Electricity cost of 1 BTC = 0.7 USD?

[FooDSt4mP]

Please remember the average power in the US per kw does NOT include additional fees and taxes.  The state I live in has average costs, around the quoted 10c kw/hr.  But by the time I get my bill a good 35% of additional fees are tacked on making my real costs closer to 14c kw/hr than 10.  And that is not even including all the above real, non-trivial additional costs.

To the above laundry list of costs I'd like to add the labor cost to set up and maintain the mining gear.  But while that reflects true cost of BTC the original title is all about the power cost.  I'd say .7 is way too low, I'm planning using $2.5/btc and expecting to up that to $3 come next Tuesday, possibly $5 for the next difficulty jump.  I don't think we'll see $9/BTC in power costs for a very, very long time.

Also realize that power costs vary significantly based on when you use your power.  Home users typically pay lower rates in regulated markets because they're assumed to use their power off-peak, while businesses pay high rates due to the expectation of peak hour usage.

Interestingly, for the "can't your just fill those deserts with solar panels" post, solar generation still doesn't really pay without significant subsidization from the government.  The payout on a panel using reasonable discount rate ALMOST works if you lie to yourself about it with the subsidies currently being offered in the US.

You know what else doesn't work without massive subsidies?  Digging up and burning coal. Yet that's where about half the power in the US comes from.  If all subsidies were eliminated, there would be many viable options that don't involve fossil fuels.  Look up Coal River Mountain in West Virginia. In order to avoid mountaintop removal mining, some people put together a proposal for a wind farm on the mountain.  It has some of the strongest, most consistent winds in this country.  The government would have received 1.7 million a year for the use of the land, and it would produce more energy at a lower cost than mining and burning the coal.  The coal company won out even though they only have to pay 36k a year to destroy the mountain.  All our state politicians are corrupt.  Wind was better all around, but the coal industry controls nearly all campaign funding.

[zaphod]

Please remember the average power in the US per kw does NOT include additional fees and taxes.  The state I live in has average costs, around the quoted 10c kw/hr.  But by the time I get my bill a good 35% of additional fees are tacked on making my real costs closer to 14c kw/hr than 10.  And that is not even including all the above real, non-trivial additional costs.

To the above laundry list of costs I'd like to add the labor cost to set up and maintain the mining gear.  But while that reflects true cost of BTC the original title is all about the power cost.  I'd say .7 is way too low, I'm planning using $2.5/btc and expecting to up that to $3 come next Tuesday, possibly $5 for the next difficulty jump.  I don't think we'll see $9/BTC in power costs for a very, very long time.

Also realize that power costs vary significantly based on when you use your power.  Home users typically pay lower rates in regulated markets because they're assumed to use their power off-peak, while businesses pay high rates due to the expectation of peak hour usage.

Interestingly, for the "can't your just fill those deserts with solar panels" post, solar generation still doesn't really pay without significant subsidization from the government.  The payout on a panel using reasonable discount rate ALMOST works if you lie to yourself about it with the subsidies currently being offered in the US.

You know what else doesn't work without massive subsidies?  Digging up and burning coal. Yet that's where about half the power in the US comes from.  If all subsidies were eliminated, there would be many viable options that don't involve fossil fuels.  Look up Coal River Mountain in West Virginia. In order to avoid mountaintop removal mining, some people put together a proposal for a wind farm on the mountain.  It has some of the strongest, most consistent winds in this country.  The government would have received 1.7 million a year for the use of the land, and it would produce more energy at a lower cost than mining and burning the coal.  The coal company won out even though they only have to pay 36k a year to destroy the mountain.  All our state politicians are corrupt.  Wind was better all around, but the coal industry controls nearly all campaign funding.

Really not the point of my post.  I'm not a strong proponent of utilizing fossil fuels, either, but they're largely a better solution than photovoltaic cells right now.  Putting some subsidies out there to drive technology is a good thing, because it keeps people investing in R&D, so I'm not against the subsidies, but suggesting that building enough PV generation to supply power for large populations with the current state of the technology is off-base.

[FooDSt4mP]

Please remember the average power in the US per kw does NOT include additional fees and taxes.  The state I live in has average costs, around the quoted 10c kw/hr.  But by the time I get my bill a good 35% of additional fees are tacked on making my real costs closer to 14c kw/hr than 10.  And that is not even including all the above real, non-trivial additional costs.

To the above laundry list of costs I'd like to add the labor cost to set up and maintain the mining gear.  But while that reflects true cost of BTC the original title is all about the power cost.  I'd say .7 is way too low, I'm planning using $2.5/btc and expecting to up that to $3 come next Tuesday, possibly $5 for the next difficulty jump.  I don't think we'll see $9/BTC in power costs for a very, very long time.

Also realize that power costs vary significantly based on when you use your power.  Home users typically pay lower rates in regulated markets because they're assumed to use their power off-peak, while businesses pay high rates due to the expectation of peak hour usage.

Interestingly, for the "can't your just fill those deserts with solar panels" post, solar generation still doesn't really pay without significant subsidization from the government.  The payout on a panel using reasonable discount rate ALMOST works if you lie to yourself about it with the subsidies currently being offered in the US.

You know what else doesn't work without massive subsidies?  Digging up and burning coal. Yet that's where about half the power in the US comes from.  If all subsidies were eliminated, there would be many viable options that don't involve fossil fuels.  Look up Coal River Mountain in West Virginia. In order to avoid mountaintop removal mining, some people put together a proposal for a wind farm on the mountain.  It has some of the strongest, most consistent winds in this country.  The government would have received 1.7 million a year for the use of the land, and it would produce more energy at a lower cost than mining and burning the coal.  The coal company won out even though they only have to pay 36k a year to destroy the mountain.  All our state politicians are corrupt.  Wind was better all around, but the coal industry controls nearly all campaign funding.

Really not the point of my post.  I'm not a strong proponent of utilizing fossil fuels, either, but they're largely a better solution than photovoltaic cells right now.  Putting some subsidies out there to drive technology is a good thing, because it keeps people investing in R&D, so I'm not against the subsidies, but suggesting that building enough PV generation to supply power for large populations with the current state of the technology is off-base.

I can agree with that.  There are currently much better ways to do solar than PV panels.  Maybe one day, but we don't have it figured out yet.  A shitload of mirrors and a tower painted black with molten salt to transport the heat is much more efficient, and actually economical even in the fucked up political environment here in the states (in areas with enough sun).  I have no idea about Australia though.

[zaphod]

Please remember the average power in the US per kw does NOT include additional fees and taxes.  The state I live in has average costs, around the quoted 10c kw/hr.  But by the time I get my bill a good 35% of additional fees are tacked on making my real costs closer to 14c kw/hr than 10.  And that is not even including all the above real, non-trivial additional costs.

To the above laundry list of costs I'd like to add the labor cost to set up and maintain the mining gear.  But while that reflects true cost of BTC the original title is all about the power cost.  I'd say .7 is way too low, I'm planning using $2.5/btc and expecting to up that to $3 come next Tuesday, possibly $5 for the next difficulty jump.  I don't think we'll see $9/BTC in power costs for a very, very long time.

Also realize that power costs vary significantly based on when you use your power.  Home users typically pay lower rates in regulated markets because they're assumed to use their power off-peak, while businesses pay high rates due to the expectation of peak hour usage.

Interestingly, for the "can't your just fill those deserts with solar panels" post, solar generation still doesn't really pay without significant subsidization from the government.  The payout on a panel using reasonable discount rate ALMOST works if you lie to yourself about it with the subsidies currently being offered in the US.

You know what else doesn't work without massive subsidies?  Digging up and burning coal. Yet that's where about half the power in the US comes from.  If all subsidies were eliminated, there would be many viable options that don't involve fossil fuels.  Look up Coal River Mountain in West Virginia. In order to avoid mountaintop removal mining, some people put together a proposal for a wind farm on the mountain.  It has some of the strongest, most consistent winds in this country.  The government would have received 1.7 million a year for the use of the land, and it would produce more energy at a lower cost than mining and burning the coal.  The coal company won out even though they only have to pay 36k a year to destroy the mountain.  All our state politicians are corrupt.  Wind was better all around, but the coal industry controls nearly all campaign funding.

Really not the point of my post.  I'm not a strong proponent of utilizing fossil fuels, either, but they're largely a better solution than photovoltaic cells right now.  Putting some subsidies out there to drive technology is a good thing, because it keeps people investing in R&D, so I'm not against the subsidies, but suggesting that building enough PV generation to supply power for large populations with the current state of the technology is off-base.

I can agree with that.  There are currently much better ways to do solar than PV panels.  Maybe one day, but we don't have it figured out yet.  A shitload of mirrors and a tower painted black with molten salt to transport the heat is much more efficient, and actually economical even in the fucked up political environment here in the states (in areas with enough sun).  I have no idea about Australia though.

The key thing is that you can't change things overnight.  Significant capital has been spent on our existing infrastructure and it's already bursting at the seams, so none of it is going offline anytime soon.  Things that provide obvious ROI will be done, things that are marginal will be done with some amount of subsidy, but mostly things that are safe will be done, which is why natural gas generation is almost the only thing that's been built significantly for some time.  Wind is the next most logical thing (with subsidies).  Other novel approaches will take someone leading the way and betting a lot of capital before they're widely adopted.

[FooDSt4mP]

I assume you mean economically safe since there are many people near me with unsafe levels of methane in their water near where I live due to natural gas fracking.  A very large portion of people around here have no water lines and must rely on well water.  And if you were referring to CST as exotic, there are several plants in operation already and more are being built.

[zaphod]

I assume you mean economically safe since there are many people near me with unsafe levels of methane in their water near where I live due to natural gas fracking.  A very large portion of people around here have no water lines and must rely on well water.  And if you were referring to CST as exotic, there are several plants in operation already and more are being built.

Yes, I mean economically safe.  Any yes, that's the process, a few people go out on a limb and build pilot plants (almost always with some sort of subsidy) and once things work out, more and larger plants are constructed utilizing the same technology.  The thing is, people won't pour in the billions of dollars required without either a government safety net or a very strong financial model.

I'm not saying you don't understand this, just clarifying my statement.

[FooDSt4mP]

Yeah.... I'm just argumentative today .  Thanks for being my target.  You seem refeeshingly intelligent for these forums.  Hopefully those with interests in keeping things the way they are don't slow things down too much.  But I won't hold my breath.

[zaphod]

Yeah.... I'm just argumentative today .  Thanks for being my target.  You seem refeeshingly intelligent for these forums.  Hopefully those with interests in keeping things the way they are don't slow things down too much.  But I won't hold my breath.

LOL, no problem at all.  I'm pretty argumentative, too.  I'm sure we could go for rounds on the details...