Crypto Miners buying up entire power plants

[dalekphalm]

13 hours ago, Beskamir said:

From my understanding, fees are lower (at least depending on which cryptocurrency is being used) than credit card fees and assuming those are adequate reflections of the amount of energy, oversight, infrastructure, greed, pollution, etc involved with either system, I still think cryptocurrencies have potential for replacing traditional processing with less impactful systems at some point in the future.

As previously said, Transaction fees do not inherently correlate with power consumption.

 

Additionally, I looked up the average BTC fee:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html

Currently about 0.000055 BTC, or around $2.25 USD/transaction

 

Now, that's not particularly useful without knowing how large a transaction is:

https://blockchair.com/dash/charts/average-transaction-amount-usd

The average transaction size for August 1st is currently around $285,000 USD - however there was a massive spike, because just days before it was much more stable at around $50,000 average transaction size, so let's use that figure (we'll calc both) - the transaction fee seems to fluctuate less wildly, so we'll leave that alone.

 

Scenario One:

$285,000 transaction

$2.25 fee

= 0.000078947368421052631578947368421053

Round to 0.000079 * 100

= 0.00079% transaction fee

 

Scenario Two:

$50,000 transaction

$2.25 fee

= 0.000045 * 100

= 0.0045%

 

Both fees are very low per the transaction - but on the other hand, these transaction amounts are massive on average - mostly due to the investment nature of BTC.

 

Average Credit Card merchant transaction fees are around 1.5% to 3%, give or take a bit. Much higher, but also, the average Mastercard transaction is around $80 - a much much lower figure. What that means is for smaller purchases, the transaction fee breaks even or ends up cheaper, despite the higher percentage. If you made a $80 transaction on BTC, the fee would effectively be the same percentage as with a credit card. With a smaller transaction (Say buying a cheese burger with BTC) the fee would be massive compared to the transaction amount.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Its pretty much the only option with idiots pushing EV's.....

Better to push EV's than to push ICE gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. HFC is also a good option, but overall is much more energy intensive compared to straight EV's, and most HFC's are basically EV's anyway but with a HFC system in addition to a battery pack and electric motors.

[Brooksie359]

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

Putting things in context

 

Computers generate heat as waste, if that heat could be used in places where resistive heating is used, that creates a solution. So theoretically, you could pull the heat off 20kw worth of cryptomining where you'd normally have an electric furnace. Like this is indeed a way to reuse waste energy as anyone who has a desktop running in an apartment that has no included heat will tell you. If all you need is to keep your apartment between 15 and 25 degrees, then your computer can maintain that thermal equilibrium by running things in the background to purposely generate some heat. (Note in that link they needed 3 GPU's to equal the amount of energy draw as a $25 space heater)

 

source: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Gaming-PC-vs-Space-Heater-Efficiency-511/

 

Yet, it will not quite rise to the necessary replacement of a hotplate/stove/oven since CPU's and GPU's fail above 100 degrees C (212F), where as hotplates start at 100 degrees C.

 

Electric heating is very inefficient, one of the reasons why ez-bake ovens uses incandescent light bulbs, because 95% of the energy is heat. So a typical computer with a 750w power supply, puts out enough heat to keep a 150sq ft room warm. Yet using it instead of a heatpump is probably ridiculous.

 

Crypto-mining on a whole, is pointless and wastes energy producing nothing, but if instead, the heat was actually used in a productive manner (eg building heating, vertical farming, etc) then the criticisms become less of a concern as long as it's doing something productive with the heat. Which isn't what happens in high-density crypto farms. Boiling a lake, big problem. (That BTW is the NY power plant mentioned in this thread a few times.)

 

There is no way to determine that a computer can heat a 150 sqft room without knowing way more information. I mean is this an interior room? Does the room have windows? How cold is it outside? All of these make a difference and you can't really say that it will be able to heat a 150 sqft room without way more information attached to that statement. 

[Bombastinator]

55 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

There is no way to determine that a computer can heat a 150 sqft room without knowing way more information. I mean is this an interior room? Does the room have windows? How cold is it outside? All of these make a difference and you can't really say that it will be able to heat a 150 sqft room without way more information attached to that statement. 

