4 ms·
Do you know if the graph in the article is accurate, and what is meant by "rejected" exactly? What surprised me is that "Transportation" in that graph is suppo
by simias 6y ago
Do you know if the graph in the article is accurate, and what is meant by "rejected" exactly?
What surprised me is that "Transportation" in that graph is supposed to "reject" over 22% of its energy, which seems odd to me. For electricity I get it, it's hard to store so if you have excess production there's not much you can do. If your wind turbine can't dump its energy anywhere it's just lost, usually. But for petroleum can't you just... not use it?
As such I wonder if "rejected" means all losses? In which case it's unclear how bitcoin would fit into that.
In general I think the author doesn't make a good enough case. He'd have to show not only that there's enough loss to power the bitcoin network, but also that bitcoin actually slots into these losses instead of adding to the demand.
- Animats 6y agoThey mean rejected heat. That's basic thermodynamics. See "Carnot efficiency". Maximum possible efficiency of a heat engine is (Tin - Tout) / Tin. Temperatures are from absolute zero. This applies to all forms of heat engines. Large power plants run steam around 840°K. Typical outside temperatures are around 280°K. So maximum possible efficiency for steam plants at achievable temperatures is around 66%. Actual numbers for coal, oil, and nuclear plants run lower, maybe 40%. The most efficient natural gas plants come close, around 60%, by running at higher temperatures and avoiding conversion to steam.[1] [1] https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-compare-the-efficiency-of-different-power-plants/ https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-comp...
- simias 6y agoOk, but if that's the article's argument it really makes no sense, no? How would the author propose harvesting these various losses to mine cryptocoins? It's a really weird take if that's what the author is saying.
- Animats 6y agoThat's what the diagram copied from Lawrence Livermore National Labs says about rejected heat. What the article author is trying to say is something else entirely.
- simias 6y agoIt's mostly these sentences (in relation to that diagram) that I really fail to understand: >If Bitcoin used only wasted energy it would consume >2/3rds of the energy of the planet. >This is why hand-wringing about Bitcoin’s energy use is so frustrating. Bitcoin is pointing at the moon and people are yelling at its finger. The self-congratulatory ignorance I see in this debate is unreal. I don't get what it means or what point the author tries to make here.
- Certhas 6y agoThe best I can guess is that the author is mixing up load balancing through reserve energy and efficiency losses. The amount that is reserved for load balancing is also not anywhere near the size they are talking about.