5 ms·

Many solar panels are made by putting quartz and coal into an oven, and using coal to heat it to like 1800 degrees. This releases a bunch of C02 and other much

by jp555 6y ago

Many solar panels are made by putting quartz and coal into an oven, and using coal to heat it to like 1800 degrees. This releases a bunch of C02 and other much nastier stuff like silicon tetrachloride and radioactive uranium into the environment, and out comes purified polysilicon for making "green" PV panels. :P In contrast Bitcoin can run on green hydro or nuclear power.

mikece 6y ago
Can the ovens you mention be powered by electricity from nuclear or hydro?
- ttflee 6y ago
  Or even better, powered by solar, which closes the loop.
  - jp555 6y ago
    The coal ingredient still vents off toxic and radioactive waste in the making of the polysilicon. And with the rapidly falling price of PV, it's unlikely we'll see expensive investments that do not reduce costs.
- jjk166 6y ago
  The coal is there to remove oxygen from the silicon. That it also provides the heat required is just an added bonus. You could add carbon capture equipment and use nuclear or hyrdo electricity to break down the CO2 back into carbon, and this carbon could be reused instead of fresh coal which would also limit the emission of other pollutants. This is a substantial additional cost though, and the conversion of an existing plant to run this way is non-trivial.
danpalmer 6y ago
Bitcoin produces as much CO2 as a 737 does in a 5 hour flight, about 450kg, on average, per transaction. Air travel is considered one of the biggest polluters, and reducing air travel is considered one of the highest impact ways that individuals can reduce their carbon footprint. It only stands to reason that Bitcoin should therefore be considered far worse for its impact. The only saving grace is that people don't actually use it to pay for much, else we'd likely be in a much worse place. Edit: source is here https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption - the 450kg was from 2018, it's currently 310kg (or 685,000 VISA transactions), 651kWh (or 22 days of household energy), and nearly 100g of electronic waste. Bitcoin is essentially destined to be electricity price arbitrage in the long run, and that's a dangerous proposition.
- jp555 6y ago
  Which transactions? The Bitcoin transactions running on coal, natural gas, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, solar, or wind electricity? Figures don't lie, but liars will figure.
  - danpalmer 6y ago
    The emissions come mostly from the mining necessary to secure the transactions, so it's blended across where the mining is happening. Much of it is done in China on coal power.
    - jp555 6y ago
      So the problem is more a coal energy problem than a bitcoin problem?
      - danpalmer 6y ago
        I feel like you're trying to justify using Bitcoin rather than engaging with the problem. The mining-power relationship essentially creates a price arbitrage opportunity between electricity prices and Bitcoin mining fees. This is a very bad thing for the global economy as it ties all other uses of electricity to the Bitcoin mining fees in a very direct way. I can't think of another relationship this direct to energy prices, it could be catastrophic for entire industries. Oh and also it's emitting as much emissions as Argentina at the moment. A friend of mine called Bitcoin a candidate for The Great Filter, and I'm inclined to agree.
- misiti3780 6y ago
  that is scary - source?
  - danpalmer 6y ago
    Added.
  - mortehu 6y ago
mint2 6y ago
> and out comes purified polysilicon for making "green" PV panels Oh purified silicon like also used in making all the computers that people use to mine Bitcoin with a bunch of other resources. Since you say Bitcoin can run on nuclear, why do you think that generates less “radioactive uranium”, one of your concerns for pv mfg, and other radioactive pollution than pv manufacturing? Does the uranium not get mined, concentrating and releasing its decay products into the env? How much of the power for Bitcoin is generated by nuclear and hydro right now? How much will that increase in the next 20 years?
- mnw21cam 6y ago
  It's a well-known fact that burning coal releases more radioactive materials into the atmosphere than mining, refining, reacting, and disposing of actual nuclear fuels. By several orders of magnitude.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  You could also throw into this calculation: what is the lifespan of a PV panel as compared to a Bitcoin mining ASIC.

by jp555 6y ago

mikece 6y ago

Can the ovens you mention be powered by electricity from nuclear or hydro?

ttflee 6y ago
Or even better, powered by solar, which closes the loop.
- jp555 6y ago
  The coal ingredient still vents off toxic and radioactive waste in the making of the polysilicon. And with the rapidly falling price of PV, it's unlikely we'll see expensive investments that do not reduce costs.
jjk166 6y ago
The coal is there to remove oxygen from the silicon. That it also provides the heat required is just an added bonus. You could add carbon capture equipment and use nuclear or hyrdo electricity to break down the CO2 back into carbon, and this carbon could be reused instead of fresh coal which would also limit the emission of other pollutants. This is a substantial additional cost though, and the conversion of an existing plant to run this way is non-trivial.

danpalmer 6y ago

Bitcoin produces as much CO2 as a 737 does in a 5 hour flight, about 450kg, on average, per transaction. Air travel is considered one of the biggest polluters, and reducing air travel is considered one of the highest impact ways that individuals can reduce their carbon footprint. It only stands to reason that Bitcoin should therefore be considered far worse for its impact. The only saving grace is that people don't actually use it to pay for much, else we'd likely be in a much worse place. Edit: source is here https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption - the 450kg was from 2018, it's currently 310kg (or 685,000 VISA transactions), 651kWh (or 22 days of household energy), and nearly 100g of electronic waste. Bitcoin is essentially destined to be electricity price arbitrage in the long run, and that's a dangerous proposition.

jp555 6y ago
Which transactions? The Bitcoin transactions running on coal, natural gas, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, solar, or wind electricity? Figures don't lie, but liars will figure.
- danpalmer 6y ago
  The emissions come mostly from the mining necessary to secure the transactions, so it's blended across where the mining is happening. Much of it is done in China on coal power.
  - jp555 6y ago
    So the problem is more a coal energy problem than a bitcoin problem?
    - danpalmer 6y ago
      I feel like you're trying to justify using Bitcoin rather than engaging with the problem. The mining-power relationship essentially creates a price arbitrage opportunity between electricity prices and Bitcoin mining fees. This is a very bad thing for the global economy as it ties all other uses of electricity to the Bitcoin mining fees in a very direct way. I can't think of another relationship this direct to energy prices, it could be catastrophic for entire industries. Oh and also it's emitting as much emissions as Argentina at the moment. A friend of mine called Bitcoin a candidate for The Great Filter, and I'm inclined to agree.
misiti3780 6y ago
that is scary - source?
- danpalmer 6y ago
  Added.
- mortehu 6y ago

mint2 6y ago

> and out comes purified polysilicon for making "green" PV panels Oh purified silicon like also used in making all the computers that people use to mine Bitcoin with a bunch of other resources. Since you say Bitcoin can run on nuclear, why do you think that generates less “radioactive uranium”, one of your concerns for pv mfg, and other radioactive pollution than pv manufacturing? Does the uranium not get mined, concentrating and releasing its decay products into the env? How much of the power for Bitcoin is generated by nuclear and hydro right now? How much will that increase in the next 20 years?

mnw21cam 6y ago
It's a well-known fact that burning coal releases more radioactive materials into the atmosphere than mining, refining, reacting, and disposing of actual nuclear fuels. By several orders of magnitude.
matthewdgreen 6y ago
You could also throw into this calculation: what is the lifespan of a PV panel as compared to a Bitcoin mining ASIC.