Ceiling height.   rooms are 3 dimensional not 2. It’s usually an 8’ ceiling in many spaces though because of fire regulation stuff so it can sort of be figured as 2d unless the room doesn’t have an 8’ceiling. 

[Wh0_Am_1]

 

15 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I was thinking of the concept of evading a local law. Bitcoin seems to excel at this.  It’s particularly useful for smuggling because it has no mass.  One of the difficulties of smuggling money is that cash has mass.  In LasVegas there is a law that chips have to be coverable with cash that has to be in the building.  Gambling places make this less dangerous for themselves by keeping the money in $1 bills because they don’t have to move it around and the mass is so incredibly large it makes the money almost unstealable.  If it was held in Bitcoin though one could walk out with the entire wealth of a casino hidden in your shoe.  I know of no specific earthwide criminal code.  Legal code seems to be based on local religion to a degree and there are commonalities amongst different religions such as not killing for example. There are also international laws, but these are generally agreed upon things between different localities or the product of treaties or such.  There are things that are not respected between nations.  Generally it’s because the law of one country does not agree with the interpretation of o another country.  One famous one is France’s view on capital punishment.  French law is built upon Napoleonic code which has differently designed systems than some other types.  The result is “innocent until proven guilty” while still something of a thing there has different ramifications.  This makes capital punishment more problematic, and someone who receives or is in danger of receiving a capital punishment sentence in the US historically would attempt to escape to France, even though their actions would perhaps be MORE likely to land them in jail in France. Political action is one that the US defends and it has been a thing historically for government leaders to go after their political enemies using the legal system.  People therefore sometimes escape to the US or Some other such country to evade such.  Generally when the actions of a person in another country would be illegal within that country they get prosecuted in that country though.  There are exceptions.  I don’t know how they work. 

Well while bitcoin may have been used for smuggling it is actually a terrible currency for this now as bitcoin itself has an exposed blockchain that any one can read this had lead many bitcoins to be blacklisted that and law enforcement in many nations is getting good at matching addresses to names esp. with the help of private firms.

For smuggling or other hidden transactions other cryptos such as Zcash are better place to go.

16 hours ago, Kisai said:

Maybe read the thread before you fill it up with non-productive single-replies. 

 TWO WEEKS AGO. Use the multi-quote feature

Was reading, I like addressing topics individually when they are greatly separated in a thread, as it it is easier for other forum members to read replies I always find these multi-qoute comments a pain to read and a pain to respond to, that and it can be harder for me to gather my thoughts in these multi-quotes when multiple topics are involved.

 

16 hours ago, Kisai said:

 I certainly knew it was sarcasm and Moonzy replied saying so,

Missed that reply, and it appeared that you were serious to me, I apologize for the incovenience.

[Kisai]

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I thought I heard that there were some issues with how the Japan one was setup too or there was something like that. If they had a proper design and followed proper procedures then even an earthquake and a tsunami wouldn't cause any big issues. Most of the time when something like that happens the things is supposed to turn off an isolate. 

If you know the history of Japan's nuclear industry, you'd recognize how poorly these private-enterprise nuclear power stations are. Did you see how quickly they turned off all the nuclear power plants after the tohoku quake? Speaks a lot about how safe they believe them to be.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx

 

7 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

There is no way to determine that a computer can heat a 150 sqft room without knowing way more information. I mean is this an interior room? Does the room have windows? How cold is it outside? All of these make a difference and you can't really say that it will be able to heat a 150 sqft room without way more information attached to that statement. 

A computer puts out nearly as much heat as a resistive heating does, that's why cooling requirements are 1:1 for server infrastructure. The difference is that a desktop isn't designed or intended to be run full-tilt like a server is. Servers literately scream at 80db when they start up, and also when they are under significant load. Desktops top out at around 40db even with the worst fans. A quiet server will have 140mm fans that run slower than a server's more typical cluster of a dozen 40mm fans. Server rooms, even in small offices need a dedicated air conditioner that operates independently from the central HVAC to ensure the servers don't overheat, because they absolutely will in a short amount of time.

