but if you look at it from the perspective that energy costs can also drive people to move toward their own energy generation (Solar, Wind, Tidal, etc), in order to be competitive in that market, the total energy consumption isn't as relavent as the source of that energy being consumed.
If you think of the trilions of gigawatts of energy that are wasted by not harnessing the Sun's power... There's not a big issue with consuming a lot of energy.
In the far future you might even be right. There are clever people around that think energy will be 100% renewable and almost for free in the future. But I think we should consider the status quo and not rely on utopia when judging weaknesses of today's bitcoin technology. Bitcoin value might rise a lot faster than renewable energy will progress.
In the case of Photovoltaics one should bear in mind that today PV cells are produced in china using non-renewable energy. So their embodied energy is not renewable at all.
As long as renewable energy is more expensive than fossil and nuclear energy, I consider excessive energy use as being bad because real costs are externalized.
....just because something is produced using another type of energy makes it not 'clean energy' is disingenuous at best. In order for that statement to be true, it would require that every cell produced consumes more 'dirty' energy in the the production process than it will produce in its working lifetime, which, if that were the case, solar energy would already make ZERO economic sense. People would never be able to come out ahead, as the solar installation would cost more in energy costs alone to produce, than would ever be recovered...
Haven't you just disproved your own argument?
But in so doing you asserted based on the absolutes..."every cell produced"..."zero economic sense"...
and economics of A vs B is never based on absolutes. We see solar cells used for ranch gate openers - GOOD. For city stop signs and other markers where there'd be a high cost to run the power wires - GOOD. For a city stop sign right next to a power line - STUPID.
This isn't terribly complicated unless you preface the argument with a moral premise such as SOLAR = GOOD, then proceed in a twisted and warped fashion to ignore actual numbers because you've predefined GOOD.
In fact, you've argued against the other poster who simply stated that externalized costs (and pollution) have to be entered into the equation. Sorry, you can't do that.
