|
A much better clue than yesterday Derek 
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Musk is no longer taking Bitcoin for his cars ... he just found out mining uses a lot of energy ... and fossil fuels.
Setting the stage for his next move (a "cheaper" currency).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: he just found out
Seriously!
He doesn't care sh*t for the environment, he just think it's time to cash in.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: he just found out mining uses a lot of energy
The debate about energy consumption, for Bitcoin Mining, has been running for years. I doubt he just found out. More likely he's playing the market. Remember when he was making false claims about Tesla, to run up the price? The guy is a con-artist.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining.
Musk is off his rocker on this one, for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining.
Not quite a relevant comparison since, like it or not, Teslas are a product of the manufacturing vs. nothing is the product of bitcoin mining.
There is a good question to consider: except for those Teslas (and all electric-only vehicles) that happen to get charged from Soloar/Wind/Hydroelectric/nuclear/&etc., they most likely use more energy than a regular vehicle. Why you may ask?
Well every step in anything you do has an efficiency of less than 100%. Charging the vehicles with electricity produced from fossil fuels thus waste energy for this extra step (rather than burning fuel where its used: the engine). Added waste are power line transmission losses. All it really does is centralize the pollution (which has some value locally but not globally).
That being said: hybrids, which don't have to be plugged in, save energy if you consider the excellent fuel economy. As for hydrogen fueled vehicles? At this point, there is more CO2 pollution from producing the hydrogen (typically from oil conversion) than from use at the vehicle.
Last thing: it shows good insight that you consider the manufacturing process. Consider: does a solar cell, during it's lifetime, produce more energy than it cost to produce? Purifying silicon, starting from sand, is a very very energy intensive process (like aluminum production).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah - I understand - knowledge really hurts you head.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
You touched on something that I've wondered how it all shook out. You'd think that someone would put all this down and list the pros, cons, and costs. Then you could see which problems you could solve and move forward with the best solution. Unfortunately, money gets involved and everyone is just using salesman speak (conning) the next person to put money in their pocket...
|
|
|
|
|
The product of bitcoin mining is a completed transaction, at the lowest cost.
Concentrating pollution is beneficial overall on a global scale. The reason is that the expensive removal technologies only have to be in a few places, and the removal can be done on an industrial scale. Let me illustrate with an example. Consider that Hg is widely acknowledged to be a bad substance and great efforts were made to remove as much of it as possible. When CFL light bulbs were introduced we were sold on the value proposition of saving energy to save the environment. Except for that little bit of Hg that was in each CFL, which eventually would find its way back into the environment, like a micro pollution event. Wouldn't you agree that dealing with mercury in a power plant is more efficient than setting up a whole new recycle stream in an attempt to remove microscopic amounts from a glass bulb that needs to be broken first?
Most of these green energy attempts are sold on the basis hiding the overall cost, or shifting the cost to tax payers. There is this power plant in England that is touted to be the largest biomass powered of its kind. An example for the future no less. Where does the fuel come from? Oops! That is not a question that is helpful for the cause. Because it shows the false premise that you were sold.
Everything we do has benefits and costs. The costs aren't always visible when politicians are involved, but if you go looking you will find them.
But wait there is more....
"The IEA assembled a large body of data about a central, and until now largely ignored, aspect of the energy transition: It requires mining industries and infrastructure that don’t exist. Wind, solar and battery technologies are built from an array of “energy transition minerals,” or ETMs, that must be mined and processed. The IEA finds that with a global energy transition like the one President Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040.
The world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand. As the IEA observes, albeit in cautious bureaucratese, there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries. The supply of ETMs is entirely aspirational. And if it were pursued at the quantities dictated by the goals of the energy transition, the world would face daunting environmental, economic and social challenges, along with geopolitical risks."
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12924312 wrote: The product of bitcoin mining is a completed transaction, at the lowest cost.
No - it's to convert vast quantities of energy into something with speculative value and no intrinsic value.
However, you do, at least, see that bigger picture is out there - nothing happens without sources and sinks for materials and energy. Most just look at the shiny promises.
However, for your disdain based upon the IEA's comments, consider that no matter what and where we go we will need to build further infrastructure. In this case, I expand infrastructure to it's true magnitude, to wit, that in include not only the means transportation of materials and energy but the manufacturing that is required to support the infrastructure . . . which itself puts additional demands upon it. We more-or-less agree on this portion.
Where we probably diverge is that presuming you don't greatly change the manner in which our planetary culture is evolving, we'll still need more power, more minerals, more mining to get them, and so forth. It all comes down to a matter of planning long-term or short-term for the full impact. By "full", I mean globally and environmentally as well as economically.
Bitcoin is just another massive gambling forum - worse, if that can be imagined - than the current state of the world's stock markets.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I perused the report for my entertainment and a sense of curiosity how all this mining was going to take place.
And well, no surprise it has to be "sustainable".
We can stop right there, because mining is not sustainable, just like oil extraction is not, and it is expensive, and dusty, and needs lots of energy to move heavy stuff around, break it up, and refine the rocks to the desirable end product, all the while emitting other metals into the air. It is just quite entertaing that one of these metals is cobalt. That is not an environmentally friendly metal.
