Topic: Sweden proposed to ban mining in the European Union (Read 393 times)

Since they harvest free energy, the current efficiency doesn't matter that much. The fact they exist means it's not unprofitable. The tech will probably evolve in time, it's early. I would be more worried now by the increase of areas wasted and by the pollution generated for the panels and windmills to be made, and their (lack or) recycling too.


I fail to find any relation between these. For now, as long as the demand grows, they'll build more, will not necessarily make them more efficient.
The problem is, as said in other posts, since sun and wind are far from constant, another form of generating electricity has to be always there "in stand by", and this form is usually coal/gas/petrol based.


Actually human mistake can always exist. Errors can be hidden/covered also in the name of profit. I agree that Chernobyl catastrophe was mostly because of the way the communist regime works, but it can happen shockingly easy also if other conditions are met. Still, I agree that it may be our best chance for now.


At least this is something I'll agree with 100%
The problem is there and was always there even before bitcoin mining. This banning of bitcoin mining is just (stupid, bad) politics.

Solar and wind aren't efficient with the current technology, nor will they ever be efficient if the energy demands keep rising. You can figure limitations on energy and factor them in an idealistic society, and there still enough energy to go around. Nuclear isn't as dangerous as people think, the soviet era disaster at Chernobyl was a result of a communist regime with poor regulations. You can make nuclear work well and manage the dangers. The cost benefit analysis given the risks is peanuts compared to the energy you can extract.

This goes beyond bitcoin mining too, by the way. India, China, US are going to continue to pollute unless there are legitimate alternatives. Solar and wind aren't going to cut it.

Bitcoin will keep on going with PoW because it's the most secure consensus algorithm.

I doubt that the banks will close even if cryptos gained too much attention on their particular countries. There's the fear that they have but that won't stop and make them close as they're with the state.

There's still a big part of the banking sector that's being involved to the government's work. I agree that if these countries will make the miners stop what they do, those crypto friendly countries will be the ones to enjoy and benefit from it.

Some governments still fear that their banks will get their doors closed if cryptocurrencies gain a lot of attention in their country, so these governments try to catch the painful nerve and here, it is mining. They had nothing to talk about, they don't talk on the inflated prices of oil, child trafficking, sexual harassments, kidnapping, raping, extortions, mafia, etc. and divert their citizens' mind by talking all the way about crypto to create negative chaos among youth about it. If Swedish government asks miners to stop mining some day, those miners will pack their bags and move another place to continue.

Before getting to the PoW coins, did the Swedish government also check the amount of energy the bank system uses daily? The amount of paper accumulate every year? And what about gold extraction? As usual they're looking to someone or something to blame, and cryptocurrencies are always on the top of the list

Can't be sure if the world is moving from pow to pos but it seems like due to some energy consumptions, many countries are trying to ban bitcoin mining in order to save some energy and avoid producing greenhouse gas in the world, maybe that's the reason for European Union to ban any pow and crypto mining, in this case, pos can be an alternative solution for their people to keep using cryptocurrencies but after all this, I believe that's not about energy consumption or any other thing like that, because there can be policy behind this reaction to get some benefit and these are just excuses.

Ethereum is already going to switch to POS, the developers have already been talking about it for a long time now. But As for Bitcoin, I don’t really know if the developers are going to switch it from what it is now to become a proof of stake. If this law should be passed in Europe, then coins that are not able to switch to PoS will no longer be mined in Europe, and will all moved to other countries where the law will allow them to continue mining these cryptocurrencies.

It is just like what happened in China as they banned cryptocurrencies and miners quickly moved to USA and other countries like Russia. So this is same thing that is going to happen with cryptocurrencies that are not able to switch to POS.

Emissions and effects from industries that are making the climate have many negative transitions, Sweden's move will certainly be welcomed as these sensitive issues are continuously updated each year, especially with the crypto industry, the amount of energy consumed is becoming too large due to many new workshops being built. But the European Union will always give more time for developers in this field to transform their techniques, completing the process and issuing the ban would take several years or even longer, time of worldwide unification maybe bitcoin is almost exhausted for mining

Yeah right, the plans are for it to start in 2025 if they get the money...


Of course, what could go wrong on relying on a different country to supply you with energy.
I mean countries in Africa are not like Russia, they don't suddenly turn off the tap, you can always trust them , just like Spain did . It must feel great to know one regime change at you're eating your 5 o'clock biscuits like in the Stuart period at candlelight.
Truly a great step forward...

That right there is the problem. They aren't suggesting that POW mining firms shift towards renewable sources of energy and abandon fossil fuels, they want POW mining operations banned altogether. They have a problem with the algorithm (Bitcoin) and since they can't compete against it, they prefer China's way of dealing with problems. Sweden is also considering releasing a national cryptocurrency (the Swedish e-Krona or something like that), or maybe they already did it. Maybe that's part of the motivation behind at attempt to ban POW, aka the biggest competitor to the success of the national digital coin.

