations are built with surplus capacity to handle expected future increases in demand. This goes for nuclear and hydroelectric especially. I won't look everywhere for examples, but here is one from where I live

https://www.hydro.mb.ca/corporate/electricity_exports.shtml

Cheap coal in China is a current issue that is unsustainable due to what they're doing to their air pollution. It is not the norm, and will not be a problem in the future. We know this will happen, because the true cost of coal is much larger than the financial rewards they are recieving from exploiting it.

level 5

Many power plants or generating stations are built with surplus capacity to handle expected future increases in demand.

yeah, most are at least build to handle spikes. the thing is that miners will increase the expected demand and thus increase the supply which would not be necessary without miners in the first place.

level 6
Original Poster6 points · 3 months ago

Again, this just isn't accurate.

Where I live, we are using approximately 25% of our energy capacity. The rest is being sold to other areas, for less than we are paying for it. This is because otherwise, it would go to waste. Better to get something for it than nothing.

We are limited to who we can sell to by geography and laws of thermodynamics.

We are utilizing approximately 50% of our hydroelectric energy generation capacity currently. That means that we have 8x more energy than demand.

If bitcoin mining consumes all of that excess, that is not a bad thing.

level 7

The rest is being sold to other areas

so, it gets to use? if this energy would be used by miners then these "other areas" would have to get it from somewhere else or produce it themselves.

We are limited to who we can sell to by geography and laws of thermodynamics.

there are ways to trade and transfer electricity over long distances. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

level 8
Original Poster5 points · 3 months ago

I'll just quote someone who explains energy surplus better than I can.

"The vast majority of the time, electricity supply is simply matched to demand by throttling flexible power plants up and down. 

Aside from throttling load-following plants, the grid has a large reserve of standby generators available to increase supply. Utilities can also take many types of generators offline as needed to reduce supply. Demand is actually pretty straightforward to predict -- it follows regular patterns by time of day and day of week. So utilities are quite good at supply-matching when they are allowed to pick their own generation capacity mix.

Back when per-capita electricity consumption and population were both growing rapidly in the developed world, many people thought that the problem would always be struggling to build enough power plants to provide sufficient power at an economical price. Peak demand in mid-afternoon is particularly problematic because you don't want to build entire power plants just to run for a few hours a day in the hottest months of summer. The construction costs raise power rates across the board, just to provide capacity that's rarely needed. Electricity is cheapest when power plants can run non-stop -- it distributes the capital cost over more units of produced energy.

But now per-capita electricity use is dropping in the developed world, and population growth is slowing, and governments are encouraging massive construction of renewables. So the bigger issue today is over-supply. Why? Because it's not always easy to take power plants offline:

Some types of generation capacity have economics that discourage going offline, like coal plants.Some are physically difficult to take offline (and then restart) like nuclear plants.Some electricity from non-utility sources is forced into the grid regardless of demand, like wind and solar power in many jurisdictions.

Storing electricity just isn't practical. First, it's physically difficult and every method we've invented takes up a ton of space.

Second, all energy storage and over-supply management requires some degree of waste. You're always doing one of these three things:

Losing energy in the conversion to and from a storage medium like pumped-storage hydroelectricity or battery banks, as well as all the energy and resources that went into building those storage systems

Losing energy by just dumping it, such as venting excess nuclear plant heat or shunting excess electricity directly to ground.

Losing financial value by selling excess power at a loss and buying shortfall power at another loss (and even then, someone else's flexible generation capacity has to handle the variability)"

level 8
Original Poster4 points · 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago

You lose about 5% converting AC to DC, then another 5% converting back, not including the % lost in transit. It is better than moving AC over long distances, and is much better underwater, but is far from perfect and still results in inefficiencies that would be better solved by consuming energy at the source of its creation.

level 9

but is far from perfect and still results in inefficiencies that would be better solved by consuming energy at the source of its creation.

noone argues against this. But there is still a huge difference in wasting all that energy locally on giant mining farms or transport 90% of it to places that can make use of it.

level 8

High-voltage direct current

A high-voltage, direct current (HVDC) electric power transmission system (also called a power superhighway or an electrical superhighway) uses direct current for the bulk transmission of electrical power, in contrast with the more common alternating current (AC) systems. For long-distance transmission, HVDC systems may be less expensive and suffer lower electrical losses. For underwater power cables, HVDC avoids the heavy currents required to charge and discharge the cable capacitance each cycle. For shorter distances, the higher cost of DC conversion equipment compared to an AC system may still be justified, due to other benefits of direct current links.


[ ^PM | Exclude ^me | Exclude from ^subreddit | FAQ / ^Information | ^Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

level 4

This comment alone proves yoy have no idea what you're talking about.

level 5

how so?

level 6

It's like asking how can you claim water is wet.

You are fucking clueless

level 7

looks like you have no clue what you are talking about.

level 8

And you're a nocoiner who is trying desperately to cope with your idiotic decisions. it's only going to get worse.

level 4
[deleted]
0 points · 3 months ago

And lets not forget. The energy is only wasted if badly managed and if the electrical infrastructure is unable to transfer the generated energy to the location where it is needed.