 

A PC running full tilt throughout winter can keep a bedroom at temperature equilibrium. Enough PC's to heat a house however would probably not be safe to use as a furnace since the heat would be concentrated in the room the pc's operate in rather than a much more compact furnace that only operates as needed, and continues to blow warm air once turned off for some time afterward.

 

The problem with this thought experiment, is that the actual experiments have never been scaled up because it's quite frankly stupid to do so. Yet here we are in 2021 and people are literately filling living room/bedroom's with shoddy Ethereum mining rigs held together with no safety features and no ventilation.

 

As I said the last time I brought this specific image up. This is a serious fire hazard. It's on carpet, there are extension cords being used from what looks like other rooms, in what is probably a basement of a house. At least three of those GPU's are sitting in precarious positions and are one accident away from a cascade of failures. So what's the BTU of 78 RTX 3080's? 78 x 1100btu (320w x 3.41) = 85,800btu. I literately could not find an electric furnace with a google search over 68000BTU (though I could find gas ones,) and they weigh a lot more than this setup.

 

So again, as way of using waste heat? yes, your computer/gpu/mining rig can do that. Is it something that is cost effective? No, at least not with these slipshod setups, 78 GPU's probably set back someone 55,500$ at the minimum, vs a $2000-$3000 central HVAC system. You'd actually have to create a custom liquid cooling solution that pulls the heat away from the GPU's and into a heat exchanger connected to an existing central HVAC system to begin with. Then you let the central HVAC operate the much larger fans to heat the house, as it will never have to turn the heat on. But it still needs to send that heat somewhere when it's not needed. 

 

So no, and that's not the only time someone has tried to do this.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/2/15728232/using-servers-to-heat-homes-nerdalize

 

https://siliconcanals.com/news/innovative-e-radiator-startup-nerdalize-files-for-bankruptcy-another-painful-end-in-dutch-startup-ecosystem/

 

To which I'm pointing out the flaw in the plan here. You could, reasonably, use waste heat, provided that heat is the natural product of using the system, and not as the the purpose. Once it becomes the purpose, the energy cost is a lot worse than dedicated heating systems. So someone who wants to heat their home with an antminer, is already willing to spend the money on the miner and the energy, in which they can then lower their heating costs by choosing where to send the waste heat (eg back into the home). These industrial scale operations though? That's just waste heat going into the atmosphere most of the time. 

 

When you put it all together you realize the cost to the environment is pretty sad.

 

Either:

a) burn fuel to produce heat, to boil water to turn a turbine to produce electricity, that is then transmitted (line losses), to a home that turns that electricity into heat (heating), or waste heat (everything else). This is why natural gas tends to be superior to directly heat homes and cook with, as the fuel is directly consumed when and where it's needed.

b) dam a river to produce potential energy that is then used to spin a turnbine to produce electricity that is then transmitted (line losses) to a home that turns that electricity into heat (heating) or waste heat. At least with the hydroelectric dam scenario, there is no plausible way of directly sending the water and a turbine to every home. Water (in case you don't know) is always pumped or gravity fed to get to your home.

 

The key thing to identify here is that water is always consumed in thermal power generation. So that becomes a GHG independently of any carbon or other pollution effects. In hydro, it's just diverted. Solar and Wind can reduce the reliance on needing central power generation plants, but it will never be able to replace someone's entire electricity setup, and will end up needing backup fuel-consuming generators when that power source is unreliable. That's the same deal with trying to use your PC as a space heater. Yes it can substitute for some (or most) of the needed heat during an event that needs heat (like winter in a cold climate) but it's not going to replace a central heating system. 

 

Baseboard, resistive heating is highly inefficient, and yet it's the common heating system out here in any building less than 1500sq ft. They're installed because they are cheap, and only that reason. There are better systems (again, heat pumps) but that costs more money to the builder/developer.

 

Imagine if nerds were as concerned about how their house was built as they are about how their PC is built.

 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Did you see how quickly they turned off all the nuclear power plants after the tohoku quake? Speaks a lot about how safe they believe them to be.

 

In politics public image plays a bigger motivating role than facts ever will.    Shutting them down was a knee jerk reaction because the voting public are scared.  

 

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Imagine if nerds were as concerned about how their house was built as they are about how their PC is built.

 

I wish this was true with my whole being.  Not just for how their house was built but for the environment, for sustainable technology, for kids in cobalt mines and for the realities of this entire discussion.

 

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

In politics public image plays a bigger motivating role than facts ever will.    Shutting them down was a knee jerk reaction because the voting public are scared.  

 

I wish this was true with my whole being.  Not just for how their house was built but for the environment, for sustainable technology, for kids in cobalt mines and for the realities of this entire discussion.

 

I read that massive issues with some behavior and safety were also found that were happening apparently because the workers considered them so safe.  Some areas were not kept up according to spec because some workers viewed the multi layer security setup as overkill.  This is also to a degree what happened with the titanic I understand.  Backup systems like the double layer hull were compromised because watertight doors were blocked open.  The tsunami that instigated the disaster also exceeded maximums on stuff like the sea wall to begin with.  I think such things can be done safely.  The problem is outside forces acting on such things are harder to predict than expected because of climate change.  No one knows how bad it’s going to get, so backup systems become more important.

[Brooksie359]

13 hours ago, Kisai said:

If you know the history of Japan's nuclear industry, you'd recognize how poorly these private-enterprise nuclear power stations are. Did you see how quickly they turned off all the nuclear power plants after the tohoku quake? Speaks a lot about how safe they believe them to be.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx

 

A computer puts out nearly as much heat as a resistive heating does, that's why cooling requirements are 1:1 for server infrastructure. The difference is that a desktop isn't designed or intended to be run full-tilt like a server is. Servers literately scream at 80db when they start up, and also when they are under significant load. Desktops top out at around 40db even with the worst fans. A quiet server will have 140mm fans that run slower than a server's more typical cluster of a dozen 40mm fans. Server rooms, even in small offices need a dedicated air conditioner that operates independently from the central HVAC to ensure the servers don't overheat, because they absolutely will in a short amount of time.

 

A PC running full tilt throughout winter can keep a bedroom at temperature equilibrium. Enough PC's to heat a house however would probably not be safe to use as a furnace since the heat would be concentrated in the room the pc's operate in rather than a much more compact furnace that only operates as needed, and continues to blow warm air once turned off for some time afterward.

 

The problem with this thought experiment, is that the actual experiments have never been scaled up because it's quite frankly stupid to do so. Yet here we are in 2021 and people are literately filling living room/bedroom's with shoddy Ethereum mining rigs held together with no safety features and no ventilation.

 

As I said the last time I brought this specific image up. This is a serious fire hazard. It's on carpet, there are extension cords being used from what looks like other rooms, in what is probably a basement of a house. At least three of those GPU's are sitting in precarious positions and are one accident away from a cascade of failures. So what's the BTU of 78 RTX 3080's? 78 x 1100btu (320w x 3.41) = 85,800btu. I literately could not find an electric furnace with a google search over 68000BTU (though I could find gas ones,) and they weigh a lot more than this setup.

 

So again, as way of using waste heat? yes, your computer/gpu/mining rig can do that. Is it something that is cost effective? No, at least not with these slipshod setups, 78 GPU's probably set back someone 55,500$ at the minimum, vs a $2000-$3000 central HVAC system. You'd actually have to create a custom liquid cooling solution that pulls the heat away from the GPU's and into a heat exchanger connected to an existing central HVAC system to begin with. Then you let the central HVAC operate the much larger fans to heat the house, as it will never have to turn the heat on. But it still needs to send that heat somewhere when it's not needed. 

 

So no, and that's not the only time someone has tried to do this.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/2/15728232/using-servers-to-heat-homes-nerdalize

 

https://siliconcanals.com/news/innovative-e-radiator-startup-nerdalize-files-for-bankruptcy-another-painful-end-in-dutch-startup-ecosystem/

 

To which I'm pointing out the flaw in the plan here. You could, reasonably, use waste heat, provided that heat is the natural product of using the system, and not as the the purpose. Once it becomes the purpose, the energy cost is a lot worse than dedicated heating systems. So someone who wants to heat their home with an antminer, is already willing to spend the money on the miner and the energy, in which they can then lower their heating costs by choosing where to send the waste heat (eg back into the home). These industrial scale operations though? That's just waste heat going into the atmosphere most of the time. 

 

When you put it all together you realize the cost to the environment is pretty sad.

 

Either:

a) burn fuel to produce heat, to boil water to turn a turbine to produce electricity, that is then transmitted (line losses), to a home that turns that electricity into heat (heating), or waste heat (everything else). This is why natural gas tends to be superior to directly heat homes and cook with, as the fuel is directly consumed when and where it's needed.

b) dam a river to produce potential energy that is then used to spin a turnbine to produce electricity that is then transmitted (line losses) to a home that turns that electricity into heat (heating) or waste heat. At least with the hydroelectric dam scenario, there is no plausible way of directly sending the water and a turbine to every home. Water (in case you don't know) is always pumped or gravity fed to get to your home.

 

The key thing to identify here is that water is always consumed in thermal power generation. So that becomes a GHG independently of any carbon or other pollution effects. In hydro, it's just diverted. Solar and Wind can reduce the reliance on needing central power generation plants, but it will never be able to replace someone's entire electricity setup, and will end up needing backup fuel-consuming generators when that power source is unreliable. That's the same deal with trying to use your PC as a space heater. Yes it can substitute for some (or most) of the needed heat during an event that needs heat (like winter in a cold climate) but it's not going to replace a central heating system. 

 

Baseboard, resistive heating is highly inefficient, and yet it's the common heating system out here in any building less than 1500sq ft. They're installed because they are cheap, and only that reason. There are better systems (again, heat pumps) but that costs more money to the builder/developer.

 

Imagine if nerds were as concerned about how their house was built as they are about how their PC is built.

 

There are quite a few places that actually do reclaim waste heat and I find it more common now as energy standards are becoming more stringent for buildings. Granted this is mostly for commercial buildings. There is actually a pretty big push for net zero emissions buildings to so ideally all buildings will eventually be net zero. 

[Bombastinator]

28 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

There are quite a few places that actually do reclaim waste heat and I find it more common now as energy standards are becoming more stringent for buildings. Granted this is mostly for commercial buildings. There is actually a pretty big push for net zero emissions buildings to so ideally all buildings will eventually be net zero. 

For new commercial buildings in high energy cost areas where visibility is important. Sort of the diametric opposite of where these mining operations are going up.

[Brooksie359]

34 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

For new commercial buildings in high energy cost areas where visibility is important. Sort of the diametric opposite of where these mining operations are going up.

You also have to take into account that net zero emissions often doesn't account for things like a mining operation. It's mostly just talking about the energy required to make the building functional like the heating and cooling along with any power used for lights and whatnot. I doubt when they are building the building they take into account that it will be used for a mining operations. 

[kaylexmorgana]

too bad. i was so hoping this shit would crash to 0 and they would go bankrupt and we would get cheap ass 3090's.

[ouroesa]

On 7/20/2021 at 10:37 PM, TGG23 said:

Summary

 Some crypto miners are buying up abandoned or dormant power plants to power there mining operations. These miners are trying to cut out the middle man and power it directly.

 

 

Powering where mining operations? Didn't see you point.

 

There, their, they're - Know the difference.

Sincerely not native english speaker.

[Bombastinator]

41 minutes ago, ouroesa said:

Powering where mining operations? Didn't see you point.

 

There, their, they're - Know the difference.

Sincerely not native english speaker.

All over the world.  Wherever they can find a generator big enough they can run cheap enough.  The problem is a lot of big old generators were taken out of service because they produce too much carbon.  The worry is they will make bigger problems environmentally. 

[ouroesa]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

All over the world.  Wherever they can find a generator big enough they can run cheap enough.  The problem is a lot of big old generators were taken out of service because they produce too much carbon.  The worry is they will make bigger problems environmentally. 

