. - page 6. | Bitcointalksearch.org

halfawake

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: ernie- on July 01, 2014, 12:31:23 AM

This recent coindesk article on is interesting:

http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-economic-environmental-costs-bitcoin-mining/

I think the author is conservative, and the likely power consumption is way higher.

When you have projects like MegaBigPower wanting to add 50PH/s to the nethash each month, that's a new power station each year just for them.

http://www.coindesk.com/megabigpower-launches-global-franchisee-network-add-50phs-per-month-bitcoin-network/

At some point the exponential growth has to stop, if only by governments cracking down on the large scale energy wastage.

Mining uses an insane amount of energy. I honestly hope governments do crack down on people doing this (at least those who aren't powering it with their own PV setup). This really is the biggest problem with bitcoin in my opinion, it's a huge energy hog. I think most of the things about bitcoin taking over would be great, but this is definitely not one of those aspects of bitcoin that are a positive. (Yeah, I know, the fiat system also uses a tremendous amount of energy, but we really should be striving to do better than them, rather than merely not as bad.)

ernie-

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

This recent coindesk article on is interesting:

http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-economic-environmental-costs-bitcoin-mining/

I think the author is conservative, and the likely power consumption is way higher.

When you have projects like MegaBigPower wanting to add 50PH/s to the nethash each month, that's a new power station each year just for them.

http://www.coindesk.com/megabigpower-launches-global-franchisee-network-add-50phs-per-month-bitcoin-network/

At some point the exponential growth has to stop, if only by governments cracking down on the large scale energy wastage.

InwardContour

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 260

Quote from: halfawake on June 30, 2014, 09:32:05 PM

Quote from: InwardContour on June 30, 2014, 07:19:34 PM

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on June 30, 2014, 03:07:01 PM

Quote from: InwardContour on June 30, 2014, 01:17:37 AM

The cheapest type energy by far is nuclear power. It is also one of the cleanest forms of energy.

I really do not understand why the "green lobby" does not push nuclear power more

Probably just ignorance mostly. Lots of people have irrational fears of things they don't understand and associate with death instead of cleaner and more efficient energy.

The green lobby seems to be "well educated" on things like global warming and the effects of other energy types

I'm about as much of an environmentalist as one gets, but I must admit I get rather peeved at my fellow environmentalists who hate nuclear power and wind / solar. There's always something to object to power plants, but why are you really objecting to a solar power plant installation in the desert? Yes, I saw this happen. It saddens me greatly, the continual NIMBY attitude that it seems a lot of environmentalists have does nothing but ensure that we'll keep on being powered by fossil fuels.

I think most environmental want more solar and wind power to be used. This is why they try to get regulations enacted that make it more expensive to produce "carbon" power so that wind and (especially) solar energy can better compete

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: halfawake on June 30, 2014, 09:32:05 PM

I'm about as much of an environmentalist as one gets, but I must admit I get rather peeved at my fellow environmentalists who hate nuclear power and wind / solar. There's always something to object to power plants, but why are you really objecting to a solar power plant installation in the desert? Yes, I saw this happen. It saddens me greatly, the continual NIMBY attitude that it seems a lot of environmentalists have does nothing but ensure that we'll keep on being powered by fossil fuels.

I think water is the number one concern in the desert and PV installations do require some water.

I have a buddy who is involved with very large scale PV installations. He told me the following story about having to solve the following string of issues:

PV system would get dust on it reducing the output.
Solution: wash them periodically.

The water run off from the washing caused weeds to grow, when they got high enough they shaded the collectors reducing the output.
Solution: periodically bring in goats to eat the weeds.

The goats somtimes chewed on the wires causing failures reducing output.
Solution: they were noodling that when he talked to me.

And so it goes....

halfawake

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: InwardContour on June 30, 2014, 07:19:34 PM

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on June 30, 2014, 03:07:01 PM

Quote from: InwardContour on June 30, 2014, 01:17:37 AM

The cheapest type energy by far is nuclear power. It is also one of the cleanest forms of energy.

I really do not understand why the "green lobby" does not push nuclear power more

Probably just ignorance mostly. Lots of people have irrational fears of things they don't understand and associate with death instead of cleaner and more efficient energy.

The green lobby seems to be "well educated" on things like global warming and the effects of other energy types

I'm about as much of an environmentalist as one gets, but I must admit I get rather peeved at my fellow environmentalists who hate nuclear power and wind / solar. There's always something to object to power plants, but why are you really objecting to a solar power plant installation in the desert? Yes, I saw this happen. It saddens me greatly, the continual NIMBY attitude that it seems a lot of environmentalists have does nothing but ensure that we'll keep on being powered by fossil fuels.

InwardContour

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 260

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on June 30, 2014, 03:07:01 PM

Quote from: InwardContour on June 30, 2014, 01:17:37 AM

The cheapest type energy by far is nuclear power. It is also one of the cleanest forms of energy.

I really do not understand why the "green lobby" does not push nuclear power more

Probably just ignorance mostly. Lots of people have irrational fears of things they don't understand and associate with death instead of cleaner and more efficient energy.

