bitcoin is subsidizing improvements to gpgpus by increasing sales to the manufacturers and is furthering the science of distributed computing. these will help make gpgpus more affordable for science.
I like that point.
I'm not sure you are really an engineer are you? 400kWatt is a pittance in the big scheme of things.
I hope this is just a case of sarcasm not being conveyed through the internet and not a rude comment. Sure, its nothing compared to global energy consumption, but everything needs to be scrutinized no matter the size. Thats what any real engineer will tell you.
Currently, this means around 50 * 144 * 1.7 / 0.11 kWh per day, or 111MWh/day, or 4MW power consumption. That is (currently) less than an accelerating eurostar train.
Also note that this is an upper limit - as long as miners want some profit, the total power consumption needs to remain below this number.
Good calculation. We are all hoping/expecting the value of bitcoins to increase, so that cap will increase proportionally. I need to learn more about the "fee" system so that I can do some calculations for when fee mining begins to dominate regular mining. This is difficult to speculate because computation and energy technologies will not be the same that far in the future.
I don't think it's a concern for now. Bitcoin is already a great improvement over the previous way of doing things.
If it becomes an overwhelming success and power consumption really turns out to be a problem, someone will find a solution.
That seems to be the mindset of most engineers or people in general. In my opinion, we should predict problems and solve them before their scale makes solutions expensive and complex.
My plan is to mine over winter and use the heat generated to heat my apartment.
Thus is a good idea. You may get some inspiration from
my miner.
I was also thinking about adding in some solar panels.
I think ArtForz should follow up this idea. His ASIC does 200 Mhash/s at only 8 watts, and can probably be variably clocked to follow the MPP of a small 10W solar panel. It would take considerable time for an investment in his miner to pay for itself, if ever, but what the heck. I run all my gadgets on solar power myself (anything which can be charged via USB), just for the fun of it. I get about 1 kWh per year from my smallish flexible panel, and it will of course never pay back the cost of the equipment. Sunlight is scarce and power is cheap where I live.
I really like that miner setup! =). I'd like to learn more about the ArtForz ASIC. Is it just on paper right now or is he planning a production run?
If you take all the overhead for reprinting, safekeeping, transportation, fake money and so on into account - my feeling is bitcoins will win.
I suppose that is becoming the common theme in this thread. However, I just want some numbers to back up the feeling. I don't know that it is better or worse. I just want to see and know.
Excuse me, but how exactly energy consumption is automatically bad for the environment?
Climate change and pollution come to mind. Solar is pretty clean, especially heat capture. However, burning fossil fuels does not only release lots of pollution, but it increases greenhouse gases. Not sure how big of an argument this may become. I know agriculture and farming is a HUGE contributor to greenhouse gases. Its a population issue. We all want to use energy and we are generally using stored energy rather than renewable energy. Fossil fuels are an efficient storage of millions of years of sun energy. It will run out however, but in the mean time we are releasing millions of years of carbon storage in a relatively short time span. We will face water shortages, climate shifts, increased food prices, etc. I am not sure where you live, but in my country fossil fuels dominate electricity production.
So I am pretty new to bitcoin, but I am concerned with energy usage of the system.
I estimate that the bitcoin system is running on well over 400 kW in pure computation power.
Thats quite a bit of power.
Not if you consider the amount of energy it takes to run other monetary systems. Just because your cash doesn't require energy to use, doesn't mean that it didn't take energy to create. It took quite a bit, and considering the network of banks and institutions that exist to support the electronic flow of those same notes, the energy costs of the US FRN are astronomical compared to Bitcoin.
In some ways it's comparable to the energy required to dry your hands in a public bathroom. Which takes more energy, the paper towel or the hot air blowdryer? The answer is counter-intuitive, because we
see the energy that the dryer uses; but we tend to overlook the energy required to 1) grow the trees, 2) harvest the trees, 3) produce the paper, 4) ship the rolls of paper towels, 5) and repeatedly replace the rolls as they empty.
The hot air blowdryer is orders of magnitude more energy efficient than a paper towel dispensory, as long as the dryer itself is reliable.
My plan is to mine over winter and use the heat generated to heat my apartment.
Good plan
I was also thinking about adding in some solar panels.
Probably not so good of a plan; unless you live in a desert or otherwise want the solar panels for some other reason. I've looked into this for my own home, and the panels never make their own cost of production back within their life expectancy. And only make sense in remote conditions. or if you expect that the power grid will fail sometime within your lifetime.
Doing those things would make me feel better about the mining, but I am still not 100% comfortable with the idea of being a part of the system which is energy intensive as a whole. I understand that this may not be a concern for many people, but I thought I would throw it out there and see what people are thinking. Thanks for your input.
Please add, "Bitcoin mining is not energy intensive compared to alternatives" to your poll, please.
Your analogy is great. There is even more to consider however. How is the electricity being produced? Does it have emissions? Do they offset cutting down farmed trees for paper? There is a lot to consider for sure.
Solar does pretty well where I am from. In fact, I recently saw reports that solar is just about on the edge with being competitive with coal. Thats a pretty huge development. The only problem is that I am going to be moving (just graduated). I'll be going to grad school at CMU and I am not sure how much sun I'll be seeing in Pittsburgh. For me, I am concerned more with unseen environmental costs that are not factored into the current price of energy. If I use solar panels, I would hope to combat that.
I'll add your poll option.
I think we should club all baby seals so they stop consuming energy and destroying the environment.
Add human babies to your list. =P. Otherwise, very constructive comment there.
Show Posts
