3 ms·
I don’t like the power consumption but it seems interesting what we value. A distributed currency is bad. But Google consuming something like 26 TWh per year (b
by erentz 9y ago
I don’t like the power consumption but it seems interesting what we value. A distributed currency is bad. But Google consuming something like 26 TWh per year (by my back of napkin math) to serve Youtube videos of cats is fine? How much do Facebook and all the other social networks consume?
The reality is we produce power and price it for a reason. Because the modern world runs on it for all kinds of things. What we really have a problem with, that all these articles are upset about, is that we DO NOT price power correctly and allow it to externalize all environmental cost. Let’s be intellectually honest and rather than attacking Google, or Facebook, or Bitcoin for existing, let’s make sure we price in the environmental cost correctly through carbon taxes.
- thisacctforreal 9y agoI trust your napkin math was limited to the cat video consumption that you are attacking?
- filereaper 9y agoI understand your argument, but specifically with Google, they now claim: "100% renewable energy for our global operations — including both our data centers and offices." [1] I'm not here to debate the merits of cat videos vs bitcoin mining, but to point out that the youtube cat videos are hosted on environmentally friendly data centers. [1] https://environment.google/projects/announcement-100/ https://environment.google/projects/announcement-100/