The green lobby seems to be "well educated" on things like global warming and the effects of other energy types

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on June 30, 2014, 03:07:01 PM

Quote from: InwardContour on June 30, 2014, 01:17:37 AM

The cheapest type energy by far is nuclear power. It is also one of the cleanest forms of energy.

I really do not understand why the "green lobby" does not push nuclear power more

Probably just ignorance mostly. Lots of people have irrational fears of things they don't understand and associate with death instead of cleaner and more efficient energy.

I really like what I have read about Thorium reactors. Seems like the way to go. If the whole industry was not funded by the need for Plutonium then I think there would be a lot more reseach into things like Thorium reactors. If you have not read about them check it out.

Marlo Stanfield

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 280

Quote from: InwardContour on June 30, 2014, 01:17:37 AM

The cheapest type energy by far is nuclear power. It is also one of the cleanest forms of energy.

I really do not understand why the "green lobby" does not push nuclear power more

Probably just ignorance mostly. Lots of people have irrational fears of things they don't understand and associate with death instead of cleaner and more efficient energy.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: halfawake on June 30, 2014, 12:50:42 PM

Quote from: antirack on June 29, 2014, 08:41:03 AM

The big question is where to find the highest mountain with the strongest wind and how to overclock the wind turbine.

Grin

I don't know where you live, but at least in the US, the Dakotas would be a great place for wind. I've read articles before describing them the "Saudi Arabia of wind" and that they have enough wind that if enough wind turbines were built there, they could generate enough power not just for that area, but to power the entire country. The catch, of course, for the rest of the country is that there still aren't a ton of people in the Dakotas, excluding the boom of population that's happening now because of the oil boom.

But if you move there and plan on setting one up, I hope you like cold weather. It gets REAL cold there.

Cold weather is great for mining. Free cooling.

halfawake

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: antirack on June 29, 2014, 08:41:03 AM

The big question is where to find the highest mountain with the strongest wind and how to overclock the wind turbine.

Grin

I don't know where you live, but at least in the US, the Dakotas would be a great place for wind. I've read articles before describing them the "Saudi Arabia of wind" and that they have enough wind that if enough wind turbines were built there, they could generate enough power not just for that area, but to power the entire country. The catch, of course, for the rest of the country is that there still aren't a ton of people in the Dakotas, excluding the boom of population that's happening now because of the oil boom.

But if you move there and plan on setting one up, I hope you like cold weather. It gets REAL cold there.

InwardContour

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 260

The cheapest type energy by far is nuclear power. It is also one of the cleanest forms of energy.

I really do not understand why the "green lobby" does not push nuclear power more

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

I know that the wholesale price of electricity for Xcel Energy in Colorado is less than $0.03/kWh because at the end of each year they have to pay me wholesale price for my yearly solar overproduction (I get dollar for dollar credit for my yearly consumption that is covered by my production). That low price is due to all the electricity they import from older dirty coal burning generation facilities in Wyoming.

Old, dirty coal plants produce cheap electricity. Natual gas is very cheap now due to the fracking of gas wells so gas powered plants also produce very cheap electricity. Hydro can be cheap. Everything else is more.

I now a guy with a huge commercial BTC mining warehouse that pays less than $0.02/kWh because he buys power in huge steady quantities. That is the only way to make money in the mining game long term.

antirack

hero member

Activity: 489

Merit: 500

Immersionist

You might be right about that.

Found some other info in the meantime:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/12/21/why-its-the-end-of-the-line-for-wind-power/

According to the federal Energy Information Administration, the “levelized cost” of new wind power (including capital and operating costs) is 8.2 cents per kWh. Advanced clean-coal plants cost about 11 cents per kWh, the same as nuclear. But advanced natural gas-burning plants come in at just 6.3 cents per kWh.

And that is probably for large scale corporate installations by the energy producers, not some single miner with his own land. No word about hydro though.

Back to square one.

Hydro power available at places like Washington State is $0.02/kWh to $0.03/kWh.

DannyElfman

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: antirack on June 29, 2014, 09:27:22 AM

Quote from: BurtW on June 29, 2014, 08:53:27 AM

No, you are wrong, you did not run the numbers. To maximize your overall profit (assuming you can get immediate delivery of the latest miners) is to put 100% of your money into miners and forget the whole wind or solar energy production idea. Any other mix of investing in miners/wind/solar will reduce your overall profit.

This is because wind and solar are the most expensive ways to make electricity whereas burning dirt (coal) is the cheapest.

Is that a theory or a fact?

The theoretical 1MW mine above costs $0.88 million at $0.10/kWh per year on electricity cost.

The theoretical wind turbine costs $1.3 million.

It produces theoretical free power after 1.48 years, when it paid itself back.

After that my theoretical mine mines for free.

For a while.

For every single hardware generation I deploy.

Until it breaks down.

If I would be in my home country, where electricity costs close to $0.30/kWh, we have very high mountains AND a lot of wind, how long would it take to pay the wind turbine back and mine for free? A few months.

There is something fishy about these numbers? Double or triple them, it still takes less than a year.

I think that wind turbine will need to receive some kind of maintenance and upkeep every so often.