 

[Bombastinator]

On 8/2/2021 at 7:43 PM, ouroesa said:

 

Happens a lot.  Hard to determine sarcasm on the internet and there are a lot of people in the world.  Thought I was replying to a quote.  Got put in the wrong place.  It was confusing so I reflexively attempted to clarify the bottom post.  I’ll happily clueless straight-man. It’s ok.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Bombastinator

[jagdtigger]

On 8/2/2021 at 12:48 AM, dalekphalm said:

Better to push EV's

Im pretty sceptical about that, lithium batteries aint that eco friendly afterall....

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Im pretty sceptical about that, lithium batteries aint that eco friendly afterall....

Sure. You're correct. Li-ION Batteries are not especially environmentally friendly.

 

But you know what's worse? ICE vehicle emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle. A lot worse. Even if the EV in question gets its power from, say, Coal or Oil.

 

The problem is that EV's are simply the least terrible option. HFC's have the same problems as EV's but the fuel is both more expensive and more environmentally harmful (because Hydrogen gas needs to be manufactured as it doesn't exist naturally).

 

Gasoline/diesel ICE vehicles either need to die, or they need to become very niche.

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Im pretty sceptical about that, lithium batteries aint that eco friendly afterall....

It’s a question of what is worse en total.  Electric cars a perhaps a smaller move in the right direction than advertised by some.  Wasn’t why I bought one.  I was just really sick of power train breakdowns and I don’t drive all that far.  Just makes more sense for me period, completely ignoring the environmental stuff. The whole single digit number of moving parts instead of 4 digits worth of moving parts is just a big deal.  Even if I have to replace a battery pack down the road. 

[Bombastinator]

7 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Im pretty sceptical about that, lithium batteries aint that eco friendly afterall....

The question isnt electric or hydrogen.  It’s ICE vs not ICE. Hydrogen simply isn’t very implementable in some countries.  Japan is going hydrogen.  Makes more sense there. Small country, heavily concentrated population, go for it.  The EU would be better at hydrogen than the US is except they’re also better at electric because they generally have a far better electrical grid. It’s a closer choice but electric makes more sense in the EU currently.  People have thought about this one for years.  Smart people.  There are problems with hydrogen.  It doesn’t transport well for one thing.  Hydrogen is a small molecule that can just drift through things. And after it drifts through things it actually escapes the planet.  It’s possible the US may go hydrogen after it goes electric. The infrastructure needs to be built first. The US has some electrical infrastructure in place.  It isn’t great infrastructure but it exists.  Could an ICE vehicle be made that is greener? It’s possible. The problem is that to do it the vehicle is going to have to be smaller and slower. The model T would only really do about 45mph. It could handle some jobs. To make it go there would have to be a high speed rail system, and there isn’t one in the US. I think that’s what the boring project was all about. Trying to make that possible. 
 

In short the problem is that everything sucks. It becomes a question of what sucks less. 

[mr moose]

On 8/4/2021 at 4:40 AM, dalekphalm said:

Sure. You're correct. Li-ION Batteries are not especially environmentally friendly.

 

But you know what's worse? ICE vehicle emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle. A lot worse. Even if the EV in question gets its power from, say, Coal or Oil.

 

The problem is that EV's are simply the least terrible option. HFC's have the same problems as EV's but the fuel is both more expensive and more environmentally harmful (because Hydrogen gas needs to be manufactured as it doesn't exist naturally).

 

Gasoline/diesel ICE vehicles either need to die, or they need to become very niche.

Generate the hydrogen from nuclear power then use it in hydrogen burning ICE's and you can have the best of both worlds (certainly a better world than raping third world countries for their lithium while not actually fixing any environmental issues). 

 

I posted a video in the other thread about JCB and their current hydrogen prototypes.   Damn those things look promising,  the speculation doesn't sound too far fetched either (and that's from a company that's quietly trying to solve a major problem in it's own industry, not sell something to the general public).

 

 

EDIT: and just to add for the thread in general or for whoever cares to read it:  Crypto is a bit like jewelry, it's value is only in the fact that someone made it and it looks pretty.  How rare the diamond is is pretty useless when you can't use it to fix your house, drive it to work nor will it help you stay healthy, therefore any argument that tries to place it as an important component of society (current or future) is reliant solely on the premise that people will continue to regard it as valuable.  Stories of miners buying old hydro stations doesn't suddenly change the environmental energy factors that mar it's existence.  In fact I would argue that one of the reasons it maintains value is because of the cost  of the power it takes to mine it.  Otherwise everyone could afford to do it and then the natural conditions of market forces would cause its value to drop.