Where is all the mining going to take place? Third world countries where the locals do not have the funds, or know how to set up large mining operations, let alone make them sustainable.
And just like before large corporations will do it for them and the locals will get a fraction of the value.
And then the transportation nightmare starts to move the metals to where they are needed, so that means rail cars, bulk shipping, etc. All through large landmasses where there is no infrastructure to do this "sustainable".
All the while emitting CO2 throughout this entire process.
None of this matters, the politicians don't have the mental capabilities to understand, and if they could, would chose self interest over feasibility. Trillions will be wasted.
The useful idiots will chant, and buy electric vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems easy to find problems - and what are the options?
Like herbicides and pesticides for farming - I'd rather they did without, but without them we'd lose half our crop to vermin (as elsewhere whiteout these). One hopeful option was, for example GMO Corn that contains a bacterial toxin (one used by organic farmers) so that the crop is spared without spraying. But the complainers for these things dread that even more than the toxic sprays ! ? ! So, who's to starve while the complainers complain with while their BELLIES ARE FULL ?
One option, of course, is to eliminate say, about half the world's population. That would definitely cut demand.
All the points you bring up are correct - increasing demand. It's a cycle. But where's the solutions to these - and I mean real solutions, not just "We Must Stop (doing whatever) Now"?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The real answer is a combination - but the obvious solutions include:
* Waste less. Tons of perfectly good food goes to landfill each year. You could probably hang onto your mobile phone for an extra year. Do you really need 12 pairs of shoes (thinking more about my wife for this one).
* Re-use and repair. If you can use something for longer before you throw it away, in most cases it's better for the environment. Support right to repair legislation.
* Recycle - recycling is hard. It has just about never been an economical prospect to recycle (other than glass bottles and aluminum cans). The trick is to build in the recyclability into the product. Make things easy to disassemble, use materials and components that can be more easily recycled. Require that product sellers take back used goods for recycling as part of the lifecycle.
* Most importantly - make sure all of the preceding points are considerations in your purchasing.
The obstacles are many, but one of the biggest ones is people over rating their contribution to being green based on what they said in a social media platform vs what they actually did for them selves.
|
|
|
|
|
I've lived a lifetime, by my nature, of reuse. A bit of a pack rat. My opionion, in the current context is that the most efficient way to recycled is to reuse.
For years, bought used cars and kept them until they weren't worth keeping. Now, not willing to climb under vehicles before buying them I buy a new one - which I can keep that many more years.
Before they reduced the types of plastic they accept, we produced very little waste. Paper, plastic, glass: recycle. Most of the food into the compost. And upstream savings on a grand scale: soon to be 50 years vegetarian. So much saved not feeding livestock for the slaughter (10:1 food conversion - an absurd luxury). But it's all cheating, in a way, as it is, as I said, in my nature and such consumption is natural.
One of my most important energy savings is, aside from here in the CP Lounge, I don't belong to any social media. Just a simple flip-phone owner.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
We must stop doing things because.... is a sleight of hand as it always ignores the cost side.
But you can piece the information together:
fundamental transform
doing with less
skyrocketing energy prices
great reset
too many people
large groups of people do not use AC
redistribution
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: does a solar cell, during it's lifetime, produce more energy than it cost to produce? Purifying silicon, starting from sand, is a very very energy intensive process (like aluminum production).
I've seen that argument before. I believe the response was that, as efficiency has consistently been improving, this hasn't been a problem since the early 90s. You may want to update your sources.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: efficiency has consistently been improving,
I will presume you mean the efficiency of the manufacturing process. Also, improving the useful lifetime would implicitly increase that efficiency.
The efficiency of the cells (of any type) is limited by the nature of the beast. Only light of a minimum wavelength is capable of being converted to electricity which is limited by the solar spectrum. If you modify the cells to accept more of the longer wavelengths then the band gap is reduced.
Band gap -> voltage
Band Width -> current
Power = voltage * current
If you reduce the band gap you get higher current but lower voltage. The product of the two, which is the power (the useful output measurement for comparison) comes in at about 20% and that's pretty well achieved.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Internal combustion engines are much less efficient than electric motors and batteries. There is loss in transmission lines and electrical storage is a real problem compared to hydro or carbon based fuels.
If you have an efficient turbine generating power at peak performance I would think that the overall efficiency is a win for electric cars.
Now, if you consider the entire life cycle of all the components and the production, I don't know. Batteries are expensive to produce, but then again, so are engine motors and transmissions.
Would be great to see the math on that. Not sure where to even get the data to start, though.
|
|
|
|
|
300 Mw according to Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Musk is off his rocker on this one, for sure.
Yes, I agree. But he's not wrong. It does use a huge amount of energy. In Iceland, Bitcoin Mining is using as much energy as the country's entire population. That also seems like complete madness. 
|
|
|
|
|
In Iceland, it's all renewable, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: The guy is a con-artist.
But one who eventually delivers.
|
|
|
|
|
Monorail, MONOrail, MONORAIL! 
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: he just found out mining uses a lot of energy
He said, Quote: "We are concerned about rapidly increasing use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions, especially coal, which has the worst emissions of any fuel,"
He didn't say he just found out. You need to get over your obsession with this guy.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
