The last month is among us..

[420]

carbon dioxide is not a waste, humans exhale it

what kind of a definition is that, dude?

fixed

yup, capitalist would be best as stateless

Unless your veins run filled with chlorophyll, I'm not sure that I understand how you are advocating for more carbon dioxide. Humans need something to breathe in, in order to exhale.

[molecular]

carbon dioxide is not a waste, humans exhale it

what kind of a definition is that, dude?

fixed

yup, capitalist would be best as stateless

Unless your veins run filled with chlorophyll, I'm not sure that I understand how you are advocating for more carbon dioxide. Humans need something to breathe in, in order to exhale.

He's still correct in saying that calling it "waste" is incorrect. It's "waste" from the view of a fossil-fuel-burning power plant, for a plant, it's a "consumable" (there's probably a better word), it's part of a plants metabolism.

However by that definition: what is a "waste"?

[MrTeal]

At current difficulty and price, with $0.14 electricity I'm still profitable with both my GPU-exclusive rigs @ BTC25/block, though it's marginal. The 2x5970 1x5770 rig draws 630W for 1530MH/s, and my main desktop (which would be on 24/7 @ 90W idle anyway) draws 340W for 720MH/s. I'll probably still shut them off at the reward halving though, it's not worth the noise for $0.40 a day. I'd rather just buy BTC.

[crazyates]

Maybe "by-product" is the word you're looking for, rather than "waste" ?

[SysRun]

Maybe the heat given off will be enough to keep some miners going through this winter. The amount saved in heating could help offset the cost of electricity. Whether or not ASIC is a myth, GPUs are coming to an end in the next 6 months.

[420]

http://serason.com/projects/emccharts/countdown.php

back to the topic of the decade

[bcpokey]

carbon dioxide is not a waste, humans exhale it

what kind of a definition is that, dude?

fixed

yup, capitalist would be best as stateless

Unless your veins run filled with chlorophyll, I'm not sure that I understand how you are advocating for more carbon dioxide. Humans need something to breathe in, in order to exhale.

He's still correct in saying that calling it "waste" is incorrect. It's "waste" from the view of a fossil-fuel-burning power plant, for a plant, it's a "consumable" (there's probably a better word), it's part of a plants metabolism.

However by that definition: what is a "waste"?

I'm sorry, but no, he is not even one iota correct, except by the most abstract approach to viewing the world. One does not just get to play semantic equivocation with definitions for no reason. This is why I asked snidely if he was a plant. As a plant, CarbonDioxide is your fuel, and Oxygen is your waste product. However, unless some things have changed, most plants do not get on the internet and make stupid little posts about coal power and post pretty and inane pictures. We are humans, and we view things from an anthrocentric perspective, and that is how we define things.

Waste has a few common definitions, depending on what is being referred to. Metabollic waste (what humans exhale), Carbon Dioxide. Then there are Waste Products, which are the unusable/unwanted materials produced as the result of a process, such as Carbon Dioxide release from burning of coal. Before anyone jumps in asks me to "prove it, I want facts not opinons", again I tell you to google it. These are not controversial statements, they are generally accepted parts of the English language. Deal with it.

Furthermore, because humans breathe out CO2, and Plants metabolize it, does not mean that everything is fine and dandy, and we can dump as much CO2 into the air as we want, becuase, hey plants love that stuff! There is a finite amount of CO2 that can be put to use by plants at any given time, just as if a million cows were dumped on every block, it's not great because we get to have steak every night.

I'm shocked that people let such juvenile arguments go by unchecked and as though they have some merit. Especially intelligent people like yourself molecular, who I've seen post helpful/useful/smart posts, should be a buffer against the nonsense. Not to put too much pressure on you of course :p

[thoughtfan]

...humans breathe out CO2, and Plants metabolize it...

I love this discussion process.  I just went to do a little research to get my facts straight before criticising those who were saying plants metabolise CO₂ only to find my idea of metabolism was erroneous    I had been assuming the releasing of energy through the breakdown of sugars with Oxygen was metabolism whereas photosynthesis, being the creation of sugars from energy and CO₂ was not metabloism.  I discover instead both are metabolic processes, the former being catabolic (desctructive) metabolism and the latter anabolic (creative) metabolism.  Awesome

Many people assume plants only use CO₂ and through photosynthesis turn it into Oxygen whilst we animals respire turning Oxygen back into CO₂.  The point I wanted to make is that plants also respire, that they use the energy of the sun to provide them with the sugars and oxygen they need to respire.  The Oxygen released is that which is surplus to the plant's own requirements.

But reading the comments I'd intended to correct I find there was no such misconception evident there.  That 'plants metabolize CO₂' is, I now understand, correct   Thank you!

[Sitarow]

...humans breathe out CO2, and Plants metabolize it...

I love this discussion process.  I just went to do a little research to get my facts straight before criticising those who were saying plants metabolise CO₂ only to find my idea of metabolism was erroneous    I had been assuming the releasing of energy through the breakdown of sugars with Oxygen was metabolism whereas photosynthesis, being the creation of sugars from energy and CO₂ was not metabloism.  I discover instead both are metabolic processes, the former being catabolic (desctructive) metabolism and the latter anabolic (creative) metabolism.  Awesome

Many people assume plants only use CO₂ and through photosynthesis turn it into Oxygen whilst we animals respire turning Oxygen back into CO₂.  The point I wanted to make is that plants also respire, that they use the energy of the sun to provide them with the sugars and oxygen they need to respire.  The Oxygen released is that which is surplus to the plant's own requirements.

But reading the comments I'd intended to correct I find there was no such misconception evident there.  That 'plants metabolize CO₂' is, I now understand, correct   Thank you!

+1

[Unacceptable]

...humans breathe out CO2, and Plants metabolize it...

I love this discussion process.  I just went to do a little research to get my facts straight before criticising those who were saying plants metabolise CO₂ only to find my idea of metabolism was erroneous    I had been assuming the releasing of energy through the breakdown of sugars with Oxygen was metabolism whereas photosynthesis, being the creation of sugars from energy and CO₂ was not metabloism.  I discover instead both are metabolic processes, the former being catabolic (desctructive) metabolism and the latter anabolic (creative) metabolism.  Awesome

Many people assume plants only use CO₂ and through photosynthesis turn it into Oxygen whilst we animals respire turning Oxygen back into CO₂.  The point I wanted to make is that plants also respire, that they use the energy of the sun to provide them with the sugars and oxygen they need to respire.  The Oxygen released is that which is surplus to the plant's own requirements.

But reading the comments I'd intended to correct I find there was no such misconception evident there.  That 'plants metabolize CO₂' is, I now understand, correct   Thank you!

+1

Learning is cool 

[Luno]

Plants produces oxygen for the bacteria living on their roots which convert Nitrate from the soil to Nitrite, which the plant uses. The Oxygen we breathe is leaked from the soil and wasted from the plants perspective. If the plants where more effective we wouldn't be here. So no symbiosis here except that animal waste is beneficial to plants, but they can do fine without us or animals.Decomposing plant matter is fine for the bacteria to feed on.

[beekeeper]

Plants produces oxygen for the bacteria living on their roots which convert Nitrate from the soil to Nitrite, which the plant uses.

I have no idea about what bacteria do in plants root, but I think nitrite is oxidized to nitrate. Or maybe nitrogen to nitrite.

[Luno]

Sorry, I might got it the wrong way around, but the plants makes oxygen for their own sake, not for us.

[molecular]

...humans breathe out CO2, and Plants metabolize it...

I love this discussion process.  I just went to do a little research to get my facts straight before criticising those who were saying plants metabolise CO₂ only to find my idea of metabolism was erroneous    I had been assuming the releasing of energy through the breakdown of sugars with Oxygen was metabolism whereas photosynthesis, being the creation of sugars from energy and CO₂ was not metabloism.  I discover instead both are metabolic processes, the former being catabolic (desctructive) metabolism and the latter anabolic (creative) metabolism.  Awesome

Many people assume plants only use CO₂ and through photosynthesis turn it into Oxygen whilst we animals respire turning Oxygen back into CO₂.  The point I wanted to make is that plants also respire, that they use the energy of the sun to provide them with the sugars and oxygen they need to respire.  The Oxygen released is that which is surplus to the plant's own requirements.

But reading the comments I'd intended to correct I find there was no such misconception evident there.  That 'plants metabolize CO₂' is, I now understand, correct   Thank you!

Some (all?) plants also use oxygen if I'm not mistaken. For example underwater plants at night.

[molecular]

I'm sorry, but no, he is not even one iota correct, except by the most abstract approach to viewing the world. One does not just get to play semantic equivocation with definitions for no reason. This is why I asked snidely if he was a plant. As a plant, CarbonDioxide is your fuel, and Oxygen is your waste product. However, unless some things have changed, most plants do not get on the internet and make stupid little posts about coal power and post pretty and inane pictures. We are humans, and we view things from an anthrocentric perspective, and that is how we define things.

Humans are perfectly capable of taking other views, for a example a more general view, like that of "earth". With such a perspective "waste" would certainly mean something different (the definition might be the same: maybe "something of no use to someone". So for a human, CO2 can be "waste", for the earth it certainly isn't. The "waste" of earth might be the radiation it is dissipating or the odd piece of man-made machinery that manages to leave its orbit.