 

[Bombastinator]

Had another thought about this one not having to do with efficiency or environmental stuff having to do with the Sue’s canal:

 

Travel in the Suez canal is under threat.  Iran wants to own it and control trade through it.  They don’t, but it is taking more and more effort to keep it from happening. If/when Iran gains control, it would have a massive effect on oil availability.  Both straight electric, and to a lesser extent hydrogen (currently hydrogen is mostly produced from natural gas) are independant of source.  If Europe can become independent of mid-east oil requirements the Suez Canal loses value. Iran could end up with a monkeys chunk.  They may take the canal, but it’s not worth nearly what it was.  Might be worth doing independent of environment or efficiency reasons just for that reason alone.

[1518]

The BBC did a tour in one of the powerplants. 

 

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, aeliasov9 said:

The BBC did a tour in one of the powerplants. 

 

Those are some tall smokestacks there. Tall smokestacks were designed to send pollution higher into the atmosphere so it would appear farther away.  They didn’t actually reduce emissions.  One of the reactions to acid rain problems during the Regan administration was to build taller smokestacks.  It didn’t alter the amount of problem but made it harder to track.  There appears to be something attached to the leftmost one about halfway up.  People? Hard to tell.  

[mr moose]

On 8/12/2021 at 5:17 AM, Bombastinator said:

Those are some tall smokestacks there. Tall smokestacks were designed to send pollution higher into the atmosphere so it would appear farther away.  They didn’t actually reduce emissions.  One of the reactions to acid rain problems during the Regan administration was to build taller smokestacks.  It didn’t alter the amount of problem but made it harder to track.  There appears to be something attached to the leftmost one about halfway up.  People? Hard to tell.  

The English built smoke stacks taller to provide more draw which leads to more efficient use of coal (burns hotter so less is needed to get the water to temp,  then can be controlled better with dampers).

[12345678]

On 8/2/2021 at 12:48 AM, dalekphalm said:

As previously said, Transaction fees do not inherently correlate with power consumption.

 

Additionally, I looked up the average BTC fee:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html

Currently about 0.000055 BTC, or around $2.25 USD/transaction

 

Now, that's not particularly useful without knowing how large a transaction is:

https://blockchair.com/dash/charts/average-transaction-amount-usd

The average transaction size for August 1st is currently around $285,000 USD - however there was a massive spike, because just days before it was much more stable at around $50,000 average transaction size, so let's use that figure (we'll calc both) - the transaction fee seems to fluctuate less wildly, so we'll leave that alone.

 

Scenario One:

$285,000 transaction

$2.25 fee

= 0.000078947368421052631578947368421053

Round to 0.000079 * 100

= 0.00079% transaction fee

 

Scenario Two:

$50,000 transaction

$2.25 fee

= 0.000045 * 100

= 0.0045%

 

Both fees are very low per the transaction - but on the other hand, these transaction amounts are massive on average - mostly due to the investment nature of BTC.

 

Average Credit Card merchant transaction fees are around 1.5% to 3%, give or take a bit. Much higher, but also, the average Mastercard transaction is around $80 - a much much lower figure. What that means is for smaller purchases, the transaction fee breaks even or ends up cheaper, despite the higher percentage. If you made a $80 transaction on BTC, the fee would effectively be the same percentage as with a credit card. With a smaller transaction (Say buying a cheese burger with BTC) the fee would be massive compared to the transaction amount.

 

 

 

Better to push EV's than to push ICE gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. HFC is also a good option, but overall is much more energy intensive compared to straight EV's, and most HFC's are basically EV's anyway but with a HFC system in addition to a battery pack and electric motors.

let me tell you what will happen

everyone will pretend to care while doing nothing

when the world will be fucked up, the same thing will happen

 

just look on how well managed this pandemic is, pretty much a clown show