You also forgot to include the fact that you need to put the turbine on land that you own/control. You would (in most countries) need to pay property taxes on both the land and the turbine. You would also have a lost opportunity cost as if you did not have the turbine on your property then you could have rented your land to someone and received some kind of rent.

antirack

hero member

Activity: 489

Merit: 500

Immersionist

Quote from: BurtW on June 29, 2014, 08:53:27 AM

No, you are wrong, you did not run the numbers. To maximize your overall profit (assuming you can get immediate delivery of the latest miners) is to put 100% of your money into miners and forget the whole wind or solar energy production idea. Any other mix of investing in miners/wind/solar will reduce your overall profit.

This is because wind and solar are the most expensive ways to make electricity whereas burning dirt (coal) is the cheapest.

Is that a theory or a fact?

The theoretical 1MW mine above costs $0.88 million at $0.10/kWh per year on electricity cost.

The theoretical wind turbine costs $1.3 million.

It produces theoretical free power after 1.48 years, when it paid itself back.

After that my theoretical mine mines for free.

For a while.

For every single hardware generation I deploy.

Until it breaks down.

If I would be in my home country, where electricity costs close to $0.30/kWh, we have very high mountains AND a lot of wind, how long would it take to pay the wind turbine back and mine for free? A few months.

There is something fishy about these numbers? Double or triple them, it still takes less than a year.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

No, you are wrong, you did not run the numbers. To maximize your overall profit (assuming you can get immediate delivery of the latest miners) is to put 100% of your money into miners and forget the whole wind or solar energy production idea. Any other mix of investing in miners/wind/solar will reduce your overall profit.

This is because wind and solar are the most expensive ways to make electricity whereas burning dirt (coal) is the cheapest.

antirack

hero member

Activity: 489

Merit: 500

Immersionist

Quote from: BurtW on June 29, 2014, 08:33:26 AM

antirack: You forgot to answer this question:

Quote from: ?? on ??

Now if you have 1000 (BTC, k€, whatever) and a possibility to get ASICs delivered to you, what will be your optimal allocation of capital ?
- 100% on ASICs and 0% of wind turbine (you will pay electricity from the grid)
- 50% on ASICs and 50% on wind turbine (you will pay the maintenance of the turbine + you will pay electricity when there is no wind)
- 0% on ASICs and 100% on wind turbine (you are now a green electricity producer, congrats).

This same question applies to solar pannels.

This same question applies to a combination of wind turbine and solar pannels.

I did not forget. My answer was:

Quote from: antirack on June 29, 2014, 07:37:01 AM

So the obvious answer, build your wind turbine AND your bitcoin mine where it's windy Wink

Profit from both, Bitcoins and electricity sales.

So 50% on ASICS and 50% on wind turbine if both would be equal priced ($1,37MM/MW for the mine vs. 1.3MM/MW for the wind turbine).

The big question is where to find the highest mountain with the strongest wind and how to overclock the wind turbine.

Grin

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

antirack: You forgot to answer this question:

Quote from: ?? on ??

Now if you have 1000 (BTC, k€, whatever) and a possibility to get ASICs delivered to you, what will be your optimal allocation of capital ?
- 100% on ASICs and 0% of wind turbine (you will pay electricity from the grid)
- 50% on ASICs and 50% on wind turbine (you will pay the maintenance of the turbine + you will pay electricity when there is no wind)
- 0% on ASICs and 100% on wind turbine (you are now a green electricity producer, congrats).

This same question applies to solar pannels.

This same question applies to a combination of wind turbine and solar pannels.

antirack

hero member

Activity: 489

Merit: 500

Immersionist

Ok, so now you got me curious.

Here's a wind map for the US:
http://hint.fm/wind/

http://www.bneenergy.com/bne-energy-faqs.html

Wind farms are built in places with strong, steady winds to ensure that they produce as much power as possible, as much of the time as possible. However, wind is variable depending on the time of day and time of the year. A typical wind farm would produce electricity in the range of 25-40% of its rated capacity over the course of the year, but can produce electricity at full capacity on any given day when the wind exceeds a certain threshold amount.

So the obvious answer, build your wind turbine AND your bitcoin mine where it's windy Wink

Profit from both, Bitcoins and electricity sales.

antirack

hero member

Activity: 489

Merit: 500

Immersionist

Is it really that unlikely that a serious mining operation would run their farm from wind or hydro?

Considering what the mining devices and the infrastructure for it costs, it is not completely impossible in my opinion.

Total cost today (farm deployed):

~$820/TH = $820,000/PH
~$1370/kW = $1,370,000/MW

Annual electricity at $0.88 million at $0.10/kWh _without_ conversion cost, cooling, etc.

Quote from: http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The costs for a utility scale wind turbine in 2012 range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. This cost has come down dramatically from what it was just a few years ago.
...
Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.

At $1.3 million for 1MW at the lower end, it would take less than 2 years to pay back.

http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

If a mining operation takes business serious (= not cowboy style get rich quick mining), it could probably use local resource and government incentives to drive down costs. And after all, if the mining ever stops, the society benefits from all the new wind farms.

(admittedly, I don't know anything about setting up a wind turbine)

Topic: . - page 6. (Read 24722 times)