[crazyates]

...humans breathe out CO2, and Plants metabolize it...

I love this discussion process.  I just went to do a little research to get my facts straight before criticising those who were saying plants metabolise CO₂ only to find my idea of metabolism was erroneous    I had been assuming the releasing of energy through the breakdown of sugars with Oxygen was metabolism whereas photosynthesis, being the creation of sugars from energy and CO₂ was not metabloism.  I discover instead both are metabolic processes, the former being catabolic (desctructive) metabolism and the latter anabolic (creative) metabolism.  Awesome

Many people assume plants only use CO₂ and through photosynthesis turn it into Oxygen whilst we animals respire turning Oxygen back into CO₂.  The point I wanted to make is that plants also respire, that they use the energy of the sun to provide them with the sugars and oxygen they need to respire.  The Oxygen released is that which is surplus to the plant's own requirements.

But reading the comments I'd intended to correct I find there was no such misconception evident there.  That 'plants metabolize CO₂' is, I now understand, correct   Thank you!

+1

Learning is cool 

[bcpokey]

I'm sorry, but no, he is not even one iota correct, except by the most abstract approach to viewing the world. One does not just get to play semantic equivocation with definitions for no reason. This is why I asked snidely if he was a plant. As a plant, CarbonDioxide is your fuel, and Oxygen is your waste product. However, unless some things have changed, most plants do not get on the internet and make stupid little posts about coal power and post pretty and inane pictures. We are humans, and we view things from an anthrocentric perspective, and that is how we define things.

Humans are perfectly capable of taking other views, for a example a more general view, like that of "earth". With such a perspective "waste" would certainly mean something different (the definition might be the same: maybe "something of no use to someone". So for a human, CO2 can be "waste", for the earth it certainly isn't. The "waste" of earth might be the radiation it is dissipating or the odd piece of man-made machinery that manages to leave its orbit.

Of course we are capable, but we do not do so on an every day basis, so as to undermine the foundations  of our basic communications. If we had to rewrite the definition of the words we used every time we had a conversation in order to accept every and all viewpoints everyone brought to the table, communication would be literally impossible (or at least improbable/burdensome).

Excepting specific case-by-case basis where there is a NEED to use common terminology in an unaccepted way, to make useful conversation we are constrained, this is why we agree to use certain words in specific ways. In the case of this thread the concept of redefining waste because it does not apply to plants is stupid and only done to serve the purpose of those who are either trolling, or for some reason seriously believe dumping toxic (to humans I now have to define) gases in unlimited quantities into our atmosphere is at worst a neutral event, and feel that "waste" is a negative propaganda term.

I still question why you would defend this viewpoint. As you mentioned yourself earlier, by viewing "waste" either as "something which is not useful to someone", or as "something which not useful to anyone", you make the word worthless, as it now applies to everything, or nothing, respectively.

[tonto]

I calculate profitability after the split with my GPUs,

You would be in the extreme minority then.

What do you pay for electricity?

I ran the numbers and find that about $0.11 per kWh is breakeven on the most efficient GPU configurations.  So unless you are paying like $0.07 per kWh or less there's no point in GPU mining after block 210,000  (unless difficulty takes a dive from other GPU miners dropping out).

I pay only $.023 per kWh, and that's set to be the peak power in the middle of winter.    So I'll continue mining with my 7970s    Nice to live in the boonies with cheap power

[AngelusWebDesign]

I calculate profitability after the split with my GPUs,

You would be in the extreme minority then.

What do you pay for electricity?

I ran the numbers and find that about $0.11 per kWh is breakeven on the most efficient GPU configurations.  So unless you are paying like $0.07 per kWh or less there's no point in GPU mining after block 210,000  (unless difficulty takes a dive from other GPU miners dropping out).

I pay only $.023 per kWh, and that's set to be the peak power in the middle of winter.    So I'll continue mining with my 7970s    Nice to live in the boonies with cheap power

How does that work? You live in the "boonies" but putting miles of electric lines out to your neck of the woods makes electricity literally dirt cheap for you? 
2 cents per kWh would put you off the charts. Are you sure that price includes generation & transmission fee as well? That's usually the other 50% of your per kWh cost.

If it's really 2 cents per kWh you could have a drafty house, turn the A/C down to 70, and still pay just $100 a month for electricity. Talk about negative incentive to be energy efficient!

I think I'd leave my fridge open if electricity were that cheap...

Anyhow, pics (scan of your last elec bill -- go ahead and black out your name, etc.) or I call BS.

[UrbanAdventurer]

Maybe he lives in Bhutan[1] or some other subsidized country.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison