China’s Inner Mongolia Declares War on Crypto Mining

[akio123008]

37 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

It's fine if you wish to hate on something, even without reason

But I wish that you'd done your research on why you're hating it instead of just hating it, because hating for no good reason is... Y'know

That's fair, but I don't "hate" it, I just sort of mildly dislike it. (I never used very firm wording about it in my original post for that reason)

 

Also, I do know some stuff about it, and I could absolutely come up with some logical arguments, but I just didn't feel like typing a lengthy post with all sorts of arguments and trying to explain myself when again, I wasn't really trying to convince anyone. I wasn't actively taking part in a debate, so I just kinda threw in my opinion leaving out the arguments to support it, I couldn't be bothered. 

 

When I say "I don't care" I mean of course, I don't care I didn't mention good arguments, (as I wasn't attempting to win any argument) not that I don't care about having/knowing good arguments. I wouldn't just dislike something for no apparent reason.

 

[Blademaster91]

36 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

It's fine if you wish to hate on something, even without reason

But I wish that you'd done your research on why you're hating it instead of just hating it, because hating for no good reason is... Y'know

 

Just like liking something, same arguments can be said, do your research on whether you should like or hate on something before you actually do it, that's my two cents.

There have been good reasons and proof put up in this thread, except those with a pro-miner bias have dismissed people as being "haters".  I'm not going to write a lengthy reply on my reasoning and opinions, and in these threads people are probably going to agree with the LTT staff anyway.

[Moonzy]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Mining for someone that has 15+ GPUs, which is probably quite a few people on this forum, only makes sense if they are hydroelectric or have solar from a energy cost standpoint and how wasteful mining is.

This is a subjective view, with regards to whether it's a waste of energy or not, so let's not continue on this point

 

Saying mining is damaging to the environment is agreed upon, but whether it's wasted energy is subjective, and from what I read, some say profiting isn't a good reason to use energy, and some disagrees, both sides arguments are subjective and we'll never see an end to it

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

ASIC mining isn't any more wasteful than companies selling mining designated GPUs or making more GPUs to sell directly to miners, 

Agreed, mining specific GPU are dumb, that's why I never bought them

 

I came into this endeavor with the intention of giving my gpu away for free after I'm done with them, either to charity or friends.

Or use them for folding.

 

I know I'm the exception but there's life for normal GPU after mining is my point, but mining specific equipments are a waste, from resources point of perspective, and risky, from an investment point of perspective

There are higher rewards on Asics, so it depends on your risk tolerances and if you want a paper weight by the end of this

But mining specific GPU are just dumb, they don't carry the same rewards as Asics and they carry the same risk, just at a lower per unit price.

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

some of those of those "gaming cards" are going to fail sooner due to failed VRAM because the VRAM constantly running at 100C or hotter on a 3080 or 3090 is definitely worse than running a game for 2-3 hours a day a few times a week

I would say that because the G6X has temp sensors, they can throttle themselves and prevent themselves from overheating, so they're generally fine, from overheating and dying point of perspective, whether gaming or mining

 

As for other VRAM, there's no sensors so it's hard to say whether it's adequately cooled or not, which is why miners run their cards at 100% fan speed, because replacing a fan is easier than replacing a VRAM chip.

 

As for long term heat load vs heat cycles, each have their pros and cons and I am not familiar enough with the subject to give any concrete answers

But from my understanding, G6x throttles themselves, so theoretically they would never reach temps that are damaging to them

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

There have been good reasons and proof put up in this thread, except those with a pro-miner bias have dismissed people as being "haters". 

The valid ones from my perspective are energy usage concerns

And I think we all agreed on it

 

But what we disagree on is whether the energy is being wasted or not, because that's a subjective subject

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

in these threads people are probably going to agree with the LTT staff anyway.

I'll happily call out anyone if they say anything I don't agree with

 

Just like I questioned @leadeater in the mining 2080ti benchmarks thread, I questioned against his statement that thermal cycling affects tim, because I think mining GPU does dry out pads and paste sooner so mining GPU actually does degrade TIM faster (not the GPU itself)

He responded with good clarification as to why he said what he said and clarified my assumptions

[WkdPaul]

45 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Well you saying this thread is just crypto criticism is really showing your bias there.

And twisting my complaint just shows yours.

 

I'll repeat myself AGAIN ; I never said mining wasn't wasteful, and never disagreed with legitimate criticism (volatility, usefulness of crypto, waste of energy, waste of hardware), but there ARE people in this thread that are completely disingenuous. People mining, or using crypto aren't all criminals (some HAVE said that), that's like saying people using guns are all criminal because criminals use guns ... it's a logical fallacy.

 

And yes, crypto does use a lot of electricity, and in places where it's not green production, it can be detrimental, but higher electrical consumption ≠ dumping oil in waterways, and again, don't twist this into something that it's not ; I never said it's not adding to the pollution problems, it's just not comparable.

 

BTW, Inner Mongolia places an estimate of crypto mining plus all the other industry they're forcing to shutdown at an estimated 3% electrical consumption ... Perspective is important on subjects like this, what I'm complaining about are the biased opinions and emotional responses.

[MageTank]

2 hours ago, akio123008 said:

This wasn't (to me) a debate, this was a thread below a news article and I, like many others shared my personal thoughts (which includes my opinion). Sure no one's explicitly asked for my opinion, but that's kind of what you get below a news post like this.

 

I'm not claiming that I used valid or good arguments or whatever, and to be honest I don't care. I'm perfectly aware I just threw in my personal opinion, because that's exactly what I intended to do. I just don't like crypto mining, and I sort of just well... pointed it out. it's simple as that.

I don't have a problem with the stating of ones subjective opinion, it would be extremely hypocritical of me given I've been guilty of this many times on this very forum. I merely used your post as an example of a subjective opinion in the context that they should not be argued as fact, and should only be brought up during a debate if one asks for a personal opinion on something. 

 

I don't mind people sharing their opinions in these news articles, there were quite a few people that simply responded with "good" and things along those lines to convey they felt happy for the subject matter, but I left those out intentionally as they do not fit the example I was trying to convey. Now if you want to say that mining should be banned simply because you do not like it and plan to defend it solely on those grounds, you'll be in for a rough time from those like me that are looking to gather the perspective of both sides of this issue and form our own understanding/draw our own conclusions.

 

As it currently stands, I am not sold on cryptomining/trading. I lack the fundamental understanding required to take advantage of it and simply do not have the time to invest in figuring it all out. I have no intention to invest in cryptocurrencies or throw my hardware towards mining endeavors for the sake of owning a few of them. That said, I also have no problem with those that are currently choosing to do so. What they do with their free time is theirs to do and not up to me to dictate. I could feign my altruism and claim I care so deeply about the environment that I want to see this come to an end at all costs, but that would be a lie and hypocritical of me. I drive a large truck, I enjoy overclocking for no reason other than my own personal gratification and I waste resources gaming and building PC's for the fun of it. If I have to apply a scale to compare moral justification as a means to continue my detrimental hobbies/activities, then I'd argue I am just being a hypocrite with a holier than thou complex. That's why I say, let the miners have their fun while they can until society/technology evolves to sustain them, or render them obsolete. That is my subjective opinion on the subject, in case anyone actually wanted it.

[piratemonkey]

33 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

And twisting my complaint just shows yours.

 

I'll repeat myself AGAIN ; I never said mining wasn't wasteful, and never disagreed with legitimate criticism (volatility, usefulness of crypto, waste of energy, waste of hardware), but there ARE people in this thread that are completely disingenuous. People mining, or using crypto aren't all criminals (some HAVE said that), that's like saying people using guns are all criminal because criminals use guns ... it's a logical fallacy.

 

And yes, crypto does use a lot of electricity, and in places where it's not green production, it can be detrimental, but higher electrical consumption ≠ dumping oil in waterways, and again, don't twist this into something that it's not ; I never said it's not adding to the pollution problems, it's just not comparable.

 

BTW, Inner Mongolia places an estimate of crypto mining plus all the other industry they're forcing to shutdown at an estimated 3% electrical consumption ... Perspective is important on subjects like this, what I'm complaining about are the biased opinions and emotional responses.

oh hey, you're finally involved in a crypto thread. good job

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

There have been good reasons and proof put up in this thread, except those with a pro-miner bias have dismissed people as being "haters".  I'm not going to write a lengthy reply on my reasoning and opinions, and in these threads people are probably going to agree with the LTT staff anyway.

If you did want to (even if it were in private), I wouldn't mind giving it a read. I also don't necessarily agree with the last part of your sentence, at least not with how I conduct myself on these forums. If you are referring to the mods participating in these threads, I don't really consider moderators as "staff", but nonetheless, they participate in these discussions and have opinions like everyone else. Much like normal members of the community, they can be wrong and easily disproven. I've yet to meet one that hasn't been open to discussion or receptive of sources when provided, but I also don't participate much on these forums like I used to, so that may have changed.

 

My personal take on these discussions is that I often get polarizing responses depending on who I ask, or what I am reading. Most miners that I speak to do it for the supplemental income, some even going as far as exploring additional energy solutions such as solar power, feeding back into their grid with any excess energy and getting a kickback for doing so. Some of the others that I've spoken to don't even mine at all, but enjoy the extreme volatility and trading aspect of the currencies and have managed to turn quite the profit by trading alone and find it easier to approach than the stock market.

 

When I try to get the perspective of those that do not approve of mining, I often get conflicting answers. You have people that bring up the environmental impact and limited resources as valid concerns, but in the same baited breath, complain about not getting a GPU for gaming. When I ask if mining consumed as much power as gaming, would it still be okay, the answer is often still "no", followed by information regarding the criminal aspect of cryptocurrencies and how impossible it is to regulate them. It's difficult to sympathize with people that do not seem satisfiable, if that makes any sense.

 

This is coming from a man that despised mining after friends tried to force me into doing it because of the higher-end hardware I ran, and complained that I was "wasting my GPU's power" for not doing it...

 

You can believe what you will if you think I am biased towards only one side of this conversation, I genuinely do not feel that I am as I've gone out of my way to get genuine answers for how people feel about this. If you want to help with that, I have only two questions to ask you.

 

1. If cryptomining was not a burden on the environment or natural resources, would you be fine with those that wish to do it?
2. If gaming/other hobbies were as harmful to the environment or natural resources, would you give those hobbies the same level of condemnation?

I am not trying to trick people, I am simply trying to determine if the disdain towards mining is a moral issue, or if people have alternative motives for not liking mining. I've tried (and failed) to get this information out of the anti-mining groups on this forum, and I can't get this information directly from miners because they believe the world is out to get them. Someone has to have a valid answer...

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Moonzy said:

Just like I questioned @leadeater in the mining 2080ti benchmarks thread, I questioned against his statement that thermal cycling affects tim, because I think mining GPU does dry out pads and paste sooner so mining GPU actually does degrade TIM faster (not the GPU itself)

He responded with good clarification as to why he said what he said and clarified my assumptions

Well to be fair they will dry out faster than the card sitting on a shelf, what I also don't have is a massive sample group of mining cards and gaming cards of all the same make model and age to actually do a direct comparison, only information stated by those I regard as knowledgeable on the subject matter (not just GN Steve mind you). I actually think there is a crossover point where the run time hours total of the mining GPU will result in a greater degradation of the thermal compounds than the thermal cycling of gaming usage, what it is I don't know.

 

It is my opinion however, also reinforced by my own experiences, that in these time scales dust build up is the primary factor and simply cleaning out the dust is typically the only thing necessary and doesn't require removal of the cooler. I personally would not recommend taking off the cooler at all until doing this first and testing as if you are not prepared with replacement thermal pads you could end up with a non usable graphics card. All my AMD GPUs I have purchased have had those mesh pads that are basically single use only so if you take the cooler off you generally have to replace them. So tackle dust first, then worry about thermal pastes/pads after that if temperatures are not within expected.

 

P.S. At some point hopefully soon I'll be buying a new GPU so I'll take off the water blocks on my 290X's that were installed 2014. These GPUs and paste have been used for gaming, FAH/BOINC and mining and a lot of each of those so it'll be interesting to see how the paste and pads have stood up over 7 years.

[akio123008]

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

• If cryptomining was not a burden on the environment or natural resources, would you be fine with those that wish to do it?
• If gaming/other hobbies were as harmful to the environment or natural resources, would you give those hobbies the same level of condemnation?

1: Yes of course. My problem with mining is that it consumes resources for what I consider (although I realise this is subjective) little value added to the world. 

 

2: Yes. I don't hate gaming, just like I don't hate mining, but it do sort of feel the same about it; I wouldn't want it to get banned, but I don't quite like how much energy is used up by it, especially when played on high end machines (that, let's face it, are often unnecessary) and I certainly think we should look into ways of reducing the power consumption of something like gaming, just like we should for crypto.

 

Just to clarify, I also couldn't care less about buying a new graphics card, my R7 has been fine for 6 years and will be for the next 4 too. 

 

So I guess there's my view on the whole thing, I hope that clarifies why I'm not a fan of mining personally.

 

 

[LAwLz]

On 3/9/2021 at 9:06 PM, MageTank said:

I am not trying to trick people, I am simply trying to determine if the disdain towards mining is a moral issue, or if people have alternative motives for not liking mining. I've tried (and failed) to get this information out of the anti-mining groups on this forum, and I can't get this information directly from miners because they believe the world is out to get them. Someone has to have a valid answer...

I think it's pretty clear that a lot of people have other motives for not liking mining.

If it was a moral issue then they would also be as against things like gaming (for energy reasons), stock or the USD (for the whole "it's imaginary money" argument), or the USD/encryption/torrents/The Internet/etc (for the whole "it's used by criminals"). I think it's obvious that people apply a different set of standards to things they don't like vs the things they do like.

They don't like mining so the bar for when it is seen as "an issue" is very low. They do like things like gaming and the Internet so the bar for when that is seem as "an issue" is very high.

 

I just got done typing up a reply in another thread where I compared gaming to cryptomining after someone said "crypto is bad because it uses a lot of power" and their response was about how bitcoins are artificially scares and therefore bad, how the algorithms are man made and therefore bad, and how they don't see any point in mining, and that gaming is entertaining and how you can have e-sports etc. It's in my eyes someone struggling to rationalize a position they feel very strongly about emotionally, but they don't quite understand why. If one argument doesn't work, then try another another one, over and over again until one sticks. To them it doesn't matter that their first, second, third or even fourth reasons for disliking something is incorrect, as long as the fifth argument is a little bit valid they are justified in their stance they had all along.

 

 

I think people have been indoctrinated into hating mining. They have been bombarded with negative news about mining for various reasons such as:

• News websites wants to get clicks so they write inflammatory articles and "hot takes" on it.
• Some environmental groups (who might also be against gaming) blame high energy consumption on it.
• People are upset they can't buy a new graphics card and want someone to blame. It's not satisfying blaming COVID because they want a person responsible for it rather than "it's just the way things are and we can't do anything about it". So miners, who also are competing for the limited supply gets blamed.

 

So people already been taught that "mining = bad" and they strongly believe it without ever having really thought about it or questioned the motifs of the people telling them it is bad.

So when confronted by someone who questions their stance, they get confused and have to think for themselves. They are scrambling to find justifications for having a rather irrational hatred for something. They get into a defensive position and feel attacked. But as long as they find SOME reason to stick to their predefined stance (mining = bad) they won't have to change their mind (which people hate doing). They will keep rationalizing their position to themselves until they feel good about it.

 

 

Note after reading my own post: Wow I sound really pretentious and my post is a mess, but I do want to chip in on the whole "why do people dislike mining so much" debate.

[yian88]

ban all crypto..

[Energycore]

On 3/4/2021 at 5:01 AM, manikyath said:

my belgian mindset would rather see them just make crypto mines pay 'non-sponsored' energy prices, or even a slightly taxed energy cost?

Honestly this is the solution, at least the way I see it. Don't ban miners, but don't subsidize them either, at least not until the economy is almost fully run on crypto, which might not ever happen or might take 100 years.

[tikker]

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

how bitcoins are artificially scares

Bitcoin do be scary.

 

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

how they don't see any point in mining, and that gaming is entertaining and how you can have e-sports etc.

Yep. The pure haters insist that not seeing the point in X over Y is the winning argument, but won't understand (accept?) that you don't see the point in Y.

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

They do like things like gaming and the Internet so the bar for when that is seem as "an issue" is very high.

I often wonder about what it must be like to grow up with internet, gaming, social media etc. being so prevalent.

 

If you would say that you see zero point in gaming and aren't interested in it that seems impossible as gaming is such a normal part of life now. For me growing up gaming was fairly common from SNES to PC, but in the beginning it was still more of a 1-2 hours tops per day "reward" almost. Why waste energy on playing FIFA when you could go outside and play physical football? Much more fun and you get some exercise.. right? Owning a gaming PC was completely unattainable for me as consoles played games just fine and the home PC functioned for work and school just fine as well, so it couldn't really be justified. Nowadays you're the "weird one" if you don't own a (gaming) pc or console.

 

Of course I'm not going to argue that mining and gaming are the same thing, but all the "at least gaming entertains" arguments in my eyes operate on the commonality of the only things we can realistically compare mining to: gaming, workstations and science. All of these happen to be considered "useful" currently and are accepted as normal. I bet in 50 years, if crypto is still around, it'll be business as usual and we'll find another slug to salt.

 

Oh how times have changed lol. First it was "be careful of what you read on the internet", even Wikipedia wasn't considered a true reliable resource, and now people pour their life savings into some random memecoin thinking it'll make them rich, because a billionaire has said it's cool. Perhaps the machines have already taken over long ago and we just don't realise it.

 

On 3/9/2021 at 9:06 PM, MageTank said:

You can believe what you will if you think I am biased towards only one side of this conversation, I genuinely do not feel that I am as I've gone out of my way to get genuine answers for how people feel about this. If you want to help with that, I have only two questions to ask you.

 

1. If cryptomining was not a burden on the environment or natural resources, would you be fine with those that wish to do it?
2. If gaming/other hobbies were as harmful to the environment or natural resources, would you give those hobbies the same level of condemnation?

I am not trying to trick people, I am simply trying to determine if the disdain towards mining is a moral issue, or if people have alternative motives for not liking mining. I've tried (and failed) to get this information out of the anti-mining groups on this forum, and I can't get this information directly from miners because they believe the world is out to get them. Someone has to have a valid answer...

Number 1 will probably unearth the ones that are just upset about currently not being able to get a GPU A for number 2, I think most, myself included, would probably still game. At that point (actually now as well) the entertainment argument would be considered just. The difference would be that we'd be argueing board games vs video games or something like that.

[Dracarris]

On 3/8/2021 at 5:23 PM, LAwLz said:

I wonder how the anti-cryptobrigade feels now that Linus have said that they mine crypto at their office, and that they will make a guide video for how to mine.

Indeed I was really disappointed when he said that. Yes they are making money instead of sitting idle, but while consuming an enormous amount of energy.

 

So his excuse: We have to anyway heat the office. With electricity - the most inefficient way to heat. Wow, @LinusTech, that was a real low.

[WkdPaul]

11 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Indeed I was really disappointed when he said that. Yes they are making money instead of sitting idle, but while consuming an enormous amount of energy.

 

So his excuse: We have to anyway heat the office. With electricity - the most inefficient way to heat. Wow, @LinusTech, that was a real low.

 

Do you know how their office is heated ?

 

Here in Canada, for offices at least, we have heat pumps, those are efficient up to a point, lower than minus 10-15c, it can't keep up and we use supplemental heating, most commonly it's going to be resistive heating (EDIT ; in case it's not clear, those are all electrical method of heating).

 

Resistive heating is pretty much pure waste, I myself use mining to heat up my office and subsidized my electrical bill. Seeing as I recently cashed out $275 CAD, and that my electrical bill for that time period was $400 (it's pretty much the same as last year for the same 60 days period).

 

If I hadn't mined, I would've still paid $400, or possibly more since the heating in my office is off and it's sometimes cold ... but yeah, it's wasting energy !

[Dracarris]

7 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

Here in Canada, for offices at least, we have heat pumps, those are efficient up to a point, lower than minus 10-15c, it can't keep up and we use supplemental heating, most commonly it's going to be resistive heating (EDIT ; in case it's not clear, those are all electrical method of heating).

Then Canada should ASAP get better, more efficient ways of heating - absolutely no reason to facepalm here. I always thought Canada is at least a tiny bit more advanced and not as backwards as the US when it comes to infrastructure and energy efficiency.

 

My electrical bill for a two-person household is 100-120$ -- for 90days. Where I live we have properly insulated buildings, so even at -10 and below there is absolutely no problem keeping the houses warm with the regular heating.

[Blademaster91]

11 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Then Canada should ASAP get better, more efficient ways of heating - absolutely no reason to facepalm here. I always thought Canada is at least a tiny bit more advanced and not as backwards as the US when it comes to infrastructure and energy efficiency.

 

My electrical bill for a two-person household is 100-120$ -- for 90days. Where I live we have properly insulated buildings, so even at -10 and below there is absolutely no problem keeping the houses warm with the regular heating.

I don't quite understand the use of heatpumps where it would get lower than -10C, heatpumps lose a lot of efficiency and have to run a defrost cycle to melt ice from the outside pump, though I suppose it makes sense if hydroelectric is the most common provider of energy.

[Dracarris]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I don't quite understand the use of heatpumps where it would get lower than -10C, heatpumps lose a lot of efficiency and have to run a defrost cycle to melt ice from the outside pump, though I suppose it makes sense if hydroelectric is the most common provider of energy.

The same way I don't understand why the US still builds houses with horrible badly insulated outer walls, single-pane windows and so on in areas where the temperatures range from -30 to +40 deg Celsius.

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Dracarris said:

The same way I don't understand why the US still builds houses with horrible badly insulated outer walls, single-pane windows and so on in areas where the temperatures range from -30 to +40 deg Celsius.

...There's places here without a building code that's why..

[WkdPaul]

19 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Then Canada should ASAP get better, more efficient ways of heating - absolutely no reason to facepalm here.

Like what ???

 

Quote

I always thought Canada is at least a tiny bit more advanced and not as backwards as the US when it comes to infrastructure and energy efficiency.

And we are, not sure but it seems you have a lot of assumptions and very little knowledge on both.

 

Quote

My electrical bill for a two-person household is 100-120$ -- for 90days. Where I live we have properly insulated buildings, so even at -10 and below there is absolutely no problem keeping the houses warm with the regular heating.

And I have a 2 story house with a basement, from the 40's, with 5 people living in it ... being a house from the 40's, I don't have the fund to fix the insulation, even if there's waste with heating, it's actually much cheaper to keep it that way.

 

3 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

The same way I don't understand why the US still builds houses with horrible badly insulated outer walls, single-pane windows and so on in areas where the temperatures range from -30 to +40 deg Celsius.

Not sure about the wall insulation, like I said, it's a very old house. And all houses have double pane windows, it's VERY rare to find a house that has single pane windows, that would 100% devalue a house (my last place had windows from the 80's and all of them were double pane).

Edited March 11, 2021 by wkdpaul

[Dracarris]

11 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

Like what ???

How about

a) properly insulating your buildings such that less heat leaks out and less powerful heating solutions suffice

b) Using waste heat from garbage burning facilities, especially useful in rural areas (like Surrey/Vancouver)

c) Natural gas and every other source of energy that does not first have to get converted to electricity (with losses), just to get sent through a resistor to be converted to heat.

 

Lets assume your argumentation of "we fail to insulate our houses properly so we have to add electrical heat below -10" holds up:

a) What percentage of the year is the temperature actually in this range

b) During all other times, do they stop mining?

11 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

even if there's waste with heating, it's actually much cheaper to keep it that way.

That exactly is the problem.

11 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

Not sure about the wall insulation, like I said, it's a very old house. And all houses have double pane windows, it's VERY rare to find a house that has single pane windows, that would 100% devalue a house (my last place had windows from the 80's and all of them were double pane).

If that is true for Canada - good for you. I yet have to be shown a house in the US with double-pane windows.

[Moonzy]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

Then Canada should ASAP get better, more efficient ways of heating - absolutely no reason to facepalm here.

Thermodynamics would like to have a word with you '-'

 

If I'm not mistaken, if your objective is to heat up an object, your efficiency is pretty much near 100% already if you use resistive heating

 

Difference between resistive heating and mining is that mining generates income while the heat is being generated, of course some energy gets turned into sound energy and light energy that doesn't heat up (visible light such as RGB) but majority of it still turns into heat

Arguably sound energy also turns into heat since it vibrates molecules, and vibration generates heat

 

Heat is like the last state of almost every energy conversion, from my understanding

That's why we have heat death

 

Edit: weren't you the guy that said killing 1 man is fine as long as some other people are killing 5?

[Dracarris]

6 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

If I'm not mistaken, if your objective is to heat up an object, your efficiency is pretty much near 100% already if you use resistive heating

The whole point is to not use resistive heating at all.

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, Dracarris said:

The whole point is to not use resistive heating at all.

I have no comments on other heating method as I'm unfamiliar with them and what will it take for them to operate at wider temperature ranges, so I focus on what's available now, which is resistive heating.

 

But, do you agree that mining is equivalent as resistive in term of heat per watt, and that mining is also generating some income while resistive heating doesn't?

Or is there any downside to mining compared to resistive heating that I haven't thought of?

[WkdPaul]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

a) properly insulating your buildings such that less heat leaks out and less powerful heating solutions suffice

That's fine for recently built houses, any houses build prior the 80's (roughly) might have asbestos, and older houses (like mine) might also have lead paint. As long as the walls aren't touched, there no issues, if I want to redo the insulation, then it means I have to hire a special company for the clean up and removal of the drywall and insulation ... that's not money I have.

 

Quote

b) Using waste heat from garbage burning facilities, especially useful in rural areas (like Surrey/Vancouver)

That has a VERY limited use, not sure why you even included that one.

 

Quote

c) Natural gas and every other source of energy that does not first have to get converted to electricity (with losses), just to get sent through a resistor to be converted to heat.

Not possible, I'm not attached to the main gaz line, just getting attached means a few thousands. Then there's the issue of the furnace, I can't just install something like this in my house, see above points about asbestos and lead pain.

 

Quote

Lets assume your argumentation of "we fail to insulate our houses properly so we have to add electrical heat below -10" holds up:

Nope, heat pumps CAN'T function under a specific outdoor temperature, it has nothing to do with insulation.

 

Quote

That exactly is the problem.

Yes, spending tens of thousands of dollars to change the insulation on a house doesn't make sense unless there are other issues. It's a few hundred dollars per year. Even over 20 years, it's not worth fixing until the wall need to be opened.

 

Quote

If that is true for Canada - good for you. I yet have to be shown a house in the US with double-pane windows.

... TV shows and YT isn't a good sample size. There are PLENTY of houses in the US that have double-pane windows. In northern states it's pretty much standards as they see similar climates as Canada.

 

 

Seems like you're completely stuck in some preconceived knowledge about how Canada and the US is and that you're putting us all in one giant group ... pretty sure living styles in Spain aren't the same as northern EU countries, same with US states (Texas doesn't have the same building regulation and needs as Maine).

Edited March 11, 2021 by wkdpaul