The headline that I read was exactly like I wrote here though "Sweden proposed to ban mining in the European Union"

It seems that such an initiative of Sweden will have support from other states as well. The problem of CO2 emissions and climate change is putting humanity on the brink of survival. Therefore, states will go to measures such as banning cryptocurrency mining, which use an energy-consuming proof-of-work algorithm. The ethereum team is really updated on time, including in terms of the transition to the PoS algorithm. Bitcoin will have big problems with this, and since it is unlikely it will also switch to using the PoS algorithm.

you do realise that sharing production with other countries has been a thing for decades.
did you know that things like coal and nuclear dont just produce instant energy. so times where nations have a sudden surge of demand the power plants cant instantly supply because it takes 30mins-few hours to turn on extra reactors, power plants.

i remember a few studies years ago that power stations used to see surges of energy at things like commercial breaks of top-listing tv shows. where people watching tv would use the commercial break to put their kettle on and warm some food in a microwave. causing electric grid companies to have to buy in other nations 'excess' to keep the electric flowing.

this buying in process takes milliseconds to get the electric flowing. and has been seen as a FEATURE of the national grid system not a problem.

the buying and selling. importing and exporting of energy is normalised and seen as a every day thing.
so while you think its a fault, and an exception against the rule. the reality is that its normal.

another thing you need to realise is. renewables are still an infant. countries are still expanding. we are not yet at a point where all countries have enough capacity to have a nice buffer of excess to cover all situations. but thats another reason why they call for a deadline of 2050 and not 2025

so in short. expect a future where countries will share their electric. not as a fault. but as a feature..
right now the UK is laying out a large electric cable from the UK to north africa. and using africa as a base for solar farms to give power to the UK. .. so get used to the idea of an international grid

Just because they cannot stop the rising of cryptocurrencies, they put the blame on mining about the problem of climate change as if bitcoin mining has caused all of the natural disasters that happen in our world today. These guys just don't have the guts to tell people since they cannot control or take advantage of the crypto industry, it's better for us to close every mining facility.

Instead, they used the climate change card to have some discussion to ban mining in Europe. Well, good luck with that kind of proposals, it only gave people an idea that they cannot do anything about the rise of the crypto industry.

None taken, really. I know that all infrastructure projects here are kinda like the Brownian motion: you may or may not reach point the intended destination, you may or may not (usually not) do that in the expected time. That's actually one of the reasons I find those news rather funny (I'm way past anger).


I think that all this goes into the same direction: humans have to find way more effective ways to store the energy. And maybe electric cars will bring the salvation/solution (one can hope).

I'm still convinced to this day that Tesla accepting Bitcoin, and then backtracking very quickly was because they wanted to prove to the world that they care about the environment, and of course with the current trend of electric cars they need to try, and convince you that electric cars are better.

I'm not going to put a time frame on it, but in the future eventually all countries will be somewhat reliant on nuclear energy. It's by far the most efficient energy resource we have, and despite the negative stigma around it, if it's managed well then it could potentially be one of the cleanest resources we have too.

We'll likely see several news stories break out in the future on how they've revolutionised energy via nuclear power plants, and made them safer. Thought, ever since Chernobyl we've known how to make them safer, but I bet a lot of them are still using the wrong tips on the reactor rods. I'm using Chernobyl as an example as it's probably the most famous accident revolving around nuclear power, and that wasn't really because the technology is safe, it was rather incompetence from those that were in charge of it.

However, before they can make this transition they'll target Bitcoin as one of the major contributors to climate change, despite it only being around for a decade, and to be honest at the start the amount of miners would have been negligible. Plus, I expect as time goes on more, and more miners will be changing to green energy if/when it becomes profitable to do so.

At the moment though, if you take a look at the prices of  these things they're absolutely ridiculous. It reminds me of the salad example, when it was trendy to be fit, and healthy salad, and healthy foods skyrocketed in price, however were cheap when it wasn't trendy. That's what I'm seeing right now with alternative energy sources.

No offense, but with 30 years already in which your country hasn't been able to build two already proven technologically reactors do you really expect that to happen in less than a decade? Those are nice things to have but somehow you just don't get to have nice things    And back to the main subject, yeah, seems like only Germany is that keen on getting rid of them, France has a different attitude and this energy crisis probably has strengthened their side a lot.
Btw, Sweden gets around 40% of its energy from nuclear too.


There are even funnier things, Denmark has gone through a period of 4 days in which the wind blew only at night, it had to import close to the limit of the grid during the day, and then at night, it had to simply dump the energy as the wind was coming in waves exactly when it wasn't needed. Cogeneration for example is another thing that looks pretty on paper but in reality, you need power during the day when the poeple are away, so no heating is needed and when finally they need heating at night the energy is not needed...
But all of them look nice on paper, and they can work, it's just that somebody has to pay the price of this madness.

This is the thing; they aren't truly concerned about climate change. I mean, I personally think we haven't had too much of an impact in the grand scheme of things, however that doesn't mean I don't support certain things where it makes sense. However, I alluded to it above that climate change has become a sort of buzz word which now everyone wants to talk about, and claim it's a huge problem. Therefore, because of this perceived problem by the masses countries, and companies now are trying to show they care about you, your thoughts, and our environment. When in reality most of them rely on the very thing that is apparently destroying our world at an alarming rate.

Therefore, Bitcoin has become the scrape goat rather than something that is actually contributing a large amount in the destruction of our planet. Like I said above, two birds one stone, and what better way to convince people something is bad with something they've been brain washed to think for years.

Indeed!  
Germany is quite "strange" on that matter: it also had periods of times they incentivized people to consume electricity because they had production too big - and iirc it was because of winds too. And yes, both ways are possible.
And for your question, the answer is always the same: burning stuff. Somehow across the world the electric systems are "safe and good" only if they have "stuff" to burn as a backup. We - as world - have to find a better way.



Is the whole EU "phasing out" nuclear power plants, or it's only Germany? Asking for a friend

That will never happen, Europe has embarked on the madness of eco-friendly renewables and now on top of subsidies we're paying the price.
Trying to shut down coal powerplants, nuclear powerplants, limit gas station, there is only one thing left to do when the sun is out and there is no wind, import at triple the price. Anyhow, before taxing the miners the EU should actually look for them, with such high prices Europe is as attractive as  Afghanistan.

If I were to pay the standard price for electricity in 3 seconds I would put my miners for sale.


Solar is great but you could end up with 9 days with no sun, wind is great but you could end up with 7 days of no wind, this happens in Germany every two years usually in the middle of winter. Guess what happened to the prices and where did the energy come from.