3 ms·

For me this tells that we as a species are still horrible at producing electricity in an environmentally balanced way. Especially stuff that's on the grid (like

For me this tells that we as a species are still horrible at producing electricity in an environmentally balanced way. Especially stuff that's on the grid (like stationary computers) should be easy to run on regenerative energy and as Bitcoin is a global currency, it should not be a problem to do so 24/7 (the sun always shines somewhere). On a related note: why is fusion still 50 years away? Nobody seems to put proportional effort in that sector. ps: I think a satellite that is dedicated to compute Bitcoin with solar energy (no atmosphere/night to bother out there) would be awesome!

eropple 12y ago
> On a related note: why is fusion still 50 years away? Nobody seems to put proportional effort in that sector. Why is P=NP unsolved? Nobody seems to put proportional effort in that. Oh wait, they do, but J. Random Citizen doesn't know about it...? Huh!
- skriticos2 12y ago
  I did not mean to say that it's an easy problem to solve, just that I don't see an overwhelming political or societal will to push for a solution here. Flying to the moon was also a hard problem, but resources got allocated and things got done. If I'd see that 5% GDP would go into the project with proper focus and aim, I have the feeling it'd be faster. PS: and the money could be made with carbon taxation to push fossil fuel cost into perspective.
  - eropple 12y ago
    You're criticizing people for not gosh-darn inventing things fast enough when we don't even know that it's possible. There are things we know are possible, which people are doing, while other people are researching blue-sky technologies.
theOnliest 12y ago
I'm not an astronomer, but presumably a satellite would still have night to contend with. Anything orbiting the earth is going to spend half its time in Earth's shadow, right? I remember a Radiolab [1] where they describe the ISS going from daytime to nighttime every 45 minutes. [1] http://www.radiolab.org/story/242184-dark-side-earth/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/242184-dark-side-earth/

eropple 12y ago

> On a related note: why is fusion still 50 years away? Nobody seems to put proportional effort in that sector. Why is P=NP unsolved? Nobody seems to put proportional effort in that. Oh wait, they do, but J. Random Citizen doesn't know about it...? Huh!

skriticos2 12y ago
I did not mean to say that it's an easy problem to solve, just that I don't see an overwhelming political or societal will to push for a solution here. Flying to the moon was also a hard problem, but resources got allocated and things got done. If I'd see that 5% GDP would go into the project with proper focus and aim, I have the feeling it'd be faster. PS: and the money could be made with carbon taxation to push fossil fuel cost into perspective.
- eropple 12y ago
  You're criticizing people for not gosh-darn inventing things fast enough when we don't even know that it's possible. There are things we know are possible, which people are doing, while other people are researching blue-sky technologies.

theOnliest 12y ago

I'm not an astronomer, but presumably a satellite would still have night to contend with. Anything orbiting the earth is going to spend half its time in Earth's shadow, right? I remember a Radiolab [1] where they describe the ISS going from daytime to nighttime every 45 minutes. [1] http://www.radiolab.org/story/242184-dark-side-earth/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/242184-dark-side-earth/