People give too much credit to Andreas, but I guess that is what happens when someone gains a an almost religious status.

level 5
Original Poster2 points · 3 months ago

Not true. Infrastructure to transfer energy is limited over distance due to energy being lost as it travels down a line. Energy cannot always be directed to a consumer demanding it, as it may be all "used up" as it travels en route.

level 6

there are techs to transfer and trade electricity over very long distances

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed

"depending on voltage level and construction details, HVDC transmission losses are quoted as less than 3% per 1,000 km, which are 30 to 40% less than with AC lines, at the same voltage levels"

level 7
Original Poster4 points · 3 months ago

You lose about 5% converting AC to DC, then another 5% converting back, not including the % lost in transit. It is better than moving AC over long distances, and is much better underwater, but is far from perfect and still results in inefficiencies that would be better solved by consuming energy at the source of its creation.

level 8

using 80+% for something useful rather than mining is a better deal.

level 9

Mining is useful. A decentralized peer to peer currency.

level 9
Original Poster2 points · 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago

Pretend that bitcoin takes over for national currencies. Mining it isn't useful? Transactions need to be processed and the currency needs to be secure.

"The report indicates that the annual consumption of power from Bitcoin mining is 8.27 terawatt-hours per year. The global production of fiat currencies stands at 11 terawatt-hours per year.

Gold mining burns a staggering 132 terawatt-hours per year. What’s more, these numbers don’t even include the massive amount spent on vaults, banks, security systems and more to keep the physical cash and precious metal safe."

level 10

"The report indicates that the annual consumption of power from Bitcoin mining is 8.27 terawatt-hours per year. The global production of fiat currencies stands at 11 terawatt-hours per year."

and thats not concerning considering bitcoin is only used for like 0.01% of all transactions?

level 7

Yes. They will use Ethereum grid plus

level 7

NorNed

NorNed is a 580-kilometre (360 mi) long high-voltage direct current submarine power cable between Feda in Norway and the seaport of Eemshaven in the Netherlands, which interconnects both countries' electrical grids. It was once the longest submarine power cable in the world.


[ ^PM | Exclude ^me | Exclude from ^subreddit | FAQ / ^Information | ^Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

level 6
[deleted]
2 points · 3 months ago

The European Union is perfectly capable of balancing the energy needs between countries. It is possible.

level 7
Original Poster0 points · 3 months ago

In an extremely densely populated situation, sure. Again, laws of thermodynamics and distance travelled limits energy exchange programs.

level 2

Pretty sure the energy used purely from bank employees driving to work outweighs bitcoins power consumption.

level 3

probably not even true.

Also, you are comparing apples to oranges. Transactions are done automatically and bank employees have almost nothing to do with the transaction itself.

level 4

Yes. Because data centers run on your moms ass juice.

level 5
-1 points · 3 months ago

a simple SQL server on my moms pc can handle hundreds if not thousands of transactions per second.

go figure.

level 6

yes. thats what banks use! totally! clearly you have never been in a data center. you have no fucking clue what PCI is. fuck outta here.

level 7
-1 points · 3 months ago

416.2 terawatt/h is the world wide usage for EVERY data center for every single purpose out there. Bank transactions are just a tiny fraction of this figure.

Bitcoin already eats like 70 tw/h and growing...

level 8
2 points · 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago

what about all the people driving their cars to work and back every single fucking day. The cocaine the managers sniff from hookers asses? how did they get here? the office building they have to heat and cool and maintain. giant fucking towers! biggest sky scraper in any city is a bank building. what about that smart ass? did you take that into consideration when you did your stupid formula? god i hate you fucking people. I'm glad you're a nocoiner. It will only get worse for you. Oh the tears i see in your future.

level 9
0 points · 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago

none of these have anything to do with the transactions itself. Ever heard of online banks? they are just run by a handful of people and still manage millions of transactions.

if you cant understand that then i fell sorry for you.

level 10

Lol. Save your sorry for yourself

level 1
redditor for 3 months
-1 points · 3 months ago

POS

level 2

gross

level 1

Unlimited free energy can be created by using resonant frequencies to split HHO. The. Use a fuel cell to get the electricity. aka Stanley Meyer

level 2

You need H2 or NH3 to run a fuel cell.

Community Details

911k

Subscribers

11.2k

Online

A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all political philosophies are welcome.

Create Post
Join Us!
Guidelines
  • Do not use URL shortening services: always submit the real link.
  • Begging/asking for bitcoins is absolutely not allowed, no matter how badly you need the bitcoins. Only requests for donations to large, recognized charities are allowed, and only if there is good reason to believe that the person accepting bitcoins on behalf of the charity is trustworthy.
  • News articles that do not contain the word "Bitcoin" are usually off-topic. This subreddit is not about general financial news.
  • Submissions that are mostly about some other cryptocurrency belong elsewhere. For example, /r/CryptoCurrency is a good place to discuss all cryptocurrencies.
  • Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted.
  • No referral links in submissions.
  • No compilations of free Bitcoin sites.
r/Bitcoin Rules
1.
No malicious content
2.
No trolling
3.
No begging
4.
Avoid repetition
5.
The primary topic is Bitcoin
6.
Do not promote contentious hard forks
7.
Do not promote altcoins
8.
No URL shorteners or referrals
9.
No faucets
10.
No trading
Download Bitcoin Core

Bitcoin Core is the backbone of the Bitcoin network. Almost all Bitcoin wallets rely on Bitcoin Core in one way or another. If you have a fairly powerful computer that is almost always online, you can help the network by running Bitcoin Core. You can also use Bitcoin Core as a very secure Bitcoin wallet.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.