6 ms·

Does all mining apply here? I saw some videos where people were setting up solar panels and minig using that power. If you have a system of solar panels + mini

Does all mining apply here? I saw some videos where people were setting up solar panels and minig using that power. If you have a system of solar panels + mining cards, is there more harm compared to no such system (not taking producing solar panels and cards into account).

csharptwdec19 6y ago
There's still the environmental costs related with creation of the panels and cards. Making Circuit boards and Silicon is a costly endeavor in and of itself from an energy and waste standpoint.
BobbyJo 6y ago
You have to look at the planet as a set of resources. Resources grow and shrink, but are definite and limited in any given moment all the same. Generally, spending them on less productive tasks is bad. It's cool they are using solar power vs burning gas/coal, but it doesn't change the fact that those same resources would benefit the planet much more if used in a different capacity. If a billionaire hoarded manufacturing plants and kept them shut down, people would probably be mad, since resources were being wasted, even if it was a net positive on greenhouse gas output.
- px43 6y ago
  Each hour 430 quintillion Joules (430 exajoules) of energy from the sun hits the Earth.[1] It is almost exclusively reflected back out into space, and wasted. We have nearly no incentive to capture it, so the energy is being wasted at a mind boggling scale. I've been mining cryptocurrencies with solar power for about 6 years or so. The great thing about crypto mining is that it creates a price floor for energy usage. This gives people real incentive to build the tools we need to harness the energy on our planet. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-solar-power-2015-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-sol...
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    Since we're firmly in the ridiculous arguments camp already, it may as well be pointed out that all of that energy leaving the planet is a good thing. It's why the earth isn't a barren hellscape like venus, whose atmosphere captures energy much more efficiently. Most people would actually prefer that we capture just a bit less than we currently do.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - skyzadev 6y ago
      So you are saying we will capture so much energy from the sun that the entire planet will become inhospitable. Do we then just keep burning fossil fuels until earth becomes inhospitable instead? Or do we kill ourselves and stop the need for energy use entirely? Remember that humans will forever have energy needs as we advance.
      - faeyanpiraat 6y ago
        The point is that nothing is as simple as it seems. Using a renewable sources has their own side effects. Solar? It heats the atmosphere, because it captures solar heat which would bounce back. Wind? Obviously it slows winds down, and who knows how it affects the existing ecosystem. We know how important the gulf stream is, you wouldn’t want to slow that down.. Etc..
      - paulmd 6y ago
        Absolutely yes, at a sufficiently big-picture view the eventual problem is energy expenditure itself. Capturing more energy from the sun, or more realistically something like large-scale fission/fusion utilization still results in an increased amount of energy being deposited into the earth's atmosphere even aside from the greenhouse effect. I am obviously not an expert but I looked at the magnitude of the energy itself vs the greenhouse effect and it's about 10-100x less potent than the greenhouse effect. But that means that even if we had 100% clean carbon-free energy, we can't continue increasing our energy utilization forever. And we still have a huge portion of the world that is below a first-world living standard and will eventually want automobiles and air conditioning and vacations using jet travel too. IF we do not level off the energy consumption of the "first world" standard of living sometime within the next 50-100 years then we are on a course to cook ourselves to death even with 100% clean energy.
- autokad 6y ago
  you should try to avoid zero sum thinking, it only leads bad things and is almost always incorrect.
  - BobbyJo 6y ago
    Zero sum is the reason markets exist. Are you saying markets are bad?
    - autokad 6y ago
      markets exist to connect buyers and sellers.
      - BobbyJo 6y ago
        The purpose of free markets is asset allocation:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_(economics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_(economics) >Markets facilitate trade and enable the distribution and resource allocation in a society.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
loktarogar 6y ago
ultimately, it's a fraction of miners doing what you say. so as a green miner your personal contribution might be 0, but you're supporting a system that does considerable harm. as long as a majority of bitcoin mining happens from non-renewable resources, the network as a whole is damaging.
- autokad 6y ago
  the vast majority of mining happens off renewable energy, because it doesn't make economic sense to mine on non-renewables. its why 'mines' cluster near hydro plants and places that have good solar.
  - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
    > because it doesn't make economic sense to mine on non-renewables That's not true at all. You can enter a power cost into this calculator: https://www.nicehash.com/profitability-calculator/nvidia-rtx-3080 https://www.nicehash.com/profitability-calculator/nvidia-rtx... It comes out positive using energy prices from virtually anywhere. The idea that mining is powered purely by renewables that would somehow otherwise go to waste (that is, not take fossil fuel plants offline) is pure FUD.
    - autokad 6y ago
      FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I fail to see how it applies in this context

csharptwdec19 6y ago

There's still the environmental costs related with creation of the panels and cards. Making Circuit boards and Silicon is a costly endeavor in and of itself from an energy and waste standpoint.

BobbyJo 6y ago

You have to look at the planet as a set of resources. Resources grow and shrink, but are definite and limited in any given moment all the same. Generally, spending them on less productive tasks is bad. It's cool they are using solar power vs burning gas/coal, but it doesn't change the fact that those same resources would benefit the planet much more if used in a different capacity. If a billionaire hoarded manufacturing plants and kept them shut down, people would probably be mad, since resources were being wasted, even if it was a net positive on greenhouse gas output.

px43 6y ago
Each hour 430 quintillion Joules (430 exajoules) of energy from the sun hits the Earth.[1] It is almost exclusively reflected back out into space, and wasted. We have nearly no incentive to capture it, so the energy is being wasted at a mind boggling scale. I've been mining cryptocurrencies with solar power for about 6 years or so. The great thing about crypto mining is that it creates a price floor for energy usage. This gives people real incentive to build the tools we need to harness the energy on our planet. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-solar-power-2015-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-sol...
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  Since we're firmly in the ridiculous arguments camp already, it may as well be pointed out that all of that energy leaving the planet is a good thing. It's why the earth isn't a barren hellscape like venus, whose atmosphere captures energy much more efficiently. Most people would actually prefer that we capture just a bit less than we currently do.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - skyzadev 6y ago
    So you are saying we will capture so much energy from the sun that the entire planet will become inhospitable. Do we then just keep burning fossil fuels until earth becomes inhospitable instead? Or do we kill ourselves and stop the need for energy use entirely? Remember that humans will forever have energy needs as we advance.
    - faeyanpiraat 6y ago
      The point is that nothing is as simple as it seems. Using a renewable sources has their own side effects. Solar? It heats the atmosphere, because it captures solar heat which would bounce back. Wind? Obviously it slows winds down, and who knows how it affects the existing ecosystem. We know how important the gulf stream is, you wouldn’t want to slow that down.. Etc..
    - paulmd 6y ago
      Absolutely yes, at a sufficiently big-picture view the eventual problem is energy expenditure itself. Capturing more energy from the sun, or more realistically something like large-scale fission/fusion utilization still results in an increased amount of energy being deposited into the earth's atmosphere even aside from the greenhouse effect. I am obviously not an expert but I looked at the magnitude of the energy itself vs the greenhouse effect and it's about 10-100x less potent than the greenhouse effect. But that means that even if we had 100% clean carbon-free energy, we can't continue increasing our energy utilization forever. And we still have a huge portion of the world that is below a first-world living standard and will eventually want automobiles and air conditioning and vacations using jet travel too. IF we do not level off the energy consumption of the "first world" standard of living sometime within the next 50-100 years then we are on a course to cook ourselves to death even with 100% clean energy.
autokad 6y ago
you should try to avoid zero sum thinking, it only leads bad things and is almost always incorrect.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  Zero sum is the reason markets exist. Are you saying markets are bad?
  - autokad 6y ago
    markets exist to connect buyers and sellers.
    - BobbyJo 6y ago
      The purpose of free markets is asset allocation:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_(economics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_(economics) >Markets facilitate trade and enable the distribution and resource allocation in a society.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

loktarogar 6y ago

ultimately, it's a fraction of miners doing what you say. so as a green miner your personal contribution might be 0, but you're supporting a system that does considerable harm. as long as a majority of bitcoin mining happens from non-renewable resources, the network as a whole is damaging.

autokad 6y ago
the vast majority of mining happens off renewable energy, because it doesn't make economic sense to mine on non-renewables. its why 'mines' cluster near hydro plants and places that have good solar.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  > because it doesn't make economic sense to mine on non-renewables That's not true at all. You can enter a power cost into this calculator: https://www.nicehash.com/profitability-calculator/nvidia-rtx-3080 https://www.nicehash.com/profitability-calculator/nvidia-rtx... It comes out positive using energy prices from virtually anywhere. The idea that mining is powered purely by renewables that would somehow otherwise go to waste (that is, not take fossil fuel plants offline) is pure FUD.
  - autokad 6y ago
    FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I fail to see how it applies in this context