It can easily become a non issue or even have a positive impact if solar power keeps growing in market share of electricity production. The current reality is that solar is already competitive with coal for the production of electricity in India. http://www.sciencealert.com/india-says-the-cost-of-solar-power-is-now-cheaper-than-coal. Furthermore the theoretical efficiency of solar panels is upwards of 80% while the best commercial solar panel efficiencies are around 20%. Prices of solar panels are also likely to continue to fall. Solar power by its very nature has peaks and valleys that are not in line with electricity demand and furthermore there are major advantages to decentralized generation of solar electricity. People's rooftops vs dedicated land for solar panels. All of this creates a situation where using excess solar power to mine crypto currencies can make a lot of economic sense and make solar even more competitive with fossil fuels or nuclear. In addition this complements during the summer the heating of buildings with the "waste" heat from crypto currency mining in the winter argument mentioned in the article.
The paradox is that crypto currency mining can have a net positive environmental / carbon reduction impact by making solar an economic alternative where otherwise it would not be.
Edit: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels
Topic: [2016-12-15] The Bitcoin Network Sustainability Problem (Read 462 times)
The whole "Bitcoin uses energy" thing is just another way to attack the concept of a non-sovereign means of transfer.
Nobody is rebelling against TVs, DVRs, and the whole host of appliances that serve up the latest < hot show > up to homes - nobody is going "OMG if this show gets popular on Netflix it will saturate the internet".
That's why I hate this kind of argument against Bitcoin. Its selective, its blind, and it ignores the very SERVICE and UTILITY that Bitcoin provides, which is financial freedom.
And yet the morons stare at their idiot boxes and don't care how many watts THAT consumes.... 'effing retards.
Nobody is rebelling against TVs, DVRs, and the whole host of appliances that serve up the latest < hot show > up to homes - nobody is going "OMG if this show gets popular on Netflix it will saturate the internet".
That's why I hate this kind of argument against Bitcoin. Its selective, its blind, and it ignores the very SERVICE and UTILITY that Bitcoin provides, which is financial freedom.
And yet the morons stare at their idiot boxes and don't care how many watts THAT consumes.... 'effing retards.
Did you know that there is a zero theoretical lower bound on the energy required to make a calculation?
Even irreversible ones, but the most common way is to make reversible calculations (as used in quantum computers).
I'm not suggesting we're anywhere near that kind of efficiency with our computers, or that the limit is approachable in the near future, but I think it shows how inefficient we currently are and allows for improvement of many orders of magnitude in future.
So maybe the power consumption isn't such a dead end after all ...
Even irreversible ones, but the most common way is to make reversible calculations (as used in quantum computers).
I'm not suggesting we're anywhere near that kind of efficiency with our computers, or that the limit is approachable in the near future, but I think it shows how inefficient we currently are and allows for improvement of many orders of magnitude in future.
So maybe the power consumption isn't such a dead end after all ...
I read the whole article, and it's a classic "bitcoin spends a lot of energy," it may be for the moment bitcoin need a lot of energy, and maybe we need to find better options to generate power, but this challenge is not just bitcoin.
Your graphic is garish and oversized, in my opinion.
As for the "article", its the classic "why are we wasting power to run the Bitcoin network, and OMG, if Bitcoin takes off it will require more power" strawman.
There, saved you about five minutes.
As for the "article", its the classic "why are we wasting power to run the Bitcoin network, and OMG, if Bitcoin takes off it will require more power" strawman.
There, saved you about five minutes.
LOL. I like the summary though. This indeed saved me five minutes if I just read your comment.
In my opinion, bitcoin is really wasteful as paper money. Paper money uses trees while bitcoins use up a lot of power and produces carbon footprint because of the energy it uses. So I think bitcoin will power the future too, as we would turn to green energy by the time bitcoin uses so much energy.
Your graphic is garish and oversized, in my opinion.
As for the "article", its the classic "why are we wasting power to run the Bitcoin network, and OMG, if Bitcoin takes off it will require more power" strawman.
There, saved you about five minutes.
As for the "article", its the classic "why are we wasting power to run the Bitcoin network, and OMG, if Bitcoin takes off it will require more power" strawman.
There, saved you about five minutes.
IMO as an expert by Marco Maltese, Bitcoin enthusiast and the author of the book "Enter Bitcoin: How It Works, Why It Works, Why Invest Now, Future Scenarios". A possible point of failure that could affect Bitcoin (or any Proof-of-Work blockchain) in the future.
Read more: https://coinidol.com/bitcoin-network-sustainability-problem/
Read more: https://coinidol.com/bitcoin-network-sustainability-problem/
Jump to: